I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I do so on behalf of colleagues, many of whom represent districts affected by this Bill, and also on behalf of the London County Council, which, by a resolution passed on the 7th inst., negatived a proposal not to oppose this Bill. This Bill is opposed not because of any minor detail which can be amended in Committee. No doubt it contains many important details to which we very much objected, and some of which have been very imperfectly met in the statement sent round by the promoters to-day agreeing to certain modifications. But I oppose the Bill because of its substance and its essence. The Bill proposes for certain purposes to raise an additional capital of half a million by Debenture Stock of the East London Water Company, and it does that on the eve of the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed specially to determine certain very important questions with respect to the water supply of London. We say that at this moment there are only two considerations which could possibly be urged in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that its provisions do not in any way traverse in any sense the matters with which the Royal Commission has to deal, and the other is that there are special circumstances in connection with the East London Water Company so peculiar and so urgent that the Report of the Royal Commission may very well for a moment be set aside. I shall contend, in the briefest possible manner, that in no sense does either of these conditions exist. In the first place, the Bill directly, in every particular in which this £500,000 is to be applied, cuts clean across all the points with which the Royal Commission has to deal. The Bill proposes an enlargement of the capital of the Company at a moment when the consideration of its financial relations with the public are in concern, and it proposes that the capital shall be spent in one of three directions—in finding a greater supply of water either from the Thames or the Lea, or from wells. Every one of these points is before the Royal Commission at the present moment. I know that the East London Company do not say in the Bill from which source they intend to take the supply; they merely ask for this money in order to strengthen their hands, and it is therefore not possible to say beforehand at what point they desire to extend their undertaking. In order to secure support in Hertfordshire they have indicated that they do not intend to ask for power to make any more wells in that county. I should like to call attention to the evidence given on behalf of this Company before the Royal Commission. One of their witnesses stated that 9 millions more gallons a day could be pumped from existing wells in the valley of the River Lea without adding a single well. But it was also proved that by abstracting water from the chalk at a lower level the whole district would be actually denuded of the water necessary for keeping a due supply in the River Lea. Every one connected with the East End of London knows the terrible condition to which the Lea has been reduced, and therefore an undertaking not to sink any more wells amounts to very little in this matter. The question of the sinking of new wells is one of the most important points on which the Royal Commission will have to report. Similarly with respect to taking water from other sources, there is nothing so urgent as to make it, necessary that this Bill should be pushed forward at the present moment. In the paper which has been circulated there are hints that we may have a cholera epidemic in the East End of London; I do not think that such hints are worthy of a public company. But, after all, what are they worth? I will show the House presently; but before I do so I will deal with another point. A suggestion is made that the Company require more storage power. Is the East London Company in a peculiar or backward position in this matter? I find that while the average supply in London in 1891 is 32 gallons per head per day, the supply by the East London Company is 35·90 gallons, or close upon 36 gallons per head. In the year 1892 the population supplied by the East London Water Company was 1,184,000 persons; since then it has gone up fully 20,000 persons, while in the same period the supply per head has risen to 37 gallons per head per day. Again, while the total storage of the other Water Companies is equivalent to 7·9 days' consumption, the storage of this Company is equal to 14·9 days' consumption. That being so, there is no case for that urgency which alone can be a reason for pressing the Bill through the House of Commons immediately before the Royal Commission reports upon the whole question. Let me point out what the position really is. This company wants power to borrow £500,000. They say it will not raise the market price of the shares. I very much doubt that. If it is to be borrowed at 3¼ per cent. and well applied, the dividend on the existing shares will soon be augmented, and this will occur at the very moment when the people of London, through the County Council, may be proposing to acquire the undertaking. A more important thing than the quantity of the water supplied by this company is the quality—that has more reference to the cholera epidemic, as to which they hold out such an unworthy threat. The Royal Commission will report as to what sources of supply are to be condemned, and what sources are to be encouraged. The expenditure now proposed runs the risk of being condemned; and, therefore, if the Bill passes, London will have to face the purchase of the company's interest with a dead limb. I, therefore, ask the House not to send this Bill to a Committee, and thereby put the ratepayers to heavy expense in opposing it.

I desire to say a few words on behalf of the minority in the London County Council, who when this question was discussed raised no objection to the Bill being opposed, but held that the opposition should be offered before the Select Committee. Let me state how this matter stands as regards the London County Council. Hon. Members of this House have, no doubt, read the statement which has been circulated on behalf of the London County Council against the Second Reading. Accompanying that statement is an elaborate exposition by the Parliamentary agent of the County Council. One would imagine, from the observations which fell at the outset of his speech from the Hon. Member for Shoreditch, that the County Council had decided to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill on the grounds set forth in the circulated statement. But the County Council when it decided to take that action had before it the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, which stated that they had had under consideration a Petition from consumers of the Company's water, strongly objecting to Clause 17, which imposes a penalty on persons fixing and using water-fittings which have not been stamped by the Company. The Committee also stated that they had had before them a letter from the Company to the effect that it was not intended that the clause should have any retrospective effect, and that it could be amended in Committee so as to make that perfectly plain. But they had come to the conclusion that that clause and other circumstances justified further opposition, and therefore recommended members of the Council who were also Members of the House of Commons to oppose the Second Reading. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council in fact contains not one word in reference to the matters dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and not one word against the principle of the Bill. We are told by the hon. Member for Shoreditch that the real ground for opposition of the County Council is that the Report of the Royal Commission has not been issued. I will undertake to say that the real ground is that the County Council never loses an opportunity of making an attack upon the Water Companies with a view to depreciating their Stock. The London County Council casts its eye upon the property of the Water Companies as it has on other property in the Metropolis. It thinks that by depreciating the property of the Companies it will one day be able to acquire it for next to nothing—as it looks forward to being able to purchase the tramways at the price of old iron. I hope we shall hear something this morning from the President of the Local Government Board, who, to my mind, will incur great responsibility if he supports the London County Council in preventing this Bill from going to a Committee upstairs. The statement made by the East London Water Company refers to the danger of cholera coming to this country, and the supply of water being inadequate for the inhabitants of the Metropolis during the visitation. Well, over and over again the Local Government Board has made representations as to the insufficiency of the filter beds and reservoirs in London, and the Board fear that none of the Metropolitan Water Companies have a sufficient reserve of water. The hon. Member for Shoreditch thinks that 14 days' supply is sufficient. There may be two opinions about that. For my part I question whether in the summer time, when people are using large quantities of water, 14 days' supply is sufficient for the Metropolis. I do ask the House to pause before summarily rejecting this Bill on the flimsy pretext referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. As a matter of fact, the London County Council are trying to make it impossible for the Companies who cater for the wants of London to carry out their obligations; but so long as Parliament imposes these obligations I hope they will give fair play to the Companies, and instead of snuffing out their Bills at the outset will allow them to be considered upstairs in the usual manner.

I hope the House will pardon mo for intervening thus early in the Debate; but I have only a few words to say. It is not necessary for me to dispute anything said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, nor, on the other hand, will I dispute what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because the point I wish to press on the House is that it will incur considerable responsibility if it refuses at this early stage to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. I think it is quite possible that the promoters of the Bill are unreasonable, and are asking for more than they have a right to ask for; but, on the other hand, I think there is considerable force in the contention made that after all there should be a sufficient supply of water for these populous neighbourhoods, and that the object of the Bill is to provide that sufficient supply for a very large district; and, further, that if an outbreak of cholera occurs, and the supply of water in the district is shown to be insufficient, grave responsibility will rest upon those who reject the Bill. These are all matters for consideration in Committee. The very object of the institution of this tribunal of Select Committee is that facts can be ascertained which on Second Reading cannot be put before the House. A Committee would hear the evidence and find the preamble proved or not proved in the ordinary way, and would then go through the details. I intervene now in order to express a hope that that is the course which will be taken on the present Bill. It is by far the most satisfactory course. If it should turn out that the County Council are right, then the Committee will reject the Bill. If, on the other hand, the promoters are right, the Bill will go through; but I cannot help thinking that the probable result of the contest, if the Bill goes before a Select Committee, will be that the Committee will suggest a reasonable compromise between the opposing interests, and that some short Bill may be approved and passed through Committee, and ultimately passed through Parliament in the ordinary way.

The hon. Member for Marylebone has stated that the opposition of the County Council is based on Clause 17 of the Bill. Now, I am authorised by the Company to say that they are practically prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. That was a clause enabling the Company to stamp all the fittings in their district. It was never meant to be retrospective, and I must say I consider it rather to the advantage of the consumer that the fittings should be stamped. It is against the jerry builder who puts bad fittings into houses. It also prevents waste. But the Company are perfectly prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. Something has been said about a constant supply of water, and on that point I may say that the East London Water Company was the only Company that originally complied with that provision in the Act which bears upon a constant supply; and at the present moment the whole of its district, with a small exception, has a constant supply. The London County Council have sent out a Memorial, a copy of which I received this morning, setting forth the reasons why this Bill should be rejected on the Second Reading. The second paragraph says that—

"It seems tolerably clear from the Bill itself that no immediate or imperative necessity for the expenditure of capital upon works properly chargeable to revenue exists."

"The Company was asked more than a month ago on behalf of the County Council to define the various works on which they consider expenditure immediately necessary, to give an estimate of the amount required for those works; and subsequent applications have been made to the Company for information, but up to the present time they have declined to state whether the works contemplated are in respect of the River Thames, the River Lea, or streams underground."

"A rough estimate of expenditure on additional storage reservoirs on the Company's land in extension of existing reservoirs to meet increasing demands, £150,000."

