said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Captain Naylor-Leyland), he should like to continue the discussion his hon. Friend began last night on the question of the camp at Colchester. He wished to ask the Secretary for War for a pledge that the building of the Colchester Camp would he commenced either this year or next. This camp, which consisted of what were then regarded as temporary wooden structures, was formed at the time of the Crimean War, and had since been continually condemned by the Military and Naval Authorities. Last year a third of the huts were pulled down, but no rebuilding had been commenced; and he wished to know what the intentions of the Government were on the subject? He also desired to know what it was intended to do with the troops now quartered at Colchester if the remaining two-thirds of the huts were to be pulled down?

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the demolition of the huts at Colchester was being proceeded with. A little inconvenience was caused last year because the General Officer, with a very creditable desire to push things forward, had some of the huts pulled down while the regiment was away at the manœuvres. It was intended that the troops thus dispossessed should be temporarily accommodated at Gravesend; but sanitary defects were discovered at Gravesend which prevented the carrying out of that arrangement.

asked what remained of the money voted under the Barracks Act?

said, that was a question which could not be dealt with under this Vote.

said, he would then ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposed to spend at Aldershot during the ensuing year? The camp at Alder-shot had grown into a very large one, and there were now generally 15,000 men quartered there all the year round. When the Barracks Act was passed it was understood that a very considerable sum was to be spent on new buildings which were to replace the huts; but he supposed, now that the number of men had been increased, additional buildings would be put up there. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would take into consideration the rent of £100 a year now paid out of voluntary subscriptions to the soldiers' club-house adjoining the gymnasium at Aldershot. The clubhouse was used entirely by soldiers, and no subscription had to be paid by those who enjoyed its benefits. He thought, under the circumstances, it would be only reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should make a present to the club-house of the rent of £100.

said, he desired to know what authority there was for spending the sum of £3,100 which appeared on page 66 of the Estimates upon improved accommodation for the troops at Alexandria? Under the head of Gibraltar he found that the Committee was asked to vote £8,000 for improving communications, &c., but that this sum would not allow of the completion of the works, as £9,800 would still remain to be spent. The Government would remember the great anxiety that had recently been felt regarding the general improvement of this most important port, which was perhaps the second most important strategic point in the British Empire. He wished to know what was the nature of the work, and whether it would soon be finished? It seemed to him that if, as was probable, it was a work of great importance the sooner it was done the better. The same observation applied to a redoubt which was to be built at Hong Kong, and for which a sum of £600 was taken this year, leaving £1,000 to be spent in subsequent years. The same remark applied also to Singapore, where £500 was to be spent this year on certain works and £1,300 was to be left for future years. Then, again, there was an item of £20,000 for Ordnance Store Establishments at St. Lucia, but £13,000 was to be left unspent at the end of the current year. He would suggest that the speedy completion of works that were regarded as necessary at points which were of so much importance to the Empire was most desirable. Everything that related to the completion of that extensive arrangement was a matter of urgent public importance. Though, of course, the criticism on that (the Opposition) side of the House generally did relate to the non-spending of money rather than to the spending of it, in this case it seemed necessary to urge on Ministers the completion of these most important works, although it might involve a rather more rapid spending of money than was contemplated in the Estimates.

The hon. Baronet says the criticisms on his side of the House on these Estimates are directed to the non-spending rather than the spending of money, and he made some sort of apology for urging the rapid completion of these works. Let me tell him that I have been present here this week during the whole of the discussion of these Estimates, and let it be known that, with the exception of the lion. Member for Peterborough, no other Member of the Committee has complained that the Government does not spend enough, but all has made suggestions that, if carried out, would involve a heavy increase in the Estimates. Perhaps I ought also to except my hon. Friend on the other side of the Table (Mr. Brodrick). Of all persons in this House I should have thought the hon. Baronet would have been the last to make the observations he has just made. Does he think that we should be able, or that it would be wise of us to spend the whole of the sum put down for ordnance store establishments at St. Lucia in one year? Does the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, not know that we cannot undertake these new works till the Vote is passed?—and that is the reason why there is a certain degree of urgency attaching to this Vote which does not attach to the others. Before the Vote is passed we cannot take even the initial steps towards preparing the plans for any part of this expenditure. That is the reason that very often a comparatively small sum is put down to be spent in the year in which the Service first appears on the Vote. I should have thought the hon. Baronet would have commended us for that as a very proper administrative system. Instead of that, out of his exuberant patriotism—because his motive is patriotic in so far as it is to secure the defence of these distant stations, in which I quite agree with him—he calls on us to spend in this year the whole of the money the works will cost. That disposes of most of his criticisms, which were not directed so much to the Service as to the comparatively small sum to be spent this year. With regard to Egypt, he asks what authority we have for spending money there? We have none until this House votes the money for the Service. When the House has voted it we can spend it there as well as elsewhere. These are services we: cannot expect the Egyptian Government to undertake—at any rate, if we did expect it, we are pretty sure they would not do it. The item for Alexandria is in regard to huts which have been built to replace others condemned as unhealthy, and for providing accommodation elsewhere for married soldiers and others. As to the progress to be made on the works at Aldershot under the Barracks Act this year, I cannot say what it will be. There is a large amount of the money taken for those works unexpended.

The expenditure under the Barracks Act does not come under this Vote.

We provide for the interest and Sinking Fund under this Vote, but I cannot say how much will be spent this year. As to the rent of the club house at Aldershot, I have made inquiries, but have not yet received the required information.

said, the money had already been taken—save in the case of a redoubt at Hong Kong—for the works to which he had alluded.

said, he found that the hon. Baronet was right. In the cases referred to they were second year's expenditures. Most of them, however, were affected by the circumstances which applied in the case of first year's Votes.

said, he had not presumed to say what the amount of expenditure should be in a particular year. He had generally adverted—and still would advert—to the slow rate of progress as evinced by the Estimates now before the House. He had urged the Government to expedite and finish the works as soon as possible.

^* said, when works were proposed of an urgent character the Estimates containing them should be brought forward at an earlier period, or they should be put into a Supplementary Estimate so as not to be delayed by the failure on the part of the Government to deal with general financial business, and that a better system should be adopted by the War Office in con-junction, if necessary, with the Treasury, whereby it might be rendered possible to prepare plans of important works before the Estimates were moved. With regard to Gibraltar, no one could doubt the desirability of any works for putting it in a proper defensive position, in the interests of the Empire at large. In fact, it was a matter of such urgency that he should have thought the best plan in such a case would be not to wait for the ordinary Estimates, but to deal with it when the necessity seemed pressing by means of a Supplementary Estimate or in some other way. As to the necessity for ranges to meet the requirements of the new magazine rifle, he did not see that the Estimates contained any very large provision for that purpose. There were some items for the colonies and some for this country, but the total expenditure upon that object was not a very large amount, and probably before the Debate closed some further observations would be made upon that point. It was a matter of great necessity that the rifle ranges of this country should be put in a better condition; and he would urge upon the Secretary for War that it was a question not entirely of the existence of ranges, but also of making them as accessible as possible for all arms of the Service. In these days, when it was so difficult to acquire ranges, it seemed to him that existing or future ranges should be made available for all branches of the Service—that was to say, they should be open for practice to Volunteers as well as the Regular Forces. He was at a loss to know why the Volunteers should necessarily be left to provide ranges out of their own resources. If it were possible for them to do their shooting at a Government range within a sufficiently short distance from their headquarters they ought to be allowed to do so. As to making ranges accessible, he was glad to see that there was an item for constructing a railway to the camp at Strensall; but the principle which applied in the case of Strensall would apply to many other cases which could be suggested in different parts of the country. It seemed to be an extraordinary thing that in this country, where railways had obtained a development which they had in few other countries, so many of our military stations should still remain unconnected with the main lines of railway in their neighbourhood. Take the case of Fulwood Barracks. There everything taken to the barracks had to be carted 1½ miles through the town of Preston. Not only was there no railway, but the Government had not even taken measures to get a siding constructed, or any means of communication made with the railway at the nearest point at which it approached the barracks. If a siding were so constructed it would be possible to save more than a mile of carting. Beyond that, there was a question to which he had previously alluded in the House, and which, so far as that part of the country was concerned, was of great importance—namely, the question of the construction of a light railway to Chipping. He supposed that Chipping was intended to become a large military centre. There were facilities there for permitting extension of what were very satisfactory rifle ranges, and a comprehensive use of that site could only be effectually made by extending the nearest 1 ail way up to the camp and range. At present, however, the distance which had to be traversed between the end of the railway at Longridge and Chipping was a serious bar to the usefulness of the place as a military station and rifle range. When the Government did not care to incur the whole of the expense of constructing light railways for the purpose he advocated, it might be possible for them to assist persons who were desirous of promoting the construction of such railways. They could be made useful for military purposes by the Government contributing something towards the cost. He did not think the question of bringing about this communication by railway with military centres was one which should be left out of sight. The railways might be necessary in times of emergency. As an instance of the activity in some quarters for bringing about railway communication in cases of strategic value, they had the case of the communication which was made between the Underground Railway and the Central Police Office. If it was found necessary to have railway communication with an important police station surely it was equally necessary throughout the, country to have direct communication between the railways and our great military centres.

said, that no doubt the question of providing rifle ranges was one beset with difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman had urged that it was a matter of expense. That was a difficulty which would increase rather than diminish with the lapse of time. Sooner or later the War Office would have to face the question of providing the troops with ranges whereon they might be enabled to test the new rifle with which they had been recently armed, which he believed to be the best rifle in the world. The country had gone to great expense, and had spent a great deal of time and trouble in endeavouring to obtain the best military weapon of any Army, and he believed they had succeeded. He did not think any Continental country had a rifle as good as ours. Well, having done that, it did seem ridiculous that we should not provide the troops with a sufficient amount of space in which to practise with the weapon. There were 160 rifle ranges in the United Kingdom, and many of these, when the Martini-Henry rifle was introduced, were considered unsafe. The Committee which had considered the question of the rifle ranges a few years ago had reported that only 30 out of 160 would be considered as absolutely safe. But the Secretary of State had stated that of 160 ranges 48 were safe; and when it was remembered that there were over 100 regimental districts, and that the Volunteers and the Militia had to practise as well as the Army, the Committee would see how inadequate was the provision for practice with the new rifle. In some parts of the United Kingdom, the inconvenience felt in regard to this matter was very great. In Dublin, for instance, there were four battalions of Infantry quartered, and there were no rifle ranges for them. The consequence was, that the men had to be sent with the colours a considerable distance away, to go through a course of musketry practice. It was a question as to whether the range at the Curragh was as suitable as it should be for a new rifle, which had a range of from 500 to 700 yards longer than the Martini-Henry. Bullets from the new rifle travelled a much longer distance after a ricochet, and necessitated the adoption of a range much wider, as well as longer, than those in use for the Martini-Henry. There was no doubt that Continental countries were going ahead in the matter of rifle practice. They were far in advance of us, and when we came into conflict with them—as sooner or later we should, though he hoped that day was a very long way off—our troops would be placed at a great disadvantage. In this he was not only referring to practice by companies or singly, for he was not at all sure whether that was the most important part of the training of soldiers in musketery. On the Continent field firing was practised to a very considerable extent, and unless our troops had opportunities of firing in a body, as in actual warfare, they would beat a serious disadvantage if brought into contact with a foreign Army. The Committee of 1891 stated that there were only four bits of ground large enough for this exercise of field firing for an Army to practise on. The Committee recommended that at least five more pieces of ground should be bought. They mentioned the probable sum that would be required, and strongly recommended that those tracts of land should be at once procured. He knew there were difficulties in the way of finding bits of ground, but he thought that if the Committee which had been sitting, or a body of experts, were to travel round the country they would not have much difficulty in finding sites which would prove to be admirably fitted for the purpose. Laud was as cheap now as it probably ever would be, and the Government ought to take advantage of the opportunity to provide the necessary ranges. He believed a difficulty existed in the fact that, if the Secretary of State exercised his compulsory powers of acquisition, the price was fixed by a jury and was invariably very high—quite out of proportion to the value of the land. It had been recommended by the Committee that the various Acts which the right hon. Gentleman would have to put into operation in order to enable him to acquire land for ranges should be consolidated and simplified so that he might have powers at once wider and more simple. They heard a great deal in these days about the compulsory acquisition of land. People were very much divided in opinion about it, but he thought that if there ever was a time when such a power should be given it was now. The Minister responsible for the efficiency of the Army should have Power to acquire land, so that our soldiers might be trained in the one thing without which they were absolutely useless—namely, shooting. In view of the great importance of the question to the country, he was prepared to say that, even at the risk of inflicting hardship in some cases, the compensation should be determined not by a jury, but by arbitration, as was the case when the land was acquired by agreement. Although, as he had said, he believed we possessed the most perfect and magnificent magazine rifle in the world, it would not be in accordance with past experience if a new rifle escaped criticism. The hon. Member for Peterborough had criticised it, and no doubt, though it was better than any other, it had its faults. The faults were being rapidly overcome, however, and it was high time that, having this weapon, our soldiers should have ground upon which to let it off. He asked for some information as to the course which the Government intended to pursue.

