reported the Royal Assent to,—

I wish to announce a very small modification in the order of Business. We propose very shortly after 11 o'clock to-night to move to report Progress on the Army Votes, in order to proceed with the Committee on the Parochial Electors (Registration Acceleration) Bill. I believe that this proposal will meet with the approval of gentlemen on the other side of the House.

said, he wished to raise a point of Order. On the last occasion when the Army Estimates were before the Committee Vote 10 was actually put from the Chair, but progress was reported before it was disposed of. It was now intended to interpose Vote 2 and other Votes before proceeding with Vote 10. When Vote 10 was last before the Committee he was appealed to let it go through on the ground of its extreme urgency. It was said it was absolutely necessary, or, at ill events, almost necessary that the Vote should be obtained that day or otherwise large public works of great urgency would be delayed. It was now proposed, however, to postpone the Vote until other Votes had been taken. He wished to know whether it was possible to take this course, inasmuch as Vote 10 had already been entered upon.

Yes; it has been lone over and over again.

1. £290,000, Medical Establishment, Pay, &c.

said, he desired to draw attention to the way in which candidates for the Army were medically examined. He referred to the matter last year, and he was then told to bring it up in the present year on the Medical Vote. Having waited for nine mouths for his opportunity, he now proposed to lay the matter before the Committee. He believed that great injustice had been done to one young candidate for the Army in consequence of the system of medical examination pursued, and he believed that the instance was not a solitary one. The candidate he referred to went up for examination some 18 months ago. He was passed "sound" by the medical officer and went in for the literary examination, but unfortunately failed to pass it. He then again passed the medical examination, but again failed in the literary examination. Having passed the medical examination twice, he was encouraged to continue his studies at great expense to his father, and he again went up for examination. The third time he passed the literary examination very successfully, being at the head of the list of candidates for the Cavalry, but he was certified to be unsound by one of the chief medical officers. This gentleman said that he had a slight defect in one eye. It was called a congenital defect, so that it had been born with him and must have been there on both occasions when he was previously examined by the medical officers. Under these circumstances, he thought that great injustice had been done to this candidate, and that there ought to be some more consistent and uniform method of examining candidates. He (Mr. Jeffreys) had heard of cases in which men wishing to become privates in the Army had been subjected to a very slight and cursory examination because they happened to be acceptable to the authorities. In his opinion, a medical examination ought not to be carried out according to the mere caprice of medical officers; there ought to be some hard-and-fast line laid down by which medical men should pass those who were examined as sound or unsound. The candidate to whom he referred was a member of the Militia Artillery. He could train a gun and use it in the field, and he had never known, until he was informed by the medical officer, that he had the slightest defect in his eyesight. Surely some appeal might be allowed from such a decision. He hoped the Secretary for War would tell the Committee distinctly whether he was willing to provide that there should be some uniform and consistent method of examining yonng men for the Army.

The hon. Member has called attention to a case—that of young Mr. Nicholson—which I remember perfectly. What the hon. Member suggests is that, after a candidate for a commission has been examined by a responsible medical officer of the Department over which I preside, I, on being appealed to in the House of Commons to let the young man into the Service, should override and set aside the opinion expressed by the responsible medical officers who examined him, that opinion being confirmed and approved in all respects by the highest medical officers of the Army. I am asked to do this on my own responsibility alone. I was very much pressed in the case of young Mr. Nicholson, having long had the acquaintance of his father, who was for a long time a Member of this House, and I looked into the case. I found that he had a serious defect in his sight—serious not in the sense of immediately impairing the sight, but in the consequences which might follow from it, as it argued a weakness. So far from our Regulations with regard to eyesight as applied to candidates for commissions in the Army being too severe, if there is any fault to be found with them they are not severe enough. In the case of the Navy a boy is rejected if .his sight is at all short of perfect. We in the Army do not go so far as that. We admit a certain amount of weakness of sight; but the Inspector General, the head of the Army Medical Department, told me in the most positive terms that he could not recommend any change or relaxation whatever in the Regulations, and that if any change was to be adopted it should be in the other direction. I am very sorry for Mr. Nicholson, as no doubt this decision cuts him off from a career for which otherwise he was well fitted. It is, however, impossible for me to interfere in the way desired by the hon. Member.

said, be saw the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed, and he could hardly expect the right hon. Gentleman to override the opinion of the medical officer. What, however, he understood his hon. Friend (Mr. Jeffreys) to complain of was, that this young gentleman had been twice passed "sound" by other medical officers, and had consequently been encouraged to complete his study at the expense of his father, and that on the third examination he had been rejected. If Mr. Nicholson had been told at the first examination that his eyesight was defective there would have been no ground to complain; but when he had been twice passed, it seemed to be a case of considerable hardship that he should at the third examination be rejected.

said, there was a great deal in what the hon. Member for Hants had said, because it did seem hard that a man who had passed twice already the examination of the Army doctors should on a third occasion by another Army doctor be rejected. It was a hard case; but, on the other hand, it was, he thought, an exceptional case. The grievance was mostly the other way—that was to say, that when an Army doctor or Medical Board had declared a man unfit appeals were made to the authorities, and influence was brought to bear on them to get the decision upset. The decision of one Army Medical Board should he final, and he protested against a second being called. He hoped the Secretary for War would put a stop to the objectionable practice of allowing a second Board to be called. There was another point he desired to mention in connection with the medical examinations. He thought the preliminary examinations should be abolished. It was hard on a lad that he should prepare himself for the Army, go through a number of examinations, and then, when he was about to enter, be suddenly told that he was utterly unfit. He now wished to call attention to one or two complaints which had been brought before him by medical officers as to their treatment at the present moment. In the first place, he would ask why they always got the Army Medical Report late? The information as to the state of the Army in 1892 they did not get until 1894. He did not know any Report relating to any Department which was issued to Members so long after the time at which it ought to be presented as the Army Medical Report. Then there was great complaint made—and he thought very properly—as to the constant change of principal medical officers at different stations. He was told that at some of the large stations even within a period of two years there were no less than four changes of principal medical officers. He thought that even at stations like Woolwich there were three; and there was one place, the name of which had slipped his memory, where there had been four. They were told that this was due to retirement and to the medical officers being ordered abroad, but principally to retirement. That raised another and a much larger question, which was this: He could not help thinking that in this Army Medical Service there ought to be a little more promotion by selection and merit than there was. Men only held their appointments by seniority and length of service. After a man had passed an examination to be surgeon-major he simply went up by degrees without any test whatever as to his merits. In these days—whether rightly or wrongly—they were submitting combatant officers to examinations at a much higher stage than that, and he did think that, looking at the importance of having as principal medical officers the best men they could get, there ought to be a little more selection, and mere longevity ought to be tempered with selection. Another complaint the Army medical men made was that they were treated differently to combatant officers in respect to the leave they got. In the case of a combatant officer if he had to go and qualify himself in any special way, the time so occupied was not deducted from his leave, but in the ease of the medical officer it was deducted. When the medical officer had to go through what was called "a course of operation in surgery" for instance—which took about a fortnight, and sometimes three weeks—the whole of that time was deducted from his leave. He thought the combatant officers and the medical officers really ought to be put on the same footing. If the medical officers were doing this work in the interests of the Army, he thought it hardly fair that that fortnight should be deducted from their leave. On one particular point he could not speak with definite information himself, therefore he only threw this out as a suggestion. But he had had, bearing on the same subject, a great number of complaints from medical officers, and that was with regard to what was called the Professional Assistant of the Director General at Headquarters, connected with the Medical Department at the War Office. This official drew close on £1,350 a year for pay and allowances, and he had no duty laid down for him in the War Office List and Directory. He sat as President of the Standing Medical Board twice a week, and at other times had to sign requisitions for trusses, and order the examination of medicine bottles, and do similar clerical work. On the other hand, there was a civilian clerk called the Principal Assistant at Headquarters who had a host of details not connected with clerical work which he would be naturally well able to do, but his work was connected with the movement and promotion of medical officers and the Medical Staff Corps, and the arrangement of the roster, &c. As his (Mr. Hanbury's) informant suggested, surely the duties of these two gentlemen ought to be reversed. The clerical work might well go to the civilian clerk, and the work which was more truly medical, connected with the professional assistance of the Director General, dealing with promotions and things of that kind, ought to go to the more highly-paid officer; it was more within the ordinary sphere of his duties. This system, he was told, led to unnecessary expense, although he did not quite see that it did.

asked if the hon. Member could give the name of his informant?

said, he should be glad to do that privately. He could not do it publicly, as unpleasant consequences might follow. He might say, however, that his informant was not a medical officer. The information given, however, was backed up by letters of complaint from at least 20 different officers, whose names he did not recollect. They complained, in the first place, that at Malta there were two administrative medical officers of high rank at once at the station, whereas there ought only to be one. They were both drawing high salaries, and one had practically nothing to do. Then he was told that a surgeon major general was now principal medical officer at the district headquarters at Colchester, which appointment had been always hitherto held by a surgeon colonel. Why, he asked, should they have a surgeon major general at a salary of £1,350 a year to do the work which had always been done by a surgeon colonel at a salary of £950? His informant said there were two surgeon colonels at the home district where only one should be employed, the second one having nothing to do. These were technical points on which he confessed his information was meagre. Still, they were points raised by people who understood the subject, and therefore were worth mentioning in the House. Another point was that the Director General of the Medical Department was so much tied down by correspondence, and so on, that he could not go round once a year and inspect the medical stations as he ought to do. The Commander-in-Chief went round once a year, but there were grievous complaints on the part of the principal medical officers and others that they never saw their chief, who was wrapped up in red tape and ministerial details in the War Office, though he might visit a station in the course of the year; yet they maintained that, being Director General, it would be a great advantage to the Service if he could make a point of inspecting the ordinary departments and the men under him more often than he did. This was a point that any civilian could appreciate, and he should think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would agree that it would be well if arrangements could be made by which the Director General would give less attention to correspondence and clerical details, and more to visiting the medical stations to see that all necessary arrangements were properly carried out.

said, he agreed that it would be desirable to have some re-organisation of the Army Medical Department in the way the hon. Member for Preston suggested. As to the strict medical examinations, he thought they were desirable, owing to the fact that the necessities of the Service required that men should go abroad and submit themselves to unhealthy climates, and relieve those who could not bear the strain upon them. Attention had been drawn to a case of hardship where a man had passed two medical examinations, and on the third was rejected. He hoped the Secretary for War would give instructions that mistakes of this sort should not occur again, for it was hard on young men that they should practically lose a great portion of their lives in preparing for a profession which they could not enter. He did not mind how strict they made the medical examination, especially with regard to eyesight, but at the same time he thought that this was a case of hardship. But there were cases in which candidates who had suffered from temporary indisposition should be examined a second time to see if they were experiencing any bad effects. He thought the Army medical stations should be inspected by the principal medical officer just as other departments were inspected by their chiefs.

