asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will consult with the Trustees of the National Gallery of Portraits as to the propriety of temporarily removing the pictures to the Bethnal Green Museum, or to the National Galleries of Scotland and of Ireland, pending the construction of a fireproof gallery for their permanent reception?

In answer to the hon. Member for County Galway, I have to say that I am in communication with the Trustees of the National Gallery of Portraits as well as with the Treasury on this very important and pressing subject. I can assure him that I am sparing no trouble in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, and I hope within a few days to be able to make a definite statement to the House.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had examined the western gallery of South Kensington, which was one of the finest galleries in the world?

said, that he had received Reports on all the galleries. He did not now wish to say anything definite; but he was informed that the roof of the gallery in question was by no means fireproof.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the appalling loss of life, and the large number of non-fatal accidents, occurring annually to Railway servants engaged in shunting operations, through the present dangerous system of coupling, the Board of Trade directed the attention of their Inspecting Officers of Railways to an Exhibition of Railway Coupling Appliances held at Darlington on October the 3rd, and following days, 1882, with instructions to report thereon; and, if so, will a copy of that report be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the Board of Trade will depute one or more of their Inspecting Officers of Railways to examine and report on the various improved Railway couplings, designed with the view of minimising the risk to life and limb, now on view at the Inventions Exhibition; and, if so, will the Board of Trade recommend the adoption by the Railway Companies of such as may be favourably reported on?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that although some of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade saw the Railway coupling appliances which were shown at the Darlington Exhibition in October, 1882, they did not make any Report to the Board in the matter, because they were not instructed to do so. With reference to the latter part of the Question, I would observe that some of the Inspecting Officers are serving on one of the juries of the Inventions Exhibition in connection with Railway appliances; and the Report of that jury will, no doubt, be made public later on.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been called to the circular issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with reference to the sale of land to occupiers; and, whether the Commissioners intend to adopt a similar scheme with regard to the 70,000 acres of saleable agricultural lands in their charge; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons which have guided the Commissioners in arriving at that decision?

The attention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been called some time since to this circular. I am not aware that they intend to adopt a precisely similar scheme; but they are always ready and willing to sell their agricultural property upon terms fair to both sides, and have done so to a very large amount in the case of detached parcels and outlying properties. I am informed that the Commissioners have no estates consisting wholly or principally of small holdings which could with advantage be brought to sale in the particular manner proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he adheres to the undertaking given by his two predecessors, that the office of Collector General of Rates for Dublin will not be permanently filled up pending the promised legislation on the collection of rates in Dublin?

The Government are prepared to undertake that this appointment shall remain provisional.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If swine can be compulsorily destroyed when affected with contagious disease, and if compensation can be awarded to the owners, as is the case with cattle; and, does this rule extend to Ireland?

in reply, said that by the Animals Order of 1884 Local Authorities had power to have infected swine slaughtered and animals in contact with diseased swine, and they were bound to pay compensation out of the local rates. The provisions of the Order did not extend to Ireland.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will be good enough to inform the House what steps, if any, are now being taken by the Privy Council to deal with the serious losses resulting from the widespread existence of swine-fever; if he will represent to the Privy Council the propriety of arming local authorities with further powers to enable them to secure proper and habitual cleansing and disinfection of premises used by dealers in swine; and, further, if he is in a position to afford the House any information as to the appointment, powers, and duties of the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council?

In reply to the first part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I may say that an Order of Council, which comes into force on the 21st of July, was passed on the 3rd of this month, the provisions of which, generally speaking, are as follows: — It prohibits the holding of markets, fairs, or sale of swine, either fat or store, throughout England, subject to the following provisions—first, a public sale of fat swine may be held with a licence of the Local Authority, but the animals exposed for sale must be slaughtered within three days; secondly, a public or private sale of swine, either fat or store, may be held without a licence of the Local Authority, provided (1) that the sale is held on premises which are not in a swine-affected place; (2) that no pig on the premises is affected with swine fever; (3) that any pig exposed for sale has been on the premises 28 days before the sale. Provision is also made by the Order for the exhibition of swine at agricultural shows with a licence of the Local Authority on such conditions as they may think fit. Power is reserved to the Privy Council to revoke any such licence, and in any circumstances to grant a licence. With these exceptions all fairs, markets, or sales for swine throughout England are absolutely prohibited from the 21st of this month until the 1st of October. I am quite aware—and that is one of the misfortunes which I greatly lament in connection with this outbreak— that an Order of this kind cannot be enforced without inflicting very considerable inconvenience. But it is inconvenience which I am afraid is inseparable from the arrest and suppression of this disease; and my hon. Friend will perceive that stringent measures are rendered necessary when I mention as showing the rapid increase of this malady that it appears from the Returns which have been received at the Agricultural Department from the Inspectors of Local Authorities that while the average number of outbreaks for the last five years has been about 2,000, over 4,000 outbreaks have occurred within the first six months of the present year already, and it is increasing with great rapidity now. Notwithstanding this, the Privy Council, bearing in mind the satisfactory results of similar Orders in dealing both with cattle plague and foot-and-mouth disease, have every hope that the disease by these means will shortly be checked; but they are quite prepared to adopt further measures if they should be necessary. My hon. Friend also inquires if I will

"represent to the Privy Council the propriety of arming local authorities with further powers to enable them to secure proper and habitual cleansing of premises used by dealers in swine?"

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state how often the Committee referred to in his reply was summoned to meet; how many times it had met since its first appointment; and whether he would lay upon the Table a Return giving particulars as to the attendance of Members of the Committee?

promised to make further inquiries into the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the reiterated demands of the Grand Jury of the county Donegal, and espe- cially by resolution at the last Spring Assizes, for a searching inquiry into the alleged improper expenditure of public grants and other moneys intended for the benefit of the Fisheries in Ireland in the construction of public works in useless localities, as well as imperfect in execution; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Resolutions and Correspondence between the Grand Jury (and of the Committee appointed by them) and the Government; and, whether it is a fact that it is now intended by the Government to employ an engineer to investigate the professional part of the matter, only leaving uninvestigated the misapplication of the Public Funds in the various ways alleged?

The Government have decided to have an inspection of these piers made by an independent engineer of undoubted eminence, who will inquire and report not only as to the suitability of the sites selected for these works, but also as to their design and the manner in which they have been executed. I do not understand the hon. Member to allege any "misapplication" or "improper expenditure" which is not covered by those points of reference. I have no objection to produce the Correspondence; but I think it would be bettor to await the engineer's Report before doing so.

What is the engineer's name?

Mr. Stevenson.

asked whether the inspection would be confined to the county of Donegal, or would it be extended to other places?

At present, I think, it will be confined to Donegal; but its extension is under consideration.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that Income Tax is payable upon the joint income of husband and wife; and, if so, whether, under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, Income Tax should be charged upon the incomes of the husband and wife separately, thereby allowing both to claim the exemption or reduction, as the case may be, when their separate incomes are each of them below £150 or £400?

The joint income of husband and wife living together is, by the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 45, liable to assessment to Income Tax, and this is not affected or over-ridden by anything in the Married Women's Property Act.

asked the Postmaster General, If any, and, if so, which, of the Colonies have expressed their willingness to adopt the use of Postal Orders with the United Kingdom; and, if he is willing to open up a correspondence with those Colonies that have not so expressed themselves to ascertain if they are disposed to enter into an arrangement to honour such Postal Orders that may be sent from the United Kingdom and presented for payment at any Post Office under their control that already are authorized to pay Money Orders, so that all the advantages given by the Act of Parliament passed in 1883 may not any longer remain unused by the friends of emigrants residing in this Country?

I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the postal order system has been extended to Malta and Gibraltar, and that arrangements have been made, and are now in force, which enable persons in India, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlement to remit money by means of postal orders to the United Kingdom. About 12 months ago a similar proposal was made by my Predecessor to the Canadian Post Office; but although further communications have been addressed to that Department no decision has been received.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it intended shortly to disemploy any more Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act; if so, who they are; and, how many Sub-Commissioners will then be left?

I am not in a position to give a definite answer to this Question at present. The whole matter is under consideration.

Will the information be forthcoming before the Vote for the Land Commission is taken?

I think so, but I will inquire.

asked the Postmaster General, What is the number of officers belonging to English offices who have been transferred temporarily or permanently for duty in the Surveyor's Department in the Post Office in Ireland during the past seven years; the number belonging to Irish offices who have been similarly transferred to England; what special qualification was possessed by those English officials for their respective posts, which was wanting in the Irish officers; whether the heads of every Department in the Post Office Service in Ireland, with two exceptions, are Englishmen or Scotchmen, or officers drawn from those Countries; and, whether he will give an assurance that, in future vacancies, the Irish officers will not again be passed over by officers from English offices, or, as an alternative, to give the Irish officers a reciprocal advantage of being appointed to similar vacancies in England?

In replying to the inquiries of the hon. Member, I may say that the question of nationality in no degree affects my selection of officers for employment on surveying duty in either England, Scotland, or Ireland, those officers being chosen who are considered best qualified, without any regard to the land of their birth. I cannot, therefore, give any such assurance as the hon. Member asks me to give. In reply to his specific Questions, I beg leave to say that during the last seven years eight officers have been sent to Ireland from England, and one to England from Ireland, for employment on surveying duty. In each case such officer was selected either because no other possessed equal qualifications or could be spared for temporary duty when the employment was of that character. Of the heads of departments of the Post Office in Ireland, five, I be- lieve, are Irishmen, one is an Englishman, and one a Scotchman.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the House a Vote for the purpose of erecting a monument to General Gordon in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere?

We think that it would be in accordance with a very general feeling both in this House and in the country that there should be a memorial to General Gordon of the kind indicated in the Question of my right hon. Friend, and when we have fully considered the question of the position and the precise character of the memorial, we shall be prepared to propose a Vote to the House on the subject.

said, that he should like to know whether the Government were in possession of authentic information showing that General Gordon had been killed?

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to take into consideration the question of amending "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882?"

Her Majesty's Government do not propose to undertake the consideration of this question during the present Session.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If he will be good enough to inform the House the number of candidates who annually present themselves for examination as officers and engineers for service in the Mercantile Marine, stating the average number failing to pass on their first examination; and, if it is correct that candidates failing on first presenting themselves must, on coming up for reexamination, pay the full amount of fees; if so, whether he will, as in all other public examinations, cause a moiety of the fees to be remitted?

I can at once give the hon. Member the figures which will answer the first part of his Question for one year. If he desires information for other years, I shall be glad to give it to him hereafter. The numbers of applicants for masters' and mates' and engineers' certificates of competency, during the year ended 31st May, 1885, including repeated applications by the same persons, were as follows:—Masters and mates, 4,085; engineers, 1,783. The actual numbers of persons who failed to pass on their first application were 2,241 masters and mates, and 390 engineers. It is the fact that candidates failing on first presenting themselves must, on coming up for re-examination, pay the full amount of fees. As regards the last part of the Question, the fact is that the same rule applies in all the examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners— namely, that no part of the fee is returned to applicants who fail. The Rule acted on by the Board of Trade was made as long ago as 1877.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the experiments which have for some time been conducted at Sheerness by Mr. Brennan, in controlling torpedoes, have been brought to a conclusion; if so, with what result; whether experiments with torpedo controlling apparatus are being conducted by Admiral Hornby with the Evolutionary Squadrons; and, if it be correct that Mr. Robert Scott, of Newcastle, recently offered the Admiralty a torpedo guiding apparatus capable of controlling submarine torpedoes a distance of three miles; if so, what arrangements the Admiralty have made for eon-ducting the necessary experiments?

The Brennan torpedo has been taken up and is being worked out by the War Office, and the Admiralty has nothing to do with it. No experiments with torpedo controlling apparatus are being conducted by Admiral Hornby. Mr. Scott offered this apparatus, which, he stated, would enable the torpedo to be controlled at a distance of three or four miles. No arrangements were made, as, after a careful examination, it was found unsuitable for the Naval Service.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that an order was issued at Suakin, directing that all men should be shown in the returns as effective, whether in hospital or not, except those who were actually invalided on board ship; and, if so, whether ho can state the number of hospitals on shore, and the maximum number of men in those hospitals returned as effective?

It is stated by Sir Gerald Graham, by the Chief of the Staff, by the Deputy Adjutant General, and by the Principal Medical Officer, that no such order was issued. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member as to the technical meaning of the word "effective." Effective does not necessarily mean efficient; and soldiers are always borne on the strength of their regiments as effectives until actually invalided from the station.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state when the Royal Commission for inquiry into the Depression of Trade will be issued; and, whether he will give an assurance that, before the end of the present Session, the terms of the Commission, including the names of the Commissioners, will be communicated to the House?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made at the same time into the inconveniences attending a limited gold currency and the advantages of a legal silver currency?

I am afraid that I cannot state the exact date upon which the Royal Commission will be issued; but I think I can undertake that the terms of the Commission and the names of the Commissioners shall be communicated to the House before the close of the Session. In reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), I may say that there is no doubt as to the great im- portance of the subject to which he refers, and we shall consider how far we can include matters connected with it in the scope of the Commissioners' inquiry.

The right hon. Gentleman said, on Friday last, he would make a statement on the subject referred to in my Question.

I shall not have any statement to make until I am able to communicate to the House the terms of the Commission and the names of its Members.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the murder of a woman named Nolan in the county Kerry; whether it is true, as stated in the papers, that her husband, who is charged with the murder, was discharged from prison a month ago on ticket of leave "inconsequence of showing signs of insanity;" and, whether, if this be true, any notice will be taken of the conduct of the prison authorities in discharging the prisoner under the circumstances?

