asked the Postmaster General, If he will state the reasons for the proposed removal of the receiving Post Office, from Gladstone Place, Edinburgh, (in opposition to the wishes of a large number of Petitioners against such removal) to Argyll Place, which the Petitioners consider much less convenient; and, whether, he is aware that the shop to which it is proposed to be removed is licensed for the sale of exciseable liquors, and that the shop in Gladstone Place is not so licensed?

in reply, said, it was found on inquiry that the office would be likely to be of more use in the latter place. The memorial against the alteration had not been received until the 25th of June, and the shop to which the office had been removed was not licensed for the sale of liquors to be consumed on the premises.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether due explanation has been made to Colonel Wellesley, Military Attaché in Russia, of the discourtesy of his reception at the Russian head quarters on the Danube; whether facilities have been given to him to discharge the duties of his office, equal to those given to the military representatives of other neutral powers with the Russian Army; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence which has taken place on the subject?

Sir, Colonel Wellesley has reported that nothing could be more satisfactory than the manner in which he was received on the 27th ult. by Prince Gortchakoff. He had been desired to repair to His Majesty's head quarters, where he was told he would be perfectly well received both by the Emperor and the Grand Duke. He is to be attached in the same manner as his German and Austrian colleagues. There is no official correspondence which can be presented to the House. The communications which have been exchanged with the Russian Government have been of a formal character.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a decision given by two magistrates of the East Riding of Yorkshire against Mr. John Metcalfe of Snainton, and Mr. William Swanwell of Fowbridge, for a breach of the Cattle Plague Regulations; whether fines of £10 and of £5, with costs, were not inflicted upon these gentlemen for having moved cattle from one place to another, though they had obtained a licence from the magistrates authorizing the removal of the cattle; whether the defendants were not fined for acting upon a licence which they thought to be valid, which the magistrates had granted, but which, being ignorant of the Law, they had no right to grant; and, whether, in such circumstances, he will consider whether he might not advise that the fine be remitted?

in reply, said, the affair occurred at a time when there was great danger of the spread of the cattle disease in Yorkshire. The magistrates, therefore, might have deemed it to be their duty to construe the law with the greatest strictness. He had been told that, although it was true that one of the gentlemen in question had obtained a pass for his cattle, in the opinion of the magistrates, that had nothing to do with the case; because, as a large dealer in cattle, he ought to have made himself acquainted with the law relating to their removal. The rules on the subject which were framed by the local authorities were perfectly clear and distinct, and had been published in all the local newspapers, as well as posted up in various parts of the county. The case, therefore, had nothing to do with the granting of any licence, for the notice stated that from the date of its publication no cattle could be brought from any part of the East Riding. There was thus an absolute prohibition on the removal of cattle, with which the dealers ought to have been acquainted, and he had not in the circumstances deemed it right to interfere in the matter. He thought it possible that the magistrates might have signed the licences under the impression that the cattle might go through the Riding.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is a fact that a Mr. Palmer has been elected petty sessions clerk at Dunow, county Kilkenny. Mr. Palmer being clerk in the rent office of Viscount Ashbrook, a Mr. Hare, agent to Lord Ashbrook, being seconder of the nomination; if the above facts are truly stated, whether if it is within his power to put aside the appointment, he will do so?

Sir, I understand that Mr. Palmer, the person referred to in the Question, has been a clerk in Lord Ashbrook's office, and that his nomination was seconded by Mr. Hare. I am further informed that he is a gentleman of good intelligence and education, and that the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, having examined him as to his knowledge of the duties of his appointment, considers him fully qualified to perform them. It is stated that he was unanimously elected by a bench of six magistrates, there being no other candidate, in circumstances which show that the decision was not due to politics or religion, and I see no reason whatever why I should advise the Lord Lieutenant not to approve the appointment.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why Brevet Majors of Cavalry do not get the 2s. a-day extra pay given to Brevet Majors of Infantry?

in reply, said, the Cavalry officers received 14s. 7d. a-day, while the Infantry officers received only 11s. 1d. That would account for the difference in the extra pay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has had the opportunity of considering the present state of the Law as regards the introduction into this country of Italian children, who have been taken away from Italy in violation of the Laws of that Kingdom; and, whether he is prepared to take any steps to suppress this traffic?

in reply, said, he was aware that the the Italian Government were anxious as to the matter referred to in the Question. He had been in communication with the Foreign Office and the Education Department on the subject, and he had also received a communication from the Charity Organization Society, with a notification that, in their opinion, there existed at the present moment ample means of meeting the question under the existing law. He intended to have a conference with the Society during the present week, when they would lay the whole case before him.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been directed to the working of the 7th Article of the General Regulations, issued on the 4th of June 1870, with regard to open competition for the Civil Service; and if the prohibition therein imposed on successful candidates has been found conducive to the public interest?

in reply, said, although he must premise that it was most inexpedient that changes should be rashly made in the regulations respecting admission to the Civil Service, yet he was prepared to admit that the question was one which deserved some consideration. The General Regulations had been under consideration for some time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it right to ask the Civil Service Commissioners to report to him upon the effect of the article referred to, as regarded the securing of the best men for the Public Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the speech of Sir John Strachey in the Legislative Council of India on the Salt Duties; and, whether the Indian Government will be able, without any loss of revenue, to equalize or reduce the duties on salt so as to admit English salt into the Madras Presidency on the same terms as it had been introduced into Calcutta?

Sir, Sir John Strachey's argument was to the effect that, in dealing with the salt duties, we ought to endeavour to give to India a supply of salt at the cheapest rate consistent with financial necessities. He also analyzed at some length the different systems under which salt was taxed in the different parts of India, and the various sources of supply. In Bengal, where Native manufacture of salt was not easy, the salt consumed was almost exclusively English, upon which an import duty was levied of 3r. 4a. per maund. On the other hand, in Madras and Bombay, the manufacture of salt from the sea by Native agency is cheap and easy, and a duty is levied of 1r. 13a. per maund. Unless English salt can compete in cheapness with the salt manufactured in Madras, no reduction or alteration in the duties will secure its use in that Presidency. The Secretary of State has recently directed an inquiry into the whole question of salt duties, and more especially with regard to the Madras system.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any regulations have been adopted to control the labour traffic between the Islands of the Pacific and the Colony of Fiji, as well as the internal traffic in natives of Fiji between the various Islands of the Fiji group; if so, whether he would lay upon the Table Copies of such regulations; and, whether the proposed change of the seat of Government of the Colony of Fiji from Levuka to Suva has as yet been carried out?

Sir, an Ordinance regulating the labour traffic in the islands of the Pacific has been recently approved by the Secretary of State, and two others are now under consideration. There will be no objection to lay any or all of these Ordinances upon the Table when complete; but it will be desirable to defer doing so until they assume their final shape. As regards the change of capital, it was notified to the Governor of Fiji by telegraph on the 26th of March that Her Majesty had selected Suva as the future capital of the Colony. It is, therefore, probable that steps will by this time have been taken to carry out that decision.

in rising to draw attention to the position of the Militia Surgeons under the Royal Warrant and Instructions of July 1870, said: Sir, in drawing the attention of the House to the results of recent Army reforms on the Militia surgeons, a few remarks will be sufficient. Formerly they held their position under various Acts which regulated their duties, allowances, and pensions. Their mere regimental pay during training was the least part of their remuneration. They had to inspect recruits both for the Line and Militia, they attended on the Staff, and examined the pensioners both for the Army and Admiralty. Of course, it was only in certain localities that Militia surgeons had all these additional duties imposed upon them, and their pay varied according to the extent of their public duties. Among the Militia surgeons were a few earning £300 a-year; there were 12 earning between £250 and £300; 50 earned between £200 and £250; and most of the remainder received annual sums from £100 to £200. When the new military reform, which established Depôt Centres, came into operation, many of the duties performed by Militia surgeons were transferred to Army surgeons. The effect of these changes was, however, to be partly compensated by the improved pay. The pay during training had been gradually raised to 17s. 6d. a-day, and by the new Warrant it was made £1 a-day. During the period of 27 days' training, the pay was thus augmented by £3 1s. 6d. a-year; but the loss of pay, owing to the transference of duties, was from £200 to £250 a-year. It is not an arithmetical puzzle to see that a gain of, say, £4 a-year is no compensation for a loss of £200 a-year. The Militia surgeons had their duties taken away from them, not at their own desire, though it may have been, and probably was, for the benefit of the Public Service that this change should be made. But it is a common rule of equity that if private interests are to be sacrificed for public good, compensation should be given. It was deemed expedient to get rid of Militia adjutants; but those who resigned were pensioned. In the Civil Service it is the same. We do not reduce even clerkships in a Department without some compensation to the holder. This was so obviously just, that Lord Cardwell promised in April and June of 1872 full consideration for instances of individual hardship; and on the 6th July, 1874, and on the 2nd June, 1875, the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hardy) again promised to consider each case according to its merits. This was a just promise. Some of the regiments are not affected by the new Regulations from not being near a Brigade Depôt; and when they are, the cases of hardships vary so much that they could not be dealt with en bloc, and therefore individual examination was right and proper. The Militia surgeons, relying on those promises, have sent in their cases to the War Office; but every one has been refused any redress or compensation. At a deputation to the Secretary of State for War, on the 23rd April, he absolutely refused consideration to the Militia surgeons' case; first, because he had no power to deal with it; and second, because they asked pay for duties which they were not performing. But it was not their fault that they were not performing these duties. They were both able and willing to do so. Now, their grievance lies in this—the Militia surgeons could not combine their military duties with an efficient attention to practice. They were liable under the old Acts to serve where their regiments were embodied, and they were embodied both in the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny. Under their old rules they might and were frequently absent from private practice; but they were fairly paid for their public duties and were satisfied to perform them. But now the case is entirely different. Instead of emoluments of from £200 to £300 a-year, you ask them to act for 27 days at £l a-day. This amount would scarcely suffice to pay an assistant while they were engaged in military duty. To old men who have sacrificed private practice for Militia duty, it is absolute ruin to be suddenly deprived of their former duties and emoluments without compensation. The State cannot have contemplated this when it made the changes. I presume and admit that the changes are right, but I ask that, as in all similar cases, public interests should not be procured by the sacrifice of private interests, but that these should receive a fair compensation for the injury inflicted.