"Additional filter beds £30,000, engines £45,000, extension of wells and duplication of pumping machinery, £60,000."

"Extension of main service for seven years, £140,000; extension of high service reservoirs, £25,000; general purposes of undertaking to which capital is properly applicable, £50,000."

"The Company submit that after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water adequate in quantity, and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years with a large surplus margin."

I am sure that the London County Council would not oppose this Bill for a moment if such a course would be in any way likely to endanger the supply of water to the East of London. I think the best evidence on this question is to be found in the statement of the company itself. On the 30th April, 1892, the company summarised their position to the Royal Commission in the following way:—

"The company submit that, after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water, adequate in quantity and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years, with a large surplus margin."

"As regards the future, you will observe that our increase is now very minute compared with what it was live or six years ago, and not only that, but the increase is all in the Essex district. The average population per house in the London district is about 7·62. In our Essex district it is only 6·l. Consequently, the whole of our increase must be in the Essex district in the future, all the sites being built on within the area of the London district. I have taken 6·1 people per house, and I have made an estimate on that."

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

I have no means of knowing whether it is a fair proposition or not to put to the House that the Question should be now put. I think that hon. Members might with advantage compress their observations, but I cannot say that the Debate has been so unduly prolonged as to justify putting the Question.

As my constituents in East Hertfordshire are deeply interested in this question, I beg to say a word. We find in Hertfordshire that our streams and springs are reduced in their flow. We think that the inhabitants of East Hertfordshire ought to have the first use of the water, and we cannot spare any further supply to London. The whole question has been referred to a Royal Commission, which is about to report, and I think we ought to await their decision before anything is done. I had intended to offer opposition to this Bill, but, as important concessions have been made, it is no longer necessary to do that.

In Essex the opinion is that this Bill is thoroughly bad. I have absolutely no connection with the London County Council, and I am a member of a Body which is very often opposed to it— namely, the Essex County Council. I can assure the House that the feeling throughout the Essex part of the district is even stronger than it is on the London County Council itself. I have been connected with that locality all my life. I can tell the hon. Member for Peckham that this Bill will not interfere with jerry-builders in any way, and as it will not benefit the ratepayers, but will only benefit the Company, I hope the House will reject it.

As an East End Member, I have some claim to say a few words with regard to this Bill. In my own district, being in daily touch with my constituents, I feel that this Bill is very premature. It is premature, because we are all looking forward to the Report of the Royal Commission to say what is to be done in the East of London in order to give that densely populated district a constant supply of water. We desire to see the old-fashioned water butt done away with, and I do not think we shall be doing our duty if we support a Company which is trading in an everyday commodity, and paying dividends of 8 to 10 per cent. The Company, of which the hon. Member for Peckham is a Director, pays 8 per cent., and I think that, for a commodity of which we require the daily use, is an immoral dividend. I maintain that if these Water Companies were conducted on a different principle the poor people would get their water cheaper, and would also obtain a much larger supply. But I will not oppose the Bill. I would rather follow the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and let the Bill go before a Select Committee, if it is not possible to withdraw it in order to await the Report of the Royal Commission. I would rather see the Bill deferred for another month until we obtained the Report of the Commission. If it is not convenient to do that, I will go with the Chairman of Ways and Means and support the Second Reading, in the hope that it may be possible to so alter the Bill in Committee that the poor may derive some benefit from it.

I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment between the House and the Division. On the contrary, I would respectfully urge that after all that has been said on both sides the question should be at once disposed of, and we should proceed to the public business of the evening. Before doing so, however, I must express regret at the fact that the hon. Member for Somerset thought it right to level charges at the head of this particular Water Company, a course which was, I am glad to say, not adopted by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. May I bring the House back, before it goes to a Division, to the ground occupied by the Chairman of Ways and Means? It is the case, if we accept the assurances of this Company, that they require more capital in order to supply the demands of the district in the area over which they have the supply of water. It is suggested that we should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. May I remind the House that, the Commission will only report on two points—namely, the quantity and quality of the water. The purchase of the undertakings of the Company by the public will still have to be inquired into, reported on, and settled. As the Chairman pointed out, it will be a serious thing for the House at this stage to take the unusual course of refusing to allow the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs where the objections to it can be heard in detail, and where there will be ample power to alter or reduce the demands of the Company. I hope we may now go to a Division.

If the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had followed the advice tendered to him from his own side it would have been unnecessary for the House to interfere. But notwithstanding that advice a Division is to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that the Committee upstairs would decide what amount of capital is absolutely necessary. This £140,000 is only to supply new mains during the next seven years. Surely we are not going to deprive these extensive districts that adjoin the borough I represent of the water they want or prevent this Water Company from fulfilling its obligations until some new arrangement is made. The Great Eastern Railway, owing to its admirable service of trains, has brought about an enormous extension of West Ham. New streets are being opened up every year, and it is impossible to say that the County Council is to control not only London, but also Essex. If a majority of Irish or Welsh Members are to represent Ireland or Wales, surely a majority of the Metropolitan Members should represent the Metropolis. Lot the Bill go before a Committee, and I am sure every point in it, whether as to capital or anything else, will be well considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed some time since to investigate the subject of Habitual Inebriety has completed its inquiries; and when its Report is expected?

The Committee on Habitual Inebriety have concluded the taking of evidence, and are now engaged in the preparation of their Report. I understand that it will in all probability be presented by Easter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of Henry Brierley, mentioned in The Manchester Guardian of 8th inst., who was locked up for parading the streets of Manchester with a brass band and soliciting donations from passers by, and discharged on giving an undertaking not to commit the alleged offence again; whether he is aware that Brierley is the Chairman of No. 5 District of the Amalgamated Card and Blowing Room Operatives Association, and that he, and several other officials of that Association, were collecting funds for the men who had been locked out; is it an offence for English operatives to collect voluntary contributions in the manner described, when it is not alleged that any riotous conduct took place or obstruction was caused; and is he aware that on the 1st May traffic is suspended for several hours throughout the busiest portion of the city by a May-day procession of vehicles and horses, and also on Whit Monday by processions of school children, and that a few months ago a huge procession paraded Manchester to collect subscriptions for the Lifeboat Fund, which started from the Town Hall, and was marshalled by the City Police; and whether there is any reason why some latitude should not be given to proceedings like those referred to in the first paragraph, in the exceptional circumstances at present existing in the cotton manufacturing district?

I find upon inquiry that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs, except that Brierley was not locked up but released on bail. As to the third paragraph, begging in a public place is an offence under the Vagrancy Act, and the Magistrate was of opinion that in soliciting money in the streets to be shared by himself and others Brierley had committed this offence. As to the fourth paragraph, I am informed that traffic in Manchester is not suspended on May Day, but that it is suspended on Whit Monday. The facts as to the lifeboat procession appear to be as stated by my hon. Friend. The Mayor has power under a local Act to suspend traffic in Manchester on special occasions. As to the fifth paragraph, an application was made on the 28th February by an Operatives' Association to the Watch Committee for permission for their members to go out begging with a brass band on Saturday. The Committee refused to comply with the application on the ground (as I am informed by the Chief Constable) that such proceedings not only obstructed the traffic and frightened the horses, but that it would be impossible to tell whether the band and the persons collecting were properly authorised by the Association, or to secure that the money subscribed would be applied to the object for which it was given.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is the intention of the Post Office Authority to remove the only post office in the island of Jura, Argyllshire, and substitute a pillar post only for the use of the inhabitants of that island, numbering more than 600 persons?

There are two post offices in Jura—one at Craighouse, the other at Lagg. The sub-postmaster at Craighouse, the more important office, has resigned his appointment. I am taking steps to nominate a successor.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the uncertainty and frequent Joss accruing from the purchase of native cattle owing to the law not providing compensation for tuberculosis, will the Government accelerate the issue of the Bovine Tuberculosis Report, and meantime compensate owners for seizure and confiscation?

I am informed by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis that it is impossible to give precisely the date of the termination of the work of the Commission and of the presentation of their Report. This will depend mainly on the issue of the experimental inquiries which are still being carried on. It is stated, however, that as far as can at present be calculated the experiments on animals will be concluded by the end of April, or within a fortnight of that date, and before the end of June it is anticipated that the whole of the microscopical investigations will be completed and the Reports of the three Sub-Inquirers will be in the hands of the Commission. Their deliberation thereon will follow, and their Report will be presented as soon as possible afterwards. The Government are not prepared to make proposals to Parliament with respect to compensation until that Report is presented.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why five paupers—namely, Widow Stewart, over 70 years of age; Widow Mackintosh, over 80 years of age; Widow M. Cameron, nearly 80 years of age; Widow Mackenzie Corriemoilie and Alexander Grant, both said to be 97 years of age, resident at Garve, or neighbourhood, have to pay a person to go to Contin, a distance of six miles, to receive their parish allowance; and whether this duty should not be performed by the Inspector of Poor for the parishes of Urray and Killornan, or other competent person appointed by the Parochial Board as provided by Statute?

Six Garve paupers have been in the habit of giving their tickets to a very respectable woman, who has occasion to go periodically to Contin for other purposes, to draw their parish allowance for them. Three of the six have been in the habit of giving her a present of about 1s. 6d. a year each. The Board of Supervision have ordered that this is to be discontinued. No presents are to be given, and if any expense is incurred in future in delivering their allowances to distant paupers, the cost is to be defrayed by the Parochial Board.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a telegram, handed in at Leicester at 10.30 a.m., on the 10th March, was not-delivered to the addressee, William Campbell, fish merchant, Plockton, until 6.15 p.m. the same day, and that in consequence of the delay Mr. Campbell suffered great loss and inconvenience; and whether, under the circumstances, the Post Office will make some compensation to Mr. Campbell for his loss, and take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a similar occurrence?