Nolan was convicted of a White boy offence in 1881, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Soon after his imprisonment, and on several subsequent occasions, his wife memorialized for his release, and the usual reference was made to the Judge; but it was not considered advisable to comply with her prayer, owing to the unsettled state of the locality. In April last the convict himself sent in a memorial, and on the usual form attached thereto the medical officers of the prison reported for the first time that the convict was weak-minded, but in good health. Lord Spencer, after some local inquiries, felt enabled to order Nolan's release on licence, and he was accordingly discharged. The discharge was not on the ground of ill-health or in consequence of his showing signs of insanity. No report was ever made that he showed signs of insanity, and his conduct in prison was always reported as good.

asked what was the verdict of the Coroner's jury?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether ho will issue as a supplement to the Navy Estimates an amended programme of Shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards and by contract, showing the allocation of the additional sums granted by Parliament?

asked whether there was any truth in the report that the excess of expenditure for naval purposes had proved to be greater than the amount stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech?

In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I have to say that I hope we have got to the bottom of the discrepancy with reference to the excess of expenditure to which he alludes. In answer to the Question upon the Paper, I have to say that an amended programme will be prepared by the Constructors' Department in conference with the several Dockyards as rapidly as possible. It will, however, take some time to prepare — three weeks or so—and until the ships, vessels, and boats forming the Evolutionary Squadron have returned to the ports the estimate can only be approximate.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to the great inconvenience now experienced by honourable Members on one side of the House through the impossibility of obtaining seats from which to put Questions and to discharge their Parliamentary duties, and the further probability that this unequal division of Members with respect to the sides of the House may possibly continue after the next General Election, he will at his earliest convenience consider some plan of providing accommodation for the Representatives of the People in the House of Commons?

The important and difficult question of providing better accommodation for Members in this House is one which has from time to time been urged very strongly upon the Government of the day ever since the Select Committee appointed in 1867 reported on the subject. But on each occasion when there has been a debate in this House there has been found to exist great differences of opinion, not only as to what ought to be done, but also as to whether anything ought to be done in the way of change. I have not myself had time yet fully to consider the subject, but I hope to go carefully into it during the Recess. No doubt, the inconvenience experienced by hon. Gentlemen opposite under the present exceptional circumstances is very acute, and I should be very glad if it were in my power to give some temporary relief; but I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Member says in his Question that "the present unequal division of Members may possible continue after the next General Election." I doubt, however, whether, if the present Opposition as greatly outnumber us in the next Parliament as they do now, they are very likely to allow us to remain where we are; and, on the other hand, I should rather hope that we may contrive in the meantime to get rid of the difficulty in another way. However that may be, as I have said, I will go into the question carefully during the autumn; and I shall be very glad to confer with the hon. Member for Stoke on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any information regarding the Arbitration to determine whether the attacks by the Russians on the Afghans in the neighbourhood of Penjdeh was consistent with the promises of the Russian Government?

No definite arrangement has been come to on this subject. A case has been put in on behalf of the British Government, but the matter has not been arranged.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of a man named Peter O'Gara, in the lock-up or strong room of Constabulary Barrack No. 1, in the town of Sligo, on the 25th of May, Whether the Irish Government have noted the following sworn statement made at the inquest, namely, that after Peter O'Gara, charged with being under the influence of liquor, was placed in the lock-up, another man, arrested on the same charge, was put into the same cell; that the cell was left in total darkness; that the orderly room was at some distance from the cell; that the orderly constable visited the cell about five times in three hours, and that, on entering the cell about three hours after O'Gara had been placed there, he found O'Gara dead, and covered with blood, and bearing numerous wounds, and the other man partly undressed, and having blood on his face and hands; what is the rule in constabulary barracks in Ireland with regard to visits by the orderly to a cell in which prisoners in a state of intoxication are confined; whether the Government will order that no person in a state of intoxication shall be placed in the same cell with one or more other prisoners, unless an orderly is in the cell, or unless the persons in it are under his constant observation; and, whether there is any rule that the cells should be left in total darkness?

The facts are substantially as stated; but it appears that the orderly visited the cell five times in two hours, his last visit being about 15 minutes before the time at which O'Gara was found dead, and all appeared to be right on that occasion. The Coroner's jury found that no blame was to be attached to the police; but the Government have asked the Inspector General to consider whether the regulation as to visits to intoxicated persons —which was framed to meet such cases as this—might not be made more stringent. There is no rule that the cells should be left in darkness.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, intend to construct any Military railways, roads, or other works, on or beyond the North Western frontier of India besides those mentioned in the Despatch of the Government of India of the 22nd September 1844 and the Bolan Railway? The hon. Member also inquired whether there was any truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Government intended to form a military cordon at or near Candahar, or to take any other steps for the occupation of that place?

In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that I have no knowledge of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government or the Government of India to construct any military roads or railways or other works besides those mentioned in the despatch of the 22nd of September, 1884. With regard to the further Question of the hon. Member, it appears to me that he has for the moment forgotten that Afghanistan is an independent State.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a pamphlet entitled "Scandals in Cairo in connection with Slavery," recently published under the auspices of the British and Foreign Slavery Society, to whom the documents, in proof of the statements made, have been submitted, which affirms the complicity of the Khedive and several high Egyptian officials in the maintenance of the slave trade; and, whether the Foreign Office will direct an investigation into the grave charges so made against the officials concerned?

I have received a pamphlet which I think the hon. Member himself was good enough to send me. If the accusations made in the pamphlet are supported by names of persons, it shall certainly be sent out to the Egyptian Government; but as the pamphlet is anonymous, it does not appear to me necessary to do so. If the authors of the statements contained in this pamphlet will send their names to the Foreign Office, then it will be sent to the Egyptian Government.

asked the Postmaster General, When he expects to be in a position to state to the House the course he proposes to pursue in reference to the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill?

said, that in the course of a conversation held a little while ago, he had stated that, although the Government were not disposed to go on with the Bill themselves, they would give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) an opportunity of doing so. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to find an early day for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take up the subject, and when the Bill was in Committee, he hoped himself to be able to move an Amendment. In that way the House would have a fair opportunity of considering the whole subject. The Government had, under those circumstances, an expectation that the Bill would become law this Session.

said, the course pointed out by the noble Lord was most satisfactory to him, and he should be quite prepared to submit the question to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to an article which was printed and published in the newspaper called The Pall Mall Gazette on the 10th instant, and which charges certain members of the Metropolitan Police Force with bribery, corruption, and other acts of grave misconduct; and, whether there is any foundation for these charges?

also asked, whether, seeing that the charges in question reflected generally on the conduct of the Police, the right hon. Gentleman would, in the interests of the Force, at once institute a searching inquiry as to the truth or otherwise of those accusations?

With reference to this Question, I observe that the charges are general and that no names are given. All I can say is, that if any facts are stated and names given, I shall feel it my duty to try to get to the bot- tom of the charges, and a most full inquiry will be made, because, in the interests of the police themselves as well as of the public, it is important that, if such charges are unfounded, they should be declared to be so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the authorities of the City of London have instituted proceedings against certain persons for offering for sale obscene publications and for displaying obscene placards in the public streets; and, whether these publications were numbers of the newspaper called The Pall Mall Gazette, and, why similar steps have not been taken with regard to the vendors of the same publications and against the exhibitors of the same placards within the Metropolitan Police area?

asked whether it was intended to take any steps against the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette with reference to the articles that had appeared in that paper and had excited a great deal of public attention?

With reference to the first Question, I have to say that I am aware that some proceedings have been taken in the City of London against the newsvendors who were offering The Pall Mall Gazette for sale. In my opinion, if proceedings are to be taken at all, it is not desirable to take such proceedings against the persons who sell the papers. With reference to the Question of my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor, I must ask him to give me Notice of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the allegations made against the Metropolitan Police of collusion between them and Mrs. Jeffreys, who was lately convicted of keeping a disorderly house in Chelsea, he intends to take any notice of the conduct of the police in this matter; whether he intends to take any step to restore his pension to late Inspector Minahan, who was the means of bringing this scandal to light; and, whether the police, who charged a man named Baring (a witness in the late Jeffreys' case), and who assaulted another man named Stoneham, who complained at the station of the violence used by the police in taking Baring into custody, have been reprimanded?

With regard to the first and second paragraphs of this Question, they refer to matters dealt with by my Predecessor in Office, and no new facts have been brought before us, therefore I have taken no proceedings. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I have to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the magistrates came properly to a conclusion, and held that there was no evidence to support the slightest foundation for such a charge, and they considered the police were justified in their original arrest, and that there had been no undue violence.

asked the Secretary of State for War, How many shallow water, portable, and other steel-clad steamers have been sent to the Nile; if he will be good enough to inform the House, their tonnage, draft of water, and description of guns with which they have been fitted; and, whether, during high Nile, it is intended to utilise them in relieving the garrison of Kassala?

Eighteen shallow-water portable steel steamers have been sent to the Nile. One is of 175 tons and the other 17 are of about 100 tons. Their draught of water is limited to 30 inches. Five of the steamers carry each a 9-pounder central pivot gun, and two Nordenfelts. It is not proposed to employ these vessels in operations for the relief of Kassala.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether steps are being taken, in view of the expiration of the Irish Coercion Act at the close of the present Session, to discharge the resident magistrates and other officials appointed for the purposes of that statute, and to withdraw extra police from any localities upon which they are now quartered?

There are no Resident Magistrates or other officials appointed specially for the purposes of the Prevention of Crimes Act, although some of them have necessarily discharged duties in connection with it. One district may be said to be nominally still proclaimed for extra police under that Act; but the proclamation is practically suspended and will shortly be revoked. There is no other district so proclaimed.

Is it not a fact that a number of Resident Magistrates were specially appointed to carry out the provisions of the Crimes Act; and will they not be discontinued, now that the Act is to be allowed to lapse?

I was not aware of that. It would be better to put the Question on the Paper.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government contemplate taking any steps with respect to poisonous patent medicines; and, whether it would be possible to issue such a stamp to be affixed to patent medicines as would avoid the appearance of giving a Government guarantee of the goodness or harmlessness of such medicines?

In reply to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the Government do not intend to proceed with the Bill introduced in "another place" by their Predecessors. As regards the second part, the stamp will be altered so as to make it plain that there is no Government guarantee of the medicine. The stamps will in future contain the words "This stamp implies no Government guarantee." Specimens were submitted to and approved by my Predecessor, and the engraver to the Inland Revenue is now engaged upon the preparation of the requisite plates. It is expected that the new plates will be completed and the present stock of old stamps exhaused within two months from now.

asked the Postmaster General, What stage the negotiations between his predecessor and the Midland Railway Company of Ireland, with reference to the establishment of an improved day Mail Service between Dub- lin and the West of Ireland, had reached when the present Government came into office; whether he has noted that, under the present system, the merchants and traders of the West of Ireland are subjected to a delay of twenty-four hours in dealing with letters and orders; whether the sum in dispute between the Department and the Company for the annual cost of the improved service is only about £2,000; and, whether, in deference to the desire of the Irish Members of all parties, steps will be taken to close the arrangement with the Company?

The Midland Great Western Railway Company demanded a sum of £14,700 a-year in addition to the existing payments for a complete scheme providing for the desired acceleration of the day mail service with the West of Ireland; but my Predecessor was of opinion that the utmost payment that the circumstances would warrant was £7,000 a-year. This was accordingly offered to the Company, who declined it. With the view, how-ever, of coming to a settlement if possible, it was thought right to make a proposal under which a less complete measure of improvement would have been effected for a payment to the Company of £6,000 a-year; but they still did not see their way to meet the views of the Department, and demanded £9,000 a-year. I can find no grounds for differing from the opinion which my Predecessor formed on the subject after repeated consideration, and I regret that I can hold out little expectation of an agreement with the Railway Company, unless they will consent to an abatement of their demand. I am aware that an improved day mail service would prevent considerable delay, and by affording an opportunity for reply the same day would accelerate some portion of the correspondence by 24 hours.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience arising to holders of some Colonial Bonds, such as New Zealand Five per Cent. 5–30 Bonds, from the insufficiency of the notice given by the Crown Agents for the Colonies when such bonds are to be paid off, such notice being only an advertisement in The London Gazette six months previously; and, whether he would recommend to the Crown Agents that proper notice should be given on presentation of the last coupon payable, either in writing or by stamping the cheque, that no further interest would be paid, and that the bonds must be presented for payment, rather than that they should allow the money to lie idle in their hands without interest until the bonds happen to be presented?

My attention had not been drawn to the inconvenience stated until the hon. Member put his Question. I am inclined to think that he has been misinformed as to the supposed insufficiency of notice. In the case referred to six months' notice had to be given by advertisement in The Times and The London Gazette. In point of fact, the publicity given largely exceeded this requirement. The advertisement appeared six times in The Times, five times in another daily paper, and 48 times in leading financial and other newspapers—59 times in all. In addition, notices have been posted in the coupon office of the Crown Agents since August last, and in The Times of last March there was inserted a special warning to the bondholders that the interest on the bonds had ceased. I understand that there would be practical difficulties in adopting the course suggested in the Question, and I have no authority to deal with the matter; but if after my answer the hon. Member still wishes to press his views, I shall be happy to confer with him and to put him in communication with the Crown Agents.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what progress has been made with the valuation of the Irish National School Teachers' Pension Fund; and, are the funds sufficient to permit of a reduction of five years from the present age for maximum pension; and, if so, when will the new revision scheme come into operation?

The valuation of this fund has just been completed, and the Actuary's Report containing it is now under consideration. The surplus of assets over liabilities shown by the valuation would certainly not admit of a reduction of five years in the age for compulsory retirement.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether representations have been made to the Local Government Board that the return of one of the candidates at the last election of guardians for the North Portarlington Division of the Mountmellick Union was secured by the admission of a number of claims to vote which were in fact illegal, and the rejection of a number of claims to vote which were duly lodged; and, whether he will direct an inquiry to be held on the spot by a Local Government Board official?