rejoiced that the subject had been brought before the House, and expressed a hope that, if necessary, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) would press the question to a division. He was certain that the Militia surgeons had lost by the changes which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had introduced, by which the responsibility of passing recruits and other duties had been taken from them. He was also certain that it had been a detriment to the Force to appoint a man a Militia surgeon only during the time when the regiment was in training. He should support the appeal that had been made for compensation to this class of deserving officers.

thought it most important that all recruits, whether for the Militia or the Army, should be examined by surgeons of the Regular Army; for no man with civilian practice had had sufficient experience in passing men for either Service, but that he might be deceived. The Militia surgeons were very excellent men; but, in very many cases, they wanted the experience of the surgeons of the Regular Army. With regard to recruiting that was essentially necessary. The Regular Army surgeon was the man best suited to pass men into the Army.

said, he would not attempt to discuss the expediency of the changes which had been made; but the question brought forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was, whether, in carrying out the present scheme, they were not dealing harshly with Militia surgeons who had entered the Service prior to those changes. In his opinion they were dealing harshly, for the old Militia surgeons could not fall back on any private practice. The question for the House was whether, after a certain amount of service, a Militia surgeon could obtain some compensation, and whether it was to be given by the State or by an exceptional grant in each ease; his own feeling was in favour of the latter suggestion. At all events, this was a subject which fairly deserved consideration.

said, that it was hardly fair for the House to discuss then the Regulation made in 1873. He believed it would be very desirable to revert to the former system of the examination of recruits for the Militia by Militia surgeons, especially in agricultural districts. He trusted that in future every case would be dealt with on its own merits; for in the case of old Militia surgeons there were undoubtedly great hardships, while with the younger Militia surgeons there was no hardship at all. Treated in that way a very moderate sum of money would be required to give satisfaction to these gentlemen. Some of the older men had been deprived of three-fourths of their pay, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) would comply with the request of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair).

said, this was a simple question of justice. Anew system had been inaugurated, in effecting which he considered that the claims of these Militia surgeons, many of whom had been long in the Service, had not been justly or equitably considered. The House of Commons ought not to be satisfied with anything less than a promise from the Secretary of State for War that he would endeavour to obtain from the Treasury proper compensation for those officers. Should he do so, no doubt he would succeed. Compensation was always given in cases of interference with legal officers, and there was no reason why it should not be given in this case.

in rising to move—

"That it is unjust that Departmental Circulars should be issued in such a form, or so interpreted as practically to repeal or modify the operation of an Act of Parliament; and that it is expedient that those persons who have been debarred from participation in the benefits of 'The Superannuation Act Amendment Act, 1873,' by the War Office Circulars dated the 29th August and the 17th December 1861, and numbered 709 and 729 respectively, should be restored to the position they would have occupied had such circulars never been issued,"

said, he desired to call attention to the way in which certain persons had been treated in regard to Superannuation. His Motion consisted of two parts—the first dealt with the authority exercised by the War Department through the medium of Circulars; the second, with a specific grievance. In order to save the time of the House he would take the latter first, and he trusted the statement he was about to make would be found to justify the course he had thought it necessary to pursue. The Superannuation Act Amendment Act was passed on the 26th May, 1873, to remedy the inadvertence of the heads of certain Departments, in admitting persons into the Civil Service of the State (between the passing of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the 4th June, 1870), without a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, as required by the Superannuation Act, 1859, such omission being without default on the part of the persons admitted. The Treasury was empowered to re-instate such persons in the position they would have occupied, with respect to superannuation, if such an inadvertence had not occurred. Numerous applications were made and dealt with under this Act; but it afterwards appeared that, "owing to mistakes" on the part of certain officers, there were some names omitted from the lists sent in, and it was necessary to pass another Act in 1876 to provide for them. His case was, that there were still others who were entitled to the benefit of the Act of 1873. There were some 600 men employed in the manufacturing departments—chiefly at Woolwich—whose position was identical with that of the persons mentioned in the Preamble to the Act of 1873. They entered the Service between the dates named, in the full expectation of being entitled to superannuation, but, through so default on their part, without a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. They had applied at the proper time to be dealt with under the Act of 1873, and subsequently, on several occasions, but had been refused on three grounds: first, that they were in receipt of the full market rate of wages; se- condly, that they had not passed the Civil Service examination; and thirdly, that they were excluded by the decision announced in two Circulars issued in August and December, 1861. Now, by an Act passed in 1834, provision was made for granting superannuation to those who submitted to a specific abatement from their wages; but in 1857, this system of abatements was abolished by Act of Parliament, and consequently rendered illegal, and in 1859 the Superannuation Act was passed to extend the system of superannuation to all classes of the Civil Service, and regulate it on a just and intelligible principle. Therefore, when it was proposed, as was the case in the Circulars he complained of, not to grant superannuation to those who were in receipt of the full market rate of wages, but only to those who submitted to an abatement, he contended that such a course was in direct violation of the Act of 1857, and contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1859. The second objection—that they had not passed the Civil Service examination—was untenable, for the Act of 1873 was specially passed to meet the case; and the third—the decision of the Circulars—was equally invalid, for they merely announced the intention of the Department to grant superannuation only to those who submitted to an abatement of wages—a point he had already dealt with. The second Circular defined the "full market rate of wages" to be that at which men were found to be willing to engage themselves; but that was absurd, because no alternative rate was ever offered to the men. He admitted that the case would be different, if the men on whose behalf he pleaded had entered the Service with a knowledge of the existence of these Circulars; but that was not the case, the first they heard of them was in 1870. They entered in the full expectation of being entitled to superannuation, as their predecessors were, and without the slightest knowledge that any question could arise on the point. He had no doubt his right hon. Friend would tell him that the Circulars had been published in the usual manner in the Department at the time of their issue; but he had made the most careful inquiries, and had failed to elicit from any one the slightest knowledge of such publication, and he maintained that the individual assurances of 600 men were entitled to respect as against the memory of a few officials as to what had occurred 17 years ago, especially as it had been already necessary to pass two Acts of Parliament to remedy their "inadvertence" and "mistakes." The publication of the Circulars was a matter of vital importance to the men, whilst it was of no moment to their officers. The expense could not be pleaded as a reason why justice should not be done; but, even if that were an element in the case, it would hardly deserve consideration, for he had been informed that only about 2½ per cent of the men would remain long enough in the Service—or live long enough—to become entitled to superannuation, so that, at the most, it was probably only a question of £700 or £800 per annum for a few years. With regard to the first part of the Motion, he contended that he had shown, first, that the Circulars had practically had the effect of repealing the Act of 1857, which abolished abatements of wages; and, secondly, that they had been employed to modify the operation of the Act of 1873, so as to exclude a number of men who were clearly entitled to the benefits it was intended to confer. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.

said, his hon. Friend must feel some satisfaction in observing that on this interesting occasion, his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Gladstone) was not in his place, and that the working men of Greenwich and Woolwich committed their interests solely to his care. If justice demanded the payment of this sum, he (Mr. Hardy) would be the last man in the House to oppose it; but he disputed the principle on which his hon. Friend based this claim from beginning to end. The hon. Member laid it down that because of a certain Act passed in 1873, the Department was not able to employ men without giving them superannuation allowances.

said, that what he contended was, that it was not competent for the Department to make contracts contrary to the Act of 1857, by which abatements in wages, with a view to superannuation, were rendered illegal.