As to the question of examinations, let me say this—that naturally it has always seemed to me to be very hard that a parent should incur the expense of preparing a boy for examination, and that a boy should go through the torture of a preliminary examination, and that after all it should be found that he is subject to some medical incapacity. But although it is rather hard, I am afraid that it is inevitable. If the boy is to be examined before the preparation begins and before the medical examination takes place, it will be necessary to hold these examinations all over the country, and it would be almost impossible to keep them uniform. I do not see how a thoroughly effective examination could be conducted in this way, and I do not know how the difficulty could be avoided. It would involve 700 or 800 candidates being examined on the same day, whereas under the present system the examination is only held with reference to those candidates who have been successful in the literary examination. Taking these changes into consideration, I do not see how we can avoid the unfortunate necessity of making the important medical examination come last. But let me say this for myself and those with whom I am associated: the hon. Member for Preston has a way of saying most awful things of the officials at the War Office. He speaks in the widest terms. He says on the slightest grounds, "Oh, these Medical Boards are subject to influence being brought to bear on them." Well, I beg to assure him that he will not find that this "influence" is exerted to any extent. There are cases in which it is used no doubt, but a candidate—or an officer if it is a question of promotion—is examined by a Medical Board which, say, pronounces against him. The man and his friends are not aware that he has a particular ailment or bad health. He goes to some distinguished specialist outside and is examined by him. He produces a certificate from the specialist to say that there is nothing the matter with him. From what the hon. Gentleman said one would suppose that the War Office immediately sponged out the decision of the Medical Board. The War Office is entitled, if they think there may be some ground for supposing that certain elements in the case have been disregarded, to send the opinion of the specialist to the Board and say, "Does that certificate modify your opinion?" Unless the Medical Board modify their Report, that Report remains in vital force against the candidate or the officer, as the case may be. Personally, I have always supported the opinion of the Medical Board, and besides that I find that the medical officers of the Department are of opinion that the decision of the Board should be acted upon, unless there is some special circumstances to modify it. But it is not the pressure of friends or the influence of distracted relatives which lead to the decision being modified. It is the well-supported opinion of some high authority outside, and that itself is not acted upon, but is merely referred to the Board to see whether it alters their view. Of course, I am in favour of there being uniformity in the action of these Boards as far as it is possible. In any experience I have had I have no reason to distrust the Boards in any way, or to believe that they are not otherwise than competent for the duties they have to discharge. The hon. Member for Preston complains of the Medical Report being issued so late, but that is because it is necessary to gather statistics in all quarters of the world, and they have to be tabulated and analysed before any conclusion can be arrived at. I do not know whether the delay is longer than these facts justify, but, at all events, this is enough to account for very considerable delay in producing the Report. Then the hon. Member apparently takes up certain complaints against the management and control of the Medical Department. Now I have seen all the complaints he has made to-day in what are called the Service newspapers, and in certain other newspapers which appear to gather up all the gossip, good or bad, of the men in the Service. I, however, find nothing definite in the complaints. Very often I find a strong animus in the criticisms, very much suggesting the frame of mind which some disappointed officer would be likely to display. At all events, I will take the hon. Member's points one by one. There is the question of promotion by merit. I am all in favour of promotion by merit when it can be done with fairness, and I believe that the present Director General is very anxious that that mode of promotion should be as much employed as possible. But there are great difficulties at present with regard to the higher ranks of the Medical Service. Those difficulties we are endeavouring to overcome by some little arrangement as to the necessity for compulsory retirement at certain ages, but that involves a reference to the Treasury, and is still under discussion. Then the hon. Gentleman suggested that medical officers should have leave with pay for the purpose of study. That complaint has often been made, and I should like to see the change made, but the difficulty is as to the expense. As soon as money can be afforded from other charges I shall be glad to do it. Then the hon. Member brought forward a complaint against the Headquarters Department. With reference to the Medical Headquarters of the Army, the criticisms which I have seen in the newspapers seem to have something in them of a personal feeling against the persons at the head of that Department. I am anxious to say that there can be no more efficient and more fair controller of a great Department than Sir William Alexander Mackinnon. His professional assistant at the headquarters, Dr. Jamieson, is also, as far as my opportunities enable me to judge, a most competent man, and is of the greatest assistance to Sir W. Mackinnon. But there is apparently some sort of a movement going on with a view to alter the relations of the high officers of the Department.

So far as I understand, the complaint is not in any way personal. The complaint of the medical officers is that clerical work is given to a medical officer, and medical work is given to a civilian clerk.

I was not satisfied that that was the ease at all, but I will inquire further. The distinguished gentleman of whom I spoke in such high terms would not continue the system if it was so notorious and absurdly inefficient as that which my hon. Friend described. They have neither of them protested against it, but, as I have said, I am willing to inquire into it. I am satisfied that an arrangement which satisfies them cannot be so utterly unjustifiable as that which my hon. Friend has described. He says also that the Director General ought to move about more and inspect the different branches of the Department himself. Of course, it is very desirable that that should be done if it is neglected to any considerable extent, but I do not believe that it is. However, I will consult Sir W. Mac kinnon, and ask him whether he can suggest any re-arrangement of the work which will increase the system of inspection; but I have so much confidence in him and his assistant that I am sure they will not continue a system which is transparently open to these objections.

, referring to the question of the medical examination of candidates, said that the view which suggested itself to him was that if a candidate was not medically fit to be an officer his literary ability was no use to him for that purpose, and if he suffered from any bodily infirmity he was not fit for Her Majesty's Military Service. The matter of the expense might be met by a small fee to be paid by the candidate himself. What he rose for was in reference to another point. Complaints, which he believed to be well-founded, had reached him to the effect that Woolwich Arsenal had not only defective sanitary arrangements, but that its sanitation was thoroughly bad. He should be glad if the Secretary for War would cause inquiries to be made into this matter.

desired to bring forward a grievance, which, though it more particularly referred to one individual, con- cerned also the other Army medical officers, and the individual in question was one who deserved well of his country, and when grievances were found to exist in any branch of the Service they ought to be remedied by the House of Commons. He desired to refer to the case of Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Briggs. The matter was discussed in March of last year; and in order to show that he was not dealing with an officer who was unworthy the consideration of this House, he would read some of the observations which were used by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Lockwood) on the occasion of the previous discussion. The hon. Member for York described how Surgeon-Colonel Briggs entered the Army in 1875, serving with distinction in several campaigns, receiving the medal and clasp, and being mentioned in the Despatches. After the Soudan Campaign Dr. Briggs was promoted to the rank of surgeon-major, and whilst holding that position began all the difficulty which had since befallen him, and all the evil fate which had since pursued him. He referred to the unfortunate connection of Surgeon-Colonel Briggs with the painful divorce case concerning Lord Connemara. He must of necessity, at this part of what he had to say, refer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said concerning Dr. Briggs's retirement from the Army on that occasion. The reason that Dr. Briggs retired from the Army was because he was made a co-respondent in this painful case, and the honour of himself and a lady was concerned. The trial was due to come off in a few days when he received an order to embark for foreign service. He had the choice given him of whether he should retire, or by obeying the order he had received of missing being present at the trial, and of giving evidence in regard to his own honour and in defence of the lady. Naturally, as a gentleman, he preferred the former course, and he retired from the Service in order that he might give his evidence. The case afterwards came on for trial; there was no appearance against him, and he was afterwards cleared of all the imputations which bad been made upon his honour. At the time this question was discussed before it was said that the Director General had dealt with Dr. Briggs as he would have done with any other officer, and had reason to believe that Dr. Briggs was taking a course by which, in effect, he would escape his proper share of foreign duty, thereby putting more of that duty on his colleagues. The Director General, therefore, ordered that officer to proceed to India, and finally placed before him the alternative of going on foreign service or retiring from the Army. On this very point he would remind the Secretary for War of an answer given to the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Mr. Stanhope. Dr. Farquharson asked about the re-instatement of Dr. Briggs, and Mr. Stanhope gave the following reply:—

"Yes, I have further considered the case, and I am of opinion that Surgeon-Major Briggs should not suffer any loss as regards promotion in consequence of an act which was performed under a pressure which no one would have resisted. Surgeon-Major Briggs will accordingly be restored to the seniority he held before retirement."

He should like to say that it would be eminently satisfactory, both to the individual to whom he had referred, as well as to his professional brethren in the Army, if some sort of an inquiry could be granted into the case, so that Surgeon-Colonel Briggs might have an opportunity of stating fully what he had to say on the subject. He now went to the other part of the question, as to whether or not Surgeon-Colonel Briggs was entitled, as being retired, now to receive a pension, he having only received a gratuity. He confessed that, having looked through the Royal Warrant, it seemed to one unconnected with the Army like himself that it was possible almost to defend any course. These Royal Warrants were so difficult of comprehension that they suggested to one the idea of a Chinese puzzle. Article 1,079 said—

"A Departmental Officer, who on account of distinguished service has been granted under the provisions of Article 417 a higher rate of pay in his rank, or has received a higher rate of pay in consequence of promotion or distinguished service, shall, if in receipt of such higher pay at the time of his retirement, receive a gratuity with retired pay at the rate next higher than that with which his length of service would entitle him."

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would say that Dr. Briggs was not in receipt of a higher rate of pay at the time of his retirement. That was true, but he ought to have been. When he referred to Article 417, he found it was as follows:—

"An officer so promoted, i . e ., for distinguished service at a seat of war, shall be given the advantage specified in Articles 267 A, 267 B, or 268, of the rank above that attached to his service to Articles 268, 338 A, 339, 339 A, 400, or 400 A, as the case may be, when the officer next below him is given such advantages. In a case of distinguished service in the field, for which an officer may merit special reward, although there may not be sufficient grounds for his promotion, our Secretary of State shall have the power, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of our Treasury, to grant him higher ratio of pay, but without alteration of seniority."

It appeared certainly on the face of that Regulation that the smaller thing was to give a man increase of pay without promotion, and that the larger thing was to give him promotion with the advantages mentioned in these various Articles. Article 267 A, to which 417 referred, said—

"These ranks shall carry precedence and other advantages attaching to the rank indicated by the military portion of the title."

If Surgeon-Colonel Briggs was not entitled to a higher pay on being promoted, as he was promoted for distinguished service in the field, he should like to know what were the advantages mentioned in these various Articles? because otherwise the promotion was a mere empty honour, giving a man a title without any material advantage whatever. He ventured to say the right hon. Gentleman could not produce any case where any medical officer in the Army had in similar circumstances been promoted and had not received pay. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression some little time ago that there was one case such as he referred to. He should first mention that medical officers of the same rank who were promoted on the same day as Surgeon-Colonel Briggs were in receipt of either larger pay for other offices held or, as in this one case, in receipt of larger pay according to his reading of the Royal Warrant. The one case to which he would more particularly refer was that of Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Allen. He had half-pay as surgeon-lieutenant-colonel under the Indian Government, he was promoted for the same campaign as was Surgeon-Colonel Briggs, and he received a higher rate of pay, although at the time when he commenced to receive sick pay he had actually seen two years' less service than Dr. Briggs. He contended that in a case of this sort any technical or difficult reading of the law should not be applied to a man who had served his Queen and country well, whilst it would be no encouragement to the officers of the Army if they found the War Office was going to defend itself by reference to Regulations remote and almost impossible of interpretation, and technical details.

was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this case in so temperate and reasonable a spirit. It was a case in which a great deal of strong language had been employed from first to last. With regard to what he said last year with reference to the possibility of evasion of foreign service, he referred to that in justification of the somewhat strict and severe action which was taken by the Director General of the Medical Staff At the time the Director General was dealing with Dr. Briggs it was his duty to bear in mind that the line that gentleman was taking was such as would lead to his escaping foreign service, to the detriment of some of his colleagues in his Department. That was what he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) stated, and it was the true view of the necessity of the duty which lay upon the Director General.

