moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of the Order. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether, with or without modification, and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view of such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture. That the Committee do consist of 12 Members, seven to be nominated by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection. That Dr. Ambrose, Viscount Curzon, Sir Arthur Hayter, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Jeffreys, Sir Thomas Robinson and Mr. Taylor be Members of the Committee. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That five be the quorum.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the rates of postage on newspapers, book post matter, and parcels sent to Australia and the Colonies generally are very much higher than the charges made by carrying companies for the conveyance and delivery of an equal weight of parcels; and whether the Post Office has any monopoly of the right to transport newspapers, bookpost matter, and parcels within the United Kingdom or to convey them to the Colonies; and, if not, whether, in view of the disparity between postage and freightage, he will allow private carrying companies to despatch newspapers, bookpost matter, and parcels, at ordinary freightage rates, by the mail trains and mail steamships employed for the conveyance of the mails to the Colonies?

For newspapers, books, and other articles sent in sufficient bulk, the freight charges are doubtless lower than postage rates, but the service rendered is not the same. Freight charges are for mere sea carriage from port to port. Postage covers not only sea carriage but also collection, land carriage by railway and otherwise both here and in the Colonies, and delivery. Moreover, for light packets of newspapers and books the mere freight charges are incomparably higher than the postage of ½d. the two ounces. The Post Office has no monoply in the carriage of newspapers, books, and parcels, either inland or to places abroad, and the public have already the right to choose between the Post Office and the carrying agencies, according as they want a complete or an incomplete service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Consular Report, 1,495, Argentine Republic, in which is stated the deplorable reduction in British import trade into that country and the acquisition by foreign nations of an undue proportion of what was once British trade, and in which it is further stated that this reduction is largely due to the lack of commercial travellers in British interests, and to the fact of the catalogues of manufacturers being printed in English instead of Spanish; and whether he will endeavour to draw the attention of all Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom to these facts?

The Board of Trade have referred to the passages in the Consular Report from Buenos Ayres containing the statements in question, and they have also looked into the statistical trade volumes of the Argentine Republic and the other countries concerned. There appears to be some misapprehension in the Report is to the amount of the falling off in the imports from the United Kingdom into the Argentine Republic, and the increase of the imports from Belgium and other countries, the figures in the Report not being borne out by the statistics of some of the countries from which the imports come, including the United Kingdom, In any case, it is not safe to found sweeping inferences as to great, changes in trade on the figures of two years only, and it already appears from the Import Returns of the Argentine Republic for 1894 that the imports from the United Kingdom in that, year increased compared with 1893, while those from Belgium, Germany, France, and Italy diminished, the only one of the countries named which showed an increase in 1894 as well as the United Kingdom being the United States. I think it probable that there is such a lack of commercial travellers acting in British interests as my hon. Friend refers to. I believe that the matter is already engaging the attention of the Associated Chambers of Commerce.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the law as to trade marks in the Argentine Republic, whereby well-known European marks may be registered by applicants in so short a time that no counter application can be made by the European owner, and consequently foreign goods registered under trade marks here are liable to embargo on arrival in that, country; and whether, if the facts are as stated, he will cause representation to be made with regard to this law?

Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres will be instructed to report whether any action can be taken to place this matter on a fairer footing.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the loss of life in connection with the wreck of the steamship Waldridge, which went ashore at Port Mulgrave, near Hinderwell, on the Yorkshire coast, on, 31st January; whether he is aware that the men lost might have been saved if the distress signals had been rightly understood; and whether the signals prescribed in the schedule have in the past been found satisfactory and suitable for the purpose; if not, whether the Board of Trade propose to take steps with a view of improving the system of distress signalling?

My attention has been called to the case referred by the hon. Member, which has formed the subject of a recent Board of Trade Inquiry. The answer given by the Court to the question put to them regarding the signals shown is as follows: 11. Was the vessel provided with distress signals, and were proper distress signals exhibited? Answer: The vessel was provided with the proper number of rockets and blue lights, but it was stated that the rockets had been in the ship above two years, and it may be that they had deteriorated. The signals exhibited, namely blue lights, were not proper distress signals. As a matter of fact, they were signals for a pilot, and were so understood from the shore. I am advised that the existing regulations, which have been in force for a long time, have been found satisfactory and suitable, for their purpose, and that if they are complied with and the prescribed signals used, no confusion ought to arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the recent refusal of the Inland Revenue Inspector stationed at Denbigh to grant the tenant farmers exemptions from dog licences is causing great dissatisfaction in the neighbourhood; whether it is a fact that an exemption was refused to Maurice Roberts, of Tanygraig, Nantglyn, and that the dog had to be killed, also in the case of Evan Edwards, Llidiart-y-Green; if so, upon what grounds; and whether, in view of the extreme value of sheep dogs upon such farms, he will order an inquiry into the cases referred to?

The law only grants exemption from dog licences to persons who are farmers or shepherds, and who use the dogs "solely in tending sheep or cattle on a farm, or in the calling or occupation of a shepherd." Of the two persons mentioned in the question the former had only two cows and two sheep, and the latter had two cows. In the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, it would be doing violence to the Act to grant certificates of exemption in such cases. I understand that the number of dogs kept by persons who are not bona fide farmers has given rise to much complaint on the part of farmers and others. For instance, the Standing Committee of the Justices and County Council of Carnarvon addressed a strong remonstrance to the Inland Revenue not very long ago on this subject of exemptions. Moreover, I need not remind my hon. Friend that these exemptions represent a corresponding loss to the ratepayer, as the yield of the dog licences is appropriated, not to the Exchequer, but in relief of rates. The matter does not seem to me to call for an inquiry, but if my hon. Friend has any material evidence to adduce in support of his plea for exemption, I shall be happy to consider it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether it is proposed that the recently-published official vocabulary of telegraphic code words, prepared by the International Telegraph Office at Berne, shall be made obligatory for all code messages in Europe, and ultimately for extra European messages; and if so, at what date; whether he has received complaints from mercantile men respecting the limited extent and incorrectness of this vocabulary; whether it has hitherto been permissible to make up a code message of words from eight selected languages whether he is aware that many firms relying on this permission, have spent large sums in preparing private code extending to nearly 400,000 words whereas the official vocabulary only contains 256,740 words; and whether, in consideration of the immense preponderance of British trade, he will secure for British merchants a continuance of the privilege hitherto enjoyed of using their own vocabularies, provided the these contain only words taken from the eight authorised languages, and provided that such vocabularies be firs submitted to and approved by the Department, such privilege to apply to all messages transmitted between the various portions of the British Empire.

It was decided at the last International Telegraph Conference, held in Paris in 1890 that an official vocabulary should be compiled, and that the use of words taken from that vocabulary should be made obligatory for code telegrams in the European system, at the expiration of three years from the date of issue of the book; but the employment of the vocabulary outside this system was left optional. The three years will expire on the 31st December 1897. This country and its Colonies being parties to the International Telegraph Convention, and the adoption of an official vocabulary having been decided upon by the union, it would not, I fear, be possible for me to accede to the hon. Member's suggestion, that British merchants should be secured a continuance of the privileges hitherto enjoyed, of using their own vocabularies, provided that these contain only words taken from the eight authorised languages.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the date of the next Postal Union Congress has yet been fixed; and, whether the Government have taken any steps to obtain the assent of Colonial Governments for establishing penny postage between this country and other parts of the Empire?