Representations have been made to the effect stated; but the Local Government Board, after very careful consideration, do not think that a prima facie case has been made out for an inquiry, or that the facts which have been brought to their notice afford reasonable grounds for doubting the validity of the return.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of the "Record" which, in 1883, the late Prime Minister promised, in consequence of the "prolonged and repeated visits of Mr. Errington to Rome," should be made and kept from time to time, of these proceedings for the purpose of transmission to future Secretaries of State; and also Copy of all Memoranda and Correspondence in connection with the "irregular communications" made by the Foreign Office or any Member or Members of Her Majesty's late Government, through Mr. Errington or any Other "recommended" agent, to any member or agent of the Papal Court, especially with reference to the appointment to the Archbishopric of Dublin?

I am informed the record alluded to in this Question consists of some letters which have been left in the Office evidently for the inspection of the Secretary of State. As there is no current business conducted at present by the Foreign Office to which they can possibly refer, Lord Salisbury has not thought it necessary to examine them. If they contain a record of any confidential communications, these could, of course, only be published with the consent of the person to whom or by whom they were made.

Arising out of the answer, might I ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether Mr. Erring-ton, as a matter of fact, communicated or conveyed, at the request of the late Government, any communication of any kind whatever to any of the officials of the Papal Court at the request of any Member of the late Government respecting the appointment to the Archbishopric of Dublin, and, if so, what was the nature of it?

I have not seen these communications, nor do I mean to read them if I do see them. I believe that is also the present intention of Lord Salisbury; and, therefore, under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to give any information with respect to the contents of the letters.

Then I will ask the late Prime Minister whether, in view of the answer just given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, I presume, has had a consultation with Lord Salisbury, he will have any objection to placing on the Table of the House a copy of the communications referred to, or whether he considers it to be consistent with his duty still to persist in suppressing and concealing from the House and from the people of Ireland the nature of the irregular communications which passed between the Court of Rome and the author of "Vaticanism?"

I have some difficulty in gathering the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Question; but I think I can so far relieve him from any necessity of prosecuting the subject further in connection with myself by saying that I know nothing whatever of these communications.

asked the Junior Lord of the Treasury the specific subject for the consideration of the meeting of Scottish Members which had been convened for 3 o'clock to-morrow? It would be satisfactory to the Scottish Members if the hon. Member for Bute could state the object of the meeting.

said, although the meeting was of a private character, he was very happy to answer the Question. The object of the meeting was simply for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of the Scottish Members with reference to the Universities Bill. Before be sent out the notice, he put himself in communication with the late Lord Advocate, so as to be informed of his opinion on the subject. He did not place any agenda on the paper convening the meeting, as he did not wish to limit the subjects which might be brought up, especially as it would be most important to have the opinion of the Scottish Members on any Business which might be before Parliament at the present time.

asked when it was proposed to take the next stage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill? He understood that it had been fixed for to-morrow.

said, the Government had not anticipated that the Bill would be taken tomorrow, when it was proposed to put down the Education Estimates as the first Order. They proposed, however, to proceed with the Bill on the earliest possible day.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the action of certain magistrates at a formal meeting of the Quar- ter Sessions for Lindsey, held to receive the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Scheme drawn up by the Clerk of the Peace, after due consultation with the agents of both political parties, who expunged the Hainton polling place, leaving the majority of voters in that district from four to five miles to go to the poll at the next General Election, although Hainton was and is now a polling place for Mid-Lincolnshire, and the Hainton School-room is within three miles of all those resident in the district assigned to it; whether he is aware that some of the magistrates alluded to are connected either with the polling district or the petty sessional division of which it forms part, and that the whole scheme had been unanimously approved by the finance committee, advertised in the county papers, and generally assented to throughout Lindsey; and, whether there is any provision in any Act connected with Parliamentary elections which will enable the memorial of the inhabitants of the district to be heard, and the local authority to remedy this or any other grievance in those schemes, for providing polling places which have been already formally approved and adopted throughout the Country?

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he can point out, in the Acts of this or of previous Sessions, any provisions enabling persons to obtain redress in those cases in which the local authorities have not made adequate provision of polling places to enable voters to record their votes without too great loss of time and other inconveniences?

said, it seemed to him that the magistrates who had fixed the polling places had exercised a very wise discretion, and had done their best to meet the convenience of the district. The fixing of polling places depended upon the Acts of 18(37, 1883, and 1885, and the remedy to any person who thought that the provisions of the Acts had not been complied with was to move for a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to make proper appointments.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Statement addressed to him by General E. M. Boxer on the subject of the alleged failure of the Boxer Cartridge in the late operations in the Soudan?

The transactions to which this Memorandum refers occurred 15 years ago. There is much controversial matter in the statement; and as the ordinary means of publication are open to General Boxer, I must decline to present it officially to Parliament.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the extraordinary importance of the subject, the Medical Belief Bill would be read a second time tomorrow, and whether he would also undertake to insert a clause giving a positive and direct instruction to the overseers to make out supplementary lists of voters who had been omitted from the regular lists through receiving medical relief?

said, he could make no promise as to such a technical point as that suggested; but, of course, the President of the Local Government Board would attend to the matter, and, no doubt, if such a clause were necessary, would put it in. It was their wish to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and if they were able to have the Bill circulated to-morrow morning, they would ask the House to give it the second reading to-morrow.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the form of the promised inquiry respecting the finances had been considered, and whether it would be departmental or would be a full and searching inquiry by a Committee of that House?

As Lord Northbrook proposes to make a statement on this subject in "another place" to-morrow, and considering the high position he has occupied, not only in the late Liberal Government, but in previous Administrations, it would not be proper or courteous to him for the Government to publicly express the exact shape or nature of the inquiry they propose to institute until they are in possession of the statement which Lord Northbrook proposes to make.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any official information of the reported death of the Mahdi?

said, the Government had received from official sources information to the same effect as that which was given in the newspapers; but there was nothing definite.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any information from Waterford respecting a very serious riot which took place there yesterday between the police and the military?

It is the case, I am sorry to say, that a disturbance took place at Waterford yesterday. I have received the following telegram from the General Officer commanding in Ireland:—

"Telegram just received from General Officer commanding Cork, reporting disturbance at Waterford last night between troops and civilians. One civilian stabbed by picket sentry and died. Troops confined to barracks and Court of Inquiry ordered."

said, ho saw by the Orders that the Crofters' Bill was marked with the asterisk as if it were a Government Order. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was intended to proceed with it?

That is a mistake; it ought not to be "starred."

said, that, as there was no block against this Bill, if no one else did, he would move the second reading of the Bill when the Order was reached.

In the event of the second reading being moved, I shall move that the Order be discharged.

Sir Arthur Otway, this Vote for Men was laid on the Table of the House on the 27th of April last. It formed part of the preparations which were then sanctioned by the House in the Vote of Credit for various Departments. From some cause or other the Vote for Men was not then taken; but to a considerable extent the men themselves have been raised, and it has become necessary that a Vote should be taken in order to give legal authority to what has been done. No doubt, the late Government entertained a hope that it might not be necessary—I hope also that it may not be necessary now— that the whole force of 35,000 men should be raised. But the Vote having been laid upon the Table, and the circumstances under which it was asked for being now, to a large extent, the same as those which existed then, it does not appear to the Government that they can ask at present for a less number than 35,000 men. I share the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) on Thursday last, that the negotiations which are now proceeding may terminate satisfactorily so far as the delimination of the frontier between Afghanistan and Russia is concerned; but there can be no doubt that a delay-has occurred which, at all events, has prevented an agreement or understanding on that question, and, inasmuch as this Vote is part of the whole understanding on which Parliament sanctioned the Vote of Credit, it does not appear to me nor to the Government possible to ask for a loss number of men; but, at the same time, I may say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to call up the men to the Colours if they are not required, and if the occasion does not arise. Between 11,000 and 12,000 men under the operation of the orders issued by the late Government have been called to the Colours, and they have responded with great alacrity to the demand made for their services. To that extent the numbers borne on the strength, of the Army are in excess of those authorized by Parliament at the present moment, and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to submit this Vote in the form in which I now submit it. I confess that I am reluctant, and as far as the Government are concerned they are reluctant, to ask for the whole Vote. We have entertained the hope that a complete understanding might have been arrived at with Russia before this period. While Her Majesty's Government have no intention to advance in any degree beyond the demands, with reference to the Afghanistan Frontier, of their Predecessors, the House and the country will feel that it is impossible for them to recede from the engagements which have been deliberately entered into by the Government of this country with the Ameer of Afghanistan. We hope that an arrangement may shortly be concluded; but, until it is concluded, we must maintain the condition of preparation which the late Government thought to be necessary, and which we ourselves believe to be necessary. I, therefore, ask for power from the Committee to raise the full number of 35,000 men if it should be deemed necessary.

I do not propose to question in any way the discretion of the Government in moving this Vote for 35,000 men. I must, however, point out that the course which is being taken with regard to the Vote of Credit and this Vote is not absolutely consistent. This Estimate was laid on the Table at the same time as the Vote of Credit for £11,000,000, and it was then contemplated that a large increase of the Army should be made, not only by the process of suspending the transfer from the Colours to the Reserve, but also by calling up a larger number of Reserve men to the Colours. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) stated to the House that, in consequence of the changed aspect of affairs, it was probable that the whole Vote of Credit for £11,000,000 would not be expended, and he stated what proportion of the sum would probably be spent, and what it would probably be necessary to provide out of the Ways and Means of the year. That Estimate has been in substance, as I understand, adopted by the present Government. A revised Vote of Credit, therefore, will obviously not provide for so large an increase in the Army as was asked for by the late Government. That portion of the Vote of Credit which was to have been expended upon guns and military stores in Egypt, of course, is not susceptible of much reduction; but, with the Ways and Means available to the Government, I may point out that it is not possible to provide for the 35,000 men asked for. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that an addition of some kind is necessary. From the process of retaining men with the Colours who would have passed into the Reserve there is, at the present moment, a considerable number of men in excess of the Establishment. What that excess will be it is impossible to say until it is decided how long the Proclamation suspending the men from passing out into the Reserve is to remain in force. It was not the intention of the late Government, or my intention, if no further change had occurred in the affairs of Afghanistan or in the negotiations with Russia, to have asked for the whole of these 35,000 men. I recognize, however, the force of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and on his assurance that it is not proposed to call out any further number of men unless they are absolutely required, I do not think it is necessary to insist on any reduction of the Vote, though, perhaps, a more logical course than that proposed might have been adopted. There is, however, one question which may be most conveniently asked on this Vote, and that is, whether the Government have formed any intention of increasing the number of troops which it had been previously decided to retain in Egypt? The Committee will have seen, from the Papers presented the other day, that it is not intended to withdraw the troops on the Nile further than Wady Haifa; and that the Province of Dongola, as far as Akasbeh, and the railway, are to be held. I do not now want to criticize that position. As a matter of fact, no decision had been come to, as to what was to be done with the Nile Railway, when the late Government left Office; and it is not very clear what useful object can be served by the railway when the Province of Dongola and the principal positions in that Province have been relinquished in pursuance of the orders given by the late Government. But what I desire to ask is, whether that decision to complete the railway and to protect it would involve the detention, on the frontier of Egypt, of a larger Force than was previously contemplated. Lord Wolseley has stated in one of the Papers which have been presented, that the number of battalions of Infantry required, exclusive of the garrison of Suakin, for Egypt, Assouan, and the Nile Frontier is 12½ battalions. In a telegram presented in the Papers printed the other day, Lord Wolseley suggests that if it were intended not to retire from Dongola, it would be necessary to maintain 18½ battalions instead of 12½ battalions. As I understand no decision has been arrived at by the Government to retain Dongola, I wish to ask whether their decision to keep the railway and to protect it would, in their opinion, entail an increase of the Force for the police of Lower Egypt and the protection of the Nile Frontier, and whether such a decision would not diminish the possibility of the Force being very considerably reduced? In the Papers previously presented, the Committee will see that the Government accepted the advice of Lord Wolseley and General Stephenson on that point pending further consideration. They wore, however, of opinion that the Force mentioned as necessary to be retained in Egypt would, in all probability, be found to be excessive; and if there was no advance on the part of the Mahdi, they were inclined to think that it would not be requisite to maintain a permanent Force as large as that indicated by Lord Wolseley. But now, if a considerable Force is to be employed in the protection of a railway considerably in advance of the frontier previously decided upon, it is doubtful whether such a reduction of the Force would be possible. The only question I desire to put now is, whether the Government have, in consequence of the decision to complete the railway and protect it, formed any opinion as to the increase of Force in Egypt that will be necessary?

I may at once reply to the noble Marquess that there is no intention on the part of the Government to increase the Force in Egypt by reason of the retention of the railway which has been in course of construction, and for which all the materials and the rolling stock are on the spot. The Government do not think it right, under all the circumstances of the case, that a railway which has been constructed at a considerable expense, and the construction of which had not been stopped when they took Office, should be forthwith abandoned. It was represented that the holding of that position would be a valuable strategical operation, and that it would enable us to check any rapid advance from the South. Under the circumstances, seeing that the railway would be behind the Force which would hold the head of the railway, it was considered desirable to accede to the wishes of the Officer commanding. There is, I repeat, no intention to increase the Force in Egypt, and it will give the Government satisfaction if, after consultation with Lord Wolseley, they find that it may be possible to decrease it. I can only repeat, so far as the original Vote is concerned, the assurance that I have given before. It is not proposed to increase the strength of the Army beyond the extent that may be required for the exigencies of the moment; but, on our responsibility, we think it our duty to ask for the amount of Force which I have stated, although we hope that we shall have no occasion to avail ourselves of the margin between the actual number of troops now enlisted and those which might be raised under the Vote.

said, he would like to ask his right hon. Friend whether he would prefer that a general discussion on questions connected with the Army should be taken on this Vote for Extra Men, or on the Vote for the Reserves? It was import- ant to know what would be the most convenient course for the Government and the Committee.

asked for information in reference to the expenditure on the Expedition to Bechuanaland, how long their Forces would be continued there, and what had been the total expenditure already incurred? He also wished to know what would be the total expenditure in connection with the Soudan War, with the maintenance of the garrisons in Egypt, and for other purposes?

