asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will inform the House what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government towards the renewal of diplomatic relations with Mexico?

Sir, communications have recently passed which give hope of an early renewal of diplomatic relations between this country and Mexico, and I hope shortly to be able to make a fuller statement to the House as to their nature.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the issue of general rules for regulating the connection of public servants, both executive and judicial, with Joint Stock Companies and other enterprises, and their receipt of emoluments as directors and managers, has yet been considered; and, if any decision has been arrived at?

The matter to which my hon. Friend's Question refers has not come before me since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer; but now that my attention has been called to it by my hon. Friend's Question I will take care to look into it. It is one, however, which does not concern the Treasury only, but which may, perhaps, require the collective action of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that as the Prime Minister, while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had promised to look into the matter, he would repeat the Question on a future occasion.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, in reply to the deputation which waited upon him on the 26th of April, he is now prepared to state the decision of the Government with reference to the application for a reduction of the rate of interest on loans to Irish Railways?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that although some details have not yet been settled, we have virtually decided to reduce the rate of interest on loans to Irish Railway Companies made by the Irish Board of Works from 5 to 4 per cent as from the 1st of July next. Special arrangements will have to be made with reference to certain cases where payments have fallen into arrear, and these may take some little time to complete. When the whole are completed the Treasury Minute will be laid before Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose to take to put an end to the hostilities now being carried on between Cetewayo and another Chief in Zululand?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to intervene in the quarrel now going on within the borders of Zululand proper any more than they did before the Zulu War.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a Question arising from that answer? Did not Cetewayo undertake, at the instigation of Lord Kimberley, not to make war on the neighbouring Chiefs or people without the previous sanction of Her Majesty's Government, and, in the event of any dispute with any neighbouring Chief, to refer it to the arbitration of Her Majesty's Government? Hoes Her Majesty's Government intend to insist upon the execution of those terms on which he was restored to Zululand, or is the Convention with Cetewayo to be a dead letter, like the Transvaal Convention?

In a matter of such importance and intricacy, I must ask the right hon. Baronet to give Notice of his Question.

I will ask the Question to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of the State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen a statement in the "Echo" newspaper of the 19th instant in reference to a patient named Mr. Jos. Berry, detained in the Kent County Lunatic Asylum; and, whether he will be good enough to make inquiries into the case?

in reply, said, that he had ordered inquiries to be made into the truth of the statements referred to in The Echo to a patient named Mr. Joseph Berry, detained in the Kent County Lunatic Asylum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Lord Chancellor has refused to consider the unanimous recommendation of the Town Council of Portsmouth for the appointment of an ex-mayor, being one of the senior aldermen, to the commission of the peace for the borough; and, whether it is his intention to appoint instead a gentleman not resident in Portsmouth, and who has never taken any part in the general business of the borough?

in reply, said, that he had received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Secretary stating that his Lordship had never refused to consider the recommendations made to him by the Town Council of Portsmouth. On the contrary, he had followed the recommendations of the Town Council, who submitted the names of two of their Aldermen to him. No objection had been raised by them to the intended appointment.

gave Notice that he would repeat the Question, and would also ask whether the gentleman to be appointed had not taken a prominent part in organizing a great Liberal demonstration?

said, he know nothing about the matter; but it appeared, from the postcript of the letter, that the gentleman appointed was a Conservative.

said, he did not know whether the Alderman or the other gentleman had been refused; but he would repeat the Question on Monday.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Government to improve the position of the warrant officers of the Navy in respect of uniform, compensation allowances, pay while serving on board ships in harbour, and Greenwich pensions?

Sir, no final decision has been come to on this subject; but, as I informed the hon. Member in answer to a Question on the 16th of last month, the case is under consideration.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the Electric Light has been used in the South Kensington and Jermyn Street Museums for upwards of two years, without any accident occurring; whether he is aware that a code of regulations has been adopted jointly by the Electric Lighting Companies and the Fire Insurance Offices, and approved of by his Department, whereby the risk of fire is reduced to a minimum, and no extra charge for insurance is made for electrically lighted buildings where these regulations are in force; whether there is absolute danger of fire to the National Gallery, arising from the proximity of the old workhouse in St. Martin's in the Fields, now used by the Admiralty as a receptacle for disused stores; and, whether he is prepared to take measures whereby the National Gallery and the British Museum may be lighted by electricity, and thus be made available for at least three evenings in the week for the improvement and enjoyment of the working classes and others who are prevented by their avocations from visiting our grand national collections during the day?

Sir, I am quite ready to admit all the premises of the hon. Member's Question, except the danger to the National Gallery from the workhouse at its rear, which has no foundation whatever. I still remain of opinion, however, that we have not had sufficient experience of the electric light to justify me in advising the Trustees to use it in the National Gallery, even if they did not entertain other grave objections to opening those Galleries at night.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of men brutally assaulting their wives, when, as at present, the effect of being sent to gaol is frequently more severely felt by the wife and children than by the guilty party, he is prepared to take steps whereby magistrates may be empowered, at their discretion, to inflict the punishment of flogging in lieu of fine or imprisonment, the punishment to be doubled in the case of a second offence?

said, that, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to asked whether, considering that almost all brutal assaults on wives referred to in the Question of the hon. Member were committed by drunken men, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the desirability of providing more adequate punishment for those who supplied them with the drink?

in reply, said, that the question of adding or substituting the punishment of flogging in cases of assaults of this character had been very carefully considered in a Bill proposed by his Predecessor in Office, and the conclusion arrived at by the late Government and the House was that it was not desirable to make any change in the law. He saw no reason for dissenting from that view.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the American Missionaries and the Greek Schools in the principality of Bulgaria have been exposed to any ill-treatment on the part of the Bulgarian authorities; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to prevent such infractions of Treaty stipulations?

I regret to say, Sir, that there have been complaints of conduct on the part of the Bulgarian local authorities in the matter alluded to by my hon. Friend. Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General has, on several occasions, made representations on the subject to the Bulgarian Government, and has called their attention to Article V. of the Treaty of Berlin, which guarantees religious liberty in the Principality. He has also received instructions that whenever specific acts, such as those complained of, come to his knowledge, he should join with the Representatives of the other Treaty Powers in remonstrating. The Secretary of State is in communication with the United States Government on the subject of the closing by the Bulgarian authorities of the American schools.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Healy, M.P., Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Quinn, who are at present confined in Richmond Gaol, have been deprived of the usual privilege of receiving visitors, in consequence of the appearance in the newspapers of the 18th instant of letters from Messrs. Healy and Davitt in reference to the Pope's Circular; and, if it is true, whether the authorities in Ireland will regard it as a punishable offence to question the justice of the Pope's interference in the temporal affairs of that Country?

Sir, the letters of Messrs. Davitt and Healy, which were addressed to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, were submitted on Thursday last by the General Prisons Board to the Government for instructions as to whether they might be sent on. The Government offered no objection to their being sent on, and accordingly they were posted to their destination on the same day. On the following day—Friday—they appeared in the Dublin newspapers, and on Saturday a report was received from the Prisons Board that Messrs. Healy and Davitt had sent copies of these letters for publication before authority for their despatch had been given, and that for this breach of the prison rules the privilege granted to them of seeing visitors had been suspended. Messrs. Davitt and Healy ought not to have sent copies of these letters for publication without permission, and the Prisons Board took the usual course in suspending their privileges for an infraction of the rules; but his Excellency, having regard to the fact that the issue of the letters had been allowed, ordered the suspension of their privileges to be removed. Mr. Quinn was not concerned in the matter at all, although reference is made to him in this Question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any proof that the letters were brought out from the prison by visitors?

There is enough proof to satisfy the Prisons Board.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the state of affairs in Ireland will permit of the release from prison of Mr. Healy, M.P., Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Quinn?

Sir, this is not an ordinary case of remission of sentence, as Messrs. Healy, Davitt, and Quinn can at any moment obtain their release by undertaking to comply with the law. This, however, is not altogether a sufficient answer, because, undoubtedly, on previous occasions the Irish Government has communicated with the judicial authorities which required certain persons to keep the peace, and who, on refusing to be bound over, were committed to prison; and after negotiations with those judicial authorities, the Irish Government had brought the term of imprisonment to a close without the persons in question having consented to give bail. The Lord Lieutenant will, therefore, in this case communicate with the Judges of the Queen's Bench who passed the sentence, with a view of satisfying himself whether any action is desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for War, By whose authority a full Report of the Army Medical Inquiry was sent to the newspapers before that Report had been communicated to the House; and, if sent without authority, if steps have been taken to find out the person who furnished to the papers a copy of the Report? He wished to add the further Question whether the noble Marquess was aware that the Report was not even yet in the hands of Members, although it was published in the newspapers on Saturday last?

Sir, I extremely regret what has occurred in this matter, and I will state to the House exactly what has taken place. For some time past The Times newspaper has devoted considerably more space and attention to the discussion of military matters than any other morning paper has done. Having regard to this circumstance, and also to the fact that from time to time unauthorized and incorrect statements have, somehow or other, got out from the War Office, and considering also that it was desirable that questions of this kind, if discussed elaborately in newspapers, should be discussed in a deliberate and careful manner, and not in a hurried manner, it has been for some time past the practice to allow gentlemen connected with The Times newspaper to have an early proof of the Papers which it is intended to present to Parliament and to publish. I ought to add that the Department, which had, or was supposed to have, with regard to the gentlemen to whom the documents were committed, satisfactory proof of their good faith and discretion as to the manner in which the documents should be used, obtained a distinct understanding from those gentlemen that nothing should be published on the subject until the Papers were in the hands of Members. Acting on that practice, my noble Friend the Earl of Morley, the Chairman of the Committee on the subject, gave to two gentlemen connected with The Times immediately before the Whitsuntide Holidays his own proofs of the Report and of the Evidence taken before the Committee, in the expectation that the Papers themselves would be in the hands of Members by the time Parliament re-assembled, and that they would not be published until they were distributed. My noble Friend was extremely surprised to find that the Report and extracts from the Evidence were published at great length in The Times of Saturday and subsequent days, and he has communicated with the editor of The Times, who has expressed his regret at the premature publication of the articles; but I must say that, looking to the want of care, to say the least of it, that has been exhibited in this case, it appears to me the practice had better be altogether abandoned. No blame whatever rests on any person in the Department. In reply to the additional part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I am sorry to say that I have been informed by the Stationery Department the Evidence is so voluminous that it will not be in the hands of Members until Tuesday next. Under these circumstances, I propose to postpone Vote 4 of the Medical Vote until the House has had time to read and carefully consider the Report. I may also add that on the Army Estimates I will postpone Vote 9, which contains the Vote for the constabulary employed under the Contagious Diseases Acts, because the House will probably like to have the Bill, which is to be introduced on the subject, in their hands before they discuss the Vote which raises the question.

said, he believed that the Prime Minister gave the House an assurance, through the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that no publication should take place until Papers were in the hands of Members; but, not with standing this, they found a full and authentic Report of a Committee that sat at the War Office appearing in the newspapers before it had been distributed to Members.

As this, Sir, is a matter in which I am concerned, I am bound to say that, without at all going into the merits of the matter, the promise to which my hon. Friend refers was a Departmental promise, and had no relation to this particular matter.

asked when the Bill referred to by the noble Marquess would be laid on the Table?

I cannot say, Sir.

said, that, as there was a great deal of dissatisfaction felt throughout the Medical Profession at the very unfair nature of the extracts published, he should to-morrow ask the noble Marquess sundry Questions as to the correctness and accuracy of various statements, and whether they had not been contradicted by other evidence which had been suppressed?

gave Notice that tomorrow he would ask the Secretary of State for War whether the action of the Earl of Morley had not been in consequence of the bad example of the late Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who communicated the Report of the Land Commission to The Times several days in advance?

With reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I may say that one of the reasons why I regret the publication is that the Papers have been published, not only without any authority, but, in my opinion, in a manner altogether calculated to mislead the public.

said, that there was no pledge that such a thing would not occur again. Perhaps the Prime Minister would now give the House some promise which should not be Departmental.

The answer which I gave did not afford ground for a taunt.

said, he did not intend a taunt.

If the hon. Member did not intend a taunt, he has an unfortunate mode of expressing himself, or I have become more obtuse. It was merely that the House might not be misled on matters of fact that I referred to what happened on a former occasion when a promise was given on behalf of the War Department. I am not aware that this objectionable practice prevails in other Departments, but I entirely concur with the noble Marquess in the letter and spirit of his reply.

wished to repeat that he had intended no taunt to the Prime Minister.

asked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, If he would inquire whether the understanding on which early copies of documents were furnished to The Times was an understanding that the review of them should, on the whole, be favourable to the Government of the day? If so, he would ask the noble Lord, with regard to the understanding that the publication of a review in The Times should not precede the distribution of the Papers to Members; whether its object was to conceal from the public the fact that The Times was in possession of those documents some days before they were in the possession of the House? If the Question was not answered now, he would repeat it to-morrow.

As far as I am aware, Sir, the practice arose as stated by me in answer to the Question of the hon, and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). I know no other object intended or thought to be gained by it. As to the question whether the reviews were to be of a favourable character to the Government, any hon. Member could see that if such an object had been sought in the present instance, it certainly had not been attained.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, consequent upon the recent opening of the Poti-Tiflis-Baku Railway, any new arrangement has been made as to Russian Customs Duties upon British cotton manufactures and other goods in transit for Persia and Central Asia?

Sir, according to the last Reports from St. Petersburg, it would appear that there is an intention on the part of the Russian Government—although no Ordinance on the subject has been as yet published—to impose a duty of from 30 to 50 per cent on the import duties now in force in Russia upon merchandize arriving at Batoum or Poti in transit for Persia, that this merchandize should not be allowed to be transported by railway further from Tiflis, and should be deprived of the use of the railway now ready from Tiflis to Baku, being obliged to go by road to the Persian Frontier, and thence to Tabreez. Reports on the subject will be found in Parliamentary Paper No. 15, 1883, Part III., and other Papers will be laid on the Table.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council will enforce (with the least possible delay) the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, and prohibit the importation of live animals into the United Kingdom from countries in which the foot and mouth disease prevails?