May I ask whether questions of this character could not be as effectively put by letter to the Department concerned as by questions in this House?

I think it would be a very good reform to establish if questions of small import to the general public were addressed to the different Departments.

I hope then the Postmaster General will take care that more energy, more activity, and greater despatch will be displayed by the Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware there is only one magistrate resident in the Monasterevan Petty Sessions district, County Kildare, and that gentleman is very often away, causing great inconvenience in the district, and that the same state of affairs exists in the Kildare Petty Sessions district of the said county; and if he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?

I have received a Report in reference to this matter and will bring it under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to a letter written by the Secretary of the Education Department to Miss Ryley, of Birkdale, dated 10th March, 1893, in answer to an application for free schooling on behalf of 11 children, and referring the applicants to the managers of the Ainsdale Roman Catholic School; and whether he is prepared, in this and similar cases, to make attendance at a Roman Catholic school a necessary condition of free schooling for Protestant children?

My attention has been called to the letter in question. It appeared on inquiry that the Roman Catholic School, which was a free school, had ample vacant accommodation for both older children and infants, and that, therefore, there was no deficiency of free school places. In this and similar cases I have to deal with the law as it stands. The Education Acts make no distinction between Roman Catholic and other Schools so long as they are Public Elementary Schools, and I do not think it is possible under the Acts to compel a school district to provide additional accommodation, if that in existing Public Elementary Schools is sufficient.

Has the right hon. Gentleman got evidence for certain that the School in question is free?

I understand that it is free, but I will make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that arrangements were come to in November, 1890, between the Drapers' Company and 70 of their tenants in County Derry, under which the latter were to purchase their holdings, paying one half-year's rent in lieu of arrears; that the agent took proceedings at the recent Magherafelt Quarter Sessions for the recovery of 4 per cent. on the purchase money, under a clause in the terms of the arbitration enabling the Company to charge this interest if the delay in completing the purchase were not due to them; and that Mr. Glover, the agent, stated in Court that the delay was not due to the Company but to the Land Commission; and will he inquire if this statement is true; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay, which will result in a very serious loss to a number of poor tenants?

I have received from the clerk to the Drapers' Company a communication in which he states that in an arbitration between the Company and certain of their tenants, on their estate in Ireland, an award was made dealing with arrears of rent and terms of purchase in some 550 cases, and that under this award the tenants were to pay interest on purchase-money at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum pending the completion of the sales. Having failed to do so, however, a number of civil bill processes were taken out by the Company, which, as stated in the question, were heard at the recent Magherafelt Quarter Sessions, and the cases were settled by the tenants agreeing to pay interest at 3⅛ per cent. to November 1st last. This settlement will not, I am informed, result in loss to any tenant, inasmuch as if the advances for purchase had been made by the Land Commission, the tenants would have had to pay interest at 4 per cent. instead of 3⅛ per cent., as provided by the terms of settlement at Quarter Sessions. Regarding the statement that the agent to the Company attributes the delay in the completion of the sales to the Land Commission, the latter deny that such is the case, and state that the delay in the proceedings is due to the Company.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether progress is being made with the Collooney and Claremorris Railway; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

I will answer this question. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement I made to the House on the Supplementary Estimate, but the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, who are responsible for constructing the line, state that they are actively negotiating with a firm of contractors. The Board of Works have called on the Company to proceed at once with the construction of the line, and if immediate assurances as to this are not given, proceedings will be taken to compel them to carry out the obligations imposed on them by the Orders in Council.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state what additional sum is to be provided, in accordance with the recent promise of the Government, for the superannuation of teachers who entered the service between 1851 and 1862?

The sum which has been arranged for between the Treasury and the Education Department, for superannuation of teachers who entered between 1851 and 1862, is £5,000 for England and Wales, to be used so far as the necessities of the case require.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill to establish a responsible Government in Natal has been re-introduced in the Colonial Legislature, and whether it contains the special provisions for the protection of inhabitants not of European birth or descent which were deemed essential by the late Government?

The answer to the first question is, No. As regards the latter question, no change has been made in the policy of the late Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Lender Secretary of State for the Colonies what alterations have been made in the Import Duties or in taxation in Ceylon in order to make up for the loss of revenue consequent on the abolition of the Paddy Tax?

The Import Duty on cigars and snuff has been raised from Rs. 1 to Rs. 1.50 a pound; on manufactured tobacco from 25c. to 40c. a pound; on unmanufactured tobacco from 12c. to 25c. a pound; for spirits of ordinary strength from Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 per imperial gallon; on kerosine oil from an ad valorem duty of 6½ per cent. to a duty of 25c. per gallon. The Ordinance for effecting these changes was, I may add, authorized and finally sanctioned by the Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when further Papers relating to Newfoundland will be presented?

Papers will be laid when the correspondence is more complete, and when they can be given consistently with the public interests.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Income Tax are in the habit of accepting audited balance sheets as evidence of the net profits of a business; and, if not, what are the means they adopt of estimating the profits upon which they assess the tax?

Commissioners of Income Tax are empowered by law to call upon appellants to furnish such Information in such form as, in their discretion, they consider is necessary for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts. It is, therefore, entirely within the discretion of the Commissioners to accept, or not to accept, balance sheets as evidence, as well as to determine what other evidence, if any, they may require.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department, in pressing the Liverpool School Board to open or build free schools in the outskirts of the city, which would be mainly utilised by those who could afford to pay fees, have taken into their consideration the fact that the loss in the management of such schools has in a large measure to be defrayed by the dock labourers and small struggling tradesmen of the central part of the city, who receive no aid whatever towards the maintenance of their own schools; also whether, in view of the working of the Elementary Education Acts, especially in Liverpool, where the poorer Irish Catholic ratepayers, although contributing £10,000 per year towards the maintenance of the School Board system, are prohibited by law from receiving anything out of the local rates for the support of their own schools, which educate 24,000 children, or nearly as many as the Board schools, it is contemplated by the Education Department to initiate or support any measure for placing voluntary schools on a footing of equality, as regards aid from public funds, in accordance with the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education,1888, p. 195?

I am aware that the rate levied by a School Board in order to provide schools in any part of its district is levied on the whole of the rateable property throughout the district, whatever the character of the population. But it is the duty of the Department, under the Act of 1891, to require free education to be provided for all those who claim it. The late Government did not adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission that voluntary schools should, in certain circumstances, be aided from the rates, and it is not the intention of the present Government to introduce any legislation with that object.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are now in possession of further information with regard to the Congo Free State, and especially whether they have examined the Royal Decree issued by King Leopold, as Sovereign of the Congo Free State, on 29th September, 1891, appropriating to the use of the State the fruits of its domains; whether this decree or any previous document on which it may be based, if such has been issued, has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government and other signatories to the Berlin Act of 1885, as regards its supersession of the stipulations of that Act, to the effect that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in all the regions forming the basins of the Congo and its outlets; and whether he will inform the House as to the origin, nature, and validity of the doctrine of State domains in Africa?

Decrees of the Congo State do not require the sanction of the signatories of the Berlin Act, but they must be consistent with that Act. The decrees in question were really issued in 1889, and doubts with regard to their consistency have been expressed both by Her Majesty's Government and by companies commercially interested. It is understood that important modifications have been made and will be duly notified. As implied in a previous answer to the hon. Member, it is difficult to define the extent and validity of the doctrine of State domains.

Will the Secretary of State give special attention to the consistency or otherwise of these decrees with the ordinary conditions of the Convention?

As I have said, that is a point on which doubts have already been expressed, and in consequence it is understood important modifications have been made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of leases and agreements to take farms since the passing of the last Tithe Act, in accordance with which the landlord now pays the tithe, but the same is included in the amount of the rent mentioned in the lease, the ad valorem Stamp Duty on the leases is to be calculated on the rent, less the tithe?

The answer to this question is in the negative. The Stamp Duty on a lease, or on an agreement for a lease, is charged upon the rent reserved thereby, and no deduction is allowed on the ground that such rent is calculated by reference to, or may include, tithe, or any other liability imposed upon the landlord.

Is not this a great injustice, seeing that the duty is calcu- lated on a larger amount than is actually received? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take steps to remedy it?

I will consider it. But the existing law applies to tithe us to every other liability.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an arrangement was made some time ago with Lord Massereene for securing his deer park, or a portion of it near the town of Antrim, for a shooting range; whether he can state on what terms the land was taken; and whether the agreement has yet been perfected; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay?

The arrangement with Lord Massereene is still pending. The responsibility for the delay does not rest with the War Department.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that telegraphists at the Central Office on 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 11·45 p.m. duties perform seven to eight hours' work without a break for food; and will he take steps to secure for them an uninterrupted meal time?