In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I must leave it to the Chairman and the Committee to decide when a general discussion can most fitly be raised. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that it should be taken on this Vote if, in the opinion of the Committee, that course is the most desirable, or on a later Vote upon which, I understand, it may also be properly taken. In regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I am sorry to say that I am not yet in possession of such decisive and dear information in regard to the operations in Bechuana-land as will enable me to give a complete answer to the question he has put to me. The Government hope, however, in the course of a few days, to receive information from Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Charles Warren, which will enable us to indicate to the House the course which we think it will be most expedient to adopt. As to the cost of the operations in Egypt, I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has addressed any question to me upon that subject. But if it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman to obtain the best Estimate that can be framed in regard to the cost of those operations, I will endeavour to obtain one; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be a very difficult matter to separate the charges of the War Office from the war provisions and the transport, and other expenditure, which go to make up the total cost of such an Expedition, unless such expenditure has been kept separate in the first instance. Nevertheless, if it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman, I will endeavour to do the best I can to supply the information,

What is there in this Vote which has reference to the question of Bechuanaland? As a rule, a general discussion in Supply has been allowed; but all other discussions have been confined strictly to the subject before the Committee, and, that being so, I am clearly of opinion that the proper occasion on which to raise a general discussion is on the Supplementary Vote for the number of Men. It has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the general discussion should be taken on the Vote for the Reserves. It would be entirely out of Order, and I should not be prepared to sanction a general discussion on the Vote for the Reserves; and I think that any general discussion which it is considered desirable to raise will undoubtedly be more conveniently and appropriately taken on this Vote.

said, that, after the intimation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, he would at once enter upon the general questions he was anxious to bring before the Committee. In the first place, he would venture to say that never had a Minister for War succeeded to Office under more difficult and trying circumstances than his right hon. Friend had done on the present occasion. He believed that his right hon. Friend was perfectly right and justified in asking for these 35,000 men, and he was very much surprised at the tone of the remarks of the noble Marquess who had just sat down; because if there was any man who understood, or who ought to understand, the present position of affairs abroad, especially in regard to Afghanistan, Egypt, and Bechuanaland, it was the noble Marquess. He was perfectly ready to admit that the sum of money which had been asked for was not sufficient to pay or to keep these 35,000 men; but the noble Marquess knew perfectly well that of the 35,000 men, 10,448 had been already raised in excess of the number voted by Parliament at the commencement of the Session. The noble Marquess also knew that 2,537 had been summoned, and had joined from the Reserves. He was also aware that the number who had been authorized to join by their own application was 969, and that the estimated number of time-expired men who were retained with the Colours was 4,100. And yet, with all these additional men, they had only at the present moment 10,448 above the Estimate that was voted at the commencement of the Session, or rather, he should say, at the commencement of the second Session, at the beginning of the present year. He had read with great interest a Memorandum which the noble Marquess had published, in which in the most honourable and creditable manner he had given full credit to all who had worked with him during the last two years at the War Office. He would venture, if the noble Marquess would allow him, as an humble Member, to do so, to give to the noble Marquess himself all the credit, which he thought every Member of the House was prepared to give to him, for having endeavoured, by every means in his power, to place the Army, it was necessary to send abroad, on the spot to which it had to go in a thoroughly efficient and effective state. He was glad that the noble Marquess had placed upon record his views with regard to all of those who had served under him; and he did not suppose that in so short a time any man had had to send out so many Expeditionary Forces— small, no doubt—to maintain the honour and dignity of the country. He believed that the good which the sending out of those Armies had done in the interests of the country was incalculable. It showed that they did not rely upon that timid policy which everyone abroad thought they held, and that they were not going to give up possession of the great and magnificent Colonies and Possessions which they had in South Africa without striking a blow for them. So far as Bechuanaland was concerned, they had showed that they were determined not only to maintain the honour and interests of this country, but to protect those Native Races whom they were bound in honour to protect. In regard to Afghanistan, the noble Marquess had, of course, been forced by circumstances to make every provision for placing an efficient Army in the field. Only the other night—and the House listened with great interest to the statement—they were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), that now that Penjdeh had been ceded, there was only one thing left for settlement—namely, the Zulfikar Pass, The Penjdeh incident had passed away; this was the only one point at issue, and in reference to that Russia had given her word of honour that the Zulfikar Pass should be retained by the Ameer of Afghanistan. If he knew anything of his country, they would insist that Russia should keep her word; and this circumstance formed another reason why his right hon. Friend the (Secretary of State for War was bound to keep up the war preparations which had been begun by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess stated that he had equipped and sent out three Armies to serve in the Soudan. They all knew what happened in regard to the first Army; and all he would say was that the heroism and discipline of the British troops which composed that Army had never been better shown than at Tamai and El Teb. No finer discipline could have been displayed, and no troops could have been better handled by the officers than the Force which won the battles of Tamai and El Teb. The General Commanding had admitted that he had made a mistake; and he was not above stating it publicly in his despatch. Instead of attributing blame to anybody else, he was quite ready to take it upon his own shoulders. But that fact, instead of diminishing, greatly increased the force of the observation he wished to make to the Committee—namely, that the gallantry of the officers and the discipline of the men who fought those two battles was beyond praise. If the noble Marquess had deferred to the opinions of those who knew the circumstances best at the time, and had sent the Force on to Berber, the life of that noble and gallant man—General Gordon—might have been saved. But other things intervened; voices below the Gangway were heard; and the noble Marquess thought it better, after having sent the Expedition to Suakin, to withdraw it, and to leave Osman Digna to go on with the depredations ho had committed for so long a time. The noble Marquess sent another Expedition to Suakin more recently—a very large Expedition — to assist the Army of Lord Wolseley, struggling at the time, as it was thought, upon the Nile. That Army, numbering, if he recollected rightly, no loss than 12,000 men, was well equipped. He did not intend to enter into a description of all that had happened in the course of that Expedetion; but he might, perhaps, be permitted to say that the gallantry, heroism, and discipline of both men and officers at Baker's Zareba were almost unparalleled. They had saved an Army from annihilation. Strange to say, no inquiry had been hold into the circumstances of that day. He would not ask what were the reasons why there had been no inquiry. He would only venture to say that in the Navy, whenever anything happened to a ship, or when anything went wrong, an inquiry was held, not for the sake of humiliating, degrading, or blaming any man, even if that man had not done his duty, but in order to see what was the excuse and explanation for the position in which the ship had been placed. He would not say one word against the gallant Officer in command on the occasion to which ho referred; but having regard to the number of killed and wounded, and to the utter distruction of the transport, he thought that, in the interests of the Army and of the gallant General himself, it would have been more satisfactory if some official inquiry had taken place, so that it might have been shown how it was that a well-disciplined Force, and a Force occcupying such a position, could have been overtaken by such a calamity as that which befel the Army at Baker's Zareba. The gallantry of the men and of the officers on that occasion stood out most conspicuously. They might educate men for the Staff at Colleges; but they could not put into them those soldier's brains, that eagle eye, and quickness of action, which alone made the soldier, whatever his learning might have been. He deeply lamented what had occurred at Baker's Zareba; but he had thought it right to mention these circumstances in the interests of the gallant men who fought at Baker's Zareba, and whose services had received scant notice and recognition, while honours had been conferred thickly upon others. In passing from that subject, he would only repeat that he had no desire to attach blame to any gallant officer; he simply thought that some inquiry ought to have been instituted, and that an investigation, in which all the facts would have been brought out, would have been much more satisfactory, not only to the gallant Officer in command, but to the Army which he had the honour of commanding. Then there was the third Expedition—namely, the Expedition up the Nile—and he did not suppose that in the history of any country there had ever been a more laborious, or a more magnificent undertaking; and if it had only come to a successful termination it would have been one of the most brilliant achievements the Army had ever performed. It must not be forgotten that in a country like Egypt the climate was, to a great extent, similar to that of India, and yet the Expedition went up the Nile without any men to do the duty of camp followers. The men composing the Force were required, not only to row the boats themselves, but to do things of every sort and kind. Yet they never murmured or complained, but, whether Irishmen, Scotchmen, or Englishmen, cheerfully moved up to the front animated but with the one idea of doing their duty and doing honour to their Queen and country. When they found a body of men like those performing satisfactorily the her clean task they undertook, and overcoming every difficulty, he maintained that they deserved some special and signal mark of appreciation at the hands of Her Gracious Majesty. There was one action he would like specially to mention—namely, the battle of Abu Klea—if the Committee would pardon him for a moment. He held in his hand one of the most interesting accounts he had ever read of that action, from the pen of an officer serving with his own old regiment there, whose Commanding Officer said to him, before he went out—"Depend upon it there will be stirring times in Egypt. Therefore, whenever you have an opportunity, put down from day to day what occurs within your own knowledge, so that you may be able to give a truthful and accurate account of what happens under your own eyes." And what did that officer say?—

"At about 8 o'clock the square was formed up and advanced. This was roughly our position."

"In advancing the fire was very hot, and the men began falling very thick. Dickson—now Colonel Dickson, of the Royal Dragoons—was wounded almost at once; so was Beach, of the 2nd Life Guards; they were both sent back to the Zareba. The skirmishers were then sent out to the flanks and front, and the enemy were seen retiring in numbers. On gaining the rising ground we came in view of a long line of the enemy's flags on the Wady on our left front. My first idea was that the enemy were retiring leaving their flags; but we soon found, to our cost, that this was not the case. At this period Lord St. Vincent, our adjutant, was shot on my right; he was placed on a cacolet. When we were some 600 yards or less from the flags we halted for a minute or two in a hollow. The ground was very hilly, rough, stony, and broken. In advancing again the order was given to bring up our right shoulders; at the same time we saw that the line of flags was by no means deserted, but that there was a dense mass of the enemy lying in the long grass. When about 300 or 400 yards from the enemy they rose up in three masses and advanced on us, wheeling round on the right, and keeping their dressing most beautifully. The skirmishers stopped to fire—a fatal mistake, as they masked our fire in running in. The Naval Brigade, with the Gardner gun, tried, at the same time, to come into action on the left rear corner of the square, but the square closing up to the front left them out in the cold. Colonel Burnaby ordered the 4th and 5th Dragoon Guards to wheel up and protect them. This caused more confusion, as they all got mixed up with our men. The Gardner gun was now run back and brought up between the Greys and the Lancers. The skirmishers, at the same time, ran in, causing more confusion. In much less time than I have taken to write this, the enemy came on with a terrible rush and were into us, and a hand-to-hand encounter took place. The right side of the square was on higher ground; they kept firing over our heads when we were driven into the camels diagonally. The camels, I fancy, although they were the cause of much confusion, ultimately saved a complete disaster, as they formed a dense mass which prevented the enemy from getting further."

"The Naval Brigade was driven back and had to leave their gun. However, we all made a rush forward and got them back. After 15 minutes or so the enemy broke and turned. After this there was frightful confusion, and it took a long time to get our men (such as remained) together. The enemy were seen retiring on all sides, and for some time we continued to fire on them."