said, that with reference to the question of rifle ranges, he noticed in the Estimates this year it was stated that the total estimate for the provision of ranges could not be arrived at, but at the same time a sum of £17,500 was put down as the amount to be appropriated for that purpose this year. He should like to know whether that money was to be spent on renovation or repairs of existing rifle ranges, or whether it was to be devoted to purchasing land for other ranges? On the occasion of the last Debate he mentioned one or two ranges on which some money had been spent, including Browndown at Gosport. It was a curious thing that Browndown was the only range for the South Western district, of which Portsmouth was the chief military centre, and where there were as large numbers of troops as, possibly, in any garrison town in England. He had heard that, notwithstanding the money spent on Browndown last year, it was not altogether in a satisfactory state for the use of the Lee-Metford rifle; and when the opportunity offered, which he hoped would be soon, that district ought to be provided with a larger and more convenient range. Among the other districts which were mentioned in the Return which the right hon. Gen- tleman had kindly furnished him with, he found that in the Thames district, also a very important military district, there were no ranges safe for the Lee-Metford rifle. He wished to ask whether any of this money was to be spent on the Thames district and on the Woolwich district? where, of course, there were large bodies of troops belonging to the Royal Artillery, and it was most important they should have some safe ranges in which to carry on their musketry practice. There were also many other districts which were very feebly supplied with ranges for the Lee-Metford rifle. There was one of these districts in which he had a special interest, and as to which he should be obliged to get information whether any of the money was to be spent upon, and that was the rifle range at Chichester. The Militia were called out annually for training there, and this year they were served with the Lee-Metford rifle; but as it was found the rifle range was not safe for its use, the Lee-Metford rifles were taken back and kept in store, and the training was carried out with the Martini-Henry rifle with which the Militia had been armed for some years. If money was to be spent on this range it should be spent as speedily as possible, so that the Militia, in future years, might have an opportunity of practising with the weapon with which they were armed. The Return furnished him by the War Office showed that there were 47 ranges, with which Ireland, and especially the South, seemed to be very fairly provided, there being 11 in the Cork district. It was hoped that some satisfactory arrangement would soon be arrived at with regard to the Dublin ranges by which the garrison at Dublin would be able to carry out its rifle practice. Scotland seemed to have a very considerable number of ranges when they recollected that in that country there were very few troops indeed, compared with what there were in England or Ireland. He was sure it would interest the Committee to know whether this money was to be spent on renovating the old ranges or for the purchase of new ones.

said, before they passed from this enormously important question of rifle ranges, he had one or two suggestions to make which he was surprised had not been made before, and which, he should have thought, would have been made by the Secretary for War himself. He was perfectly aware of all the difficulties which existed in the way of obtaining requisite land for the purpose of these ranges. It seemed to him that the mistake which had been made by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, as well, possibly, as by the right hon. Gentleman himself, was that they thought it necessary absolutely to acquire the fee-simple of all the lands—that was, to buy them up absolutely in order satisfactorily to establish these ranges. If they could buy the land outright, it would no doubt enable them to make more permanent provisions, and there would be many advantages in being able to do so. But they must cut their coat according to their cloth. If they found that the difficulties in the way of purchasing the ranges outright were almost insuperable, he wondered they had not devoted much more attention than they had hitherto done to the possibility of hiring ground for this purpose. Of course, in hiring they could not absolutely dictate their own terms, but by acting on the principle of give and take, and making the best of what was available, the Government would be able to materially increase their rifle accommodation—at all events, temporarily. They might, perhaps, have a range for a certain number of years in one place, and then, when there was a demand for the land, have to remove to another district. This no doubt would be inconvenient, but it would be immensely preferable to having nothing at all. The great and paramount necessity of this training had been urged. In probably the only war within the memory of any man in that House out of which we did not come with credit—namely, the War with the Boers in South Africa, one of the essential difficulties we had to contend with, and which enabled the Boers to inflict upon our soldiers the comparative disasters which they did, was due not to any superior courage or being better drilled, but to the extreme accuracy of the Boer rifle shooting, which they had attained by constant practice, and being thoroughly at home with the weapon they had to wield on the day of battle. Nothing should be more taken to heart by our Military Authorities than the lessons taught to us by that war. He believed when the right hon. Gentleman got up he would not be able to endorse what had been said as to being able to arrange satisfactorily for a rifle range in Dublin. He believed that the War Office authorities there were intimidated by the bogey of expense. This training was a matter of paramount importance, and the question of expense ought not always to stand in the way. He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Westmoreland as to giving compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for rifle ranges. He looked with considerable misgiving on such compulsory powers, and he should have to be convinced that every other method had been resorted to before he should consent to this arbitrary, and by no means proper, but unjustifiable method of acquiring land by compulsion. If it was worth while to spend all this money on these rifles it was worth while to go to almost any additional expense to enable our soldiers to make themselves efficient, otherwise what had already been done would be practically useless. He knew the Secretary for War would be anxious to support them, and their object was to create as much public feeling as possible so that the right hon. Gentleman or his successors could put an end to what was nothing short of a public scandal.

said, that whilst he was very conscious of the increasing difficulties in the way of obtaining rifle ranges, he thought those difficulties would not be diminished, but would rather increase as the years passed on. Undoubtedly it was of the first importance that their soldiers should be good marksmen. At present they took the sword and rifle, and neither taught the swordsman swordsmanship nor the man who had to fire the rifle marksmanship. With the large range of the rifles they required more ground for the purpose of practising musketry, and they would require far more than even the War Office were disposed to admit. What they gave as the danger line beyond which they guaranteed no bullet should pass was not the danger line. The bullets ricocheted and went further than the War Office supposed. There was a regiment which went for rifle firing to Aldershot, and they shot a farmer who was outside the range. The next year the same regiment came back, fired over the same range, and shot the farmer's son who was also outside the same range. [ A laugh .] The hon. and gallant Gentleman laughed, but he did not think the farmer or his son laughed. He only mentioned this to show that the danger line was not far enough off. He had been a witness to the gallant and despairing attempt of the War Office to get a range in Wiltshire, where, owing to the many difficulties in the way, he thought it would be impossible to establish a range. He thought it would be found practically impossible to establish any further ranges in this country for the new rifle. The country was greatly populated; the people did not like to have rifle bullets flying round and not to feel safe within four miles from the man firing the rifle; and he considered the difficulties in the way of getting ranges would increase. He was convinced that it would be found to be absolutely impossible to get rifle ranges for each district within the district itself. In the end they would have to get some large extent of barren and uninhabited land in Scotland or Clare, or some of the Irish mountains, or perhaps in Essex, which would be sufficient to enable them not only to establish ranges for the ordinary purpose of firing, but also for field firing, and there they would have to send the men from all districts from time to time. This was a matter of the most intense importance. Unless they taught the men to use a rifle so as to be able to hit a mark they might as well have no rifle at all. He should like to hear what was going to be done in regard to the provision of rifle ranges. The hon. and gallant Gentleman near him had said that only £17,500 was to be spent on ranges; but he thought this must be a mistake, because, under the head of Barracks and Rifle Ranges, he found the item of £72,000. It was true that under the head of Barracks and Rifle Ranges he found a good deal was to be spent on drainage at the Canterbury Barracks. He had risen chiefly to suggest and impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the moment had arrived to reconsider the question of the rifle ranges from this point of view; to reconsider whether they could reasonably entertain the prospect of providing rifle ranges under the new conditions of largely-increased dimensions in each district for the troops of that district. If the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to abandon that idea—as he believed would be the case—he would ask him whether he would not consider the other suggestion of getting a general rifle range, or perhaps two, of a large extent, sufficiently large not merely to enable firing to be done at a target, but ordinary field firing, and to face the necessity of having only one or two ranges and sending the troops there in turn to do their firing.

I have really very little to say on this subject; in fact, nothing beyond what I have said already. I think this is the third Debate on the subject of ranges we have had within the last few weeks, therefore I cannot expect to occupy the time of the House in repeating anything I have said before. That I am quite aware of the great importance of the subject and of all that has been said on the necessity of training our troops in the use of the rifle I think might almost be taken as granted. At the same time, I have been interested in much that has been said, and the only complaint I have to make is that, so far from receiving any assistance towards coming to a conclusion in the matter, I have had such a difference of opinion expressed that any initial confusion of mine has become more confounded. I was assured on one of the former occasions when there was a long discussion that the War Office were altogether absurdly timid as to the amount of ranges required, and that a Committee of the House would very much better determine the matter; that the new rifle did not carry anything like so far as had been asserted, and that there was no danger to anything like the extent that was imagined. Now I have the hon. Member for Lynn Regis talking in exactly the other direction, and implying that no one within a county would be safe if a rifle range was established. Then there was another hon. and gallant Gentleman urging us to proceed by way of taking laud compulsorily, who went with great detail and at considerable length into the manner in which to apply this system of compulsory purchase; whilst another hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me he altogether disapproves of compulsory purchase, and think sthat all such purchases should be brought about by voluntary powers. Let us hope that the War Office among all these different counsels, from military advisers especially, who are very naturally interested in the subject, will go on as they have done, in a common-sense way, taking advantage of every opportunity offered us to use and push on in this matter quietly and as well as we can. The idea they had in their mind was that there should be in each military district at least one—and in some districts more than one—range at which all the troops in that district could be trained. Of course, I am talking of the Regular troops, but it would be the same way with the Militia. That does not meet the question of the Volunteer Force, who have difficulties of their own in the same direction. As I have said, I quite admit the enormous importance of the question, but I also admit that at the present moment I am not prepared to lay down any particular way out of the difficulty. We will go on as we have been doing in the meantime, spending money as we find it possible to do so. The range which the hon. Member opposite referred to, near Salisbury, has been abandoned. The matter was considered with great care. First of all, it was intended to have a range in the New Forest, and then one in the neighbourhood of Salisbury; but it has been found that the Browndown Range at Portsmouth by a little alteration could be made suitable for the purpose for which the others were intended. I believe that the money which is taken this year will be spent in completing the ranges at Aldershot, Landore, the Curragh, and Browndown. Kilbride comes next, and if this cannot be got, that is if the money necessary cannot be spent there, Gravesend and Sheerness will follow, and abroad, Jamaica and the Mauritius. That, I think, is all that I need say on that subject, having said so much already. My hon. Friend will observe that Chichester is not in those I have mentioned. One of my hon. and gallant Friends spoke about the bogey of expense. Well, no person in my position can disregard the bogey of expense, and if we were to go on spending money on anything that was required, without any regard at all to the expenditure, I do not know what the House of Commons would think of the expenditure of the War Office. I fully admit, and I assert, and declare, that my military advisers as well as myself are fully alive to the enormous importance of this question, and as soon as we see that any definite action can be taken in any individual case we shall be ready to take it. There are certain places in the country which I will not mention—because that might have a most evil effect—on which we have our eyes where ranges might be established, and when the moment comes to strike I hope we shall not be found unwilling to do so.