Sir, I cannot admit the assumption involved in the Question that the Act of 1878 has not been carried out by the Privy Council. That Act laid down as the general law that all foreign animals were to be slaughtered at the port of landing, subject to a positive direction to the Privy Council to admit freely animals from countries free from disease, and with a power enabling the Privy Council to prohibit importation in exceptional and special cases. The question of the hon. Member is too vague to admit of a definite answer in the affirmative or the negative. I may, however, say that the Privy Council have exercised their prohibitory powers in the case of all countries likely to send us rinderpest, that they have also, from time to time, exercised their discretion in prohibiting animals from specified ports and specified countries in which foot-and-mouth disease has been exceptionally prevalent, and that they will continue to use the discretion vested in them, subject to a deep sense of the responsibility imposed upon them.

subsequently gave Notice, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that on Monday next he would ask whether he would lay on the Table a copy of the case on which a legal opinion was taken in reference to the powers of the Government under the Act to prohibit the importation of cattle from foreign countries where there was reason to believe disease existed, as was lately mentioned by Lord Carlingford?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Mr. Errington has again been the channel of communication between the Foreign Office and the Vatican; and, if so, whether papers on the subject will be printed; and, whether Lord Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope, and if it is intended to remunerate Mr. Errington for his services?

Sir, I stated on March 19, in reply to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) that the British Government never entertained a scheme for establishing a Resident at the Vatican. Mr. Errington has not been the channel of communication between the Foreign Office and the Vatican, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given in this House on the 7th and 10th of February of last year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and on the 14th of the same month by the First Lord of the Treasury. Mr. Errington, having received no appointment, will receive no remuneration. There are no Papers to present to Parliament on this subject. Her Majesty's Government highly appreciate any measures which tend to strengthen the respect for law and order in Ireland; but the document to which my right hon. Friend refers was not issued at the request of Her Majesty's Government, and no congratulations have consequently been sent to Rome with regard to it.

I should like to ask the noble Lord for an elucidation of this point. Mr. Errington went to Rome last year; he carried with him a letter of recommendation from the Foreign Minister; and, in consequence of that letter a Circular was issued to the Irish Bishops. Mr. Errington has since been to Rome. ["Order!"] I am perfectly in Order, Sir. Another Circular has been issued, and I wish to know if the letter of recommendation which Mr. Errington formerly carried has been withdrawn, or is still in operation?

I make no complaint of the Question of my hon. Friend; but I think he will see that it is to a great extent of an argumentative nature and dealing with a delicate matter, and I must ask him to give Notice.

I wish to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury. It is manifest from what has appeared in this House that certain communications have had the authority of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh!" and "Order!"]

The hon. Member is now entering on matters of controversy. He can put any Question he thinks proper arising out of the answer to the last Question.

I humbly apologize, Sir. I thought it necessary to make a statement. I will put the Question in this shape. I wish to know whether Mr. Errington—whoso success I need not refer to—[Cries of "Order !"] I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Mr. Errington has had any authority from any Department of Her Majesty's Government in approaching His Holiness the Pope; and, if so, under what Act of Parliament the Department which has authorized Mr. Errington has acted?

I rather think, Sir, although I will not trust my memory at this distance of time absolutely, that this Question was put and answered last year, and that it was explained last year in one or more of the answers to which my noble Friend has referred, that Lord Granville had written and addressed a letter to Mr. Errington, of which the nature was then distinctly explained. If I am wrong, and the hon. Member does not find that information in former answers, there will be no difficulty in repeating the nature of the letter. There has been no other authority whatever to my knowledge, and I do not think it could have been given without my knowledge.

I will put the Question, in a more regular form, on Monday.

May I ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State, in reference to his answer, whether the letter to which the Prime Minister has just alluded, given by Lord Granville to Mr. Errington, still remains in force, or whether the recommendation contained in it has not expired; and, if it has not expired, whether the recommendation will be contemporaneous with the life of the present Government; and I also wish to ask whether the noble Lord is prepared to state positively that Mr. Errington has not had any part of his expenses paid out of public funds?

If I am right in my impression of that letter, the noble Lord will see that it must undoubtedly remain in force until Mr. Errington ceases to be a Gentleman of honour, intelligence, and good information. The letter simply convoys an assurance of that kind.

Are we to understand from the answers which have just been given that if Mr. Errington represents himself to His Holiness the Pope or the Government of the Church in Rome as in any way authorized by Her Majesty's Government, he is acting under false pretences? Either "Yes" or "No" can be given to that Question.

Can the noble Lord give the House any assurance that no part of Mr. Errington's expenses has been paid out of the public funds?

I think Notice ought to be given of that Question.

The noble Lord, in his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), said that Lord Granville had not written any congratulation to Rome. The Question that the hon. Member for Newcastle asked was whether Lord Granville had written to Mr. Errington a letter congratulating him on his success; and, therefore, I would like the noble Lord to be good enough to answer that Question.

I naturally gave the answer to the Question in the sense in which it was asked.

I think the House is entitled to more definite information on this point. The noble Lord says that Lord Granville has not written to Rome; but the question is whether he has written to Mr. Errington. That is a very simple question, and one to which we ought to have an answer, "Yes" or "No."

I gave a perfectly fair and straightforward answer. [Cries of "No!" anda cry of "Evasion!"] I made no verbal distinctions whatever, and I believe the House is satisfied with the answer. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] If the hon. Member is not satisfied, he is, no doubt, at liberty to ask a further Question on giving Notice.

I ask the Question distinctly; and I have a perfect right to have an answer.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any objection that it should be distinctly known in Rome that any representations made by Mr. Errington have only as much weight as is given by Mr. Errington's position as Member for Longford, and that he is in no sense a Representative of the Government?

Perhaps the hon. Member will be kind enough to put that Question on the Notice Paper. It is also most reasonable that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) should give Notice of his Question.

It is on the Paper already.

We have adopted lately, Sir, in this House a practice which has been convenient, no doubt—namely, instead of reading the Questions out aloud, they are merely referred to by their number; and, therefore, there may be some mistake as to the Question which was really put. The Question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle was put very distinctly in these words—

"Whether Lord Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope?"

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman; but I have said already that I gave my answer in the sense of the words on the Paper. When I said that Lord Granville had not written to Rome, I was answering the Question whether Lord Granville had written to Mr. Errington, who is, I believe, at Rome. I must add I drew no verbal distinction whatever.

In consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I beg to give Notice that I shall again bring this subject forward on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The Question which I put to the noble Lord was clear and distinct—namely, whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington expressly with reference to certain transactions, or has he not? Yes or no?

I should very much regret if, through any want of clearness on my part, any misunderstanding should have arisen in reference to this subject. I have already answered the Question twice. [Cries of "Yes or No?"] When my hon. Friend asks whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope, I distinctly say that Earl Granville has not done so.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the Prime Minister, Whether any instructions were given to Mr. Errington by Earl Granville; and, if so, what the nature of those instructions was?

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington a letter thanking him generally for his success at Rome, without thanking him specially for having procured the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel?

I beg to give Notice that on the same day I shall ask the noble Lord, Whether he has any objection to lay the letter of Earl Granville to Mr. Errington upon the Table of the House?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the fact that, in a recent prosecution against the European proprietor and a Native captain of a Bombay line of coasting steamers for alleged breach of the Passenger Acts, both the European proprietor and the Native captain were sentenced to fines by the magistrate; whether the European proprietor made use of his right of appeal as a European to procure a rehearing of the case in a higher court, with the result that it was decided that no breach of the Passenger Acts had been committed, and that his fine must be remitted; whether the Native captain, because he was not a European, had no right of appeal, and cannot have his fine remitted; and, whether Government intends to maintain the privilege of appeal for some of Her Majesty's subjects, and to refuse it to others, solely on the ground of difference of race?

Sir, since answering the hon. Member's Question on Monday last, I have seen, in The Hindoo Patriot of the 30th of April, a mention of the case referred to; but the facts are so insufficiently stated, that it is not possible to say whether the Native would, or would not, have had the right of appeal.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When it is intended to proceed by writ of "capias" in the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice against John Rafferty of Monaghan, who was charged in February last before the Liverpool Stipendiary with being concerned in smuggling 2,405 pounds of leaf tobacco concealed in fifty casks, entered as containing flax seed, and also with being implicated in three other smuggling transactions of great magnitude, the said John Rafferty having been then discharged by the Stipendiary Magistrate from the custody of the police on the application of the Commissioners of Customs, who intimated their intention to prosecute in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice?

Yes, Sir; proceedings are being taken in Rafferty's case, and it is set down for hearing this term. It is not, however, possible, as yet, to give the exact date of hearing.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will have the Report from Her Majesty's Commissioners on Agriculture re-printed?

in reply, said, that he was now in communication with the Stationery Office on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, after the recent contest for the election of Poor Law Guardians in the neighbourhood of Clough Keenagh, county Longford, twelve electors who voted against the nominees of a resident landlord were refused the right of turbary which they had enjoyed for years; and, whether he will take steps, at future elections, to protect voters from being punished for voting according to their conscientious convictions?

Sir, I have received a telegram from which it appears that the facts are substantially as stated, except that there was no right of turbary in question, but a yearly rental, which the landlord refused to renew. The Government cannot, of course, take any steps to compel a landlord to let a turbary to particular individuals. With regard to future elections, I have, on more than one occasion, already referred to a measure by which the Government hopes to be able to secure protection for voters from interference from any quarter in the exercise of the Poor Law franchise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the Warders of Convict Prisons; and, whether it is intended to make any improvement in the pay and position of those officers?

This Report is, I believe, completed; but I have not yet seen it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, If there is any evidence to show that dynamite has been purchased from dealers in that article for illegal purposes; and, whether the new Orders in Council are unequally applied; if they have led to a large reduction in the consumption of dynamite for legitimate purposes; and if his attention has been called to a trade circular issued by a firm of gunpowder manufacturers showing how the stringent regulations applied to the sale of dynamite do not apply to the sale of other explosives? He also wished to ask the right lion, and learned Gentleman, Whether he intended to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with the general question of the sale of explosives as he had promised to do; and, whether he was aware that in certain mining districts the sale of explosives had decreased by one-half?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience caused to those engaged in mining operations by the late Orders in Council in regard to explosives; also as to the dubiousness of certain words used in the Orders, such as "keeping" and "private use," as applied to miners, storekeepers, agents, instructors, and others respectively; also as to the jurisdiction apparently given under these Orders to the rural police; and, whether he will consider the propriety of some modifications or some explanatory directions to the local authorities?

No doubt, Sir, this is a very important question; and when I brought before the House the Bill relating to explosives I referred to the unsatisfactory state of the law upon the subject. Under the law, as it then stood, any person might have had in his possession 15 lbs. of dynamite; while a person having a registered store or magazine might have a much greater quantity in his possession, and the local authorities had no power to restrict such persons from possessing any quantity of explosives of that character. It was the general opinion of the House, at the time I brought forward the Bill, that such a state of things was not satisfactory. Under the existing law, power has been to impose, by Order in Council, such conditions upon the sale and possession of explosives of a nitro-glyce- rine character as may be thought necessary. The possession of gunpowder is not regulated by Orders in Council, because it is provided for by express Statute. What has been done by recent legislation is this—Persons are not to have in store, or for private use, dynamite, or other nitro-glycerine compounds, without obtaining a certificate from the police or the Justices that they are proper persons to have it. That seems to me to be a very necessary and reasonable condition. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) asks me whether, under the present law, persons have not improperly obtained dynamite. Well, it is just the fault of the present law that we do not know how persons become possessed of that explosive; and that is why we have thought it necessary to obtain, as far as we can, a register of the persons who have it in their possession. There is no difficulty whatever for a decent and respectable person to obtain the necessary certificate, which is granted without any charge being made for it, and which, we hope, will prevent explosives of this character from getting into improper hands. Under the old law, it was possible for 10 persons conspiring together to get into their hands 150 lbs. of dynamite. It is quite true, as has been stated in the Question, that a circular has been issued by the manufacturers, who naturally are not satisfied with any restriction upon their trade, which, however, is a very dangerous one, and which, in the opinion of Parliament, requires regulation. The Inspector of Explosives states that the complaints with regard to the restrictions come almost entirely from the manufacturers, and not from those who use these explosives. As far as I am aware, these restrictions have acted beneficially, and in no case injuriously. The words "private use" are well understood, because they are in the Act of 1875; and as to fuller terms and explanations, the Inspector of Explosives has published a handbook, of which a new edition is in course of publication, which contains all the regulations on the subject.

I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether it will be necessary, under these regulations, for every miner who uses nitro-glycerine compounds in mines to take out a certificate?

I think that it is only right that miners should be required to obtain certificates. What I hope is, that we shall see done universally what is done generally— namely, that dynamite is kept in store by the mine owner, and is served out to the miner for his daily use. It is extremely dangerous for miners to keep dynamite in store in their own houses.

inquired whether there was any authority to make a charge for the certificate?

No, Sir.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is aware that Excise Officers issuing permits for removal of "Duty paid" unblended spirits in cask, frequently omit to enter on the permits the date on which the spirits were bonded, and whether he will arrange to have this information supplied in future; what mode of supervision exists to ensure the delivery of spirits to consignee within the period specified on the permit, and whether such time is in many cases greatly in excess of that required for consignment; whether the Revenue authorities have any objection to order that the date on which spirits are placed in bond be branded on the casks; and, whether, in the case of spirits blended in bond, they will have the casks containing same legibly endorsed with the word "Blended," and so described on the removal permits?

In reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that it is not necessary for the date on which the spirits were bonded to be entered on the permits. In reply to the second Question, the rule is that when the time limited in the permit is exceeded, the spirits are detained until an explanation of the delay is furnished. It is, however, necessary to leave the matter in some cases to the discretion of the local officer, who knows the mode of conveyance intended to be used. I see no reason for adopting the suggestion made in the third Question. The suggestion in the fourth Question is already the rule, so far as the casks are concerned; but there seems no reason to alter the form of the permits, as suggested.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that the Government have bought or rented ground in Belfast to build a new post office; and, whether it is not possible to have sufficient accommodation in the present building; and, if it is not sufficient, if he would explain why the Government does not push forward the new building?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I beg to say that the Government has bought ground in Belfast for the erection of a new Post Office, in consequence of the insufficiency of the present accommodation, and that no time is being lost in making arrangements for its erection.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any communications, in the nature of advice or instructions, has passed between the Lords of the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, as to the future application of that portion of the Vote in Supply for National Education hitherto used in support of model schools, and suggesting less expenditure thereon in future, in order to have funds to carry out certain intended arrangements for separate denominational training of teachers; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of any such communications?