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend had made a speech which he was sure the Committee had listened to with much interest; but it was a speech of a character which was not perfectly original as proceeding from his hon. and gallant Friend, although it certainly sprung from a desire to secure the efficiency of the Service to which his hon. and gallant Friend belonged. No doubt the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet was one that was perfectly consistent with the Vote proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith). But the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted the Vote was, in his (Mr. Rylands) opinion, neither business-like nor satis- factory. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and asked the Committee to give him a Vote of 35,000 men, while he said, at the same time, that ho did not want the men, and did not expect to want them. If the necessity arose it might be necessary to raise men, and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said the necessity existed now. The hon. and gallant Baronet was perfectly consistent, and he did not flinch for a moment from expressing the views he had on more than one occasion presented to the House. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that the men were wanted, and he was prepared to pass the Vote and follow up the consequence of that Vote—namely, by finding the money for paying 35,000 men. If the advice of the hon. and gallant Baronet was to be followed, and if they were to assert in Egypt the position the hon. and gallant Baronet invited them to assume, no doubt they would want those 35,000 men, and possibly a great many more than 35,000 men. But he (Mr. Rylands) asked the Committee to look at the question, in the first instance, as a Committee of business men. He would recall to their recollection what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) told them when he asked originally for 35,000 men. The noble Marquess and the Government, of which he was a distinguished Member, came down to the House under circumstances of great anxiety. He told them that an addition to the Army might be necessary in order to support the interests of the country; and he asked for a largo sum of money as well as an increase in the number of men, placing on the Table a Vote in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate for the proposed increase of 35,000 men. But a great many things had happened since the noble Marquess came down to the House, and among other things the late Prime Minister had made a most important statement to the House. Would any hon. Member get up and say that the condition of things was as acute, as difficult, and as dangerous as it was at the time the Vote of Credit and the Supplementary Estimate were laid upon the Table? He contended that the circumstances had entirely changed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) were to come down to the House and tell them that he wanted a further sum of money—if he were to say, in fact, that it would be necessary to spend not only the Vote of Credit, but some millions more, ho could then understand a proposal for power to raise those 35,000 men; but he altogether objected to a Vote which gave to the Government the power of raising men which they themselves were not prepared to say were wanted. Not only so, but they would not have the means of paying for this additional number of men if they obtained power to raise them; and if they were raised it would be absolutely necessary to come down to the House for an additional sum of money in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. It was quite clear from the statement of the noble Marquess that the late Government did not intend to ask for this large number of men. The noble Marquess stated distinctly that he had kept this Vote from the judgment of the Committee, because he entertained strong hopes that this very large number of 35,000 men would not be required. He gathered from what the noble Marquess had said that evening that the late Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would not be necessary to ask for the full number of additional men, or for any larger number than the actual number which had been enlisted up to the present time. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) in his place. He had been looking round for him with some anxiety. He was satisfied that his hon. Friend would not consent to give to the Government the power of raising 35,000 men when they could not affirm that they were really wanted, but, on the contrary, declared that they were not likely to want them. He would, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote from 35,000 to 12,000, which was the number, as he understood, that had actually enlisted, and the number which he gathered from the statement of the noble Marquess was considered sufficient for the purposes the late Government had in view. He believed it to be of the greatest importance that the Committee of Supply in that House should conduct their affairs in a business-like manner. He was quite prepared to believe, because he had always had reason to suspect it, that there had been a great deal of mal- administration at the Admiralty for a long course of years. He did not know what might be the case in regard to the War Office; but the time was rapidly approaching when it would become necessary to investigate the manner in which the business of the country was carried on in all the great Departments of the State. There were certainly reasons to suppose that for the large amount of money expended year by year upon the Army the country did not get their money's worth. There appeared to be a want of business habits, and other circumstances which led to the greatest possible waste and confusion. Allusion had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B.Barttelot) to circumstances which had occurred in Egypt which had led to the destruction of a number of gallant men through the mismanagement of the officer in command. The greatest possible amount of consternation was produced in the minds of the people of this country when the intelligence was first received here; and ho would like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), before the discussion closed, to say whether he intended, in answer to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Baronet, to institute an inquiry? He could inform the right hon. Gentleman that the conduct of the Expedition to Egypt to which allusion had been made had been such as to create in the minds of the people of this country a considerable amount of anxiety and alarm. It was naturally asked how it could be possible, and, if so, why it was possible, that they could send out their brave soldiers to carry on the wars of this country, and allow them to be all but sacrificed through the disastrous results of a blunder? It might turn out that it had not been the result of a blunder; but, at any rate, the whole circumstances ought to be inquired into, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet that in all such cases there ought to be an inquiry, just as there was in the Navy. Whenever a ship was lost there was a court martial, and, in the same way, whenever any circumstance arose in connection with the administration of the Army to call for special comment, and which excited a suspicion that a serious disaster had barely been averted, it was not only right, but absolutely necessary for the future well-being of the Army and the satisfaction of the country, that that circumstance should be fully and impartially inquired into. He had long been of opinion that in this country they ought not to go in for a large Army, but for a well-equipped and thoroughly accoutred Army; they ought to have a well-appointed and a well-trained Army, a perfectly efficient Army, and they ought to have behind that Army considerable Reserves in this country. He strongly objected to an over-grown Army intended to support a system of needless interference in foreign affairs, and in questions in which British interests were not concerned. He would cordially welcome any Government who would heartily set to work to secure efficient and well-trained men in conjunction with the economical administration of the Army. He entirely disapproved of voting an unnecessarily large number of men in order to justify a large expenditure upon them; and upon that account he did not sympathize with the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in his desire that the Government should increase the strength of the Army to 35,000 men. He begged to move that the number of men be reduced from 35,000 to 12,000.

said, he did not rise to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), however desirable the hon. Member might believe it to be, to reduce the number of men on the score of economy. There was one thing which, in his opinion, was above economy, and that was efficiency; and when he found that there was agreement between the noble Marquess on the other side of the House, the late Secretary of State for War, and his right hon. Friend who now presided over the War Office, he certainly did not think, judging from the opinion of those high authorities, that there was much probability of the services of the whole of the 35,000 men being required. He took that opportunity of warmly congratulating his right hon. Friend upon his appointment, although he had undoubtedly undertaken a most difficult task, as he had probably, by that time, found out. His right hon. Friend possessed great administrative talent, having had previous official experience not only at the Treasury, but also at the Admiralty; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would find that finance at the War Office was, at all events, superior to that which distinguished the administration of the Board of Admiralty. However that might be, he thought his right hon. Friend would not remain long in his present position without finding out that which almost all of his Predecessors had found out. Quot homines, lot sentential. His right hon. Friend would discover that he had a vast amount of skilled opinion to consider, and that a great number of schemes would be placed before him. Ho would also be required to deal with a considerable number of grievances of one sort and another; and he sincerely trusted that his right hon. Friend would form no opinion at present upon the conflicting claims and diversity of opinion likely to be placed before him. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had, with his usual force, placed before the Committee the very gallant conduct of their troops in the Soudan. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought there was not a Member of the House, whether a civilian or a military man, who would not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend as to the gallantry displayed by the troops. He would go further—if it were possible to go further —and say that the bravery displayed by the men, under the most trying circumstances, was commended by the united feeling of the House of Commons. His hon. and gallant Friend, however, went a little further, and had touched upon a somewhat delicate matter. The hon. and gallant Baronet had referred to what seemed to be at first a very serious disaster; but what, owing to the bravery of their troops, was converted into a victory. As he understood his hon. and gallant Friend, he asked for a court martial. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No.] At all events, his hon. and gallant Friend asked for an inquiry which might lead to a court martial. He believed that a Question was asked of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) not many weeks ago upon the same matter; and the reply of the noble Marquess was that he had referred the question to Lord Wolseley, and that Lord Wolseley gave it as his opinion, as General Commanding-in-Chief, that if an inquiry was considered necessary he would institute one, but that he did not at present think the matter ought to go further. It was a very delicate matter. He had no wish—and he was sure that his hon. and gallant Friend did not wish—to cast undue blame upon any officer concerned in the matter. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No; I do not.] He quite believed that, and that his hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to impute blame to anybody; but, of course, when they came to inquire into circumstances of that kind, it was pre-supposed that the inquiry would, more or less, be made public; and if it were made public, no doubt a great deal might be said, when the results of the inquiry were laid before the House, which had better not be stated. He could not help thinking that an inquiry of this kind should be left entirely to the Commanding Officer in Egypt, and to the Executive Authorities at home. If they acted up to their duty, he believed the officer who was more particularly concerned would not escape blame, and might even incur punishment; but it would be a somewhat serious matter, at least as far as the officers themselves were concerned, if, through any misfortune, perhaps not of their own bringing about, they were to incur public blame, and be exposed to the ordeal of a court martial, and, probably, to a punishment still worse than a court martial. He, therefore, thought it was better, under the circumstances, that the Commander-in-Chief should use his discretion, and by private inquiry ascertain whether any of the officers were to blame, and, if so, ask them to resign their commissions. He admitted with his hon. and gallant Friend that a serious disaster had occurred; that it was the duty of the Executive to inquire into the cause of it; and he was convinced that if they were called upon they would do their duty in the matter. If he might be bold or presumptuous enough to offer one or two suggestions upon the general question to his right hon. Friend he would like to do so. He thought that in all questions in regard to the Army and the number of men they were bound to fall back upon the question of efficiency as opposed to that of economy. He thought they were bound to trust to those who sat on the Treasury Bench to say what was required and what was not required; and from the experience he had obtained in Pall Mall he had never yet been able to learn that any estimate had ever been made of the actual number of troops required for the defence of the country, and for properly providing for the defence of their fortifications and garrisons abroad. He knew that the question had been considered, and he recollected a statement made by Lord Airey about it at the time that noble Lord was at the head of a Commission appointed to inquire into the whole state of their military defences. Lord Airey said at that time— and he (Lord Eustace Cecil) believed that it would still be found to be the case— that no estimate by experts and no evidence had ever been obtained, although there had been an immense amount of talk both in the newspapers and in the House of Commons, as to the exact number of men required for the defence of that Empire. They all knew that 130,000 were usually put down in the Estimates as the number that was required, and he had not a word to say about that. But there was a strong feeling among military men and among the public generally that a great many of the men were too young and too immature. The whole question of short and long service hung upon that. It was useless to think of long service again to any extent, because he was able to say, from his own experience, that men would not enlist for long service. Not one-fourth of the men that were required would think of enlisting for long service; and, therefore, they must adopt short service, and take what they could get. In the Army Estimates, at page 7, the Effective Forces were put down. He laid great stress on the word "effective." The Effective Forces required were 130,000 men. Now, he held that all men under one year's service were not effective; and, therefore, he should like to see in the Army Estimates in future a separation drawn and a distinction made. He thought it would be a very easy matter, when the House of Commons were called upon to vote 130,000 men, to show that out of that number there were probably 100,000 soldiers of more than one year's service, and 30,000, or whatever the number might be, who were under one year's service. The House would then be enabled to see exactly where they were. They would know the number of immature men they had at their command, and also the number of men they could count upon for the defence of the country in a case of emergency, or for defending their fortifications and garrisons abroad. That could not be a very difficult matter to arrive at. They had every year a Return given to them; but the public and the country, and even Members of the House of Commons, did not understand the Estimates, and were accustomed to run away with the idea that because 130,000 men were given in the Estimates, those 130,000 men were in a fit condition to be sent abroad to undertake any duty. There never was a greater mistake. Probably 35,000, or even more, of the entire number were simply recruits not at all fit for active service. He, therefore, thought it was only right that the men should be properly classified. He thought his right hon. Friend would understand what he meant when he said that in the Navy the boys were classified differently from the able seamen. The Committee at once understood that they were boys, just as they would understand that the young soldiers under one year's service were recruits; and then the House of Commons would be able to see, by taking into consideration also the number of the Reserves at the command of the War Office, exactly what the number of men was upon whom they could depend. He again said, as he had stated before, that he felt some sort of decision should be come to at the War Office as to the number of men that were actually required. He did not want more. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in that respect, and it was unnecessary to secure the services of one man more than was actually required; but what he did want was that every man who was placed in the Army Estimates as a soldier should be fit for duty, ready to go anywhere and do anything, and with less than that he, for one, would certainly not be satisfied. There was a third suggestion which ho desired to make to his right hon. Friend, who might accept it for what it was worth. They had been told by Lord Wolseley, in a despatch laid upon the Table that morning, that their troops must remain in Egypt. He would read the exact words of Lord Wolseley—

"You cannot get out of Egypt for many years to come."

"I believe that a good recruitment of Blacks and Chinese would give England all the troops she wants for Expeditions; mixed with one-sixth English, I would garrison India with Chinese and Blacks—with one-sixth English no Army could stand against us."

said, he regretted very much to hear, from a remark which had fallen from the noble Lord, who had just addressed the Committee, that they were about to lose his distinguished services. The noble Lord had had great experience in connection with military matters and was a very high authority. He (Sir George Balfour) did not think that the Army had been kept in an efficient state for some years past. Having, during his service, had occasion to assist in deliberations, and to make calculations for Army organizations, he had formed the opinion that it was almost impossible to collect data by which to fix on the strength to be maintained. The one guiding rule was money, and that could only be fixed by the nation; but this principle could and ought to be acted on —that whatever might be the number of men required the Army ought to be kept in an efficient state. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the necessity of calculating very carefully the number of men required during one year by the several branches of the Service, and then provide for maintaining the depots in a state of efficiency. One of the things they had always had to complain of was the insufficient state of the depots. An examination of the monthly Returns showed that for some years past the fixed Establishment of the depots had been quite insufficient, the actual number in depots being double the number allowed—that meant that the battalions had been kept below their strength in order to fill the depots. This drain, added to the number of men wanting to complete, had resulted in the active Forces being 10,000 below the Establishment. He also wished to know how long it was intended to maintain the Native troops at Suakin? It was not politic to require Native troops to garrison places not fit for European soldiers.

said, it was an important fact, and one worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government, that up to a recent date very few men in the Reserve had availed themselves of the Order of the late Secretary of State for War to come back to the Army. He believed that the result would have been very different had certain advantages been offered to the men. The Committee would remember that he had already drawn attention to that subject. Everyone desired to see old soldiers retained in the Army; but he was convinced that it was impossible to keep a proper proportion of old soldiers in the Army until some alteration was made in the present system of deferred pay, which, as it stood at present, was an inducement to men to leave the Colours and go into the Reserve. He thought, in the interest of the Service, that the system should be done away with, and that instead of the payment of a sum of money a free ration should be given. He could cite Lord Wolseley himself as an authority in support of the view which he was now recommending. Lord Wolseley had pointed out with reference to the recent Campaigns that the men had not only done their duty well, but cheerfully, a fact which he attributed to the good quality of the food which they received. He (Colonel Colthurst) thought it clearly established that the ration given at home was scarcely sufficient for the men, who might be said to be enlisted in this country on false pretences; because, although they were told they would get 1s. a-day and free rations, they found after enlistment that 2d. or 3d. a-day were deducted from the amount promised them. He believed the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the War Department could not do anything that would be more beneficial to the Army in the sense he was speaking of than to give the men what they wore told they would get when they joined the Service—namely, a free ration. He sincerely hoped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be directed to that point; and he ven- tured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should also consider whether some other inducements could not be held out to men to rejoin the Army— men who, although they might find it difficult to get Civil employment, would not return to the Colours on account of the many changes that were made, and the general state of uncertainty which prevailed.