As a general principle, but not applying to an individual case.

said, if he and the hon. Member were officers in that position, if they were to bring forward a number of reasons for staying in this country and evading foreign service, and if this course was persisted in for some time, that would be a very good reason for the Director General looking very closely into it and testing it as well as he could by every means in his power. The point rather was as to the treatment of Surgeon-Colonel Briggs since last year, and since he was restored to the Army. He need hardly say that the theory of the relations of the War Office to Dr. Briggs being pervaded by the odour of the Connemara case was perfectly absurd. Personally, he had no interest one way or the other. That was to say, he had no interest in the matter, or no sympathy in the least in that case. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had at last—after having been provoked to it time after time without taking any notice of the attacks made upon him—stated in the most open way that from first to last, neither directly nor indirectly, had he ever been influenced by anything of the sort. It was a complete delusion to think that that case had influenced the matter in the slightest degree. Putting that aside, therefore, and dealing with Surgeon-Colonel Briggs as they should with any other officer, this gentleman applied to retire at a certain rate of pay, and he claimed a certain rate of pay which, according to the Articles and Warrant which the hon. Gentleman had read, could not be given to him. When he was promoted he was not promoted to a higher rate of pay within his rank, but to another rank altogether, and he bad the immediate benefit of that increased rank. But he could not receive any higher pay until he had served 20 years, because pay in the medical staff, whether the officer be a surgeon-major or surgeon-colonel, was governed by length of service, not by any other considerations, and Dr. Briggs would not have been in any circumstances entitled to the higher rate of pay of 25s. per day until he had served 20 years, nor on retirement would he be entitled to anything except a gratuity. The fact of his being promoted specially did not alter that circumstance in the least, because, whether in the case of a surgeon-major or a surgeon-lieutenant-colonel, the pay went by length of service. Surgeon-Colonel Briggs bad been treated in exactly the same way as the officers who were promoted with him at the same time. Two of them were out of comparison, because of circumstances peculiar to themselves, one being in the employment of the Egyptian Government. Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Allen was promoted under exactly similiar circumstances on the same date, and he was treated equally with him. He applied for promotion at the rate of £1 2s. 6d. per day, which was given alike to surgeon-majors and surgeon-lieutenant-colonels of 15 years' service.

Is Dr. Allen not in receipt of a higher rate of pay now?

did not know, but Dr. Allen might have longer service than Dr. Briggs. At any rate, he was treated in an/exactly similar manner.

He could not have had 20 years' service.

said, he would make inquiry as to that, but he was informed that the treatment was exactly similar. The individual circumstances might have been different, and he might have had a longer service than Dr. Briggs. At all events, Dr. Briggs had been treated on a principle from which the War Office could not depart, and a principle which was laid down in the Royal Warrants. An officer of this Department could not, until he had served 20 years, receive more than £1 2s. 6d. per day, and could not retire on pension but only on a gratuity. Dr. Briggs had retired on a gratuity, and had received a gratuity, arid had received from first to last everything that an officer in his rank and with his length of service could receive. There had been nothing whatever done in his case which would not be done in the case of any other officer similarly situated, and he could assure his hon. Friend that if he doubted it he should be ready to point out to him—because it was too technical a matter to explain to the House—the precise clause in the Warrant, and the precise effect, so that he thought he could easily convince him that the matter was as he had said.

said, he desired to bring before the notice of the Committee a matter of the most pressing importance to the community he had the honour to represent, because he thought that on this Vote would come the question of the sanitary condition of the Pigeon-House Fort in Dublin.

I think that comes under the Works Vote.

On this Vote can I not raise the question of the main drainage and the conduct of the Government in relation to it?

Not on this Vote.

There was a Departmental Inquiry into the main drainage, and the Committee of Inquiry included the medical men whose acts we are discussing.

There is a Vote (No. 12) for the Army Sanitary Committee. That is the individual Committee to which this matter was referred, and as I am the culprit who referred it, and acted on the advice of such Committee, perhaps the hon. Member had better bring it on upon the War Office Vote in which I am concerned.

said that, in regard to the case of Dr. Briggs, he, with the hon. Member for York, had given a Notice on the question more than 12 months ago, and they had, as they thought, got the matter settled. It would appear, however, that the matter was not settled, and that the ill-treatment of Dr. Briggs continued. The Secretary for War did not think that Dr. Briggs had been badly treated, but, to his (Mr. Morton's) mind, there did not seem to be any doubt about it. It was all very well for the Director General to excuse his own conduct by saying that there were doctors who tried to escape foreign service. He had no right to make that charge against Dr. Briggs, for if there was one man who had done duty in the Service in foreign parts it was that gentleman. Dr. Briggs had told the authorities why he was required to stay in this country—namely, that it was incumbent on him to defend his own honour in the Law Courts. Notwithstanding that, the Director General made a paltry excuse for harsh treatment, and it was surprising to find the Secretary for War defending that excuse.

said, the hon. Gentleman was misstating what had fallen from him. He had not said that Dr. Briggs was illtreated on that ground at all. He did not wish to go back into ancient history, and he would merely say that Dr. Briggs was reinstated on the admission that he had suffered under circumstances which did not leave reproach on him. All he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said, which was made so much of afterwards, was in justification of the strict and almost severe attitude assumed by the Director General, who had to be always on his guard against cases which had a very plausible appearance at the time, and which might have the effect of enabling an officer to escape certain duty.

said, he did not say there were not medical officers in the Army who escaped foreign service, though he had never heard of them. It has not been the desire of Dr. Briggs to do that, however. He was bound, as a man of honour, to stay in England, yet the Director General or the Commander-in-Chief tried to get him out of the country against the interests of Lady Connemara. Everyone knew how badly Loved Connemara had treated his wife and Dr. Briggs, and that at the last moment he failed to come before the Court. The statement of the Secretary of State made the case much worse against the Director General and the Commander-in-Chief. If it was said of the Commander-in-Chief himself that he desired to escape foreign service no doubt it would be right, but to bring that charge against Dr. Briggs was altogether out of the question. It was most improper to attempt to interfere with a witness before a Court of Law and with a man hi the position of Dr. Briggs. Doubtless Dr. Briggs had shown a warm temper, but anyone else in his position would have showed irritation and temper. It was for the purpose of screening the vile deeds of Lord Connemara that the attempt was made to get Dr. Briggs out of the country—

The hon. Member is altogether out of Order in making such statements.

said, the salary of the Director General came under this Vote, therefore he had imagined that these observations would be in Order. However, the case was so well-known that he (Mr. Morton) did not desire to go further into it. So far as he was concerned, he should not have brought it up again to-day. He was glad the bon. Member opposite had done so, and he thanked him for his action, for these medical officers ought to be protected. He should not be afraid on this Vote or on any other Vote to do his duty, and defend the humblest doctor in Her Majesty's Service.

said, he had taken great interest in this case from the beginning, and had been in communication with Dr. Briggs with regard to it. He must say he regretted the tone the hon. Member for Peterborough bad adopted. The hon. Member opposite had brought the case forward most temperately, and he had been fairly met by the Secretary of State for War, and in a calm and dispassionate view of the subject he (Dr. Farquharson was bound to say he believed Dr. Briggs had been treated with justice. He thought Dr. Briggs's claim had been most adequately met, and he unreservedly accepted the statement of the Secretary of State for War. He did not believe that the Commander-in-Chief had been in the slightest degree actuated by the sinister motives that had been attributed to him. He would confess that at one time he held a different view, but he unreservedly withdrew anything he had said to that effect. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite would be well advised in accepting the statement of the Secretary for War and allowing the matter to drop.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had disposed absolutely of all the rumours current as to interference on the part of the Commander-in-Chief, and also of the idea that Dr. Briggs had been unfairly treated in the matter. The whole question resolved itself into this: Had Dr. Briggs been treated in the same way as Dr. Allen? The Secretary for War informed them that the treatment had been the same, and if that were so he did not see that Dr. Briggs had received any ill-treatment at all. The whole thing hinged on that. The right hon. Gentleman said they had both been treated alike; but the hon. Member who had introduced the question said that was not so, on the authority of Dr. Briggs himself.

In reply to Dr. KENNY,

said, that he had distinctly ruled that the question of main drainage in Dublin and the action of the Military Sanitary Committee could not be dealt with on this Vote.

^* said, if he could show the Secretary for War that he had been misinformed as to Dr. Allen would he be willing to reconsider the case of Surgeon-Colonel Briggs, with the view of putting him in the same category as Surgeon-Colonel Allen, who was in India?

said, he knew nothing about the case of Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Allen, except what had been stated to him. He knew, however, that Surgeon-Lieutenant- Colonel Briggs had received all the money he was entitled to receive under the Warrant—every penny. However willing. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) might be to give him, say £1,000, he could not do it. He had no funds with which to do it. He could only give him what he was entitled to—no more and no less.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would give him the opportunity he would interpret the Rules within two hours as to obviously show that his contention was right.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrangements made for the treatment of the wounded in war. He was informed that very little preparation was made—that those officers and men, whose duty it would be to attend to the wounded on the field of battle, had little preparation in time of peace to fit them for duty. He understood that at the Autumn Manœuvres at the Curragh and at Aldershot it was intended to employ bearer companies and field hospitals, and he should like to know to what extent this was to be done. It was only to be at two stations, and the Army medical officers complained generally that neither they nor the men under them had au opportunity of practising the kind of work they would have to do on the battlefield. They ought to be instructed in the use of hospital boxes and, haversacks. Looking at the enormous, number of wounded there would be in future battles, this was one of the most important matters the right hon. Gentleman could have his attention drawn to. It was one in which the public took a great deal of interest. Why should they run the risk of their medical officers and staff being unfit to perform the important duties they were called upon to discharge on the battlefield owing to the want of training in time of peace? But not only did the medical officers complain of want of training, they complained, to some extent also, of the inadequacy of their numbers. It was difficult to obtain accurate information with regard to those matters in foreign Services, but he was told that the German Army Corps had twice as many regimental medical officers, twice as many field hospitals, and twice as many beds in the hospitals as there were in our Service. He was, informed also that the number of men set apart in our Service for duty in the field hospitals had been very much reduced in recent years. The system was started in 1878, and the staff for each division then was: 8 medical officers, 2 quartermasters, and 142 non-commissioned officers and men. In 1884 the staff was considerably reduced, so that at present there were in attendance on each division of between 8,000 and 10,000 men only six medical officers and 120 non-commissioned officers and men, the quartermasters having been done away with altogether. There was also a complaint as to the small number of attendants in the field hospitals, there being only one to every seven men. In civil hospitals there was one attendant to every three and a quarter patients; and Lord Wolseley, in an article in one of the magazines, expressed the opinion that the smallest number ought to be—one attendant to every five men. There was another important matter in connection with this subject to which he desired to call attention. So far as he knew, at the present moment there was no branch of the Army Medical Service to look after the transport of the ambulance and water casks in time of war. The work was thrown on the Army Service Corps, and as that corps was not entitled to wear the Geneva Cross, they would not be protected under the Geneva Convention in their work of mercy on the field of battle. He thought that the men who were responsible for such work ought to have the protection of the Geneva Cross, and he trusted the Government would take this most important question into immediate consideration.

I will refer what the hon. Gentleman has said to those who advise me in these matters. But I wish to say, as a general reply to all those complaints which are made in newspapers, and otherwise, and particularly by private Members in the House, that I hope hon. Members will remember that I am not absolutely without intelligent military advisers. To mention only two names, I have as advisers Sir Redvers Buller and Sir Evelyn Wood, and I cannot conceive two men likely to be more alive to every particular requirement for the benefit of the Army. I would appeal to hon. Members, therefore, when they receive letters pointing to the dreadful state of some department of the Army, and to the gross neglect of certain very obvious duties, to remember that there are at the head of affairs such high authorities as the officers I have mentioned. But still, I will bring before them what the hon. Member for Preston has stated, and see whether they agree with him in the matter of the care and of the transport of the wounded on the field of battle. As regards the question of training, there have been a number of men of the medical staff in training at Aldershot for some time. I saw them myself march past at the Queen's Birthday parade, and I was told by officers on the spot that they were doing splendid work, and that the training was of the most useful kind. There is something of the kind also at the Curragh. This is the first year that anything of this nature has been done. It is, no doubt, on a small scale at present; but we are feeling our way, and probably the work of training will be largely extended in the future. With regard to the numbers in the medical staff, the opinion is that they may with advantage be increased, and accordingly we have made a small addition to the medical staff in this Vote. I may add that I have made such an addition as the funds at our disposal will allow.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had complained of him for bringing this matter forward—

No; I did not find fault with the hon. Gentleman; but I cautioned the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen to remember when they receive letters, or see stories in the newspapers, that at the headquarters of the Army there are men with heads on their shoulders.

said, there were also men with heads on their shoulders outside headquarters. There were the medical officers, and they complained that in time of peace there was no kind of training for the duties they would have to discharge in war. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no foundation for those complaints. But there was at least this foundation, that nothing had been done in the matter till this year. The right hon. Gentleman gave away his whole case when he admitted the importance of the subject, and stated that something had been done this year which had not been done in past years. He thought there was nothing more important than the taking of measures in times of peace, which would ensure the adequate care and protection of the wounded on the field of battle.