The subject raised by the hon. Member was fully dealt with in 1888, 1889, and 1890 by Mr. Raikes in reply to questions. The telegraphists referred to come on duty after the dinner hour. They are supplied with tea in the office, and they have facilities for having their supper brought to them. The fluctuating nature of the work, which is largely composed of Press work, and work originating in the proceedings of the House of Commons, renders it impracticable to let them leave the office for meals.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware the steam trawlers, which did so much injury to the Clew Bay fisheries last year, have again commenced work- ing, in violation of the bye-law passed by the Inspectors of Fisheries with the view of restricting their operations; and whether, in view of the efforts now being made to develop the Clew Bay fisheries, steps will be taken to enforce the bye-law, and prohibit the ravages of the steam trawlers?

said, the Inspectors of Fisheries reported that it was a fact that steam trawling had been carried on this year in Clew Bay, and that complaints had been made of injuries to the gear of local fishermen in consequence of such trawling. The bay was not at present closed against steam trawling, but he was informed that a bye-law had been made prohibiting this mode of fishing therein during the first four mouths of each year, and that the bye-law, before it comes into force, must be approved by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. An appeal against the bye-law had been lodged by the owners of the trawlers, and the hearing of this appeal had been postponed in order to give the appellants and those interested in supporting the provision of the bye-law an opportunity of appearing personally or by counsel before the next meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what resolution, if any, the Congested Districts Board have arrived at with regard to the suggestions made to members of the Board during their recent visit for the erection of piers and boat-slips in South Kerry?

The Congested Districts Board cannot yet state, definitely, what action they will take in the direction indicated.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is no decision has yet been come to on the representations sent in from North Kerry many months ago?

I will inquire.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that members of the Congested Districts Board visited South Kerry last October and nothing has yet been done?

I can only repeat that I will make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the telegram in The Daily News of the 15th instant, in which it is stated that three Armenian churches have been gutted by Moslem mobs at Caesarea; that 510 Armenians of that place are in prison; that in Yozgat the prisons are full, and 65 leading Armenians are imprisoned in the military barracks near the city; that goods coming by caravan addressed to Christian merchants are pillaged by Moslem villagers on the road, so that orders for goods from Constantinople cannot be made good; and that all business is at a standstill; whether the Turkish Government are acting in accordance with the 61st Article of the Berlin Treaty in permitting the continuance of that state of things; and whether any remonstrances will be made with the object of securing the proper observance of the stipulations contained in the Treaty?

The attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the telegram. We have had no confirmation of the statement that three Armenian churches have been gutted, but we have heard that in consequence of the posting of seditious placards a number of persons were imprisoned. The Grand Vizier hag informed Her Majesty's Ambassador that the Governor General of Angora would proceed at once to Caesarea to report on the state of affairs.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Thoumaian, a Protestant missionary, by the Turkish authorities at Marsovan; and (2) whether representations can be made with the object of securing his release?

Mr. Thoumaian, who is an Ottoman subject and a Professor of the American College at Marsovan, has been imprisoned. It is not clear whether his arrest is due to the burning of part of the College, which is believed to have been the act of an incendiary, or to the distribution of seditious placards. The Sultan has ordered a careful inquiry to be made into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that land cases from the Carrick and Killybegs districts of Donegal have been fixed by the Chief Commissioners for hearing at Strabane in April; and whether, having regard to the poverty of the tenants in the Carrick and Killybegs districts, whose cases are set down for hearing at Strabane, and the great expense and hardship entailed on those tenants by being compelled to travel a long distance from their homes, arrangements can be made for the sitting of the Land Commission Court at Carrick or Killybegs for the hearing of land eases arising in these districts?

Inquiry is being made in this matter, and if the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday I expect to be then in a position to furnish a reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any note is taken of any soldiers who may return to barracks at night in a state of intoxication; are they reported, and is any penalty inflicted upon them; and do any statistics exist to show how numerous such cases are?

Soldiers entering barracks at night or at any other time in a state of intoxication are placed in the guard-room and their offence is disposed of by fine or other punishment. Statistics do not exist showing the number of such cases as a total; but the cases which were serious enough to involve a fine are recorded; and it is gratifying to note a progressive fall from year to year, the ratio per 1,000 men, which in 1881 was 243, having fallen in 1891 to 147.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of James Marks, mounted police officer of the N Division of the Metropolitan Police, who, about the end of November, 1887, was returning from duty in Trafalgar Square, when passing Shaftesbury Avenue his horse fell, causing severe injuries to his right leg, rendering him unable to do duty for five months, subsequently paralysis set in, which has compelled his retirement from the Force as unfit for duty, owing to the above injury, and a permanent cripple, on a pension of 8s. 1½d. per week only; and whether, under the lamentable circumstances of the case, he can see his way to increase the pension?

The pension to Constable James Marks, injured by the falling of his horse, was awarded under the Rules of the Secretary of State then in force. In the case of injuries received in the execution of duty the Rules made a distinction according as the injury was accidental or not, a distinction which has since been adopted in the Police Pension Act, and has, therefore, received the approval of Parliament. This case was considered to fall within the class of accidental injuries, and there was awarded to Marks the highest pension which under such circumstances the Rules permitted. The amount was smaller than it would otherwise have been, because the service of the constable was only one year and five months. This award could not now be revised without opening the door to numerous applications of a similar character with reference to pensions that have been granted in accordance with the Rules.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what will be the cost to Great Britain of the indemnification of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the extinction of the posts in which they have rendered such distinguished service, under Clause 30 of the Home Rule Bill; and if the officers and constables of those Forces will be freely allowed to petition Her Majesty's Government and both Houses of Parliament, through the proper channels, against the manner in which it is proposed to treat them?

The figures asked for in the hon. Member's question could only be ascertained by calculations which have not yet been completed, but which I hope will be ready in a few days; and, therefore, it is not practicable at present to reply to the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, I fear I cannot add anything to my answer to a question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to elucidating in detail the Return No. 91 of this Session, lately presented by him, and entitled "Government of Ireland Bill (Financial Effect)," he will have the Return No. 329 of 1891, entitled "Financial Relations (England, Scotland, and Ireland)," continued so as to include the financial year 1892–3, and present the same to this House?

The Return (No. 329 of 1891) to which the hon. Member refers has been revised, so as to include the latest completed financial year 1891–2, in compliance with the Motion made by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). There will be no objection, so far as I am aware, to issue a further Return, which will include the corresponding information for 1892–3, based on the Exchequer receipts and issues of the year, as soon as is practicable after these receipts and issues have been ascertained.

Is it not possible to give the actual figures for the current year in time for the Debate on the Second Reading?

I will see if it can be done.

When will the Return be issued. It was ordered in the month of February.

I hope it will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why a Copy of the Bill relative to the Newfoundland coast and fisheries, under the title of "The Fishery Treaties Act, 1892," and which is published in the French Yellow Book for 1892, and laid before the French Chambers, has not yet been laid before this House; whether the Bill in question was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature; whether he will now lay upon the Table a Copy of that Bill and of the Correspondence concerning it, together with the Report thereon of the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature; and whether, as a matter of fact, the Newfoundland Legislature have objected to the Court proposed by that Bill to be erected, and to the absence of any provision for compensation in cases of losses arising from any arbitration award, and that it has also protested against any partial arbitration with France on the lobster question alone, until arbitration regarding all questions arising under the various matters regarding Newfoundland be agreed upon?

The Bill and Correspondence have not been published, as the Report of the Joint Committee referred to has not yet been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government. As I have already informed the right hon. Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool, Papers will be laid when the Correspondence is more complete, and when they can be given consistently with the public interests. The Bill was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature. From the telegraphic information which we have received, the facts appear to be as stated in the last paragraph of the question.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question in the first paragraph?

The Bill is included with the Correspondence in the Report of the Joint Committee which we have not yet received.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending the Report of the Inspector now holding an inquiry at Cowes, he will prohibit the depositing of any more dredgings from the Southampton Docks upon the fishing grounds in the Solent, and order the dredgings to be taken outside the Solent into the Channel, in view of the serious injury inflicted upon the fishermen, of the district?

I understand that the Report of the Inspector will be presented to me in a day or two, and I can assure the hon. Member that the suggestion made will be carefully considered, but it is not possible for me to determine on any action until I have received the Report.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to promote, this Session, legislation having for its object the carrying into effect of the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892)?

This matter is now under consideration by the Treasury and the Admiralty, as I stated yesterday, and it is not possible for me to add anything more. I assure my hon. Friend that the question has not been, and will not be, neglected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether four years ago the Army horses suffered severely from farcy and glanders; whether the Army stables are now practically free from the diseases; and, if so, how this result was arrived at; and whether he can inform the House what measures were taken to stamp out the diseases, and with what result?

No horse in the Army the property of the Government has been affected with farcy or glanders during very nearly the last five years. The Army stables are free from the disease, as a result of good sanitary measures and of precaution against contagion.

Is the absence of this disease due in any sense to the use of Warner's Safe Cure?

Order order!

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on his advent to office, his attention was drawn to an important increase in the epidemic of farcy or glanders raging among horses, more especially among those stabled in the Metropolis, and to the highly infectious character of the disease and serious danger to human life; whether it has been satisfactorily proved that the most efficacious method of stamping out the disease is the compulsory slaughter of all affected or suspected animals, with the payment of limited compensation to the owners, so that the temptation to conceal the disease, and so spread infection, should be reduced to a minimum; whether the London County Council, as the Local Authority for the Metropolis, have declined to exercise the powers conferred by the Order known as "The Glanders or Farcy Order, 1892," empowering the Local Authority to exercise compulsory powers of inspection and slaughter, with such limited compensation, and providing that if the Local Authority failed to exercise such powers the Board of Agriculture should compel them to do so; whether it is a fact that upwards of 90 per cent. of the cases of farcy or glanders, during the last year, occurred in the Metropolitan area; whether the refusal of the London County Council has his approval; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to insure the provisions under the Order being properly carried out; and whether he proposes to issue any further Orders on the subject, and when?