Sir, the hon. Member refers to a Correspondence between the Lords of the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education, which has not, as yet, been officially before the Irish Government. I am not, therefore, at present in a position to express any opinion as to whether it ought to be laid on the Table.

asked the Lord Advocate, If the Crown authorities have yet decided whether they will institute proceedings against any of the office bearers of the Scottish Legal Friendly Society for their dishonest practices, which official reports show to have been resorted to in connection with the management of that Society?

Sir, some time ago a criminal charge of falsehood, fraud, and wilful imposition was preferred against certain of the office-bearers of the Scottish Legal Life Assurance Society in Glasgow. I caused a very careful investigation to be made. It appears that at a general meeting held in June, 1881, the salaries of the Secretary and of the Treasurer were raised from £250 to £500 each, that of the President was raised from £100 to £250, and that of each member of committee from £25 to £125. The charge against the accused office-bearers was that this very large and sudden augmentation of their salaries had been corruptly obtained by means of fictitious votes. Admission to the general meetings is obtained by presentation of the contribution books of the members; and it was alleged, and I believe there is ample evidence to prove, that fabricated contribution books were used for gaining admission by persons who were not members of the Society at all. Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain how many fictitious votes were so admitted, nor how far the resolutions to increase the salaries were carried by their votes. This circumstance, as lawyers know, raises a great difficulty in the way of preferring a relevant criminal charge. In the second place, whatever ground of suspicion there may be, it does not appear, from the evidence at our command, that the fabrication or the use of the fictitious books can be brought home to the office-bearers accused. It is only too apparent that there has been gross and culpable mismanagement in this Society, to the great injury of its members, who belong to the working classes; and I do not hesitate to say that I should be glad if I saw my way to the discovery and punishment of the guilty parties by the Criminal Law. But, after consultation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, I have come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence, at least for the present, to sustain a criminal prosecution.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that, on Friday, the 27th ult. the Catholic men of the Militia under training at Monaghan (being about 100 out of a total of 110) were left without dinner because, as Catholics, they refused to eat meat on a Friday; and, if so, how the matter can be explained?

Sir, of the Militia training at Monaghan, on the 27th of April, 104 out of 156 present were Roman Catholics. The usual meat ration was issued to them, and if they refused to eat it I am afraid it is probable that they went without their dinner. I am informed that, by universal custom among Roman Catholics, soldiers and sailors are dispensed from all obligation to fast or to abstain from flesh meat, and that this applies even in Catholic countries. Therefore, as no soldier need have any scruple on the subject, I see no objection to the issue of meat rations on the occasion referred to. Further, it was brought to notice that some of the sergeants were making a traffic of the meat rations, supplying eggs, &c, to the recruits in exchange. As it appeared that the sergeants were the only gainers by this transaction, the strict rule of each man having his own ration was enforced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when it is intended to introduce the Bill for the improvement of the administration of Scotch Business?

Sir, I am not able at present to answer the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the seal of the Duchy has now been affixed to any document for giving effect to the contemplated sale of the foreshore to the riparian owners; whether, by the exercise of his good offices, he has now succeeded in securing for the town of Southport that part of the foreshore which they consider it is essential to the interest of the town they should possess; whether Lord Belper (a former Chancellor of the Duchy) did not state in his evidence before the Select Committee in "Bertolacci's" case, that by an almost invariable usage, and one which he thought it was very desirable to maintain, it had been customary in all cases of important grants and donations out of the Queen's revenues of the Duchy, or of granting important leases, or of any great question for the improvement of the landed property of the Duchy, for the Chancellor to reserve such questions for a meeting of the Council; to hold such meetings from time to time, and then to bring all those questions before the Council; and that it had also been his custom to be guided by the opinion of the Council; and, whether, inasmuch as the proposed sale embraces over 9,000 acres of land, for a sum of £15,000, to private persons, and thereby excludes the rights of the public, it is not of sufficient importance to induce him to seek the advice of the Council?

Sir, my answer to the first Question is—not yet. My answer to the second Question is also—not yet. But I hope what I am now doing will ultimately lead to an amicable settlement, especially if, as both parties have now accepted my good offices, the matter is allowed to be quietly worked out. With regard to the third Question, the usage referred to still prevails; but this Question does not fall within any of the categories mentioned by Lord Belper, the conclusion of whose statement, as to the entire authority resting with the Chancellor, the hon. and learned Member has not quoted. With regard to the last Question, all that is sold of the foreshore is the Duchy's interest, whatever that may be; and the rights of the public, so far from being excluded by the sale, are increased by it, inasmuch, as, by the transfer from the Crown, they become subject to the compulsory powers given to local authorities by the Public Health Act.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the case of Chaine v. Nelson, decided in the Common Pleas in Dublin on the 17th, as to the date of judicial rents, and whether that decision affects 35,000 tenants; and if, having regard to the fact that these tenants entered the Land Court in October and November 1881, on the assurance of the Chief Commissioners that their rents would accrue from the gale day next after the passing of the Land Act, pursuant to the 60th section, the Government have any remedy to propose?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the recent decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, in the case of Chaine v. Nelson, that the sixtieth section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," does not apply to decisions fixing fair rents, was in direct conflict with the opinion of the Chief Commissioners; whether over 30,000 cases were entered and recorded at the first sitting of the Land Commission, owing to the announcement of the Commissioners that the fair rents, when fixed, would commence on the 1st November 1881; whether, acting on the opinion of the Commissioners, landlords have accepted, and tenants paid, the judicial rents as from the 1st November 1881, in the majority of cases already decided; and, whether, in view of the litigation which the decision of the Court of Common Pleas will cause between landlords and tenants whoso rents have been so paid, the Government will introduce a measure during the present Session to settle the question, or otherwise support in whole or in part a Bill now before the House, and set down for the 6th June, which provides that where an application has been made, or shall be made, to the Court, under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," to fix a fair rent, the judicial rent fixed by the Court shall relate back to, and shall commence to run from, the gale day next after the service of the originating notice to fix a fair rent, this provision to apply to rents fixed either before or after the commencement of the Act?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called, to the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in the case of Chaine v. Nelson, by which the declaration of the Court of the Land Commission, made in November 1881, that, in the case of tenants who filed their applications for the fixing of a judicial rent on the first occasion on which the Court sat, the judicial rout should date from the gale day next succeeding the passing of the Land Law Act, has been annulled; and, whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing a short Amendment Bill to clear up this doubt which has arisen as to the construction of the Act, and to ratify to the forty thousand Irish tenants who filed their applications on the first occasion on which the Court of the Land Commission sat, the undertaking and advantages extended and promised to them by the Court?

said, that, before the right lion. Gentleman answered, he wished to ask him whether any inconvenience which might result would not arise from the unprecedented action of the Land Commissioners in issuing an erroneous interpretation of a portion of the Land Act, before the matter was judicially brought before them?

I think, Sir, it would be irregular on my part to answer the Question which has been put to me by the hon. Member, involving, as it does, a censure upon the Land Commissioners in putting their judicial interpretation upon the Act.

Not judicial.

I will not enter into controversy with so high an authority as the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point; I will assume, even, that I am entirely wrong; but still my answer will remain the same, because, in the present position of the question, it is not for me to give an opinion upon it. And that is really my answer to the three Questions which have been put to me. In the first place, I believe the facts, as set forth in the Questions, are stated with substantial accuracy. In the second place, the importance of the subject is very great indeed, and Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to it, and it will be their duty carefully to watch and consider the proceedings. But the judgment is one that has been delivered by the Court of Common Pleas, and it is possible that it may be made the subject of appeal. That being so, it is quite obvious that it would not only be contrary to general rule, but highly impolitic in the circumstances, for the Government to signify any intention whatever, until the law is finally settled, either by judgment upon appeal, or by its being made known that the present judgment is acquiesced in,

in consequence of the answer just given by the Prime Minister, gave Notice that on Monday lie would, ask, Whether the view taken by the Land Commissioners in this case was not stated in a Circular issued by them to the tenants, not in the exercise of their judicial office, but voluntarily on their part?

I do not think there is the slightest prospect of an appeal in this case. The tenant was utterly unable to enter upon an appeal. [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member is not putting a Question.

I wish to ask, in case the tenant decide not to appeal, whether the Government will be prepared to enter upon the matter, and relieve the tenants from the effect of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I own I have serious doubts as to the expediency of entering, at the present moment, into the consideration of these contingencies; and I do not think the matter can be advanced by further discussion in existing circumstances.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can fix an early day for the Second Beading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, in order that there may be a convenient time between the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill without unnecessarily delaying its progress?

said, he thought the week after next would be a very convenient period for many Members for taking the second reading of this Bill. Monday next was already engaged for the Estimates; and he was not able to say anything about Thursday until he saw that progress would be made in Supply to-night. He referred to the Notice Paper for Tuesday, and, without any disrespect to the subjects which appeared on the Paper, he was inclined to think it very probable that that evening might be practically free; and, if it could be arranged, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would be glad to propose the second reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill on that day.

At the Evening Sitting?

Yes, Sir.

subsequently asked whether the Prime Minister's proposal referred to Tuesday next only, or would apply to all Tuesdays?

said, he was making no declaration one way or the other; he was speaking only in reference to the state of the Notice Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will take into consideration whether the time has not arrived for revising the present system of putting Questions in the House, so as to limit the number of Questions at each sitting; and, whether, with a view to facilitate Public Business at the opening of the House, a new arrangement could be made for answering Questions?

at the same time, asked whether it was the intention of the Government also to consider whether the time had not arrived for revising the present system of giving answers to Questions.

I do not think it would be expedient that I should re-open, at the present moment, this important part of the question of Procedure.

asked, Whether it was still the intention of the Government to proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill?

I am not aware that there over was any doubt as to the intention of the Government to proceed with that Bill.

asked, When the Government intended to proceed with the second reading of the National Debt Bill; and why the Bill had not been delivered to Members?

replied, in terms of his answer just before the Recess, that full Notice would be given before this Bill was proceeded with. He hoped the Bill would be circulated almost immediately.

There is a Question I should be glad to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There is a rumour, which I have heard with regret, to the effect that a port in Madagascar has been bombarded by the French Fleet. I would like to know if the Government have any information about it?

In reply to my right hon. Friend, I cannot do better than read a telegram handed to me a few minutes ago, just as I was leaving the Foreign Office. It is from Colonel Miles, our Agent at Zanzibar, and is as follows: —

"Bombardment of Mayunga took place on the 16th, and lasted six hours; force then landed under cover of guns and took possession. Hovas Suffered great loss; French none. Admiral returned Mayotte, leaving garrison."

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give the House any information in reference to the important telegram which had appeared in The Times and other newspapers concerning the Commercial Treaty with Turkey?

Sir, the statement in The Times to which my hon. Friend refers is practically correct. Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople received, on the 31st of March, an assurance from the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Tariff of 1861 would remain in force till the end of September next, pending further commercial negotiations between this country and Turkey. On the 18th instant, however, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires received a Note from the Porte, stating that it was their intention to levy forthwith an ad valorem duty of 8 per cent on all imports. Her Majesty's Government have since been informed that this duty is now being imposed. Mr. Wyndham has addressed a formal protest to the Porte on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice— Whether the butts at Wormwood Scrubs were to be permanently closed, so as to deprive the Volunteers of their use?

said, the private Notice to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred was given him as he entered the House. He could hardly be expected to know what was going on at Wormwood Scrubs; but he would endeavour to obtain information on the point before the Volunteer Vote came on.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could give the House any information with regard to the reported seizure of the printing presses, the type, and the premises of The Kerry Sentinel, the seizure of the issue that was in course of being printed, the arrest of the printer and manager of the paper, and the occupation of the premises for several days by an armed police force, an occupation which, as regarded a portion of the premises, was, he believed, still in operation, and by which three issues of the newspaper were prevented from being printed?

said, he would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, if he would be prepared to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the article which appeared in The Kerry Sentinel, and which was reported to have formed the basis of the action by the Government?

asked, also, whether any such article as the hon. and gallant Member alluded to had appeared in The Kerry Sentinel; and whether it was in consequence of such an article that the course referred to was taken against the paper?

Sir, the reports which have appeared in the newspapers regarding the seizure of The Kerry Sentinel were obviously so important that I came down to the House provided with extremely full information with regard to the whole affair. Since, however, I came to the House I have received a telegram from Dublin, which, while not asking me to refrain from answering the Question, is of such a nature as to lead me to think that it would be in the interests of public order, and possibly in the interests of private individuals who may have charges brought against them, that I should not answer it, and that I should be wrong to enter into any details on the matter. I regret extremely, however, that I am not able to give the full answer to the Question which I came to the House prepared to give.

wished to say, with reference to the refusal—which, he trusted, was only a temporary one—of the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the Question, that he should put a Question on the Notice Paper for next Monday.

said, he was quite prepared to give full information; but he should not be justified in doing so after receiving the telegram he had alluded to.

said, he was interested in the question; and as it would appear from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that he had some peculiar feelings of delicacy with regard to giving information, he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was perfectly prepared to meet any charge either in that House or out of it.

said, he did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to give any information which he had good reason for withholding; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) had asked a Question which was calculated to excite misapprehension, and to leave his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Harrington) under an unjust stigma. He would, therefore, ask the Chief Secretary, whether he was able to inform the House that the proceedings against The Kerry Sentinel were not based on any article which appeared in that newspaper; and whether the notice which appeared in it addressed to the "Invincibles" was not also published in, and copied from, The Times and other newspapers?