Just so; but the Act of Parliament did not prevent the Department from making contracts outside its provisions. The case was a short and clear one. In 1859 it was laid down that those workmen who had not Civil Service certificates should not have superannuation, and the Act of 1869 confirmed that. The first Army Circular said that no person should be entitled to superannuation who was receiving the full market value of his labour, and the second Circular defined that to be the ordinary rate of wages. In 1873 an Act was passed relating to the Post Office, where it was admitted that certain persons had been employed inadvertently without reference to this arrangement; but, in the War Office, there was no inadvertence at all. Some men were employed who, it was alleged, did not know of the Regulation; but they were paid the full market rate of wages, and, therefore, were not entitled to superannuation. He could not understand that they did not know what the Regulations were; at any rate, full notice was given, perfectly clear, and open to everybody, and, therefore, no injustice had been done to those men whose case had been brought before the House. That was, in a word, the answer to the Resolution, to which he was sure the House would not agree.

said, that the policy of the Office had been not to take workmen whom they were bound to superannuate after a certain term of service. It was thought better to employ men as necessity required. The Act which had been referred to was passed for the benefit of a particular class of men, and those only; that was fully known at the time, and the other men did not claim to be treated in the same way. The Army Circulars were issued giving full notice to all the men employed, and therefore he hoped that the House would not agree to undo what had been done.

said, that having, whilst serving in the War Office, carefully inquired into the remuneration given to the workmen employed in the manufactures of Woolwich Arsenal, he might be allowed to contend that the War Office had acted liberally in fixing the rates of wages of the workmen, and although he had been employed on a Committee in the several factories, yet he had not heard a complaint put forward on behalf of these men. The charge made in 1859, by which the workmen of these important factories were paid daily rates of wage equal to the market rates, without any claim to pension, might have been challenged at that date as an objectionable measure; but seeing that all men employed since 1859 had received the very wage of the market, it would not be fair to the country to restore to them the claim to pension which that very payment was intended to withdraw. No doubt some of the workmen, formerly receiving rates of wage fixed per hour, had by long service been advanced to positions which entitled them to fixed weekly or monthly rates of wage, and by good service and experience deserved such of the State, and he would suggest that some of the best of these men should be placed on the establishment for pensions; but it would be a dangerous thing to interfere with a system which had been in force for 17 years without complaint. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

said, that the state of our Military Law at this moment was a disgrace in a great degree to the administration of justice, and to the many Governments which had allowed it to remain in its present position, and was almost a discredit to our Representative institutions. As far back as 20 years ago, Mr. Denison, who was then in the Judge Advocate General's department, called the attention of the Under Secretary of State, the present Marquess of Ripon, to the subject, and suggested that he should be authorized to prepare a code. The Under Secretary brought the matter before Mr. Sidney Herbert, who was then Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Sidney Herbert wrote a Minute, dated July, 1859, in which he said he could not undertake to say that it would be possible to legislate on the subject next Session, but it must be done at an opportune time. Nothing was done at that time; but 10 years afterwards, in 1868, the Government of Lord Derby took the matter in hand, and issued a Royal Commission to inquire in what respects the administration of Military Law might be amended, particularly with reference to the constitution and practice of courts martial. That Royal Commission was one of great weight; it consisted of 11 Members, among whom were Colonel Wilson-Patten, now Lord Winmarleigh, Lord Eversley, Lord Hartington, two Gentlemen who had been Judge Advocates General, the Recorder, Mr. Vivian, and four general officers—General Peel, Sir Alfred Horsford, the late Lieutenant General Scarlett, and General Eyre, and it reported in 1869. Some of the recommendations of that Commission with respect to the punishment for drunkenness and other matters were adopted, not by statute, but by regulation; but, up to the present time, their material recommendations had remained a dead letter. The Commissioners, in their Report, said that the Military Law was in the most complicated state, and they quoted the evidence of Mr. Headlam, who had been Judge Advocate General, that the Mutiny Act was confused, and contained provisions, many of which were obsolete and many unnecessary. They also quoted the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray), who had been twice Judge Advocate General, to the effect that the law was confused, uncertain, and conflicting; that it was perplexing to lawyers, and must be perplexing to military men. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief also bore testimony to the evil arising from the frequent assembling of courts martial, and stated that, in his view, the law ought to be much more clear and more simple. Accordingly, the Commission reported that the simplification of Military Law ought to receive the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. From that time to the present no change had been made, and the recommendations of the Commissioners had fallen entirely to the ground. When he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) held the office of Judge Advocate General, under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), he drew the attention of the Government to this matter, and felt it to be his duty to prepare certain Bills to amend the law; but the great subjects of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Land Question, and Abolition of Purchase in the Army, which the Government then had in hand, prevented them dealing with the question of military reform. Since the present Government came into office, although unwilling to press them to take up the question before they had got thoroughly settled into their position, yet he had questioned them every Session whether they intended to deal with the subject. This Session the Judge Advocate General stated that he was most anxious, and intended to do so next Session. Now, he was most anxious to ascertain what were the views of the Government with regard to Military Law. What did they propose to do next Session? He thought the proper course would be this — At present it was necessary to pass the Mutiny Act in April. He would introduce only a temporary Mutiny Act for next year, and at the same time bring in a Bill relating to Military Law, which should be referred to a Select Committee. On what principle should the new military code be framed? Should the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War be retained, or should there be a permanent code regulating the discipline of the Army? He was entirely opposed to a permanent code. He thought the old system of the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be retained; but there were many points to be considered, and he would suggest that the Mutiny Act should define clearly who were the persons to be subjected to its discipline, what were the nature of the crimes to be subjected to punishment, and lastly, the manner in which that punishment should be administered. The Mutiny Act and the Articles of War contained a great deal that might be put in the Queen's Regulations, or in an Army Service Act, to be renewed every five years. The Mutiny Act, however, should be an annual Act. It was 180 years since the Mutiny Act was first introduced, and it had always remained an annual Act. It represented, as it were, the popular feeling in the House of Commons more than any other Act, and in that respect there was an advantage in its being an annual Act. The Mutiny Act should deal with the Army in time of peace; and, in time of war, the Queen should be authorized to issue a new code to deal with armies in the field. With reference to courts martial, the present system certainly worked well, considering the great objections which had been raised to parts of it. It generally did justice between the parties; at the same time, there was great complication in it, and the Royal Commission had reported in favour of its amendment. He was rather in favour of retaining the three kinds of courts martial—general, district, and regimental. The question, however, was a very serious one, as it appeared from a Return laid on the Table on Saturday that the number of courts martial held in the last three years amounted to no fewer than 40,273. One question which arose was as to the president of courts martial. He thought military Judge Advocates should be the permanent presidents. There were now only three district Judge Advocates, and he thought that number ought to be increased. Then, as regarded the taking of evidence, instead of having the questions put in writing, he would have viva voce examinations, and question and answer taken down by shorthand writers. The expense need not be great, as shorthand could be taught in the schools of each garrison. He would also retain, and, in some respects, enlarge the scope and powers of Courts of Inquiry. With respect to the power of re-assembling a court martial, it ought to be allowed in case a mistake had been committed, but never with a view to increase a sentence already pronounced—a thing which was repugnant to British law. The subject of the abolition of the office of Judge Advocate General had more than once been debated; but, speaking from ex- perience, he was wholly opposed to such a step. The appointment to the office ought not to be permanent; but it ought to be represented by a Member of the Government in that House, and be held by a civilian, and not by a military man. One other question had been raised— namely, whether the Judge Advocate should have power to quash the finding of a court martial. For his part, he did not doubt that such power should exist. It was not the Judge Advocate who quashed the finding; it was Her Majesty, for he acted in Her Majesty's name. He did not wish to prevent his right hon. Friend taking Supply; but he thought the question was deserving of notice, and hoped that the matter might be taken in hand by the Government next Session, and be fully inquired into by a Select Committee.

joined in the hope expressed by the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare, that the Government would next Session appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and thus let the Army know that both they and the House of Commons took an interest in what so nearly concerned them. He also trusted that a Bill on the subject would be brought forward next Session.

wished that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject, as he was of opinion that a standing Army was a mistake and a nuisance. What was required was a return to the old Militia system. They should do everything in their power to prevent the people from thinking that if a man entered the Army he abandoned all the rights and privileges of an Englishman. If they wished to make the Army really popular, that was the only way to do so.

said, he had always been surprised, and regretted the fact, that some of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners had been treated with neglect by successive Governments. Their recommendation in regard to fines being instituted for drunkenness had, indeed, been adopted; and extremely good results to the Army at large had followed, for the number of trials for drunkenness had decreased from 3,900 in 1869 to 2,500 in 1875. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven to direct his attention particularly to two other re- commendations made by the Commissioners, with a view to their adoption. One was to the effect that cases of embezzlement should be tried by the ordinary criminal Courts, and the other was that the power of commanding officers, so far as regarded imprisonment, should be enlarged from seven to 21 days. Many of the trivial offences for which men were now tried by regimental courts martial might then be disposed of by the commanding officers. The hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, pointed out a difference between Clause 10 of the Mutiny Act and one of the Articles of War, and expressed a hope that this discrepancy would be removed.