Soon after my advent to office my attention was drawn to the increase of glanders and farcy, and to the fact that upwards of 90 per cent. of the cases occurred in the Metropolitan area. In September last I issued an Order which, amongst other things, empowered Local Authorities to slaughter diseased or suspected animals on payment of a limited measure of compensation. I believe that the adoption of that course would necessarily have the beneficial effect indicated in the question, but the London County Council decided that they were not justified in incurring the heavy expenditure which the payment of compensation would entail. I view their decision with regret; but, at the same time, it is quite open to the County Council to argue that by the active enforcement of the other provisions of the Order they can achieve the desired result at much less cost to the ratepayers, and this view is to some extent confirmed by the fact that the number of horses reported to have been attacked during the current year shows a substantial falling off: as compared with the corresponding period of last year, the numbers being respectively 433 and 486. In those circumstances, I do not contemplate taking any further steps at the present moment, but I shall continue to give my close attention to this important subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the opinion he expressed to a deputation on the 20th January last, that he had learned the action of the London County Council with surprise and regret, as he believed the payment of compensation under his Order would have been of material assistance in stamping out the disease?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the whole of my remarks he will find I said that if the action of the Order was not satisfactory I should be prepared to reconsider my decision.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce a Rill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to Vaccination?

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will not follow the policy of his predecessor, and defer legislation until the whole Report of the Commission is laid on the Table?

May I ask whether it is not a fact that the Commission has sent in an interim and unanimous Report as a matter of urgency, and that its recommendations are supported by such high medical authorities as Sir James Paget, Dr. Bristowe, and Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson?

The Commission have presented an interim and unanimous Report. I shall, therefore, introduce the Bill at the earliest available opportunity—I hope on some day in next week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, at some stage, allow opportunity for fair and reasonable discussion?

My hon. Friend may be quite sure he will have the fullest opportunity of discussion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that in a dispute in the shoe making trade in Glasgow work for the masters was undertaken by the managers of reformatory and industrial schools; whether he has taken any steps in the matter; and whether he proposes to issue general instructions for the prevention of a recurrence of similar interference of State-aided institutions in trade disputes in the future?

My attention was some time ago called to this matter. I find upon inquiry that the boys of these schools had been allowed to take work from employers for whom they have not done work before, while a trade dispute was pending between the employers and his ordinary workpeople. I have conveyed to the managers of the school my opinion that the course taken was very ill-advised, and one that ought not to have been adopted. I have always disapproved of any interference by schools of this description in trade disputes, and therefore, there is no necessity for my issuing general instructions.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman has given instructions that this interference is not to be continued?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines on the accident which took place at New battle Collieries on the 20th January, 1893, whereby John Neesam, a workman, was killed, so that the working men and their representatives may have the fullest information for their protection?

I am in communication with the Inspector of Mines, and if my hon. Friend will postpone his question until Tuesday next, I hope by then to be in possession of the necessary information which will enable me to answer his question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cause of delay in the pending arbitration as to the amount to be paid by the Crown for certain lands at Shoeburyness, the claim to which was finally decided by the House of Lords in 1891; if he is aware that the delay causes great inconvenience to the owners, who assert that they have pressed for arbitration under the terms of their agreement since 1891; if it is the case that interest at 5 per cent. on the amount determined has to be paid since 1881; and whether he is aware that the owners can materially interfere with the range at Shoeburyness in order to insist upon a prompt settlement of the question?

The cause of the present delay in the pending arbitration is that the claimants refuse to be bound by the opinion which the counsel, who settled the terms on which the action of "Emerson v.Childers" was stayed in 1881, have given as to the construction of those terms. As the delay is caused by the action of the owners it is within their power to stop any inconvenience which may result to them from it. Five per cent. interest from 1881 on the amount to be determined has to be paid. I am not aware of the circumstances alleged in the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if the Government intend by legislation, Budget arrangement, or otherwise, to give practical effect to the principle of the payment of Members of Parliament?

With regard to the question and the alternative to which it refers, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, legislation is the only method by which a question of that magnitude could be disposed of; I do not think it could be disposed of by the Budget or other proceedings of the Executive Government. With regard to the question itself, I have already communicated with two deputations of Members of Parliament, a number of whom, I am aware, feel strongly on the question. I have made known to them that the opinions of my colleagues, as far as I am acquainted with them, are favourable to the measure indicated for the payment of Members, and will use their efforts to promote it, but they have not felt themselves able to propose to make so considerable an addition to their present arrangements for this Session, without any reasonable probability of being able to redeem such engagement.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a meeting of the four Liberal Committees of Edinburgh, held on the 8th instant under the auspices of the United Liberal Committee of that city, at which, inter alia, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that during the last six years Scotch business has been greatly neglected, and urging the Government to make arrangements to press forward those measures which affect Scotland; whether he is aware that the feeling thus indicated is deep and universal throughout Scotland; whether in the circumstances stated the Government will reconsider their intention of not devoting more time to Scotch Business; and whether, in the event of their being constrained to adopt Saturday Sittings in aid of any change of purpose, they will arrange that Scotch Business shall have a fair share of time on the ordinary days?

I am aware, Sir, that there is much dissatisfaction in Scotland with regard to the slow progress with its business by this House, and such dissatisfaction appears to me to be just, but at the same time I think I may also say that it is by no means confined to Scotland. Scotland is included in the principal parts of the legislation now before the House on the part of the Government. With respect to the question whether the Government will reconsider their intention of not devoting more time to Scotch Business, I am not aware of any such decision which we should have to reconsider. What we have desired is to find time for Scotch Business as well as we can in due proportion to its comparative claims, but we have come to no decision which corresponds to the terms of the question. And with regard to what we are to do in the event of our being constrained to adopt Saturday Sittings in aid of any change of purpose, I think, Sir, that when we have arrived at the conclusion that Saturday Sittings must be adopted for such purpose, and when the House has supported us in such conclusion, then will be the time for proceeding to a division of the spoil and arranging how the time can be most fairly apportioned among the several claimants.

With reference to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I may say I understood, and I am glad to hear I misunderstood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, during the temporary absence of the Prime Minister, that Scotch Business had not been sufficiently provided for from a Scotch point of view in the deliberations of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

I never said anything of the sort.

Does not the Prime Minister think the best way to devote sufficient time to Scotch Business is to grant Home Rule for Scotland?

gave notice that on that day month he proposed to call attention to the question of a Treaty of Arbitration with the United States of America, and to move a Resolution.

said, the other evening the noble Lord the Member for South Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer) aimed at very high game, as he aimed at the organisation, or reorganisation, or disorganisation, as the case might be, of the whole of the higher branches of the administration of the War Office. He (Captain Naylor-Leyland) merely desired to deal with those matters which affected the rank and file, leaving the higher branches of military administration to those who were better qualified to speak upon them. The first point to which he would address himself was one on which he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War without receiving any satisfactory reply. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman that if he would display a little interest in the subject-matter of the questions that were addressed to him, and evince a desire to put right matters which he found to be wrong, he would save not only the time of the House but the time of the Government. For his part he fully intended to obtain an answer to the questions he had addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. If he did not obtain one now he should raise the subjects at considerable length hereafter in Committee of Supply. His first point was connected with the barrack accommodation of the country. Under the Barracks Act, passed in 1890, a sum of £4,100,000was set aside for the purpose of rebuilding camps and barracks. The late Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), however, stated in 1890 that it was intended to rebuild one camp out of the current Army Estimates.

I am sure I made no such statement.

said, he entirely accepted his right hon. Friend's statement. The fact remained, however, that some of the camps which were in the worst condition were excluded from the action of the Barrack Bill. Colchester Camp was an example of this. Colchester was one of the most important military centres in the country, being within a few miles of the town where Napoleon intended to land for the invasion of England. Any schoolboy who had studied the strategical defences of the country knew that East Anglia was one of the most vulnerable portions of the Kingdom. At the time of the Crimean War a few temporary wooden huts were put up at Colchester for the purpose of housing the drafts for the Crimea. It was stated at the time that the huts were to be pulled down or rebuilt directly after the war, but from that day to this these huts had remained, and they were now used as permanent barracks for the troops. They were practically uninhabitable, as they would not keep out wind, snow, or rain.

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the first Vote is passed, and that no general discussion can take place on this Vote.