^* said, he desired to impress on the Secretary for War the absolute necessity of making some provision by which medical officers who returned home after five years of foreign service should have the opportunity of attending for six months, or certainly for three months, in some of the great general hospitals of Edinburgh and London. Medical science did not stand still, and any medical man who was out of the country for any time and away from general medical practice was liable to fall behind, and the opportunity of enabling him to get abreast of medical science again should be taken when he came home after service abroad. If this were not done the medical officers would go abroad for another five years, so that 10 years would elapse before he could get any opportunity for general practice.

said, he was glad to hear from the Secretary for War that steps had been taken to ensure, so far as it could be done by training in times of peace, that the wounded would be properly attended to on the battle-field. They should recollect that a great deal of the fighting, especially in our smaller wars, was done by small scattered bodies of men, for all of which it would be impossible to make complete medical arrangements. It would, therefore, be of considerable advantage if the officers, and possibly some of the non-commissioned officers, of each regiment had the opportunity of subjecting themselves to a course of medical instruction such as was known as "First Aid to the Wounded," so that in cases of emergency, when regular medical help was not available, they might be able to attend to the injured. He would also like to know whether any advance had been made in the shape and construction of the carts for carrying water which were sent out for service in dry countries when the Army was in the field. It was some time since he had had experience of those carts; but they were then most cumbersome, old-fashioned, and inconvenient, and that the water could only be obtained from them very slowly. Old officers would recognise how necessary it was in the interest of discipline, that the means of supplying water in the course of an engagement should be as rapid and as convenient as possible, for there was nothing so hard as to maintain discipline in a crowd of men half-mad with thirst, surrounding those carts and longing to get at the water, during a lull in the fighting.

^* hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would not think him too persistent with regard to the case of Dr. Briggs; but he desired to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had made no reply to the suggestion he had thrown out that the case ought to be referred to some Commission of Inquiry.

said, he did not see the need for an inquiry. The question had been settled. Dr. Briggs had been restored to the Army, and now, at his own request, had been retired. With regard to the question about the water-carts, he understood that a new water-cart had been adopted and made in considerable quantities, and was believed to be the very thing that was required. The suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend that there should be some elementary instruction in the care of the wounded in piping times of peace was a good one, and he would bear it in mind. He also agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham that medical officers who were on foreign service were liable to get out of touch with the progress of medical science, but the question of finances really stood in the way of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

desired to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, that they did not forget that there were good men at the head of affairs at the War Office. But what they complained of was that some of the re-commendations of those men were not attended to, but, for financial reasons, were placed on one side. He was not referring to the present Government in particular, for the complaint had to be made in regard to every Government. He would say further, that the observations which were made in the course of this Debate were made in a friendly spirit, and were intended to point out, in the interest of the Army, serious defects in its administration.

said, that last Session he had asked five or six questions on the subject of the training of the medical staff, the result of which were that the Secretary for War had promised that the training would be commenced this year. He knew that something had been done in that direction, but he was sure that everything that ought to be done had not been done. He could not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "newspaper stories." If the right hon. Gentleman referred to him, he could tell him that he had got his information, which indeed the right hon. Gentleman had admitted to be correct, from a different source altogether. In any case, sneers at the newspapers were out of place, because the Army was indebted for many of its modern reforms to the exposure of evils by the newspapers. The training of the medical staff was a very important matter indeed, for there was a strong feeling in the country that the rank and file should be treated in the field of battle and elsewhere just as well as the officers. He was not satisfied that everything that ought to be done had been done, and he therefore hoped that the War Office authorities would pay more heed to the complaints and recommendations of the surgeons who went about amongst the men, and best knew their needs and requirements. He noticed in the Votes that the forage allowance of the surgeon-major-general was 7s. 3d. per day; of the surgeon-colonel 4s. 11d. a day, and of the other surgeons 2s. 7d. a day. He could not understand why there should be this difference in the allowances. Did the horse of the surgeon-major-general eat more, or was he fed in a different way from the horses of the other surgeons? His own opinion was that the horses of the ordinary surgeons who did the work ought to be better treated and fed than the horses of the mere figureheads.

said, the explanation of the differences in the allowances was that the surgeon-major-general had more horses and re- quired more horses than the ordinary surgeons.

^* said, the replies of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War on this Vote confirmed him in the opinion which he had long held, that a change in the system of dealing with the Military Estimates was very much required, both in the interests of the Army and the interests of the country.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in Order in discussing generally the mode of presenting the Estimates. He must confine himself to the Medical Service Vote.

^* said, he would move to reduce the Vote for the Medical Service by £500, because he felt that the Committee had not sufficient evidence before it to form an opinion of the merits of the Vote. They had a number of medical officers serving at home and abroad, but they had no means of forming an opinion as to the reasonableness or otherwise of their services. The fact was that the business of Supply was practically crowded out by the other business of Parliament, and he submitted that it would be a very great improvement if this particular Vote and certain other Votes—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to this particular Vote.

^* said, he would do so, but he would suggest that it would be a great advantage to the Public Service, if not to the Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman would refer these Votes to a Select Committee for inquiry and extension.

Those are questions for the House, and not for the Committee, on this particular Vote; the object of the Committee now is to discuss the items of this Vote.

^* said, he understood that one of the first duties of all Members of the House was to take part in Supply, and his contention was that they had not the information before them on which to form an opinion on the merits of the question. The House had got into the habit of passing these Votes upon inadequate information, and they owed a duty to their constituents and to the ratepayers to see that the business of granting Supply should be properly per- formed; and he therefore ventured to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this Vote should be referred to a Committee to examine it with a view—

I have already told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is out of Order.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them some further information about a matter he had already addressed to him once this Session, and that was whether provision had or had not been made for the annual training regarding medical transports. At the present moment there was absolutely no transport at all for the Army Medical Service in time of war, and consequently the whole of the waggons, &c., would have to be furnished upon the outbreak of war. He asked some time ago what arrangements were made, and he was informed that the Army Service horses and drivers were allocated to the hospital corps in peace, and that practice would be followed in time of war. He asked if that practice was followed by any other Army in Europe, and whether members of a combatant corps would he permitted to wear the Geneva Cross and be regarded as forming part of the transport of the Medical Army Corps. The right hon. Gentleman told him it was the fact that in the other Armies abroad the practice was adopted, and that there was no doubt that the Geneva Convention would give the necessary permission. He was sorry to say he did not take advantage of the opportunity given him by the right hon. Gentleman of consulting with an officer in the Department, but he believed there was some misconception on this point. It was true there were certain persons who were allowed to wear the brasseur of the Geneva Convention, and if not absolutely entitled they received protection under fire. But there were two brasseurs , one a temporary brasseur which was given to the men employed in the removal of the wounded after a battle, but that was mainly to protect them from being shot as deserters, and to escape the charge of malingering. There was also the brasseur of the Convention, which was given to all the men who were properly enlisted in the medical corps. The question was what they were to do in their own Army in time of war. Hitherto their wars had mainly been with semi-savages. In the Boer war the Boers refused to recognise the Geneva Cross in the case of transport drivers who belonged to a combatant corps, and he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) thought they were justified when these men might be engaged one day in transporting medical stores and the next in transporting ammunition, and therefore they ought not to be recognised as non-combatants. If the difficulty was to be got over in time of war they must contribute a certain number of drivers and horses who were now on the strength of the Army Service Corps and assign them to the Army Medical Corps. He admitted this was a difficult operation, because every man and horse they assigned for this duty must be taken from the Army Service Corps as it existed at the present time, and the difficulty he imagined would be in regard to the provision that was proposed to meet the demand from members of the Reserves. He presumed the matter would have been well thought out, though he had not seen any statement to the effect that it had been done or was contemplated. He should therefore be glad if the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Medical Service, would inform them what arrangement had been made and what shrinkage it would cause in the Transport Service and in the Army Service Corps. There would have to be a very large increase made in both Services in case of mobilisation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some information on these points.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make some further inquiries into this matter. The point raised is one of very great importance, but I am not in a position to answer it now.

said, there were two or three small matters he wished to ask a question or two about, and the first of these came under Sub-head 3. He had a friend an apothecary, and he pointed out that if reference was made to the appendix apothecaries ranked by their pay relatively with surgeon captains and surgeon lieutenants. This friend of his pointed out that whilst the surgeon captain only got 15s. a day the apothecary got 18s. a day, and he also said that they were not adequately considered in their relation to other ranks. There were surgeon captains, surgeon colonels, and surgeon generals, and why should there not be an apothecary captain, au apothecary colonel, or an apothecary general? [ Laughter .] Hon. Members might laugh, but the one was not more laughable than the other. If they had a surgeon who preferred to be called a captain, a colonel, or a general he could imagine the same ambition animating the breast of an apothecary. He understood there were two apothecaries, but that the one at Woolwich was to be abolished, and if so who was to make up the medicines? His friend pointed out to him that the compounding of medicines was of the utmost importance, and that the lives of very many persons might be at the mercy of an apothecary's mistake, and his friend claimed that these apothecaries should be continued, and therefore he asked why the remaining apothecaries of England were to be abolished? Then he came to the question of the medical-staff, and in regard to this matter he found that the postal expenses amounted to the sum of £1,050 in the year. Taking the instance of Ireland, there he found the postage was put down at £250 during the year. That seemed to be an enormous sum. Assuming they were prohibited from using halfpenny postage-cards, that would represent 60,000 letters in the course of the year. W hat could be the necessity of writing 60,000 letters from Ireland to England? Was it that the system was too much centralised, that no one was allowed to do anything without first referring to London? If so, here was a case in which much money might be saved and the efficiency of the Service greatly increased. He thought when the Committee came to realise that £1,050 was put down as postage they would see what an enormously extravagant sum this was, and from it would be able to judge how extravagant all these items were. His third and last point was with regard to civilian medical practitioners, the cost for whom was put down at £7,600. He asked why this was? He could perhaps suggest a reason for it, as he had some experience of Army doctors, not upon his own person, but through living in places where these surgeon captains, colonels, and generals were stationed, and his experience was that wherever the officers could find a private practitioner they did so. He hoped this was not creeping into the Service generally, and if it was it ought to be altered. When they had a staff of Army surgeons he could not see why they should employ these private practitioners at all.

said, that the civil practitioners were only employed at those scattered stations where the Army surgeon was not available; but he admitted that the Estimate did seem rather a large amount. With regard to the apothecaries, he was glad to say they were an expiring body, and as they ceased their places were taken by a class of non-commissioned officers who were called compounders of medicine, and this was supposed to be a better arrangement.

said, he thought it was extremely dangerous to hand over the compounding of medicines to these practically untrained men. The compounding of medicines should be done by trained persons who knew a poison from a blue pill.

said, these men were better trained than some of the old apothecaries.