No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government have taken no steps to obtain the assent of the Colonial Governments to the establishment of penny postage between this country and other parts of the Empire, being well aware that many important Colonies are strongly opposed to such a measure. As I stated in reply to a question asked in this House on the 19th of last month, the next Postal Union Congress is to be held at Washington in 1897.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, by the promotion of Captain O'Connor to a majority in the Inniskilling Dragoons, four officers senior to him, who have seen service in South Africa, have been superseded; whether he can state what special reasons existed for his promotion; and, whether the Inspector General of Cavalry was consulted on the question?

The vacancy arose from voluntary retirement, a condition of which is that it shall be filled by an officer of at least 18 years' service. The senior captain in the regiment had barely 14 years' service; but Captain O'Connor, who was brought in for the majority though junior as a captain, had had 12 years in the ranks, which enabled his service to be reckoned over 18 years The Inspector General of Cavalry was not consulted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the information from the shipowners as regards the condition of the Portuguese Prince, to which he referred on Tuesday; and whether he can state to the House the nature of the information?

I have received through the Shipping Federation a statement from the, manager of the, line to which the Portuguese Prince belongs. He states that a very considerable amount was expended upon the ship and engines in 1893, that it was then thoroughly overhauled by the Board of Trade Surveyor, and passed No. 3 Survey by Lloyds, and further, that the machinery was carefully overhauled and inspected, and passed by Lloyd's surveyors at Antwerp in October last. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member a copy of the statement referred to if he desires it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether he has seen a copy of the rules issued by the "Prince Company" for the guidance of their officers—with respect to water in the River Plate; whether they meet with his approval, and whether he could suggest any improvement in the interests of the crews of their vessels?

Yes, Sir; I have seen a copy of the rules referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. They seem to be drawn with proper care for the health of the crew. I am hardly prepared to say whether they are susceptible of improvement, but they certainly evince a desire to take proper precautions for the health of the crews.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has seen the Bill of the French Government for introducing throughout France and Algeria the system of transmitting money by mandat-carte, or money order postcard, under which the amount sent is brought by the postman to the residence of the payee; and, in particular, whether he has observed the Ministerial statements in the preface of the Bill, that the system does away with the delays, inconvenience, and danger of fraud incident to the old system, and that it is certain to result in a large increase of postal revenue; whether he is aware that the mandat-carte system has led to a great and profitable development of money order business in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries; and whether he will consider the question of introducing it in the United Kingdom, and for the exchange of remittances with other countries?

The subject is one to which I have given considerable attention, and I have caused careful investigation to be made of the system in force on the Continent, and of the various conditions peculiar to the postal services of those countries in which the system prevails. On consideration of the information thus obtained, I am not prepared to introduce the system at the present time; but I shall, of course, watch with interest the experiments which are being made in France and other countries.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the Board of Trade has issued instructions that derelicts reported by captains of vessels to the Customs at home are invited to telegraph to Lloyd's as an experimental measure; and that consular officers at maritime ports abroad have been instructed to furnish the same information to Lloyd's agents, who have instructions to immediately telegraph the substance of the information to Lloyd's in London, at Lloyds' expense?

Any instructions on the subject would not be issued by the Board of Trade, but by the Foreign Office and the Customs respectively. The Board of Trade have, however, been in communication with those Departments on the subject, with the result that they are informed that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the 11th instant, instructed consular officers to communicate to Lloyds' agents at their respective ports any information on the subject of derelicts received from the masters of British vessels. With regard to Customs Officers, the Commissioners of Customs intimated to the Board of Trade on the 8th ultimo, that they had informed Lloyds' that they were prepared to furnish the intelligence required to the resident correspondents or agents of Lloyds' upon application, and to authorise their collectors to transmit the information to the Committee in London from ports at which Lloyds' have no resident agents. Similar facilities will be accorded by both the Foreign Office and the Customs to any other bodies or persons who apply for them.

thanked the Government for this most important concession, although it did not go as far as he desired it should.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the petition to this House of the Liverpool Mercantile Marine Association, representing 9,000 commanders and officers of the mercantile marine, praying that the Order in Council of 30th January 1893, relative to the screening of ships' side-lights, shall be inquired into by this House; whether that petition has induced him to reconsider the decision to refer this matter to a Departmental Committee instead of to a Committee of this House; whether he can state the names of the gentlemen whom it is proposed to appoint on such a Departmental Committee, and how many of them have had actual experience at sea in the handling of ships: and, whether it is proposed that any of the representative bodies of seamen or shipowners shall be consulted with reference to the composition of such a Committee?

I have seen a copy of a petition presented to Parliament by the Mercantile Marine Service Association, which is stated in the petition to comprise over 3,000—not 9,000—members and which is to the effect stated. I see no reason for altering the intention which I expressed on 5th February last to a deputation headed by the hon. Member for West Perthshire, that I should refer this matter, which is one of a highly technical nature, needing to be investigated by the aid of experiments, to a Departmental Committee consisting of experts. The names of the persons whom I have decided to appoint, and who have agreed to serve, are as follows: The hon. Baronet the Member for Belfast; the hon. Member for Southampton; Rear-Admiral H. G. Andoe, C.B.; Captain H. F. Hughes-Hallett, R.N.; Mr. T. H. Ismay; Mr. T. Scrutton; Captain Wilson Barker; Mr. James Bolam, Secretary of the Scottish Shipmasters' Association; Captain J. S. Castle; and Captain Anthony S. Thomson. It will probably be necessary to appoint an Admiralty lawyer. Six of these, gentlemen have had actual experience at sea in the handling of ships. I have taken the, best means in my power to secure a Committee which shall be both competent and impartial; and so far as I know, none of these I have selected are committed to an opinion on the subject. It would be impossible to consult all the bodies who might consider themselves entitled to express an opinion, and very difficult to make a selection, from them.

How many Departmental Committees on the rule of the road at sea have there been since 1888 or 1889?

There have been none confined to the rule of the road at sea, so far as I remember.

Have there not been five Committees on tins subject in and since 1888?

I had better not say how many without notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the action of the Boer commando on the border of Swaziland; and whether there has been, any military invasion of Swazi territory by the Boers?

I fear I cannot at present add to the statement I made yesterday, namely, that Sir H. Loch hopes that the new Convention will be carried into effect within the next few weeks without disturbance. There has been no military invasion of Swazi territory by the South African Republic.

Can the hon. Gentleman say where Colonel Martin is at present; and whether any communications have been received from him, and through what channel?

Mr. Stewart is now acting for him, and communications come to us through Sir Henry Loch.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. C. Shaw), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the examination fee charged to candidates for the Civil Service is regulated according to the probable or the possible maximum salary attainable in the customary course of promotion; if neither be the case, upon what basis is the fee regulated?

As a general rule the fee is fixed according to the maximum amount of salary attainable in customary course of promotion without further examination or certificate, but power is reserved, in the case of open competitions, to fix a lower fee in special cases where it is thought equitable or expedient to do so.