said, in that case he would raise the point on Vote 7. He must, however, refer to a question connected with the welfare of the rank and file of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had issued a Memorandum for the information of Members. He could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman said to himself, "I know there are some 30 reforms desired by the Army. I do not, however, propose to carry out any of those reforms, and I will issue a Memorandum instead." Of course, the Committee accepted the document as being a State document of an important kind, but he felt bound to say that if be had to choose between Army reforms on the one baud, and the Memorandum on the other, he should prefer the reforms. But he was glad to see that in this Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman stated he proposed to carry out one, at least, of the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make, not only a paper but a practical performance of the promise. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to allocate a sum of £20,000—£26,000 was the sum really required for the purpose—to increase the pay of lance-corporals, who complained very justly that they had to keep up the status of a non-commissioned officer on the pay of a trooper or private. That, however, was a grievance which the right hon. Gentleman would not remove, unless concomitantly with spending the money he issued a regulation preventing the promotion of lance-corporals in excess of the establishment. Officers were partial to promoting a great number of lance-corporals, and if the right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of money in increasing the pay of non-commissioned officers, and at the same time allowed officers to promote men in excess of the establishment, then the grievance of non-commissioned officers discharging their duties on the pay of a private would still remain. All the recommendations of any reform in general might be properly divided into two classes—financial and non-financial proposals. He meant by financial proposals those proposals which would cost the State something to carry out, and non-financial proposals, those which would cost the State absolutely nothing at all. He was aware that if he urged on the right hon. Gentleman the financial proposals he would be met with the statement that the Treasury was in its normal condition of being extremely hard up, though he would confess that had always been a source of dilemma to him. For instance, the other day they had heard of £600,000 being spent on light railways in Ireland, and there was now before the House a Bill which proposed to endow Ireland with a still larger capital sum, and if they could afford to spend all that money on Ireland, surely they ought to afford to spend a little money at least on the British Army, on whom the defence of these realms depends. But there was only one of these financial proposals to which he would refer— it was included in the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, and it referred to the pay and position of the soldier. It had been said by an hon. Member in the course of the Debate the previous night that new recruiting posters had been issued. He would be glad to hear that that statement was true, though he had not seen anything but old posters, and he believed the military authorities were using up the old posters. In the old posters the recruit was offered 1s. a day and free rations. Technically speaking, free rations meant three-quarters of a pound of meat and a pound of bread; but the ordinary man took "free rations" to mean free food. When the recruit joined he found that threepence a day was stopped out of his pay for food, and taking other deductions into account, if he had fourpence a day in his pocket be was an extremely lucky man. Two courses were open to the Secretary for War in this matter. One was to carry out the promise made to the recruit, which would cost £800,000 a year, and the other was to remove the false statement off the recruiting poster, though he himself would like to see the recommendation of Lord Wantage's Committee carried out. There were also one or two small matters to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Cavalry had just been reorganised into squadrons, and a new noncommissioned officer, called a squadron sergeant-major, had been created. There were only four of these new non-commissioned officers in each Cavalry regiment, and 128 in the whole British Army. These important non - commissioned officers were likely to be passed over in promotion by juniors of not half their service. A non-combatant junior of six years' service, who, being fond of writing his name on paper, was taken into the Orderly Office to do clerical work, after three years' service was promoted over the heads of these combatant non-commissioned officers, with their fifteen years' service. These squadron sergeant-majors did not ask for anything wonderful. They did not ask for increase of pay; but they asked to be put on the same footing as the non-combatant juniors, that was to say, technically speaking, that after three years in Part 17 they should be promoted to Class 17. The Secretary for War had plumed himself over the satisfactory state of recruiting. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what did recruiting depend? Recruiting depended entirely on the cheapness of the labour market. When there was a cheap labour market recruits were to be had in any quantity, but when there was a dear labour market hardly any recruits at all were to be obtained. It was a significant thing that when the right hon. Gentleman's Government came into power there was usually a cheap labour market, trade was visually depressed, a large number of men were thrown out of employment, and therefore recruits were obtained. He trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman plumed himself on the satisfactory state of recruiting he would remember on what recruiting depended. If the right hon. Gentleman carried out some of the recommendations which had been laid before him he would at any rate signalise his tenure of office by a display of interest and zeal in the Public Service which would bring not only credit to himself but to the Government to which he had the honour to belong.

said, he wished to call attention to the practical abolition of the office of Judge Advocate General, one of the oldest offices in the Kingdom—an office which was much older than that of his right hon. Friend the Minister for War. His right hon. Friend had informed him, in reply to a question, that it had been determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee to appoint Sir Francis Jeune —a Judge for whom he (Sir G. Osborne Morgan) had the highest respect—to the office without salary. His right hon. Friend stated in the course of the same answer that there were only a few cases referred to the Judge Advocate General. His right hon. Friend must have been misinformed. He could assure him that was not the case during the five or six years which he (Sir G. Osborne Morgan) had held the office. On the contrary, every case that presented the slightest difficulty to the military authorities was referred to the Judge Advocate General's tribunal. He used to attend from 12 to 5 o'clock every day, and sometimes even after that hour, and as a matter of course there wore always three or four cases referred to him every day. It was natural that that should be so. The tribunals of Court Martial were right in 19 cases out of 20—indeed, he would say in 99 cases out of 100—but sometimes they happened to go wrong, and when they went wrong they went very wrong, often convicting a man on hearsay evidence, or because he was a bad character. In order to show that he was speaking by the book he would call attention to the number of cases in which the findings of Court Martial were set aside during the four years in which he had held office. In 1881 the number of men relieved from the consequences of unjust conviction was 246; in 1882, 154; in 1883, 116; in 1884, 100; making in the four years a total of 616 cases in which the findings of Courts Martial were reversed. But that was not the whole of the work which the Judge Advocate General was called upon to perform. Mr. O'Dowd, who had ably filled the office of Military Secretary, resigned, and he took it up, and in that

said he thought they might all congratulate themselves on the favourable character of the statement of the Minister of the War Department. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that they had the best possible Army and that they might dismiss all anxiety with respect to it from their minds. He admitted that much good had been done in the matter of recruiting, but there was still room for improvement. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the number of recruits this year was greater than in any of the years of the immediate past; but the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester had shown to what that increase must be attributed. Anyone looking over the Army Returns would find that the number of recruits always increased when there was a depression in trade. The truth was that in these times men were driven by hunger into the Army, and with that powerful auxiliary at their back it was not surprising that recruits were increasing. In some respects recruiting had also been improved by the adoption of the short service system. They had had an increase in the quantity of recruits, but the important question was, what about the quality? Did they get the right men? A distinguished officer had told him that the Army was choked with bad characters. If they looked at the figures they would see what that meant. In ten years 32,000 men had joined the Army, and out of these, 110,000, or one in three, had been imprisoned. That showed the character of the recruits. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the number of offenders had fallen from 1 in 11 to 1 in 18, but the latter was still a high figure. How would it compare with the London Metropolitan Police Force, for instance? He did not think they could get the Army up to the standard of the London Police Force, but they should endeavour to do so as far as possible. If they wanted a proper Army they should do something to make it popular. He admitted that the life of the soldier had been greatly improved by the reforms of the past twenty years, and altogether it was not now a had life. The soldier had nearly everything found for him, he had 4s. or 5s. a week in his pocket; he was not too hard worked, and he had a smart uniform which was a great attraction, especially in the eyes of the other sex. There were a few other points to which he wished to direct attention. In Cavalry regiments the soldiers had to provide out of their own pockets the cost of the material for keeping their uniforms clean, so that the smarter a man kept himself the more he had to pay. That, he thought, was an injustice, and was a premium on slovenliness. As the men were expected to keep their uniforms clean, the material for doing so should be provided. The right hon. Gentleman had said the men were to be allowed to keep their clothing. The Report of the Committee on the Army Estimates pointed out that the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General were both opposed to the clothes being made over to the men, as it offered temptations to the men to do away with the clothing improperly, with the result that men were seen going about in worn-out uniforms, which had a very bad effect. He regretted to see that only 3 per cent. of the men re-engaged on the completion of their service. Old soldiers were the backbone of the Army, and everything should be done to induce them to remain. Since the introduction of short service into the Army, the number of old soldiers had very much decreased. In 1875, out of every 1,000 men 340 were over 15 years' service; in 1880,236; in 1886,246; and in 1889, the number had shrunk to 211, which was a very serious falling off indeed. Let them compare the Army in that respect with the London Metropolitan Police Force. In that Force there were, in 1879, 1,900 men of over 15 years' service, and in 1888, 3,900. He thought some means should be used to try to induce men to remain in the Army, for it was a very serious thing to have such large numbers leaving year after year. He also found that in ten years 320,000 left the Army, and yet the strength of our Reserve only amounted to some 55,000 men. That showed a great waste was going on in the Army. Nearly 250,000 men, on whom the State had spent an enormous amount of money, had passed in ten years out of the Service and into the ranks, perhaps, of the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a Field Force of 20,000 men ready to take the field at the shortest notice. He would like to ask what was behind that Field Force? Could the right hon. Gentleman assure them that behind that Field Force there was an Army Corps of 60,000 men ready to take the field at a moment's notice? They were told that they had a Field Force of some 20,000 ready to take the field at the shortest notice, but he wished to tell the Secretary for War that if that was all they had they were not at all prepared for emergencies. They should have an Army Corps ready for action at a month's notice. The right hon. Gentleman must see that the Army wanted elasticity and adaptability. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said the other night that these qualities were demanded. My right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) said that the men in the Guards stayed on longer because they received more pay than others. But the fact remained that they did not get as much pay as men in other employments. In his opinion they stayed on longer because they belonged to one of the first branches of the Service, and if every branch was treated as well as they were more men would stay on. One point that required attention was that of stoppages from pay. When a soldier came into the Army he expected to receive so much, and he was very much disappointed when he found that he did not get the promised sum in cash; a certain proportion was deducted, and this the men justly regarded as a grievance. Another point was the important one of pensions. The soldier wanted to have something to look forward to, and when doubts arose as to the payment of a pension the decision was more frequently in favour of the State rather than of the soldier. Then there ought to be some extra pay for service abroad. By this they might hope to have good men in the Service. Englishmen liked the soldier's life and profession; their military instincts were very much developed, and he believed that if they adopted a shorter term of service more men would enlist than they could induce to enlist under the present system. The men were now bound for a certain number of years, but they were not so bound in other occupations, and they must not impose conditions that did not exist elsewhere. A man who would not join now would be willing to join for six months, at the end of which time he would be able to say whether he was satisfied and whether he would stay or not. He would enlist for six mouths, whereas he would not enlist for a term of years. Under the present system, undoubtedly, they got a large number of men, but it was too often the case that when a man was taken with the soldier's life he was uncertain of the character of the Service he had committed himself to, and the result was that he was very much disappointed and then he deserted. The expense of desertions was very considerable, as it meant that a man had to be captured, brought back, tried, convicted and imprisoned—all of which cost money; and besides, when a man came out of imprisonment he was very much inferior as a man and a soldier. He would recommend to the right hon. Gentleman that if a man was not willing to remain in the Service it would be much better to let him go. Another point was that the soldier's life might be relieved of the sense of perpetual constraint. The soldier was not always supposed to be on duty, and when he was not he should be allowed liberty and relaxation. For instance, he should be allowed occasionally, and for special purposes, to go about in plain clothes—subject to the civil law and not the military—and if that were done he felt that the number of imprisonments under the Military Code would very much diminish. When a soldier was tried it was almost invariably the case that he was imprisoned. Only one in 60 was allowed off. Why should they not be given advantage of the civil law for certain offences? He claimed that the soldier should have more relaxation, and that he should have the same privileges as were to be found elsewhere. If they looked to the Royal Irish Constabulary they would see that in that Force the relaxation of discipline in this respect tended to make the Service more popular and more attractive. The men of the Constabulary could hardly be equalled anywhere in point of discipline. Then, again, the men might be punished by fines rather than by imprisonment. If they did not wish to have a bad man in the Army they would soon be able to get rid of him, and to procure a good one in his stead. If the right hon. Gentleman looked into these points he would undoubtedly have better value for the expenditure on the Army.

said he hoped the Secretary for War would state his views on the question of deferred pay, and state also whether it would be possible for him to adjust the rates of pay, and make them proportionate to the length of service. He believed that in certain cases in civil employment the man who gave a month's warning got a higher rate of pay than the man who gave a lesser term of warning. It was a question whether they should not have some such arrangement in the Army. He also wanted to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not have the Financial Branch of the War Office opened to officers of the Army. At present the Department was served by civilians; but he thought the appointment of officers of the Army, as he suggested, would lead to economy and efficiency in the Service. He would like to say, in conclusion, that the Army was very much gratified on hearing of the appointment of the present Secretary for War—one who was sympathetic with the Service in all its branches.

said he would not detain the Committee for more than a minute. He had one or two questions to put to the Secretary for War. In the first place, he wanted to ascertain whether the garrisons for the Australian coaling stations at Thursday Island and St. George's Sound had been completely arranged, and, if so, whether the arrangements had been made through the Colonial Government, or through the Imperial Government — in fact, whether the garrisons were to be furnished by the Regular Army, whose pay was being voted to-day, or by some Colonial troops? A large portion of the public was greatly interested in the maintenance of those very important strategic positions, and he would venture to hope that the garrisons would be established in sufficient strength. He would not be allowed on this Vote to advert to the fortifications and armament, but he believed that these had been nearly completed.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not hold out some hope of equipping, or partly equipping, the officers' messes at the various quarters permanently occupied by the troops? This was a step which would give much satisfaction, since it would obviate much inconvenience and save the officers expense incurred when changing from one station to another. He also wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would do anything towards equipping the barrack quarters occupied by the officers? He did not ask for any luxurious equipment of furniture, and he would not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the lines laid down in Ouida's novels; but surely something more and better might be supplied to the officer than the bare table and chairs he found in his room when he first entered it. Another subject of importance had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford—that was, to the reduction of the number of officers on the Staff—but he did not think the Army generally would approve of such a step, as it was in the Staff appointments that our young officers very often found their first opportunities of securing an education, or training, which was open to them in no other channel. He could not believe that any officer of experience would agree with many of the suggestions which had been made by the hon. Member for the Whitby Division. For instance, as to the suggestion that the soldier should be allowed to walk out at times in plain clothes, he must say emphatically that such a privilege should be sternly reserved to the higher class of non-commissioned officers only. He could imagine nothing that would be more subversive of discipline, or that would tend more to bring the Army into ridicule, than to extend such a rule to every private soldier. A matter in which both soldiers and civilians took a great interest was the enlargement of the pensions, which the right hon. Gentleman, following in the lines of his Predecessor, proposed to give to the veterans of the Army who had served in the Crimean Campaign and in the Indian Mutiny, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to take any steps to discover the whereabouts of those men, or whether he intended to wait for them to make applications for the allowance? The point was not unimportant, for many of the men were hidden away in corners of the country where they would be unlikely to hear of the grant, and he believed it would be satisfactory to the country generally if some means could be set on foot to reach them. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to do this? In his (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney's) own neighbourhood an enterprising newspaper had found out quite a number of these men, and unless the right hon. Gentleman adopted the suggestion he feared it would be very difficult for him to carry out his just and useful plan of recognising the services of these brave veterans.

Sir, I will answer as briefly as possible the questions which hare been addressed to me. First, with regard to the improvement of Colchester Camp, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester that the work is being proceeded with gradually and regularly. It cannot be completed at once, although I am quite aware that as little time as possible should be lost in carrying out so essential a work. The Military Authorities are quite aware of the necessity of pushing it on as rapidly as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also made some observations upon the general recommendations of the Wantage Committee, now so familiar to us, and he referred especially to the point of giving free rations to the soldier without any stoppage at all. As I have said before, this would involve a large sum of money, and at present I am not able to contemplate any re-adjustment in the pay which would admit of such a change being made. Then several observations have been offered by hon. Members with respect to the desirableness of increasing, in some small degree, the pay of the soldier, with the view of getting into the Army a different class of men—a higher class. But I would point out to the Committee that, accord- ing to the best evidence that has been received, and, as I think, in accordance with one's own common-sense observation, if we were to endeavour to get a different class of society into the Army, a mere increase of 1d., or 2d., or 3d. a day in the pay would be nothing. To carry out such a suggestion an increase of 1s. or 2s. a day would have to be given. That would be a total change in our present system. It has always been thought, however, that we must be content with getting the young men of the country into the Army before they settle down to any serious occupation, and at present the services of as many of those young men of the labouring class as are required are obtained under existing conditions. In those circumstances, I am not prepared to embark on any large scheme to carry out such a proposal as that referred to—or even to hold out any hope of considering it. As to the squadron sergeant majors, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on the matter the other day. My military advisers—who are much more competent judges than I am—do not think there is any necessity for doing more than at present in the case of these non-commissioned officers. I now come to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Denbighshire as to the position of the Judge Advocate General. I am not prepared, however, to go into the whole history of this office. The matter has been often discussed, and the general conclusion arrived at, and expressed in the House in regard to that office, is that it should be continued; and in this opinion I strongly share, as also in the opinion that the office should be filled by an official, if possible, of legal eminence, to protect the interests of the soldiers against any possible aggression by his superior officers. The question is, who is to be that officer, and what should be his pay? It has been recommended that he should be a man of the calibre and character I have described, and that he should receive no pay. I am no great believer in the value of services that are not paid for, and therefore in that sense I do not. very much admire even the present temporary arrangement which exists in regard to this office. If I am to answer all the questions which have been asked me by my right hon. Friend, I must state how it comes about that there is no money for the maintenance of this office. The right hon. Gentleman who lately held the office of Judge Advocate General had a somewhat variegated career. He was sometimes paid, and sometimes he was not. Sometimes he was paid in one fashion, and sometimes in another. But I am only concerned with the last year in which he held office, that is the current year which began on the 1st April of last year. The arrangement with the Treasury was that he should receive a fixed salary of £500 a year, and that he should be allowed to receive fees for business actually transacted up to another sum of £500. But it appears that the right hon. Gentleman the late Judge Advocate General claimed his £500 fixed salary, to be paid over to him on the 1st April, us his retaining fee during the year, which thus absorbed half the sum allocated to this office. The year was somewhat risky with regard to the life of the Government; nevertheless, he was paid over the £500 on the 1st April, and he proceeded, with I believe most unusual but very praiseworthy activity, to transact as much business as possible within the earlier weeks and months of the year, so that when the change of Government took place in the beginning of August there was only a balance of something like £150 available for the distinguished public servant who would be appointed to fill this office. That is the reason why there was no money left with us to pay the Judge Advocate General. It was owing to the exceeding devotion to his public duties of the late Judge Advocate General. We are in this position, Sir. We have in Mr. O'Dowd, Deputy Judge Advocate General, an officer who discharges his duties in a most satisfactory way. There could not he a more efficient, a more zealous, or more public-spirited officer, and, I will add, an officer in whom the soldiers of the Army have greater confidence than Mr. O'Dowd, and, therefore, knowing he was so well qualified to discharge the ordinary duties of the office, we contented ourselves with allowing him to fill the duties, and then after the lapse of some time for consideration we invited Sir Francis Jeune to undertake the honorary office of Judge Advocate General, on the understanding that Mr. O'Dowd would dis- charge most of the duties that did not require reference to a higher authority, and that then Sir Francis Jeune would come in. Sir Francis Jeune, in the most public spirited way, accepted the office, and I have received a note from him in which he says that to the best of his experience the arrangement works exceedingly well. I still say I cannot regard it as a satisfactory permanent arrangement, but temporarily I believe it answers all that is required in the case. My right hon. Friend behind me (Sir (G. Osborne Morgan) has shown the large number of cases which he decided personally. But we know the zeal of my right hon. Friend. He is not one of those who would make an office a sinecure, but if associated with anybody else he would make his colleague's office a sinecure, because my right hon. Friend will undertake a great deal more work than falls to one man's share in the ordinary Course of business. We honour him for that, but we must not set up this high standard of merit and activity as a test of what the ordinary, normal condition of the work of the Judge Advocate General ought to be. I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Whitby, and although I do not agree with a good deal he said I found his speech exceedingly refreshing, because it represented very clearly and with great ability those sides of the question of a soldier's career which are not always brought before us. I quite agree with the hon. Member in this: that it is not only of advantage, but it is necessary as years go on, as the world changes, as the people of this country, from whom we draw our recruits, become more intelligent, to make the Military Service freer and freer. I cannot, however, go as far as the hon. Member, who advocates that a man should be enlisted for only six months. Apart from anything else we should have all the expense and trouble, not only of clothing and feeding him, but of keeping up a staff for the purpose of training him, and after all we should not have the slightest hold on him or anything to ensure that he would be the slightest use to us at all. I am of opinion that all through a soldier's career, and at frequent intervals in that career, there should be opportunities, in the case of a well-behaved man, given to him to exercise a choice whether he should continue to serve with the Colours or whether he should retire into the Reserve. I have no idea of hustling a man out of the Colours into the Reserve, or, on the other hand, of chaining him with the Colours when his interest or inclinations would lead him to the Reserve. But, still, I cannot adopt the free and easy system recommended by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has met someone—a distinguished officer—who spoke of the Army as being choked with bad characters. Let me caution my hon. Friend not to accept too literally expressions of this sort from officers, however distinguished, which are generally the outcome of some prejudice or some tradition which beset the officers in question. If the hon. Member had cross-questioned this distinguished officer he would have found that the assertion was not warranted. I quoted figures the other day which showed that what is known, as crime is decreasing. But, after all, what is military crime? Most of the offences are of a very innocent character from the civilian point of view. Again, I say we must be ready to advance with the times, and I believe there is nothing more prejudicial to the interests of the Army than that soldiers should be constantly liable to being punished and to possible imprisonment for offences which in private life are treated of no account, but which may perhaps be serious in the eyes of a strict disciplinarian officer who is full of zeal for the Service, but still with not sufficient regard for those whose affairs he has to administer in the regiment. If" I see any opportunity, or any room for introducing or making alterations in the system of discipline which would lead to a reduction of these nominal offences, and especially would lead to a more lenient way of dealing with them when they occur, I shall only be too glad to adopt them. The hon. Member complained that the number of old soldiers has very much decreased. I wish to quote some figures which will show that we have not fallen off in this very point of old soldiers, unless you mean by old soldiers men of 35 or 40 years of age. The best men to have in the Army are men from 20 to 30, and nothing is more certain than this: that except, in the case of non-commissioned officers, after 30 years of age, a soldier becomes, I will not say an undesirable thing in a regiment, but at all events there ought not to be too many of that class. What are the ages of the men with the Colours in the latest figures—that is for last year—as compared with 20 years ago? In 1871 there were under 20, 190 soldiers, out of 1,000 in the Infantry; and in 1892, with short service, with the regiments filled with boys, as we are told, and mere lads flooding the whole system, there were 178 per 1,000. There were actually fewer under 20 in 1892 than in 1871. In 1871 there were of soldiers between 20 and 30—which I say is the best age—490, or about one-half, and in 1892 there wore 733. But when I come to the men over 30, of whom I say it is not desirable to have too many in the ranks, I find in 1871 there were 320 per 1,000, and in 1892 only 89; so that these figures are most significant, they make a fair balance of the constitution of the Army at present as compared with previous years, and answer, to a large extent I think, these complaints which the hon. Member says he heard from a distinguished officer, and also those complaints about the Army being flooded with boys, or there being practically no Army at all. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Colonel Bridge-man) asked me about the question of deferred pay. The Wantage Committee, or the majority who make the recommendation, did, I think, contemplate the abolition of deferred pay. I have always looked upon deferred pay with a certain amount of suspicion, because it was introduced as a boon to the soldier, without I think a very full appreciation of the extent to which it would rise in years to come and of its ultimate effect. At the same time, I do not see how you can continue the short service and the reserve system without some sort of gratuity or deferred pay to give the soldier when he goes into the Reserve. As to the opinion of the Army on this subject, Lord Wantage's Committee examined six non-commissioned officers and men who were against it, but all the privates except one were for it, and questions were issued to a number of Reservists to see what the opinion on the subject was. 32,948 men were asked, were they in favour of or against it, and what was their experience? Of these, 27,740 were in favour of deferred pay, and only 5,204 against it. In face of that I think he would be a bold man who would propose to make an immediate abolition of deferred pay. But there is one objection frequently urged to deferred pay, and it is this: there is a danger that a man receiving a considerable sum of money the moment he leaves the Colours may spend it in jollification with comrades, or in some other equally unprofitable way, and may thus get no benefit from it at all. What we have done in this matter is to issue orders that such pay over £5 shall be put to the man's savings bank account, which he can draw out at the place where he is going to live after he has left the Army. £3 will be given to him in order that he may not be devoid of money, but everything else, where the amount exceeds £5, is put into his savings bank account, which will have some effect, at all events, in preventing the wasting of it in the way to which I have referred. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the Army Pay Department. That is a question to which I have not yet devoted much attention; but I will bear in mind what he said. The hon. Member for Kingston (Sir E. Temple) put to me a question which I cannot answer as to the composition of the coaling station garrisons; but I will endeavour to answer it on the Report. Now, I come to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newport (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney), who asks me in the first place whether I shall be prepared to contemplate doing something to make barrack quarters more habitable, and also as to equipping the messes so as to avoid the breakage and expense in carriage. That I think would to a considerable extent be an adoption of the system which prevails in the Navy. The Admiralty undertakes to furnish the quarters, and charges the officer a certain percentage to cover the use of the furniture. That would be a great change to introduce into the Army system, but before forming any definite opinion I will look into the matter, and see whether any steps ought to be taken in the direction suggested. Then we come to the question of the extension of pensions to Crimean and Indian Mutiny soldiers. In proposing that an extended number of these pensions should be given, the motive was not a philanthropic, generous, or charitable one at all; but it was taken in the interests of the Army, and to that extent it was therefore a selfish one. It was taken because it was thought it was not to the interests of recruiting or to the credit of the Army that such men should be seen in the streets or elsewhere in a lamentable condition of distress. That rather precludes our giving pensions to men who are hidden away in holes and corners; because if they happen to be hidden away they will not cause injury to the Army. In the meantime, I can only promise to deal with those cases already brought before us, which form a large number, and we must wait to see what the results of our dealing with them is, and we can then consider if it is necessary to pursue that inquiry.

said these very old soldiers who were hidden away in the holes and corners of the country would be the best recruiting officers if they were treated with consideration, because it was from these rural districts the best sort of soldiers wore drawn, and something ought to be done to improve the condition of these men and thus remove a stigma from the Army.

I shall be glad to consider any proposal, although I cannot promise to take any active steps to increase the number of the claimants, who are already more numerous than we can deal with for the present. I think I have answered all the points that have been raised, and I trust now that the Committee will allow the Vote to be taken.

Before this Vote is taken I should like to say, in justice to my right hon. Friend who lately filled the office of Judge Advocate General (Sir W. Marriott), that the fluctuations in the mode of remuneration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred were mainly due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton himself. First of all, he was appointed to the office at a salary of £2,000 a year. After he had held it for only a year my right hon. Friend publicly expressed the opinion that £2,000 a year was a larger salary than ought to be given to any Judge Advocate General for the amount of work he had to do, and in order to show his strong sense in that direction he voluntarily resigned the whole salary attached to the office. After a year or two the late Government took exactly the same view that the right hon. Gentleman takes. They thought it was not satisfactory that the Judge Advocate General should he unpaid, and in agreement with the Treasury they fixed the system of remuneration by fees, including a retaining fee of 500 guineas as the remuneration of the office. The right hon. Gentleman received that retaining fee to which he was entitled, and looking back throughout the last six years he held office the average amount of remuneration he received was not a large one.

said, his recollection differed very much from that of the late Secretary for War as to this matter. There was no voluntary retirement of the late Judge Advocate General in the ordinary sense of the word, but the Committee of Lord Randolph Churchill went into this question, and the exertions of the noble Lord, actuated solely by motives of economy, had the effect of procuring a practical retirement. In his (Colonel Nolan's) opinion the office was a useful one, and Sir W. Marriott discharged its duties well. It was a mistake of the House of Commons to loosen their grip on the Army by abolishing this office.

asked, would the reduction which was contemplated in the establishments at Enfield and Spark brook, and which were calculated to save the country about £100,000, not have the effect of increasing the cost of rifles to be produced by 10s. per rifle, resulting in a loss of something like £20,000 on these weapons?

My hon. Friend is not correct in saying I am making a reduction calculated to produce a saving of a large sum of money, or that I am making an artificial reduction. We are coming to a period when we must contemplate a reduction in the necessities of the supply regarding these weapons, and therefore we thought it necessary to slacken off a little earlier. That is the reason for the reduction. When the hon. Member says that this reduction increases the cost of the rifle, I have to say it does not increase the cost of the rifle itself. The rifle will apparently cost more, because you will have a certain number of charges spread over a fewer number of rifles. Supposing these charges are to go on, whether we make 100,000 or 200,000 rifles, the only result of any other policy would be that, while we shall make what has been of late years the normal number of rifles and other weapons during the present year, we shall next year have a much larger falling off, and the prices during next year would be even larger and more increased than the hon. Member puts.

said he doubted whether it would be an economical arrangement to keep up all these establishments if a small number of rifles was to be made. It might prove to be a loss to the country.

said he had intended to raise a discussion, but he recognised that the Secretary for War was entitled to get some of his Votes to-day, and if he could get a reasonable undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he would give him a fairly early opportunity—say June—he would not say anything to-day.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for making that proposal, and I undertake to say that in the month of June he shall have the opportunity he desires.