^* could not say that he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a very encouraging one to those who desired to see adequate provision made for suitable rifle ranges, and unless some heroic measures were taken matters would continue to remain in the same condition, and they would have this same Debate year after year. Obviously the whole matter hung on the question whether Parliament could fairly be asked for more money, and he was surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his experience in the War Office—which was greater than that of any other man in the House, he having been twice Financial Secretary and twice Secretary of State for War—could imagine that the House of Commons would press him for any reduction in expenditure. He did not remember ever being asked to reduce a single item in connection with such matters, and on the contrary he should like the right hon. Gentleman to recollect what occurred with regard to barracks. They had the greatest difficulty in regard to barracks. Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee which inquired into the subject with a view to economy took evidence with regard to barracks for only one single morning, and on the strength of that morning's work they decided on a Report encouraging the country to spend £4,100,000 on barracks. That decision was taken after evidence had been given by one officer alone, and having that example before him he really hoped that the right hon. Geentleman, when he came to look into the whole question next year, would come to the conclusion that it was a matter on which he might fairly ask to have a loan. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had at all attempted to take land for rifle ranges under the powers given by the Rifle Ranges Act? It was said During the discussion that evening that juries would award very high prices, for land taken compulsorily under that Act. That was so, indeed. He knew of one case in Scotland in which the jury added 50 per cent. to the value of the land because the land was taken compulsorily for a rifle range. The experience of the War Office in Ireland was even more unpromising than in Scotland. Land in Ireland which was quite unsaleable for any other purpose enormously went up in value when it was intended for ranges, and tenants who had a tenant-right in the land endeavoured to charge more than the fee-simple was worth. But he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had used the powers of the Act, which enabled him to take land by arbitration, and, if so, with what result? He would venture to suggest, in conclusion, that the War Budget had some claim on the enormous surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected from the new Death Duties; and if from that source the War Minister was able to do anything for the rifle ranges he would meet with cordial support from the Opposition side of the House.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had complained that there was not a single suggestion made in the course of the discussions that had not a tendency towards increasing expenditure. But he should like, very respectfully, to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which he believed would have a tendency to reduce expenditure, gradually and permanently. At present the War Office employed the officers of the Royal Engineers as architects for new War Office buildings. No one doubted that the Royal Engineers as a military body was one of the finest corps in Europe; but whether they were the most competent of the economical architects to carry on the barrack work of the United Kingdom was a totally different question. Architecture, like every other art, was a very jealous mistress, and unless a man gave her the full devotion of his life he was not likely to make a first-rate architect. The Royal Engineers should be confined to their own proper sphere, and that was the erection of forts. Economy in architecture was the very first problem that exercised the mind of the architect; but very little or nothing was known as to the principles on which the officers of the Royal Engineers calculated their estimates for buildings. His suggestion was that the work of building barracks should be handed over to the staff of trained architects in the Board of Works. [ A laugh .] The right hon. Gentleman laughed at that, but surely it was a suggestion that was worth consideration. If the architects of the Board of Works carried on the building operations of the War Office they would get better contracts all over the country than could possibly be got through the medium of the commanding officer of the Royal Engineers, who was appointed for five years, he thought, and therefore could not have the same experience of the prices that normally obtain in the various country towns, as would be at the command of the trained officers of the Board of Works. He supposed he would be answered that an architectural training formed part of the curriculum of the schools in which the Royal Engineers were educated. That was true; but he doubted that the knowledge obtained in that way was such as would fit a Royal Engineer to compete with a trained architect, any more than a trained architect could compete with a Royal Engineer in the construction of forts. When they asked a Royal Engineer to become an architect they asked him to do something that was outside his profession; they took him away from duties which more obviously fell upon him, and duties therefore which must to a certain extent suffer by diverting his energies and talents into courses that were perhaps a little foreign to them. If they were to insist on their barracks being built by trained architects they would build them cheaper and better; the sanitary accommodation would be more perfect, and, moreover, they would leave the officers of the Royal Engineers altogether to their proper military functions.

said, he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the condition of the barracks at Plymouth, Devonport, and other places in which troops were quartered on returning from India and other hot climes, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that while those barracks were damp they were not cold.

I said it was a damp clime to send them to.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had further stated that the discretion as to where the troops were to be quartered was in the general officer commanding the district, and therefore the War Office had no responsibility in the matter; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might use his influence in the right direction by recommending that troops returning from hot climes should not be sent to damp barracks. With regard to Wellington Barracks, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to have told him last night that the married men's quarters which had been destroyed by fire had been rebuilt, and that the other married men's quarters had been furnished with proper exits in case of fire. He had that morning visited the barracks—every corner of which he knew, having been stationed there dozens of times, and months at a time—and he was surprised to find that the place which had been burned down was still a vacant space, and that the exits and entrances of the existing married men's quarters were exactly the same as they were a few years ago. The bad drainage nuisance, to which he had also called attention, was very much worse now than it had been when he resided in the barracks. In fact, the barracks was a breeding place of disease. An insanitary state of things existed there that would not be tolerated in any union or prison, and he could not see why our soldiers should be housed worse than paupers and convicts. The right hon. Gentleman told him last night that the sum required for the drainage of the barracks was included in this year's Estimates. The battalions quartered in the Wellington Barracks would soon be leaving for the Autumn Manœuvres for five weeks, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to have steps taken to have this disagreeable and dangerous nuisance removed during that period. He would also like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be a sum included in next year's Estimates for rebuilding the married men's quarters which had been burned down, and to provide proper exits and entrances to the existing married men's quarters. If he did not get those satisfactory assurances he would have to move a reduction in the Vote and to go to a Division.

said, he understood it was never intended to rebuild the married men's quarters which had been burned down at Wellington Barracks; but, taking a lesson from the fire, the remaining married men's quarters were so altered as to secure proper exits in the case of fire. A scheme for the reconstruction of the entire barracks was under consideration; but, pending that scheme, small improvements would be attended to, and the nuisance complained of was iucluded in the Estimates and was being dealt with, a tender for the fittings having just been accepted. He was told there had been no complaint of the general drainage of the barracks. He was bound to say, generally, that when such complaints were made there was always a suspicion as to the way the barracks were kept. Undoubtedly, in many cases, the evil odours complained of were due to the regiment in the barracks neglecting to properly flush the drains, and to keep things in proper order, though he was sure that so far as the Wellington Barracks was concerned all those things were properly looked after. But if any evils of the kind existed the person responsible was the general officer commanding in the district. It was the duty of the medical officers to report those evils to the general officer commanding in the district; and there was a Standing Order, so to speak, of the Secretary of State in the War Office, that a question of money should never stand in the way of any sanitary repairs or alterations which were urgently required; and if proper representations were made, as they ought to be, to the general officer commanding in the district, it was the fault of the general officer that the evils existed; for if he forwarded the representations to the War Office, they would have been at once attended to. It was very easy to say that our barracks were such that the soldiers could not live in them, but it was all the greatest nonsense. The greater number of barracks showed better with regard to health than any other buildings in which men were Congregated together. With one or two flagrant exceptions, which were being dealt with, the greater part of the barracks were in a perfectly good and satisfactory condition, if they were to judge by the medical reports. In the case of the Wellington barracks, there had been no complaints of the general drainage, except that in the married officers' quarters the wife of an officer had died from puerperal fever. The sanitary arrangements of the barracks were then examined by Mr. Tyndal, the sanitary engineer of the War Department—a most competent officer—and while a few minor defects were found, nothing of a serious nature was discovered. That showed what pains were taken by the War Department in those matters. Again, a lamentable account was given last night of the drainage of that fine building, the General Officers' Home at Portsmouth. A general examination of the drainage of the house was made in 1890 by Mr. Tyndal, and he reported to the War Office. But not content with that, his predecessor in the office of Secretary of State invited Sir Frederick Bramwell to examine the house, and the result was that Sir Frederick Bramwell agreed, item by item, with every one of Mr. Tyndal's recommendations. The hon. Member for Warwickshire proposed that the whole business of building and repairing barracks should be taken out of the hands of the Royal Engineers. Everyone might not agree with the particular kind of architecture favoured by the Royal Engineers, but anyone who went to Aldershot and examined the new buildings put up there would see that externally and internally they reflected the very highest credit on the Department of the Royal Engineers. He believed that the Royal Engineers were admirably qualified to erect barracks. They had high civilian assistance; they were often men of very great experience, and the interests of the barracks were in every respect well looked after by them. The hon. Member suggested that the barracks should be handed over to the Office of Works. He did not wish to say anything, as between one Government Department and another, of an unfavourable character, but he doubted that the Royal Engineers could produce so absolute a failure for all the purposes for which it was intended than that block of buildings in which the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Colonial Office were included.

I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. That building was not built by the men to whom I alluded. It was built by the late Sir Robert Scott, and not by the Office of Works.

Probably the Office of Works had some controlling voice in the matter. The plans had to pass the Office of Works.

The plans were settled by a committee of taste.

said, "taste" very much depended on the idiosyncrasy of the individual. But he would come further down. There was the new Admiralty buildings. He was not finding fault with the Office of Works. No doubt they did their best with the circumstances they had to deal with. But were the Office of Works such models of excellency that they should turn up their noses at the barracks built by the Royal Engineers? It was notorious that the great block of buildings which included the Foreign Office and the Home Office was so badly constructed with regard to sanitary accommodation that the drains would not work, and a big sum, £20,000 or £26,000, had to be spent on them to put them into a proper condition. That experience did not show that the Office of Works would preserve them from some of the evils into which they occasionally fell under the directions of the Royal Engineers. The Department of the Royal Engineers was successfully managed. Fault might be found with their form of architecture as a matter of taste, but as to the substantial qualities of the buildings and the suitability of the buildings for the purposes for which they were intended, their work was exceedingly well done. His hon. Friend the Member for Guildford had asked him whether they had placed the provisions of the Rifle Ranges Act into operation. They had not. One of the difficulties found with the Act was that though the War Office might purchase property they could not interfere with rights of way.

said, he understood that the sanitary arrange- ments of the buildings which the right hon. Gentleman had so seriously and severely criticised were constructed entirely under the directions of an officer of the Royal Engineers who was at the time attached to the Office of Works.

said, the nuisance in the Wellington Barracks bad been reported last September, 10 months ago, and the Report was followed by a long correspondence which occupied three months, between the officer commanding in the district—whom the right hon. Gentleman said was the responsible person in the matter—and the Commander-in-Chief, but nothing had yet been done. Meanwhile the soldier bad to live in the place, which he admitted was very comfortable if it was not for the bad drainage, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, without any further delay, take the question of the drainage seriously in hand.

said, the number of complaints which were made of the defective sanitary arrangements of barracks showed how essential it was to have some person in authority responsible for the barracks. He did not know what the Royal Engineers might be as architects as compared with civilians, but the fault of the system, in his opinion, was that the Royal Engineers were not responsible, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, for the barracks. The whole of the duties in connection with the building and repair of barracks were duplicated. The Royal Engineer and the District Surveyor worked side by side, and it was utterly impossible to say which was the architect and which the surveyor. Then when they had made out the plans, they were submitted to the officer commanding in the district, and to the commanding officer of the Royal Engineers, both of whom reported to the War Office on the subject. He would like to know which of all those men were responsible for the building?