said, the House ought to be thankful to the right hon. and learned Member for Clare for having brought that important question before it, and he trusted that the Government would take some action in the matter. He agreed that the Articles of War were in a confused and complicated state. He was glad the right hon. and learned Baronet agreed that courts martial as a rule possessed the confidence of the Army. Seeing how well they were spoken of, he should only be too glad to see their procedure in some points improved. They ought not to be re-assembled for the purpose of increasing sentences; and with regard to the suggested extension of the powers of the commanding officers, he could see no reason why, in simple cases, their power should not be increased up to 21 days' imprisonment, especially as there would still be an appeal to a court martial. It was absurd that hon. Members should have the power of revising the Mutiny Act every year in that House, while the Articles of War were entirely withdrawn from their consideration. He would suggest that both should be subject to the discussion of the House.

thought so serious a task as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare had undertaken ought not to be commenced at so late a period of the Session. Animadversions had been made on the circumstance that so many years had elapsed since the Report of the Royal Commission, and it was further said that the late Government had neglected their recommendations. But at that time his right hon. and learned Friend was himself in office, and be- stowed considerable pains on the subject. His right hon. and learned Friend was succeeded by Mr. Davidson, one of the best lawyers who had of late years had a seat in that House, and who was engaged in the amendment of the Mutiny Act at the very moment of his death, the papers being in his hand when he was found dead in his bed. Indeed, the late Government had advanced so far in the preparation of a Military Code, that Mr. Ayrton was prepared to lay a Bill upon the subject on the Table upon the first day of the Session of 1874, but circumstances prevented that being done. There had been no culpable or wilful neglect in the matter; but the question was one of such great difficulty, delicacy, and importance, that it was easy to say that it ought to be dealt with, but not so easy to do it. He thought it would be better that the Government should not take the course which had been suggested to them this Session—namely, that of appointing a Committee of that House to investigate the subject, and lay down the principles on which they ought to go; but that the Government themselves, during the Recess, acting on the advice of those best qualified to assist them, should arrange, either by a Bill, or in some other form, the principles on which they thought legislation should proceed, and then that their proposal should be introduced at the beginning of next Session, and, if necessary, referred to a Select Committee. The question being of great delicacy in a constitutional point of view—both as affecting the rights of the people on the one side, and the Prerogative of the Crown on the other—was precisely one of those subjects which it was least desirable to throw on the Table of a Select Committee, and invite them to suggest what ought to be done. It ought to be dealt with by the responsible Government of the day. But in any case, he hoped that action would be taken in the matter. The Mutiny Act, the Articles of War, and the Queen's Regulations were so contradictory and conflicting that it was really necessary to do something to make them more intelligible, as well as to introduce many of the changes which had been alluded to in that discussion.

hoped, that in the event of any changes being made, the Mutiny Act would continue to be an annual Act, otherwise they would lose what was the chief guarantee for the liberties of the people next to the right of voting the Supplies. He approved the suggestion that some change should be made in the procedure of courts martial, strongly condemning the cumbrous and unnecessary formalities observed in those tribunals, and particularly the absurd routine of taking down the whole of the evidence in writing. It involved a great waste of time and trouble, and was totally opposed to the practice in civil cases.

said, he had much pleasure in acknowledging the great knowledge which the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare had brought to bear upon the subject under consideration. He would admit that the time had come when that matter must undergo some re-consideration. He could not, however, think that the mode suggested by the right hon. and learned Baronet would be the most convenient, because under it there might be a mishap, and the Mutiny Act might expire. The Mutiny Act should, he thought, be passed at the beginning of the next Session, and should continue up to the end of the following Session. In that way, they would have clear time to go into the question. He thought it would also be of great advantage to place before any Committee which should be appointed the principles on which it was proposed to act, or even a detailed Bill. That was what he had in his own mind, and what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was preparing to do. That subject had not been lost sight of by the present Government. The War Office was never without work; it had always some very great questions before it which took up much time; and they had also had in that House abundant occupation for hon. Members without going into that matter in a separate Committee. But the time had come when it might fairly be discussed. Therefore, at the beginning of next Session, they could continue the Mutiny Act in the ordinary way till the end of the then next Session; and, in the meantime, a Committee might sit on the recommendations to be submitted by the Government, and go fully and carefully into the question. The right hon. and learned Baronet appeared to have studied the subject well. He had made a very clear statement; and if they had his assistance on the Com- mittee he had no doubt they would arrive at some conclusion.

thanked the Secretary of State for War for his statement as to an inquiry into our military law, and urged on him the importance of having their military law, and also the mode of putting it into execution, clearly declared. He also thought that the unnecessary, and, indeed, in many respects, dangerous repetition, and in some instances the erroneous repetition of military obligations in the Articles of War, of the law military as stated in the Mutiny Act, deserved the most serious attention; and he ventured to express a hope that even in the present Session a Select Committee might be appointed.

also thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the proposal which he had made which entirely met the object which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had in view. He believed that if the Committee sat in the next Session they would be able to effect a great amendment of the present law.

expressed a hope that in future a statement would be given as to the number of medical officers in India, as compared with the number in this country and the colonies. The changes of late years in the War Office Estimates in showing the numbers and grades of medical officers had completely vitiated the comparison of the numbers and grades now employed with those of a few years previously. At present the medical officers employed in India were entirely omitted from the Estimates.

complained that there were not enough medical men in the Army, and thought that something more should be done to attract candidates. If an Army Corps was required to leave the country with its complement of medical officers, only about 50 medical officers would be left in the country.

said, that the Medical Director General believed the country was never better provided with a medical Staff than at present, and he was certain that that gentleman would not have made such a statement without his having good grounds for doing so.

rose to call attention to the small number of Officers, now serving in the Militia, who had received certificates of efficiency, and the difference between the numbers enrolled in certain regiments and their Establishment. The aggregate numbers of all ranks on the Establishment for the United Kingdom was 134,500, of which number only 100,611 were present at inspection. There were wanting to complete the number on the Establishment, 19,002; while the number absent without leave was 11,392, which would leave the Force 30,394 short of its proper strength. From the remainder must also be deducted 30,000 for the Militia Reserve, who were liable to serve in any regiment and for any service, and this would reduce the Force to 73,000 men. Deducting a further number of 5,000 for sick servants, cooks, and batmen, the available Force would be reduced to 68,000. This was a state of things which no one could call satisfactory. Taking a few special instances, he found the 4th Lancashire, having an establishment of 1,200, was 578 deficient at the last training; the 5th Lancashire, with a similar establishment, was 558 deficient; the Nottingham and Rutland, with a strength of 1,400, was 563 deficient; the 2nd Surrey, with a force of 990, was 491 deficient; the Cornwall Rangers, with a force of 800, was 442 deficient; the 2nd Middlesex, with a force of 1,050, was 421 deficient; and the Aberdeen, with a force of 741, was 423 deficient; the seven regiments being short by 3,476, or, on the average, of nearly 500 each. The proportion of officers was largely in excess of that of the men, there being present at the inspection of the Cornwall Rangers, 20 officers to 323 men, or one officer to every 16 men; in the 4th Lancashire, 29 officers to 513 men, or one officer to 18 men; and in the Aberdeen, 21 officers to 301 men, or one officer to 15 men. It was, in his opinion, very unsatisfactory that such a large Staff of officers should be kept up, while it was found impossible to get their Militia regiments up to the Establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had, he believed, taken some steps to improve the state of affairs by inducing men by an offer of increased bounty to re-enrol themselves; but one defect in this scheme was that no limit had been put to the number of times a man might be re-enrolled. He would like to know if, apart from what he had just mentioned, any steps had been taken to increase the Establishment of the Militia. He quite agreed with the suggestion, which he believed emanated from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, that the Militia should undergo their month's training in the ranks of the Line, and this, he felt sure, would have a very great effect on the efficiency of the men. He wished also to call attention to the fact that out of 2,552 officers of the Militia only 558, or 25 per cent, had received certificates of proficiency; while in the Volunteers, they had been obtained by 75 per cent of the officers. It was to be noticed, however, that in Militia regiments there was an inspection on each grade of promotion. The evidence of His Royal Highness the Commander - in - Chief showed that he laid great stress upon the superior utility of large schools of instruction as compared with schools at depôts, and he (Mr. Hayter) had no doubt that the Secretary of State for War would think it important that certificates should be obtained from them. But, as things were, it was plain that either the schools were of no use, or a larger proportion of officers ought to get certificates from them. He felt sure it would greatly benefit the Service if a higher number of officers were compelled to pass through the schools.

asked the Secretary of State for War to give the Committee some information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the numerical titles of Line regiments.

ruled that the hon. and gallant Member was out of Order in discussing that point upon a Vote for the Militia.