I am sorry to say that I feel bound to confine myself to the answer that I have already given; and in confining myself to that answer I wish it to be understood that it is not intended to imply any charge against any individual whatever, either in the House or out of it. Still, I am quite certain that I ought not to answer this Question without more minute information from Dublin.

said, that upon this question of the Vote for Divine Service, which made provision for Roman Catholic and other chaplains for Her Majesty's Forces, he wished to suggest that not only with advantage, but with justice, there ought to be an addition to the staff of Catholic chaplains, and that they ought to be permanently attached to the Service, so that, in case of necessity, they might follow the regiments abroad. The reason why he offered that suggestion to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) was that, under the present system, when Catholic soldiers were ordered abroad, and especially to India, they found themselves, in a large number of cases, practically deprived of the ministrations of clergymen who were able to converse with them on the most necessary topics in connection with their religion. He believed that the Vote now before the Committee made no provision for Catholic chaplains, in such cases, accompanying Catholic regiments from home for service in India; and he would strongly suggest to Her Majesty's Government—it was not in his power to propose an increase in the Estimate— but he would strongly suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they ought to take some steps to provide Catholic soldiers with adequate divine service, and with proper assistance, in the form of chaplains, for the performance of their religious duties when they left England, as well as when they were at home in England. He was aware that when Catholic soldiers left England and went to such a place as India, they found there, in numerous instances, a species of local chaplain or priest, who was appointed by the local government to sup- ply the religious necessities of the Catholic troops. But he wished to point out to Her Majesty's Government that in 9 cases out of 10 that provision was utterly inadequate, and, in many instances, was merely nominal, for this reason—that owing to the want of Catholic chaplains accompanying the regiments who were able to speak the English language, the soldiers had to put up with the ministrations of Italian, Portuguese, and French priests, who, possessing a very scanty acquaintance with the English language, were unable to hear the confessions of the soldiers, or of their wives and children, and were unable to preach a sermon on Christian duty in intelligible English. On that account the difficulties of the Service were greatly increased among Catholic soldiers serving upon garrison duty in India, yet there was an unusually largo proportion of Catholic soldiers with their wives and children on foreign service. This was exceedingly hard upon the Irish soldiers. As the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would be able to inform himself, it was the practice, in accordance with old traditions, which had not yet been given up in the Army, to enforce an altogether excessive measure of foreign service upon Irish recruits. By the existing system in the Army, Irish recruits were passed in excessive numbers from the home battalions to the battalions ordered for foreign service; and, in that way, in proportion to the whole number of Catholics in the Army, there was always an excessive number of Catholics on service in India and at other foreign stations, the idea being, he supposed, that Irish soldiers would do bettor when they were as far as possible away from Ireland, having in view the state of government which Her Majesty's Advisers maintained, as a rule, in that country. This point must also be taken into consideration—that, even if there was no more than a proper proportion of Irish Catholic soldiers serving abroad, there should still be precautions taken that chaplains able to converse with, and preach to, and hear the confessions of, Catholic soldiers and their wives and families, should be provided in adequate numbers. But when there was a disproportion in the number of Catholic soldiers sent abroad, the grievance was undoubtedly increased, and the injustice dealt out to such Catholic soldiers became much more apparent. He wished to point out to Her Majesty's Government that the difficulty of finding recruits in Ireland and in Irish Catholic centres for the Army was a difficulty that was recognized; because, as the noble Lord who now sat on the Front Opposition Bench, and who was, he believed, one of the Secretaries connected with the Army (Lord Eustace Cecil) under the late Government, had more than once pointed out that there was a distinct difficulty in obtaining recruits for the Army. Could there be a stronger reason, he would ask, why young Irish Catholics, brought up in religious principles, ought to object to enter the Army, than the knowledge that they were generally sent on foreign service in disproportionate numbers; and when they arrived abroad they found, in the vast majority of cases, no priest with whom they could enter into conversation, or from whom they could receive advice with regard to their spiritual condition? Of course, there was provision for the service of Mass; and the service of Mass being in Latin in all parts of the Catholic Church, except in Asia Minor and Poland, Catholic soldiers, accustomed to attend the service of Mass in their own country, could follow that service wherever it was performed. But, outside the service of Mass, there were a largo number of other duties intimately connected with the performance of Catholic worship and the fulfilment of the obligations of the Catholic Church, which required that the priest should be able to converse well with Catholic soldiers. Nothing could be more grotesque than the efforts of these foreign priests; no doubt, most worthy, zealous, and devout French, Italian, and Portuguese priests, appointed to fulfil the duty of Catholic chaplains in India and other places— nothing could be more grotesque than efforts to explain the simplest principles of the Catholic religion to the unfortunate military congregations committed to their charge. Of course, Her Majesty's Government took these chaplains from the ranks of the Roman Catholic missionaries; and, to a large extent, the Roman Catholic missionaries in these parts were supplied from the Propagandist Mission in Rome and elsewhere; and, from that reason, they could not rely upon the persons so selected and so appointed conveying that which was necessary to be conveyed to Irish Catholic soldiers, and it was absolutely necessary to provide the means of furnishing Roman Catholic soldiers with priests who were able to preach to them, and to speak to them in their own tongue. He could assure Her Majesty's Government that complaints upon this head were being made privately everywhere throughout Ireland by Irish Catholic soldiers who had returned from India; and unless something was done to remove the grievance these complaints would take a, public form. No attention had hitherto been paid to the complaints of the men; and it was only natural that if this inattention was continued their grievances would become public eventually. There were many reasons why Her Majesty's Government, if they were desirous of bringing Irish recruits into the British Army, should exercise some care in regard to this point. He did not wish to do more now than to refer to the unfair portion of service abroad imposed upon the Irish recruits, apparently, simply because they were Irish; and, in the present case, he only referred to the matter in order to show the necessity of supplying Catholic soldiers ordered for foreign service with English chaplains. He did not intend to propose any reduction of the Vote, because his suggestion would really involve, if adopted, an increase; but he had raised the question upon this Vote, because, unless he did so, he did not well see how he could bring under the notice of the Government the absolute necessity of dealing with an actual and growing evil.

said, that he had served for some years in India, and he had visited almost every garrison and every station; but he had certainly found no difficulty in obtaining the services of a Roman Catholic chaplain who could speak English. There were only two occasions which he recollected in which there was any difficulty; and in one of those two instances the priest was an Italian. He thought the real grievance the Roman Catholic chaplains were under was, that they were not placed upon a footing of equality with the Protestant chaplains with regard to pensions and furlough. They received no pension whatever; and they were treated very unjustly in the matter of furlough, being allowed no leave of absence. He certainly saw no reason why they should not be placed upon perfect equality with the Protestant chaplains, both as regarded pension and furlough; but he did not think there was very much force in the grievance suggested by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that they could not speak the English language. His own impression was that that was an entire misapprehension; but if it was really a fact, there could be no doubt that it was a very improper arrangement.

said, he was personally able to corroborate fully the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) as to the hardships which English-speaking soldiers in India suffered in consequence of the inadequacy of the supply of English-speaking chaplains. The hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Colonel O'Beirne) stated that, according to his experience, all the Catholic chaplains in India spoke English. Now, he (Mr. Blake) ventured to think that his own experience of India was even more extensive than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He had visited almost every cantonment from Lahore to Mysore; he had been in 25 or 30 cantonments at least; and he had taken great interest in the Roman Catholic soldiers, and in the manner in which provision was made for the performance of their religious duties. He had heard some of the sermons preached by the Roman Catholic chaplains; and he ventured to say that at least six out of seven of them were utterly unintelligible. They were preached by Italians, Frenchmen, Poles, and priests of other nationalities; and, although they were undoubtedly delivered in what was called English, if the chaplains had spoken in their own language, there would have been a far better chance of understanding them than there was from the attempt to speak in English. The soldiers complained very much of the great deprivation they were subjected to in not being supplied with priests whose ministrations they could understand; and the soldiers' wives complained of the same thing, and especially of the absence of religious instruction for their children by the chaplains, such instruction as was given being absolutely useless. It was also a matter of complaint that when the services of the priest was required at the last moment by an English-speaking soldier, the comfort which he would have received from a chaplain who was able to speak his own language was altogether denied him. The Catholic Metropolitan in India was a Swiss, and all the Bishops were foreigners. He believed that, throughout the whole of India, there was not a single English or Irish Bishop; and the foreign Bishops naturally brought their own countrymen over. He entertained no doubt that, from what he had heard, there was a real and substantial grievance in not having English-speaking chaplains sent out with; the Catholic soldiers serving abroad; and he trusted that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would consider the grievance, and listen to the representations which were made to him. If English-speaking chaplains were supplied, he believed it would afford great comfort to these men, and their wives and children, and that it would tend to increase the morality of the Army, and produce other good results.

said, the immediate question they had before them was the provision to be made for the administration of Divine Service to the troops on the Establishment of the Army. The respective proportions of members of the English Church and of Roman Catholics in the Army were 62 chaplains in the English Church, 17 Roman Catholics, and 7 Presbyterians. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had raised the question of the provision made for Roman Catholic chaplains in India. As the Committee were aware, they had nothing to do in those Estimates with any of the Indian military establishments. All the provisions of every kind for the Army in India were made and paid for by the Indian Treasury; and he almost doubted whether they were in Order, on that occasion, in discussing the question of the ministrations of Roman Catholic chaplains in India. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and other hon. Members from Ireland, would recollect that when he (the Marquess of Hartington) was Secretary of State for India, he had, in answer to a Question, entered fully into the provision made for Roman Catholic chaplains; and he thought he was able to show that their condition had been considerably improved within recent years, and that the authorities there were not indisposed to make a further improvement, if it were called for. The hon. Member had referred to the condition of Roman Catholic chaplains on board ship on the passage from this country to India. A correspondence had taken place between the India Office, the War Office, and the Admiralty upon this subject; and he found that the provision of Roman Catholic chaplains on board ship devolved upon the Admiralty; and he was not in a position to say whether it was done or not, or what was done. But when he was previously in Office it was certainly his own view that provision should be made. The hon. Gentleman also complained that there was a system also prevailing in the Army of imposing an undue proportion of foreign service upon Roman Catholic soldiers. That was the first time he (the Marquess of Hartington) had heard that allegation made; and he had no reason whatever to suppose that any disproportion whatever took place. He thought that if the hon. Member would look at The Army List he would see that it was not so. He quite agreed that, wherever it was practicable, the arrangements in connection with religious ministrations should be so made that the clergymen appointed would be able to converse with the soldiers in a language they could understand; and if the hon. Member would refer to the answer he had given upon that subject when he was at the India Office he would find that the matter had not been neglected.

said, he would like to say a word upon the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in reference to the present position of the matter. He recognized the disposition of the noble Marquess to deal with the question in the fairest possible way; but he wished to point out that, although the position of the Roman Catholic chaplains might be better now in India than it was some years ago, yet that, nevertheless, it was very inferior to that of the Protestant chaplains. In the case of the Protestant chaplains, provision was made for granting a furlough of two months. Now, a furlough of some kind was absolutely necessary; and although for two months the Protestant chaplain could go on furlough, and the Department paid for his substitute, there was no such provision made in the case of the Roman Catholic chaplain. He thought the question of furlough ought to be looked into again by the Indian Government, with the view of placing the Roman Catholic chaplain upon nearly, if not entirely, a footing of equality with his Protestant brethren. He was sorry to hear the depreciation of the Roman Catholic chaplains serving in India which had been indulged in by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) from the Irish Benches. He believed that nothing of the kind was felt by the soldiers, who had benefited by the ministrations of these reverend gentlemen, nor was it the feeling of the authorities in India. There might be instances in which Italian, French, or Polish priests were unable to speak the English language well; but, as a rule, he believed the services of the Roman Catholic chaplains had been very valuable, and were fully appreciated by the soldiers. As far as he could learn, the chief matters of complaint were that the Roman Catholic chaplains were not sufficiently paid, and that they were not allowed a substitute when proceeding on furlough.

said, he had never known a single military station in India where the services of Roman Catholic chaplains had not been available for the European troops there located. A more devoted set of men than these priests, he was bound to state, he had never known; and as regarded the implied assertion that the priests were on the same footing as chaplains of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, he was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who was generally so well informed upon Indian subjects, was not better informed upon this matter when he put forward such an idea. If there were any difficulties in India, they arose, he was afraid, out of difference of opinion in the Roman Catholic Church itself. The priests were still declared to be wholly subject to the orders of the Bishop, and not disposable at the orders of the Government. They were not, then, servants of the State, being removed and posted at the will of the Bishop. That was a source of more trouble and discontent than the difficulty of understanding or appreciating the services rendered by the Roman Catholic chaplains. Then, also, there were the rival pretensions of the French and Portuguese Sees in India, in opposition to the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops. The latter were supposed to be viewed with far less favour by the Pope than the other Sees were.

inquired whether any appointments of Roman Catholic chaplains were made after consultation with the Irish Bishops?

said, he had raised the question for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to a very important subject; and it was a question upon which he certainly expected to have obtained some amount of sympathy from so good a Catholic as the hon. and gallant Member who represented the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst). He had brought forward the question for the sole purpose of securing that the Catholic soldiers in India should be provided with chaplains who would fully attend to their religious duties; and he had not said a single word against the worthy and admirable Catholic priests who at present performed these functions in India, except that, in many cases, they were Italians and Portuguese, and were imperfectly acquainted with the English language. He therefore failed to see the applicability of the words the hon. and gallant Member had, no doubt, in advertently used, when he spoke of him (Mr. O'Donnell), and of the denunciation of the priests coming from the Irish Benches. Perhaps, however, the hon. and gallant Member had made that speech in order that his words might be reported by the faithful Errington, as part of the ambassadorial mission confided to that hon. Member by Her Majesty's Government. It would, at least, be equally trustworthy with many other things the faithful Errington had been instructed to pour into the ears of the Roman Propaganda. He admitted the readiness which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had displayed in dealing with some of the grievances of the Catholic chaplains in India; but that was not the question he had brought forward that night. He was glad to hear an admission from the other side of the House that there was still much in the condition of the Catholic, chaplains in India that required improvement. The question he had raised related solely to the inadequate number of Roman Catholic chaplains supplied in India who could speak the English language fluently and distinctly, and in a manner suited to the understanding of their Roman Catholic congregations. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War pointed out that the present system of supplying Roman Catholic chaplains was entirely a matter for the Government of India and the Catholic Church in India; but that was one of the strongest arguments that could be brought forward in support of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) contention. He had suggested that, under the existing system, there was much that was capable of improvement; and, in those respects, he had suggested an improvement. Insomuch as they had no means of dealing with the Government of India, he proposed that a permanent staff of Catholic chaplains should be sent out, and also that there should be a sufficient increase to allow of additional chaplains being kept to minister to the wants of Catholic soldiers in those cases—unfortunately too numerous—in which English-speaking chaplains were not at the disposal of the Government of India, or the ecclesiastical authorities in India. Unquestionably, unless they could increase the strength of the Government chaplains from this end, there was very little chance of increasing the number at the other end; and that was why he had brought forward the question on the present Vote, which dealt with the provision for Divine Service. If there was an increase in the number of Catholic chaplains sent out to India, they would be available wherever they were wanted; and he believed that there would not be any hesitation on the part of most worthy men in Ireland and in this country to go out to India, in case of necessity, for that purpose. In regard to the differences between different sections of the Catholic Church, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) referred, he believed they were much less important than the hon. and gallant Member appeared to think; and if any differences of that kind required to be smoothed over, why not transport the faithful Errington to India? This was a very important question; and although it was in the power of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to say that, strictly speaking, they could not go into details upon the matter on the present Vote, still the fact was widely known to hon. Members representing Ireland that the difficulty in providing Catholic chaplains to minister to the spiritual wants of Catholic soldiers serv- ing abroad greatly increased the difficulty of recruiting the Army in Ireland. In the case of the Protestant chaplains, the Government was able to find English-speaking clergymen in abundance; and there could be no difficulty as to their power of speaking to Protestant soldiers in a language that was intelligible to them. If the Government found any difficulty in providing English-speaking chaplains from England, he could assure them they would get plenty of volunteers from the ranks of the Irish Catholic priesthood. He trusted, therefore, that more attention would be paid to the matter than appeared to have been done hitherto, if he might judge from the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. He had been glad to hear the noble Marquess express indignation at the idea of sending out an undue proportion of Irish Catholic soldiers abroad; but, although the noble Marquess doubted the fact, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was satisfied that it was correct. That, however, was not the time to enter into details; but he would be prepared to give details, either privately to the noble Marquess, or in any debate which might be raised in the House. The evil had been growing for some time, and attention required to be paid to it. Although there could be no doubt of the admiration felt for the fighting qualities of Irish soldiers, he, for one, thought that a fair chance ought to be given to their valorous fellow-citizens from England and Scotland for doing their duty also.