^* thought that one observation made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) ought not to be passed over in silence, and that was when the hon. Member referred to the want of care and solicitude for the men on the part of their officers. If it was once the case it certainly was not at the present time, and so far now from there being any want of care and solicitude, the very opposite observation applied. He had taken some interest in the matter of ambulance work, and he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) for giving prominence to this question of practical exercise in medical skill and training, and he could not help thinking that a little knowledge of ambulance work in the Army generally would be highly advantageous. Men might, for instance, be taught first aid and how to act as bearers. He also thought that great advantage would accrue not only from the lectures that had been suggested, but from instruction in physiology, and he hoped this point would not be lost sight of. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had taken seriously the question of transports and the immunity of the men when engaged in this work. It was a question that demanded very serious consideration, as grave doubts existed on the subject; and the sooner they were settled by International Convention the better. He would not go into the point which had been ruled out of Order with regard to the examination of the Estimates by a Select Committee, but he thought he might say, without being out of Order, that the method of dealing with the Estimates did not give a real and effective check to the over-expenditure; therefore, if they could be referred to a Committee for examination, reserving questions of policy for the House, it would be most advantageous.

said, that in regard to this point—

The hon. Member must not pursue that subject; it is not in Order.

said, he only wished to make an observation which was germane to this Vote, and he thought it would not be out of Order. Whatever might be the course pursued with regard to the Estimates generally, with regard to this Vote it had been most carefully overhauled by a Committee of the House of Commons. This was one of the Votes to which great exception was taken in 1887, and it was examined, both in that year and the following year, by Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee, and an opinion was expressed of considerable weight—namely, that having in view the large increase in the Medical Service during the Egyptian War, the time had come when considerable reductions should be made. That was taken very much to heart by his right hon. Friend the late Mr. Stanhope, who committed the Vote to a Committee of the War Office, which went into the matter, not to see how it might be reduced, but to ascertain what was necessary to put the Medical Service in an efficient form to go into the field. He had not the Estimate before him, but he knew the inquiry resulted in a great reduction, and that the Vote had kept very much on the same level ever since.

said, before they passed this Vote there were one or two questions he wished to ask, and he trusted the right hon. Gen- tleman would be able to answer them offhand. They related to items under Sub-heads E and F. Under Sub-head E the cost of medicines was put down at £16,000 for this year, and it was exactly the same amount last year. He thought it was somewhat peculiar that it should he exactly the same year after year, but he dared say it was susceptible of explanation. With regard to the contractor or contractors with whom the War Office was in the habit of dealing, he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that in previous years there had been considerable questions on this point raised before the Committee of Public Accounts, but the question had not been raised this year, otherwise he should not have brought it before the Committee. In previous years there were lengthened discussions upon it from the fact that the War Office had always dealt with one particular firm. That particular system might have its merits, but it inevitably aroused jealousy outside, and the question before the Committee was whether the contract to some extent should not be thrown open. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be able to give them a satisfactory answer, and at the same time perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how it was that exactly the same sum was taken year after year. The other matter related to Item F, appropriations-in-aid. Here again the same amount was taken as was taken last year—namely, £12,000 odd. Might he ask how these appropriations-in-aid were derived? No doubt they represented receipts, the sale of stores, or were derived from income to the Medical Body. There was an increasing jealousy in auditing the accounts in regard to these appropriations-in-aid, and if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) was in his place he would bear him out in that. Before he resumed his seat he would like to ask whether they were to understand that the very important question raised by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster), as to the immunity of the transport staff in time of war, whether that immunity from being fired upon or treated as combatants had received full consideration?

said that, taking the points raised by his hon. Friend, the medicines were now supplied by open tender; that was to say, that certain chosen firms were adopted, their premises were inspected by medical officers, and the drugs certified to be of the proper description. The same principle had been adopted in Ireland, so that there was no longer the same monopoly that existed formerly. The next point of the hon. Member was as to the appropriations-in-aid. These arose in various ways—sale of stores, &c.—and the amounts had practically stood at the same figure in the last few years. The other question was in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster). He would make full inquiry into the question raised by the hon. Member as to the immunity of the Transport Service in time of war, and he would give the information required upon Report.

asked how it happened that the amount spent on medicines was the same every year? He also inquired whether the contracts for the supply of medicine were open.

stated that medicines were supplied to the Army by open tender, limited to certain chosen firms whose premises were visited by Inspectors. The same system prevailed in Ireland, and its results so far had been satisfactory. He would make full inquiries as to the immunity of transport, and would, upon Report, give the desired information.

asked, with regard to contracts, whether the contract for surgical instruments had been at all enlarged or left open?

^* said, the contracts were made on the same principle, the articles so obtained were subjected to strict inspection, and the decisions were arrived at after very careful calculation as to the capacity of the firms tendering to fulfil the contracts, and the competitive prices.

Vote agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances (exclusive of Supplies, Clothing, &c) of the Militia (to a number not exceeding 135,743, including 30,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

said, he had no desire to set himself up in opposition to distinguished military authorities on this subject, but having had 10 years' experience as a cavalry officer he desired to say a few words. He pointed out that whereas the Army Reserve was for the Army and the Naval Reserve for the Navy, the Militia Reserve was not a reserve for the Militia, but at once went to the Army on a declaration of war. This took away 30,000 men, and other reductions previously mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast brought down the nominal 125,000 available men of the Militia to something like 40,000 bayonets. Moreover, this force was without cavalry, artillery, or transport, and possessed no means for mobilisation, while half the officers only used the Militia as a stepping-stone to the Line. He could not therefore help thinking that the hon. Member for Belfast was not very far out in describing the Militia as a patent and recognised fraud. Anyone possessing practical knowledge of the subject would agree that fraudulent enlistment was also a cause of considerable weakness to the Militia, while the system of inspection was so ineffective that it really was little more than a fraud and a farce. A man with knowledge of the various times at which different regiments were called out for training might enlist in half-a-dozen, so that the Secretary for War would be counting the same man as six efficient soldiers when he was probably in reality not one. No doubt the Secretary for War had endeavoured to stop this fraud on the country, but the only way he could hope to succeed would be by calling a number of regiments at the same time. Another point was that the same battalions should not be constantly picked out for training at Aldershot. When he was there he always saw the same regiments sent down, for the purpose, it seemed from their appearance, of disgusting the Regulars with the Militia. Then, promotion should be made interchangeable in both battalions, as the regiments were territorial. If those suggestions were carried out we should get a more valuable Force on which we should be able to rely.

^* , on the question of appointments to the Militia, drew attention to the increased cost to parents of getting their sons into the Army as officers, and condemned the present system of mechanical preparation for examination by "cramming." A few years ago the cost of putting a young man into the Army was £450, for his commission and perhaps £50 for preparation for examination. It was now £1,000, taking three years as about the period taken in passing examinations. Young officers entering Militia regiments were, in addition, handicapped by expenses, and the country on that account lost the services of suitable young men. It would be a great advantage if service in the Militia could count towards obtaining a commission in the Army. By the "cramming" system young men were not properly educated. The country did not get, therefore, proper service, and the whole system was carried on in such a way that only men of a certain class got into the Army.

suggested that it would be easy to reduce the number of "black sheep" in the Militia by sending round non-commissioned officers to the different regiments in training, so that the men who had been guilty of fraudulent enlistment might be picked out and punished. He had often found that the removal of those "black sheep" had benefited the discipline of the company he commanded. Officers were always glad to get them taken away as a nuisance. Having been for some time with the Militia, he could say that it comprised many good, well-conducted regiments, of far finer materials indeed than many in the Line. For chest measurement, general physique, and drill they compared favourably with any Line regiment in the Service. He quite agreed with what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex as to the inutility of the inspections. He did not think the suggested interchange of officers between the battalions desirable. The headquarters of his regiment were in Stirling, and the rest of it in Renfrewshire. Militia officers, as a rule, were not very anxious to get into the Army; they knew they could leave the Service at any time, and they did not intend to spend their days in the profession. The retirement system was unsatisfactory. A great deal might be done in the non-drilling season to give the men a little musketry practice, as was done in the case of the Volunteers, who were able to get their practice at a very small outlay. If a few of these general ideas were acted upon by the Secretary for War he would get a valuable and cheap body of men at a cost of £13 6s. per head, as against the many times greater cost of the Regular troops.

said, he desired to mention the case of Colonel Stewart, commanding the Donegal Artillery Militia, whose headquarters were at Letterkenny. Two or three weeks ago he had put questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he gathered from the answers he then received that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he (Mr. Rentoul) was not in full possession of the facts; but the answer given showed that it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who was not in full possession of the facts. At any rate, his facts and the right hon. Gentleman's facts were remarkably different. This was au extraordinary case; and in order that the Committee might understand it, he would explain, first, that Colonel Perry commanded the Artillery of the District and Colonel Stewart commanded the Donegal Artillery. Colonel Perry, in transmitting a Report in reference to two of Colonel Stewart's non-commissioned officers of the Permanent Staff, writes—

"I would further invite the attention of the G.O.C. to Colonel Stewart's general remarks, the tone of which I consider most improper and unfair, as it shows a very decided personal animus towards the Members of the P.S."

That was signed by Colonel Perry; and there he made a most serious charge against a man in Colonel Stewart's position—namely, that he, an officer of rank and a gentleman of very high standing in that county, would be guilty of personal animus against two men who had been in the first instance private soldiers, and were now sergeants—men, of course, in a totally different rank of life to Colonel Stewart; and of course if he were acting as stated he would be acting disgracefully and would be unworthy to command a regiment. Now, he (Mr. Rentoul) would read to the House what Colonel Stewart had written in reference to the matter on the 31st January, 1894, to the Commanding Officer (Colonel Perry) for transmission:—

"Sir,—I have the honour to request that you will forward for submission to the proper authorities this my application for the re-transfer to the Regular Forces of the undermentioned noncommissioned officers of the Royal Artillery, who belong to the P.S. of the unit under my command,"—

Then the names were mentioned, which he (Mr. Rentoul) would not give, but would call them A and B—a company sergeant-major and a sergeant on the permanent staff of the regiment—

"on the ground of their inefficiency and indifferent conduct."

As regarded A, Colonel Stewart said—

"I have repeatedly applied through you for his re-transfer, commencing with my letter dated 25th July, 1891, in which I stated my opinion that this N.C.O. was unfit for his position, and that he had been recently tried by District Court Martial for drunkenness on the line of march, when the regiment paraded at Letterkenny on 21st May, 1891, for embarkation. I have to refer you to my letter, dated 1st June, 1893, calling attention to the serious inefficiency of the P.S., in which I enclosed a certificate from the medical officer of the unit as to this N.C.O.'s state of health, and in which I stated that fur the preceding two years A had only been an encumbrance. Again, he was on the 11th October, 1893, made a prisoner on charges of, first, absence from a sergeants mess-meeting when treasurer, and, second, gross irregularities when treasurer, and was severely reprimanded. With further reference to this N.C.O. I have also to quote my letter of 9th November, 1893, and reply dated 12–12–93 to A.A.G.'s minute dated 22–11–93 on my letter of 9–11–93. Regarding B, I beg to enclose copy of your memo. 4309–93, dated 6th of January, 1894, together with my reply thereto, from which it appears that you consider him quite incompetent to perform his most elementary duties. He joined the P.S. on 10th of June, 1893, at Letterkenny, being in possession of A.F.B. 241. He was drunk on duty on the 30th November following, and severely reprimanded. I have also to invite attention to my memo. of 26th November, 1893, in reply to yours of 7–11–93, copy enclosed. In view of the fact that the Donegal Artillery Militia is under orders to train at Harwich this year, the 'training to commence on 9th May, I am especially anxious, and for obvious reasons, that each member of the permanent staff should be efficient in his duties, and eligible as regards health, conduct, and appearance. The N.C. officers I have named herein, 1 beg to repeat, offer but an evil example to the militiamen, and their presence with this unit I deem to be absolutely prejudicial to its discipline, and this opinion applies, if possible, in an intensified degree to A.'