The general officer commanding in the district.

said, it, therefore, appeared that the man who was responsible for the building was a military man who knew nothing, architecturally, about it. No wonder the barracks were so bad! He should also like to know what training bad the Royal Engineers for architectural work of this kind? So far as he understood, there was a commander in each district, but how could these commanders be expected to know anything about architecture when they had no training? The training an officer got was whilst he was a lieutenant, during the six months that he remained at Chatham. A man might be sent out to India, and if he did not stop out there altogether the training was of very little use to him, for during the seven or eight years he was in the Service before he was appointed to a district he only received six months' training in architecture. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a good ease, that, looking at the fact that the organisation was bad, these men had not the proper training for the work they were called upon to perform. The right hon. Gentleman rather questioned that; but did they not, year after year, have complaints about the sanitary condition of these barracks? It would not, perhaps, matter so much if the War Office could be treated as private individuals, because things went on at these barracks that could be indicted if the property belonged to private individuals. A great deal was allowed to go on that was much worse than would be imagined. There was not sufficient accommodation, and some of the night arrangements were of the most filthy description, and if they occurred in private houses would form the subject of a prosecution; therefore, his hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly justified in bringing this matter forward. Taking the married quarters, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell him that in any cottage belonging to a private individual that married people With a family of three or four children would be allowed to huddle into one room, as was the case in many of their old barracks? He would like to get a return of the number of barracks where any provision was made in married quarters better than one room for a married couple and three or four children. This was a thing which the War Office ought not to allow to go on. There was one question he wished to ask as to this Vote. When the Vote was under discussion some time ago great blame was attached to him by the right hon. Gentleman because he declined to allow the Vote to be taken after about five minutes' discussion, though it was stated that it was absolutely neces- sary to get the Vote that day. Very strong language was used; but of that he did not complain, because it was done by everyone in charge of the Vote, but the right hon. Gentleman had shown there was no absolute necessity for passing the Vote at that time by delaying to bring it forward again for four or five weeks. A very strong appeal was made to him to let the Vote go, as it was said it was of very great importance that the Vote should be got, even in the last five minutes, on account of the commencement of new works. What he wanted to know was, how this Vote differed from other Votes as to make it more necessary to get this Vote than any other? Was it the fact that the money that had been voted on other Votes could not be transferred with the sanction of the Treasury for the works to be constructed under this Vote, and was it the fact that under other Votes articles of warlike stores and things of that kind could be bought without receiving Parliamentary sanction, but that it was utterly impossible to commence any new buildings until this Vote had passed? For the benefit of the Committee and the information of the House he thought they ought to know that. From what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day it would appear it was urgent to get this Vote on the ground that these buildings could not be begun until they received the sanction of Parliament; if so, the right hon. Gentleman was justified in pressing him to some extent; but if that was not the fact he failed to see the justification. He wanted now to ask a question about the barracks at Full wood, near Preston. In anything he said he was not going to press the right hon. Gentleman to keep troops in Fullwood barracks for any local reason, but at the present moment there was a good deal of accommodation for cavalry, provision being made for 380 men and 158 horses, and a new riding school was built some six years ago at a cost of £3,500. If it was not to the public advantage to send cavalry to Preston he did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to send them, but a large amount of money had been spent upon these barracks, and he wished to know if that was to be thrown away. He strongly objected to troops being put into large towns for mere police purposes, a thing they ought all to protest against; and if these barracks were not in the open country he would not have brought the matter forward; but he said that there was a large amount of accommodation at Fullwood barracks, and if the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to withdraw the cavalry he should like to know his reason for so doing.

said, he had not with him the material that would enable him to answer this question, but he would inquire into it. He quite sympathised with the hon. Member, and no doubt it would be satisfactory to his constituents to have a cavalry barracks there. In his own constituency he was always being asked to send a battalion to Stirling Castle; therefore, he quite sympathised with the hon. Gentleman.

said, he most distinctly said that if it was not for the public advantage then do not send them.

said, he, of course, understood that; but the hon. Member alluded to a larger question, that of getting the Vote. The matter was quite plain, but he was in this position: as if he were a humble scholar being interrogated by his schoolmaster, because the hon. Member was on the Public Accounts Committee and knew the rules better than he (Mr. Campbell-Bannermau) did, who had to obey the hon. Member. On this Works Vote no new works could be undertaken until it had passed the House of Commons. In the case of any other Vote, as the hon. Member had said, they could spend money on them and transfer the money, as it were, from one to the other; on this Vote they could spend money on any service which was already in progress, but they could not undertake to spend anything on a new work until the House of Commons had voted the money. He believed this provision could be dispensed with in some instances, if cases of great urgency could be shown the Treasury in some instances overruled the restriction. Sometimes when this Vote was put off the whole of the best part of the building year had gone. The other day he did not say there was an urgent necessity to pass it, but that it was urgent that they should get it as early as they could in order that they might have the advantage of fine weather.

^* said, he was in favour of economy, but he was also in favour of providing proper accommodation for soldiers, and therefore he wished to ask one or two questions with regard to certain parts of the United Kingdom. For instance, he wished to know whether the War Office had made any provision for rebuilding the barracks at Londonderry? Some time ago he understood they were about to proceed with the work, which he believed had been in hand or had been considered for a great number of years. From his own knowledge, having seen the barracks last year, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they really wanted rebuilding. He was sorry that the Local Representative was not present to-day to support him in his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for proceeding with these barracks as speedily as possible. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not delay the matter much further. Then he wanted to know something with regard to Stirling Castle and some other Scotch castles. Stirling Castle was in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman, but he was not satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman had done, or was able to do, all that was necessary to prevent this old historical castle from going to ruin. So far as he could understand, the only amount down in the Vote out of which the work could be done was the sum of £1,000 for ordnance store buildings, including purchase of land; he was not aware whether there was any other sum included in the lump sum of the Vote that could be used for the purpose of restoring this castle; still, he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended to do anything more for the purpose of restoring this castle so far as he could, and putting it in such a condition as would prevent it decaying and being destroyed altogether in some short time? When he (Mr. Morton) was there last year there were some parts that wanted repairing very badly indeed. He should be glad to know that the War Office had some general power of doing what was right and proper for the preservation of an historical castle of this nature. Then there were three other castles in Scotland he should like to say something about. He saw that Edinburgh was mentioned in the Vote, and that £1,500 was taken with regard to it. He was aware that part of this castle was not under the control of the right hon. Gentleman at all, and he was sorry that he had been unable to get the Board of Works to do their duty with regard to that part of the building under their control. He had noticed there were sums of money to be spent, but so far as he could judge from personal inspection the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to spend enough to put it in a satisfactory state, either for its preservation or for the comfort and necessities of the troops quartered there, consequently he should be glad to get some further information from him. Another historical castle was Blackness Castle. This old castle itself was used as a powder magazine, or a magazine for old stores or something of that sort, and had been allowed to go out of use altogether except for the purpose he had mentioned. There was another historical castle to which attention had been called, and that was Dumbarton Castle, but he did not see that mentioned, though it might be included in the lump sum, which for works under £1,000 was taken. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to do the necessary work to prevent Dumbarton Castle from going to ruin entirely? He had mentioned these four castles in Scotland because they were supposed to be the keys to the Kingdom of Scotland, and it was provided, or intended to be so provided, in the Treaty with England that these castles, together with the two Royal Palaces, which he (Mr. Morton) had referred to on other Votes, should be kept up at the expense of the United Kingdom. He was aware they had generally been grossly neglected by all Governments; but now that they had a War Minister who was a Scotchman and a Scottish Representative, and that most of the other Members of the Government, if not all Scotchmen, represented Scottish constituencies, one would have thought that these buildings would have at last an opportunity of being taken care of. He did not desire to detain the Committee now, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give him a satisfactory explanation as to what he intended to do.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information as to what was to be done with regard to the Bradford Barracks before this Vote was taken.

^* said, they were all aware that the Bradford Barracks did call for improvement, and they hoped to include the work in the Estimates of next year.

asked, why not this year? He had called attention to this matter for some considerable time, and his predecessor had done the same. These barracks were a disgrace to the place.

^* said, they could not satisfy all requirements at once. They had demolished a portion of the barracks, and they meant to effect necessary works the money for which would be included in next year's Estimates.

^* said, that on the item of telegraphic and telephonic communication he wished to point out that there were many military ports and stations that were not provided with this communication, owing to the Post Office, before making such communications, requiring guarantees of a certain amount of revenue. But there were considerations that went beyond that, and he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman in the case of Paull, near Hull, for having acceded to the request made to him and over-ridden the Post Office Regulation, and he thought there were a number of other cases where it should be done also. Then with regard to the item for submarine mining. This work had been extremely well done, and the general impression was that it conduced to the efficiency of coast defence; but modern quick-firing guns were not always in position to cover the mine-field, though without this submarine mining was useless

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that we have passed that Vote.

Then I cannot pursue the subject?

No.

^* wished to join his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Caine) in the regret that the soldiers of Bradford should have to wait for another year before they could get the accommodation that was necessary for them; for no town in the Kingdom probably were the working classes better housed than in Bradford, and he thought it was a very great pity that only those in the service of the Queen should be provided with such inadequate accommodation. However, he noticed with satisfaction the definite promise that a sum of money would be included in the next year's Estimates to carry out the work.

asked, if he could not put himself in Order by moving to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to draw attention to the question of submarine mining?

The hon. Gentleman cannot do that; he cannot go back upon another Vote.

said, he wished to say a word about Stirling and to call attention to the fact that it was the old Parliament House of Scotland.

One of them.

said, he claimed it to be not only one of them, but the old Parliament House of Scotland. At the present time, the room that was formerly used for the Parliament of Scotland was used as a dormitory for the soldiers. Considering this was an old and historical building, he thought they should build dormitories outside, and keep this room either for public meetings or for the future Scottish Parliament.

said, he wished to raise a question relative to the recreation grounds in London, which was a matter in which he thought the sympathies, of the right hon. Gentleman would be enlisted.

Order, order! I cannot find anything in the Vote that would cover this.

said, that with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) respecting Londonderry Barracks, it was true that that had hung fire somewhat, but if was not from any fault of theirs. The plans were nearly completed, but the works could not be proceeded with until the necessary land was obtained, and it was this that had caused the delay.

asked if the War Office could not take the land under the powers they now possessed?

replied that they could not take it all at once; they were getting it compulsorily. With regard to Stirling Castle, or any such building, the position he took up was this. It had two characters; it was an ancient historical building, and, on the other hand, it was a barracks. He was willing to spend any money upon it that was requisite as a barrack, but, considering all the other claims upon him, he could not take the money entrusted to him for the health and maintenance of the Army, and give it to an outside matter, which was an aesthetic and historical consideration. He should like to see the old Castle put in a better condition, but it could not be done with Army money; the Army requirements must be satisfied, and, therefore, it must be from some other source this money must be provided. He had, however, given instructions that every possible care should be taken of the building by the troops, and that in case of any repairs becoming necessary the work should be intrusted to thoroughly competent men with some artistic skill and appreciation of the character of the building, and not to an ordinary mason. The money taken in this Vote was for the completion of the stores for ammunition. With regard to Edinburgh, the money was taken for the building of a new hospital, and the plans of the much-maligned Royal Engineers were submitted to the City authorities and approved by them and the Lord Provost. As to Blackness, the pier was practically destroyed in a storm last November; and as to Dumbarton, he had gone carefully into that question. It could hardly be called a military position at all, though nominally under his charge. So far as his information went, having had the building inspected, it was not subjected to deterioration; but again he must protest that he could not find money out of his Votes to spend on mere æsthetic, sentimental, or historical grounds. Dumbarton Castle was of no use to the Army; and if his hon. Friend, or any number of the hon. Member's friends, would join in taking charge of Dumbarton Castle, restoring the building and putting it into a better condition than it was in now, he should be very glad to see it, but he was unable to spend Army money upon it. With regard to telegraphic communication, he could assure the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) they would make all the provision that was possible.

said that, with regard to Stirling, the right hon. Gentleman told them he could not use money voted for the barracks in order to repair the historical rooms in the Castle; but why had those historical rooms, including a consecrated chapel, been converted into dormitories and places of that sort? He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that; it was the act of one of his predecessors.

said, the hon. Member must not expect him to know what were the motives of his predecessors of 100 years ago.

But surely the right hon. Gentleman can put right what they did if he considered they were in the wrong.

asked as to certain repairs to Pigeon House Fort, Dublin. He assumed the cost of those repairs would be defrayed out of this Vote.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this matter was brought forward last night, and was ruled to be out of Order on this Vote. I then stated that the proper Vote for discussing it was the Vote for the Army Sanitary Committee, on whose advice I acted in the matter. It might also be brought forward on Vote 14.

But the work was done on the advice and evidence of persons whose charges are defrayed under Item A of this Vote—namely, the Royal Engineer Officers.

My advisers in this matter were the Inspector General of Fortifications and his officers.