said, he wished to state, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), that the Roman Catholic chaplains were named by the Roman Catholic Bishops, and not by the Government. He was afraid that in discussing the Vote the Committee had rather strayed away from the subject before them, because the question of chaplains in India formed no part of it. He might observe, however, that there was no foundation in fact for the statement that there was any disproportion between the number of Roman Catholic chaplains, in comparison with the number of Roman Catholic soldiers, and those of other religious denominations. The total number of Protestant soldiers, according to the last annual Return, was 60,000, and the number of chaplains was 62; the number of Catholic soldiers was 18,000, and the number of Roman Catholic chaplains 17; the number of Presbyterian soldiers was 7,500, and the number of Presbyterian chaplains 7. One-fifth of the soldiers were Roman Catholic, and one-fifth of the entire number of chaplains were also Roman Catholics. As a matter of fact, the proportion was about one chaplain to every 1,000 soldiers in each case. He might add that an additional Roman Catholic chaplain had recently been appointed at Gibraltar. He could assure the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that the matter should be further looked into by the War Office and the Secretary of State for India; and if there was anything to complain of a remedy should be found. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that assurance, and would now allow the Vote to be taken.

said, he wished to say a word in regard to the observations which the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had addressed against himself (Mr. Blake) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The hon. and gallant Member spoke of their denunciation of the Catholic priests in India. That observation was most unwarrantable and unjust. There had been no denunciation of any kind. His hon. Friend and himself had spoken in becoming terms of these excellent, zealous, and holy men; and the only thing they had said in relation to them, as a matter of objection, was that they were indifferent English scholars. He believed it was a fact that a considerable number of the chaplains who attended to the religious wants of the troops spoke indifferent English, and some of them hardly any English at all. He remembered, on one occasion, being in company with a Polish priest on the Indus, who was fulfilling the duties of chaplain to the Roman Catholic soldiers, though he did not speak a word of English. He was, nevertheless, a most excellent man; and he (Mr. Blake) only instanced the case as an illustration of a good many ones of a similar character. A great number of Poles and Frenchmen had gone out to India from the most laudable motives, in consequence of the persecution against the Roman Catholic priesthood in Poland and Franco. That persecution had been the cause of a very large number of foreign priests going out to India; and many of them, to his own knowledge, hardly spoke one word of English. Their sermons, owing to this cause—although he had no wish to speak of them with the slightest disrespect—were sometimes positively ridiculous. The soldiers and their wives frequently complained to him that some of the chaplains could not give consolation to the dying, or instruction to the children, in consequence of not knowing their language sufficiently. The only question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had reference to the inadequacy of the number of English-speaking chaplains. There was, however, another question which had also been raised, which ought to receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and that was the insufficiency of the pay received by the Roman Catholic chaplains.

pointed out that the present Vote had no reference to that question.

thought that this was a question which would be much more properly discussed upon the Indian Estimates; and he trusted that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would bring it up when those Estimates were before the House. The hon. Baronet (Sir Arthur Hayter) had stated that there was this year an addition to the list of Roman Catholic chaplains, and that a new chaplain had been appointed at Gibraltar. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the desirability and propriety of also establishing an English-speaking Catholic chaplain at Aden. He had more than once heard from officers coming back from India and China with sick Catholic soldiers—either going down the Red Sea to Aden, or coming from the Persian Gulf—who could obtain no religious consolation, because there was no English-speaking priest at that station. On many occasions officers had clubbed together, and, at their own expense, sent out mules and donkey boys in search of a priest who lived in the country some miles from Aden, in order to bring him to minister to the spiritual wants of some dying English or Irish soldier. The Portuguese chaplain was not sufficiently conversant with the English language, and, therefore, the services of a Roman Catholic chaplain were practically nil. He believed he had brought this matter before the Government on previous occasions; but he had not heard that anything had been done in regard to it, and it was, unquestionably, a very great hardship. The men were expected to; fight like heroes in maintaining our Empire in India; and in return they were allowed to die like dogs, without the religious ministrations which were allowed to their Protestant countrymen.

said, he, wished to say a word in reply to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake). He was sorry if he had wounded the hon. Gentleman's susceptibilities; and he would substitute the word "depreciation" for "denunciation." His hon. Friend said that he (Colonel Colthurst) knew nothing of the subject; but he had been many years in the Army, and had spoken a great deal upon this matter to officers and men who had been in India, and who knew quite as much about the matter as the hon. Member did. He had found very few complaints of want of knowledge of the English language on the part of the Roman Catholic chaplains; and the best remedy for that would be to make more liberal arrangements. As regarded the question of chaplains on board the troop ships, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said it was a matter for the Admiralty. It had been brought under the notice of the Admiralty; and it had been passed on from the Admiralty to the War Office, from the War Office to the India Office, I then from the India Office to the Admiralty back again, and so on, back-wards and forwards. He thought there would be no real difficulty if these Departments would lay their heads together, and come to a conclusion as to the provision that was necessary. Ships were constantly coming home with invalids, and they ought to be accompanied by a Roman Catholic priest speaking the English language. He hoped his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for War would give an assurance that this important subject would be taken into consideration, and brought under the notice of the Secretaries of State for the different Departments.

said, that, although the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had made an explanation of his previous remark, he was a little unfortunate in the word he had substituted for "denunciation." He had used the word "depreciation," which was quite as little called for. There had been no attempt whatever, on the part of his hon. Friends on those Benches, to depreciate the character of the Roman Catholic priesthood who ministered to the wants of Roman Catholic soldiers in India. There could be no depreciation in saying that a man who was not born in England, and had had no opportunity of learning the English language, did not speak that language thoroughly. The hon. and gallant Member had had no personal experience of his own; but, nevertheless, he gave his opinion in opposition to the experience gathered by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) on the spot, which was, that the want of English-speaking Catholic chaplains was largely complained of by the Roman Catholic soldiers as a very great grievance. As to the differences of opinion among the Roman Catholic Bishops in India which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir George Balfour) had hinted at, he could assure him that he had mistaken for jealousy and difference of opinion that which was a principle of discipline in the Catholic Church. There was no doubt the subject was somewhat involved, and that difficulties laid in the way of a satisfactory arrangement; but these were matters which might easily be taken in hand and got over. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) was, that the only way to meet the difficulty was to send out to India chaplains from this country; but the question was one of Church discipline, and the Bishops were very jealous of their rights, and he doubted whether they would feel disposed, to give facilities to chaplains who were sent out, not by the Ecclesiastical Body, but by Her Majesty's Government. It would be better, he thought, to communicate with the Bishops in India, and see whether they would not find it worth their while to keep, at the principal stations where soldiers were placed, a certain number of English-speaking chaplains. He had no doubt that the Bishops would be glad to co-operate with the Indian Government, and would gladly bring English-speaking chaplains, when the necessity arose, into communication with English-speaking soldiers serving in any part of their Bishoprics.

said, the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had raised a question as to the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain at Aden, so that soldiers coming home from India should have the ministrations of a Roman Catholic chaplain at that place, if it were found necessary. The appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain would rest with the Indian Government, and he would take care that the attention of the Secretary of State for India was drawn to the statement which had been made. There was one point in the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) which he ought to refer to. The hon. Member contended that a distinction was drawn between English and Irish soldiers with regard to service abroad. Now, it was quite impossible that such a distinction could be drawn in selecting soldiers for foreign service, because they were sent by roster, and it was quite a chance whether they were English, Irish or Scotch. He could assure the hon. Member that if any case of the kind could be pointed out to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, it would be visited with the most severe censure. He trusted that, after this explanation, the House would be allowed to proceed with the Vote.

said, he believed it to be a fact that the number of Irish Catholic soldiers in the Army sent out for service abroad was much larger, in proportion to their total number, than either English or Scotch soldiers. If chaplains were attached to a particular regiment, then they would go from place to place with the regiment. That would be a great advantage, because the chaplain would become acquainted with the different members of the regiment to which he was attached, and the result would be that he would have complete control over the men, and a knowledge of their different peculiarities of character. It appeared to him that the present system was so arranged as to provide the Army with chaplains in the worst manner that could be fixed upon. The Government sent out troops to India without chaplains at all, and then they provided no proper remuneration for the services of the clergymen they employed in India. If the English or Irish Bishops were asked to recommend chaplains, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the services of English-speaking chaplains, notwithstanding that the persons sent out would necessarily be deprived of preferment, and of all chance of becoming public men. It certainly seemed to him that the present system of supplying chaplains who could not speak a word of English to English-speaking soldiers was most absurd. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) as to the importance of giving instruction to the children of soldiers in the Army; but it was perfectly impossible that the children could receive any instruction from chaplains who could not speak a word of English. It was very well known that the men who enlisted in the Army were, as a rule, men possessed of a small amount of education, and especially of a small amount of religious education. It was, therefore, most desirable that the influence which proper chaplains could exercise over such men should be brought to bear, so that the men themselves might be benefited in their moral life. Even from a selfish point of view, that was a most desirable object for the Government to attain, seeing that it would make the men less likely to get into difficulties and misconduct themselves. The more highly trained a man's moral and religious principles were, the less probable it was that he would be led away by bad companions, and be guilty of breaches of discipline and other misconduct. This was not the first time the question had been raised, both in regard to the Army and the Navy, and, on the last occasion, many promises had been made by the Government of future improvement. Those promises, nevertheless, had been constantly broken, and no substantial improvement had taken place. He thought the best course would be for his hon. Friend to move the rejection of the whole of the Vote, in order to see if the Government were not able to make some substantial bonâ fide promise, of which some account might be taken. Until that was done, he entertained no sanguine anticipation of being able to see any real reform effected, and no satisfactory settlement could be arrived at until a substantial promise could be extorted from the Government.

said, that in regard to the establishment of a sufficient number of chaplains, he would remind the Government that by the scheme now in force in the Army there was an opportunity of entirely recasting the method of appointing chaplains, because, under the scheme for the localization of the Army into practically three Armies, an English, a Scotch, and an Irish Army, the Irish Army would be almost entirely composed of Catholics, and it would be only natural for the Irish regiments to take Catholic chaplains with them whenever they were ordered for service abroad. He thought it would not be very difficult to come to a permanent arrangement with the Catholic ecclesiastical authorities, by means of which special faculties would be granted to the Roman Catholic chaplains appointed to the Irish Catholic regiments. He did not know whether the formation of the Army into three Divisions was actually contemplated under the original scheme—"Childers' scheme," as it was called—but, if so, they would soon have a substantial Irish Army, and it would then be economical, as well as expedient, to supply the Army directly with chaplains. It might be a little too soon to carry out a scheme of that kind in the present year; but, in the course of a very few years, the progress of localization would make it incumbent upon the Government to consider the existence of a separate and distinct Irish Army, and to legislate for it.

said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee and of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to the very large number of sentences by general courts martial of penal servitude which had been carried out last year in the Army stationed in the United Kingdom, no trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give some explanation of the cause of this increase of the number of sentences of penal servitude inflicted last year over the year 1881. Whereas, in the year 1881, only 11 sentences of penal servitude were carried out in the Army at homo, in the year 1882, no fewer than 86 sentences of penal servitude were inflicted, or eight times as many as in 1881. In point of fact, nearly as many sentences were carried out in the Army at home as were carried out both in the Army at home and abroad together in the year 1881. He must remind the Committee that at home only one description of court martial—namely, a general court martial—could pass a sentence of penal servitude, and, in former times, it was seldom ever necessary to have recourse to so high a Court. He, therefore, thought it did not speak much for the conduct of the Army at home last year, that it had been found necessary so frequently to hold a general court martial with a view of obtaining sentences of penal servitude. They had heard a great deal lately about the better class of recruits they were now obtaining in the Army. The fact he had just mentioned seemed rather to belie that statement. He did not speak of minor courts martial, such as district and regimental courts martial, of which there were a considerable number, seeing that the test of the discipline of a regiment was not exactly the number of courts martial in the Court Martial Returns, because he knew that very many commanding officers abstained from trying a man when they ought try him by court martial, merely in order that he might be able to point to a clean court martial sheet; but a general court martial was quite another thing. When sentences of penal servitude were passed, and carried out, the soldier in fact became lost to the Army, and was virtually expelled from Her Majesty's Service. He, therefore, hoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General would be able to give some explanation of the very large number of 86 sentences of penal servitude which had been carried out in the Army stationed in the United Kingdom.