said, he had no desire to extend the discussion on this Estimate, but simply rose to make a very few remarks with reference to the inquiry which it was suggested should be hold on the subject of what had occurred in the Soudan. He ventured to point out that hon. Members would do well not to place any great reliance upon information received from abroad, which very often came from irresponsible persons, whether newspaper reporters or officers in the Service. It seemed to him that in dealing with this matter the only person to whom they could look for sound information was the Commander-in-Chief himself, Lord Wolseley. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said that he desired to have an inquiry instituted in the interest of the officers themselves. But he would observe that when things of that kind were once set on foot, information did not always come forward in the way they would like; and, therefore, he was of opinion that no advantage would result from the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend. If any inquiry were needed, he thought it should be instituted with reference to the uncertainty of the orders given to the Commander-in-Chief in the recent Campaign, but that the proposal for such inquiry should come from the Cabinet alone. He was induced to believe that, had the orders given to the Commander-in-Chief with regard to the friendly tribes been more distinct, his difficulties would have been greatly diminished. There was one point to which he desired to call attention. In his opinion, there was both difficulty and danger in putting rifles into the hands of soldiers not thoroughly trained to their use. He considered that full instruction was necessary for the use of the rifle, and he had reason to believe that accidents had occurred to Cavalry soldiers from the want of such instruction. In con- clusion, he repeated his opinion that no useful purpose would be served if the inquiry into the war in the Soudan suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend were instituted.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) had quoted Lord Wolseley to show that the troops in the Soudan had done so well because they had good food. But if his hon. and gallant Friend had studied Lord Wolseley's despatches, ho would have found that that was not entirely due to having good food, but to the absence of drink. He was glad to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) making this Motion. His hon. Friend was addressing the Committee when he entered the House, and it reminded him of old times to hoar him pitching into the extravagance of the Government, and he said to himself —"There is one live Radical loft." But if they were to go on with the old policy adopted of late years by the country, sanctioned by a large majority in the House of Commons and by the late Government, it would appear that, so far from Her Majesty's Government having asked for too many men, they had not asked for half enough. What was that policy? It was a policy of invading, robbing, bombarding, and ravaging unfortunate countries who were weaker than ourselves. Upon that policy, whether pursued by Liberal or Conservative Governments, he looked with the utmost horror; he regarded it as a policy hateful in itself and injurious to the best interests of the country. He hoped that when they had a new House of Commons and a new electorate a total change in those things would be brought about. He did not know whether it would be so; the new electors might be as warlike as the old ones; but he looked for a better state of things, in which the great Armies they were now called upon to vote would find no place. For those reasons, he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for the reduction of the Army; and he trusted that it would lead to the country not having in future a great number of men wherewith to work out these national crimes.

said, it was true that they had had several wars in the last three years; but he did not wish to characterize the policy of the Government with regard to them quite so strongly as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had done. In the opinion of some, there had been no great strategy shown by the officers commanding. The men had fought extremely well; but they were told that their good behaviour was largely owing to the fact that they had had good food and very little drink. That brought him to the point he wished to lay before the Committee. Ho asked what did the private soldiers get out of all this? In some countries they got a good deal of plunder; but in our Campaigns, with the exception of a medal or two, they got nothing whatever. He would go farther and say that now that they had household suffrage, ho did not think it wise to shut out the private soldier from distinction in the profession of arms. That had certainly been the policy of the late Government. In his opinion, there was only one way in which they could improve the position of the private soldier, and that was to open a career to him by giving a certain number of commissions to men in the ranks. Of course, the greater number of soldiers would only rise to the rank of Captain; they would not all become Generals or Field Marshals, although some of them might do so. But what was the case at present? There was the position of Quartermaster, which was given to men who had been Quartermaster's clerks, whoso duty it was, amongst other things, to take an account of the stores of the regiment. Those were men taken from their duty as soldiers and put to a useful occupation; but he did not think that those commissions led to anything of advantage to the men. Then there was the position of Riding Master; they were extremely useful men in a regiment, but their rank did not lead to anything. But, leaving out those, he asked how many commissions were given to private soldiers in the course of last year? He had on a former occasion put that Question to the Secretary of State for War, and the reply was that there were 20. Now, that he considered an extremely inadequate amount of promotion as open to the private soldiers in the Army; and he was strengthened in that opinion by the remarks of historical writers, one of whom remarked that no country ever succeeded in arms unless promotion was in keeping with the general feeling of the people. Even of the 20 commissions referred to, ho was told that a large proportion were obtained by gentlemen — not private soldiers, in the ordinary sense of the word—who went into the ranks in order to work their way up to the rank of officer through that of Sergeant. He did not object to those men having commissions; but he would not leave out the ordinary private soldier, who had perhaps few friends, and no influence at the Horse Guards. He would say that a commission should be within the reach of a Sergeant Major, who, as a rule, was a good soldier, and was possessed of a good deal of smartness which every officer was not. The number of commissions could be very largely increased, and the present number was so small that that might be done without decreasing the number of commissions given to the Militia. The Militia system, during two or three years, had worked well; but now men went into the Militia to get a commission in the Army, so that, practically, there was a return to the old system of nomination. A considerable number of those nominations were made by the Lord Lieutenants of counties, and very few reached the men in the ranks. They were not given to them, but to men who had gone in for two or throe years to qualify, against whom he did not say one word, but between whom and the ordinary private soldier there was a great difference. Ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would increase the number of those commissions, and make them bonâ fide the reward of those who had done their duty in the ranks. They were familiar with the conduct of the troops in recent Campaigns; they had read of 12,(100 contending with 10,000 savages; they had seen them without water standing still in square, exposed to the attack of those savages; but what benefit did the private soldier derive from his courage? For his own part, he should like to see 10 or 20 commissions given to the Sergeants who fought at Tel-el-Kebir and at places on the Red Sea, as well as a considerable number to privates, and that without their going through any test. That he was convinced would produce a totally different feeling in the ranks of the Army. At present, he contended that nothing was done for the private soldier, although some of those who joined the ranks for the purpose of qualifying were promoted, and got in some eases large rewards. He could quote the case of a man in one of the recent Campaigns who had been promoted without having worked his way up. He happened to be acquainted with his family, one of the best in the county, and he knew that he went in to qualify. But, as he had said, there was nothing done for the private soldiers in the way of giving them commissions, for the Quartermasters and Hiding Masters were not Commissioned Officers; and, therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would do something to make the private soldier feel that a commission was within his reach if he did his work well.

said, he wished to express the great gratification he felt at seeing the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) sitting on the opposite side of the House. He could remember the time when hardly a single Estimate passed through Committee without his criticism, although he regretted to say that during the last five years he had been almost completely silent; and the consequence of that was that the National Expenditure had risen from £75,000,000 to £85,000,000, and this year to £100,000,000. The hon. Member's speech that evening had a business-like sound; but he would like to hear some reason for the vote which the hon. Member was asking him to give for the reduction of the number of men. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realty knew anything about the matter? Did he know how many men were wanted; did he know what they were doing and what were the services required of them? He had not heard from the hon. Member a single argument showing that he had anything beyond a general acquaintance with the subject; all that he had said with regard to the Vote was that too much money was being spent. He ventured to remind the hon. Member, as a business man, that, in maintaining our Army and Navy, they were simply paying for their insurance, the cost of which must increase, as in the case of private persons, with the increased value of their property. He saw no reason whatever for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, that the present system of retirement, both as regarded the Army and the Navy, caused the country to lose the services of many excellent and competent officers, and, moreover, created discontent in the Service, and even prevented men entering the Naval and Military Services. They had given the best years of their lives to those Professions. Many men who were perfectly efficient would rather give up their pensions than leave their Profession; and, therefore, he appealed to the Secretary of State for War to consider whether some mode of changing the present system of retirement could not be devised by which the services of those very competent officers could be retained.

said, he rose for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the Secretary of State for War a grievance which he had drawn attention to earlier in the Session. He had had cause to bring the case of the Quartermasters before the Committee; and he now rose to express the hope that, notwithstanding the change of Government, the grievance of those men would not be lost sight of, and that Her Majesty's Government would give it their favourable consideration. The Quartermasters believed that they had the sympathy of many officers in the Army and at headquarters, who knew how to appreciate their services; but they were, at the same time, under the impression that there was some influence at the back of those connected with the Army that pulled against them. He had no intention of going over the case again on that occasion; but he ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman would do him the favour to read what he had stated on this subject earlier in the Session, he would find that the Quartermasters had a grievance, and that he had made out a strong case for its removal.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend near him the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) had attributed the failure of the Camel Corps to the inability of the Cavalry men to handle the long rifle. But he should have thought his hon. and gallant Friend would have known that the mechanism and construction of the weapon was the same as that which they were accustomed to. It was of the game form, took the same cartridge, and was the same in all its parts; and, therefore, he was of opinion that, whatever failure there might have been in the Camel Corps, it was not due to that cause. He wished to bring before the Committee the necessity there was for endeavouring to organize a Mounted Infantry Corps. The value of Mounted Infantry was increasing almost every day, with the extended area now covered by military operations in time of war. The possibility of transporting troops by railway had also rendered it necessary to countervail those movements by Mounted Infantry. In Russia he believed there were in the Army about 50,000 Mounted Infantry, and all agreed that our Mounted Infantry had done good service in Egypt. There was no parallel between Mounted Infantry and Cavalry; the Mounted Infantry fought on foot, the camel or horse being merely the means of transporting them, whereas the Cavalry soldier fought on horseback, and the horse was his weapon. Therefore he said that no increase in the Cavalry would do away with the necessity of increasing the number of Mounted Infantry. The latter were carried by horses or camels to points whore they were wanted in good time; by means of these animals they were also able to make longer marches than they could otherwise make; and when they arrived at their point they dismounted and fought on foot with the long rifle. He also thought it would be an advantage to have an addition of mounted men to every regiment. At present an Infantry regiment was unable to stir unless it had a Cavalry escort, which it was not always easy to obtain. As a matter of fact, scouting could not be done by men on foot to any effective extent, and his proposal to the Secretary of State for War was that there should be attached to every Infantry regiment about 20 horses, which number bethought would probably be sufficient for training some 80 men. If they were to have mounted men at all it was necessary that they should be thoroughly instructed in the management of horses, because without that knowledge a man would soon give a horse a sore back. He believed that his proposal, if adopted, would have the result of making the Army more effective than it was at present, by forming the nucleus of a corps of mounted men, which would be very useful in time of war.

said, he did not see how any hon. Gentleman sitting on that (the Liberal) side of the House could hesitate to support his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). When they recollected the circumstances of the proposal of the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Hartington) it would be remembered that there was a crisis, an emergency—that the country was supposed to be in peril when this extraordinary Vote of 35,000 men was proposed. But surely it was recognized on both sides that the emergency had passed away, and that the danger no longer existed. Confirmation of that fact was given, because the money was not asked for to maintain the difference between 35,000 men and the number already enlisted. He thought it would be well to resist the temptation to increase the Army unnecessarily. What would the men cost supposing they were enlisted? Something like £3,000,000 per annum in addition to the present expenditure. Surely the expenditure was already sufficiently large and extravagant; and it could not be contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), in the present political state of the country and their foreign relations, that those men should be called in. The moral effect of reducing the number of men from 35,000 to 12,000 would be felt not only in this country, but in Europe at large. In the present overgrown military and naval systems in what were called civilized and Christian countries the world was in constant and increasing danger of a breach of the peace. They in this country were supposed to have a control over their military and naval expenditure, and over the Heads of those Departments; and if, under present circumstances, they had not the moral courage to say that as the danger had passed away, and there was no further call for the men at that moment, the expenditure should be reduced, they would be missing a great opportunity of returning to the path from which, unfortunately, they had wandered far away to the injury not only of this country, but of Europe in general.

I do not intend to refer to a good many of the subjects that have been touched upon in this interesting, but rather discursive discussion. Hon. Members have mentioned the two discussions which have already taken place on the Army Estimates, and in which I have taken part. I do not wish to repeat anything I have already said, and the only two points I consider it necessary to refer to are the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and a matter I shall touch upon subsequently. I am not able to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The Supplementary Vote for Men which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), and which has been put from the Chair, is a Supplementary Vote which was laid on the Table by myself as a responsible Member of the late Administration; and I should, therefore, be in a considerable difficulty in voting against it. It is true, as has been said, that circumstances have changed to a certain extent; and it is extremely probable that if the late Government had remained in Office they would have withdrawn the Supplementary Estimate and proposed one containing the same wording, but of another figure. However, taking into consideration the assurances given, it does not appear to mo that the Commit-too should take such an extreme course as to reject the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has admitted that circumstances are changed. He says he believes—he not only hopes, but believes—that there will be no necessity for calling to the Colours the number of Reserve men required to make up the 35,000. But he is unable to state, and the other responsible Ministers are also unable to state, that the circumstances which rendered it necessary to ask for a large increase to the military resources of the country have changed to such an extent that all danger has passed away, and to give Europe the impression that this country is no longer under the necessity of making or maintaining any increase to those resources. That I understand to be the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the Government that it would give a false impression, and perhaps be raising false hopes, and placing the country in a position of false security, if we were to make alterations in the Supplementary Estimates at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has assured the Committee that the men will not be called out unless it is absolutely necessary that they should be; and, under the circumstances, I do not think that we should be running any risk whatever, but that, on the contrary, we should be strengthening the hands of the Government, by agreeing to the Motion which they have proposed. I cannot vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The only other subject to which I wish to refer is that dealt with by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who referred to the great cause which the House and the country has to be grateful to the officers and men who have taken part in the numerous Expeditions which this country has sent out. I have on past occasions endeavoured to render my humble tribute to the manner in which all ranks have conducted themselves in those Expeditions; but this, I think, is hardly the occasion to enter upon the subject, more especially when we know that the Government intends, before the Session closes, to give an opportunity to Parliament to express publicly their thanks to those who have taken part in the Campaigns. Regret has been expressed that an inquiry has not been held into the occurrence at Baker's Zereba, in which General M'Neill was concerned. I gave the House, some time ago, the substance of a despatch which the late Government received from Lord Wolseley upon the subject, and his reason for holding the opinion that any such inquiry could not be conducted with advantage, but, on the contrary, with disadvantage, to the Service. The House and the country were at the time, I believe, satisfied that there was considerable force in that opinion. The practice of trying Commanding Officers in the Navy by court martial when a ship is lost or injured may be a practice very well adapted to that Service; but I doubt whether it is a practice that could be introduced with advantage in the Army. At any rate, it could hardly be introduced except in the case of an actual reverse; and whatever criticism may have taken place of the operations at Baker's Zereba, the result cannot be described as a reverse. Though we suffered very severely, especially in our transport, the surprise ended in a vigorous repulse and discouragement of the enemy, and the destruction of a large body of his forces. Under what circumstances is it proposed to lay it down that there is to be an inquiry? Is it proposed to lay it down that there is to be an inquiry not only when there has been a reverse, but when there has been a success also? If we are to have inquiries with regard to these operations we must have one after every action that takes place, because hardly any action could take place without some of the officers present who are not responsible to the Government, or some of those irresponsible Civil gentlemen who now so numerously accompany our troops on active service, being of opinion that it could have been conducted in another and a better way. I am of opinion, as Lord Wolseley suggested, that the officer who will not risk something is not the officer we want at the head of our troops, and that the officer who will not take responsibility is not the kind of officer we should have. An officer who has responsibility is extremely likely to do something which will be criticized and will not meet with the approval of officers who have no responsibility. It has been said that a court martial need not be constituted to inquire into this matter; but I do not know in what other way the inquiry could be conducted. The facts are simple enough, and are perfectly well known. Whether mistakes occurred or not, there has been, as far as I know, on the part of all the officers concerned, the most complete frankness and straightforwardness in the statements that have been made as to what occurred. There is no difference of opinion, as far as I know, in any of the accounts. The orders given by the General, and the way in which they were executed, are perfectly well known to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to the Adjutant General, and to the other Military Authorities; and all that is to be done is for them to decide whether blame or censure should be passed in consequence of the orders given and carried out. As I stated some time ago, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief intends to wait until the return of Lord Wolseley to this country before he alters the opinion which he has formed upon the matter. He wishes to consult his Lordship as to the impression ho formed of what took place; and after such consultation he will consider whether or not any expression of opinion on his part is or is not necessary. As the Committee is aware, Lord Wolseley returned to London to-day. His Royal Highness will now have the opportunity of consulting him upon the subject; and until he has taken advantage of that opportunity it appears to me that any expression on the part of the Committee as to the necessity of an inquiry is altogether uncalled for, and would tend to lower the prestige of the Army. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any other subjects that have been referred to, and I will conclude by saying that I am unable to support the Amendment.

said, he hoped that some inquiry would be held as to the disaster which occurred to General M'Neill's Zereba. All who had read an account of that disaster must be convinced that there had been an utter absence of proportionate caution on the part of the Commander. If ordinary precautions had been taken, judging from the reports sent home, the disaster could not have occurred. The excuse made by the noble Marquess for not holding an inquiry was that it would tend to decrease the confidence of the rank and file in their officers, or deter the rank and file from properly performing their duties.

I did not say that.

said, he begged the noble Marquess's pardon. He was merely drawing an inference from the noble Marquess's statement. The noble Marquess seemed to think that an inquiry of this kind would have a tendency to lower the prestige of the Army and destroy the patriotism of those who composed the rank and file. He (Mr. Gourley) held a contrary opinion, and, in spite of what had been said against the view, considered that a course should be pursued similar to that adopted in the Navy. If a vessel took the ground or came into collision, or if any other accident happened to her, however trivial, a court martial was held on the officer in command. What was the effect of that? Why, it had a tendency either to clear the officers and men from blame, or place it on the proper shoulders and create more care in the future. In the same way an inquiry into a disaster in the Army, such as that which had occurred to the force under General M'Neill, would have a tendency to increase the confidence of the rank and file in their Commanders. An hon. Member who had spoken had excused General Graham in regard to his first disaster in the Soudan, because he confessed he had made an error; but the hon. Member had forgotten this fact—that nearly the whole of the Naval Brigade under that General's command had been almost cut to pieces owing to faulty square. There ought certainly to have been some inquiry on the part of the War Office into the disaster that had befallen that force. But what had happened in the case of General Graham? Why, he no sooner reached the Soudan, than apparently he commenced to make similar blunders to those ho made during his first Campaign. Therefore, without troubling the Committee further, ho did hope that, inasmuch as in answer to a Question he (Mr. Gourley) had put to the ex-Secretary of State for War when he promised to make some inquiry, he would not follow the advice of the noble Marquess, but would cause a strict inquiry to be made into the causes of the disaster which befel the Zereba under General M'Neill's command.

I am obliged to confess that I do not possess the confidence or the knowledge which the hon. Gentleman appears to possess, and which would render me capable of at once saying, of my own knowledge, that those who have served their country have mismanaged and misconducted the operations which have been intrusted to them. For my own part, I prefer to rely upon the advice of the noble Marquess, who was responsible for the Army when the transaction occurred; and I believe that the course taken by the noble Marquess was wise and just, and that nothing could be more injurious than to call an event of this kind a disaster, when it has brought into light some of the best characteristics of the English soldier. Whatever may have been our loss—and, no doubt, there was lamentable loss of life —the loss inflicted upon the enemy was crushing and complete. It is notorious that the enemy, of whose bravery and adaptability for war it is impossible to speak too highly, has not stood up again against our Army since that engagement. That was the last action fought in the Soudan, and that was the last time the enemy stood up before our soldiers. I will not pursue the subject further, as an opportunity will soon be afforded of doing justice to the, I was going to say marvellous, bravery of our troops. They have been exposed, under circumstances of great difficulty, to dangers from which ordinary men would have recoiled; and they have maintained the character of Englishmen in a manner which must make us proud of the services they have rendered to their country under conditions excessively trying. In a climate which, under ordinary circumstances, would deprive men of vigour and power, they maintained the character of English troops and the soldier's reputation. I have received a great deal of most excellent advice, and I wish to tender to hon. Gentlemen my warm thanks for the kindness that has prompted them to give me that advice. I can assure them that, so far as I am able, I hope to give good effect to everything that I find of a practical nature in that advice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has already warned me that he will exercise the greatest possible vigilance over the War Department now that we have changed sides. We all know that he is capable of denouncing extravagance and maladministration in the warmest and most eloquent terms; and I hope he will keep a vigilant watch on me. I can assure him that I will give him every assistance I can to stimulate economy and improve the efficiency of the Department as long as I have the honour to preside over it. But I must demur to the suggestion that, because I happen to sit on this Bench, I am willing to be a party to any extravagance or to any expenditure that, in my opinion, is not required for the defence and security of the country. I have been reminded of the necessity of looking to efficiency as well as to economy. I entirely accept that view. Hon. Gentlemen have told us that we must have, not a large Army, but a well-appointed Army, and a thoroughly efficient Army, with large Reserves. I entirely agree with them, and I hope they will support the Secretary of State for War, whoever he may be, in securing that this Empire shall possess, not a large Army, but a well-appointed and efficient one. I do not think any Administration, whether composed of Members on this side, or on the other side of the House, desire the Army to be formed on any other principle. Well, an hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I do not now see in his place, spoke of the number of men who join voluntarily from the Reserves; and I may, perhaps, be allowed to say one word as to how the men came out from the Reserves. The men of only 15 regiments were called out, numbering 2,492, and of these 2,309 responded to the call, a circumstance which reflects the highest possible credit on the men themselves, and which shows the extent to which we can rely upon the Reserves in time of emergency. The hon. and gallant Member also asked how many had joined voluntarily. Well, out of the 15,000 now serving, 9,000 joined voluntarily, and have returned to the Colours. I should only be detaining the Committee at a moment when there is no reason for doing it if I ventured to go back on the many suggestions that have been made in the course of this discussion. I should like to have referred to the valuable suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram); but if he will permit me to study the information that has been given to me, I hope at some future time to be better qualified than I am now to express an opinion upon it, and upon many other suggestions which have been made. As to the particular Vote before the Committee, I have said already that I hope it will not be necessary to call for the men; but, upon my responsibility, I believe the best course to take is to furnish the Government with a Force that will be sufficient if the necessity for it arises and an emergency should occur. I trust that no such emergency will arise.

trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill that night. It was a Bill of one clause to enable the Treasury, out of the surplus of bankruptcy funds, to provide accommodation for bankruptcy offices.

said, that as the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha was the act of the last Administration and not of the present Government he thought the House would expect a somewhat fuller statement upon the subject than his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) was able, from the information he then had in his possession, to make a few nights ago. At the request of the Earl of North-brook, who was responsible for the re-instatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would make a short statement on the subject. For many years it had been the policy of the British Government to encourage British officers to take service in the Turkish Fleet. That had been the case with Admiral Walker and Admiral Slade, both of whom served in command of the Turkish Fleet while remaining in the active service of the British Navy, and it was also the case with Captain Mac-killon, who served in the Egyptian Navy while he was in the active service of the British Navy. Now, in 1868 Captain Hobart accepted service under the Porte in connection with the Turkish Fleet without previously obtaining the consent of the Admiralty; and, no doubt, that was a very serious offence on his part. Having done that he applied to the Admiralty for their consent, and the Admiralty consulted in the matter the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary—the Earl of Derby—reported that in view of the Cretan insurrection which was then going on it was not desirable for many reasons that the Turkish Fleet should be commanded by a British officer; and he advised that Captain Hobart be informed that he could not be allowed to continue in the British Service if he served under the Turks. Captain Hobart elected to serve under the Porte, and his name was accordingly erased from the list of officers in the British Navy, and he ceased to have any connection with the British Navy. A year later he applied, to be re-instated, and he was in-formed that when the Cretan insurrection was over his application would be considered. Nothing was done until 1874, when he again applied to be reinstated, and the matter was considered by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Ward Hunt, who consulted again the Foreign Secretary—the Earl of Derby. The Earl of Derby stated on that occa- sion, the Cretan insurrection being over, that in his opinion the re-instatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha, as a matter of Imperial policy, would be of material advantage to the country. In accordance with the view of the Earl of Derby, Mr. Ward Hunt re-instated Admiral Hobart Pasha in the British Navy. Therefore at that time his original offence was condoned. He was at that time a captain; but he bad not served for some years as Captain, and accordingly, by the Rules of the Service, he was at once retired, and he became a retired Admiral, receiving retiring pay at the rate of £1 per day. Hobart Pasha remained in that position till the year 1877, and during the three years he commanded the Turkish Fleet. In 1877 war broke out between Turkey and Russia, and it was then considered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—the Earl of Derby—that it was not desirable, in view of the fact that England assumed a position of neutrality in that war, that the Turkish Fleet should be commanded by a British officer, and accordingly he advised our Ambassador at Constantinople that as war had broken out between Russia and Turkey it was impossible for Hobart Pasha to continue to hold his position as a British officer, and at the same time command the Turkish Navy, and His Excellency was instructed to intimate that to Hobart Pasha. On his electing to remain in the service of Turkey Hobart Pasha was again struck off the list of officers of the British Navy. At the conclusion of the war Hobart Pasha applied to be reinstated, and he was informed that the matter would be considered. Nothing whatever was done till this year. In May last Hobart Pasha again applied to the late Government for his re-instatement, and his application was again as previously referred to the Foreign Secretary for his opinion. The gallant officer was informed that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, after careful consideration, had come to the conclusion that there were now even a stronger reasons of Imperial policy for his re-instatement than there were before. The House would not expect him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to go fully into those reasons. He thought it would be obvious to anyone that at a time when they were making preparations for a possible outbreak of war it was not unimportant that the Government should he in a position to command information which Hobart Pasha had on very important matters. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; but at all events Hobart Pasha had information with regard to where possible operations of war might he carried on greater than any other person; and it was considered that it was important that the Government should be in a position to ask Hobart Pasha for that information, and that they could hardly do if he was no longer a British officer. For those reasons, then, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs advised the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would be right to reinstate Hobart Pasha again in the British Navy, and accordingly Hobart Pasha was again re-instated, and his position was exactly the same as when he was originally re-instated by the previous Administration in the year 1874— he at once became again a retired Admiral, with the pay of a retired Admiral. He had no other pay, and could not receive any more. This year the question of his original offence was not raised, because that offence had been condoned in 1874. In 1877 his removal from the list of British officers was not due to any offence on his part, but merely to a desire on the part of the British Government to maintain neutrality in the war then taking place between Russia and Turkey. It had no reference whatever to the original offence—if it were an offence—which Hobart Pasha committed in entering the Turkish Service. This year the only question which arose was whether, looking to the whole circumstances of the case, and taking into account the view which the Foreign Secretary held, that, for Imperial reasons, it was important that Hobart Pasha should be a British officer, he should be re-instated again as in 1874. Those, shortly, were the reasons which actuated Earl Granville and the First Lord of the Admiralty in the matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty had, in fact, pursued the policy which Mr. Ward Hunt pursued in 1874, and for the same reasons—namely, that the Foreign Secretary had advised him that for Imperial reasons it was desirable that Hobart Pasha should be re-instated in the British Navy. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had only further to add that there had been several previous occasions on which officers who had entered the service of some Foreign Power without the previous consent of the Admiralty had had their names removed from the Navy List, hut had them subsequently reinstated. There was the case of Admiral Sir George Sartorius, who was removed from the Navy in 1832 and reinstated in 1837; of Sir Charles Napier, who was removed from the Service in 1833 and re-instated in 1836; of Lieutenant South, who was removed from the Navy in 1825 for entering foreign service without the consent of the Admiralty, and re-instated in 1827. Therefore, there were many precedents for the action of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The only other question in the case of Hobart Pasha was that of his retired pay. On that point the Law Officers appeared to have been consulted in 1874; and it was held by them that on re-instatement to the British Navy he was entitled, as a matter of right, to retired pay, although he was in the service of a Foreign Power. Several cases of the kind had occurred, and in all those cases it had been held that officers of the British Navy, but in the service of a Foreign Power, were entitled to draw retired pay in this country, unless a condition was made to the contrary. No such condition was made in the case of Hobart Pasha, and therefore, on his re-instatement as a retired Admiral, he was entitled, as a matter of right, to retired pay. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not friendly to the views Hobart Pasha had laid before the public, and had at times somewhat resented the attitude the gallant officer had assumed towards the Liberal Administration; yet, in view of the whole case, he thought Hobart Pasha's re-instatement could be justified on the ground of precedent, on the ground of the arrangement made in 1874, and also on the ground of Imperial policy, to which he had shortly alluded.

said, he thought the House had seldom heard a more inadequate defence of an Executive act than that just made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition were bound to express their opinion, because if the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha had been the act of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, no one could doubt that a great clamour would have been raised by Liberal Members, and perhaps by Liberal ex-Ministers, in denouncing the conduct of a Government which condoned and rewarded conduct such as that of Hobart Pasha, and which overlooked flagrant breaches of its own law. The House ought to bear in mind that the late Liberal Government did what the previous Tory Government refused to do; because, if he rightly followed the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General, the Government of Lord Beaconsfield refused to re-instate Hobart Pasha, but the late Government did not. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought before the House what was really the most important part of the case. He had stated that Hobart Pasha was removed from the British Navy in 1868 and re-instated in 1874; he had stated that Hobart Pasha was again expelled or required to leave Her Majesty's Service in 1877; but he had not told the House the full ground on which the act of 1877 was done. It was done because Hobart Pasha, by taking service under the Turkish Government at a time when it was at war with an Ally of Her Majesty, committed a breach of the Neutrality Laws. The fact was, that Hobart Pasha, having committed, in 1868, an offence against naval discipline and the Rules of the Admiralty, having been pardoned for that offence after a humble apology, in which he said he could not resist the tempting pecuniary offer made to him by the Turks, committed a much grosser offence in 1877, because he broke a law which was incumbent upon every private subject of Her Majesty, and which was doubly incumbent upon an officer. The Act of 1870–33 & 34 Vict. c. 90—provided that every

"British subject who accepts, or agrees to accept, any commission in the Military or Naval Service of any Foreign State at war with any Foreign State at peace with Her Majesty shall he guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall he punishable with fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments at the discretion of the Court before which the offender is convicted."

"and imprisonment, if awarded, may be either with or without hard labour,"

said, that he differed wholly from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in his view of this case, and that even the ex-Postmaster General, while making a perfectly sufficient technical answer, had left unstated one of the strongest grounds in favour of Admiral Hobart's re-instatement. He (Mr. M'Coan) happened to be at Constantinople when Hobart Pasha first entered the Turkish Service, and well recollected the circumstances under which Hobart Pasha was appointed; and he could testify that during that gallant officer's residence in Constantinople, and his service in the Turkish Navy, he rendered not only good service to the Turks, but excellent service to this country as well. [Laughter.] Gentlemen who did not know the facts might laugh, but he spoke of what he knew; and therefore he assured the House with confidence that ever since the decadence of the influence of our Embassy at Constantinople the chief factor in maintaining in Turkey a friendly feeling towards this country was Hobart Pasha. He maintained, therefore, that the influence which Hobart Pasha had for many years exercised for good between the two countries amply justified his restoration to rank in Her Majesty's Service. If objection were taken to the re-instatement because of the salary it entailed he need hardly remind the House that Admiral Slade, whose case was one of those referred to, drew pay as a retired officer in Her Majesty's Navy during the whole time he was in the Turkish Service. But he (Mr. M'Coan) felt strongly that the chief ground on which this re-instatement could be justified was the service Admiral Hobart had rendered to this country as a quasi-Diplomatic Agent. He had kept up in Turkey a kindly feeling towards England which, but for him, would long ago have died out. He was, in fact, the one link which kept alive the old friendship between the two countries, and that fact alone was sufficient to justify the action of the late Government.

said, no one could feel a stronger detestation of the Turks than he did. He should like to see them cleared out of Europe. No one felt more strongly than be did that there were far too many Admirals on half-pay; but, still, be thought the House must look at the question as one of pure justice. On the grounds of justice, he really believed Hobart Pasha ought to be re-instated. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said the Liberals would have made a great noise if this reinstatement had taken place under a Tory Government. Well, but Hobart Pasha was re-instated in 1874 under a Tory Government; and he (Mr. Labou-chere) was not aware that the Liberals made any noise on the subject. ["It was a different case."] It was a precisely similar case. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) and hon. Gentlemen who sat near him quite understood the case. They seemed to think that Hobart Pasha hopped into the Turkish Service whenever war was to take place, and hopped back again whenever war was over. That was not the case. Hobart Pasha was a Commander in the English Navy, and he took service with the Turks. Turkey was not then at war; but Hobart Pasha was superseded because he had not asked the permission of Her Majesty's Government to do what he did. A few years afterwards—in 1874—he did ask permission of Her Majesty's Government, and ho was re-instated in the English Service. War broke out in 1877 between Russia and Turkey. Hobart Pasha, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, was then in command of the Turkish Fleet. What could ho do? Could he, as an honourable man, say—"I have accepted your pay; with the permission of the English Government I have accepted service with you during the time of peace, and now when you are going to war I will retire and not fight?" He could not honourably do that, but was bound to stand to his guns. He remained in command of the Turkish Fleet, and naturally he was again superseded because the Foreign Enlistment Act existed. That Act had not always been put into operation. A great many officers, at divers times, had taken service with Foreign Governments without let or hindrance from Her Majesty's Government. Hobart Pasha was, however, superseded. War came to a close; but, as he understood, Hobart Pasha did not come to this country until a few months ago. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said there were political reasons why Hobart Pasha should be re-instated—that he would be very useful to us. He (Mr. Labouchere) declined to go into the political considerations, because he regarded the reinstatement as a mere act of justice to Hobart Pasha himself. He thought that as Hobart Pasha had accepted service with the Turks with the consent of Her Majesty's Government; that as he was in the Turkish Service when the war took place with Russia and he was obliged as an honourable man to remain in the Service; that as he had only been superseded on account of that war, it was only reasonable he should be reinstated in Her Majesty's Service when the war came to an end. Some hon. Members seemed astonished that Hobart Pasha was entitled to half-pay. They seemed to forgot that a Commander in the Navy had a right to go on the Retired List, and that if he exercised his right he received half-pay; that when he came to the top of the list of Commanders ho became a retired Captain; and that when he became to the top of the list of Captains he became a retired Admiral. A retired Admiral's services were never called upon. Hobart Pasha would never be called upon by Her Majesty's Government; his services could not be asked. [A laugh.] His hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) laughed; but, nevertheless, he (Mr. Labouchere) maintained that it was impossible to call upon the services of a retired Admiral, because when a naval officer went on half-pay he gave up all right and possibility of being employed in the Navy. The system might be a bad one, but there it was. They would be acting with exceptional stringency towards Hobart Pasha if they refused to do to him what had been done to other Naval Commanders. One Admiral more was one Admiral too many; but it was the system itself which was at fault, and they had no right to make a scapegoat of Hobart Pasha.

said, he thought his hon. Friends had raised a false issue in this matter, because it was really not a question whether Hobart Pasha had been serviceable to this country as a quasi-diplomatist, or whether it was a question of justice to Hobart Pasha because he had been serving in Turkey. The question at issue was one of principle, and, as regarded the precedents of the case, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was entirely wrong in all of the four cases which he had laid before the House, in order to induce it to support this Vote to the Turkish Pasha, Hobart Pasha. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of Slade, of Napier, of Walker, and of Sartorius. Now, when Walker and Slade commanded in Turkey they did so with the consent of the British Government, and when they withdrew from the Turkish Service they, of course, were restored to the position that they held before. But the cases of Sartorius and Napier were very remarkable, and had no similarity to that of Hobart Pasha. Sartorius took the command of the Portuguese Fleet, his name was taken off the British Navy List, and it remained off that List for several years. Napier was in command of a vessel cruising off the coast of Portugal, and Don Pedro requested him take the command of the Portuguese Fleet. Napier left his command in the British Navy and took the command oft he Portuguese Fleet. He defeated the adversaries of Don Pedro, and Don Pedro made him an Admiral. The British Government dismissed him from the Navy, and his name was erased from the list of officers. When Napier found he could not get on with the Portuguese Government and gave up the command, be came back on the British Navy List, not, however, as Admiral, but as Commander. He served afterwards with great distinction on the Coast of Syria under Admiral Stop-ford. He (Sir Robert Peel) agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) that there never was a lamer case than that made out by the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The right hon. Gentleman told them that Hobart Pasha had been re-instated on grounds of Imperial policy. Why, the debate was adjourned the other night in order that the House might be informed what the Imperial policy was which would justify such an exception being made as had been made in the case of Hobart Pasha. He (Sir Robert Peel) maintained that there was no proceeding in the history of the British Navy to compare with the reinstatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha; and the other night the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) justified the re-instatement by a statement which he was sure everyone in the House must have heard with surprise. The First Lord of the Admiralty said the other night —

"Hobart Pasha, having left the Turkish Service, has, therefore, been restored by the influence of Earl Granville and of the Earl of Northbrook."

"I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am entitled to half-pay at the rate of so and so, and that I have not accepted any employment under any other Government except under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."

said, he was rather surprised to hear so remarkable a speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as the one he had just delivered. His hon. Friend did not usually disport himself as an advocate of pensions at the expense of the community, and therefore it was a little astonishing he should do so on the present occasion. He (Mr. Rylands) considered that the charge on the Naval Vote for retired pay was a charge which all must deplore. It was increasing from year to year, and on many occasions hon. Gentlemen had pointed out that its extent was becoming a positive danger to the State. He felt very strongly that if any officer was tempted by the offer of very large remuneration to go into some foreign service the public should be relieved, by that very fact, from a charge for pension in respect of that officer. But if that could not he accepted as a rule, it was clear that if a man went into foreign service contrary to the Law of Neutrality and contrary to the directions of the Admiralty, he forfeited any right to pension. It was said that Hobart Pasha was no longer in the Turkish Service. He would like his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to go to his constituents and see what they would say when he told them the story; that here was a man who was formerly a Commander in the British Navy; that he went into a Foreign Service tempted by a large salary, but contrary to the Regulations of the Navy, and without the permission of the Admiralty; that he was struck off the Navy List; that after some years during which he had enjoyed high rank and pay, he was by some means or other allowed to come again on the Navy List of this country; that again he entered the Service of a Foreign Power and was struck off the Navy List; that he remained in that Foreign Service up to the present time, receiving, no doubt, very considerable remuneration, and that the late Government—the Government of economy —put this Hobart Pasha as a permanent charge on the country to the extent of £365 a-year. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton rose in his place and asserted that the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha was simply an act of justice. Justice to whom? Justice to the people of this country, who were to be taxed to the extent of this pension without any service having been rendered to justify it? The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) told the House a mysterious story about certain public interests which were involved, and certain great services which might he rendered by Hobart Pasha. What were those services? The right hon. Gentleman could not say. Was it to give them the information he had obtained while in the service of the Turks? Was he to be a spy at a salary of £365 a-year? What was Hobart Pasha to be? If the Government got rid of the pension, but came down to the House and said—"Here is this gentleman, Hobart Pasha, he can do great service to the country, and it is worth our while to pay him £365 a-year in return for that service," the House would be quite prepared to consider such a proposition. Bight hon. Gentlemen ought not to come to the House, and, in order to justify a pension which this gallant officer had no right to, to trump up a story about certain duties of a public character they expected him to perform, but which duties were such that they could not be explained. He looked upon this transaction with the greatest possible dislike and disgust, and he should be glad to have the opportunity of recording his vote against it.

said, he thought that the point last touched upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) deserved more emphasis than the hon. Gentleman had given it. The other points had been put before the House with clearness and effect. The case presented by the late Government rested entirely upon the one point that Hobart Pasha, owing to his official connection with the Turkish Navy and Government, might, tinder certain contingencies, have been serviceable to this country. That was a most sinister suggestion to put before the House of Commons. Anything more mean or contemptible he could scarcely imagine. The hon. Member for Wick-low (Mr. M'Coan) pleaded the case of this Admiral, because there had been for years strained relations between Turkey and this country, and Hobart Pasha was really the only medium by which the two countries were kept away from each other's throats. They were not told by the late Postmaster General that on his merits Hobart Pasha would have been entitled to a pension. The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to suggest that Hobart Pasha, on account of having been a British Commander, was entitled to come back to his former position and enjoy a pension; but the matter was put entirely on the special ground that they were approaching a period of difficulty with a great Power, and it was possible that Hobart Pasta, supposing that they had a pecuniary hold upon him, might render some service to this country. What service could he have rendered to his country, because the right hon. Gentleman did make a reference to the time when they maintained their neutrality? When Turkey was going to war with Russia they were obliged to detach Hobart Pasha lest they should have been implicated in their official relationship with the belligerents. But although Hobart Pasha was re-instated in the British Navy he remained in the Turkish Service. Surely Turkey was concerned in her neutrality, and for us to put her in the position that her neutrality was in danger was anything but worthy of us. From first to last it appeared to him that this proceeding savoured very much of chicanery. He felt more strongly on this matter, because this unjustifiable act had been done by men with whom he had apolitical connection. He could only wish the matter remained where it first stood, or that the responsibility rested elsewhere than on the shoulders of the late Government. He should have great pleasure in voting against the grant.

said, he intended to vote for this pension, and would like to give his reasons. It appeared to him that the whole question turned upon the importance to this country of there being a British officer concerned in the Navy of Turkey. He must confess he did not see the slightest meanness in keeping up a connection with the Empire of the Porte. It was of the greatest importance from a political point of view, and also from a naval point of view, that they should have, he would not say the control, but certainly something to do, at any rate, with the Navy of Turkey. It was well they should have an officer whom they could trust well acquainted with all the details of the Turkish Navy; and on that ground alone he intended to support the reinstatement of Hobart Pasha upon the Navy List of this country. With respect to the pecuniary part of the question, he thought he would be supported by the hon. Members who had been and were connected with the Admiralty, when he said that Hobart Pasha's claim to retired pay could not be for a moment questioned. When Hobart Pasha was re-instated he was without doubt entitled to the pay of his retired rank. He (Mr. A. Egerton) thought the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and the Government would do wisely to support the decision which had been come to after grave consideration by the late Government.