If the cost of the repairs are not provided for under this Vote, in what Vote do they appear? I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the Secretary for War that the discussion on this matter should be deferred until we reach a later Vote, but I only wish now to point out that I had good grounds for raising the point on this Vote.

Vote agreed to.

2. £114,500, Establishments for Military Education.

asked what action the War Office proposed to take on the Report of the Committee on the subject of Army Examinations? That Committee reported, he believed, in a manner not acceptable to the general public or to the opinion of the House; at any rate, in so far as it suggested that Latin should be made an optional subject in the examination of candidates for the Army. Latin was compulsory at the present time, and he thought it was necessary it should be so in order to induce boys from our great public schools to come up for these examinations. Latin, it should be remembered, was an important branch of the education at the public schools. He believed it was generally recognised that the best officers in the Army came from our public schools. They knew what was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington of the boys educated at Eton, and he hoped the War Office would do all it possibly could to encourage those public school boys. He also called attention to the dissenting Report of the three Commissioners (Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. Gipps, and the Member for Chelsea), who said that they saw no advantage in the proposal to remove Latin. Next, the Committee suggested that the medical examination of candidates should be carried on by Boards of Medical Officers specially selected for the purpose. It would certainly be more satisfactory to the candidates and to the general public if a Board of Medical Officers were appointed before whom the candidates could go. As they well knew, crammers told the candidates what was necessary to be known when going before the examiners at either Woolwich or Sandhurst; but other subjects—a knowledge of which was equally desirable in the interests of the Army—were left untouched, and he, therefore, hoped the authorities would give weight to this recommendation of the Committee, because he thought it would be more satisfactory to the general public to have a Board of Examiners. He would like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to have the medical examination first, so as to let the candidate know at once whether or not he was fitted for the Army, as if a candidate knew beforehand he had got a medical certificate, he would go into the examination with all the more heartiness. In conclusion, he again appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to continue Latin as a compulsory subject.

said, he was in this position: that he could not with propriety express any opinion on the Report. The moment he received it he referred it for observations to the Civil Service Commissioners who conducted the examinations, and one of whom (Lord Francis Hervey) was a member of the Committee. He had not yet received those observations, and, therefore, he was unable to pronounce any opinion on the topics dealt with in the Report. The main and governing objection to putting the medical examination before the literary examination was this: that the examination would not be applied only to the successful candidates, but to the whole body who might come up for examination. This would involve the examination, perhaps, of 600 or 700 candidates instead of 60 or 70; and this would involve a tremendous amount of work.

It would prevent physically unfit candidates coming up for examination.

said, it would be almost impossible to have the examination beforehand. He was in favour of making it as formal as possible, and, therefore, there was one recommendation of the Committee which he should like to refer to. The Committee said that, in order to prevent as far as possible disappointment, whatever Regulations of the medical test might be made, the fullest publicity should be given, and the attention of parents and guardians directed to them by special circular. This was important. Take, for example, the question of eyesight. If parents knew that the examination was so strict in that respect, and due intimation was given as to the nature of the test to be applied, they might be able to apply that test themselves, and so obtain some security. The Committee further suggested that the medical examination should be carried out by a Board of Medical Officers specially selected for that purpose. That was most essential in order to secure authority and uniformity in the examination. The subject of Latin appeared to have operated on the nerves of the head masters of the country. He was a Latinist himself, and he was not in favour of discouraging or excluding it; indeed, he would go further, and would maintain Greek as well. But it must be remembered that he was speaking under this reservation when he expressed this opinion: that he had yet to hear the opinions of the Civil Service Commissioners before he formed any opinion on the Report. But the recommendation of the Committee appeared to have been entirely misunderstood, even by the head masters. Latin was not compulsory in the ordinary sense of the term at the present time. It was one of the first-class subjects which every one must take up; but taking up the subject was satisfied by writing a name, and a number at the head of a blank sheet of paper. There was no rule just now that a candidate must obtain a certain number of marks in Latin. A boy could go up for examination, and know not one word of Latin at the present time, and yet pass very high among the candidates. What was proposed in the Report was that Latin should be put in Class II., instead of Class I.; that was to say, it should be one of the optional subjects which a boy could take up, and which was to be marked at the same rate as now. Latin at the present moment, therefore, was only compulsory in the sense that no other subject could be substituted for it; it was not compulsory in the sense that marks must be obtained for it. He was not a partisan on the side of crammers, or on the side of public schools. His object was to to get the best young men into the Army, to "tap," as it were, the best sources of supply, and he wanted to have the examination so arranged as to make it possible for any well-educated youth to compete with a fair chance of success, whatever the nature of his education might have been. As he had said, he was not a partisan of the class injuriously called "crammers," but neither was he a denouncer of it. In former days, it should be borne in mind, many of the public schools did not teach, and failed to meet the educational wants of the country in any adequate degree. However, he had no wish to favour either crammers or schools, his only aim being that the examination should be the fairest possible test of the general education of the best young men in the country. That test ought not to be confined to one particular kind of education, or to one particular set of subjects. For example, if a lad had an aptitude for scientific subjects, he ought to have a chance at the examination, just as the boy who had been educated in classical and linguistic subjects ought to have his chance. That was the object he would have in view in any decision he might come to. The hon. Member had suggested that he should give weight to the recommendations contained in the dissentient Report, but surely the Report of the majority deserved great weight. He was glad to have had that opportunity of removing a misapprehension which had arisen in regard to the subject of Latin.

^* said, he was sure it would be a matter of satisfaction not only to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the Members of the Committee that the recommendations made last year by the Visitors to the Military College at Sandhurst had been loyally and thoroughly carried out by the new Commandant, General East. In the first place, it struck the Committee and the public generally that it was a mischievous system that the boys should only be employed four hours a day, but General East had now introduced a system under which the cadets were employed indoors at full work for five and a-half hours a clay, while other arrangements had been made by which their time was occupied for eight hours a day. Expensive amusements like polo and the gymkana had been discountenanced, and the general expenses had been reduced to the Woolwich standard. The outfit of the cadets, however, was still too expensive, and cost £40, as compared with £32 for the Woolwich outfit. The helmet, which was now de rigueur , and the mess-jacket might well be dispensed with. Alterations ought to be made in the canteen arrangements, which were insanitary, and dangerous from its proximity to the theatre. The canteen was used by 200 employés of the College, and it was essential that something should be done at once to improveit. With regard to modern languages, it was curious that there was no teaching of French or German at Sandhurst. Even if the right hon. Gentleman could not appoint professors of those languages at the College, as they had at Woolwich, he might encourage the study of French and German by directing that marks should be given for those subjects, which were daily becoming more and more necessary, in the final examination for commissions.

^* said, he should like to explain what, in the view of the dissentient Members of the Committee, would be the effect of making Latin an optional instead of a compulsory subject. They considered that a distinct blow would be dealt at Latin as a subject of education if that language were put in the same class with French and German. At present it was necessary to take up Latin and one foreign language. If under the new system it should become possible for candidates to take up both French and German to the exclusion of Latin, fathers would be tempted to send their sons abroad to learn foreign languages, or to crammers, of whom perhaps they would be able to learn those languages more easily than they would at public schools. He Was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman rather ridicule the opinion of the head masters; surely they were the best possible judges of what would be the effect of this proposed change on the education given in their schools, and as they unanimously agreed that giving effect to the Report of the majority would be a deterrent to instruction in Latin and would make it harder for the public schools to compete with crammers in the sending up of candidates, he would suggest that while the Report was signed by a majority of the Committee, the views of the dissentients, backed up as they were by the educational authorities, were entitled to serious consideration. It was admitted by the majority as much by the minority, on the Committee that in the interests of the Army every encouragement should be given to candidates to go straight from public schools to Sandhurst or Woolwich. The Committee also came to the conclusion, after thoroughly considering the matter, that the present system of medical examination was a rather haphazard One, and not nearly so satisfactory as it ought to be. They hoped that in the future the medical test would be made an efficient one and n final one, as it was a very hard thing for a young man that he should be allowed to go up to Sandhurst or Woolwich and spend time there unnecessarily, only to discover eventually that he was unfit for the Army, because he was medically unfit to pass the medical examination.

^* said, he was of opinion that the proposal to make Latin optional was a movement in the right direction. Personally, he could not help thinking that the public schools had attached too much importance to one particular mode of instruction. The study of modern languages was absolutely necessary, not only for the purposes of intercommunication, but also for properly understanding modern military systems. The Report on military education seemed to him to be a very proper one.

said, it was his belief that a careful study of the ancient languages was the very best training that a young man could have to enable him to enter any Department of the Public Service, If he had this preliminary training he would very readily acquire the modern languages. He thought, therefore, it would be a very great pity if any step were taken which would destroy a system which, after all, bad been most valuable to public servants, both military and civil.

said, he hoped that public opinion would override the classical tendency of the great public schools. He was himself turned out of Eton without the slightest knowledge of any subject which had been of the smallest use to him in after life. In this examination Latin was a voluntary subject, but it was not so at Eton, where no boy was allowed to join the modern side until he had acquired a sufficient knowledge of Latin for the fifth form.

said, he questioned whether the study of modern languages would not as well occupy the minds of, boys as that of the ancient languages. Some persons thought that Latin was the high road to every sort of learning, but he did not think so, and believed a lad would be better employed studying Hindustanee. Our Army had to perform services in various parts of the globe, and it was most desirable that the officers should be acquainted with every possible language that they might be called upon to use.

^* said, it seemed to him that the modern languages were the more useful and their study of more importance than that of Latin at the present time. He was anxious that a system should be introduced by which there should be no gap between the public or the private school and the military colleges at Woolwich and Sandhurst, and that clever boys might pass direct from a good school without having to go to any special crammer.

desired to remind the House that a Committee was appointed which inquired into the curriculum and scholastic organisations at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and he should like to know whether their recommendations were agreed to, as he understood they would be? He should also be glad to have information as to the number of Students in attendance at the colleges. With regard to the learned topic over which they had spent some time that night, he wished to say that a candidate for the Army just now must take up two languages, of which Latin must be one; that was to say, he might take up Latin and French, or Latin and German, or Latin and Russian. Under the new rule Latin would not be obligatory. The two languages might be German and French or French and Russian. He feared that owing to the greater facilities for learning French and German there would be a temptation to take on those languages at the expense of Latin. Latin would continue to be a main subject in our public schools, and the new rule would give an undue preference to men educated, say, at Bonn or Heidelberg over those educated in the public schools, say, at Rugby or Harrow. The real question was, which was the more important, to a British officer, formation of character, or a colloquial knowledge of, modern languages; and who would make the best British officer, a man educated, abroad or at one of our public schools? He had no doubt that the new rule, it carried out, would diminish the proportion, of young men of British training in the, Army, and increase the proportion of, those young Englishmen who had got their education and their ideas in the countries across the Channel.

said, that the number of cadets at Sandhurst was 350 and at Woolwich 200, these figures being based on the average of the past two years. The Committee of which the hon. Member opposite was a member had made various recommendations. He could not say that they had all been carried out, but some of them had been. But what the hon. Member behind him had referred to more directly was a more recent recommendation, or series of recommendations, by himself and his colleagues who formed the Board of Visitors last year. He was glad to hear that these gentlemen in their visit this year found almost all the recommendations bearing upon the healthy efficiency of the college carried out. He had taken note of the remarks which had been made on the subject of foreign languages. He was glad so much had been done in the way of reducing the expense for uniforms, and he hoped that, if reasonably possible, further reductions in expense would be made.