said, he was glad that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) had asked the question, because it gave him an opportunity of contradicting a statement which had been made in the public papers in regard to the Return to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred. It was quite true that the number of sentences of penal servitude had been very much increased during the last year, but that was because penal servitude had this year been awarded for offences for which only imprisonment was awarded formerly—namely, offences under the 32nd section of the Army Regulation Act with reference to enlistment in the Force after having been discharged with disgrace. Formerly, that offence was punished by imprisonment only, and the offenders were tried by district court martial; but, in consequence of the frequency of the offence, it had been thought proper—he said nothing as to the justice or policy of the change—to try the men by general court martial, for the purpose of giving them penal servitude. The offence itself had decreased, but the severity of the punishment had increased. With one single exception, the Return, so far from showing an increase of crime, showed a remarkable decrease of crime. He had taken some pains to get the figures accurately, and he had compared them with those of previous years. The figures were these. Number of courts martial at home of all kinds in 1881, 9,451; in 1882, 8,319; number of offences for which men were tried at home in 1881, 13,324; in 1882, 11,927; showing a reduction of about 11 per cent. But that did not represent the whole of the decrease during that time, because the total average strength of the Army at home was larger than it was in the previous year. The total average strength of the Army at home, in the year 1881, was only 87,982; whereas in 1882, it was 90,075, showing a 2 per cent increase in the number of men in the Army, which must be added to the percentage of decrease in the number of punishments, thus showing a reduction of rather more than 13 per cent. What was even more satisfactory was, that there had been a reduction almost everywhere, with only a single exception, in every kind of crime. For instance, the number of desertions had fallen from 1,393 in 1881 to 1,383 in 1882. That was not a very large reduction, but still it was a reduction. The offences against enlistment regulations were in 1881, 1,133; in 1882, 854, showing a largo diminution of cases of drunkenness on duty; there were in 1881, 1,004; and in 1882, 969; of simple cases of drunkenness, in 1881, 932; in 1882, 800; of cases of making away with necessaries, which was a very common offence, there were, in 1881, 2,212; in 1882, 1,873; of cases of absence without leave, in 1881, 1,871; and in 1882, 1,634. He gave these figures, because he thought they were important, as showing that there had been a substantial decrease in almost every kind of crime in the Army. He was very glad to have had an opportunity of giving this explanation, because a certain class of writers had attempted to make out that the conduct of the Army was going from bad to worse, and he thought the figures he had given afforded a strong proof that the charge was not only unpatriotic but untrue.

said, he had fully intended to reserve the remarks he was about to make until a subsequent Vote was reached; but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had gone very closely into the question of punishments, he was bound to take the present opportunity of saying that as he could not agree with the figures the right hon. and learned Gentleman had put forward, he must, therefore, demur to the statement he had just made. With the permission of the Committee, he would give the numbers of courts martial, and the various punishments inflicted in the Army, taken from the annual Returns, the only source of information on the subject. He had taken great trouble to compare accurately the Returns of 1872, and those of 1877, the medium year, with the Returns for the year 1881, and with the Return in respect of the Army at home for 1882. They had not received any Return from abroad for the year 1882, and why that Return had not been produced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knew all that was taking place with regard to this matter, he was quite unable to conceive. He was certainly of opinion that the Return in question should have been laid upon the Table of the House, because upon the thorough understanding of this subject depended the efficiency and well-being of the British Army. It was professed that we had a better class of men, that crime had diminished, in short, that in our Army we had everything that could be required. He had no wish to depreciate anything that had been done. This was no Party question, and whatever he might have to say upon it now, and in the future, would be in the interest of the Service and the country alone. The result of his comparison was very different from that arrived at by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, for what did he find? In 1872, the number of courts martial at home was 9,408; in 1877, 11,145; increase 18 per cent; in 1881, 10,706, increase 14 per cent; in 1882, 9,243, decrease 2 per cent over the number in 1872. In 1872, the number of courts martial abroad was 5,924; in 1877, 5,792; in 1881, 7,621. He was bound to admit that, under this head—court martials at home— there had been a decrease last year; but it was a very small one indeed. In 1872, the number of desertions and offences relating to enlistment at home was 2,271; in 1877, 3,211, increase 41 per cent; in 1881, 2,871, increase 26 per cent; in 1882, 2,402, increase 6 per cent over 1872. In 1872, the number of desertions and offences relating to enlistment abroad was 206; in 1877, 285, increase 38 per cent; in 1881, 280, increase 36 per cent over 1872. The number of cases of violence to superiors, insubordination, and neglect of orders at home in the year 1872 was 1,153; in 1877, 3,777; in 1881, 1,862, increase 61 per cent; in 1882, 1810, increase 57 per cent over 1872. The number of cases under this head abroad was for 1872, 898; 1877, 900; and in 1881, 1,502, or an increase of 67 per cent over 1872. The number of offences under the head of quitting or sleeping on post at home for the year 1872 was 202; for 1877, 255, increase 26 per cent; 1881, 380, increase 88 percent; in 1882, 322, increase 59 per cent over 1872. Oases of drunkenness on duty at home were 470 in 1872; 747 in 1877, increase 59 per cent; 1,232 in 1881, increase 162 percent, and 1,077 in 1882, or an increase of 129 per cent over the number in 1872. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to signify some doubt as to the accuracy of these Returns; but if they were inaccurate, he would ask what was the use of publishing these delusive volumes every year. He came now to cases of ordinary drunkenness at home, of which there were 1,000 in 1872; 1,419 in 1877, increase 42 per cent; 1,059 in 1881, increase 6 per cent; 889 in 1882, decrease 11 per cent as compared with 1872. He was very glad to have reached a point at which he could corroborate the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The number of cases of disgraceful conduct at home in 1872 was 403; 659 in 1877, increase 65 per cent; 33 J in 1881, decrease 16 per cent; and 324 in 1882, or a decrease from the number in 1872 of 36 per cent. In the case of the offence of absence without leave, the result was very much the same, there having been a decrease of 33 per cent for the year 1882 as compared with 1872. Under the head of making away with necessaries there were at home 2,038 offences in 1872; 4,255 in 1877, increase 109 per cent; 2,627 in 1881; and 2,081 in 1882, increase of 2 per cent. The Committee should understand that he had made these calculations upon an average of 100,000 not upon the exact number of men in the Army, so as to avoid unnecessary difficulty, as the Army in 1872 was 99,306. He now came to the punishments inflicted of penal servitude. There were at home in 1872 12 cases; 16 in 1877; 12 in 1881, and 86 in 1882. Of penal servitude inflicted abroad there were 59 cases in 1872; 35 in 1877; in 1881, no fewer than 87, or an increase over the number in 1872 of 47 per cent. In 1872, the number of cases of reduction to the ranks was at home 1,001; 1,171 in 1877; 1,830 in 1881, increase 83 percent; and in 1882, there were 1,337 cases; or an increase of 34 per cent over the number in 1872. The number of cases of this kind abroad were 1,131 in 1872; 915 in 1877; and 1,582 in 1881, or an increase of 40 per cent as compared with the number in 1872. In 1872, the number of cases of reduction to the ranks with imprisonment was 81; 169 in 1877, increase 102 per cent; 293 in 1881, increase 260 per cent; and in 1882, there were 219 cases, or an increase of 170 per cent as compared with the number in 1872. It might be said that corporal punishment had nothing to do with the matter. But it was in force in 1872, and certainly existed abroad in 1877, although the Returns for those years were absolutely nil. In 1872, the number of solitary confinements and imprisonments at home were 5,018; 9,381 in 1877; 8,161 in 1881; and in 1882 they were 7,272, which represented an increase of 45 per cent over the number in 1872. Under this head, abroad, there were 4,161 in 1872, 4,315 in 1877, and 5,206 in 1881. Having gone through the Returns of punishments for serious offences, he would not trouble the Committee with a comparison of the numbers in the case of minor punishments. He could not, however, help thinking that if anyone would take the trouble to read an article which appeared in The Times with regard to punishments in the Army, he would come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the anxiety of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to show there had been a decrease of crime, that the small decrease which had taken place in some instances did not tell favourably for the soldiers, when we took into account the great advantages that had been bestowed upon the Service, and from which great results had been expected.

said, that having again compared the Returns for 1882 with those for the year 1881, he was in a position to state to the Committee that the account he had given of the state of crime in the Army, before the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) rose, was absolutely accurate. He pointed out that the Return for 1882 was necessarily incomplete, because it only referred to soldiers serving at home. The Returns showed a diminution of every description of crime. The total number of offences committed by soldiers at home in 1881 was 13,324; whereas in 1882, it was 11,927. The total number of home courts martial in 1881 was 9,421, as against 8,393 in 1882, showing a decrease of 11 per cent, or, taking into account the increased number of men then on home service, a diminution of 13 per cent. If the hon. and gallant Baronet would look at page 49 of the Report for 1881, he would find the number of courts martial held since 1868 had been decreasing, and it would appear that, so far as it went, the Return for 1882 was smaller than for any other year, except one, since that date. In 1868, there were held at home 12,701 courts martial, and though they subsequently fell, they rose again in 1877 to 10,870; in 1878, to 11,751; in 1879, they fell to 9,729; in 1880, to 9,108; in 1881, they were 9,421; and in 1882, they stood at 8,319. He thought these figures would bear out the statement he had made, that, with the single exception of one year, the number of courts martial held in the United Kingdom last year was the smallest on record.

said, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had done good service in drawing attention to the Returns furnished to the House on the subject of Army offences and punishments. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) would not, however, go into the question between his hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and would merely remark that it was unfortunate that the matter had been discussed without full Returns, and especially in the absence of the Returns from abroad for the year 1882. The Committee must bear in mind that a great many crimes committed by the 20,000 men who composed the Army in Egypt before starting, were adjudicated on board ship. There must also have been a large number of offences committed by the Army in Egypt of which the Committee had no account whatever. In saying that, he was casting no slur on the gallant Army which served there; but it must be recollected that corporal punishment had been abolished two years ago, and that sundry other punishments had been devised in lieu of it, although he had not been able to make out exactly what they were. Unless they had a Return of the number of courts martial held abroad last year, together with the crimes, and the punishments inflicted for them, more especially the extra ordinary punishments —such as penal servitude—the Committee could come to no conclusion as to whether the abolition of corporal punishment had had a good effect or otherwise in the case of the Army when on active service. His hon. and gallant Friend had called attention to the fact, and he himself had also observed, that there had been a great increase in the number of punishments under the head of penal servitude. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he understood him, implied that penal servitude was a substitute for imprisonment; but, surely, the former was the more severe punishment of the two. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, being a lawyer, must know that two years' imprisonment was the punishment for misdemeanour, and that penal servitude was inflicted in the case of felony. He believed that the same rule held good in the Army. Having, in his time, sat at a good many courts martial, he knew that penal ser- vitude was very properly looked upon as a fearful punishment, and that it was never inflicted except for very grave and serious crimes. The increase of punishment under this head showed that, at all events, the officers had had some difficulty in maintaining discipline amongst the men, and keeping that good order in the regiments which everyone desired to see in the British Army. Of course, it was not for him to say that the figures of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were in any way wrong. He had not been into the question so closely as his hon. and gallant Friend; but, having listened to his statement, he was bound to say that there were still some points which demanded explanation, and which could not be satisfactorily cleared up until the Return of the number of crimes committed abroad, and the punishments inflicted for them, was laid upon the Table of the House.

said, that anyone who had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), in which this question of the effect of the abolition of corporal punishment was raised, and the answer made to it by the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General, must have been almost amused at the diametrically opposite conclusions which they drew from precisely the same Returns. He thought that, perhaps, one cause of the difference between his hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General—two Gentlemen quite capable of accurately extracting information from a Government Return—was that his hon. and gallant Friend had adopted, for the sake of convenience, a fixed numerical basis on which to found his calculations of the percentage of increase or decrease in the amount of crime and punishment in the Army. Whatever the year, whatever the actual strength of the Army, his hon. and gallant Friend assumed that he was dealing with 100,000 men, so that the comparison of one year with another could always be made on the same principle; but, of course, the result of the plan adopted by his hon. and gallant Friend, which was convenient for many reasons, was to produce a discrepancy between his figures and those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. But, apart from that explainable difference, there remained a large amount of discrepancy between his hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General which could not be thus accounted for. he attributed it, however, partly to the fact that, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman only made a comparison in respect of last year, his hon. and gallant Friend had dealt with the state of the Army during the last 10 years, and had pressed upon the consideration of the Committee the conclusion he had drawn from the comparison of the Returns during that period. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was obliged to confess that no answer had yet been made to his hon. and gallant Friend's contention, that though within the last 10 years a new Army system had been adopted, that privileges and advantages had been conferred upon recruits, and that, in consequence, the country had a right to expect men of a better class to enter the Army, nevertheless, this result had not been attained. His hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out that if you take the years 1872, 1877, 1881, and 1882, you will find an increase in the number of crimes under almost every head, and that, corresponding with this, there was an increase, as admitted by the Judge Advocate General, both in the quantity and the severity of the punishment inflicted. The conclusion drawn from that was that, notwithstanding all their endeavours to render the Military Service attractive, the men who joined it were either of a worse class, or were dealt with in a less successful manner than our soldiers were treated before. From one of those positions it was impossible to escape. If hon. Members looked back they would find that, during the last 10 years, there had been in respect of the Army, both at home and abroad, a large increase of crime and punishment. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman having charge of that part of the subject would furnish the Committee with the conclusion he had framed, not upon the comparison of the Returns of the years 1881 and 1882, but upon the comparison of all the Returns of crime and punishment in the Army for the last 10 years.

said, it was only fair to assume, in comparisons of this kind, that the Army numbered 100,000 men—they would find that, in 1872, the Army was, as nearly as possible, 100,000 strong—and, therefore, it was utterly impossible to make a fair comparison unless they considered its present strength 100,000 men. He ventured to say that no record could be produced that was more condemnatory of the system which at present existed than the record of crime he had produced to-night, which, though it might be inaccurate in certain minor points, was generally accurate. He challenged the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War to get up and say that the crime of the Army had not steadily increased since 1872, when the old system prevailed. What with the new appliances and methods of making the Army a perfect machine, they had not yet been successful in doing so.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that this ought not to be, in the slightest degree, a subject of Party discussion. He believed that the actual facts, as presented in the annual Return, bore out the conclusion the War Office had come to; and he contended that, without knowing what were the exact circumstances of particular years, what were the changes, what were the circumstances under which the Army was serving in one particular year or another, it was almost impossible to arrive at an accurate conclusion. He had endeavoured to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he was unable to call to mind the exceptionable circumstances of the first year to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred. He, however, found that the number of courts martial in the first year recorded—1865—were 109 per 1,000 men at home and abroad; in the next year, 125 per 1,000 men; in the next year, 124 per 1,000 men; and in 1868, without any apparent cause, the number had risen to 144 per 1,000 men. The number then considerably fell, and again apparently without cause; while it had increased in the last two years. Until one had had the opportunity of going into the matter thoroughly, it would be impossible to arrive at a just conclusion. He, however, entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the subject was one of the greatest possible importance, and fully deserving the attention of the Committee and those who were in charge of the Army.