said, he thought that, as the Report of the Militia Committee was on the Table, and it dealt with the amalgamation of the Militia with the Line, that he was in Order.

said, the hon. and gallant Member could raise any ques- tion as to the organization of the Militia, but not as to the Army on that particular Vote.

said, in that case, he would be satisfied with making a few remarks, and he would simply ask the Secretary of State for War, if he would inform the Committee whether it was the intention of the Government to amalgamate the Militia with the Line in one regiment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Militia Committee. He asked that question, because the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary on a former occasion did not contain that information; and in any answer which he might now receive, he hoped it would not be attributed to him, as it was on a former occasion, that he was actuated by what was called a "trades union jealousy." His object was to benefit the Militia; and to show the earnestness of what he said, he would refer to a pamphlet which he wrote a few years ago, and in which he propounded an amalgamation scheme for the Militia and Line regiments. He wished also to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was intended to carry into effect any other recommendations of the Militia Committee, besides those relating to the amalgamation of Militia regiments with the regiments of the Army?

trusted that whatever steps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might think it necessary to take in regard to the examination of Militia officers and their entering schools, he would not press too hardly upon them, and that he would bear in mind that Militia officers already gave up one month continuously of their time in the course of a year, which was more than was demanded of the Volunteer officers. Without desiring in any way to undervalue the schools and the examination system, his experience convinced him that officers who had not passed the examinations were often as efficient for all practical purposes as those who had passed them. Certainly, the most serious point in reference to the Militia was the difficulty of obtaining recruits, and the increasing number of absentees. He found on comparing one regiment with another, that the numbers of these men were apt to fluctuate with the rate of wages, rising, for the most part, when wages were high, and falling when they were low, although now and then a precisely contrary effect was observable. But there was no question, that throughout the country generally, the number of absentees had steadily increased, year by year, since 1871. Roughly speaking, he found that in 1871 there were 8,000 absent without leave; that in 1872 there were rather more than 8,000; that in 1873 the number was 11,000; that in 1874 it was 10,000; while in 1875 it rose to 10,925, and in 1876 to 11,364. It must be remembered, too, that in 1874 and in 1875 the Establishment amounted to 131,000, whilst in 1876 it was reduced to 125,000; so that while the Establishment had been reduced, the number of absentees had still increased. These figures showed not only that we had not the men we ought to have for active service, but that a large sum of money —from £8,000 to £10,000 a-year, and likely to increase — was lost to the country. He was aware that many proposals had been made for dealing with this difficulty; but he thought the best plan was, that as the circumstances and requirements of the different regiments varied so greatly as they did, some discretion should be left to the commanding officers, the more so as each was interested in seeing his regiment as full as possible. All Militiamen must regard with satisfaction most of the conclusions at which the Committee had arrived. Nothing had given him more pleasure than to find that the Committee had consistently condemned the changes which Lord Cardwell was trying to bring about, which tended to the swallowing up of the permanent Staff of the Militia in the depôts and to destroying the individuality of the Force; and had recommended that the Militia should have a Staff that would make it a really reliable Force. At the time, those who knew the Militia best, told Lord Cardwell those changes would not be successful. He was disappointed that while the Government adopted certain recommendations of the Committee which he should have desired to see rejected, they had rejected others which he should have liked to see adopted. He trusted they would receive some statement from the Government, as to how many of the Committee's recommendations it was proposed to adopt. He thought there was some reason to complain, too, that some of the changes embraced in the last Circular of the War Office should have been adopted without opportunity having been given to the House for discussing them, and that the Report of the Committee was not sooner placed in the hands of Members. They had been told by the Financial Secretary that it was delayed because the gentleman who was employed indexing it had other important duties to perform, but another might have been employed for the purpose. Before it was issued, the Government had adopted almost the only change to which he would take exception, that which transferred part of the correspondence from the commanding officer to the adjutant. It seemed rather a strong proceeding to take out of the hands of the commanding officer any part of the business connected with his regiment. The command of recruits was also taken from him, and it was an unusual proceeding to deprive him of the command of any portion of a regiment. He hoped the recommendation as to undress clothing would not be adopted, unless care were taken that full dress was issued to the Militia when brigaded with other troops. The recommendation that recruits should be drilled for three months would not answer, seeing that it was difficult enough to get recruits at all; and this was one of the matters that might be left to the discretion of the commanding officer, who knew the requirements of his district.

asked for information regarding the delay in issuing the Warrant which it was understood gave a promise of 30s. to Militiamen on re-enrolment. Its non-appearance was causing great dissatisfaction in several regiments.

said, that with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter), who had called attention to the small number of officers serving in the Militia who had received certificates of efficiency, it had to be borne in mind that there was an essential difference in the way in which the training of the two Forces—the Militia and the Volunteers—was conducted. It must also be remembered that, although out of 3,700 Militia officers, only 748 had received certificates, that by no means represented the absolute standard of efficiency in that branch of the Profession. There was no doubt that many of the officers who had not received certificates of efficiency—either from the difficulty of finding the necessary time through their avocations, or from other causes—were not inferior; while, in many cases, they might be superior for all purposes of command and in general knowledge of the Service to those officers who, with whatever credit to themselves, might have passed the examination at a particular time and qualified themselves for particular service. At the same time, he did not mean in any way to detract from the credit which was due to those Volunteers who had so qualified themselves. With regard to the men, the hon. Member said that the numbers actually enrolled in certain regiments differed very widely from their Establishment numbers. He went, indeed, further, and pointed out that the men who were actually present fell short of the numbers enrolled. That, it must be admitted, was one of the weak points of our Militia system, and the Committee did not see their way to overcome the difficulty except by various subsidiary means. Desertions occurred when the Militia were enrolled in densely, and also in thinly, populated districts. In the former, when a man went away, you might as well, to use a popular phrase, "look for a needle in a bottle of hay." In the thinly populated districts, want of work and the fluctuations of employment often rendered it impossible for the recruits to remain in the district. A great number of these desertions, or the shortness of numbers, arose in the case of men who did not fulfil their first engagement. In large towns where the men were enrolled in the autumn months, it sometimes required 600 or 700 recruits to bring the regiment up to its proper strength, and it was difficult to exercise so much care in the selection of men as to secure that they should come up when called for. Major Maxwell pointed out to the Committee the difficulty of getting men to notify their change of residence; and as to the references they were expected to give, they were but little removed as a class from the men who referred to them, and were not to be relied upon. The hon. Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) gave valuable evidence of the opposite difficulty in thinly - populated districts—as to the scarcity of men. After considering this evidence, the Committee, though with some doubts in their minds, did not see their way to recommend a complete change in the system of recruiting; and they rather directed their attention to other means by which men would be induced to enter the Militia, and to keep there. In adhering to the system of sub-districts in preference to the system of "territorial regiments," it was only intended that the Militia should remain in their existing position. The Committee thought that the recruiting should be carried on as now by the permanent Staff, and that they should be encouraged to obtain better references and a personal knowledge of recruits. The adjutants of Militia only received their actual expense, instead of £3 a company as formerly to cover all expenses. That allowance of £3 was complained of as in some cases insufficient; while, in others, it went into the pocket of the officer. The Committee wished to place the matter on a sound footing, and while they adhered to the payment of actual expenses, they decided to recommend a certain amount of head-money to be given to cover the expenses of enrolment. After some discussion it was settled that 2s. 6d. should be allowed for each Militia recruit, and this had been approved by the War Office, and would in future be given. With respect to the question of bounty, there were no doubt good reasons for thinking that if all bounty were stopped in the Militia, as in the Army, the change would probably in the long run have no effect on the recruiting; but the Committee, having regard to the evidence they received from all quarters as to the practical working of the system, and having regard also to the purely hypothetical character of the evidence in favour of the change, came to the conclusion that it would be hazardous, if not impossible, to do away at present with the practice of paying something down on enrolment. It was a custom in country districts to pay something down on making a bargain, and, probably, in many cases, a man who was enrolled would not think he had actually committed himself to an engagement, unless he received something on the occasion. It was also to be borne in mind that there were some men who enrolled under the pressure of immediate want. Complaint had been made of the regulation made by Lord Cardwell, when at the War Office, with regard to Militia bounty, that whereas formerly a man served five years for £6, he had now to serve six years for the same sum. That was done by dividing the bounty for the first year into two halves. It had been found advisable to do away with the running account, and to pay 10s. on enrolment and £1 for each year's service. That arrangement was to take effect after a certain date. On financial, as well as other grounds, it was thought advisable to encourage re-enrolment. Besides the advantages as regarded cost, and efficiency in having re-enrolled men, there was the further consideration that it was pretty certain they would turn up, for it was very rarely the case that they deserted. It was proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee as to discharge for the purpose of joining the Regular Army, and as to discharge during the non-training period. Steps were also being taken in order to ascertain in what way schools for the noncommissioned officers could be best carried out at the Brigade Depôts. As it was doubtful whether the non-commissioned officers would attend in large numbers, it was not thought wise to establish large central schools. At certain of the Brigade Depôts, however, schools would be set up where those who wished would be able to obtain certificates. With regard to additional training in musketry, this subject had been referred to the Inspector General of Musketry. It was still under consideration, and steps would be taken to secure that such rifle instruction as the Militia had to go through during their necessarily limited period of training should at all events be as efficient as possible. With respect to the question of barracks, and the accommodation at the Brigade Depôts, it would be premature to discuss it at present, inasmuch as the Secretary of State had appointed a Committee consisting of the Quartermaster General, Colonel Bulwer, Sir Howard Elphinstone, and Major Ellice, who would visit the Brigade Depôts and see how the requirements in each case were met. This Committee had not yet reported. With respect to the grievance of officers who were called up to take charge of recruits, arrangements had been made which would give a greater elasticity to the Regulation on the subject, and which it was believed would go far to meet the difficulty of the case. In the matter of clothing certain additional articles would be provided. With regard to the duties of the permanent Staff, the Secretary of State had decided to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, and to consider it as a principle that each Militia battalion should, as far as possible, have a complete Staff of its own. It was not necessary or advisable that there should in every case be an Adjutant appointed for each battalion separately; but it was thought essential to have a Quartermaster for every battalion, in order that proper care might be taken of the stores, and that there might be an officer responsible for them. As the two Quartermasters of the regiment could very well do the work of the Brigade Depôt between them, it was intended to dispense with the Quartermaster of the depôt. It was also intended to assign as part of the distinct duties of the Quartermaster, not carrying extra pay, the duty of acting as sub-accountant to the Paymaster. There was the recommendation that the non-commissioned officers should be placed on the same footing as those of the Line with respect to allowances. To carry out that proposal would cost £18,000 per annum, and it was not thought expedient to incur so large an expense. It had been decided that where the permanent Staff only discharged their former duties, they were to receive the old rate of pay; but that where they were called up to perform Army duties at Brigade Depôts, the allowances that the Committee recommended should be made to a number not exceeding 25 per cent, although it was impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the subject to the full extent. With regard to the extra training of the Militia Reserve, the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) would be aware that the general result of the inquiries that had been made on this point, was to incline the Committee not to recommend the extension of the training of the Militia Reserve, for the present. Finally, with regard to the question, whether the large increase in the expenditure which had been determined upon had been accounted for, his answer was that, with the one exception, of the cost of giving the full, instead of the half-year's bounty, the whole of the additional expenditure had been charged for in the Estimates. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not been able at an earlier period of the year to announce that he had finally concluded his negotiations with the Treasury, he was now in a position to state that, with the exception of those recommendations of the Committee which he had stated could not be carried out, and of those which had been spoken of the other evening, all the remaining recommendations of the Militia Committee would be carried into effect. He apologized for the length of time during which he had occupied the attention of the Committee, but explained that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that the earliest opportunity should be taken of giving the fullest explanation on these subjects.