said, he was very sorry to be obliged to interpose before the Vote was taken with regard to the administration of the College at Netley. He regretted to have to allude to the matter, as he had made an effort in private with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to come to a decision so as to avoid the necessity of referring to this subject in public. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate the reasons which induced him to make that private representation to him rather than mention the matter in public. The subject was as to the retirement pf Dr. Corbett, a gentleman who had been studying at Netley for some time, and who, he understood, but for the facts to which he (Mr. Clancy) was going to refer, would in the course of a few weeks have been gazetted to an appointment in the Public Service. The facts of the case were these: He understood that last winter a dance of some sort or other took place at Netley, and that amongst the persons who attended that dance, which was given by the wives of the men belonging to one of the establishments, there were seven or eight gentlemen belonging to the Medical Service at Netley. Unfortunately, the whole of those gentlemen took a little too much to drink. So far as he could find out they also committed what he believed was an offence against military discipline—namely, they treated the men. He had no sympathy with persons who got drunk, and he had nothing to say in defence of persons who offended against military discipline when they knew the rules under which they took service. But what he complained of in this case was unequal treatment. This gentleman (Dr. Corbett) was brought up before his superior officer and talked to and reprimanded. If the matter had ended there, and if all the other persons concerned had been treated in the same way he thought justice would have been done. But, after Dr. Corbett had received this reprimand, and after he had come to the conclusion that the whole thing was over, he was ordered up for trial on the charge of being drunk and disorderly on the occasion of the dance. The result of the investigation had been that he was asked to send in his resignation. He (Mr. Clancy) must say that if he had been in the place of Dr. Corbett he should have refused to send in his resignation, and should have allowed himself to be dismissed. If the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give him a better explanation than he had given already, he should retain the opinion that Dr. Corbett had been treated unequally, and for a very special reason. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to allow himself and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway to look at the evidence taken in the case. The right hon. Gentleman had refused him leave even to read it. Therefore, he was unable to say exactly what was the wrong given in evidence against this young gentleman. But he was able to say this on the statement which Dr. Corbett had made to him: that he had received an excellent character from the Catholic chaplain of the place, and there were evidences in the amount of his wine bill to show that he had been the reverse of a drunkard, and that there was no charge against him barring this particular occasion. In fact, he was a well-conducted young fellow. Nevertheless, he was requested to send in his resignation. In the absence of the documents which he had asked for he (Mr. Clancy) had no hesitation in saying that this young man, out of six or seven who sinned in a similar way, was treated in the manner in which he had been treated for the reason that he was an Irishman and a Catholic—the only Irishman and Catholic amongst the lot. That was a reason which public opinion, at all events in Ireland, would not regard as a sufficient justification for the treatment to which Dr. Corbett had been subjected. He (Mr. Clancy) did not desire to enter upon a long discussion on this matter, but he would add this: that he fancied the right hon. Gentleman had refused redress to this young man because he did not like to override the decision come to by the Military Authorities at Netley. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman he supposed it would have degraded those officials in the eyes of those whom they were engaged in teaching. That might be a consideration of some weight; but, on the other hand, he should recollect the injury this young man had suffered, and moreover that there might be many persons in his position who would shun Netley, especially Irishmen and Roman Catholics, if conduct of this sort was allowed to go on with impunity. The right hon. Gentleman might say, perhaps, that no great harm had been done to Dr. Corbett, that he was a young man on the threshold of life in his profession, and that he would be able to practise medicine outside. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would hardly put forward that plea, because it was obvious that this young man was on the threshold of life he would all through his career have this stain upon his character, and probably on the next occasion when he sought a public appointment he would find this an effectual bar to his getting it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would still find it possible to mitigate to some extent the injury which he had caused Dr. Corbett, and would reinstate him—formally, at least.

said, the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this case with great moderation, and he was not sorry that he had brought it forward. The case had come under his notice immediately after it occurred, and he had been at first disposed to take a somewhat lenient view of it. That view was shared by the Inspector General of the Army Medical Department; but, on looking into the matter more closely, he came to another conclusion. It must be remembered that Dr. Corbett was at Netley with some comrades as probationers; he was undergoing a course of instruction in that character; he was not a commissioned officer in the true sense of the term. He had misconducted himself on this occasion. Need he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) tell the House that if he had the slightest suspicion or ground for believing that Dr. Corbett had suffered because he was an Irishman or a Catholic, he would reinstate him tomorrow; but he assured the hon. Gentleman that there was no justification whatever for that suspicion. Dr. Corbett did misconduct himself on that occasion. The matter was inquired into by the professors at Netley, who were his proper military superiors, and they came to the conclusion that he ought to be called upon to resign. The case came up to headquarters. The Military Authorities who were consulted in the matter as a question of discipline took a strong view upon the subject. It did not come before him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as Secretary for War. But the hon. Gentleman opposite and relatives and others interested in the case of Dr. Corbett drew his attention to the matter, and it was a question as to whether he should override the opinion of the authorities at Netley and interfere from a disciplinary point of view with the arrangements there. He had found himself unable to do that. It would never do in a matter of this kind, where questions of discipline were at stake, to put aside the opinion of the heads of the institutions in which the persons whose conduct was complained of were serving. The authorities came to the conclusion that Dr. Corbett had committed this offence, and that there was a danger of his not making a satisfactory member of the medical staff if he was admitted into the Service. The hon. Gentleman had made rather light of the argument that, after all, in the case of a young medical man such as Dr. Corbett there was no damage done to him. If an officer who had passed through the Army, and who perhaps had acquired knowledge of a technical kind, was called upon to resign his position, all that he had learnt would be no use to him in his future life; but a doctor who had passed through a medical education which was really a stock-in-trade to him would be able to face the world if he was called upon to leave the Army. He did not wish to be hard on the young man, or to say that he would be likely to misconduct himself in another situation. But having had the opinion of half-a-dozen authorities in this case, he did not think it would be right for him in his official capacity to interfere with the decision that had been come to.

was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not given a more satisfactory explanation of the harshness with which this young man had been treated. The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not sanction the notion that Dr. Corbett had been treated as he had for the reason that he was an Irishman and a Catholic, but the fact remained that the young gentleman happened to be the only Irishman and Catholic among the seven or eight, and he was just as guilty and just as innocent as the rest. In stating the case he (Mr. Clancy) considered he had stated it rather hardly against Dr. Corbett, for the evidence amounted to this, in the language of one of the noncommissioned officers who gave evidence against him, that he was drunk in a military sense, but not in a civil sense. He took this to mean that he was not drunk at all, and that his real offence was drinking with the men. If that were so, and there were six or seven others guilty of the same offence, and he was the only person punished, he being a Catholic and an Irishman, the inference was obvious.

That is not so. I cannot tell whether he was the only Irishman present, but there were no others guilty of the same offence. He got drunk, and there is no reason to suppose that the medical staff has any prejudice against Irishmen. The medical staff is full of Irishmen, and will be only too glad to have more of them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an investigation?

No, I do not think that would be consistent with the Regulations.

said, there were certain important suggestions made by the Visitors at Woolwich and Sandhurst with regard to buildings, and he should like to get an assurance that they had been carried out. The Visitors described one building as "dangerous, discreditable, and insanitary." In reference to Woolwich they laid great stress on the condition of the Hospital, and reiterated the opinion they expressed last year, that the accommodation it afforded was inadequate in every respect, that the construction of the building was unfitted for a hospital, and that no reconstruction could make it comply with modern sanitary science. He should like to know whether the recommendations of the Visitors had been carried out. He thought the House ought to see more of the Report of the Director of Military Education, which only came out every four years, but which was really a very valuable Report. The effect of the last Report was to show that the education of the Army was very much below the standard attained by civilians outside the Army. The Director was of opinion that the changes made in Army schools during the last few years were not in the right direction. He admitted that the change from regimental schools to garrison schools had very great advantages, but he pointed out that it had some very serious disadvantages. He said that one result of the change was that the commanding officers connected with the schools took much less interest in them than they used to do. The Director was of opinion that this was a very serious loss indeed. Another result of the change was that the schoolmasters were much more frequently moved than they used to be, and this detracted very Seriously from the efficiency of the school. Another result was that the men did not attend as much as they used to do, because they were, at a greater distance away. The Director remarked that the effect of the men not attending the schools was that when they became non-commissioned officers, not having had a proper grounding in the schools, they found the instruction given in them much more difficult than would otherwise have been the case, and the result was that they had to be let off a great many drills and duties which, of course, fell upon other men. The Director of Military Education also called attention to the fact that the gas was not lighted in barracks till half an hour after sunset, the result being that as the schools were held, as a rule, from half-past 4 to half-past 5 in the afternoon, in winter months, there was very often a long period of time during which education was given practically in the dark, and he attributed this as one of the reasons for their deficient education. From an educational point of view, it really looked as if the education that we had been giving to the country of recent years was of practically very little avail after the children left school, judging from the results attained in the Army. The Director stated that taking the Army all through the state of education was lamentably deficient, and he affirmed that hardly one man in 9 or 10, could either read or write properly. That official quoted a statement made to him by a large contractor, who in 1890 had to obtain a number of labourers in connection with the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, and who mentioned that only 5 out of every 20 could read and write, and in some cases the proportion was only 1 in 20. In another case a score of men were wanted for the Railway Goods Department in London, and the conditions of education were that they must read and write and add up a few figures, and that 20 men could not be found, although they were quite capable of doing the work required. The Director added, that if that was a fair sample of the state of education in the country among the labouring classes following upon the Education Acts, it was not surprising that the state of education in the Army was what it was, and that the day when Army schools for adults could be dispensed with seemed as far off as ever. That might be a justification for the totally different system which the Army had adopted with regard to the education of children to that adopted in ordinary elementary schools. In the Army schools he believed that there were not tests and sample examinations, but every child was examined individually. There, was, however, no such thing as compulsory attendance at those military schools for children, and the Directors complained that the attendance was very irregular indeed. He would like to obtain an opinion from the Secretary for War as to whether he thought his system for Army schools was better than the system of the Minister for Education, or what was the reason why these Army schools adopted a totally different system from the other schools in the country.

said, he took the blame upon himself with reference to the canteen at Sandhurst. It had not been provided for in the Estimates, because he had found better use for the money at present. With reference to the hospital at Woolwich, the medical and other authorities did not altogether accept the views taken by the Visitors, however useful—and they were extremely useful—they might be. But he was speaking from memory, and would look into the question. As to the Report of the Director of Military Education, it was some time since he had seen it; but to begin with, he was under the impression that the Director General could report as often as he liked. It had been his habit to report every four years, and that had been found to answer every useful purpose, but he did not think there was anything to prevent him reporting oftener. The change from regimental to garrison schools, though open to some of the drawbacks which had been pointed out, was, generally speaking, a beneficial one. It dated only a few years back, and the defects would be from time to time remedied. The hon. Member had pointed out several individual evils, as he thought—drawbacks or disadvantages. But throughout the country generally there was a higher standard of education now than formerly. He believed it was a fact which was only too true that chil- dren who had been at elementary schools and had been taken away at a somewhat early age were found afterwards to have forgotten the greater part of what they had learned, and that had been sought to be remedied by continuation schools. If those schools were developed men would not be found in the state of ignorance which was described in the Report quoted by the hon. Member. The experience of the War Office was, however, that recruits were better educated than in earlier years. He would look into all the questions which the hon. Member had pointed out. They had a very energetic man at the head of the Education Department, and he would consult him on all the points which had been brought forward by the hon. Member, and in the light of that Report he hoped that any flagrant evil would be entirely remedied; The hon. Member had raised the point as to the gas not being lighted until after sunset, but be believed that was the general practice in all public affairs. It was not an unreasonable thing in itself that there should be some some fixed rule to prevent the wanton consumption of gas. He was under the impression that half an hour after sunset was the general rule. He would, however, as he had said, look into the point, which only wanted a little common-sense brought to bear upon it.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £130,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Sundry Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