said, he thought that every word the noble Marquess had said had only strengthened the case of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in pressing upon the Government the necessity of giving—which he (Colonel Stanley) did not think the noble Marquess opposed—some Return which would really show how the figures stood in regard to crime in the Army. As the noble Marquess had stated, no doubt there was great force in the assertion that the circumstances of the various years differed, and that some explanation could be given to show obvious causes why figures differed; but there was an insuperable difficulty in the way of giving the figures. The figures were given for the use of those who were, generally speaking, conversant with the general position of affairs; and, therefore, a marginal note to show what proportion of the Army was not in actual service, and to show what change had taken place in Military Law, would be all that would be required by his hon. and gallant Friend. It was a great advantage that the Committee should have a speech on a subject of this kind from a person who was not connected with the Army, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour); and he (Colonel Stanley) hoped that they might understand from his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) that if his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) pressed for the Return, and they were able to agree upon its coin-mom form, the Government would assent to give a Return, showing the state of crime in various years, with such explanations that might be necessary to bring out the accurate facts of the case, it being borne in mind it was a matter of vital importance to the Army. He assumed, apart from Party considerations on this matter, it was of vital importance to show whether the reforms that had taken place in the past 10 or 12 years had been attended by the result that Parliament was led to believe would attend them, or whether they had been pursuing throughout a mistaken policy.

said, that before the Vote was put, perhaps he could explain one point that was mooted by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot)—namely, the word "nil" under the head of "corporal punishment," Upon the Chairman's (Sir Arthur Otway's) own Motion, in 1867, the power of inflicting corporal punishment was struck out of the Mutiny Act, except when the Army was actually serving in the field. He thought it right to call attention to the numerous cases of penal servitude which occurred last year. There never had been a year, for the last 200 years, in which penal servitude had been inflicted so largely at home—86 cases of penal servitude, inflicted at home in one year, was entirely unprecedented. It should be borne in mind that when a man had undergone an ordinary term of imprisonment he could return to his regiment; but if he was sentenced to penal servitude, he passed from the Army, and virtually became a convict.

said, he had stated before that almost every one of these sentences of penal servitude wore awarded for crimes for which, formerly, imprisonment was awarded. Formerly, men re-enlisting without declaring the circumstance were sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and then discharged with ignominy; but now they were sentenced to penal servitude, and then discharged with ignominy.

pointed out that he made out his Return quite separately from his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General, in regard to the years 1881–2. He had in his hand a Return, or an analysis, of the crime in the Army during those two years; and he was able to follow, item by item, and crime by crime, his right hon. and learned Friend's statement, though he had not seen it previously; and he found that his Return exactly corresponded with his right hon. and learned Friend's. In 1881, the number of courts martial held at home was 9,421; and in 1882, 8,319. In the two years there was a decrease of total of-fences for which men were tried at home; for the number in 1881 was 13,324, and in 1882, 11,927, a decrease of 1,397. The number of sentences passed in 1881 was 9,251, and in 1882, 8,156. For drunkenness, the court martials were, in 1881, 932; and in 1882, 800; a decrease of 132. In 1881, there were 1,889 cases of absence without leave, and 1,639 cases in 1882. There were, in 1881, 1,393 courts martial for desertion, and 1,308 in 1882. For offences in relation to enlistment, the courts martial were 1,133 in 1881, and 854 in 1882. For violence to superiors, 875 courts martial were held in 1881, and 753 in 1882. In 1881, the number of offences for being drunk on duty were 1,084, and in 1882, 969. Of making away with uniform the number of offences in 1881 was 2,312, and in 1882, 1,873. He might add that, in 1881, the total strength of the Army at home, exclusive of officers and warrant officers, was 87,992, while in 1882 it amounted to 90,075. He assured the Committee that those figures were absolutely accurate. The only reason why he was not able to produce the figures with regard to the men abroad was that they had not received the particulars; as soon as the Returns were received, they would be included in the annual Statement, and would be at once presented to the House.

asked what had been done with regard to the Office of the Deputy Judge Advocate in Dublin? He would like to know also how the work, formerly done by the Legal Secretary to the War Office, was now performed.

said, that last year his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) and himself thought they could reduce the staff by doing away with the deputy Judge Advocate in Dublin; but Sir Thomas Steel was so opposed to the abolition of the Office that, as a matter of fact, that Office had never been discontinued. In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour), he would take the opportunity of stating a fact, which was not generally known, that for the last three years the sum of £1,600 had been saved to the country annually, in consequence of the work formerly done by the Legal Secretary to the War Office, Mr. Clode, being taken over by the Judge Advocate General and his staff.

said, it was not easy for the public to ascertain to what extent the strength of the Army varied year by year; and, therefore, it would be as well that in the Return there should be a statement of the percentage of the increasing of the various crimes. There was, undoubtedly, a very warm feeling in the country upon the subject; the public believed that the Army was improving in the general moral character of the men, and that all that had taken place recently had had the effect of improving the tone of the men of the Army. He trusted that nothing would transpire to shako that belief which the people had.

said, there were one or two matters arising out of this Vote which he wished to bring before the Committee and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington). He thought it was plain, from the Report of the Committee on Recruiting, that the Militia this year was in a much less satisfactory state than it had been in any previous time since its organization; there were, in point of fact, 12,200 less effectives in the Militia than there were two years ago, and he should like to hear an expression of opinion as to the reasons for that alarming decrease. For his own part, he was inclined to attribute it to the new system of training the recruits. That point was referred to in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting. The great evil of the present system seemed to be that there were two systems at work—two competing systems. Under the old system, the recruits were drilled with their comrades at head-quarters; but now, a change had been made, whereby they were drilled by themselves. He was aware there was an apparent saving. The recruit who enlisted formerly received 10s. bounty; and it was very true that, occasionally, he pocketed his bounty and never came up for training at all. Under the present system, he received nothing at all, unless he remained for the full period of training of 63 days. What resulted? The desertions under the now system seemed to be almost the same as under the old—namely, about 5 per cent; and, as a mere question of economy, what was the result? Under the old system, a recruit received 10s. on enlistment; and, therefore, when he disappeared, he cost the country 10s., and no more; now he cost the country, not only his bounty, £1, but his daily pay and the cost of his kit; in fact, it might be safely taken, that whereas 9 per cent of the desertions under the old system cost the country a sum of £1,250 a-year, the same ratio of desertions under the new system cost the country no less than £25,000; therefore, the apparent saving gained by insuring the re-appearance of recruits after enlistment, was totally lost by the increased cost of recruits under the new system. And the country was not a bit better for the change; it was no advantage to the country that a man should be trained for 63 days and then disappear. The main evil of the existing state of things seemed to lie in this—the competition between the two systems, and he could give an instance of his own experience. His own regiment was the 4th Battalion of the Royal Scotch Fusiliers, the territorial district of which regiment comprised the counties of Ayrshire and Wigton. The Renfrewshire Militia, now called the 3rd Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, whose head-quarters were at Stirling, was trained and recruited in Ayrshire; therefore they had comprised in that one episode of Militia training almost the length and breadth of Scotland, because the Renfrewshire Militia, belonging to the head-quarters of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders at Stirling, was sent to train in Ayrshire, where it competed unfairly with the district regiment. It competed unfairly with the district regiment, for the very reason that the regiment was sent from its own head-quarters, its own recruits were sent to be drilled under the old system, and the recruits in the county regiment were drilled under the new system. A recruit, so long as he got his bounty and pay, did not care two-pence whether he belonged to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, or to the Royal Scotch Fusiliers; and the result in this case was, that whereas the 3rd Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was formerly never up to its strength, it was now considerably over it, and the battalion with which it completed, and which up to the last two years had always been above its strength, was now considerably below it. What he desired the noble Marquess to do was to hold out a hope of some equalization of the conditions of recruiting; for the present system seemed to be altogether unfair and undesirable. There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee, a point to which he had, in former years, called attention—namely, that of the musketry training in the Militia. He was most unwilling to repeat what he had said in former years; but since last year they had the Report before them of the Committee on Musketry Instruction. In that Report it was stated that the musketry instruction of the Militia was in a most unsatisfactory state, and the causes were not far to seek, for those causes wore set down as want of time, want of instruction, and want of range accommodation. In fact, musketry instruction in the Militia was nothing more nor less than a farce, and a very expensive farce. What was done at present was to give a man 20 rounds of ammunition, which he had simply to fire away in his annual course, imposing on him at the same time most difficult and unreasonable conditions. He had to fire his rounds in a very great hurry. A strong battalion—say, of 800 or 1,000 men—would, under ordinary conditions, take a long time to fire 20 rounds, with due care and attention to principles; but what did they find? He had seen repeatedly men marched down to the range, often a very bad and inadequate range, and the pressure of time had been so great that they had had no opportunity of studying the proper positions; the great thing seemed to be to fire away the ammmunition, and get the Returns made out. The Committee on Musketry Instruction considered that recruits would be trained more perfectly the first year they were out if they were put through a competition similar to that which took place in the Line, and they recommended that an extra three weeks be given for that purpose. When recruits had once been properly trained, which he admitted to be of immense advantage, he should be very glad to hear that some provision had been made for improving their firing. The Committee hoped that the shooting might be kept up at an annual course of 60 rounds per man. That would be a great improvement; but if, under the existing system, a difficulty was felt in completing a course of 20 rounds, how would it be possible to get through a course of 60 rounds. He thought that rather than impose an additional 40 rounds, it would be better to discontinue for a time musketry instruction altogether. The present instruction was perfectly useless and expensive, and by its discontinuance they would, at all events, save the trouble—which was considerable—and the expense. Another course, which he had ventured to suggest on a former occasion, was that alternate annual training might be devoted to drill and musketry instruction, and a third course, to which he himself considered greater objections might be raised, was that the companies should come up singly to headquarters, and be instructed during the non-training portion of the year. That would involve, of course, the men leaving their homes twice a-year instead of once; and he thought that, on the whole, there was no alternative between extending the period of the Militia training and the discontinuance of musketry instruction.