That letter was signed by Colonel Stewart. The Committee would observe that the charge made was one not merely of personal animus, but of very decided personal animus towards the permanent staff as a whole. But the fact was, that Colonel Stewart only referred in his letter to two individual members of the staff, both of whom had been punished for drunkenness, and one for drunkenness on the line of march, and he also was a prisoner and punished for having made away with the funds of the sergeants' mess. Both men had, moreover, been found fault with and objected to by Colonel Perry and General Black, commanding at Belfast. One of the men applied for transfer to the Volunteers, but he was refused by General Black on account of his inefficiency and his entire unfitness for the Volunteers. The other non-commissioned officer was sent by Colonel Stewart to Colonel Perry, who reported on the 6th January, 1894—

"The man you have sent to me is an inefficient man, totally ignorant of infantry drill."

Consequently the proof of the inefficiency of this man came from Colonel Perry himself on the 6th of January, yet on the 31st of the same month, when Colonel Stewart reported this sergeant as inefficient, Colonel Perry wrote to headquarters to the effect that Colonel Stewart was guilty of very decided personal animus towards the permanent staff. Now, the House would observe the astonishing fact that the first Report of the inefficiency of this man came from Colonel Perry himself. As military Members of the Committee well knew, the permanent staff of a Militia regiment was made up of 20 or 30 soldiers detailed from the Regular Army in order to train Militiamen in their duties, but it was only against two members of the staff that Colonel Stewart complained. Colonel Stewart naturally took the strongest possible objection to the Report of Colonel Perry, for he believed it to be absolutely false and without a shadow of foundation in any shape or form. He therefore went to the authorities at the Horse Guards, and was advised by them to take no further steps until he heard from them. As two weeks passed and he received no intimation he wrote for the return of his documents. Next he wrote to Colonel Perry, under date 16th of March, 1894, who had made this grave charge against him and who was his immediate superior officer, and through whom, of course, he had to communicate with the higher authorities, denying the accuracy of the allegation, and pointing out that he had never even seen one of these men towards whom he was accused of having shown personal animus. He further asked for a Court of Inquiry in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, under which an officer was empowered, if he thought himself wronged by his commanding officer, to make such a request. This letter was written on the 16th of March, and another on the 2nd of April, and a reply was subsequently received from the General Officer commanding in Belfast, stating that he agreed with Colonel Perry in objecting to the tone of Colonel Stewart's letter. At about the same date a letter was received from Lord Wolseley. It was addressed to the General in command at Belfast, and was to the effect that he saw no necessity for a Court of Inquiry being convened, whereupon Colonel Stewart applied for the redress of a wrong under the 42nd section of the Army Act, which letter of Colonel Stewart crossed the letter from Lord Wolseley. To this latter letter of Colonel Stewart Lord Wolseley replied that the matter was closed. Now, had Colonel Stewart been in the wrong, no doubt a Court of Inquiry would have been granted. All Colonel Stewart desired was an investigation at which he could be present, and if then he was found to be not absolutely right he was quite willing to be relieved of his command, or to be punished in any other way. He (Mr. Rentoul) did appeal to the Secretary for War to give his serious attention to this question. Did not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a gross, grave, and shocking charge had been made against Colonel Stewart in accusing him of personal animus towards men who had risen from the ranks? It was a disgraceful charge, which Colonel Stewart declared to be utterly false and entirely without foundation. Would the right hon. Gentleman look upon a letter such as Colonel Stewart's as disrespectful if addressed to him by a subordinate? The fact was that the letter was rightful in tone in every way. The charges made against Colonel Stewart were absolutely and entirely untrue. There was surely something very rotten in the state of affairs under which such a thing occurred as that Colonel Stewart's immediate superior officer accused him of personal animus, while Colonel Stewart replied—in effect, accusing his superior officer of absolute falsehood in the matter. There ought certainly to be a further investigation into the matter.

said, he was not very anxious to interfere with the authorities in the matter of this quarrel. It was quite possible that the expression "personal animus" was a strong one, and personally he held it was too strong to have been used. But the general question they had to consider was the condition of the regiment, and was the permanent staff in the condition alleged by Colonel Stewart?

But Colonel Stewart makes no charge against the permanent staff.

He did make one.

No; he only made a charge against two men, asking that they should be removed.

On the 2nd of March, 1894, Colonel Stewart saw Sir Francis Grenfell at the War Office, and said the permanent staff was composed of men from the Royal Artillery of bad character and bad conduct.

Referring, of course, to these two men.

No, to the general permanent staff.

^* : But the charge made against him of personal animus was made on the 17th of February, 1894, and so could not be affected by any conversation held on the 2nd of March. Besides, Colonel Stewart absolutely denied ever having made such a charge to Sir Francis Grenfell, and it was odd that he should make it in conversation when it had never been made in writing. It was easy to mistake or misquote conversations, but hard to get away from a voluminous correspondence, and the authorities must be hard pressed when they quoted a conversation of March 2 to account for a letter written on February 17. No wonder a Court of Inquiry was refused if this was the sort of evidence that would be put before it! The fact was, Colonel Stewart was absolutely in the right, and there was no answer possible to his just request for redress.

said, he preferred to deal with the somewhat larger aspects of the case. There was a general accusation against the permanent staff made to the Deputy Adjutant General at the War Office, and the course which the War Office had taken, and of which he approved, was to direct that the regiment should be Placed under strict supervision. The General Commanding the Eastern District had been directed to look into the matter, and to form an opinion as to the Condition of the regiment. That course at once removed the matter from those mere local disputes to which the hon. Member had referred. The General Officer Commanding in Belfast, and the Field Marshal Commanding in Ireland, agreed that it was very undesirable to reopen the ease. The point of discipline having been dealt with, there remained merely the question whether the regiment was efficient, and that point would be best settled by the course which had been taken. He did not think that any good purpose could be served by bringing up the disputes between the two officers concerned, Colonel Perry and Colonel Stewart, in the House of Commons, or by their attempting to express an opinion on the matter. It was no doubt a wrong thing for one officer to impute personal animus to another officer; it was a strong thing to do, but it was not deserving of all the importance which had been attached to it in this case. Occupying the position he did he was anxious not to interfere more than was necessary with the Generals commanding districts, who were responsible for discipline. He had no wish to override their decisions. He thought justice had been done in the case by placing the regiment under such conditions of training and supervision as would enable the authorities to come to a sound conclusion as to its condition. Under those circumstances the best course for him to pursue until he had received the Report was to abstain from any interference.

said, he was very familiar with the facts of the case, although he was not personally acquainted with the two officers. There was, he felt, something more involved in this than a mere quarrel; it was really a matter of discipline, and the fact remained that an officer was compelled to retain under his command men whose records he could not approve. He feared there was a good deal of misapprehension as to the actual points at issue, and he felt it to be a serious consideration that this colonel and the two non-commissioned officers should be compelled to continue the performance of their duties without any sort of inquiry being held. But his main object in speaking that afternoon was to call attention to certain details connected with the Militia Force, the importance of which deserved careful consideration. The nominal strength of the Militia Force was 134,000 men, and the country paid something like £600,000 a year for it, but it was nothing like efficient. He challenged contradiction when he stated that the actual strength was very many thousands below the nominal strength, and it certainly was a reasonable computation to say that the real total was something like 30,000 ( sic ) below the number on paper. That seemed to be a monstrous statement, but he had it from a high authority. He was indeed very worry to believe it was well founded, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if nothing could be done to bring about a better state of affairs, and either to relieve the country of the burden or ensure that it got better value for its money. At present it was absolutely useless as a fighting Force, and, at any rate, they ought to reduce it to some semblance of an Army as the term was understood in modern times. Now, although the establishment of the Militia was returned at 134,000, the enrolled strength was only 124,600. Then there was the Militia Reserve of 31,000 included in the total. He did not think it ought to be so included, as the object of keeping up the Reserve was to bring the Line battalions up to their normal strength in case of mobilisation. These two items alone reduced the effective strength by 40,000 men and he had still further reductions to make. At the last annual training 5,500 men were absent with leave—a very small percentage, no doubt—but no fewer than 13,767 were absent without leave, making a total deduction to be made of 58,000. Further than that—and these were not deductions made upon speculation—2,000 might he taken off as double enlistments, for he had heard of cases in which the same man had enlisted in two, three, and even four different battalions, so that in the case of mobilisation they would only count as one, although in the official Returns they counted as two, three, or four, as the case might be. Finally, a deduction of 14,000 had to be made for the men who passed annually out of the Militia into Line regiments. It might be that th recruiting would make up for the withdrawals, but he doubted it. It seemed to him that an effort had been made to reduce the Militia, particularly by the Line recruiting sergeants, but he thought it was a great mistake to bring the Militia into the Line—at all events, to count them as being both in the Line and the Militia. The Line relied upon an annual supply of 14,000 men in order to make up for the men going out. There was another feature which might be of interest to hon. Members who were not acquainted with the circumstances concected with the Militia battalions in Ireland. The standard of efficiency was in some cases admirable, but there were other cases in which the regiments had not gone through the necessary preliminary training that would enable them to take the field. A very considerable reduction had to be made in respect of untrained Militia recruits, and he could not state the number of Militiamen who were untrained in musketry. He was reminded that these men might go through their training at any period of the year, but at some period of the year at least half the recruits were untrained in musketry, and were without any practice in manœuvring with large forces. These men, therefore, could not be estimated as effective members of the Force. He believed that from the causes to which he had referred there were 70,000, if not 100,000 men who ought to be deducted from the total establishment of the Militia. He could assure the Committee that he had not brought this matter, before them without having obtained some information in regard to it. His contention was that if the state of things he had set out was approximately correct, the country at all events ought to understand it. The Militia Committee which had sat did not appear to have brought about any improvement in the system which he felt bound to attack.

said, he should like to deal with this matter at once. He admitted that there was unfortunately a very serious discrepancy between the nominal strength of the Militia and the actual strength of the Force. That discrepancy, however, had been very much exaggerated by the hon. Member. As a beginning he swept off with a stroke of the pen the whole Militia Reserve. Of course it was an error, and a common error, to suppose that in the case of invasion the Militia Reserve would join the Army. Nothing of the kind would take place, but the Militia Reserve would be mobilised with the Militia. Hon. Members were aware that the Reserve was available for service abroad with the Regular Army in case of a foreign war. But for the purposes of home service it would serve with the Militia. Then, as he understood, the hon. Member contended that 5,500 men ought to be deducted as the number of men who were usually absent on leave. He did not agree with the hon. Member. There were officers and men absent with leave in the Army, but he thought no one would suggest that they ought to be deducted from the strength of the Army. The hon. Member said that in case of war the number of men on leave would greatly increase. He doubted that very much, and rather thought that the number of men on leave would disappear, for the spirit of officers and men would induce them to return to the colours. Another deduction made by the hon. Member was that of 14,000 men recruited into the Line from the Militia. His advisers were not disposed to think that these men should be deducted, because they would be available for Militia purposes up to the moment of their joining the Line. Then a Militiaman who joined the Line was replaced by a recruit, and thus a balance was preserved. The figures given by the hon. Member were portentous, and, as he had said, exaggerated; but it was true that a serious deduction must be made from the whole Militia strength of 124,000. When that deduction was made there remained about 90,000 effective men. He was glad to believe from the information supplied to him that in recent years the Militia had immensely improved in efficiency. Many regiments had attained a standard which was marvellous considering the difficulties under which they were trained and maintained. One remedy for double enlistment, to which evil several hon. Members had alluded, was the simultaneous training of regiments in different districts, and that course was being taken to a large extent. Another means of preventing double enlistment was to try absentees after detection by Courts Martial instead of by the civil power, and considerable results were expected from the adoption of this plan. Some progress had already been made, but no Report as to the results of the steps adopted had yet come in. These, he thought, would be most effectual cures. The hon. and gallant Member suggested an interchange of officers for promotion. He thought that might be possible when the two regiments concerned belonged to the same county. They all knew what county susceptibilities were, and he should he very suspicious of any arrangement that would prevent the integrity of the Militia of each county being maintained. With regard to the question of officers entering the Army through the Militia, undoubtedly that system was adopted to supply the want of junior officers in the Militia, and they would have been hard put to get them but for that system. He did not think that the system was altogether satisfactory, though he did not think it was so objectionable on the ground of expense as the noble Lord who raised the question seemed to think.