asked, what had been done with regard to the uniform of the Militia regiments?

said, that no actual decision had yet been arrived at, but the Government were of opinion that it was very desirable that the uniform of the Militia should be made to correspond as far as possible with that of the Line, while the facings could be regulated as was thought desirable.

thought that the Ballot Acts should be amended so as to allow them to be put into operation.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to point to some steps about to be taken with the view of increasing the number of Militia officers, of whom he was afraid there would be a scarcity in a short time.

remarked that if it was important as a matter of public policy to pass a large number of men through the ranks of the Regular Army as quickly as possible, then it was strange that the Militia organization was not adapted to the object for which the Army was now made subordinate. Whilst service in the Regular Army was limited to three years, the service in the Militia was fixed at six years, with the power of allowing men to extend their service for a further period. He could not help wishing a return to the old practice of last cen- tury of training the Militiamen by companies and half companies, so that no man could be taken away from home beyond a five mile radius. With this limitation, and with the aid of experienced and thoroughly trained drill instructors, there was no reason for limiting the numbers to be trained to the present small force of 130,000 Militiamen. No doubt this kind of training would interfere with the pomp and dignity of commanding officers of Militia regiments; but then the nation would be the gainer of having many hundred thousands of sufficiently trained men in the elementary part of military drills to get them to join the cadres of the Regular Army, and then, in a few weeks, to become efficient soldiers in the regimental and brigade exercises and drills.

thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the Secretary of State for War could say when the difficulties which had hitherto stood in the way of the propagation of the new Militia Warrant were likely to be removed, and when the Warrant itself would probably be issued. He hoped it would be as soon as possible, because he believed it would have a good effect, in that it would secure a large number of troops who were now holding back. He wished also to know, whether non-commissioned officers of the Militia were to have accommodation in the new barracks? Some of the non-commissioned officers of the 2nd Surrey Militia had made complaints as to the deficiency of barrack accommodation at Guildford.

said, that, in consequence of a letter having been sent to him by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he had caused inquiries to be made respecting the barrack accommodation at Guildford, but had not yet received a reply. With regard to the Warrant, no date could be given at which it would appear; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the difficulties which had been referred to were practically at an end; but, at the same time, it would not do to give one regiment an advantage over another, and, therefore, practically it would apply to all the regiments of Militia before their next training. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Brise) he had no doubt the proposed change with regard to com- missions out of the Militia would tend to increase the number of officers, instead of diminishing them.

expressed a hope that several of the recommendations made by the Committee of the War Office three years ago would be carried into effect. The Government ought, in his opinion, to allow the men when out for the summer drill a more liberal remuneration per day, and should provide horses for them for the time from the Regular Army. The Government should give a little more encouragement to those who wished to keep up the strength of the regiments, and to those who wished to join them.

complained of the discouragement and disfavour that the Yeomanry received at the hands of the Government. General Stephenson said that 14 days' training would be necessary for the Volunteers to be made useful, and he asked that the Yeomanry should have 14 days' training.

said, he had the honour of commanding a detachment of Yeomanry, and was anxious to say something in favour of that Force. The late Government did a great deal to discourage the Yeomanry; but while Lord Cardwell chastised them with whips, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) touched them up with scorpions. Certainly, they had not received much encouragement from the present Government. He knew that they had to correspond for weeks and weeks about a matter of eighteenpence for stationery. A time might come when the Government might regret that treatment.

said, that no one complained of the Government requiring the greatest amount of efficiency for the Yeomanry, and he did not wish them to spend one shilling on the Yeomanry Force more than was requisite and advisable; but if the War Office required greater efficiency, it was bound to pay a reasonable portion of the expense of attaining that efficiency. He thought it would be well if they had an understanding with the War Office as to whether they appreciated the Yeomanry Force or not. If they did, it ought to be properly maintained.

said, he had never commanded Yeomanry or other troops; and he hoped if he ever did, he should not be, as he had been just now, fired on from behind. He had been credited with having a Committee for the purpose of destroying the Yeomanry, when he put upon it four most distinguished Yeomanry officers, who practically carried everything their own way. As to trumpeters, they had to be paid for a whole year when they were required to blow a trumpet for only a few days, and it was thought possible to make other arrangements to obtain their services when they were required. The Yeomanry was one of the oldest and one of the best Forces of its kind, and his object had been to encourage good regiments and discourage bad ones, and raise the standard of efficiency as much as possible. He had not tried to encourage bad ones, nor would he do so. It had not been noticed that there was an increase in this year's Estimates, both in this Vote and in Vote No. 10, and yet he was charged with doing nothing for the encouragement of the Yeomanry. The increase in the pay of adjutants, the abolition of the horse duty, and the audit of accounts, would all be beneficial to them; but there were several regiments too small for adjutants. The Committee recommended that no regiment under 200 strong ought to have an adjutant, and that no regiment without an adjutant ought to be kept up, and the consequence was obvious—that the smaller regiments would ultimately have to be disbanded. He had, however, given them time, in order that they might, if possible, recruit to a higher strength. His object throughout had been the improvement of the Yeomanry and its establishment as an efficient and real Force, and he believed the measures he had taken would have that result.