I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury if, having regard to the fact that the Select Committee on the Unemployed has no power to inquire into the effect shrinkage of the markets has had in causing the evil, the Government will make a House at the Evening Sitting this day so as to enable the matter to be considered?

The Patronage Secretary is not subject to cross-examination. The Government are responsible in these matters, and all I have to say is that it is quite impossible to distinguish one Motion from another, or to give assurances, with regard to a particular Motion, as to a special course involved.

Has it not been considered to be the duty of the Government to make a House on Friday nights?

I think the Leader of the Opposition made a remark which struck me very much. He said that of all the valued privileges of the House there was none greater than that of choosing whether it would make itself. Unless the Government interfere with the rights of the House in that matter, they cannot undertake to make a House on Friday evenings. Of course the Government are always willing to leave these matters to the discretion of the House.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the recent great increase in the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, making at the present rate an increase of twenty millions a year; whether, inasmuch as this money is lent at call, and is virtually invested in and secured by an investment in Consols, he proposes to take any steps to prevent a sudden call upon these deposits, and to provide a suitable remedy in case there should be one, by giving the Government special powers to deal with it or otherwise; whether, inasmuch as the Government competition as a buyer of Consols is increasing so largely, with the result of inflating the price of Government securities in a corresponding manner, he can see his way to enlarge the area of investment in respect of these deposits, so as to include the stocks of different municipalities secured by rates as well as Consols; and, whether the Post Office authorities could give greater facilities and encouragement to the actual purchase of Consols by the present investors in the Post Office, Savings Bank rather than their present mode of investment, and thus increase the class corresponding to the French peasant investors?

I have observed with great satisfaction the enormous increase that has taken place recently in the Post Office Savings Bank deposits. It shows the power and the will of the humbler classes to save money. As regards the other questions, I shall generally answer them in the negative: but, as I have already stated with regard to the high price of Consols, a Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider this question with respect to the deposits in the Savings Bank.

I desire to ask whether the Leader of the House can afford us any indication of the course of Public Business next week?

The progress made has been unexpectedly slow, but I should hope we may get the Report of Supply on Tuesday, 19th instant. If so, we could then get the First Reading of the Appropriation Bill on that night. I hope we shall get the Army Vote tonight for the men, and then, as I was given to understand that the further Debate on the Navy is not expected to be very prolonged, if, as I hope, we get the Navy and Supplemental Estimates passed on Monday night—["Oh!"]—I may propose, and the hon. Member for Preston may dispose; but that is the expectation of the Government—there would then be Tuesday for the Report of Supply. Otherwise I do not see how we are to get through.

Can the Government give us any information with regard to the very alarming telegrams from Now South Wales?

I deeply regret to say that Sir Robert Duff died yesterday from the effects of an operation rendered necessary by the state of his health. His lamented death is a very great loss to the public service; and, to everyone who knew him in this House and outside, his loss will be the subject of very great regret indeed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board propose to take any steps to provide relief works in Boyle Union in answer to the memorial received by the Guardians at their last meeting, from the priests and people in the districts of Cloonticarn East, Crosses, and Derinoheran; and whether, as the temporary Inspectors appointed by the Local Government Board have been persistently hostile to applications for relief works from Boyle, Carrick, and Mohill Unions, he can state definitely if any relief works will be started in the distressed areas in these large districts in the West of Ireland?

The Local Government Board inform me that the Unions referred to in the question are well circumstanced, with low rates, and that no destitution prevails in them of such a character as would render necessary the opening of relief works, or which cannot be met from the, resources of the Unions concerned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have had their attention called to the fact that the chaplain to the Tubbercurry Workhouse is actively interfering, publicly and privately, in the Poor Law Elections now proceeding in Tubbercurry Union; and are union officials permitted by the rules of the Local Government Board to interfere in elections of Guardians constituting the Board under which they serve; and, if not, what steps will be taken to prevent this gentleman from infringing the Board's regulations?

A complaint has been made to the Local Government Board of certain proceedings on the part of the Chaplain of this workhouse in connection with the election of Guardians, and the Board have apprised the rev. gentleman that a person in receipt of a salary from the rates ought not to interfere in such elections beyond the exercise of his ordinary right of voting and his privilege of nominating candidates. There is nothing in the Board's regulations bearing on this subject.