said, he regretted that the Secretary of State for War was not present, because the subject to which he had to draw attention was a very important one, and one to which he specially wished the notice of the right hon. Gentleman to be directed. It was a matter which concerned the health of 300,000 people in Dublin, therefore he did not exaggerate when he said it was a very important matter indeed to the whole of Dublin. That city had for a long time very much wanted a system of main drainage. The fact that it was without such a system had been often commented upon, and he had even heard it alluded to in that House as an argument against Home Rule. In the dearth of Unionist arguments against Home Rule he had absolutely heard the fact that Dublin was without this system of main drainage mentioned as a sufficient reason why the people of Ireland generally should not be allowed to govern themselves. The Corporation of Dublin, he believed, at the first moment their commercial position enabled them to do so had taken action in this matter, and at great expense got a Bill passed through Parliament for the execution of an important scheme of main drainage. That was three years ago, and people naturally expected that the work would have been in full swing long since. He himself and others with him thought there would have been such progress made with the work as to justify the expectation that the project would have been completed this year. But not a single step had been taken to carry out the scheme which was sanctioned by the Bill to which he had referred. The reason was to be found in the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite [Mr. Campbell-Bannerman having now returned to the House], and of his omniscient Army Sanitary Committee. The scheme, it appeared, embraced the laying of pipes under a military institution in Dublin, known as the Pigeon House Fort, and a clause in the Bill enabled the Secretary for War to stop the whole project if he came to the conclusion on the advice of his Committee that carrying the mains under this Pigeon House Fort would be dangerous to the health of the troops stationed there. No sooner was any practical step taken in the matter than the Army Sanitary Committee smelt danger to the troops at the Pigeon House Fort from this project. The Corporation endeavoured to meet the objections of the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman. They summoned to their aid several very competent sanitary engineers and others skilled in sanitary science, and those authorities advised the Corporation that the fears of the War Department in regard to this matter were entirely unfounded. The Army Sanitary Committee, however, held its course, and even as late as last summer he remembered that he himself and the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin made vain efforts to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Army Sanitary Committee was taking a very exaggerated view of the whole matter. They had failed to move the right hon. Gentleman, and so the whole summer, which was a very fine one for carrying out work of this kind, was lost, and consequently the opportunity which might have been utilised of pushing their work on towards completion was lost. He was of opinion that the advisers of the Corporation took the right view of the matter, and that the fears of the Army Sanitary Committee were entirely groundless, and even ridiculous, for he believed that even if there were danger it would be of the most infinitesimal character. Considering that there were only half-a-dozen men in the Fort at the time, he thought the idea of stopping the execution of a great scheme of main drainage for the benefit of 300,000 people was a preposterous proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He passed on to the next step of the Military Authorities, which was sanctioned, of course, by the right hon. Gentleman. They proposed that the Corporation should end the difficulty by burying the Pigeon House Fort. The Corporation were perfectly willing to end the matter in that way, and to pay a reasonable sum for this absurd and antiquated institution and the site upon which it was built; but they were asked to pay the extravagant sum of £65,000—a sum which would have added actually a fourth to the whole sum needed for carrying out the entire scheme of main drainage. They did not accept this offer, and now things had become infinitely worse than ever they were before. He had that day taken an opportunity of ascertaining how matters really stood, and he had before him a telegram stating that the demands of the War Office in this matter had been much increased since the deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman last year. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN indicated dissent.] Last year the demand of the War Office was that the Corporation should pay £65,000 for the Pigeon House Fort. And now it appeared that in addition to that they re- quired that the harbour in the immediate neighbourhood should be maintained and dredged at the expense of the Corporation; that a boat and boatman should be maintained for the use of the troops stationed there; that sites should be provided for quick-firing guns in the neighbourhood; and also for a submarine mining station. They also prohibited the Corporation from using the fort for building purposes in connection with sewage works, because of the possible injury that it might do to the men stationed there. Beyond this he was informed that they required the Corporation to purchase a new site for the military stores at the North Wall measuring some 200 feet square. He believed from his knowledge of the financial condition of the Dublin Corporation that it was absolutely impossible that these conditions could ever be complied with. He ventured to say that the terms proposed by the War Office were nothing short of ridiculous. The Government in asking the Corporation to buy the Pigeon House Fort were acting a particularly mean part. A short time ago the War Office acquired in the City of Dublin a site and a building which cost the Corporation of Dublin in the early part of the century £100,000. He referred to Richmond Prison and the grounds surrounding it. The War Office a few years ago laid their hands upon that building, and they never paid one penny to the Corporation for it. Yet now in the matter of a great drainage scheme affecting the health of 300,000 people in Dublin they were asking £65,000 for the Pigeon House Fort, whilst they had £100,000 worth of Irish property in their possession without having paid a penny for it. The right hon. Gentleman smiled at that; but was it not indisputable that the Richmond Prison belonged to the Corporation—that they had paid £100,000 for it, that the Government had got it for nothing, and that therefore they had £100,000 worth of Irish property in their hands for which they had paid nothing, whilst they refused to give up this absurd and antiquated institution called Pigeon House Fort unless they got £65,000 from the citizens of Dublin; and thus completely stopped the whole scheme of main drainage. It would not, in his opinion, be too much if, under the circumstances, the Govern- ment were to hand over the Pigeon House Fort free of charge to the Corporation of Dublin. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible that the scheme of main drainage could be carried out except at an additional cost of £65,000 if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his demand. The only other alternative open to the Corporation was to come to Parliament again and ask for another scheme, and of course that would involve a further expenditure of several thousand pounds. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would come to some decision such as would enable the Corporation to go on with their scheme of main drainage. He could assure the Government that it was only the pressure of other matters which had prevented an agitation arising about this matter which must have made it more troublesome during the consideration of the Army Estimates than the criticisms of some hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House. For his own part, unless this matter was settled satisfactorily before next year he would make it his duty to take a more active interest in the Army Estimates than he had ever taken before.

said, the hon. Gentleman had stated the case for the Corporation of Dublin in somewhat stronger terms than the deputation from the Corporation of Dublin which had waited on him. But, as he had told the deputation, the War Office had no desire to put any impediment in the way of this great improvement in the sanitary condition of Dublin. As the hon. Member had stated, he had had personal experience, though somewhat limited, of the present condition of the Liffey, and was fully aware of the necessity of something being done to improve matters. Again, as Secretary for War, with a great many troops quartered in Dublin, he was intimately interested in any movement for the cleansing of the Liffey. Therefore, on patriotic grounds and on departmental grounds he should be exceedingly sorry to hinder in any way an improvement being made in the sanitary condition of the city. But how did the matter stand? The scheme of the Corporation of Dublin was to collect the sewage of the city and eject it close to the banks of the little piece of ground now occupied by Pigeon House Port. Pigeon House Fort was the main depôt for military stores in Ireland. As a place of military defence it was of little value indeed, but the fort was useful as a military storehouse, and so long as it was used for that purpose a certain number of officers and men would have to he located there. The question then arose whether the proposed sewage scheme would affect the health of the soldiers stationed at the fort, and he submitted the point to the Army Sanitary Committee. That was his bounden duty. The Army Sanitary Committee was an independent body. Some of the officers of the War Office were appointed on it, but it also contained several civilians of high sanitary knowledge and experience. They reported against the scheme, and suggested as alternatives either that the sewage from the town should be carried a little further down the river before being discharged, or that the sewage should be let out only upon the ebb tide, so that it should be carried out to sea and not swept back on the bank of the Pigeon House Fort. After his interview with the deputation from the Corporation of Dublin, and as he was shaking hands with the members at leave-taking, it was said to him, "Why not settle the whole thing by selling us the Pigeon House Fort?" That was quite a new point, which, of course, had not been considered by the Army Sanitary Committee. The War Department had paid £100,000, or something like that sum, for the site of the Pigeon House Fort to the Dublin Harbour Board many generations ago. But he did not go upon that point; and, in order not to stand in the way of this main drainage scheme, which he knew was of great importance to Dublin, he put no value on the Pigeon House Fort at all, but said to the Corporation, "Here we have a fort that is very useful to us as a storehouse, but we will let you have the fort, and offer no further impediment to your drainage scheme, if you will give us a wharfage on the north side of the river, and a sum of money necessary to provide a building that will give us an equivalent accommodation to that we at present possess at the Pigeon House Fort." In fixing the price to be paid for it by the Corporation, he had not Calculated what the present market value of the property might be, but what sum would be sufficient to build the new premises that the War Office Would be compelled to erect in their stead. He had the matter very carefully investigated, and it was found that to erect buildings which would give accommodation equivalent to that afforded by the fort would cost at the very least £65,000. He went to the Treasury and had great difficulty in inducing them to sanction such an arrangement. They considered that £65,000 would not provide equivalent buildings, but in the end he induced them to sanction the sale of the fort to the Corporation of Dublin for that figure. He should not have been justified, in the public interest, in handing the fort over to the Corporation unless he received this money. He thought the Committee would agree with him in the opinion that the proposal made by the War Office was a fair one, and he believed that many of those in Dublin who were directly interested in the matter thought so also.

Do you refer to members of the Corporation?

said, the impression conveyed to him by the deputation was that they considered his offer a fair one. The War Office asked for nothing but the actual amount necessary for erecting other buildings elsewhere, and it was to be borne in mind that if the Corporation thought the sum asked was too high and could not accept the offer, there were two other proposals, either of which would satisfy the War Office—namely, that the sewage should be carried further out to sea, or ejected only at ebb tide.

Were those alternatives possible under the Main Drainage Act?

said, he did not know that there was anything in the Act to prevent them. The deputation came to him on September 12, but the Corporation did not send their answer to the offer made until three months after, so that if there had been delay it had not wholly arisen with the War Office. At any rate, the Corporation scouted the idea of paying £65,000 for the fort, and offered £25,000 for it. Of course, he could not accept such an offer as that, because if he had done so he should have had to apply to Parliament for money to provide equivalent accommodation elsewhere. He could only reply, therefore, to the Corporation that he could not accept their offer. He acted throughout on the advice of the Army Sanitary Committee. Those were the plain facts of the case, stated without prejudice or exaggeration. He had the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member and the Corporation of Dublin in the matter, and he had endeavoured in every possible way to meet their wishes. No one occupying his position could have gone further than he had done, and, under the circumstances, the responsibility of further delay in carrying out the drainage scheme must rest with the Corporation and not with the War Office.

said, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was exactly what he thought it would be. The right hon. Gentleman had not contradicted a single statement he had made, and he had not even mentioned the matter of Richmond Prison.

said that, speaking entirely from recollection, he believed the facts in regard to Richmond Prison were, that the prison having become a "white elephant" in the hands of the Corporation, it was handed over by them to the Government, who converted it into a barracks. No doubt the erection of the prison originally cost the city a large sum of money, but the Government spent more in converting it than a new barracks altogether would have cost.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not denied the main facts of his case with regard to Richmond Prison. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government paid £100,000 for the site of the Pigeon House Fort. The Corporation paid £100,000 for Richmond Prison. Those transactions were closed. The Corporation handed over Richmond Prison to the Government six or seven years ago; and the Government never discovered what a valueless institution it was until they had appropriated it beyond recall. Now the Corporation, in return for Richmond Prison, asked the Government for the Pigeon House Fort. The right hon. Gentleman said the Corporation had made a smaller demand than he had made. He was not surprised at that. Irish deputations were too soft when they came over to London to interview British Ministers. If the Corporation had his experience of British Ministers in the House of Commons they would have struck a harder bargain. The right hon. Gentleman would not find him making such a proposal as was made by the Corporation; and when he heard of it he felt indignant that the Corporation had not stuck to their rights and asked that the Government should give Dublin the fort in return for the prison. His opinion that the Government were acting a hard part towards the Corporation had not been in the least shaken by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The conditions imposed it was impossible for the Corporation to accept, and the drainage scheme could not, and would not, be carried out if the War Office insisted upon them. The right hon. Gentleman said that unless those conditions were accepted by the Corporation he would have to come to Parliament to ask for this £65,000 to provide equivalent buildings. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask Parliament for the money, and this was a most appropriate year to ask for it, considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just passed through Committee a Bill which would add £300,000 a year to the taxation of Ireland. If he continued in this frame of mind they would have to take what steps they could to get him to change his view.

said, this dispute affected other people besides the Government and the Corporation of Dublin. It raised the important question of the favourable treatment of the local ratepayer as compared with the Imperial taxpayer. He could not conceive why a special consideration should be shown to the local ratepayer of Dublin, which was not shown to the ratepayer of any other town. Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to apply to other towns the principle he was willing to apply to Dublin, but which, seemingly, Dublin was not inclined to accept? The state of the case was this. The people of Dublin wanted to carry out a main drainage scheme. The War Office in that town had buildings which cost them £100,000 some years ago.

The site alone.

The buildings would have cost another £10,000.