rose to call attention to the rank and retiring allowances of adjutants of Volunteers, and urged that the Government should do all in its power to make the position of those officers as good as possible, as upon their exertions depended much of the efficiency of the Volunteer Force. That efficiency was increasing year by year; it was most necessary to have a good adjutant in each regiment; and those adjutants who had made their battalions efficient deserved every encouragement. His own adjutant left the Army in 1864, when he was a captain in the 10th Foot, and in 1874, under new regulations, he and others were made temporary captains in the Army, and they ranked only with Volunteers from that date, whereas many had been captains for some years, and in the instance of his own adjutant, from 1864. That was a great hardship and deserved consideration, as the rank ought to be given from the date of the first appointment, and this, as well as the rank of major, with which he would now deal, would cost the country nothing. As to the retiring rank of major, according to the old Regulations a man if retired from ill-health, provided he had been five years an adjutant of Volunteers and had 20 years' service in the Army, might retire with the rank of major; but if he had served 15 years in the Volunteers, whatever might be his service in the Army, he could retire with the same rank. That surely was not to place him on the same footing as if he were in the Militia. When Lord Cardwell first introduced his scheme, he treated the Militia and Volunteers as Reserved Forces, and the adjutants of both exactly in the same way. But since that, the Secretary of State for War had been anxious to establish a new system in the Militia, and had given certain retiring allowances to the adjutants of Militia, provided they retired by a certain day, and he had been informed that some of them had even been allowed to retire since that day. But, be that as it may, he should like to see adjutants of Volunteers placed upon the same footing, and get the same chance. Inasmuch as they had as much, if not more, to do in the course of the year than the adjutants of Militia, they ought, in his opinion, at least to have the offer of the same retiring allowances, and the right hon. Gentleman would take away every grievance by granting these small concessions. He also thought it was scarcely right that these men should be required to go before a medical Board and be absolutely invalided before they were held to be entitled to a retiring allowance.

concurring very much in all that had fallen from the last speaker, insisted upon the expediency of paying regard to vested interests, observing that it was hardly fair that when an officer assumed the duties of Volunteer adjutant, and was entitled to the receipt of a certain annual sum for the purpose of keeping a horse, he should receive merely an allowance for hiring one. He would suggest, too, that the officers who became Volunteer adjutants before 1872 and those who became Volunteer adjutants after that year should be put on the same footing. He should, as a Volunteer officer, he might add, like to see some compulsory audit of accounts instituted throughout the Volunteer Army, that some further allowance would be made for the formation of Volunteer camps, and a roster of the whole of the Force throughout the country properly kept.

asked the Secretary of State for War to give duo consideration to the urgency of this question with reference to adjutants' allowances. He would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to make a pecuniary grant for the purpose of facilitating the muster of Artillery corps in different parts of the country. On the West Coast of Scotland many Artillery corps were brought together at one spot, and the main expense of the gathering fell upon the officers, which was hardly a fair state of things.

urged that since the Volunteers were now recognized as a permanent Force available for the defence of the country, they ought to receive more encouragement from the Government, and suggested whether for the purpose of increasing and developing that Force, it might not be advisable to divert a portion of the sum presently devoted to the Militia. He pressed on the Government the desirability of having a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House appointed to consider the best means of still further increasing the numbers and efficiency of the Volunteers, and introducing a better system into that service.

complained of the treatment which adjutants employed in the Volunteer Force had received in the way of pay and retiring allowances, and expressed a hope that the Government would deal with them generously, especially the old adjutants who had done so much from the outset of the movement to make the Force what it now was—those who had borne the burden and heat of the day—by giving them the same retiring allowance which they would have been entitled to if they had continued to serve as captains in the Regular Army.

thought it was a matter of very great importance that the Committee should be informed whether the Volunteer Force was properly officered or not, for, according to a letter written by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) which had appeared in The Times of that morning, they constituted the real Force of the country. That letter ought not to pass without notice, for it contained the statement that the Force was inefficiently led. If they were the illusory Force which some hon. Members seemed to suppose, it would be well that that fact should be made known on the authority of the Minister who was responsible for our military administration.

referring to the pay of the adjutants, pointed out that the price of the provisions was much higher than it was 20 years ago, and that that circumstance ought to be taken into consideration in dealing with the case. The pay only amounted to 15s. 3d. a-day, and out of that the officer had to pay for his horse.

said, that of course he could not be supposed to think the Volunteers not worth having. He drew an entirely opposite conclusion from the letter of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to that which had been drawn by the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). He thought his noble Friend had shown too much sensitiveness at the remarks made by the inspecting officer. He did not think Volunteers should be too sensitive of the remarks of inspecting officers, whose duty it was not only to applaud their merits, but to tell them their faults. Had the hon. Baronet been present at an earlier stage of the evening, he would have heard it stated that so far from the officers of the Volunteer Force being uninstructed, the contrary was the case, so far as a large portion of them were concerned. At the same time it was not, of course, to be supposed that Volunteer officers with the limited time and means of drill and manœuvring at their disposal could take their place at once on a level with the officers of the Regular Army, nor was it matter for wonder that when inspected by a member of the Household Brigade he should have made some criticisms on the manner in which they had performed their duty in the field. He, however, deduced from the statements of the gallant general who acted in that capacity that the Volunteers would, in case of necessity, be found to be a very efficient Force, although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) and those who contended that they could take the place of the Regular Army. There was much, he might add, in his opinion, in what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) with respect to Volunteer adjutants; but he must remind him that their pay had been increased from 8s. a-day and 2s. allowance for forage to 15s. 3d. The conditions, however, imposed upon them as to retiring allowances were, he admitted, somewhat hard, considering the long service of some officers, and he would undertake that point should be carefully considered. But that officers who retired from the Army, and accepted conditions with which they were perfectly acquainted, should be restored to the positions which they would have occupied had they continued all the time in the Army was to take a view of their case in which he could not concur. The Volunteer Artillery he regarded as one of the most important branches of the Service, and what they had done at Shoeburyness last year and in previous years tended to show the excellence of that Force. It was intended they should try this year the new guns, which, if they were ever called upon to defend any of our fortresses, they would have to use, and he trusted that the trial of these guns would still further increase their efficiency. He could assure the Committee that the efficiency of the Volunteer Force excited the deepest interest in his mind.

did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that there were impediments to the Volunteers becoming an efficient Force. He denied that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and regarded the Volunteers as a most efficient Force. With regard to the Regular Army, which was jealous of the Volunteers, he thought it was twice as expensive as it ought to be. Encouragement ought to be given to the Volunteer Force, and that might be done by placing them under the command of skilled officers.

explained that what he desired was that the Volunteers should be encouraged by all possible facilities of drill and other means of increasing their efficiency. The whole character of the Force, however, so much depended upon the officers and the relation in which they stood to the men, that he had not the slightest intention to propose that they should be replaced by officers of the Regular Army.

as a Volunteer, had always found the War Office ready to listen to any reasonable representations, and so far from any jealousy manifesting itself on the part of the Regular Army, he had always found the greatest disposition to assist the Volunteers. He was sorry to see the House to-night resolving itself into a committee of grievances, instead of considering and agreeing to the Army Votes.

begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for promising to consider the question as to the retirement of Volunteer adjutants. After 17 years' experience as an officer of Volunteers, he most emphatically repudiated the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough, that the Regular Army were jealous of the Volunteers. On the contrary, the Volunteers had invariably received from the Army the greatest assistance, and from the officers of the Army the utmost kindness and cordiality. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had spoken of the limited opportunities which Volunteer officers had of acquiring a knowledge of their duties. On behalf of officers commanding Metropolitan Corps, he would give an instance in which their opportunity was limited indeed. Many of them were annually ordered out into Hyde Park for instruction in brigade drill, and when they got there, owing to the crowds of people who were allowed to interfere with them, it was impossible for men or officers to see or hear what was going on. For all purposes of instruction, such drills were worse than useless; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take some steps to remedy this, so that on future occasions it might be possible for one battalion commander to see at least what the battalion next to him in brigade was doing.

complained that Ireland was not allowed to have Volunteer corps.

commented at some length on the condition of the Reserve Forces, which he argued were a complete failure.

moved to report Progress. He objected to voting away public money at that late hour. The protests of hon. Members against unnecessary expenditure were never attended to at that time, when the only object of the Government was to hurry through the Votes as speedily as possible. The people of Ireland contributed to the expense of the Volunteer Force of England, but was not allowed to have Volunteers of her own. ["Question !"] Surely it was the right of the Members from Ireland to raise the question of the justice and expediency of this when they were asked to vote the money. He moved that the Committee do now report Progress.

opposed the Motion to report Progress; observing that there was nothing unusual or inconvenient in the Committee considering Votes in Supply—sometimes of considerable amount and importance— at a much later hour than had then arrived. The Vote now before the Committee had nothing whatever to do with the Volunteer Force, nor did there appear to be any opposition to it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo, relative to the Volunteer Force in Ireland. If there was not time to answer the objections raised by hon. Members, it was time that the discussion should be postponed, and he should support the Motion to report Progress.

said, that the question of the Reserve Forces had already been fully discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms). It was impossible, on taking Votes in Supply, to enter into such criticism of details as was raised by the hon. and gallant Member. He hoped the Vote would be allowed to be taken.

said, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was impossible to give an answer to objections raised at that hour of the night. Surely that was a sufficient reason why the Committee should now report Progress.

said, no answer was given to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, and he thought his Motion to report Progress was perfectly reasonable.

said, he should certainly divide the Committee on the Question.

moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. If the hour was so late that the right hon. Gentleman could not give an explanation of the Votes proposed, it was time that the Committee should cease.