, who was received with cheers, said: Mr. Mellor, I remember that last year, in the course of the Debate which preceded the corresponding Motion to that which I am about to make, there was applied to me what, I suppose, is regarded as a somewhat damaging epithet. I was told that I was an optimist Minister—[Mr. HANBURY: "Hear, hear."]—and my hon. Friend who cheers accepts the responsibility. Well, Mr. Mellor, if an optimist, whether a Minister or not, means a man whose natural disposition would lead him to shut his eyes wantonly to deficiencies, to hide away failures, and to shrink from remedying evils, I hope that I need not repudiate any such imputation, and I hope that neither I nor anyone who may follow me in my present Office will ever be justly open to it. But, after all, I am not sure whether there is not something worse than an optimist even in this extreme sense of the term, and that worse, thing is a pessimist. There are plenty of pessimists about, croakers and detractors, who are always ready, either from sheer love of the art of denigration, in the interest and with a view to the adoption of some untried theory, to denounce existing arrangements, and who generally do so with that airy and summary judgment which we never find except in company with imperfect information and a total lack of responsibility. If these Estimates, which I now submit to the Committee are optimistic Estimates, as I admit they are, it is only in this reasonable sense, that they recognise the good points of our present Army and do not seek to disturb the main principles of its system and organisation. It is quite consistent with the character and rôle of a reformer to wait until our reforms have borne their fruit and not to go on reforming the same field again and again. It is right that we should press the soil around our plant and trim and prune the plant itself; but it is hardly wise to take it up and plant it afresh every year, or even every half-dozen years. I have more than once stated in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates my views of the purposes for which the British Army is maintained. I have said that in my opinion at the present time, as to the main fabric of our Army system, the truest courage and the best reforming wisdom lies in leaving well alone. But, as I shall prove, I hope, in explaining the Estimates, it does not follow that there are not minor and important improvements to be made. Above all, let it not be understood that the Army is at a standstill. On the contrary, it is steadily advancing in efficiency. The Regular Army, and it's auxiliaries also, are advancing, and this is due, I would have the Committee believe, not to anything that has been done or anything that has to be done, by those who control its administration. It is due to the leaven working in the Army itself—to the great zeal, to the higher professional attainments, to the increased devotion of the officers and the men in its ranks. I should be culpable indeed, and so would those who work with me, if these Estimates showed any neglect of the real interests of the Army or failed to give evidence that we are doing all in our power to assist those who are so strenuously upholding, maintaining and advancing the standard of its efficiency. Now, Mr. Mellor, I wish to refer, in the first place, to a subject which takes precedence of all others. The question may be asked—it was asked on Monday night—are your preparations made in anticipation of the actual outbreak and circumstances of war? And again, another question may be asked—Is there between the two fighting services such a good understanding and such a common intelligence as would enable them to co-operate with effect on the outbreak of hostilities? These are genuine and vital questions, and I am able confidently to state to this Committee that within the last five or six years great strides have been made in this matter, and that now there is a perfect accord between the two services. I believe that every contingency which is reasonably probable has been foreseen, and I can assure the Committee of the satisfactory working of the administrative machinery by which questions of defence are jointly considered and worked out by representatives of the Army and Navy. By means of the Joint Naval and Military Committee the principles of Imperial Defence as regards the protection of our coasts and coaling stations have been formulated. The War Office has promulgated them to the officers commanding districts at home and abroad, and all local schemes of Defence have been corrected, where necessary, so as to harmonise with these principles. The Colonial Defence Committee has provided a means of discussing these matters, as they affect both Crown and self-governing colonies, and especially of communicating the approved principles to the latter. I may add that the experience of the war between China and Japan has shown us that the conclusions deduced from history, and especially from the history of our own country, have been correct—that the principles of war do not change, and that in the designing of defences against both attacks in force and raiding attacks, and in the modification of details rendered necessary by the improvements in ships, armaments and warlike appliances we have been working in the right direction. These Estimates show practically the same burden to be imposed on the taxes as those of last year. There is, indeed, a difference on the right side, from the point of view of economy, of £22,100, but this is, as I must admit to the Committee, a small and accidental difference on so large a transaction. Nay, I must in candour admit that the figure before them really means an increase of available money by at least £150,000, because prices of forage and provisions, which ruled high last year, are now low. But new demands and necessities are constantly pressing upon us, and, as I have before now explained, our requirements are now so rigid and stereotyped that there is very little room for that pleasant process which, were I introducing the Navy, and not the Army, Estimates, I should call "veering and hauling." In particular, the task of bringing old barracks up to modern sanitary requirements is a duty which public feeling will not allow us to ignore and postpone, and which constitute a large annual drain on our available funds. If hon. Members will turn to the memorandum which I have issued in explanation of the main features of the Estimates, they will see that the first subject with which I deal is that of establishments. And here crops up the perennial question of the excess in the number of battalions abroad. I assure the Committee that so long as I am at the War Office I will miss no chance of getting that inequality abolished or mitigated. We hope to be enabled to bring away a battalion from Egypt. The men saved by the decreased strength of the battalion arid by the reduction of its depot I propose to add to the battalions at Mauritius and the Cape. We should thus do two good things—we should add somewhat to the garrisons of those coaling stations, and we should (and this I consider much the most important matter) bring those battalions up to the standard foreign strength of 920 rank and file. It is now fully acknowledged that the most important point in working the short-service system is uniformity in the units—uniformity of recruits, of drafts, of discharges; uniformity, in fact, of drain, and uniformity of replenishment. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, indeed, derided even the slight degree of prominence given to so trivial a matter as the moving of a single battalion. He asked whether in the German Army any notice would be taken of so trumpery a matter. No, Sir, it would not. And the reason is that the German Army, though greatly exceeding ours in strength and numbers, is immeasurably more easy to maintain. Not only is it a conscript Army, but it is entirely a home Army; it has no foreign garrisons to supply, on foreign duties to perform. Our greatest difficulties—nay, all our difficulties—arise from the necessity of supplying drafts and reliefs for India and the colonial stations, and from these difficulties the German Army is exempt. With an equal number of battalions at home and abroad everything works smoothly; with a preponderance, however slight, abroad friction and disturbance arise. Therefore it is that we speak of the importance of even one battalion coming home. And I mean no disrespect to the hon. and gallant General when I say that his disparagement of this small circumstance does not indicate that he has brought his acknowledged acuteness of mind to bear effectively upon the problem he is so ready to solve. I pass over the additions which are made to the fortress engineers, and to the technical branches of that, service, and I come to the artillery. Certain important changes are being introduced, as indicated in my memorandum, in the organisation of that arm, and these I must explain to the Committee more precisely. In the British service the relative proportion of artillery to infantry in the field army has for many years been dropping further and further behind the Continental standards. In order to bring the number of our guns into closer approximation with Continental standards, and with our own requirements, we propose an increase of one battery Royal Horse Artillery and seven batteries of field artillery—i.e., a total of 48 guns on mobilisation. The result will be that on the mobilised or war establishments our proportion of guns will be 4·6 guns per 1,000 infantry, or, in other words, 102 guns per army corps, as opposed to the former proportion of 3·8 guns per 1,000 infantry, or 84 guns per army corps. This increase has been effected at a very small cost, so far as the peace establishments are concerned, being met to a large extent by administrative changes. These changes are, broadly speaking—(1) a reduction in the number of the horse and field depot batteries, and a curtailment of the duties hitherto assigned to them, a large proportion of the training hitherto carried out at the depots, together with the preparation of drafts for abroad, being, under the new arrangements, divided between the service batteries other than those of the 1st Army Corps; (2) a reduction of the batteries of medium strength to the four-gun establishment. The net result of these modifications and readjustments will involve no appreciable alteration in the total establishments of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, and horses, while, at the same time, giving us a total increase of eight batteries. It was asked, "What is the continental proportion of guns per army corps?" I think in Germany there are. 5·7 guns per 1,000 infantry, and in France 5 guns; the average in the army corps of France and Germany is 120. As to the garrison artillery, I have to say that the number of service companies has been increased by six, three at home and three abroad. The increase of three companies at home is due to the increased duties in connection with the armament of Scotland—the southern and western districts—practically the defence of the mercantile ports. Abroad the, double companies at Ceylon, Singapore, and the Cape of Good Hope have been converted into two single companies at each of these stations, with a small addition to the number of men in each case, it being found that the new arrangement is more suitable both from a tactical and an administrative point of view. These changes have been met, as in the case of the Horse and Field Artillery, by a reduction of the Garrison Artillery depots from nine to six, and a readjustment of the duties between the depots and the service companies, by which the former will be charged with the reception, clothing, kitting, and elementary instruction of the recruit, while the further training and the preparation of drafts for service abroad is to be handed over to the service companies. The Committee will see, apart, from the question of the redistribution of force and the practical increase of the mobilised forces which we thus obtain, those changes will effect what I believe to be a very great improvement, that is to say, they will to a large extent assimilate the practice in the Royal Artillery as regards the training of recruits and preparing of drafts to that which prevails and is found to be efficient in the battalions of the line. I ought not, I think, to pass from this subject without saying that this is the result of the very closest attention not only of Sir Redvers Buller, but of General Lloyd, the Deputy Adjutant-General of the Royal Artillery, one of the most competent officers in his arm of the service. I must interpose a word here before I quit this subject. I wish to say a word of sincere and well-earned praise to a particular corps. The West India Regiment cannot be said, among all the units which make up her Majesty's military service, to be a favourite of fortune. It serves exclusively in trying climates; its duties are mostly monotonous; its officers' service is a prolonged exile; its men are of a different race from ourselves; and therefore it is the more necessary to make ample acknowledgment of the excellent service which it has done within the last two years on the West Coast of Africa. It has never failed in its duty, and its gallantry and endurance have stood every test. We have, however, to deplore the loss of several officers and men, and above all I would mention Colonel Ellis, not only a first-rate soldier, but when in charge of a force a worthy representative in all respects of the British power. The whole Army in my opinion may well be proud of their comrades in the West India Regiment. The state of recruiting for the Army is fully explained in the report of the Inspector-General. During last summer we lost from the War Office the services of General William Feilding, who had been at the head of the recruiting branch, and who had brought into it a great wealth of energy and fertility of resource from which we shall long benefit. The fated hour, however, had arrived for General Feilding—what answers to the "crack o' doom" under present conditions of compulsory retirement, and he had, to the great regret of all friends of the Army, to relinquish his post. The vacancy having occurred, I took the opportunity to unite this office with the Deputy Adjutant General for the Auxiliary Forces. The truth is that the business of recruiting is intimately wrought into the questions affecting the Militia and the Reserve, and that much advantage is gained by the same officer who controls the one being responsible for the other. Accordingly, Sir Francis Grenfell, with an officer to assist him, is placed over the whole of these duties, and they could not be in more capable hands. During the year 1894 the number of recruits who joined the Regular Army was 33,698. How has that filled our wants? Sir Francis Grenfell, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his report, very clearly explains what is required:

"(3) In recruiting for the British Army, more than half of which is stationed abroad, and whih is raised by voluntary enlistment, the following difficulties have to be contended with: (a) We have to obtain a sufficient number of recruits to meet the annual waste. (b) We have to find men of the proper age, height, physique, and trade, to meet the requirements of the various arms of the service. (c) We have to distribute them as they are obtained, amongst the several regiments and corps, to meet not only present, but future requirements, and this is no small difficulty, bearing in mind that the establishment of battalions varies with their location at home and abroad, and that recruits before enlistment almost invariably select the corps they wish to join. (d) We have to keep our Army in India up to full strength with trained soldiers of not less than 20 years of age. (4) The British establisment of the Army at home and in the Colonies, as voted by Parliament, can never at any time of the year be exceeded, and this requires careful watching, particularly between the months of April and September, since during that period there is no drain upon it for Indian drafts. The first troopship leaves England with drafts for India early in September, and the men embarking are, on the day the ship leaves, struck off the British establishment. We endeavour, therefore, to recruit up to full numbers by September 1st. If the British establishment were complete two or three months before this date, restrictions would have to be placed on recruiting to prevent the number enlisted exceeding the ordinary monthly waste. Restrictions are very detrimental to recruiting, as it is found by experience that it is sometimes months before the usual flow of recruits comes in after the restrictions are taken off. From this it will be seen that the state of the Army on September 1st is the best test of the effect of recruiting for the year."

Now, on September 1st, the total establishment, British and Indian, which had been deficient on that date in 1890 by 5,913 men, in 1891 by 6,651, in 1892 by 1,398, in 1893 by eight, had, in 1894, a surplus of 1,230, being, on the Indian establishment 1,025, and on the British, 205. These figures show a steady and satisfactory trend towards a healthy completeness, and are a proof, not only of so much more briskness of recruiting, but of a more careful and scientific administration. May I quote two paragraphs from my own memorandum which exactly exhibit the results of this careful administration, which is one of the fruits of the investigation this subject received at the hands of the Wantage Committee? I say:

"The report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting will be found to be satisfactory, though the age at which young men join the service seems to be much the same as in past years. By careful administration, however, many of the evils formerly noticeable have been cured. It is found that by closely watching the constitution of the regiments, by the strict regulation of recruiting, so as to avoid abnormally large numbers of men being posted to regiments in the same year, and by the extension of the service of men in the few battalions suffering from exceptional circumstances, excessive drafts from regiments at home have been almost completely avoided. The general result is that, after supplying nearly all the drafts, there are only five battalions now at home that have not in their ranks between 300 and 400 rank and file of over 20 years of age. The general average number of such men in all the home battalions falls little short of 400. This is a more satisfactory condition than was at one time thought possible under the present organisation of the service, and when it is borne in mind that for every home battalion there are 700 to 800 men in the Reserve (excluding the Militia Reserve), it may be claimed that the short-service system has at length been brought to as good a state as was anticipated when it was instituted by Lord Cardwell."

It being found impossible to obtain this full number of recruits in all respects up to the standard, Sir F. Grenfell explains in Paragraph 9, which I will not read to the Committee, how we fill up our num-hers with growing lads, and the measure we take to regulate by higher authority these special cases. The percentage of these for the last five years has been 25·8, 32·9, 30·6, 22·3 and 25·4; and it is found that a large proportion of these recruits—about two-thirds—had in a few months of steady life, drill, and feeding, reached the full standard. A fair test of the quality and stamina of recruits is also afforded by the number invalided per 1,000 effectives under two years service: and these were for the last five years successively, 14, 14, 14, 15, 12 per thousand. That is a fair and satisfactory result. Only 12 per 1,000 of these "weedy recruits," as they are sometimes called, were invalided during the first two years of their service. The net waste from desertion has fallen from 2,726 last year to 2,125 this year; and I hope I am not unduly optimistic when I say that these figures and facts show a most satisfactory progress in this vital matter of recruiting. The record of the Army, as regards both health and discipline, in 1894 is good. The admissions to hospital among the home troops were considerably below those of the previous year; and the death-rate was only 3·59 per thousand. Let the House compared that with the death-rate among the civil population. The percentage tried by court martial for all offences, serious and otherwise, has fallen from 6·85 to 5·96. Now, as to the organisation of the Army for actual work: a steady advance has been made in the arrangements for the mobilisation and concentration of our Forces for home defence, tending to greater simplicity and consequent efficiency. I hope I am not wearying the House with this statement, but the facts are important, and one cannot be oratorical over them. "For greater accuracy," as the phrase goes, I have committed them to paper. The mobilisation regulations have been revised and several changes have been introduced. Instead of keeping two sets of regimental equipment in different places, as was the former plan, we now, in nearly every case, keep the whole of the equipment stored at the mobilisation station of the unit—that is, at its peace station. This will save both time and expense, as several civilian caretakers are dispensed with. On mobilisation being ordered, the registered horses will be sent to the peace station of the unit, instead of to the remount centre; thus it will be seen that the units will receive all their home-defence equipment and horses at one station. The few additional articles required by units for service abroad are held at the port of embarkation. Five bearer companies and five field hospitals were mobilized at Aldershot and the Curragh, associated with the other arms of the Service in the important duties which would devolve upon them in war. These manœuvres were most instructive to the staff and the other officers as well as to the Department, for which they were primarily undertaken. We hope to repeat these exercises, perhaps on a smaller scale, yearly, in order that the bulk of the Medical Staff Corps now serving may be trained in the work. Partial mobilisation was carried out at most of the important coast commands at home and abroad. The Army Reserve on February 1st this year reached the total of 84,372 men. This is an abnormal strength, owing to the very circumstances to which I was referring—too large a drain on some occasions, filled up by too many recruits, and too many men going out into the Reserve. I hope we shall have more regularity in future. The strength will now probably somewhat diminish; but there will be no difficulty in keeping it up to 80,000 by reviving Class D, consisting of men ready to extend their service beyond 12 years. The men are there on paper, we used to be told; but shall we find them when we want them? That is a question which may reasonably be asked. Yes, these men are on paper, and they are in the flesh also, there being only 1,014 absentees out of 80,349 men. And the proportion of absentees to effective strength, which was 23 per thousand in 1890, has fallen steadily in subsequent years to 21, 19, 17, and 13.

What are these absentees—men who have not drawn their pay?

Yes, and the fact that they have not drawn their pay is a very good test, of the non-existence of the men. It is proposed that, some Reservists should be asked to come out in connection with a contemplated mobilisation of Guards this year. I am asked: "Why not call them out, and why not alter the law to enable you to do so?" This is a matter requiring great deliberation. Our Reserve men may have difficulty in finding employment. A Committee of the House is now investigating that question. But I am satisfied that that difficulty might be increased in a manifold degree were we to make them liable to be called away from their vocations at the sweet will of the Secretary of State, and in obedience to some possibly trivial military necessity. With regard to the Militia, those members of the Committee who listened to me last, year will remember that I said that restrictions had been placed on Militia recruiting at the end of 1893. These restrictions were continued for more than two months in 1894, and they necessarily had an unfavourable effect upon the numbers enlisted, there being a falling off of over 12,000 recruits, as compared with the previous year. The restrictions, I may say, were the suspension of the enlistment of growing lads between. 17 and 18 years of age, and the raising of the standard of height in most regiments. No doubt the number of recruits enlisted was also affected in a way which the Committee will not regret, by the stricter inquiries that were ordered to be made as to their antecedents. But although 12,566 fewer recruits were enlisted than in 1893, the enrolled strength of the Militia, on January 1, 1895, was only 4,936 less than it was on January 1, 1894, and the numbers present at the training of last year (including those excused from attendance) were actually 83 more than were present at the training of 1893, This satisfactory result is owing principally to the number of absentees without leave being 3,027 less than in the previous year, which is due, almost entirely, to the stricter inquiries made into the recruits' antecedents, and the more stringent measures taken for the punishment of absentees by bringing them to trial by Courts-martial instead of before the Civil Courts. On May 1, 1884, an alteration was made in the payment of bounties both to re-engaged militiamen and recruits. Formerly, the re-engagement bounty of 30s. was paid to the men at any time of the year when their re-engagement or re-enlistment took place. But it was found that, a number of men received the bounty and did not come up at the subsequent training. From our knowledge of human nature, that is what we might have expected. Now, however, unless a man re-engages at the training, he cannot receive his re-engagement bounty until the subsequent assembly of his regiment. As regards recruits, they formerly received £1 of their £2 bounty on the termination of their drill on enlistment, or on joining the Regular Army; whereas now they only receive 10s. This had a very little appreciable effect in deterring Militia recruits from joining the Army, but it has had a considerable effect in bringing more men up to the training. Both of these alterations in the payment of the bounty will effect a considerable saving to the public; and will, no doubt, tend to lessen the number of absentees from training. It will thus increase the genuineness and the real efficiency of the Militia force as shown in the numbers enrolled. The percentage of these absentees fell last year for Militiamen generally from 10·9 to 8·7, and for recruits from 23·1 to 18·9; and I hope it will continue to diminish. I am sorry to say that there is a growing deficiency of officers, especially in the Artillery Militia. This may be in some measure due to the reduced number of artillery commissions now allotted to Militia subalterns; but—speaking for myself, with the strong prejudices which I have—I can hold out no hope of any change in this respect. The Royal Military Academy, in fact, supplies as many young officers as we require; and I must frankly disclaim any personal favour for the Militia entrance to the Army. I am not sure that the couple of years that these young men go through a few weeks' training with Militia regiments, in which they can take only a passing interest, are always well-spent years. And when I think of the labour required, for preparation on the part of candidates at the open competitive examination, and the expense which that preparation imposes on parents, I am not at all disposed, in justice to them, to extend the easier and cheaper modes of access to the commissioned ranks. During 1893, 13 Militia battalions were trained in brigade at Aldershot and five at Strensall. Now, I do not know whether many hon. Members have been present on an occasion when Line and Militia battalions—as often happens, now that under the territorial system they are so closely connected—act in co-operation. If they have, they must have been struck with the incongruity when a fine Militia regiment, excellent in discipline and in physique, and with every reason to be proud of itself, goes past with no better head-dress than the Glengarry or the forage cap, while the line battalions have the full dress helmet. I have said that this is incongruous; but it is worse, for it is felt to mark some degree of inferiority, and on active service the effect might go beyond mere sentiment. I am not one who would care much about a difference in a strap or a button, or in the colour of a trimming; but so glaring a difference in head-gear, conspicuous at a distance, ought surely to be avoided. I am therefore happy to say that I hope in the coming year to make a beginning with the issue of helmets to the Militia, and the clothing vote will enable us to make the issue to about 25,000 men. Of the Yeomanry we continue to receive satisfactory reports; the smaller corps are disappearing and larger and more efficient corps are improving in drill and discipline. There is especially an improvement in musketry, and my friends who serve in the force will be pleased, and perhaps relieved, to know that the contingent allowance is now settled for three years and will be £3 to those who pass out of the third class in musketry and 30s. for those who do not. Turning to the Volunteers, this popular, and I would say characteristic, element in our defensive force is stronger than it has ever been. The numbers enrolled were 227,741 in 1893, 231,368 in 1894. The higher-grant efficients rose from 217,900 to 223,972, the lower-grant efficients fell from 1,211 to 871, while the numbers at inspection were in 1894 200,693; in fact, to use a slang phrase, it was "a record year." During 1894 62,218 Volunteers attended brigade camps. Now I have no doubt they derived great benefit; I have no doubt that others who formed a regimental camp derived benefit from doing so; but, on the other hand, it has been represented to me, on the part of a considerable body of opinion among Scottish Volunteers—and the Committee will forgive me if I deem them among the best—that they hold brigade camps, and still more regimental camps, to be little better than a picnic ["Oh!"]—well, that is their strong opinion—and that they derive more good from visits, even at, wide intervals, to a camp of instruction, such as Aldershot or Strensall, where they can work with, and learn from, regular troops, than from any series, however continuous, of local and partial exercises. That is what is pointed out to me on behalf of a considerable body of men. They therefore wish that the money which would be spent upon allowances for local camps should be concentrated on the rarer and more costly expense of a visit to a camp of instruction. Now I will tell the Committee my idea on this subject. It is that with the most voluntary of all voluntary forces we must suit all tastes, all tempers, and all circumstances. I therefore would try, while leaving facilities for local camps to those whom they best suit, to gratify the more aspiring ambition of those who wish to travel, even from Land's End or John o' Groat's, in order to enjoy what they consider a higher training; and I hope some steps towards this may be possible. I do not wish to impose any sort of uniformity or to put any impediments in the way of forming regimental camps, but if a regiment find it more beneficial to themselves, owing to their merits or their faults, to proceed more rarely to a training centre and get the benefit of being under Line officers and trained by brigadiers of the Line, seeing and copying the work of the Regular' forces, then I think, by the help of the railway companies, we may be able to indulge that wish. The long-service medal has been now issued, and I rejoice that this recognition has been given, though somewhat tardily, to men who have served their country well. I hope that the conditions are now acceptable, and I think I deserve the congratulations of the Committee on having yielded one concession after another until, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing left to yield. On the subject of the Volunteers I wish to add that I have considered with all care and respect the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat last year under the able presidency of my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Woodall). After weighing their report and the evidence received by the Committee, I have come to the conclusion, with the complete concurrence of my military advisers, which I will now state. I shrink from any alteration of the conditions under which Volunteers can be called out; I shrink from substituting "National danger and emergency" for "Actual or apprehended invasion" as the occasion on which this can be done. This may not please some of the most forward spirits of the Volunteers, among whom I recognise my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Howard Vincent); but I am more cautious. I am much mistaken if such an alteration would not give rise to uneasiness among many Volunteers who have business engagements which would be suspended by invasion, but might not be affected by circumstances included in the vaguer phrase of "National danger or emergency." I am, however, willing to consider whether fuller powers should not be taken to accept the voluntary offer of service as a way of meeting the difficulty. At present, although we are able to accept the offer of a Volunteer, the Secretary of State cannot accept their service as a body. I hope that some further step in this direction may be taken. The Committee recommend that Volunteers when under arms and in uniform should be subject to military law. Again I would say that, however reasonable this provision may seem to some ardent gentlemen, I doubt its being palatable to some even of the ablest and hardest-working members of the force; and I observe that the Committee themselves say that the commanding officer already possesses ample powers to deal with offenders, and this is surely the better solution. With regard to general meetings, I hope that the difficulty pointed out will be got over by an amendment of the Volunteer Regulations. We propose to adopt an important recommendation of the Committee and amend the Military Lands Act so as to permit a Volunteer Corps or Local Authority to borrow from the Public Works Commissioners on the security of their buildings as they have been constructed. This will prove a considerable been, I think. Now I come to the transport vote, and the question of transport naturally suggests ships. Are there any hon. Members present who will join me in dropping a tear over the official grave of that venerable vessel the Assistance? In the vote for provisions the Estimates are framed upon the low market prices which have ruled for a number of years, which show no immediate sign of any considerable move. In forage particularly, for which as an exception the drought of 1893 caused high prices in 1893–4, the large crop of 1894, with the open winter of that year, has provided abundant stocks for 1895, and the sum required has greatly fallen—it is reduced by about 25 per cent., contributing, as I have said, a considerable sum of money which we can spend on other purposes. Coming to the Clothing Vote, let me say at once that I underestimated the amount required last year, and I have now to increase the Vote by £52,000. I assume fully the blame, not for the amount required this year so much as for the insufficient sum taken last year, and my excuse, such as it is, is twofold. In the first place, we had a large stock in hand at the, beginning of the year; and, in the second place, we had a very energetic and ambitious Director of Clothing, and I counted toe much even upon his well-known powers. After all you cannot make bricks without straw, and the best of all possible directors cannot furnish clothing without money. The new system of issue of clothing to troops is in fill operation and is working quite success fully. Under it, as hon. Members will recollect, the soldier retains his old clothing (except his greatcoat and helmet), and a cash allowance is made for clothing when the soldier makes it last beyond the prescribed time. The annual April issue has been abolished, and issues are now made or the anniversary of enlistment. A new system of account also is in operation and is working well. Perhaps it is hardly necessary for me now to go into details. A system of inspection of regimental clothing stocks is now fully developed. A trained staff for inspection has been provided, units in the United Kingdom have been mapped out for periodical inspection, surprise visits are made, and units leaving for or arriving from abroad are inspected on departure or arrival. This, it is to be observed, has been cordially welcomed by commanding officers. Shorter and simpler clothing regulations have been published. The new regulations are about a quarter of the size of the old book, and greater freedom of action is allowed to commanding officers in the matter of clothing. War reserves have at last been put on a sound footing. A definite standard has been authorised which includes clothing for the whole of the Army Reserve, besides sufficient clothing to put the Militia into the field. Complete supplies of clothing and necessaries for an expeditionary force will shortly be in store. Money is now provided to fully complete all deficiencies, and a staff has been, created for specially matching the reserve stock, which will be ear-marked so as to avoid depletion and deterioration, and storage accommodation has been improved and increased with a view to ensuring rapidity of despatch. I think that this will give much satisfaction to the Committee. Further, the transport arrangements have been improved and cheapened. Water carriage will in future be employed as much as possible in cases where time is not a first consideration. Arrangements are being made with the railway companies for rapid despatch of goods without the intervention of middlemen, and an expert with military training has been supplied by the Director of Clothing to supervise transport arrangements. The arrangements which have been made by the Director of Clothing, and which I have sanctioned, will result in placing for the first time the whole of the railway system of the country—that is, the finest railway organisation in the world—in direct and immediate touch with the Clothing Department, thus ensuring the immediate despatch and rapid delivery of clothing in case of mobilisation. There has also been a great improvement in the system of storing clothing, and simplifying matters in the event of mobilisation. Patterns are being overhauled with a view to improvement where necessary, and to greater uniformity. If the Committee do not think these details beneath notice I will mention a few instances. Cavalry pantaloons and boots have, at increased cost, been greatly improved; better serge and khaki drill for foreign clothing is being introduced; an improved infantry great-coat has come into issue, and endeavours are being made to obtain a lighter and more flexible infantry boot; also to introduce a more useful and sightly helmet than the present one for the Field and Garrison Artillery. Provision has been made for the issue of khaki to the garrison at Malta at a cost of about, £5,000, and the Malta Militia will be furnished with greatcoats. Valises of a new pattern will be supplied to the Field Artillery. A considerable sum has been allotted for the provision of improved cloth for the field-service cap, the present quality having been generally complained of. Experiments are being made in aluminium for mess tins and similiar articles. This will show that the Department has been active in the past year. After the conversation of last night, I am happy to be able to add that employment at Pimlico is found for Reservists to the very fullest possible extent. Except for technical posts, only men who have served in the Army or Navy are now taken on. Already about half of those employed are ex-soldiers, and the number increases yearly as vacancies occur. Another important fact is this—an Army Order has been issued this month authorising, within certain limits, the sale to soldiers of necessaries. Formerly, if a soldier required any small article, such as a toothbrush, it had to got through the ordinary forms, and be debited here and there, and there was a great deal of fuss about it. It is believed that the change, which has been well received, will prove a boon to the soldier and a relief to the accounting officer. It may seem a small matter, but, after all, these apparently trivial reforms do a great deal to increase the soldier's comfort and contentment. Turning now to material of war, properly so called, I believe that in the past year, and in our provision for the coming year, we are well keeping pace with the march of scientific improvement. The last year has been marked by a general advance in artillery material, of which I will give some of the most remarkable instances. The use of wire in the construction of guns has enabled us to make ordnance of exceptional power, with the result that, whereas a few years ago a muzzle velocity of 2,000 foot-seconds was accepted as being sufficient, we have now guns of 2,300, 2,500, and shall have some of 2,600 and 2,800 foot-seconds. The accuracy of guns has likewise increased. For example, the 12in. gun threw three rounds, at a range of 2,000 yards, through a hole a little larger than the shot, while at a range of over 10,000 yards the mean error in range of three rounds was only 15 yards. I think these are remarkable proofs of the extraordinary strides that have been made in scientific gunnery. Both of these results are, to a great extent, to be ascribed to cordite, the use of which has developed, with the result that we have last year fired charges as large as 167½lb. The bursting charges of our shells have been increased, owing to the additional capacity which can be obtained from shell of a given weight if made of cast steel when compared with cast iron, since the strength of the former allows the walls to be made thinner. Additional power in projectiles will shortly be given by the use of high explosives as bursting charges. The light gun of the horse artillery has shown itself on the practice ground equal to the former heavier gun, and the latter is about to be increased in value by the introduction of a 15lb. shell. This, again, is due to cordite, since, now that the charge of 4lb. of powder can be abandoned for one of less than a pound of cordite, the weight thus gained can be put into the shell, and thus a more powerful projectile can be given without adding to the weight of the gun behind the team. A slightly altered system of rifling has enabled us to make barrels for rifles and for Maxim guns which are serviceable after having fired many more rounds than formerly. Considerable progress is being made in the provision of armament, and an advance is to be noted in the power of both guns and projectiles and in the simplification of the mountings. A new time fuze adopted for field artillery is a great improvement upon any of its predecessors, and the difficulty which was at one time experienced in sealing the vent of guns fired with cordite, and thus preventing erosion, has been, altogether overcome. In the coming year we shall make the first step towards a new siege train, by ordering two batteries of 6 inch B.L. howitzers, which are pieces of exceptional power, considering their small weight. In my memorandum I announce the intention to provide one additional battery to the new horse artillery gun, of which we have now only one battery. It is not often that a Minister has the pleasure of improving upon his own promise; but I am in that position. Instead of one, I propose to provide three additional batteries, and this, I am sure, the Committee will be pleased to learn. Another battery of field howitzers will also be provided, and the armaments of several important stations will be completed. The materials of the field artillery will be fitted with all the latest improvements, and a considerable number of batteries will be changed from shaft to pole draught. Arrangements will also be made to supply Artillery, Militia, and Volunteers with a certain number of depression, range-finders, in order that they may receive instruction in their use. As regards the new rifle, I will explain to the Committee precisely how that matter now stands. The whole of the Infantry have been re-armed with the following exceptions:—the 2nd Battalion North Lancashire Reigment, the 1st Royal Sussex Regiment, and the 2nd Lincoln. As regards the first two battalions, they are stationed in Ireland, and have, not been re-armed up to the present on account of want of large accommodation, but that we hope will soon be provided, and the arms are ready for them. As regards the third battalion, it is now on its way home from Singapore, and orders have been given for it to be re-armed on its arrival in England. As to the Militia, orders have been given for all battalions in Great Britain to be re-armed with the new rifle. If range accommodation is not available, battalions are to carry out their musketry practice with Martini-Henry rifles. To enable them to do this, they are allowed to retain 100 or 200 of those rifles. As regards Ireland, orders have been issued for nine Militia battalions only to be rearmed, the Field Marshal Commanding the Forces saying that range accommodation cannot be provided for more during 1895. Speaking generally, the only obstacle in the way of the entire re-arming of Line and Militia battalions is lack of range accommodation, as to which I shall have something to say further on. As members will see, there is a large diminution in this Vote for warlike stores, due to our requirements being in great measure completed. On the Works Vote there is, on the contrary, a considerable increase. Of this £55,800 is the addition to the sinking fund for repayment of expenditure under the barracks loan. Then there is the constant demand for sanitary repairs and adaptations, which, with old buildings as their field, are pressing and growing, and with which it is difficult to cope. Let me give as instances—Aldershot, £3,000; Windsor, £3,500; Belfast, £2,000; Ashton, £2,800; Canterbury, £3,000; Woolwich, £5,000; Bermuda, £3,900; Netley, £6,500. And I would call attention to the large sums, no less than £357,700, for maintenance—a service which it would be the worst possible economy to stint. The chief new services are the increase in barrack accommodation in St. Lucia, and the commencement of a military hospital in Hong-kong, in place of the hospital ship Meeanee, which has been reported unfit for the purpose. Other services are the purchase of land for artillery and rifle ranges, notably at Kilbride in the Dublin district, and a contribution from the War Department towards the cost of drainage and water supply at Gibraltar. I have mentioned the barrack loan. The progress of works under it continues steady and satisfactory, the average annual expenditure being about £600,000. Up to the present time £3,000,000 have been authorized, and nearly £2,400,000 actually paid. The Corporation of Dublin have agreed, for the purpose of carrying out their sewage scheme, to purchase Pigeon-house Fort, and the purchase-money will be employed in the provision of accommodation in or near Dublin, to take the place of the buildings surrendered, as a central store for Ireland. I am glad that this—I will not say quarrel, but difficulty, has been arranged in a manner satisfactory to the Dublin Corporation, as well as to us. We were anxious to assist them and further their drainage scheme; but it was impossible for us to surrender useful and necessary accommodation without, some equivalent. I must say now a word or two on the subject of ranges. I have never disguised the serious effect of our deficiency in this respect, which is indeed palpable, for an improved rifle is of little advantage if the men who are to use it are not trained in it. The sum of £20,000 taken in previous years, and now repeated, enables us to make a gradual provision. But I should not have been contented with this, and would have proposed that it should be largely increased had I not had in view a project whereby a very material increase will, I hope, be made to our training facilities. I trust I shall be able to speak more explicitly when this Vote itself comes before the Committee. I am obliged to the Committee for listening so patiently to what I am afraid was a very dreary story. But in submitting these Estimates I have two final observations which I desire to offer to the Committee. The first I address to it in the capacity of the Secretary for War, as the representative in this House of that great Service with whose administration it is one of the greatest honours and pleasures of my life to have been so long connected. I see letters in the newspapers from persons who apparently think themselves very ingenious because they have made the discovery that this year the Navy Estimates actually exceed the Army Estimates in amount, and forthwith they wrote to The Times announcing their remarkable discovery. Well, Sir, I am certain of my ground when I say that the officers of the Army, high and low, from the Commander-in-Chief and the distinguished soldiers surrounding him, downwards to the lower ranks, have no fault to find with that fact. On the contrary, they approve of it; they rejoice in it. They recognise that the Navy fills the first place in our national defence, and they applaud the policy of maintaining it in full strength for its high duties. My second observation is made rather as a Cabinet Minister than as Minister for War. We are well aware of the great burden upon the people of this country which the sum demanded this year for the two Services involve. It is not with a light heart or without grave reason that we make our proposals. But we believe this large expenditure to be necessary in the interest of the security of the Empire. We are satisfied that, under the close and ever closer supervision which our financial business, as well as the professional duties of the Army and Navy, now undergo, an ever increasing value is obtained for the provision made, and we know that in making this provision we shall be supported by the general sense of the British people.

said, he was sure that every member of the Committee who had listened to the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a more practical, straightforward, and explicit statement in connection with the Army had never been placed before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman would especially have the sympathy of the Committee in the remarks with which he concluded his observations. It had been, no doubt, a relief and a satisfaction to the Committee to hear that though large additional sums had been demanded for the Navy this year, there was no reduction in the Estimates for the Army. That had not been the experience of previous years, and no more unfortunate doctrine could be maintained than that the Army should suffer because the necessities o the Navy became greater. He had no intention of following the right hon. Gentleman into the numerous points he had thought it necessary to raise, but on the other hand, while expressing general concurrence with what had fallen from him, he desired to refer to one or two important matters to which the right hon. