After the discussion we had on this Bill on Tuesday last, I feel it will not be necessary for me to occupy the time of the House at any great length in explaining the Instruction of which I have given notice. Since I gave that notice the House has agreed to the Motion of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis) and the Bill is referred to the consideration of a Hybrid Committee. It has been suggested that under the circumstances it might not be necessary to move the Instruction, because a Hybrid Committee has wider powers of inquiry than an ordinary Select Committee. I have, however, consulted the highest authority in the House on the subject, namely, the Clerks at the Table, and they express an opinion that the two matters referred to in the Instruction could not be fully dealt with by a Hybrid Committee without some Instruction in the nature of that I propose to move. I understand that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) thinks the Instruction unnecessary, but should that be so I venture to suggest to him that, at all events, the Instruction will be harmless, and there is no reason to object to it being sent to the Committee. From a statement in this morning's papers, which appears to be made on authority, I perceive it is intimated that my right hon. Friend is ready to give way if there is a general sense of the House in favour of the Instruction.

Not an authorised statement.

As the opinion of Welsh Members is strongly in favour of the Instruction, and as the matters referred to are purely Welsh, I think my right hon. Friend will do well to defer to Welsh opinion. My reasons for making the Motion are, shortly, these:—Under the Birmingham Corporation Water Bill it is proposed to give to the Corporation of Birmingham powers of compulsory purchase over 65,000 acres of land, of which 32,000 acres consist of common land.

The total is 45,000 acres.

I thought it was proposed to give the Corporation power to take 65,000 acres; but, however, 32,000 acres are common land, and over this common land the Bill proposes to extinguish common rights. When the rights are extinguished, the land becomes the absolute property of the Corporation, free from the exercise of any rights whatever. The common rights are now exercised by small farmers, tenants of the commoners, in whom, by law, the common rights are vested. These small farmers, so far as I can ascertain, number 400, and they, for the most part, use the common for turning out their sheep and ponies, for cutting turf for fuel, and I believe, in many parts of the district, turf is the only fuel, coal being so dear as to be hardly within the reach of these people. They also use fern for litter, and rushes for the thatching of their houses. These rights are essential to the economic working of these small holdings. Without the possession of these common rights these farms could not be successfully managed—they could not be economically profitable. All experience has shown in the past when common land has been enclosed and these rights extinguished the result has been the consolidation of these small holdings into larger farms, it being no longer possible to carry on the work of small farms profitably. This has been our experience of enclosures in the past, and the Report of the Small Holdings Committee shows this effect from enclosures—the disappearance of small farms. It is mainly on this account that Parliament in late years—since 1875—has practically put every obstacle in the way of enclosures. They can only take place under very exceptional circumstances, and with the greatest precautions in favour of the small farming class. There must be a local inquiry on the spot, before which every fact in relation to the commoners is brought. There is then an appeal to the Inclosure Commissioners, and the scheme is referred to a Standing Committee of the House, before whom every opportunity is given for those interested to come forward and state their case. I may point out also that the existence of common rights practically secures to the people access to the common. The compensation for enclosure does not, as a rule, go to the small farmers for the extinction of their rights; it goes to the landowner of whom the small farmers is tenant, and the latter gets no compensation. This proposal of the Birmingham Corporation is practically a great enclosure scheme. It will enable the Corporation to appropriate all the common land and become absolute owners, and they may treat the whole area as their private property. They may, if they think fit, plant the whole or part of it, or cultivate it or let it out in one great ranche. I understand that my right hon. Friend has given an assurance that the Corporation of Birmingham, although they desire to be absolute owners of the common land to the extent of 32,000 acres, yet they do not intend to interfere with the user by the farmers, but that the farmers shall continue to have the use of it as heretofore, and that neither have the Corporation any desire to exclude the public from such enjoyment of the commons as they now have. On this point I may mention that I think my right hon. Friend is mistaken in saying that people do not use the commons. My information is that a considerable number of tourists do now roam over the commons. Well, my right hon. Friend has given an assurance that the Corporation of Birmingham will not interfere with the practical user by the small farmers or the access of the public, but I do not understand that he is willing that any legislative sanction should be given to his assurance. What he proposes is that the Corporation of Birmingham shall have complete control, and that the exercise of the user shall be permissive on the part of the Corporation and without the sanction of law. It would be in the power of the Corporation, hereafter, to make any change they please; they would be absolute masters of the position, owners of all these 32,000 acres, with full compulsory powers over the commons to prevent the user if they should think fit to do so. I have no doubt that so long as my right hon. Friend exercises his influence in Birmingham municipal affairs no injustice will be done, and his assurances will no doubt be carried out; but we have no security for the future in the event of a change of policy on the part of the Corporation, when the power they now seek may be exercised in a manner very different to the assurance my right hon. Friend now gives. My right hon. Friend gives as a reason why the Corporation ask this power from Parliament that it is desirable that the Corporation should have control so as to secure the absolute purity of the water. It is no doubt essential that this purity should be secured. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he thought it was probable, or possible, that the exercise of the right of cutting turf might hereafter interfere with the purity of the water supply, and he alluded also to the practice of sheep-washing and the use of arsenic in preparations used in that process, and which might have a detrimental effect on the water. But he did not say that these evils now exist; he put them only as possible difficulties in the future. I have no doubt that it would be quite possible, by regulations adopted in the Act, or hereafter made with the approval of the Local Government Board, that ample security might be obtained against any evils of this kind, and without expropriating all common rights in the manner proposed. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the washing of sheep is not a right of commoners; it is merely an easement attached to the occupation of the land adjoining, and it can be dealt with quite apart from anything in my Instruction. It is, therefore, quite possible to stop the practice, and secure the water from any impurity from that cause. It appears to me, under all the circumstances, we have a right to maintain that this should be treated as a public matter. I do not ask the House to express a positive opinion whether or not all common rights should be expropriated; that is a matter for the Committee to decide. All I ask is that this should be treated as a public question—that the Committee shall have a full inquiry, with every opportunity of ascertaining all the facts, with power to call before them witnesses whose evidence they may think necessary. The small farmers I have alluded to are in the main very poor men. They have no means whatever of appearing before the Committee, by counsel or otherwise; they have not even petitioned Parliament against the Bill, though I am told on good authority that they are unanimously opposed to this scheme. It is necessary therefore that the Committee shall have full power to go into the whole of the case, and summon any witnesses they may think necessary for the purposes of their inquiry. As to the other part of the case—the right of the public to the use of the commons for recreation purposes—all I ask is that the Committee shall be empowered to enter into the question, and to deal with it in the same manner as the rights of the public have been dealt with in all recent enclosures of mountain land, namely, by inserting a clause providing that the public shall have the privilege of enjoying the air, exercise, and recreation afforded by those parts of the land for the time being not planted, cultivated, or used for arable purposes. Such a clause appears in all recent Acts for the enclosure of mountain land, and I think, after the Debate on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), in reference to the right of the people to access to unenclosed mountain and moorland, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) will hardly object to the insertion of such a clause. Again, I say, I do not ask the House to come to a decision at the moment; all I want to ensure is that the matter shall go before the Committee to whom this Bill will be referred, and that the Committee shall be empowered to consider the question in the interest of the public, and insert such a provision as they may think fit to secure the access of the public. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I am not hostile to the Bill. I think it may be desirable that a municipality should have the power to acquire land, but I do not think it is desirable, unless there is an overwhelming necessity shown, that a Corporation should become landowners on a great scale far beyond the boundaries of their municipal jurisdiction. The proposal in the Bill is that the Corporation of Birmingham shall become landlords over 45,000 acres, making them practically the largest owners of land in Wales. I have myself very great confidence in the general success of Local Government, but I do not think it is desirable that a Corporation should become landlords of a vast estate beyond their municipal boundaries. However, that is a question to be dealt with by the Committee. My Instruction is not mandatory; it is permissive in form. All I ask is that the House will give full powers of investigation.

My right hon. Friend has made a very long speech upon a very small point. He has told us his views on the acquisition of land by Municipalities generally, on the rights of commoners, and other matters, which have really nothing to do with the point in question. In many respects I share the views of my right hon. Friend, and I appreciate the object he has in view by his Motion. He has given us a rather poetical account of the state of things in this wild district where the population is only one or two to the square mile, and he has represented the question of common rights there as a subject of the greatest importance. I differ entirely from my right hon. Friend as to the information he has received of the opinion of the commoners themselves. I am perfectly certain that these men, now engaged in getting a sparse and scanty living out of almost barren land, will find much to their advantage in having a Corporation spending millions in their immediate neighbourhood, and I am sure that nobody would regret more than these men, for whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks, if anything should happen to defeat the Bill. But all we hear about these common rights are but ex parte statements on matters upon which the Committee will have to give a decision; but for the sake of present argument I am perfectly willing to accept what my right hon. Friend has said. I am willing to admit that it is desirable that the user of the commons should be preserved; and I repeat, what I said on a previous occasion, that it is the intention, and it is to the interest, of the Corporation of Birmingham that there shall be the same user over portions of the land after it passes into the possession of the Corporation as there has been in the past. But, says my right hon. Friend under these circumstances—"Why do you object to statutory limitations of the power of the Corporation? Why do you object to leave the commoners in the possession of their vague and undefined rights, why seek their expropriation?" My right hon. Friend undertakes to say they will not in any way injure or endanger the purity of the water supply. This is all very well, but if my right hon. Friend found himself in the position of the Corporation of Birmingham, going to spend £6,000,000 upon this estate—not, indeed, for the purchase of the land, for that will be but a very small item in the account, but upon land, machinery, works, and all the apparatus for bringing the water to Birmingham—I think he would not feel this as a matter to be put off so easily. I can only say, on behalf of the Corporation, that, as I am advised at present, unless they can obtain the absolute freehold ownership of the property they will feel themselves unable to go on with the scheme. It is a very great responsibility as it stands. I confess I tremble at the obligations we impose upon our people in order to make this salutary provision, and at the danger of pecuniary burdens seriously interfering with the prosperity of our population. But although we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is our duty to undertake this enormous task, and to incur the risk attending it, I hope the House will not, by attaching conditions, increase that risk beyond what is right and necessary. I have given the assurance of the Corporation, and our interest is in the same direction. What possible interest can the Corporation have in removing these people from the land? The Corporation, however, must have control over the land, for it is impossible to foresee the future, or to predict what possible new conditions may arise. I quite agree that nothing that is now done is likely to injure the success of the water undertaking; and if we could be guaranteed absolutely that nothing will be done in the future, 200 or 300 years hence perhaps, that is not done by the commoners to-day, then we might readily accept a statutory obligation to preserve these rights. But the rights are vague, and we cannot tell whether the rights asserted to-day will be those asserted centuries hence. Therefore, we say it is not possible that the Corporation can have less than the entire control of the freehold of the land. On the other hand, I am quite willing to have this matter fully inquired into. We say the House is not able to inquire into matters of this kind with no evidence, and we think the evidence we can give the Committee will be sufficient to induce the House to give the Corporation full proprietorship over the land. Then, says my right hon. Friend, "Why object to the Motion?" I reply to him, "Why does he want the Instruction?" There is no doubt whatever that a Hybrid Committee can inquire into these matters. They have perfect power to inquire into the rights of commoners, and the County Council could undertake to raise the matter if they thought it important, but to accept the Instruction proposed is, in effect, to give a hint to the Committee. It is not mandatory I know, but it is a suggestion to the Committee to take a particular line, and that is what we respectfully protest against. I wish to spare the time of the House, and I should like to come to an agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has raised two points in his Instruction, both of which are of importance. As regards the commoners, I cannot concede more than I have in the shape of a Hybrid Committee, with full power to call evidence and pay the expenses of witnesses, but it is possible, it has been suggested to me, that the rights of the public could not be raised before a Hybrid Committee; and if it will satisfy my right hon. Friend—and I must be exact in these affairs on behalf of the Corporation—if it will satisfy him, and he will withdraw his Instruction, then I am prepared to give, on behalf of the Corporation, an assurance that we will introduce into the Bill what is known as the "Thirlmere" clause, the clause inserted in the Manchester Water-works Bill, which will give the public full right of access. Let me point out, too, that in the case of the Manchester Bill the proposal dealt with a district well known to tourists. Unless the information in my possession is wrong the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, both as to the character of the district and the number of persons who are to be found there. I am told that you might go about there for months and not meet anyone, except these shepherds and people connected with the place that have been referred to. I am also told that the district is quite cul de sac; that it leads to no where, and that consequently it is highly improbable that there would be any great number of tourists visiting it. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Motion and withdraw his Instruction, he may rest assured that the commoners and all others interested will have every opportunity of being heard before the Committee.

I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have accepted the Instruction proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. I understood, when the subject was last before the Committee on Tuesday, he accepted this Instruction.

I accepted it under a condition. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

He accepted it under the condition that the House did not divide on the Motion for the Second Reading. It seems to me, whether the House divided or not, the reasonableness of this Instruction remains the same. The right hon. Gentleman admits now, as he admitted on Tuesday, that it was a strictly reasonable Instruction. It seems to me that in this matter the decision rests with neither of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, and that it rather rests with the authorities of this House; and I understand that in order that this subject maybe fairly discussed in the Hybrid Committee, that it is necessary that there should be a clause —that this permissive Instruction should be inserted. All we ask is that the Hybrid Committee which this House has sanctioned should inquire how far the common rights existing on these 32,000 acres shall be considered by the Committee, and how far the existing Rules need be extinguished so as to be consistent with the main object of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has admitted that he desires to continue to allow these commoners to have the user of these 32,000 acres of common. But the question which arises is this—Will they have the user so recognised as an immemorial right, free of rent or any other consideration, or will they become mere tenants at a rack-rent to the Corporation? We admit this to be a great project, showing the great public spirit and enterprise of the Corporation of Birmingham; but, still, I think it is the duty of this House to see that the interests of the 300 or 400 tenants should be as much safeguarded as possible, and all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford asks is that the Committee should inquire into this question as well as into the other questions. I hope on re-consideration the promoters of the Bill will accept this permissive Instruction, and give full scope to the Committee to inquire what these rights are to be consistently with the main object of this Bill.

I agree with a great deal that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, but I should like to point out that the use of this common by a comparatively small number of tenants is a small point compared with the larger question of the health of a great community. It is a question of the health of more than half a million of people. If the exercise of the light of user should lead to such acts being done to the surface of the land as to affect the purity of the water drawn therefrom, as might probably be the case, then it might result in a serious detriment to the public health. Therefore, I think we should take every precaution to give power to the Corporation of Birmingham, in order that they should be able to provide such a supply of water as would be free from every possible sort of contamination; such might arise even from the preservation of the rights of the public to have access to that ground. Other schemes also are likely to come before us. We shall have the question of London and other great towns and cities coming up for discussion; and in consideration of these, I am very anxious that no precedent should be established in this case which would interfere with the acquisition of a suitable and pure water supply by the other great communities of the country. If you establish the right of user to this ground you may have a water supply obtained at great cost and infinite trouble rendered comparatively useless, and even injurious to the people; and I think that in all these cases no question of the interests of the few individuals on the one hand, as compared with the interests of a great community on the other hand, ought to receive the sympathy of the House. When one has to judge between the two, surely the sympathy of the House will be on the side of a great public community seeking for its people pure water.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that in a question of this kind the sympathy of the House should be on the side of a great community, rather than on the side of a few individuals; but surely that is no reason why the rights of the few should not be protected by this House? All we ask is that the Committee shall, on the one hand, weigh the rights of the Corporation of Birmingham, and take into consideration, on the other hand, the rights and demands of these commoners and the public of the locality, whose rights are threatened. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, the Committee would have power to do this without an Instruction; but I am informed that the authorities of the House are against the right hon. Gentleman; and however great his authority may be as a politician in certain quarters, we have, with reference to the Forms of the House, to look to the authorities of the House, and not to the right hon. Gentleman. It has been said that this would be a precedent against Corporations acquiring pure water in future; but it would be a precedent also for taking away from the commoner his rights, without obtaining any compensation for the rights of which he had been deprived. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, on behalf of the Corporation, pledges himself that the rights of the commoners and the public should not be interfered with further than to obtain the water, and keep it in a state of purity; but in the same breath he said—"We are not willing to insert a statutory provision to that effect." We do not know how long his connection with the Corporation of Birmingham may last, and his influence may continue, but all Corporations change every day, and no one can give any pledge which can be binding on the Corporation of Birmingham unless there are statutory provisions inserted in the Bill. Supposing the Corporation of Birmingham thought fit, in the future, when the whole body changes, to throw over the pledges given through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who speaks on their behalf in this House; what right could anybody have who was deprived of his commonable rights? What would be his position? Could he have an action at law against the Corporation of Birmingham? Not in the slightest degree. He would have no protection whatever for the breach of the pledge, nor any remedy from the Corporation or anybody else. But if the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Corporation, is prepared to pledge himself that, so far as can be done, having regard to the purity of the water, the commonable rights of these people shall be protected, then it seems to me the right hon. Gentleman has got no answer to the demand that the Committee shall be instructed to insert statutory powers to that effect in the Bill. I think that, upon the ground that there is some doubt as to the powers of the Committee, we are entitled to ask that such doubt shall be removed, and that the Committee shall have power to consider this question—whether the provisions we ask for should not be inserted in the Bill, namely, that the commonable and other rights of the peasants and the people should not be extinguished, except in so far as it was absolutely necessary for the supply of water for the Corporation of Birmingham, and to keep the water pure; and, therefore, I think this Instruction should be adopted by the House.

I should like to say two things. The first is, that having been for some years on the Commons Committee in this House, I have heard it laid down over and over again that, so far as possible, the rights of the commoners are not to be disturbed. The second point is this—Birmingham has undoubtedly a right to get a supply of water; but I recollect that Birmingham had a lesson some time ago when she wanted to get rid of her sewage, and I think it would be most unfair and most unwise to make a precedent with regard to Birmingham until that important question has been considered fairly by the House. Wales knows perfectly well that she is threatened by many other large communities coming to her for water; if one is granted this privilege, surely the other cannot be refused; and, therefore, it behoves this House to be very careful in that which it is doing. I will only add one other observation with regard to a subject especially interesting to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the hon. Gentleman sitting immediately behind him (Mr. Jesse Collings)—namely, the Small Holdings, with reference to which the hon. Gentleman sitting behind him, if I mistake not very much, has stated over and over again that these men who live on the borders of a common, and have common rights and common run, can do a great deal more for themselves than the men who have a small portion of land without a common near them. That, I think, is a matter worthy of consideration in this case. I would do nothing to deprive Birmingham of her water supply, but I would only venture to make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, which may be a reasonable settlement of the question, and that is, whether he cannot allot as freehold a certain portion of this land, which is not in any way necessary for the water supply, and which may be near the holdings of these commoners.

Perhaps I may be allowed to interpose for a moment for the sake of peace. The question before the House is as to the right of the commoners, of the farmers, and of the public, to have their interests safeguarded and considered in this Bill. We have passed an Order constituting a Hybrid Committee, and declared in that Order that all the petitions against the Bill, as presented to the House, are referred to them for consideration, and that the petitioners who ask to be heard are to be heard. That surely, in words, covers every possible thing. There is, indeed, no doubt about the commoners having a different right, and a distinct right from the farmers, who have no right, but merely a user. If, three days before the meeting of the Committee, the farmers present a petition to the Committee, they are, upon the ordinary footing of ordinary usage, entitled to be heard. If the Commons Preservation Society, or any other party concerned, like to present a petition three days before the meeting of the Committee, they are entitled to be heard. The whole thing is already covered. It may be said, therefore, why not accept the Instruction? Well, because it would seem to throw a slur on the authority of the Committee to tell them to do what they have already power to do—to consider fully every point of this question. Therefore, I do think the right hon. Gentleman would act wisely by withdrawing this Instruction, on the assurance that the authorities of the House have now decided, and for many years it has been the rule, that no question of locus standi can be raised constituted as this Hybrid Committee is. Of course, the right to be heard is grounded upon a Petition.

I have not the slightest doubt that all of us accept, without hesitation, what the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has said as regards the power of the Committee; but I cannot for the life of me understand what objection there is to bring under the notice of the Committee, in the form of an Instruction, the expression of a wish on the part of the House that they should inquire into these matters. Therefore, I venture to suggest, if I might do so, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who has the interests of Birmingham to represent in this House, would do wisely to accept this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has told us what the commoners and farmers have a right to be heard before the Committee on presenting a Petition. Who is going to pay the cost of the Petition by these commoners and farmers? We have all, I know, some experience of the enormously extravagant expenses which are incurred in opposition to Bills. Who has the money to spend on these expenses? What I should wish to do, if it would be in order, would be, to add to this Instruction that the cost of all Petitions by commoners and farmers, and those interested in the district, should be paid by the promoters. (Laughter.) The right hon. Gentleman laughs. It is a legal laugh. I, for my part, deeply deplore that this Bill has been drafted and proposed, and has not been postponed for another five years, because then it would be promoted under entirely different conditions. I may say that I have not the slightest wish to deprive a community of the blessings of a supply of water, and that an ample supply, from the Welsh hills; but for my part I always say that when a Corporation like Birmingham come to the Welsh hills to spend six millions of money in getting this blessing for a great community, the poor tenants of the locality from whom it is taken ought to be regarded with some consideration.

I had no intention of speaking on this question till I came down to the House, but I should like to offer a practical reason why, if possible, every safeguard should be given at this stage. Once it goes upstairs, there is less chance of the commoners getting their full rights unless they are well supplied with money for paying counsel. But when the money is all on one side it is a very difficult matter, after a prolonged inquiry upstairs, to insure that all points are fully considered. I speak from bitter experience in this matter, having myself some years since asked the House to reject a Bill of a somewhat similar character. A large company in Bristol wished to take water from a certain source which would have caused great injury to those resident in the locality. I asked the House to reject the Bill, but it did not do so. It went upstairs, where thousands of pounds were spent, which had been collected from very poor people; the Bill was practically rejected there on the very grounds on which I asked the House to reject it on the Second Reading. Therefore, it is most unfair to refuse this Instruction to the Committee.

It seems to me that the Corporation of Birmingham only came here from dire necessity, and from the extreme feeling they had of their responsibility to supply what is necessary for over One-half million or more people. They would be glad if they had no necessity whatever to come to ask for permission to spend such an enormous sum for the purpose of providing a water supply for the people of Birmingham. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees as to the powers of this Committee, one would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Instruction would have been satisfied, because we contend that we are as anxious as he is to have all these matters considered by a competent tribunal upstairs. But the only reason, in my opinion, that inquiry should be left to this competent tribunal without an Instruction is this: that an Instruction given by this House must of necessity have, and ought to have, some force in biasing the mind and judgment of the Committee upstairs. The right Iron. Gentleman spoke of this matter as a question of enclosure; but it cannot be regarded as a question of ordinary enclosure, and cannot be made into any measure for the extinguishment of rights, because a large portion of this enclosed area is to be used as a gathering ground for water. I would request the attention of my right hon. Friend who moved this Instruction to the fact that beyond the extinguishing of the area that is submerged the Bill secures the rights of the people whom he is interested in. It does not extinguish anything beyond the limits absolutely necessary for securing pure water, which, I presume, all will desire. There will be a change as to proprietorship, but the rights will remain. The commoners whose rights are bought will stand in the same relation to the Corporation of Birmingham as they do to the present owner of the common rights. The only limitation that will be necessary will be one to prevent them from doing anything that shall tend to destroy the purity of the water. The great question of common rights will be settled in the best possible manner by putting the ownership of those rights into the hands of the Municipality. The privileges of the tenants will be more likely to be extended—certainly to be preserved—by the Corporation than by a private owner. This is a great public question in the fact that it touches the interests of an enormous number of inhabitants of a certain district of the country. There are, again, thirty or forty times as many Welsh people in Birmingham as there are in the district it is proposed to enclose. If such restrictions as are proposed, however, are to be imposed, they will affect other public bodies. Take Loudon for instance. It will soon seek to get this necessary of life. I think that the needs of an enormous population should be the governing idea with this House in deciding this question. The Birmingham Corporation only ask that the House will not allow any danger to be run that, after having paid an enormous sum for property, some action would be possible that would take no account of the outlay and would foul and render less pure the water. The idea is, first of all, to get a pure supply of water for a vast population. To guard whatever rights there may be the Committee, to whom it is proposed to refer this Bill, have full power.

I may, perhaps, close this discussion by saying I am unfortunately unable to accept the offer made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, because I consider the first part of my Instruction far the most important one; and, secondly, because I am not satisfied with regard to the proposal to apply the Thirlmere Clause; I think that is not sufficient. The Chairman of Committees and the authorities of the House differ, I understand.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some difference of statement as to the right to be heard before this Committee. I beg to ask you, Sir, as the highest authority, whether such persons—namely, commoners and farmers having rights of user over the property—would not be entitled to be heard before a Hybrid Committee?

The matter is a difficult one, but my own opinion is that the Instruction is necessary from the point of view of those who have moved it, for this reason: No doubt the occupiers of the land would have a right of locus standi so far as any water abstracted from them might be in question; but when it came to their rights of common, then I think it might be a very grave question indeed whether they would have a locus standi, as appealing to the Committee on behalf of the common, as distinguished from their water rights. I know that all Petitions presented to the Committee might be considered, but I am not at all sure that a Hybrid Committee might not have power to reject a Petition, as I believe has once before been done some years ago. It is for that reason that I think—it may be out of abundance of caution, perhaps, but I still think—that the Instruction would be necessary from the point of view of those who have moved it.

After the statement you have made, Sir, I beg to say I will withdraw all opposition to the Instruction.

There were some complaints that the supply of water would not remain sufficient in certain districts if this Bill were passed in its present shape, and I put down a notice of Instruction as a mandatory notice:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred that provisions be inserted in the Bill preserving the substantial use and enjoyment by the public of the waters of the Wye and of other rivers affected by the Bill, to the same extent and in like manner as if this Bill were not passed, or a full equivalent for such use and enjoyment."

had the following Instruction upon the Paper:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert clauses in the Bill exempting Eastbourne from the operation of sec. 26, cap. vii. 10 Geo. IV., and to make provisions in the Bill to secure that equal, full, and free toleration be accorded to all religious persuasions to hold meetings and processions within the borough of Eastbourne."

The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monaghan cannot come on to-day, because it would be postponed, necessarily, if it were in Order; but it is not in Order. There is nothing in the Eastbourne Improvement Act, 1885, nor in the precedent of the Belfast Act, which would warrant exempting a particular locality from the operation of the general Statute referred to. In the case of the Eastbourne Act, exceptional powers were granted to the Mayor and Corporation, but in this case exemption from a general Statute applicable all over the United Kingdom is supposed to be conferred upon a particular locality. That would contravene the general principle, and, I think, would be clearly out of Order.

Your ruling is unquestionable, but I would like to ask the Leader of the House or the Home Secretary whether the Government would introduce or facilitate a Bill to repeal the obsolete provisions of the Emancipation Act?

It is hardly a question that should be put without notice. It is a matter of public policy of great importance, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that since the Emancipation Act was passed I am not aware of any penalty under the section in question ever having been levied, so that the grievance is not a very tangible one.

I beg to give notice that, on the earliest possible occasion, I will introduce a Bill to repeal this infamous clause, and I hope then to get the votes and support of the hon. Gentlemen who voted for religious liberty to the Salvation Army. I hope that they will be prepared to extend that principle to Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty as well as to the Salvation Army.

I beg to give notice that when such a Bill is introduced, I will move to add to it provisions to repeal various other matters of a similar kind in the Bill.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether telegraph clerks are paid at a rate and a quarter for all overtime; whether their hours of duty are eight per diem; whether they perform duties of nine and ten hours, for which so-called compensation is allowed of duties of seven and six hours; and whether, having regard to the fact that clerks when performing these long duties are subjected to precisely the same strain as when the extra time is overtime, he is prepared to recommend that the additional quarter be paid for all hours of duty performed after the official eight-hour day?

Telegraphists are paid for overtime as stated. Their hours of work are eight hours on an average; but, owing to the exigencies of the Service, at certain hours of the day they are employed longer on some days and shorter on others. The payments for overtime have recently been fixed after careful consideration, and I do not think it is expedient to revise them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the following Report of the Veterinary Inspector to the Health Committee of Salford:—

"February 19th. Whilst on duty I saw a waggon consigned to a dealer, which waggon contained 28 live sheep and nine live swine; also two dead sheep with the heads attached to the skin; also several bones of another sheep which had been devoured by the pigs. I afterwards examined the two carcases, which were unfit for human food;"

I have seen the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, and, although it is not very clear, I presume it is directed to the question of overcrowding. Upon inquiry, I find that the animals in question were conveyed to their destination by rail, and I have ordered an investigation to be made with a view to ascertain whether there has been any breach of the Order of the Board which prescribes that railway trucks shall not be overcrowded so as to cause unnecessary suffering to the animals therein. I think it will be found that the case is one which is fully met by the existing regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now say when the Employers' Liability Bill will be introduced?

I had every hope that the progress of the pending Government measures would be such as to enable the Government to introduce the Employers' Liability Bill at no distant date, but it is not possible for me to mention any definite time when it will be introduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any, and, if so, how many, officers in the Irish Prison Service who are classed and paid as tradesmen in various crafts, but who are not bonâ fide mechanics?

The General Prisons Board in Ireland report that there are in all 42 trades' warders in their service, of whom 17 are in convict and 25 in local prisons. The men are specially selected for the duty, and their qualifications and fitness are subject to a six months' probation before they are confirmed in the appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries into the death of a maidservant named Belcher, who died on the morning of the 5th March at the house of Mr. Hoare, of Wavendon Hall, Bucks; whether he is aware that Mr. Hoare, not knowing if the girl was fainting or dead, sent forthwith for Mr. Wright Grant, a medical man, who made a careful examination of the body; that although Mr. Hoare communicated with the Coroner, requesting him to meet Mr. Wright Grant, the Coroner sent word that he did not think an inquest necessary; that Mr. Hoare insisted upon an inquest, which took place upon 7th March, and that the Coroner refused to call Mr. Wright Grant as a witness, saying that he preferred to take the evidence of his own medical man, Mr. Lucas, although another doctor had first seen the body of the deceased; whether, under the circumstances, he will cause some further investigation to be made; and whether it is the duty of the Coroner to take the evidence of the doctor who first examined the body after death?

Yes, Sir; I have made inquiries concerning this case. I am informed that Mr. Wright Grant was called in to see the deceased woman, and saw her four hours after her death. It is the fact that in the first instance Mr. Hoare asked the Coroner to meet Mr. Wright Grant, and that the Coroner replied that he must first have a report from the police, before deciding that an inquest was necessary, at the same time adding that he would see Mr. Grant if he called at his house. It is true that until Mr. Hoare communicated some additional particulars to the Coroner, the latter did not think that an inquest was necessary, as the police report was entirely consistent with the view that the deceased died from natural causes. The Coroner informs me that when the inquest was held he did not refuse to call Mr. Grant as a witness for the reason alleged in the question, but that he told him, as several witnesses had seen the body before he had, his evidence would not be necessary. The Coroner's action in this case is entirely justified by Statute. The jury found that the deceased died from natural causes, and there appears to be no reason whatever for further investigation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of the Police Force to which the County of Limerick is entitled; how many extra police are now serving in the county, and at what cost to the ratepayers; and when will the question of removing or reducing the extra force be considered?

The free quota of Constabulary to which the County Limerick is entitled under the last triennial re-distribution is 404. At the beginning of last year the extra force in that county numbered 172 men. This number has been gradually reduced, as circumstances admitted, to the present number of 144, and the question of a further reduction is now under consideration. The charge for the present extra force to the county is at the rate of about £4,900 per annum.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can explain the cause of delay in issuing the Report of the Committee of Experts upon the requirements by certain localities in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, promised upon the 1st, and laid upon the Table in dummy on the 8th current?

The Report referred to is now in the hands of the printers, who have been requested to make every effort to have it circulated as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received Memorials from certain second-class clerks in the Prison Department, acting as delegates for the majority of the clerical staff; and, if so, whether he will consent to receive the deputation offered in the Memorial, and on what date?

Yes, Sir; I have received the Memorials referred to in the question. In reply to them, I requested to be informed of the matters which the proposed deputation desired to bring under my notice. With this request the memorialists complied, but their written statements do not contain any matters which had not been fully considered by me when the recent recommendations were made to the Treasury for the improvement of the position of these clerks. Under these circumstances, to receive a deputation would excite hopes which cannot be realised, and I cannot, therefore, comply with the memorialists' request.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen the Press report of an interview with Berry, the public executioner, from which it appears that, as Berry alleges, he was turned out of Kirkdale Gaol by the officials to prevent him giving evidence before a Coroner's jury in the case of a man decapitated during execution, because such evidence would have placed the responsibility for the mishap on the Home Office; and that the Press have been excluded from executions by direction of the Home Office; whether he will state whether it is usual for the executioner to be present at the inquests held after executions; and what regulations are in force as to the presence of reporters at executions?

I have not seen any Press report containing the allegation of Berry that he was turned out of Kirkdale Prison to prevent his giving evidence at the inquest. The reports which I have seen of the case referred to show that Berry left the prison of his own accord. The Home Office have not given instructions that reporters should be refused admission to executions. It is not usual for the executioner to be present at the inquest held after the execution. The admission of reporters was a matter for the decision of the High Sheriff of the county. The Prison Commissioners have not interfered in the matter. On the occasion referred to the reporters were made to leave the prison before they completed their notes in consequence of orders given improperly and without authority by the executioner Berry himself.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any representations have been received at the Home Office from the State Department, United States, or from any other source, respecting the trial and conviction of J. Curtin Kent in April, 1883, for having conspired to use explosive materials; and, if so, has the Home Secretary investigated the case for himself; and, if he has not, will he now investigate it by the light of any representations that may have been made to him?

Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances of this case. No communications from the State Department of the United States have been made on this matter to the Home Office. The Deputy Consul General of the United States applied in February, 1888, for permission to see the prisoner with reference to this case, and this was allowed. I shall be prepared to investigate any representations made to me on the case.

I wish to ask whether any representations have been made to the Foreign Office on the subject, and whether the Home Secretary has had any representations made to him from another quarter—namely, from myself?

I have received from the hon. Member private notice of this question. I have made inquiry at the Foreign Office, and have learned that they have reeceived no communication from the United States.

Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the matter in the light of the document which I have placed in his hands, and which came to me from America?

I will look at the document again.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the collection of duty on sparkling wine, under the ad valorem system, is working smoothly?

A certain amount of friction was caused in the months of December and January when the Customs began to administer the Act rather more strictly in consequence of the Judgment given by Mr. Justice Smith in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of "Leakey and Haig v. Dunglinson;" but the Board of Customs have sought as far as practicable to work in harmony with the trade, and it is believed that under the rules now in force much of the friction has subsided. Of course there must be occasional complaints. Whenever a line is drawn above which there is a heavier duty and below it a lighter one, there will always be some disputed cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of warder schoolmasters and principal warder schoolmasters are employed in local prisons in England and Wales?

There is one principal warder schoolmaster and 44 warder schoolmasters.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the Ipswich Borough Magistrates have directed their clerk to call upon all applicants for the renewal of existing licences at the next Annual General Licensing Session to produce a ground plan of their premises in respect of which the licence is granted; if so, whether such action is in excess of their powers granted under the Licensing Acts of 1872 and 1874; and whether he will direct any steps to be taken in the matter?

My attention has not been called to the case in question; but, assuming the facts to be as stated, I cannot say that the action of the Justices would be in excess of their powers under the Licensing Acts. They have to consider whether the premises are the same, and I cannot say they would be acting in excess of their powers by requiring proper information from the plans.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolutions recently passed by both Houses of Convocation of the Province of York expressing strongly their desire and conviction that no measure dealing with clergy discipline should be presented for Second Reading in either House of Parliament before Convocation has seen and considered such measure; and whether the Government will, under the circumstances, consider the advisability of not proceeding with the measure introduced in another place by the Archbishop of York until after the clergy of the northern province shall have expressed their views upon it?

I have no cognisance of the resolutions alluded to, but if the hon. Member will put down the question for a later day I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and names of the various stations in which Acting Sergeant Gurry, now at Clonmel, served; on what grounds was he moved from Bansha and Oola, and the other stations to which he was attached; will he state by whom a complaint was made to his superior officer while he was at Bansha, and what was the nature of it; has he any objection to give his general conduct record; is he aware that great dissatisfaction exists among the Force in consequence of the promotion of this constable over the heads of men who have served many years longer, and whose service and conduct records are good; and will he have the case investigated?

The Government are of opinion that no public end would be gained by giving the information desired, nor is it in accordance with custom to do so. I am not aware that any such dissatisfaction as that suggested in the question exists. The constable proved an excellent policeman, and was promoted on the recommendation of the officer under whom he served.

Is it a fact that Mr. Rafferty, his superior officer, refused to recommend him for promotion until Colonel Caddell, on his leaving the place, requested him to do so?

I have no information to that effect.

I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a most unusual thing for a constable to be removed five or six times in the course of ten years without some good reason; whether he is aware of the fact that the books kept at the various stations have been full of black marks against this constable; and I desire, also, to ask whether the cause of his removal is not because he has been in the habit of following young girls about in the district?

There is nothing in the information before me to lead me to suppose anything of the kind, nor to suggest that there was any deviation from the ordinary course in the proceedings on this occasion.

On the Police Estimates I will give the hon. Gentleman more information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the sitting of the Grand Jury, South Tipperary Assizes, on the 3rd instant, at which a sum of £250 compensation was awarded to Constable Fennell for injuries received while on duty; whether his attention has been called to the statement of a grand juror present, named Mr. Lawe, to the fact that there are still men in the Force who got compensation for injuries received; and whether there are men now serving in the Irish Constabulary Force who have received heavy compensation from Grand Juries; and, if so, can he state how many of them; what are their names; and what are the amounts they have received?

I am informed that the constable mentioned in the question has been awarded compensation by the Grand Jury to the extent mentioned. The Constabulary Authorities have no record at head-quarters of cases in which such compensation has been awarded, but they believe that there are other men now serving in the Force who have received it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that New York is threatened with an epidemic of typhus fever owing to the influx of Russian immigrants; and what precautions he has taken or intends to take to prevent similar outbreaks from the same cause in our British ports?

The Local Government Board have no information as to a threatened epidemic of typhus fever at New York owing to the influx of Russian immigrants. It devolves on the Sanitary Authorities of the ports in England at which immigrants would be likely to land to take the precautions necessary for preventing any such outbreaks in those ports. The duties would extend to the isolation of the patients and disinfection.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in some parts of the country the churchwardens and overseers of the poor hold land which has been inclosed for cultivation as allotments under 1 & 2 William IV., c. 42; and whether he can state where any record of such lands can be found; and, if none exists, whether he can give the particulars as to the parishes in which allotment ground is so held?

I am aware that, in some parts of the country the churchwardens and overseers of the poor hold land which has been enclosed for cultivation as allotments under 1 & 2 William IV., c. 42, but I am unable to give the particulars as to the parishes in which allotment ground is so held. I believe that the cases are by no means numerous, but I do not know where any record of such lands can be found.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the authorities to second Brigade Surgeon Lieut.-Colonel Godwin, about to be promoted a Surgeon Colonel, while holding the appointment of Professor of Military Surgery at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley?

The officer in question is not seconded in his rank, but is made supernumerary to the Medical Staff. His appointment to a Professorship, therefore, causes no reduction in the number of medical officers.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin County, North (Mr. Clancy), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the promised focal inquiry as to the proposed rifle range and military camp at Portmarnock, County of Dublin, whether he will consider the advisability of directing the inquiry to be held on a Saturday, the day of the week on which those most concerned, namely, the fishermen, will be free to give evidence; whether he will take steps to have the evidence at the inquiry reported by a shorthand writer, and printed; and whether the inquiry will be held by a person unconnected with the Army?

The inquiry will certainly be conducted by a gentleman unconnected with the Army. He will be instructed to hold it at such times as will give ample facilities to all persons concerned to attend. With regard to the second part of the question, I will give it my consideration before the inquiry takes place.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give us a day, after we have received the evidence of Lord Wantage's Committee, so as to discuss that most important Report and its bearing on the efficiency of the Home Army? And I would suggest that the discussion should be taken on the Reserve Vote. I think I may fairly state that if the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give us a day it will greatly shorten the discussion.

As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the question of the Report of the Wantage Committee has not been excluded from the discussion on the Army Estimates so far as that has taken place. I quite admit that it is inconvenient for the House to have to discuss a Report without having the evidence on which that Report is based. Therefore, if it is the general wish of the House that the discussion should take place at some later stage of the Army Estimates, certainly the Government would view such an arrangement with favour. I believe it can be done by general consent of the House. I think procedure of precisely the same character has been taken on the Navy Estimates as well as the Army Estimates. With the general consent of the House the arrangement of my hon. and gallant Friend can be carried out. I hope, if it is carried out, that the House will bear in mind the very serious state we are in with regard to Supply, and will curtail the discussion on the Army Estimates. I do not wish to reiterate, but we are very much behind owing to the amount of time which was taken up by Private Bills in the course of the week; and, unless we make more rapid progress than we have done hitherto upon Supply, I am afraid we shall have to ask for additional time.

I wish to renew my Motion of Tuesday, that the votes of three Members be disallowed in reference to the Grant in Aid of the Preliminary Survey from Mombasa to Lake Nyanza. The names of the three hon. Members are Sir Lewis Pelly, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, and Sir John Puleston. I explained on the last occasion pretty well the grounds on which I make this Motion, and I do not think I should be at all justified in reiterating what I then said, because this is a matter which has attained considerable public interest; but I think I have justified myself in one respect from the accusations levelled against me by the First Lord of the Treasury that this matter had been decided before, and that I was pursuing a vexatious course in bringing it forward again. I stated to the right hon. Gentleman that, having looked through all the authorities, it is the reverse of fact that it has been decided against me, but that, in the cases which have occurred, the question has been decided absolutely in my favour. There are only two precedents bearing on this question—those of 1797 and 1664. It has been stated—I do not know on what authority—that the practice has been very much relaxed in later years in reference to this matter, and that, undoubtedly, Directors of Railway Companies have been allowed to vote. But, as I endeavoured to explain, the votes given by these Gentlemen are not votes given by them to obtain money out of the coffers of the House and put into the coffers of the Company they represent. Instances occur every day involving enormous outlay on the part of Railway Companies, but that outlay is not given by the House—it is given by the Company who compromise private rights in order to meet the outlay. It is no transaction between the Government and the Company—there is a distinct transaction in this case between the Government and the Company, whose Directors are represented in this House. And it seems to me to involve a breach of the trust which is reposed in Members of Parliament who ought to hold any public moneys, not for themselves, but for the people at large whose moneys they are. Again, it has been urged that, in contract cases, certain Members of Parliament have voted in matters in which they are interested. I believe both railway cases and contract cases arose in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), a gentleman whom we all highly respect, and who would do nothing derogatory to the position of the high-minded gentleman he is. But in all these contract cases there has been this distinction that the service was rendered to the public at large. But this is a private Company for doing things they would have been compelled according to the principle of their Charter to do, even if the grant had not been made. It must be recollected that in this case a very objectionable practice was instituted for the first time. The Government, while Parliament is still sitting, makes arrangements with the Directors that if certain moneys are advanced the moneys will be recouped by the next Session of Parliament. If these moneys had been advanced before, possibly there might have been opposition to it. But this contract is rather novel—it was made while Parliament was sitting, and not to be brought forward till the next Session of Parliament, when the thing had been completed, and when the Government had promised to get the money. Having regard to everything, having regard to the great interests entrusted to Members of Parliament, such a thing cannot be done; our votes must be above suspicion, and must not be tainted with the idea of personal interest. And on this simple ground, as a Member of this House, I move that these votes be disallowed, inasmuch as the hon. Members who gave them had a direct interest in the undertaking.

This is a matter which I think the Committee will be of opinion should be treated in a pre-eminently judicial spirit, and not in any Party spirit. The hon. Member (Mr. Mac Neill), who has brought the matter before us, has carefully avoided the introduction of any Party spirit in the matter. It is sometimes difficult to approach questions of this kind without some Party feeling. It might have happened that the Division was a close one, and that the votes of the hon. Members whose names have been challenged might have had some effect upon it. And it might sometimes happen that the House, by expunging the name of a Member from a Division, might appear to cast some personal slur upon the Member whose vote is challenged. In this case we have, happily speaking, none of this. Whether the majority be 98 or 95 is absolutely immaterial, and fortunately we all know that the hon. Members whose votes are challenged appear on this occasion as shareholders in an undertaking which, without knowing anything of the details of it, I think I may say, partakes largely of a patriotic and philanthropic character, and they can in no shape or form be charged with unworthy motives. We all know perfectly well, as one of the Members concerned told us, he went into the Lobby without having given a thought to the matter from the point of view which has since been raised. Of course, when a vote of this kind is challenged, the Committee would be wrong if it were to regard the matter simply from the immediate surroundings of the case in point. £20,000 is a very small sum, relatively speaking, in the cost of a large undertaking, but the same principles would be involved if the Vote under consideration of the House had involved several millions. And, in the course which we may adopt, we must remember that we are laying down a precedent for our own guidance, and for that of future Parliaments, in which very different issues may be involved. As to this particular case, I think hon. Members may very naturally be permitted to take into account that as this matter was originally put before Parliament last Session, the grant which was proposed was one to be made to Her Majesty's Government to be by them expended on an undertaking of their own, entirely independent of the Directors or agents of the Company concerned. But, in consequence of the failure, during last Session, to bring this matter under the notice of Parliament a different course was adopted, and what I understand to have been done was that the Company undertook to do certain things, the Government giving a personal undertaking that they would do their utmost to secure the subsequent consent of Parliament to reimburse the sum for which the Company were responsible. Therefore, the Vote which was before the House the other day was a proposal to vote a certain definite sum of public money to be paid to the Company concerned, of which these hon. Members were shareholders and-Directors. I draw no distinction between shareholders and directors as such. It may often happen that a shareholder who is not a Director may have a much larger pecuniary interest in the concern than even a Director himself. Unquestionably, the practice of the House has been to distinguish between an interest which is immediate and personal and one which is general and remote. A great deal has been said about precedents. I am not going to weary the House by going into precedents, beyond saying that almost all of them refer to a comparatively different state of affairs. There were the cases of Sir John Marjoribanks and Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, in the Leith Docks Bill and St. Katherine's Docks Bill, in 1825, and that of Sir Samuel Whalley, in the Grand Junction Railway Bill, in 1836, in all of which cases the votes were disallowed. In all the cases I know of, it was established that there was a direct personal connection of a Member with the scheme. If, for instance, a Bill was brought in which enabled leaseholders, who had bound themselves, by covenant, to pay the whole of the rates, to cast upon lessors burdens which they had covenanted to bear themselves, and the result of which would be to put money into the pocket of every Member who was a leaseholder, while inflicting pecuniary loss upon every Member who happened, to be a lessor—in such a case, in accordance with established usage, both lessors and lessees would be entitled to vote, because that would be what is termed by the recognised authorities a general and remote interest, for it would be an interest held in common with the community at large, and not an immediate and personal interest, as such is defined in the various precedents already referred to. There was the precedent referred to of the First Commissioner of Works. His vote was challenged because, in addition to the important public duties he discharges, he also is a Director of one of our main railway lines. Well, it was laid down on that occasion that an application for statutory powers having been made by the Company to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged did not preclude him from taking part in a Division in this House, as the granting of statutory powers do not by any means involve a certainty of pecuniary profit, as, I fear, hon. Members have found to their cost that the boot is often upon the other leg. Parliament has on various occasions declined to disallow votes when the interest of the Member was simply that his Company were endeavouring to obtain statutory powers. This is quite a different case, this is a direct pecuniary Vote of the money of the taxpayers which is asked for actually to re-imburse the Company in which these gentlemen are shareholders for money they are out of pocket, and which would have remained out of their pockets if the Vote of the House had been the other way. That is a distinct immediate and personal object. I would cast no reflection whatever on those gentlemen who, from inadvertence, without having for a moment recollected the circumstances of the Vote, did take part in it. I in no way impugn their honour or question the course of action they adopted. They are hon. Gentlemen who deserve our respect, and the circumstances of the Vote in no way reflect upon their honour. We know that representative institutions elsewhere have afforded no protection against lobbying and log-rolling, with temptations which have been held out to Members of public bodies, and which I think you would not desire to introduce amongst ourselves. If we do err, either upon the side of laxity or undue strictness, I think it is desirable that any divergence from the actual necessity of the case should be rather on the side of strictness. On these grounds, I think the hon. Member has made out a fair case for these votes being disallowed. I hope it will be thoroughly understood that the House disallows these votes on the ground that they desire to lay down a strict rule for the guidance of Parliament; and I would desire to protect this House from the slightest suspicion that in any possible circumstances could any reflection be cast upon those Gentlemen whose names have been mentioned.

I think, Sir, this is not a question in which the Government, as a Government, desires to take part, because these matters have always been left by the Government under which they have arisen, and by the Speaker and Chairman of Committees, as the case might be, entirely to the decision of the House itself, and the House has always taken the matter into its own hands. I think, however, especially after the speech of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, I should say a few words upon the principles which should guide the House in its decision on a matter of this kind. The hon. Gentleman who raised this question quoted, in defence of the course he asked the House to take, the analogy of Private Bill Committees, and pointed out that a member of a Private Bill Committee had to state in the most positive and explicit manner that he had no personal interest whatever in the matter on which the Committee had to come to a decision. But if the hon. Gentleman had borne, in mind the inference to be drawn from the second part of the declaration, he would see that the House does not attempt, and never has attempted, to put limits of the same stringency on Members of the House acting in their ordinary capacity as Members of the House, and not as members of a Private Bill Committee, because it is also laid down that no Member is to serve on a Private Bill Committee, or take any part in the decision of, or deliberation on, a Private Bill in which his constituency is interested. Now, Sir, that is not a principle imposed on the ordinary Members of Parliament, acting in their ordinary capacity, and it is directly contrary to the invariable practice, and, I would say, to our views of what the duties of Members of Parliament are. Our view of a Member of Parliament, dealing with ordinary questions coming before the House, is that he is acting as the Representative of his constituency, and as such he gives his vote, even if it be a vote on a Bill, in accordance with the wishes of his constituency. Therefore, I would point out that whatever conclusion may be drawn from the Rules as laid down for Private Bill Committees, I do not think the inference which the hon. Gentleman has drawn can be properly deduced from that fact. Another point has been raised to which great, and, I think, undue importance has been attached in this matter. It was said that we were here dealing with a contribution from the public funds, and that the interest of three gentlemen being concerned in money voted by the taxpayers differentiated the action of my hon. Friends in giving their votes from the action of Members voting on Private Bills in which they have an undoubted pecuniary interest. I cannot follow the distinction. What we want to avoid, and what my right hon. Friend, desires to avoid, is that we should be guided in our votes on public affairs by private motives. That is the thing which the House has to guard against. Whether the private motive arises from money voted by the taxpayers or from the fact that legislation, as in the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend, involves some pecuniary advantage, it makes no difference at all. The source of the money is not the point in question, but whether the money affects the vote of the man who gives it, and I agree that we should do everything we can to avoid any suspicion of that kind attaching to the action of any of our Members. No suspicion of that kind attaches to my hon. Friends. The principle which has been laid down from the Chair, and which I think is embodied in most books on this subject, is that no man shall give a vote if his interest in it be of a direct personal kind, and that principle must evidently be interpreted by the particular occasions on which the House is called upon to apply it. Now, Sir, allusion has been made to a very recent case, when my right hon. Friend sitting on my right (Mr. Plunket) was concerned as a director of the North Western Railway in a Private Bill, and voted in favour of that Bill, and in favour therefore of the Company of which he was a shareholder and director. How did my right hon. Friend deal with that case? He said no doubt it was a Private Bill promoted by a Company of which my right hon. Friend was a shareholder and director, but it did not follow that because the Railway Company got statutory privileges from Parliament they might get any pecuniary benefit from them, and that statutory advantages given by Parliament often led to very small pecuniary benefit to those who had them. It may very well be that this Mombasa Railway may injure the Company, but the point is, was there a direct motive applied to the will of my right hon. Friend when he gave the vote which he cast, which might prevent the impartial exercise of the duties with which he was entrusted as a member of that Committee by the House? I cannot conceive a more crucial case than this of the North Western Railway, because no great public interest was involved. The Railway Company desired power to improve their accommodation, it was a Private Bill, and if the House, after hearing all the circumstances, decided by an overwhelming majority that in that instance there was no such direct interest on the part of my right hon. Friend as would invalidate his vote or require us to expunge it, I fail utterly to understand on what principle we should come to a different conclusion in the case which is before us. It is to be observed that the pecuniary advantage to the Company is really not of a direct kind. The object for which this money was voted is a survey. Very likely that survey will only end in the expenditure of a large amount of money on the part of the Company; possibly not end in a railway at all; possibly, if it does end in a railway, it will not bring any benefit to the Company through whose territory it will be constructed. The pecuniary interest is obviously remote, but that is not the main point; the main point is, whether the public interests involved are of such a kind that a Member may give a vote on the subject even if he had a pecuniary interest in it. My right hon. Friend raised this point. He said a Bill might be brought into this House which would transfer the burden of the rates from occupiers to freehold owners, in the result of which every single Member of this House who owned a ground-rent or freehold house would be pecuniarily interested, and it would be possible by calculation to show the exact amount of pounds, shillings, and pence which would be transferred. Yet nobody would pretend for a moment that a Member ought to be excluded from voting on a Bill of that kind. And why? Because the general interests are so great that you cannot exclude a Member of Parliament from dealing with those interests, even though it may affect his private interests. Is not that the case with regard to this railway; or, rather, I ought to say, with regard to this survey? We have never come before this House with the desire of bolstering up a private company. We have not supported it on the grounds put forward by the Company. As far as the survey is concerned, we are using the Company merely as our instrument. What we desire to attain by this survey and the railway, if constructed, are the very largest possible public objects; public objects dealt with by international agreements; public objects involving such great questions as the Slave Trade; and I confess if you are going to exclude hon. Gentlemen who may happen to have some pecuniary interest in them from giving their opinion upon matters of such great magnitude, I do not think you can logically stop there. I think you would have to examine the financial investments and pecuniary position of every man in the House before you allowed him to give a vote on the question at all. I think you would have to exclude Members whose constituencies were pecuniarily interested. For instance, there are constituencies in Lancashire who believe, and, I think, are right in believing, that the result of this railway would be to open up a route for British trade, and especially for their particular products, and, therefore, they desire that the general taxpayers of the country should be obliged to contribute in order to give an outlet to trade, which may benefit the manufactures in which they are interested. I think, if you are going to press that doctrine to the extreme to which some people desire, we ought to follow the precedent set in Private Bill Committees, which excludes alike from a Division on a question the Member who is personally interested, and the Member whose constituency is interested. That is a course which the House would never think of adopting, and it is the one required to be adopted if the principle laid down for the Private Bill Committees were generally accepted. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said as to the dangers which have attached, and, perhaps, do attach, to democratic Governments and representative Assemblies. It is, unfortunately, the fact that many representative Assemblies and great communities and great nations have not been free from the suspicion of corruption and jobbery in the decisions they have come to; and my right hon. Friend says let us, as far as we can, preserve ourselves from the reproach of log-rolling, which has been rightly brought against other great representative Assemblies. But what is log-rolling? It is that I should vote for a measure in which I am not interested, in order to induce others to vote for a measure in which I am interested. No rule, however tightly you are going to draw it, would touch that kind of process; you cannot touch it by any legislation, however rigid your line. The principle of it is that the man who votes is not the man who is interested.

He is paid for it.

That is a very crude form, and is usually called bribery and corruption. Log-rolling is a more refined species of the corrupt genus. But you will observe that it is not by rules of that kind that the honour and credit of this Assembly is to be kept up. One of the worst forms of Parliamentary corruption is that which induces a man to give a vote in order to further and forward some stock-jobbing operation in which he is concerned. You cannot touch that. That it is which would taint the high honour of such an Assembly as this, and you will not be able to avoid a vote of that kind by any rules your ingenuity may draw up. What we have to do is to foster as far as we can a high sense of honour in all our deliberations, making it not only illegal but disgraceful for a man, on account of any profit or pecuniary interest alone, to give a vote in this House contrary to his opinion on any question of public policy whatever. No hon. Gentleman has suggested that my three hon. Friends were animated by any such motives; I am sure that is not suggested or believed by any man in this House. I would ask the House, therefore, in coming to a decision, to bear in mind that if you decide against votes of this kind you can hardly rest there, you will have to scrutinise with microscopic care the investments of every Member of the House, and so exclude from our Division Lobbies Gentlemen whose constituencies are pecuniarily interested in the result of the Division, and the result may be that you will not only be, for the first time in the history of Parliament, disallowing the vote of a Member on a Public Bill, but you will be creating a precedent which I am afraid will greatly embarrass our future proceedings on occasions of no less public importance than the present.

I certainly do not intend to widen the field of this discussion by giving an opinion on the present occasion as to the comparative advantages of Democratic and non-Democratic Government. The upshot of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that the House having adopted a rule—I do not speak now of the possibility of giving full effect to the rule—having for many generations recognised and sanctioned a rule that individual Members are not to vote on questions in which they are personally interested, I do not think I state the matter unfairly when I say the upshot of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman comes to this, that the Rule ought to be altogether abolished. I do not say that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at all; I say it appeared to me to be the upshot of his speech. I did not perceive from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he in any way gave room for a practical application in any cases such as those which ordinarily occur of that rule to the particular instances. He said if the Motion of my hon. Friend succeeded, it would be the first time in which such a vote had been given on the subject of a Public Bill. This is no question of a Public Bill, but a question of a vote in Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman said, and here I agree with him, to a certain extent, that we are not to look to the source from which the money comes, but to the nature of the transaction itself. Now, Sir, I would put this: whether the consideration that this was a question of a Vote of public money ought not to be the vital and determining consideration which ought to stand in the place of every other? But this I must say: I think it has always been held that if ever there can be a distinction in the sacredness of the duty, in the obligation, to watch with the utmost jealousy the performance of this duty, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the voting of public money is the first, the highest, the most essential of all its duties, and it is that with regard to which you are bound to apply the closest scrutiny and adopt the most rigid rules of action. I cannot consent to exclude from view the point that this was a Vote of public money. Now, Sir, I wish to go as far as I can with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will make this concession, that the obligation imposed on members of a Private Bill Committee is not unconditionally and absolutely applicable. Unquestionably there are considerations applicable to members of Private Bill Committees which cannot apply with the same stringency and force to Members when voting in this House. In the case of a member of a Private Bill Committee the individual vote is reckoned with a small number of other votes and carries with it, not indeed the final authority, still very great weight which is pleaded afterwards in the discussion in this House, and I take it that the illustration is one germane to the vote, but we cannot push it to an extreme, for we do not require the same declaration in votes of this House as in Private Bill Committees. I thought the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, of his right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), would assist us a good deal in the consideration of this matter. He said, It is true that the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was allowed in the case of the Bill promoted by the North Western Company, of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself a director. I think that vote was, upon the whole, wisely and properly allowed. What was the purpose of that Bill? The North Western Company is engaged in a gigantic undertaking in which it endeavours, by affording advantages and facilities to the public, to earn profits for itself, and this Bill was an improvement and extension of the means by which it was to carry on that beneficial and extensive business. It is quite plain, I think, that if the interests of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) were concerned in that Bill in such a way that some infinitesimal fraction of profit might possibly accrue to himself, it was a profit immensely remote, a profit absolutely uncertain, and a profit which, if it were obtained, would be obtained in common with a body of shareholders—I know not how many, but I think probably numbered by hundreds of thousands. The right hon. Gentleman argues from that Bill that a case of this kind is covered, and why? Because here, also, the East Africa Company is engaged in an undertaking where it proposes to afford great public benefits, and, at the same time, to earn profits for itself.

I did not say profits.

Well, returns. It certainly proposes to earn money for its shareholders.

That is not the view we take of the transaction.

I do not mean to make any assumption as to the state of the balance sheet of the East Africa Company, but I said it was analogous, strictly, so far, to the case of the North Western Company—that was an admission in the right hon. Gentleman's favour—in so far as the East Africa Company intends to give benefits, and in consideration of the benefits, or in connection with those benefits, to earn money for itself. Now, supposing that the Bill on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) voted had been not for enlarging that vast undertaking, with all the chances of loss or profit, supposing instead of that it had been for some particular work of the North Western Company, and for that particular work it had been proposed to vote money by Parliament, and not only so, but suppose that in respect of that particular work the Company had incurred liabilities, and the Division had been about refunding the money; that, Sir, was the character of the proposal. I think I have said enough to show that, whatever be the general merits of the case, the assumed analogy between it and the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) has no existence. Another general proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, in which I certainly agree, is that no rule of this kind can universally and certainly attain the great object which we have in view, namely, the absolute purity of action of Members of Parliament in questions in which they are interested. This rule must be more or less imperfect in practice, as it cannot be applied in a multitude of cases in which substantially it ought to be applied. Our reliance must mainly be upon the conscience of individual Members, and I think we shall all feel—there is no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will feel—that what is desired is that, in cases of this kind, we should pause and determine for ourselves whether we will vote or not vote, and we should always give the doubt against ourselves. That individual action of the mind is our greatest, and widest, and last security, and the question is, whether the total abandonment of the rule, which the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be our action in the present instance, is not the abandonment of a rule which is a just assertion by the House of a sound public principle; and whether, when on rare occasions a definite case comes before us, it would not be a safe rule to go by? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have not the smallest intention to impute reproach, great or small, direct or indirect upon him, who frankly and ingenuously confessed that the idea had never occurred to him that he should not take part in the Division, or to the other two gentlemen who have not seen the necessity for making the same acknowledgment. The matter really depends in the main upon these two questions: Is the benefit conferred by the Vote concentrated on the persons themselves, or some combination of persons, or is it diffused over a very wide field? Second, is it a direct or an indirect benefit? Those are the points, I think, that were indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. How do they apply? It is not a benefit spread over a very wide field; it is concentrated in a very narrow field, in the narrow field of a limited number of gentlemen belonging, as Directors or shareholders, to the East Africa Company. Is it a question of benefit—direct or indirect? It is, direct in the highest and most immediate form. It was a proposal to re-imburse from the public funds outlay for which these gentlemen themselves were personally responsible, within what limits I do not know. Therefore, it appears to me, although I admit that the operation and application of a Rule of this kind must at all times be quite insufficient for the main purpose we have in view, yet it is contributory towards it; and if it be true that in a large number of cases we cannot trace the matter home and fix responsibility in the exact measure in which it ought to lie, I say that is an additional argument for tracing it home and asserting the Rule of the House in those comparatively few cases where the principles which ought to govern us are perfectly clear, and where their application to the case is entirely beyond dispute.

My right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) desires me to say that the Government entirely adhere to the view suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the Rule which exists must be maintained. The Government is as decided as the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is undesirable to take any steps which would lessen the force of that Rule; but we do venture to think that, in its application, the very speech of the right hon. Gentleman shows the extremely delicate ground upon which we are embarking. Hon. Members will perceive that the right hon. Gentleman bases the application of the rule upon the diffusion of the benefit which is to be derived, and not on the nature of the purpose to which the Vote generally is to be applied. I am anxious not to press the point of the right hon. Gentleman too far; but we may fairly gather from it that in a small Company hon. Members who are shareholders ought not to vote, because it would clearly benefit them; whereas, in the case of the North Western Railway, where there is a vast number of shareholders, the benefit is so indirect and diffused that the vote might fairly be allowed. Is not that a difference that might lead us to embark upon very great difficulties in many cases? Is the share list to be examined in order to see what degree of pecuniary benefit would be derived by any hon. Member who may give his vote? The right hon. Gentleman has referred specially to the case of the North Western Railway, and he thought in that case it was right to allow the vote.

On the whole.

Yes; it was right to allow the vote on the whole because of the nature of the enterprise. But that enterprise was limited, so far as the shareholders were concerned, distinctly and solely to pecuniary benefit. Are we to draw a distinction between the benefits derived from a railway in one country and the benefits derived from a railway in another country? I think hon. Members will agree that such a distinction cannot be drawn. It is too fine a distinction to draw, and I cannot but feel that in the case of the North Western Railway there were more motives why the vote should be disallowed, because the benefit was more direct than in the present case, where the advantage is more indirect and where very large questions of policy are opened up. If the House is anxious to deal with this case in the same spirit which actuated it in the instance of the North Western Railway, I think this is a case in which the same course should be followed. In taking that view the Government are as strongly of opinion as anyone on the opposite side of the House, that it is desirable in every possible way to maintain the view that every individual Member who gives a vote should consider whether he would derive any pecuniary benefit by that vote, or whether he would by voting at all infringe upon the general principles which govern the conduct of Members of this Mouse.

I desire to support the Motion. Although I raised the question on Friday last, previous to the Vote being taken, I should not have thought it necessary to say anything now if I had not gathered, both from the speech of the Leader of the House and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they are going to oppose the Motion made by my hon. Friend. I hoped that they would have followed the advice of the Member for Thanet. I think we ought to thank the hon. Member for South Donegal for the trouble he has taken in hunting up all these precedents. All I desire to say now is, if we have not yet precedents enough in this matter, we ought to make them. (Interruption.) I do not know why hon. Gentlemen should make this noise; whether they are afraid of the question being discussed or not I do not know. To my mind they are disturbing the Debate on a most important question, and I trust that, if necessary, to-day we shall make a precedent that in future will guide this House. I will not intervene longer with the Committee, but I am exceedingly glad that this question has been raised.

I understand that an agreement has been come to by which a discussion may be taken at some more convenient time on the subject of the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, and I do not propose to deal with that at any length; but since this Debate began, we have received the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and I should like to touch on one or two of the material points in that Report. The conclusions come to by the Inspector General of Recruiting do not in any way conflict with the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, as to the deplorable state of things which exists in the Army, with respect to the physical quality of the great mass of our recruits, who are brought into the Army by the system we are now pursuing. The result of this system is that our Army is physically diminishing and falling below the standard of nations. At present no means have been discovered for remedying the defect. What do we find from these Reports? In the last two years, of 67,000 men who have enlisted into the Army, no fewer than 21,000 go below the lowest standard that has hitherto been accepted as a sufficient physical force to bear arms in this country. Of 31,000 recruits in 1890 and 36,000 in 1891, no less a proportion than 21,000 are what are called "specials." A "special," I may explain, is a man who under no other circumstances would be allowed to bear arms, because he is under 5ft. 3 in. in height, under 33 inches chest measurement, and under 125 lbs. in weight. That is to say, he is about the size of a good-sized school boy, who has not got beyond the last form of the school. I consider that is a deplorable falling off in the condition of the British Army. All the leading military authorities have been compelled to admit that our system gives us an enormously large proportion of men who are totally incapable, under any circumstances, of carrying arms in the field outside these shores; according to Sir Evelyn Wood, a large proportion of them are unfit even for peace duty. I had an opportunity recently of observing for myself the condition of our men when I spent eight days with about 14 battalions of men. Speaking from the point of view of their physical power, the immaturity of these youths, their total incapacity to bear the burdens falling upon a soldier in the field, I say that no infusion whatever of reserve force would make some of the Line battalions fit to take their part with an army in the field; and, speaking from the military point of view, I should describe them as rubbish and nothing else. There is no denying that by unwisely overstraining the system in a particular direction you have got a body of men who are unfit to support the honour and the dignity of the Army to which they belong. I am speaking only from the physical point of view, for as regards spirit, cheerfulness, zeal, intrepidity, alacrity, and amenability to military discipline—in every quality save that of physique, in which they are deficient, these men are worthy successors of those who have maintained the repute of the Army in times past. Now, Sir, two remedies are proposed. One may be spoken of as financial, the other as administrative. There is no fact which comes out more strongly in the Report of the Committee than that the defects we all deplore are in no sense the result of short service alone, but arise from a departure from the rules established in 1872; and the remedy which I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is, therefore, purely an administrative one. I do not agree with those who think that a large increase of pay will remedy the evil. The defects we complain of are not within the scope of a military inquiry alone; and, therefore, I regret that, instead of being sent to a Committee limited in its reference, this question, which is one of national importance, was not referred to a larger and wider tribunal of a Royal Commission. In 1888, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) and I brought this matter forward, that was the suggestion we then made. We desired that a Royal Commissioner might be appointed to inquire into the recruiting and supply of men for the service of the Crown—not for the Regular Army only, but for the Militia, the Volunteers, and the Reserve Forces generally, and we also desired that the inquiry might extend to those industrial causes which every day are making keener the competition of the labour market with the Army. After a lapse of four years I regret more than ever that the question was not submitted to a Royal Commission, because, instead of the result being what it has been that questions of minor importance were dealt with, and its recommendations totally ignored, if the Royal Commission had been appointed at that time and allowed full scope, long before this a solution would have been arrived at to rescue us from our present position. Now, as to the financial remedy, a general increase of pay, I should be entirely in accord with it if I thought there was any possibility of its remedying the defects of which we complain. There is no portion of the Report of Sir Arthur Haliburton which deserves more attention than that in which it is set forth that each successive increase of pay unwisely given has only staved off our difficulties at equal intervals of six years, and in 1866, 1872, and 1878 landed us in successive difficulties. As to the suggestion to raise the pay of the men to what is known as the clear shilling, any increase which does not place the soldier on a level with the skilled labourer must, from the circumstances of our industrial position, be open to this objection: that it would not improve the matter, but would only lead to an addition to the ranks of a large number of small and totally unfit men. If an increase of pay is to be given it should be carefully graduated. What I would suggest would be that the pay of the soldier who reached the standard of physical maturity and acquired skill and proficiency in his profession should, on going on foreign service, be raised to one shilling per day; and that as regards the others, the immature men, the rate of pay should remain as at present. That is what is done in industrial life; it is the practice in the sister Service of the Navy. The Committee have, however, pointed out that there is a great difficulty in establishing different rates of pay in the Service; but the difficulty would be met by recruits going in at the present rate of pay and inducements held out to mature as compared with immature men, in the same way as in the Navy, where we do not pay boys at the same rate as we pay able-bodied seamen. Passing from pecuniary to administrative remedies, I think it is deplorable that successive administrations at the War Office have entirely overlooked some of the most vital recommendations which established short service in 1872. When the short service system was instituted it was contemplated that there should be equality between the number of battalions abroad and the number at home. The present Government are not solely responsible, because, in point of fact, since 1872 that rule has not been observed. At present, there are 76 battalions abroad and only 65 at home. Matters might, of course, be equalised by bringing some men home, but I think the best thing would be to raise five additional battalions at home for the Line and two for the Guards. If that were done, it would go far to relieve the strain on our Home Army. There is another matter which demands attention. Some years ago the rule was laid down that no soldier who was under 20 years of age should be sent out to India. The result is that all the immature men, men in their first, second, and third years of service, come upon the Home Army. Whilst I think that the 73,000 men in India should undoubtedly be maintained in the highest state of efficiency, I cannot say that I think that such a body of men, in the flower of their strength, and averaging five years' service, would be appreciably weakened if recruited by 10 per cent. of men sent out when they reached 19 years of age. That alteration would materially affect the condition of the men at home, and the matter is certainly deserving of consideration. Looking at the whole question, the attempt to keep up the number of men we require by direct competition with the labour market is played out. While retaining all the advantages of short service, we might consider whether we could not get rid of that difficulty. Now, Sir, the indirect means of securing that, in case of mobilisation, we should have a large number of good physique and mature age in the Army, to give it backbone, are three in number. The first is the possibility of in some way remodelling the Militia Force, so that it should be a great reserve and source of strength instead of weakness. The second is the possibility of maintaining a considerable Reserve of Volunteers under conditions likely to captivate the fancy and attract men to that force; and the third, and the more practical thing, is to prevent the running to waste of all those men who have completed twelve years of service with the Colours, and who are desirous of prolonging their service for another four years. The expenditure involved in this change would be very small indeed. Now, Sir, as to the Militia, they have not had the attention paid to them that they deserve. The present legal establishment of the Militia Reserve is 30,000. There are at present on the establishments of Great Britain and Ireland 128 battalions of Militia, and I would suggest that the Militia strength should be raised so as to bring the total number of men up to 50,000. The objections of Commanding Officers to the proposal might be removed if the men were allowed, through their Commanding Officers, of course, to offer for service in the field, getting £3 in respect of the campaign. In that case the Militia would become a real support and feeder to the Line, and its individuality would be preserved. If that plan was adopted, you would get from the Militia, ready for active service, 24 battalions en bloc, which would be equal to an addition to the Line of a whole Army Corps, which might take up our Mediterranean garrisons, and still leave some men available for service in the field. With regard to the Volunteers, while we have an increasing force, never less than 220,000 and sometimes rising to 240,000 men, they would most materially assist our force for defence abroad if the necessity arose. I would not desire to infringe upon that which is the essential element and the chief recommendation of the Volunteers—namely, their unpaid services to the Crown. At the same time, Sir, I still think that, without infringing that principle, a considerable Reserve of Volunteers, who are men of exceptional physique and excellent military training, might be obtained for active service. During the Egyptian Campaign some Volunteers, principally, I think, from the Middlesex regiments, volunteered for active service. Some of them in 1884 and 1885 rendered good service at Suakin and elsewhere, whilst their experience of service in the field with the Regular Army tended materially to increase their valuable qualities. It would be perfectly right and reasonable to give to every one of the men the sum of £6 as a retainer, and as an inducement to the Volunteer battalion to which he belongs a capitation grant of £3, making a total capitation grant of £9. I believe these experiments are well worth trying on the part of the War Office. But there is another source of supply recommended by Lord Wantage's Committee to which I cannot see any species of objection whatever; and that is that a certain number of the many thousands of men who are in the Reserve, if when medically inspected they should be found to be fit, might be allowed to continue in the Reserve until they had served from twelve to 16 years, increasing as the Committee recommended their Reserve pay by the paltry sum of 2d. a day, which I think so small compared with the advantages to be derived from it, that I cannot see why this source of supply has not been already used. Supposing these men had enlisted at 18, after having served twelve years, they would be the very best men it would be possible to get. They have had some experience of civil life also, and are supposed to be sober and steady citizens; why in the world should they not be allowed by an expenditure of this paltry sum to extend their service for four years more, when at the outside they would be only 34 years of age, which only a few years ago used to be considered the lowest minimum age of a soldier. I calculate that with the co-operation of the commanding officers, and I say, speaking from the long experience I had of these men, of their great and natural spirit of adventure, and of their great desire which they have always shown to take part in the operations of the Army in the field, I believe that if it were practically managed there could not be the slightest difficulty in getting an increase at least of 10,000 by that source; and once the principle was established it would go on and develope in progress till it became a great support to the Army. It appears to me that these three sources of supply are open to the Secretary for War, and they would require only trifling legislation. They are merely administrative, and have all been more or less calculated on by the Secretary for War in the year we are now entering upon. To my mind this question of the supply of men for the service of the Army in the field is so great and grave a one that I cannot but join, with all respect, in what some might consider the exaggerated terms of praise bestowed upon those administrative benefits which the right hon. Gentleman has nobly conferred on several branches of the Service by the measures which he has carried out during his tenure of Office for the last five years. I say this is a subject of so vital and paramount importance, and that in the gradually diminishing force of the Army as compared with the labour market, one being a rising tide and the other a falling tide, and no expectation of a remedy for this defect by any other means than have been suggested, all depends upon the labouring classes. Now that they have political power in their hands they will never submit to any conscription of any sort in any emergency that may arise. Looking at this fact, and seeing that the great and grave responsibility rests upon the right hon. Gentleman if he fails to take such means as are in his power for widening the field for procuring effective men, and of dealing now, in a time of peace, with the defects that exist. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I unduly press the result of a very long practical experience in this matter. I have been on every Commission almost, that sat on this subject for the last 20 years; and I beg and implore the right hon. Gentleman not to let his present tenure of Office expire without looking into these great sources of supply and developing them by every means in his power.

I must say that while I agree with many things my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I deeply regret that he has gone so closely into the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, because, as I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the Leader of the House, both have promised to give us a day when we shall discuss thoroughly that Report with the evidence before us. I venture to say that the proposals in that Report are so momentous, and the Report is of such importance to the country that we ought to be most careful in our proceedings in regard to that Report, in order that the House may have full time for its fair consideration. I also say this: that while we have a very difficult task to perform with regard to the safety and security of this country and carefully to consider the Army Estimates, we have had no time to consider or discuss these Estimates; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—than whom there is no better judge—told us this afternoon that it is one of our most sacred duties to look after the money paid by the taxpayers of the country and see that it is properly spent. All I can say is, there is nothing more important than the Army Estimates, nothing that requires more careful consideration than the Army Estimates, and there is nothing which from force of circumstances we have less time to discuss than the Army Estimates. We are not blaming my right hon. Friend or those who have gone before him for what has been done; but we have a duty to perform with regard to the country, and if we had not the courage and pluck to proclaim what we believe to be absolutely necessary we should fail most lamentably in that duty which we have been sent here to, perform. My right hon. Friend made a most interesting speech; but I venture to say that, looking at that speech from beginning to end, I must say that there were portions of it which were of a roseate hue, and if ever there was a speech that laid blame on his predecessors it was that of the right hon. Gentleman. He stated most distinctly that never was there such a condition of things as when he went to the War Office. He has been able, he states, to remedy a large number of these things. It was his absolute and bounden duty, in the high position he occupies, and responsible to the country that the Army should be in an efficient and effective state, to carry out those reforms which he has so successfully carried out. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway will say; but one of the great reforms was the division of the Artillery. Many had talked of it, but none had attempted it until my right hon. Friend had the courage to carry it out. It stands to reason that what has been called scientific necessity as regards these big guns required special training, which made it necessary that the Garrison Artillery should be separated from the Horse Artillery and the Field Batteries and placed in a better position than they have hitherto occupied both as to their duties as well as their pay. Another thing that is greatly to my right hon. Friend's credit is that he has got 14,000 horses upon a list, and that he can call upon them in any time of necessity. My right hon. Friend has had the courage also to ask this House for £4,000,000 to place the barracks of the country in a proper and responsible position. He is now dealing, amongst other barracks, with the Royal Barracks in Dublin. When I was quartered in Dublin in 1844 the Palatine Square was then in a disgraceful condition; and I am quite sure he has earned the gratitude of all soldiers in having done that which he has done as regards these barracks. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman would have let us know exactly what he was going to do with regard to the money he has got, and where the barracks were to be repaired and where the new barracks were to be built. I have never got to the bottom of where the outlay is to be made. I wish to say one word about the huts at Woolwich occupied by the recruits. The state of these huts is absolutely discreditable. I shall only say that I hope my right hon. Friend, now that he has had his attention called to them, will not let the matter drop out of sight. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal for the Volunteers, and he is also going to do some little for the Militia in forming them into brigades. The brigading of the Militia is absolutely essential. One other question, the defence of the coaling stations—and for all he has done in that direction my right hon. Friend deserves the greatest credit. My right hon. Friend stated the other night that he had carried out many things with regard to the recommendations of the Committee over which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington sat as Chairman. I had hoped that my noble Friend would have been in his place, as he would have been able to state whether all the things which the Committee suggested and thought absolutely necessary have been carried out. There is another Royal Commission, which my right hon. Friend shelved in a very curious way. I mean Lord Hartington's, or the Duke of Devonshire's, Commission. I will only say with regard to that Commission that oftentimes in this House Royal Commissions are granted, and Committees are granted, and when these Commissions and Committees have been granted—to save the Government from perhaps a defeat—the Reports of those Commissions or Committees have not suited the Government, and these Reports have been absolutely shelved. The Commission on which I sat on Warlike Stores, Sir James FitzJames Stephen's Commission—and I thought we made a fair Report—nothing has been heard of it except that one of the many things we suggested, namely, the increasing the efficiency and strengthening of the Ordnance Department should have been carried out. I believe it will be found necessary to have a separate Ordnance Department which will supply not only the Army but the Navy, because we have stations all over the world, and if we do not have the same shot and shell in the various stations, in times of difficulty we may find ourselves in a very awkward position. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this one question with regard to Vote 9. I know there is a Report which states what has been expended and what has been given to the trade in this country with regard to big guns; but I should like to know if we cannot get more accurately the number of guns made, both great and small, as well as rifles, the money paid, and how many firms supply the Government with those commodities, which are so absolutely necessary? In turning to the Home Army, I cannot for a moment overlook those reports which we have had in the papers, especially the letters written by Mr. Arnold Forster, which have been so much decried by some of the War Office authorities. These letters, which I have endeavoured to verify, are, in most instances, not over, but in many cases under-stated. He has endeavoured, as an honest man, to state, so far as he can, what he believes to be the deficiency of our Home Army. I am glad the country has awakened to a sense of its own responsibility, believing that there is nothing more necessary than that we should have an efficient Army, because we all know how much better it is to pay money for a good than for a bad article. There were other letters—clever, shrewd, intelligent letters—which did the writer, "Vetus," whoever he might be, exceedingly great credit. I hope they have been read, and carefully read, by my right hon. Friend, because they cannot fail to give him some information, although he may have been well informed on the subject before. What has been the main charge? What was the charge in 1888? It was the deficiency of the Navy and the inefficiency of the Army. The Navy have got their deficiency more or less filled up, but the inefficiency of the Army has remained ever since. I do not think there is any man can say—and I am putting it very broadly—but that you have got in our Home Army more than one-half of immature lads unfit to go abroad. And with that condition of affairs the Army cannot possibly be in an efficient state. Out of the 69 battalions of Infantry, I will venture to say there are not 35,000 seasoned men who could go abroad and do a hard day's work. I am certain I am not going beyond the mark. I have taken the trouble to verify the statements in Mr. Arnold Forster's letters with regard to various battalions. I have taken other battalions, and I have found that they are in quite as inefficient a state as those he has named in his letters. I will give you a statement as to six battalions in a garrison. I will not say where. Taking the first regiment at 720, it is 349 under strength, and half of the remainder are under age. They have only 26 recruits at the depôt. What is the state of efficiency of such a battalion? The next is 156 under strength. That has 63 recruits at the depot. Remember that these recruits have just joined, and remember also that each of these regiments have to find drafts from 160, 180, or 200 for battalions serving abroad. The third regiment is 129 under strength, with 104 recruits; the fourth is 197 under strength, with 49 recruits; the fifth 178 under strength, with 112 recruits. That regiment is in the First Army Corps. Look at the First Army Corps sending out its best men to India. I am not saying I object to that at all, except that the remainder of the men at home are not in an effective and efficient state. We know what the efficient strength ought to be in order to keep regiments on a footing that you can send them out at a moment's notice. The last regiment is 268 under strength, and the recruits at the depot are 333. That is out of a strength of 720, and half of the remainder of the regiment are under age. No doubt, my right hon. Friend will say he regrets this state of things, but it is for him now to make a great effort to counteract the evils which we say have grown up. There ought to be a Committee of the Cabinet to decide what should be done with the Army, as there was one to decide what should be done for the Navy. My right hon. Friend is very gallant and valiant. He says he will put 80,000 men into the field, and he will take all the Reserve except 31,000 men. The Reserve will be 78,000 in April or May, so that some 50,000 have to be taken to put into the regiments which are at home to make up the 80,000. Let me ask, are these men trained? Are the Reserve trained so that you can put your trust in them? Are they ever drilled? Not one of these regiments I have mentioned have got the new rifle. They have got the Martini-Henry. I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the Committee how many rifles he has got and what regiments have got them. That is a very important question. My right hon. Friend always objects to give information, because it will let the foreigners know.

I have told the Committee how many magazine rifles we had.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had manufactured 300,000 for India.

No; for India and this country.

But they are not served out. My right hon. Friend will no doubt say they have not got powder, and he has not got the rifle ranges where he can try them. If that is so, I can only say it is most unfortunate. What a mess we should be in should any difficulty occur with some of these rifles served out, and other regiments having a different class of rifle. Notwithstanding all their faults no Foreign Government would dare to put its Army into the field unless they were properly armed with the same rifle. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the present condition of the Infantry and the Reserve; and he knows there are men in the Reserve for several years who have never been called out. I would ask the people of the country, its manufacturers, its merchants, and those who turn off soldiers because they may be called out, whether they are not satisfied with our voluntary enlistment, which prevents Conscription, and whether it is not worth more to the country than anything else we can name? It is the greatest blessing we have got, and we know perfectly well the condition on which these men are engaged. It was not now as in the olden time, when we had two, four, or even six months to prepare. War when it comes will come like a clap of thunder, and woe betide that nation which is not prepared! We look with the greatest regard to our Colonies. We know that even they will try to help us in time of need. But it is for us to set the example, and have at home troops, not only in name, but in reality, who are fit to do their duty. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have written about this question, and I am sure my right hon. Friend feels the necessity of what I have been saying. You cannot get rid of the feeling that our Home Army is inefficient and our Reserves are not properly drilled. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that the Army is not a Party question. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say? That he was sure the House would not agree to vote the money asked for by Lord Wantage's Committee. Let me say a few words about the Artillery. We are most certainly short in our number of batteries, and when we remember that each battery has to send out to a battery in India some 60 men every year out of, say, 151 men—when we find that more than half the remainder are recruits and inefficient, I think we may well complain of the present state of the Artillery. Look at one case. My right hon. Friend disbanded four batteries of Horse Artillery. In India we have 11 batteries of Horse Artillery, and at home only 9 batteries to feed the 11 batteries in India. Some of our batteries at home have six guns, whilst others have only four. If the 80,000 men were sent abroad, in what position should we be with regard to the Artillery remaining at home? We should be almost in a defenceless position. Looking to the Artillery as a whole, I can only say we are short of men, short of horses, and short of guns; and the Artillery Reserve, from not being drilled, are absolutely inefficient for the purposes they are required. One word about the Cavalry. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Hampshire (Sir F. Fitz-Wygram) went so far as to say that all the Cavalry were inefficient. I certainly do not go so far as that, but I do say a great deal wants to be done for the Cavalry, though not, perhaps, in the direction my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. There is only one other question about which I wish to speak—that is the Militia. I will put the case as it is put by Mr. Arnold Forster. I will only say the case, as put by Mr. Arnold Forster, is certainly not overstated:—Militia Establishment, 135,722; short of Establishment, 22,259; absent with leave, 4,887; deserters, 8,648; Militia Reserve, 30,245; enlistment into the Line, 12,646; recruits untrained, 36,643; Army Reserve men and double enlistment, say, 2,000; not efficient at training, 18,394. This is a fair statement of the present position of the Militia. This year the absent with leave is higher; the deserters are considerably higher; the enlistment into the Line has also increased, so that we may safely take Mr. Forster's statement as a fair one. A. great question for my right hon. Friend to consider is whether he cannot increase the Militia Reserve? The Militia, as a whole, has not been encouraged half enough. The closer it is drawn to the Line, and the greater the encouragement that is given to it, the better it will be for the Service. I have only, in conclusion, to say that it is of the utmost importance we should speak our minds freely. I have called attention to those points which deserve earnest and serious consideration, and which should be attended to at once. I have given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War credit for a number of things, and that credit he fully deserves. I hope he will take care that the fighting machine is in first-class order, for no country without a perfect fighting machine can ever defend its rights when occasion requires.

I would desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which is comparatively one of detail, but which concerns the condition of the soldier and the raising of his status—particularly the soldiers of my own country. It is a question, indeed, which has been brought by the Scotch Members before the War Office—namely, the unsatisfactory arrangements connected with the chaplain system, particularly in Scotland. There is authority, I believe, under the Regulations for the appointment of seven Presbyterian chaplains in the Army, but there are at present only six commissioned chaplains in the Army. They are stationed in London, Alder-shot, Dover, Dublin, the Curragh, and Edinburgh. With the exception of Edinburgh, all the other five are out of Scotland. I am not going to find fault for a moment with regard to the work which is done by those gentlemen. I believe the work done by them is excellent in every respect. But there is one point in regard to them—namely, that commissioned chaplains are limited to the Established Church. The Secretary of State is fairly entitled to reply that that is merely an ecclesiastical question, but I can show that is not the case. It is a grievance amongst the people in Scotland, and it is felt outside Scotland too. Practically, it is not a matter of principle at all, because the principle has already been conceded. Two of these six chaplains are not Established Churchmen at all; they are members of the Irish Presbyterian Church. The chaplains who do duty in Gibraltar and Malta are members, not of the Established Church, but of the Free Church of Scotland. Within Scotland itself the rule is rigidly applied, and there no duty connected with the Army is entrusted to any minister except a minister of the Established Church of Scotland. The people of Scotland are very much divided amongst religious bodies, and in the Highlands the vast majority of the population are members of the Free Church. In view of getting the best form of recruits, it is short-sighted policy on the part of the War Office not to secure the appointment of chaplains who belong to that form of belief to which the majority of recruits and men wishing to join the Army also belong. This we undoubtedly consider a grievance, in view of the fact that within the bounds of Scotland 2,400 or 2,500 Scottish recruits are obtained for the Army every year; it is a grievance that at the depôts of the Scottish regiments you do not entrust the spiritual welfare of those young soldiers to the ministers of the Churches to which they belong. In the scheme which has been submitted to the Secretary of State, and has also been in its outline suggested to the War Office on former occasions, there are other suggestions made as to the better working of the Presbyterian chaplain system in the British Army. What is proposed in that scheme is that the whole Service should be worked by a Committee of all the Presbyterian Churches, and that those who are appointed should be chosen from all the various Presbyterian denominations. It is proposed that at the live chief military centres in Scotland young ministers should be appointed, not in the position of commissioned chaplains, but of chaplains who should be told off to this duty, and have no other duty to perform. In Scotland, where you get these recruits at an early age, when they will be most amenable to the work of the chaplain, you have, only in the case of Edinburgh, a minister specially told off to look after their interests. If the chaplain is suited to the work he will go amongst the soldiers, become intimately acquainted with them and influence them for good more in the barrack room even than in the church. If you can get young ministers who will look upon that as their primary, chief, and exclusive work, then you are more likely to exercise a good influence amongst your recruits than by any other means. The proposal is that a joint committee of the Presbyterian Bodies should choose five young ministers to whom they would guarantee a minimum salary. It it not proposed or suggested that they should be made commissioned chaplains, but, that they should become men from whom commissioned chaplains should be selected. The better men amongst them would look forward undoubtedly to promotion in this direction, and, in that way, you would form a nucleus, an excellent body of men, to whom yon could look for service as Presbyterian chaplains outside Scotland. The other advantage is that you would have efficient Presbyterian chaplains in Scotland, that you would be able to get hold of recruits early and subject them to the particular influence of those chaplains. It would have this further advantage in time of war, that you would have amongst those five men, men whom you could send abroad in case of necessity. When on service in war time their places would be filled and their work done under the Joint Committee of the Churches, who would guarantee that no extra expense should fail on the Exchequer. I would earnestly press this matter on the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not look upon it as a purely ecclesiastical question. It is a question which affects the condition of the soldier, and I should like to have some expression of favourable consideration from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it. If inquiry were made in the matter, there would be a speedy notice of it taken by the other religious bodies in Scotland who, I am sure, would express their willingness and readiness to join in it.

I may say at once I fully recognise the importance of the subject which the hon. Member has brought before us. He knows that a scheme has been brought before me by the Free Church of Scotland, and I am desirous to ascertain how far that scheme commends itself to the other Churches. If I find that it does commend itself to them, I do not desire that any delay should intervene in carrying out the scheme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) I fully recognise the importance of the subject. I desire to say a word or two as to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Barttelot) said with regard to the magazine rifle. He is one of the last men in the House who should use the argument he did about the non-issue of the rifle, because he did his very best to stop the issue. The fact is we have a very large number issued, and the only reason why a still larger number has not yet been placed in the hands of the troops is that in certain places we have not been able to get ranges suitable to the rifle. That difficulty is being got over in most of the military districts, and I hope the time is not far distant when we shall be able to issue magazine rifles to every man in the Regular Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for further information as to the number of heavy guns being made by private firms, and the names of the firms making them. My hon. and gallant Friend must, I think, be aware that I have on several occasions given the names of the firms, and in a Return which is to be produced very shortly he will find a detailed account of the number of large guns being manufactured, both by the Government and by private firms. The rest of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend was composed mostly of a complaint against the War Office, about which I spoke the other night, that the Home battalions were not maintained at war strength, in order that they might be sent abroad at the shortest possible notice. That is not the policy of this country. Our policy has been to keep the Home battalions at moderate strength, and to rely on the Reserve to bring them up to full strength when they are sent abroad, as every other country does. That is the best and least expensive mode of meeting the difficulties which have to be faced. I want now, Sir, to make an appeal to the Committee. Owing to circumstances not under our control the Army Estimates have been delayed during this week, and it so happens that they must be concluded next week. We have still to take the Navy Estimates, the Vote on Account, and the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates; and, therefore, it will hardly be possible to give further time next week to the discussion of this first Vote in the Army Estimates. I make an appeal to the House—and I think it will recognise that I have a right under the circumstances to appeal to it—to bring the discussion on the Vote to a close to-night.

Something has been said of another opportunity being offered later in the Session for the discussion of these matters, when we shall be in possession of all the documents and have the advantage of the evidence given before Lord Wantage's Committee. If such opportunity will be afforded, perhaps, Mr. Courtney, on one of the other Votes, as has been somewhat irregularly done on previous occasions—though I know you do not look on it, Sir, with much favour, but it has been so often done, and this is so exceptional a case, that it might be done this year—if it were done I would strongly appeal to anyone who will be influenced by me to agree in the course suggested, and defer a general discussion of these matters till that opportunity.

These Estimates have not been criticised by a single gentleman who is not a supporter of the Government, and the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman shows remarkable coolness on his part. In that state of the case, to ask to get the Vote to-night is like asking to get the Vote without any discussion at all, and yet we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Barttelot) that the Army Estimates require the closest scrutiny. I do not intend to be very long, but I shall be very astonished if hon. Members opposite do not make some little effort to sustain their right of discussion on this Vote. The Secretary of State took great credit because the arrangements for the defence of London are in a better condition owing to the efforts of the War Office. The fact is that not one shovelful of earth has been moved to provide for the defence of London during the past 20 years, and we are not in a position to resist the advance of a first-class Power. The next point for which the right hon. Gentleman took credit was the manufacture of magazine rifles, and there I take his part against the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir W. Barttelot), who did his very best to stop their manufacture. But the Secretary of State has stopped short in the manufacture when he has only a very inadequate supply. A first-class Power requires about 1,500,000 rifles, but the Government has stopped with 300,000.

We have not stopped.

The right hon. Gentleman says we have not stopped, but when the hon. Member for Enfield (Captain Bowles) addresses the House presently we shall hear that there is very little manufacture going on now. It is true that we have the Martini-Henry rifle, but although we can use two patterns of rifle in warfare, we must have one pattern of ammunition; at present we have two kinds in use. The hon. Member for Enfield will complain of the decrease in the manufacture of the magazine rifles at Enfield, but when Birmingham asked for some of the work I wondered how the Secretary of State would provide work for both places. It is a great pity that so many of the rifles are manufactured by private firms. You must give them a few to teach them how to manufacture the weapons, but the great bulk ought to be made at the Government factories. I think you are going on a false principle when you starve Enfield. Another point of the Secretary of State was the 80,000 men. But how do you get these 80,000? You are not even going to send the Reserve men into the regiments where they have served. You are going to send 45,000 men into the beleaguered towns, and they will not know their comrades, their officers, or non-commissioned officers, We have always tried to have a small Army, but an exceedingly good Army—I will not say English Army, because at the height of our glory a very large proportion of the men were Irish. But what makes the difference between disciplined troops and a set of savages is that the men know each other, and can depend upon each other. But now you are bringing them together in a chance manner, and they cannot get to know each other in less than three months. Now, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that all the recent great European wars have been decided in less time than it would take these men to know each other. I am not defending long service. On the contrary, I quite agree that we must have short service. When we see all the European nations pursuing a particular course of action, we should be foolish if we separated from it, because what all the nations are doing must be tolerably right. The great defect of the present system is the immense number of boys it brings into the Army, and I look upon that as most absurd, most dangerous, and most expensive. Hon. Members will remember the message that was sent home from the Crimea—"Send us no more boys." The necessity for reform is great; but when the two Front Benches agree upon a matter of military policy, I will not say they are necessarily wrong, but there is very little chance of reform. Now, when the Secretary for War has captured a boy, what does he do with him? He has to keep him about two years and a half before he is any good, and in this way he is most expensive. Sir A. Haliburton fixed the cost of a soldier at £53 a year, but I think it should be nearer £70, and in this way you will see that you spend about £160 or £170 upon a boy before he is any good to you. It would be far cheaper to offer a fair sum to a full-grown man. The hon. Member for South Durham (Sir H. Havelock-Allan) said he did not think much of the idea of competing with the labour market, but he did think that some direct inducement might be given to men in the Civil Departments. I agree with my hon. Friend that that would be a good thing, but there is much difficulty in obtaining that inducement. Fourteen or 15 years ago an hon. Member moved for a Committee to see if employment could be found for old soldiers in the Postmaster General's Department. But it was no good; nothing was done, and you will find the greatest possible difficulty in getting any other Department of the Government to offer you any assistance in dealing with your soldiers. You will have to change the whole system before you can do any good to the soldier. I should be disposed to agree with almost anything proposed by the hon. Gentleman in that respect, but I have not much faith in any efforts that may be made, because I have seen so many efforts. I think the only plan is to raise the pay, and to raise it sufficiently to appeal to the imagination of the population. If you raised the pay 6d., 2d. of that would be deferred pay; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might spread that over a period of eight years. So that the increase would come really to 4d., and that would amount to something like £120,000. That, I admit, is a considerable sum, but you would save it in the long run. You would have men, and would be able to stop the rush of boys. I believe the labour market is like the ocean. They say you cannot overfish the ocean, and if you have enough money you cannot overfish the labour market, and if you are prepared to pay enough you will get any number of men in this country. The fact is that now you are only paying enough to pay for a boy. When you have captured him you make him serve on and pay him just the same. If an employer of labour were to do that he would be denounced as the greatest tyrant in the country, and if he could not be beaten in the Law Courts we should have to pass an Act of Parliament about him. The fact is the Army is underpaid, and there are very gigantic abuses in consequence. I do not say anything about our Indian Army. We have a splendid Army there, and that fact has been recognised by everyone, but the reason is that there the men are full grown, whereas at home they are boys.

I do not at all underestimate the importance of the question which has been under discussion, but I wish to call attention to another matter, and that is the very important question of warlike stores and supplies. My constituency has of late been very much disturbed by the fact that this year a very much smaller number of arms are being manufactured than during the last two years; and, personally, one cannot help being a little surprised that, while the Army is being fitted out with a new weapon, so small a number of arms should be given out for manufacture. I can only say that the reason is not so much that this country is going without weapons as that those arms have been given to other people to produce. I have discovered that out of a total number of 300,000 arms manufactured, those turned out at Enfield only numbered 182,000. Enfield is the chief manufacturing department of the small arms of this country, and this is, therefore, a very serious question for us to consider. At first I could not help thinking that private traders and manufacturers were able to manufacture these weapons at a lower rate than they were produced at the Small Arms Factory, but that idea has been put out of my mind by the answers given by the Secretary of State for War. As far as I can make out—and it is very difficult to find out the exact state of the case with respect to any of these warlike stores from the way in which they are put into the Estimates—the first 100,000 rifles which have been manufactured, or are being manufactured, by the trade are to cost £5 10s., whereas the first 124,000 of these weapons which were made at Enfield were at a cost of £4 5s. each. These weapons can be manufactured now at Enfield at a cost of under £3 10s. It is not merely in the manufacture of rifles we compare favourably with the trade. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War himself, 8 per cent. is added to the cost of swords manufactured at Sheffield over those made in the Government factory. I have discovered also that the cost of the Nordenfeldt guns at Enfield is £135, and no less than £338 8s. is paid for the same article from the trade. I know I shall be told that the large divergence in price is due to what may be called the royalty paid to the inventors of the weapons; but when the difference is as between £135, and £338 I do feel that some new method should be arrived at for settling what royalties should be paid to inventors rather than by giving orders at such extraordinarily increased prices. I should like to point out to the Committee that even the manufacturers of these weapons are not satisfied with present prices, and we find from the letters of "Parlementaire" in the Times that even inventors are not satisfied with the way they are treated by the War Office. I feel, therefore, this is a question worthy the consideration of the Committee, and that it is my duty to bring the matter forward, though I should have liked to have acquiesced in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. The lock of the Maxim gun costs £20 in the trade—£6 at Enfield. I read of an order for carbines being sent from India and given by the War Office to the Henry Barrel Company; they are to cost 60s. each, and they could be produced at the small-arms factory at Enfield for 42s. I should like to point out to Members of the Committee that the machinery with which these carbines would have had to have been manufactured, if they were manufactured at Entield, has been sold to the Henry Barrel Company for £2,000. I do not know if I am mistaken—the Secretary for War will correct me if I am wrong—but I believe we have not at this moment the machinery at Enfield for the manufacture of old Martini-Henry carbines, the use of which the Indian Government have not given up entirely. A new rifle was put into the hands of the Army, and I think only one year's full work was sent to the Government factory at Enfield.

I hope this Memorandum will be circulated on Monday if the Vote is to be taken on that day. We cannot consent to proceed with the Vote if we have not the Memorandum in our hands.

The Memorandum will be circulated as soon as possible, but the Vote, I think, is not to be taken until Monday week.