trusted the hon. Member would not resist the large majority by which the Motion to report Progress had just been negatived. There was no question of principle involved. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Mayo, the subject of Volunteers in Ireland was not before the Committee, and therefore he had not answered the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

urged the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford not to persist in his opposition. For himself, he was prepared to sit to any time to prevent the policy of obstruction which appeared to have been adopted by some hon. Members opposite.

was understood to describe the speech of the hon. Member for Bury as "hypocritical." [Cries of "Order!"]

said, the expression used by the hon. Member for Mayo was un-Parliamentary.

said, that what he had said, or meant to say, was not that the speech was "hypocritical," but "hypercritical." [This explanation was very unfavourably received, and was the commencement of a long period of confusion.]

referring to the argument of the hon. Member for Mayo, that the Irish people contributed to the expense of the English Volunteers, desired to point out that a good deal of English and Scotch money went to pay for the Irish police.

interposed, and said, that the hon. Member for Glasgow had travelled equally out of the record. The Irish Volunteers were not before the Committee, neither were the English—it was simply a Vote for the Reserve Forces. But he rose to express his hope that the Committee would be allowed to proceed with the Vote, and that nothing would occur that might render it necessary to make a change in the established Rules of Debate.

and other Members addressed the Committee, speaking amid great confusion and continued cries of "Order! Order!" "Chair! Chair!" "Question! Question!"

addressed the Committee in support of the Motion to report Progress, at great length and with little relevance to the Question. The uneasiness and displeasure of the Committee was such that at length an hon. Member (Sir William Edmonstone) rose and moved that the Committee be counted.

proceeded in his speech, being continuously met with cries of "Question ! Question !" "Divide ! Divide !" and calls to Order.

repeatedly attempted to enforce the rules of debate by injunctions of "Order!"

however, continued his address; urging, with constant iteration, the impropriety of debating important questions or voting away large sums of public money at midnight. The hon. Member enforced his argument by repeatedly referring to the examples of the Senates of Greece and Rome, which conducted their deliberations by daylight; and the more modern examples of Germany and France, whose Assemblies met at midday and separated at an early hour of the afternoon.

rose to Order. The arguments of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were utterly irrelevant to the Question before the Committee.

said he had repeatedly pointed out to the hon. Member that he was transgressing the rules of debate. The hon. Member, he must say, seemed disposed to treat the Chair with hardly the usual respect.

resumed his address, with complete disregard of the reproof—

again rose to Order. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was turning the House of Commons into ridicule.

said, he had not the slightest desire to turn the House of Commons into ridicule: and then resumed his speech at the point of interruption, referring to the procedure of the German Reichstag—

said, he had already pointed out to the hon. Member that he was breaking through the Rules of Debate. If he persisted, he would look upon his conduct as disrespectful to the Committee, and would be compelled to submit to the Committee whether such conduct should not be brought under the notice of the House.

expressing his desire not to infringe the rules of debate, nor to act in any manner disrespectful to the Committee, at length sat down.

referred with some indignation to the conduct of the hon. Member, whose expressions of deference to the authority of the Chair, he said, only pretended to be sincere.

asked the Chairman if such an imputation was Parliamentary.

said, the expression was not necessarily un-Parliamentary, unless it imputed personal insincerity to the hon. Member.

expressed his regret that the Rules of the House did not permit them to put a stop to speeches such as this, the only object of which seemed to be to waste time and obstruct the Business of the House. I have, said the hon. and learned Member, seen the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the first time to-night, and Heaven knows I do not wish ever to look upon him again. And as for the other hon. Member!—

said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not long been a Member of the House, and perhaps did not know the Rules. Opposed Business was not begun after half-past 12 o'clock. He thought the minority was unreasonable, and that the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was irregular—to say the least of it.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was always fair and conciliatory; but the Members of his Party were always ready to throw insult on the Irish Members. He had heard Members on that side say, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan was speaking—"Let us see how much he will stand." This statement called forth disorderly cries from Members on the Government benches; which led to a severe call to Order from the CHAIRMAN, and a threat to call one hon. Member by Name if he did not desist.

strongly denounced the course now taken by the hon. Members opposite, in obstructing the proceedings of the Committee.

declared that, so far from being ashamed of the conduct of those hon. Members, on the contrary, the part taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan and those who acted with him filled him with admiration and envy.

immediately moved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."

asked, what did the right hon. Gentleman want? Did he want a victory over five Irishmen? What was the principle he was contending for?

said, it was for this—that a small minority should give way to a large majority. They would not be disgraced by now giving way, seeing that it would be an act of personal courtesy to the officials of the House and to Mr. Speaker, who all this time was waiting.

declined to give way; and proceeded to address the Committee, when—

said, it was ridiculous, and not even honest, to go on with Business at these hours. The Business of the House, he said, should be carried on by the light of day. [A laugh—for it was now broad daylight.] He was prepared to go to the country to-morrow and contest this question. [Mr. D. DAVIES made a remark in Welsh.] Yes, he would undertake to carry the hon. Gentleman's own borough against him on this question — provided he would promise not to address his constituents in Welsh.

addressed the Committee on the Motion, when—

said, it was really the Government that was obstructing Business by resisting the Motion for Adjournment. He was ready to sit for 24 hours longer to protest against the shame of this midnight legislation.

who for a great part of the evening had represented the Leaders of the Opposition, rose, and with great force deprecated a continuance of these undignified proceedings. Enough had been done to vindicate the desire of the Government to get on with Business, but seeing the contest was vain with Members who were determined to listen to no argument or remonstrance, he thought the Government would do well to give way. At the same time, he reminded the present occupants of the Treasury Bench that when they sat opposite, the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) and others had adopted the same tactics of obstruction which now created so much displeasure when acted on by the hon. Member for Mayo and his Friends.

said, he greatly regretted the contest that had arisen; but it was not a question whether the Government should give way, but the House.

who now represented the Government, appealed to hon. Members to allow Business to proceed. The Vote under discussion was proposed before midnight, and had been resisted for upwards of five hours, because the Secretary for War had omitted to answer a question put by an Irish Member which had reference to a Vote that had already been passed.

said, that Irish questions were treated in a half contemptuous way, and it was only by determined action that the Representatives from Ireland could force upon the House the conviction that Irish questions were entitled to be respectfully considered.

said, the contest was now assuming a very serious character. The supposed slight thrown upon him by the Secretary for War was a very small matter; but the manner in which Irish Members and Irish measures were treated was a very grave matter; and they would continue their opposition as long as the Government liked, in order to enforce the attention of the country. Their opposition was not a prearranged business—he was astonished not to find himself in bed. But he felt as though he could remain until Macaulay's New Zealander took up his station on the broken arches of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's, so strongly was he convinced of the principle he was maintaining.

remonstrated against these continuous Motions, the real object of which was obstruction and nothing else. The hon. Member for Meath had publicly avowed it. At a public meeting in the Strand, in April last, he had said that as he and his Friends could not meet the Government with cold steel, they would do all they could to thwart them in the ways that were open to them. And at a meeting at the Italian Schools in Hatton Garden, on the 17th of June, he had ventured to speak of the Speaker with marked disrespect; for he was reported to have said that the Speaker looked upon Home Rule Members as a trapper did on vermin.

rose, and with great warmth denied that he had ever used such language in reference to the Speaker; and he challenged the hon. Member to produce his authority.The Times of that date having been procured from the Library, the following extract from the report of a speech attributed to Mr. Parnell on the occasion in question was read:—

"If he (Mr. Parnell) were to tell them that the Speaker was a man of great ability, but that he looked upon Home Rule Members much as a trapper would look upon vermin, he should in all probability incur his displeasure and the consequences of that displeasure. If he were to speak of the way in which the English Members generally performed their duties, he might say a great many unpleasant and very true things. If he told them that the English Members neglected their duties to England and especially to Ireland, he might find himself brought before the House of Commons, and if he were to speak fully of the Irish Members he might incur the charge of telling tales out of school. He should, therefore, ask them to excuse him if he did not tell as much of the truth there as he spoke in the House itself."

On the passage referring to the Speaker being read, hon. Members expressed much indignation; and an hon. Member said that language disparaging to the Speaker of that House was a breach of the Privileges of the House, and expressed a hope that the conduct of the hon. Member for Meath would be brought under the notice of the House.

denied that the language he had used supported the charge brought against him—for if hon. Members had but attended to the passage read to them they would have found that his expression was merely hypothetical —"If he were to tell them—" ["Oh, oh!"]

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for War, and now the Home Secretary had left the House, and there was no Minister left to guide or advise them. The Committee of Supply, under such circumstances, was a sham and a pretence.

rose to Order. Was that proper language to apply to a Committee of the Whole House?

said, the hon. Member's language was strong, but not un-Parliamentary.

said, he would withdraw the language, but would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

who was now the sole occupant of the Treasury bench, appeared to think that the Government had persevered long enough, but warned hon. Members that the probable result of the course pursued would be an alteration of the Rules of Debate, and a curtailment of the privileges of Members.

rose to address the Committee, when—