said, he could say, with some authority, that the Militia in the Eastern Counties was never at so low an ebb as it was at the present moment. There was no doubt that the agricultural depression and the great sparcity of labourers and working men in agricultural districts had had a considerable effect upon recruiting; but the deterioration of the Militia at the present time not only prevailed in regard to the non-commissioned officers and rank and file, but even on the officers. Perhaps he would be allowed to show what was the state of things in his own regiment in the year 1877–8. Under the old system, and before they had the system of brigade depôts, his regiment was 840 strong; under the operation of the brigade depôt system it had been reduced to 600. Now, he would give the House, as shortly as he could, what he thought were some of the reasons for the deterioration of the rank and file in the Militia. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman below him (Colonel Stanley) had stated, very clearly, the views he himself held on this matter. He (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) believed that the taking away of the 10s. gratuity upon enlistment was the main reason of the deterioration, and a greater piece of false economy than that, to his mind, had never been committed in connection with the Force. If 10 per cent, or 15 per cent only, of those who received the 10s. gratuity, never appeared at the training—say, about 500 men in all—it would not cost the country more than about 2s. 6d. per head upon those who remained. Boys now came up without gratuity, and deserted after having obtained the bounty and other necessaries, and that was a far greater expense to the country than would be a increase of 10 per cent, or 15 per cent, on the bounties paid to 400 or 500. Another reason for the deterioration of the Militia was the necessity for their coming up for preliminary drill at the time of the enlistment. The result of that had been most unfortunate, particularly upon recruiting in the Eastern Counties. The Government had given the commanding officer no option. He, however, would insist upon the men coming up for their 56 days' preliminary drill, previous to their entering the regiment; but he would not continue the system at present in force. Another thing, which was highly objectionable to the people who would be most likely to join the Force, was that the men were kept at drill during the hay harvest. That was a great grievance, particularly in the Eastern Counties; and he would recommend, for the future, that the men should be called up at a convenient season of the year. By keeping the men up after the hay season had commenced, they were retaining them at one of the most inconvenient seasons—so far as employers of labour were concerned—which could possibly be found. There were other causes for the deterioration of the Militia; and the result of all these things had been a diminution in the number of enlistments. In one district with which he was acquainted the number had fallen from 411 men in 1877–8 to 140 men in 1882–3. Another complaint he had to make with regard to the Militia was with reference to the control the commanding officers now had over the men. The officers were, as a matter of fact, treated as nonentities, and were hardly ever consulted upon any matter affecting the regiment. The officers could not enlist their own recruits; they could not select their own adjutants; they were not consulted on any points whatever. Up to a few years ago, he thought up to the year 1880, every man who made an application for his discharge, made it to his commanding officer all the year round—that was to say, not only during the training season, but all through the year. If the commanding officer thought fit, as he naturally would, in the case of a man who held a lucrative situation which it would be a great disadvantage to him to lose, and it was necessary for the man to leave the Militia, that commanding officer did not hesitate to give a discharge. Now, however, under the Order of July, 1880, the discretionary power was taken away from the commanding officer, and every man who applied for a discharge had to have it. He (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had found, when he went up to train his regiment in 1882, that 63 men had been discharged without the fact having been brought to his knowledge. Under those circumstances, he had asked for the orders granting the discharges. These were furnished to him, and he found that he had nothing whatever to do with the discharges, and that if the men applied for them, they were to have them. It seemed to him a most monstrous thing to enlist men into the Militia who, after a short service, if they changed their mind, could leave the Force again without difficulty. As he had said, it had always been the custom of commanding officers to give men their discharge, rather than to allow them to lose an advantageous situation; but now, the men who applied for their discharge through any freak of temper or caprice, were to have it. No doubt, a greater number of men had been discharged as medically unfit during the last few years than had been discharged previously. So far as the Army went, no doubt, it was most desirable that they should be careful in selecting the men; but he thought that in the Militia it was not necessary for them to be so particular. There were many slight defects in the temperament and constitution of the men; and it was surely not necessary to lay down the same hard inflexible rules as to men in the Militia as it was in the Army. The authorities, however, seemed to be of a different opinion; and the result of the course they had taken had been to deprive the Force of a great many men. Then, again, the Militia had been weakened through the brigade depôt system; because, whilst formerly if a man who was out of work and wanted a few shillings would enlist for the bounty, he had not that inducement at the present time. What he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) disliked more than anything else was the recruiting for the Militia being mixed up with the Army recruiting. The Militia commanders had no power whatever to enlist Militiamen, and their own staff were not under their control, except during the training period of the year. As he understood it, the recruiting sergeant sent out for recruits in the Militia and in the Regular Army, got 2s. 6d. for a recruit for the latter, and only 1s. 6d. for one for the Militia. Owing to that, what inducement had a sergeant to make any effort to secure recruits for the Militia? He had none; and the result was, that he cared little about enlisting Militiamen, and went in to get as many of the 2s. 6d. men as he could. Moreover, the Militia sergeants and non-commissioned officers were in a very unsatisfactory position at the present time. Formerly, commanding officers used to get in the Service excellent men from the Line regiments—men who had seen service, and who had good characters, and who had been wont to look to the Militia as a resting-place after a hard service in foreign countries. Now, however, they had no rest at all. Under the brigade depot system, they were employed all the year round; and the work they had to do now, they told him, was far harder than that which they ever had to do in their old regiments. He could assure the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that the dissatisfaction of these non-commissioned officers was complete. As to the Militia bands, he knew of one case where the brigade colonel at the depôt had insisted on taking control of it. The officer commanding the Militia refused to give the brigade commander that control, on the ground that the instruments belonged to the officers, and not to the Government. That excuse was a valid one, and the bandsmen were not interfered with so far as the instruments were concerned; but they were ordered on parades which, of course, very much interfered with their practice. In this matter, he was not finding fault with the officers commanding the depôts; but he very strongly complained of the system. Then it had been said in the debate, that they ought to have some voice in the selection of their adjutants, and so they ought; but, instead of that, the state of the case was this. He himself had, within the last 12 months, had a vacant adjutantcy. He knew a young officer, in one of the depôt brigade regiments, who was formerly in his (Colonel Ruggles-Brise's) own regiment, and he had been satisfied that he would make a very useful adjutant, and had intended, when a vacancy came about, to recommend him for it. To his surprise, however, one morning a letter came down from the brigade depôt, saying that Captain So-and-so had been nominated, and that if he had any objection to make to him he was to say so. That, certainly, astonished him. Of course, he knew of no objection to the officer named, and it would have been a very invidious thing for him to have stated an objection. The captain recommended might be a very good officer; but he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) did object, on the ground that he knew an officer in the brigade who would be useful to him. On making application at the War Office, he found, however, that that officer was in India, and that he would not be allowed to return home unless he paid his own expenses; therefore, he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) was compelled, nolens volens, to accept the officer nominated by the War Office. He could not say that he had not got an attentive, and zealous, and able adjutant; but this he did say, that the system was as bad and as rotten as it possibly could be. Out of four regiments, there were two from which they could select their adjutants; but those regiments might happen to be in India, or on foreign service. They had only a few officers at home, and, out of that few, probably some of them might be suffering from ill-health, or, for other causes, might be unfit to act as adjutants, which would reduce the number from which they could select very considerably. Probably very few of those officers at home cared to have the adjutantcy; probably, none of them were apt teachers, or fitted to take the position; but, whether that were so or not, the commanders were bound to choose from the limited number of officers who might happen to be at home. It was not fair to these commanding officers that they should be bound down to so limited a selection. He had said, when he commenced the few observations with which he had troubled the Committee, that he never knew the Militia in a less satisfactory condition, both as to men, non-commissioned officers, and officers, than it was at the present time. Before long, he had no doubt they would be in the same position with regard to junior officers in the Militia as they were 20 years ago, or previous to 1868. There would be a great dearth of them. They had been filling the ranks of junior officers from young men, who were anxious and willing to enter the Line; but, now, the difficulties of getting into the Army through the Militia were so great, the competition being so considerable, that it was really harder work for an officer to obtain admission into the Line through the Militia, than for him to obtain it in the ordinary way. No one had done more since 1868 for the officers of the Militia than Lord Cardwell; no one had done more for them, in his (Colonel Ruggles-Brise's) experience, since the noble Lord's Army Bill came into operation. He was afraid now, however, that, before many years had elapsed, they would have no junior officers at all in the Militia. The captains and officers of high rank they might have; but they would not get the boys. He would not occupy the time of the House any more than to say that he did hope the Government would treat the Militia as a more local Force than they were doing at the present moment. They were now being blotted out most certainly and most surely. As far as the men were concerned, what he should like to see would be a re-introduction of the system of paying the 10s. bounty on enlistment, and that the Government should revert to the old system of training and drill.

said, he wished to draw attention to one or two questions which had not been touched upon by previous speakers. The first was the position of sergeant majors of Militia regiments serving on their Army engagements, as regarded promotion. They were induced to enter the Militia under the supposition that they would be in exactly the same position as the sergeant majors of their linked battalions. They were made warrant officers, and they imagined that they would be in the same position; but it appeared that they were not eligible for promotion to the position of quartermasters in any battalion except their own Militia battalion, and, only then, in the event of no quartermaster of the Line battalion wishing for the place, and the commanding officer of the Line battalion not putting forward any other candidate. The result was, that the sergeant major of a Militia regiment could not, by any possibility, be promoted, because the new quartermaster of the Line regiment would at once be in his place; and if the quartermaster of the Militia retired, he would, of course, apply for the vacant place, and the sergeant major of the Militia battalion could only remain in the position of sergeant major. That did not seem to him (Lord Algernon Percy) to be fulfilling the territorial system. He did not think that a good system; but if we were to have the territorial system carried out in its entirety, the three battalions should be treated like three battalions of one regiment, and the promotion should go in these three battalions. Now that pensions were done away with, every inducement should be held out to good non-commissioned officers to go on to the Militia Staff. A short time ago, the Militia Staff was filled by very young non-commissioned officers, and commanding officers felt great inconvenience from that. This would be the result again, because no non-commissioned officer of any standing would take all the hard work of a sergeant-majorship, if he could get no other promotion. This might be said to be only an individual case; but he had a letter from a non-commissioned officer, whom he had known in the Regular Service, and who said this had utterly shipwrecked his career, and was creating great discontent among the non-commissioned officers in the Service. With regard to the clothing of the Militia, it was monstrous that the moment new clothing was served out, it should come unsewn and require repairing. Militiamen could not be expected to repair their clothes neatly; and the result was, that the regiment did not look as smart as it should. Then, with regard to the boots, he hoped the Government would do something, for that was a most important point. When the men were in billets, it perhaps did not matter so much; but now that the majority of the Militia regiments were in camp—and it was very much better for the Service that they should be in camp—only one pair of boots for each man, whatever the weather might be, or the condition of the ground, was bad both for the Service and for the men. It caused discontent among the men, and the effects would be felt after, if not during, the training. West weather was known to have an effect on men after a time, and he had no doubt that was the case with the Militia. During the first week's training of his own regiment there was rain incessantly; the camp could not be easily drained, and the lines were extremely wet. Waterproof sheeting could not be obtained at the time, and the men had no change of boots. There might be some difficulty in dealing with more boots at the end of the drill, for men could not well be allowed to take away two pairs of boots; and the boots now supplied wore so bad, that if they were stored till next training, the men would not be able to put them on. This difficulty, he thought, might be obviated by serving out better boots, which would last two or three years. There was no reason why the boots should not be kept in store with the rest of the clothes and properly looked after by the non-commissioned officers. Allusion had been made to the drilling of the recruits immediately on enlistment, instead of waiting till the regiment came up for training. One great objection to that was that the recruits could not be drilled by their own non-commissioned officers at all, and it very often happened that the Militia sergeant was away recruiting; men were enlisted and sent to be drilled by the depôt sergeant, who took no interest in them. The men then went away, and when the training began the sergeant know nothing of the men, and the consequence was that the men were thoroughly neglected, and became dissatisfied. There was no doubt that the drill of the Militia had very much deteriorated since this new system was adopted. While he was at Aldershot he saw several Militia colonels, who agreed that the system of drilling recruits the moment they came in had spoiled the drill of the battalions; for it was impossible to give the men battalion drill, and so the men were only partially drilled. An Order was issued not very long ago that the permanent Staff should always appear in uniform. That might be all very well on paper, and, no doubt, the Order was issued because the system suited the Army very well; but it had had a bad effect on the Militia. It was hard upon the sergeants that, whenever they were not on duty, they should always have to appear in uniform; but I it operated still more hardly upon the bandsmen, because in all the Militia regiments the bandsmen obtained a certain amount of income out of the training period by playing in twos and threes at theatres and other places, and by giving instruction in private houses. If they were always to appear in uniform, they would be very much prejudiced; and there were regiments in which, upon the issue of that Order, the band had given notice that they would purchase their discharge in a body. Another Order was issued not very long ago, which had operated very hardly on the men, under which no man was allowed to purchase his discharge unless he had given notice some time previous to the training—about three months' notice. The result was, that at the commencement of the training, men came up to purchase their discharge at the last moment. They had not heard of the Order, and they were told that they could not purchase their discharge. The result was that a great many men were absent. The system had created uncertainty, and men would not enlist. There could be no doubt as to the bad condition into which the Militia had fallen. Men were being recruited at the present moment standing only 5 feet 2 inches; and, judging from their appearance, they were very juvenile indeed; in fact, it had lately been brought to his personal notice that some of these men burst into tears on discharging their rifles. That did not look as if they were very fit to defend their country; and he was told that the chest measurement was not properly considered. The Militia was very much below its strength, and that, he believed, was due among other things, to the Orders he had mentioned, which were vexatious, and were issued without due regard to the nature of the Militia, and the circumstances by which it was surrounded. Orders which suited the Army would not suit the Militia, and Orders which looked well on paper had had a bad effect on the Militia.

said, there was one matter which he should like to bring forward, and that was that there were two classess of sergeant majors in the Militia. One class were men who were what he might call old soldiers; and the other class were men who were appointed to the rank of sergeant major who had never been in the Regular Army, but had been, all through, pure and simple Militiamen. The difference of pay and allowance in these two classes was very considerable, and had, for some time past, caused great dissatisfaction. The sergeant majors who had been promoted without having been in the Regular Army received 3s. 6d. a-day, with a maximum pension of only 1s. a-day; whereas the sergeant majors who had been promoted from the Regular Army received 7s. 2¾d. a-day, and were entitled to a maximum pension of 4s. 6d. a-day. He brought this matter forward, because it affected very materially the regiments in Scotland. In many of those regiments the language used among the men was the Gaelic, and that was the reason, he supposed, why the sergeant majors were promoted from the ranks of the Militia regiments to sergeant majors; it was because they knew the language. And, beyond their not receiving the same amount of pay and a pension as the non-commissioned officers who were promoted from the Regular Army, the system materially affected the discipline of these Highland regiments, because now there was great difficulty in obtaining recruits, and the commanding officers of those regiments were in a great measure dependent on the sergeant majors to act as interpreters in the orderly room and on parade. He strongly urged the Government to put the sergeant majors from the Militia on the same footing as those who had risen from the Regular Service, in order that the discipline in the Scotch regiments should be as efficient as it formerly was. There were, he believed, only eight or ten of those officers; and he hoped the Government would see the propriety, while they existed, of putting them on the same footing as warrant officers. That would have a good effect on the discipline of the Scotch regiments, which had proved true and faithful to this country in the past.

said, if the efficiency of the Militia could be fairly judged of by the numbers available at training, then the present Militia Force was nothing but a miserable paper Force. Out of 143,000 officers and men, only 85,000 had appeared at the training; and out of a nominal strength of 1,256 permanent Staff, there were only 881. Military efficiency could never be expected so long as there was that remarkable falling off in officers and men at the training. With regard to the Artillery, out of 18,000 men, there were only 8,577 present; and, in the Engineers, only 928, out of 1,319; and nearly half the Infantry were absent from the training. No doubt, the non-training of the Irish Militia might account for the absence of a portion of this Force; but, after making allowance for that fact, it would still be found that the absentees from training were far too numerous. Now, considering the short training given to the Militia, it was utterly impossible, with these great absences, to give them anything like a military appearance. All the men who were enrolled in the Militia ought to have been present at the training, and the Return should distinctly show not only the men and officers of the several arms, but also the numbers for the several parts of the United Kingdom.

asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to state all he could as to the Irish Militia. He understood they had been called out; and he should be glad to know whether the whole Force was to be called out, and whether the noble Marquess would turn his attention to the condition in which the Irish Militia were said to be, not only as to training, but, what was of more importance, as to musketry instruction? He was told that their condition in that respect was terrible. Colonel Walker, of the Fusiliers, who had paid attention to this matter, stated that the state of the Irish Militia was a great deal worse than that of the English, both as to instruction and the arms with which they were supplied. He did not quite understand whether they were all to have the Martini-Henry rifle, or only a portion of them. If those rifles were only to be supplied to the English and Scotch Militia, he supposed the Irish Militia would still be armed with the old Snider, and then there would be differences as to instruction and ammunition; and if it happened that the Militia were called out for active service those differences might be very serious. But there was something more serious still. He was told that a number of the ranges in Ireland were very deficient—more deficient than in England—and that was a matter of the first importance. All these things were still as they had been for some years past. He did not blame the noble Marquess, or the War Department; but this was still the fact, and he thought upon these questions as upon other Army questions, something should be done. He and his Friends would be most happy to give the Government their assistance and advice in these matters, and he was sure if the noble Marquess would give his attention to these questions, he might be even more successful than those who had preceded him in finding a solution. A solution of some sort was most necessary. Nobody could look about and see what was going on abroad, and at home, without feeling that the position of both our Army and our Militia was of the utmost importance. He did not go so far as to say that this was merely a question of money, because he did not think it was. There were a good many things to be thought of besides money; and he was anxious to hear what was the noble Marquess's solution of the difficulties which had been pointed out. These difficulties were undoubtedly very great, and he was sorry to see that there were increasing difficulties—namely, in getting recruits for the Militia, in instruction, and in training.

said, the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that a certain number of the Militia should be detached, either by regiments or companies, and employed simply in learning musketry, had been tried and had failed. The authorities at the War Office believed that it would always do so, because so much in this country depended on the state of the weather, which often put great difficulties in the way of regiments getting any opportunity whatever of firing.

said, his proposal was not that companies should be struck off training, but that they should either be brought up for musketry instruction during the non-training period, or else be exclusively trained in musketry in alternate years.