^* said, it was only fair to remember that a recruit had two months in which he was made fit for service in his regiment, and at any given time 45,000 recruits ought not to be struck off the effective strength. The Militia was our second line of defence, making up deficiencies in the Regular Army, and it was the duty of the authorities to see that the training of the men came as near as possible to that of the Regular Forces. There were one or two other points which he wished to put before the Secretary of State. The first was that in his opinion it ought to be made much easier than it was at present for officers of the Militia to qualify at Hythe. He knew that a certain number in each regiment were allowed to go to Hythe each year, but thought that if a man was patriotic enough to desire to improve himself as an officer, he ought to be allowed to do so. As to the shooting of the Militia, they perhaps did not enjoy the same advantages that other branches of the Service enjoyed. They were armed with Lee-Metford rifles, and at Aldershot they were given black powder to use with them, and everyone knew how difficult it was to sight that particular rifle when black powder was used. With regard to dual enlistment, he could only say with respect to the company he commanded, not a single man had been taken away as having enlisted in another regiment. He be- lieved the figure had been put unduly high. He felt that the method of mobilising the Militia in the Home District during the last three years was a move in the right direction, and would tend to make the Militia an invaluable service.

said, with regard to the case of Colonel Stewart, he understood, Colonel Stewart would be satisfied if the expression used by Colonel Perry were withdrawn. The Committee would see that the charge of personal animus still stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had now delivered an expression of opinion which he was very glad to hear and which he understood to be unqualified. Colonel Stewart was one of the most prominent men in his (Mr. Rentoul's) native county, and it was a serious thing for him to be accused of personal animus against men under him. If the Secretary for War were accused of personal animus against the hall porter in the War Office he would no doubt consider that a shocking charge had been made against him. Why a Court of Inquiry could not be granted he (Mr. Rentoul) entirely failed to see. Are the authorities afraid of holding an inquiry? Colonel Stewart courts inquiry. He had no desire to press the matter unduly if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that be would try and obtain the withdrawal of the words complained of. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Donegal Militia was in very good order, and that a Report was to be made upon it shortly. The Donegal Militia had always been reported on most favourably by the authorities ever since Colonel Stewart held the command, and it was on account of the great pride he took in the regiment, which had been commanded by his relatives since it first came into existence, that he wished that two disgraceful sergeants should not remain in it, and that he so objected to being accused of personal animus. If the right hon. Gentleman would say he considered that the expression ought to be withdrawn, that, at all events, would be something gained.

I cannot, of course, undertake to withdraw an expression which I have not myself used, but I have already said it is a strong expression, and I will see whether any modification or qualification can be made in it, although I have not gone so far as to give it unqualified condemnation. I wish to correct a misapprehension that appears to prevail as to Courts of Inquiry. It is quite a mistake to suppose that there is any right on the part of any officer to have a Court of Inquiry. That has been laid down by General Order. A Court of Inquiry is only instituted by the Military Authorities for their own information.

^* : What about the 42nd section of the Army Act? Had it no meaning? Had it no effect? It was said that under our law there was no right without a remedy, and he wanted to know what remedy there was for au officer who had been slandered by his superior officer if that superior had not the manliness either to prove the truth of his statement or to withdraw it and apologise for it?

said, that the matter had now been closed up, and it was impossible to have it reopened. He thought, however, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rentoul) had obtained practically what he desired, as the Secretary of State had expressed his opinion that the language used was unfortunate and was too strong for the occasion.

said, he would drop the matter at present, and await with confidence the action of the right hon. Gentleman.

remarked that there was a great want of more drill-sergeants for the Militia. When the non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff who were employed as cooks, sergeants of the mess, sergeants of the canteen, and so on, were deducted, very few sergeants were sometimes left to drill the companies. He had seen over 100 men drilled by one non-commissioned officer. It was perfectly obvious that under these circumstances the drill could be little better than a farce. If there could be what he might almost term a locomotive staff of young corporals trained for the purposes of drilling to go about from one regiment to another, the result would be greater uniformity in the Militia, and the men would be drilled in up-to-date style. He trusted that the Secretary for War would carefully consider the point.

said, he gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) that he considered the Militia Force in this country was to some extent decreasing in numbers, and that it was not in such a satisfactory condition as it had been in past years. He found that that was not at all the fact, for on looking at the Report with regard to recruiting in the Army and in the Militia during the last five years he found that whereas there was a net decrease in the Militia of 1,865 in 1890, there was a net increase of 212 in 1891, of 6,256 in 1892, and of 5,042 in 1893, and he found further that the increase in 1893 would have been much larger than in 1892 had it not been found necessary to check the recruiting by raising the standard of height to a minimum of 64 inches for the Infantry and of 66 inches for the Artillery, and by stopping all enlistments of growing lads between 17 and 18, even if up to the standard. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Belfast had not done justice to the oldest constitutional Force in the country. He was told by a large number of Army officers, at the time when the Reserve was called out, that they never wished to see men of better physique, or men who did their duty better than the men of the Militia who were sent to them on that occasion. He regretted, however, that the Militia did not receive the official recognition which other branches of the Service received from the authorities. A good many years ago, shortly before the time when Lord Cardwell altered the Army system from the numerical to the territorial he wrote a short work upon the amalgamation of the British Army, and he would venture to point out to the Committee, that had the scheme which he then suggested been carried out, he believed it would have improved not only the Army, but the Militia more than the scheme which was then carried out, because it would have preserved the esprit de corps , which was such a valuable factor in military service. There were in the British Army about 109 regiments,—some double battalion, some four battalion—and he ventured to say that it would have been a very much better system than the system then inaugurated if, when they had inaugurated the territorial system, they had knocked off the nine odd regiments, which were practically Indian or Canadian regiments, and stuck to the number of 100, that they had made a reserve of—

I do not think the hon. Member is now in Order.

said, he would go back to his point. What was the case at present when the Militia Reserve were called out? They practically made the first battalion of the regiment a skeleton regiment, absolutely useless for any purpose; it was nothing more nor less than a cadre . They should have one strong battalion of Militia, say, 1,200, and the remainder should be placed in the second battalion. The Line regiments at present, no doubt, were strengthened, but the Militia were nothing more nor less than a recruiting, ground for the Army. He thought it would be wise if they went back to a system that he believed worked very well for a great number of years in keeping up the strength of the Militia battalions—the system that was called "bringing money," which was as follows:—When a Militiaman went back to his village or mine, if he could persuade any of his comrades that it was a good thing to serve in the Militia, he received a small gratuity from the State, and in that way they had practically a large and easily workable recruiting force for the Militia. No doubt the increase in recruiting might be attributed to the fact that a larger proportion of men had been thrown out of work during the last three years by the prolonged strikes. There was a system of advertisement now adopted which brought more widely to the attention of the masses the advantages to be gained by enlistment in the Militia. He found from the figures before him that there were in the three countries in 1891, 100,000 effective Militiamen; in 1892, 106,195; in 1893, 112,904; so it was apparent that the Force was not a decaying one, but was going on satisfactorily. He thought it was false economy on the part of the War Office not to provide a proper head-dress for the Militia, when they were paraded for review, of a similar kind to those worn by the Line regiments. The head-dress would probably last from 10 to 15 years, and he was told that the officers of the Militia themselves would in many cases be pleased to provide it out of their own pockets. He was not going to dilate upon the past services of this branch of the Army, nor to refer to the fact that a large number of Militia served in their uniforms at Waterloo, but he would point out that when the Government of the Member for Midlothian called out the Militia Reserve a few years ago, he believed that almost to a man they turned up to serve in their regiments. That was a great and important fact. They strengthened the Army to the extent of from 20,000 to 30,000 men. It should be remembered also that the Militia were a body of men who could be withdrawn from a civil life with greater ease than the Volunteers. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give as much official recognition as possible to the Militia, and that he would do everything in his power to strengthen the Force.

said, he would like to say a few words with regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who had very naturally criticised, and to some extent impugned, the figures he had given. He must say that he adhered to his point with regard to the enlistments from the Militia to the Line, and contended that when the men passed to the Line their place must be filled by recruits, who, for practical purposes of warfare, were useless without a considerable amount of training. The Secretary of State for War had made a statement of great interest. The right hon. Gentleman had, for the first time, settled the query of what would be done by the Militia Reserve in case of war, and he had told them that the Militia Reserve would not be required and utilised to fill up the Line battalions.

said, they would be used to strengthen the Army on all those occasions when the Militia itself would not be required.

said, that the first thing that must be done, whatever hostile operations were engaged in, must be the mobilization of the Regular battalions, and his view was that the Militia Reserve was an absolutely essential element for strengthening and filling up the Line battalions. This was also the view taken in the Army Book of the British Empire. There were 143 Regular battalions, apart from the Guards, and they were dependent for mobilization on the Army Reserve. The Infantry Reserve, as apart from the Guards, had practically reached its maximum figure of 52,800 men. If they took 350 men from a battalion, which was an exceedingly low estimate, so as to bring the battalions of the Line up to the full war establishment, that would take 49,000 men, leaving a margin out of the Infantry Reserve at present available of 3,800 men. He believed he was correct in saying that there must be an immediate and large draft upon the Militia Reserve, not for meeting any emergencies of war, after war had been declared, but at the first outset of war for the mobilization of the Line battalions, and for bringing them up to their full strength. No one could suppose that the Line battalions, even with the addition of the 350 men from the Army Reserve would have been filled up to their full strength. There would be very large numbers of recruits and inefficient soldiers, who would be withheld from service in the front, and there would be such a shortage in the Infantry battalions when mobilized for war, as must make it necessary to call upon the Militia Reserve in order to fill up the Line Infantry battalions in case of war. He claimed to have made out a fair case, and he had some reason for abiding by his original statement. He claimed he was right in deducting the whole of the Militia enlistments in the Line, because if they were in the Line they would keep these men, who were just becoming valuable soldiers in their battalions. The moment they tried to keep them in the Militia battalions when they had learned their duty, they took away 14,000 men from the Line. It was perfectly true they could replace them by 14,000 more recruits, but in case of war such recruits could not take the place of 14,000 more or less trained soldiers. On the other point, he thought he was right in saying they must consider the Militia Reserve as a reserve for the Line, and not as a reserve for the Militia, and if they were to regard the Militia as of any value at all, they must make the deductions he had asked the Committee to make.

said, that though, of course, it was no part of his duty to support the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, yet he might for a few moments be permitted to support indirectly what the right hon. Gentleman had said with reference to the military statistics now before the Committee with regard to this particular Vote. He had listened with great interest to what had fallen from the Member for West Belfast and the Member for Essex, and he must say it was hard to understand with what object such speeches were made. If they had been made with a view of finding out defects in the Militia, then they had had the excellent result of eliciting the valuable testimony that the Militia was a very valuable National Force. But all the imaginable improvements in the Militia were to be made, then the Vote would be not £630,000, but double or treble that sum. He did not believe that the British public were under any delusion as to the Militia; what they understood was that the Militia was a valuable reserve and a portion of the National Forces. He had never heard anybody acquainted with the matter claim that the Militia was more than that or represented anything else than a portion of the Reserve National Forces of the Empire. He submitted that it was a very valuable Force, notwithstanding all the criticisms that had been made upon it. He would say it was better not to disparage unduly our national reserves, because nothing good came of criticism of that character. As regarded military statistics bearing upon the Militia, how did the case stand? Not in books written outside by military critics, but in the figures before the Committee, what was the fighting strength of the Militia? It was returned at 135,000 men, of whom 30,000 formed the Militia Reserve, and 105,000 the ordinary Militia. How far did these figures represent realities? The hon. Member for Essex said that, in the first place, 30,000 men must be deducted for the Militia Reserve, and in this he was borne out by the hon. Member for West Belfast. He was not concerned, after what had been said by the Secretary of State for War, to say whether the 30,000 ought to be considered a portion of the Militia or of the Army Reserve. The Committee could form its own opinion, having heard what was said in the highest official quarters, but, be it an Army Reserve or a portion of the Militia, it must be returned somehow, and it was at present returned in the Militia. To say—as had been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast—that these men were counted twice over might be a figure of speech, but it was not a statistical fact. How did be show that? He did not take any outside authority, but he took the very Returns in the Estimates, which were in the hands of hon. Members. The Militia Establishment was returned as 134,000, and the effectives at 121,000, and in that number was included the Militia Reserve. That was, again, quite apart from the ordinary Army Reserve. The Regular Reserves were kept absolutely and distinctly separate from the Militia Reserve. It was, therefore, clear that the 35,000 men in the Militia Reserve were not counted twice over in the matter of military statistics. That was the kind of statement made in that House, and read by civilians outside, which unless at once explained might lead to misapprehension. It was said that the number of men enlisted into the Army ought to be deducted. What was the truth as shown by the actual figures upon the Committee? The Militia establishment was given as 134,000 men, and the number of effectives, by the latest Return—that of the 1st of February—was rendered at 121,000. There, of course, was the difference of 14,000 men. He inferred from that that on the 1st of February 121,000 men were returned as the efficient or present strength of the Militia. There they had a difference of about 14,000 men, and that would fully account for any possible deduction on account of the men who were being recruited into the Army; therefore he said that according to the Returns there were present in February last, notwithstanding any possible transfers to the Army, 121,000 men, which was the strength of tile Militia. The next deduction which it was proposed should be made was that on account of absentees. He did not in the least, as au Englishman, think that in the event of danger or necessity of any kind that all these absentees would be absent. The men on leave would return at once, and he thought a great number of the absentees, who were away without leave, who simply did not turn up because there was no very great necessity for them to do so and so on, would certainly turn up if their country were in danger. He knew that technically they were termed deserters, but he did not believe they were deserters in the popular acceptation of the term. Their case was simply that of non-attendance, and there might be hundreds or thousands of men of that class out of this large number of Militia. There was the futher deduction which, it was said, ought to be made on account of recruits. Recruits were necessary in all Armies. The only thing was that many of the recruits were, perhaps, raw. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield, however, assured them that they were more or less trained, or soon became so. There was nothing very wonderful in a certain number of recruits being untrained or comparatively ineffective in the ranks of the Militia, but that did not diminish their actual combatants in the force as a whole. He contended there was nothing whatever to lessen for a moment the national trust in the Militia, not as a Regular Army at all, but as a fighting body forming a valuable adjunct to the Reserve of the National Forces.

said, that his hon. Friend had shown that the Militia was not at all in the bad state which might have been assumed from previous speeches. There were one or two points which he should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The first was with regard to the magazine rifle. So far as he understood the matter, there was an abundant supply of magazine rifles at the present moment, something like 400,000 having been manufactured altogether. There was, he believed, one regiment of the Line which had not got the magazine rifle and several battalions of the Militia. Why all had not got them he could not understand. It could not be a question of expense; the rifles were in stock, and surely the Militia ought to be armed as rapidly as possible with them. But perhaps it was no good to supply them with rifles until they had ranges. If that was not the explanation it was perfectly inconceivable why they should not take steps as rapidly as possible, having the rifles ready, to put them in the hands of the troops. If they had not the ranges he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what steps were being taken to procure them. This dead-lock could not go on much longer. It was no good arming the troops with rifles if they had not the ranges, and the money would be thrown away. Only one-third of the Militia had been supplied with magazine rifles because they had not got ranges. It was high time that the War Office should take some effectual steps to deal with the enormous evil of the want of rifle ranges for practically the whole of the Forces. As to the Militia, as far as he could make out from the figures, the ideal establishment for the Militia at home was 134,000 men, but only about 121,000 were actually enlisted, of whom only about 106,000 attended last year's drill. This difference between the nominal establishment, and the actual number of enrolled men he did not quite understand, because the Regular Force was recruited up to its full strength, and surely in times like these they ought to be able to get the full establishment of the Militia. Was it the policy of the War Office to let the numbers of the Militia remain below the nominal established strength? The Militia establishment was put at 134,000 men; they had not got that number, but only 121,000, and he should like to know what was the explanation of not having the remaining difference of 13,000 men? Surely some more vigorous steps should be taken to have the complete establishment. If it was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to keep up the complete strength of the Militia, why did he not take steps or at least make some suggestion to effect that purpose? There was no difficulty in getting recruits, so that that could not be the reason for the present state of things. He should like to know, at any rate, what was the policy of the Government with regard to the Militia strength.

replied that there was the difficulty of money. The enrolled members of the Militia had increased, but with all the claims upon them for other Services they could not spend more money on the Militia. As long as they got sufficient recruits for the Army and to maintaim the regiments in sufficient strength, he was not disposed to push recruiting by extraordinary means, which would involve a large additional expenditure. Last year, indeed, they found the recruiting for the Militia was so lively that they had to take steps to check it. He did not see why there should be any hesitation in stating that fact in the House of Commons. As to rifle ranges, he was glad to say that the difficulties connected with the range in County Dublin had been got over, and they intended to proceed to exercise the power they possessed to set up a rifle range in that district. Of course, they had similar difficulties all over the country, and if he were to take ranges at every point he should be obliged to come to the House of Commons for a very large sum of money. They had gone on as well as they could. Again in this case the difficulty was a financial one, and he did not think that in the present state of affairs it was desirable to take extravagant measures for the provision of rifle ranges. With regard to the issue of the Lee-Metford rifle he believed that many Militia regiments had requested that the new magazine arm should not be issued to them this year. Others retained the old rifle in consequence of the want of suitable ranges.

said, he could not consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as at all satisfactory, and he should be excused for saying that he thought the War Office had gone to sleep over this question of the issue of the magazine rifle. It was already two years beyond the time at which it was contemplated that the Lee-Metford rifle should be in the hands of the Militia, and it really was not a sufficient excuse for the Secretary for War to say that requests had been made to him from certain Militia battalions to postpone the issue. He was afraid he must challenge the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the want of suitable ranges for the new magazine rifle. He had presided over a Committee which sat some time ago to consider the question of rifle ranges, and that Committee had declined to be guided entirely by the War Office views on the subject. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would find in the Report of that Committee that they disagreed with the view of the War Office that the rifle ranges which had been used for the Martini-Henry rifle could not be utilised for the new magazine rifle, and that they had come to the conclusion that some of the existing ranges at least might be used. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he should take up this subject in a more active spirit. It seemed that only 49 out of the 161 battalions of Militia had been supplied with the new magazine rifle. Suppose the Militia regiments were mobilised for home defence in the case of an invasion, what a grave danger they would run by having some of the regiments supplied wish the old rifle and some with the new, both rifles requiring different ammunition, and having a different range. The matter was altogether too important and too serious to be put off with the answer that some of the Militia regiments desired to retain the old rifle because they wanted to avoid the trouble of learning the new rifle, for that really was what it amounted to.

said, this request of some of the Militia regiments was founded on the difficulty of obtaining safe rifle ranges for the magazine rifle. He believed that in one case where the magazine rifle was served out to a Militia regiment the men were drilled with that arm and had to shoot with the old weapon.

said, he had already stated that a Committee of experts, appointed by the House of Commons, had found that the case of the War Office with regard to the ranges for the new rifle was not made out, and that several of the ranges might be used for the new rifle. They had been discussing for the last hour whether they should count the Militia Reserve in the Line or in the Militia. Suppose they turned them into the Line; as they would not have been trained in the magazine rifle, they would not therefore be fit to join a regiment which had been trained with the new weapon. That might prove to be a grave danger. It certainly was a serious loss of power, for they should recollect that the number of Militiamen who go into the Line each year was as much as 10,000, and, as most of these men were trained with the old rifle, the Committee would understand what a waste of training there was going on because all the Militia regiments were not served with the new weapon. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take up the question of the ranges in a different spirit from that which he had shown; otherwise, the same excuse as had now been made would be reiterated year after year for not issuing the magazine rifle to the Militia. They had got the men and they had got the rifles, but they had not got the ranges in all cases, and he very much doubted whether they had got the ammunition. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to look a little more closely into the question of ammunition also. He had pressed this question on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman time after time since be had left Office two years ago. He believed the reserve of ammunition for the new rifle was not adequate to the demand that might be made upon it, and he would again urge on the right hon. Gentleman to give the subject his most earnest attention.

submitted that the discussion on the question of rifles and ammunition for the Militia would have been better taken when the Committee came to consider the Vote relating to Warlike Stores. It would be quite a mistake to suppose that the Government were at all apathetic in this matter of the provision of rifle ranges, or in seeing that there was a sufficient supply of Lee-Metford ammunition. With regard to ammunition, the hon. Member was well aware of the difficulty created owing to a lawsuit that was still in progress. But the Government had expedited the manufacture of powder both in their own factories and by inviting as many traders as possible from outside. He would again point out that the issue of the new rifle to the Militia regiments would surely be of no advantage to them when, though trained with the new rifle, they had to shoot with the old. The question of how best to acquire ranges for practice with the new rifle was receiving their most careful attention, but they could not take any violent steps in a matter that involved the expenditure of such enormous sums of public money. The Government had not lost sight of the question, and were giving every due attention to it with a view to finding out how most economically the money could be spent.

said, He could endorse, at any rate, one remark that had been made by the Secretary for War. For the last 20 years he had taken the deepest interest in the question of new ranges, and certainly during that time the Government could not have been accused by anyone of having shown a desire to take any violent steps to acquire new practice grounds for the men. There was no doubt whatever that the Militia were sufficiently trained to "march past" on review well enough, though not of course so well as the Guards, and, so far as he could judge, that was all that was expected from them by the Inspector General. No facilities were given them to learn shooting, and he had never heard anyone suggest that a Militiaman could shoot at all. He was on the Committee to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for Guildford; and when the Inspector General was examined before it he had tried to get from him his opinion as to how the Militia shoot. But if they were to put a pair of thumb-screws on the Inspector General they could not get a straight answer from him on the subject of the shooting of the Militia—and he told him so at the time—though the Inspector General was perfectly candid on every other question. Probably the inability of the Militia to shoot was to be accounted for from the fact that their rifles were constantly being changed. It was perfectly clear that, whenever the Militia had to take their share of active service, they would be found absolutely unfitted to go into action. Ranges were to be got, of course, for a reasonable figure in all parts of the country, if the Government only took the trouble to look about and find them. In his own County of Galway he often drives over 20, 30, and 40 miles of uninhabited country where the Government could easily and cheerfully get rifle ranges. They were also to be procured easily in England. There was Dartmoor, for instance—

It is not in Order to discuss the subject of rifle ranges in any detail on this Vote.

said, he thought the Chairman's ruling was extremely good, because shooting had nothing to do with the Militia, and the Militia had nothing to do with shooting. He believed that as to shooting the Militia knew nothing whatever about it; but perhaps when the Committee got to the Vote for Warlike Stores they would be able to discuss the subject more fully.

said, he could not agree with all the unfavourable remarks that had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend about the Militia. He believed they were a body of men alive and ready to do work when they were called upon to do it; and he regretted that the Secretary for War had so strongly given it as his view that no more money would be spent on the Militia under any circumstances.

I did not say so.