More.

said, he should like to say another £100,000, but he did not wish to exaggerate. The land and buildings had cost, say, £150,000. Surely the proper thing for the Government to do was to have this property valued as Imperial property, and to part with it only upon a fair price being paid. The right hon. Gentleman declared himself unable from want of funds to purchase property for rifle ranges to render the British Army efficient in the use of the new magazine rifle. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to provide £50,000. He understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to hand over to the Corporation of Dublin this building and land, for which the War Office paid about £150,000, at £85,000 below its value. When the right hon. Gentleman taunted Members on the Opposition side of the House with constantly urging him to increased expenditure he should be reminded that the best way of saving the money of the public was not to be extravagant in dealing with public property.

said, that because in the early days of the century the Government paid £100,000 for land the hon. Gentleman seemed to think they ought to obtain that amount for it when they wished to sell. But the actual value now was nothing like £100,000. They claimed merely what they would require to reconstruct the buildings they would want.

said, that whether the land had depreciated in value or not, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have taken a course which would have put the War Office altogether above suspicion. He should have had a careful valuation made and have sold the land to the Corporation under that valuation. That would have been a business-like proceeding.

said, the speech of the hon. Member for Preston displayed lamentable ignorance of the question. The British had never paid a penny for the Pigeon House Fort. The land was purchased previous to 1817, when the British and Irish Exchequers were amalgamated, and it necessarily followed that the price was charged on the Irish Revenue. It was not until the amalgamation of the two Exchequers that these charges fell on the British Revenue. Therefore, the ignorant speech they had just listened to fell entirely flat. The English and Scotch taxpayers had never paid a penny for the land.

said, he wished to call attention to Item G, grant in aid of certain institutions, one being the Association for Providing Employment for Discharged and Reserve Soldiers. He wished to induce the right hon. Gentleman to increase the grant to the amount of last year. Every year 25,000 soldiers were discharged from the Army. These either went into the Reserves or found what work they could on the land or in the towns. The question was, what became of the men who did not find Government employment and could not get work in other quarters? A responsible authority, Mr. Arnold White, who was well known in the East End of London, and who gave evidence before the Sweating Committee and before the Labour Commissioners, said that a considerable part of the casuals in London were Reserve and discharged soldiers. In General Booth's book, Darkest England , which seemed to have some amount of truth mixed up in it, it was stated that on a certain night at a certain time 10 per cent. of the casuals whose cases were investigated by the "Salvation Army" officials were Reserve or discharged soldiers. These facts ought to be taken into consideration by the War Office. These facts exercised a deterrent influence on intending recruits for the Army, and the Inspector General of Recruiting—General Fielding—said last year that he thought recruiting would never be in a satisfactory condition, and they would never get the sort of men to join the Army that they wanted until the Government did something for the men who left the Service and joined the Reserve. It was said that manufacturers should be ready to employ these men, who were young, of good character, and well able to perform a good day's work; but manufacturers showed no particular alacrity to employ discharged soldiers, their contention being that if the Government did not set an example they failed to see that any patriotic duty rested upon them to take a step which the Government had not taken. One hon. Member who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and who represented a division of Shropshire, employed a large number of these men. He looked out for them and did his best to get them, and he (Major Rasch) honoured him for it, but Reservists were not as a rule employed by manufacturers for the reason he had stated. This failure on the part of the Goverment to provide adequate employment for discharged soldiers had no parallel in any country in Europe or on the other side of the Atlantic. In America there was an enormous pension list, chiefly applied to old soldiers, and now amounting to £28,000,000 a year. In France every non-commissioned officer who had served 14 years was entitled as of right not only to pension, but to Government employment. In Germany there were something like 90,000 posts open to soldiers, and in Austria-Hungary something like 80,000 posts. No doubt the Secretary for War would reply that in this country there was no State monopoly of the railway service as there was in Austria, which threw a great many posts open to the disposal of the State. Still, our Government might do a great deal more than they did. There were something like 4,000 or 5,000 berths at Enfield and Woolwich which might be made available for the unskilled labour that Reservists and old soldiers could render.

This question was dealt with on Vote 1. I think it was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member on the question that I do leave the Chair.

said, that apart from that he would make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This matter had been discussed and the Government had agreed to the appointment of a Committee to investigate this whole question. Under the circumstances, the most satisfactory course would be to wait for the Report of the Committee.

said, that under this Vote a sum of money was allocated to the Association for Providing Employment for Discharged and Reserve Soldiers.

Do not misunderstand me. It is quite open on this Vote to discuss the subscription to the Institution referred to, but I do not think it is competent to go into the whole question of the employment of Army Reserve men.

said, he bowed to the Chairman's ruling. He only wished to say that a great deal had been done by private institutions to which the War Office had allocated funds. The association to which he had referred had found work for 7,000 men with wages aggregating nearly £750,000. If a private institution could do as much during the last seven years, surely the Government, with all the resources of the Empire at its back, ought to do a great deal more. If the Government would devote a sum, say, of £5,000 a year, to the object of finding employment for these men, they would be on the high road towards the solution of the difficulty.

said, he should like to know why the grant to hospitals and charitable institutions had been reduced by £300 and a new item introduced—subscription to the Army Temperance Fund, £500? He had no objection to the Army Temperance Fund, which was doing good work, receiving attention, though the sum given to it was a large one—as large as that given to the United Service Institution. What he objected to, however, was a part of the money being taken from the subscription to hospitals and charitable institutions. In these days, when everyone thought they should do so much for the old soldier, they ought not to take away £300, or 12 per cent., from their subscriptions towards Army hospitals and charitable institutions.

said, the last-named subscription did not take anything from the others. The subscriptions to the different charitable institutions were proportioned to the subscriptions received from the public. He had thought it right to make a handsome contribution to the Army Temperance Society, feeling that the society, which had been carried on in India under the auspices of Lord Roberts, would do good work in advancing the principles of temperance in the Army. As the Society had just been set up in this country, he had thought it only right to make a handsome subscription to its resources to assist in its organisation. He believed that if the Association did anything in Great Britain and Ireland comparable to what it had done in India, it would be one of the greatest blessings to the soldier, and enormously increase the practical strength of the Army.

said, he did not object to the subscription to the Army Temperance Society. He, however, thought it a mistaken policy to make the amount of subscriptions to other charitable institutions depend on the sums contributed by the public. It was hard that in times of commercial depression the soldier should suffer not only in the falling-off of subscriptions received from the public, but in a consequent decrease of the subscriptions from the Government. The system did not seem a wholesome one. Another year they must endeavour to agitate so as to ensure that the soldier should not suffer unnecessarily from bad times.

said, the whole Army had recognised with great pleasure this handsome gift on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of £500 towards the Army Temperance Fund.

said, he wished to call attention to Sub-head B of the Vote, comprising £75,000 interest upon the Imperial Defence Loan. Under Part 2 of the Imperial Defence Act, 51 and 52 Victoria, the Government was authorised to issue from the Consolidated Fund, or else to borrow £2,600,000 for certain great works of Imperial defence set forth in the second Schedule of the Act, such as military stations, harbours, and coaling stations, and the £75,000 represented interest upon this sum at 3 per cent. This sum was paid out of the money annually provided by Parliament for Army Services. They might infer that the whole amount had been issued from the Consolidated Fund, and applied to the works. He should like to ask in passing if all the works mentioned in the Schedule had been completed. Six years had elapsed since the Act was passed in 1888. If the whole amount had been issued and all interest charged, one or two important questions arose as to the character of the debt—whether it was to be considered a permanent debt or a floating and non-permanent debt. On this point he drew attention to Sub-section B of Clause 4. By that sub-section it was provided that all dividends paid from the 1st July last in respect of the Suez Canal shares should be applied in paying the principal of the amount borrowed for Imperial defence. Nothing could be more explicit than that the dividends were to be applied to the reduction of the capital sum of £2,600,000. It was understood at the time the Act was passed that the debt was to be treated, not as a permanent debt, but as a temporary debt, and that it was to be extinguished by the interest on the Suez Canal shares. This process of extinction ought to have been begun and to be going on now; it was a matter of common knowledge that the value of the shares was very great, and that the yearly dividend was probably £1,000,000 sterling, and if that were so only a quarter of the £75,000 could be due now. Yet by some curious process, which he for one could not understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Budget was taking Suez Canal share dividend to the extent of £260,000, and adding to the Revenue for 1894–95. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could lawfully make that appropriation. There was another point as to whether the debt, being considered a non-permanent one, ought not to come in for extinction under the new Sinking Fund of £25,000,000? It was of importance to know whether a solemn obligation undertaken by this House and ratified by Act of Parliament was being fulfilled.

said, this was a Treasury matter rather than a War Office matter. As far as the framing of the Estimates was concerned, the estimated interest on the loan was £76,155, less a small reduction from interest on the Suez Canal shares. A memorandum he had showed how the amount of interest was made up. The amount of debt outstanding was £2,477,000. By the present Budget £2,600,000, the capital sum expended on the Imperial Defence Loan, would be paid off, and therefore the £75,000 would be saved. Of course, pending the carrying into law the Finance Bill, that could not come to pass.

Are we to understand that this item will not recur again?

Not after the Finance Bill has passed.

I do not see why the Finance Bill should be brought into the matter at all.

If the Finance Bill passes, will this money be paid into the Exchequer?

Yes.

Then the Finance Bill does not hold to the obligation imposed by the Act?

It supersedes it.

Does it uphold the obligation?

No.

Then what will the Government do in this respect?

It will pay the amount at once.

said, he should like to point out that the Imperial Defence Act, which the Finance Bill did not repeal, provided that the interest on the Suez Canal shares should on the 1st of July, 1894, be used to liquidate the Imperial Defence debt. That Act was still in force, and it would not be repealed by the Finance Bill. Yet the Government were proposing to set aside an obligation imposed by the Act! He did not think this £75,000 was wanted, and he felt that they were bound to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount in view of the very unsatisfactory explanations which had been tendered to them.

^* explained that the Army Estimates had to be laid on the Table within ten days of Supply being set up, and therefore the authorities knew no more about the Budget than the hon. Member. The Army Estimates were framed on the assumption that the existing law would remain in force; but the House had now before it the Finance Bill, which upset and altered the whole of the arrangements of the former Act and provided that the Suez Canal shares should be paid into the Exchequer. Thus the loan would be at once paid off, but until the Finance Act received the Royal Assent the War Office were bound to provide for this sum of £75,000

said, that was exactly what he and his friends were contending. The Estimates were framed on the basis of the law as it stood, and that law he had read out to the House. Consequently the item of £75,000 ought not to appear in them, and he therefore moved to reduce the item by £25,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item P, £75,000, Interest on the Imperial Defence Loan, be reduced by £25,000."—( Sir R. Temple. )

thought further explanations ought to be given to the House. They were told that if the Finance Bill passed the money would not be spent, but the probability was that the War Office would treat the amount as savings, add would eventually spend it on matters not mentioned in the Vote at all. They ought to have a distinct understanding on the point, and he would suggest that the better plan would be to withdraw the item altogether, or to give a pledge that it should not be treated as savings.

said, that the War Office communicated with the Treasury, who informed them that, although the Suez Canal shares were hypothecated, no money, except a small sum, would be available during the current year. Under these circumstances the sum of £75,000 was put down. The Finance Bill was not yet an accomplished fact, and the War Office could not act, in framing the Estimates, as if it were.

^* said that, quite apart from the Financial Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer should in his Financial Statement, that he expected to receive some dividends on the Suez Canal shares during the current year, and if so, the whole of the £75,000, could not be required.

said, that so far as he understood the point it was that the interest would terminate on the 1st July this year, and that it was necessary to take the whole amount for the year. But actually only £37,500 would be required, as interest would only have to be paid for six months; consequently they ought not to vote £75,000.

said, that when he innocently suggested that the money should be paid into the Exchequer he forgot the power of the War Office to deal with savings. If they passed this item they would be deliberately voting money for the War Office to spend exactly as it liked, for it would not be earmarked in any way, and the authorities would not be under any obligation to pay it into the Exchequer, but, so long as they got the sanction of the Treasury, they would be entitled to use the money for any sub-head in the Vote. They were, in fact, asking for unlimited discretion to spend it as they liked.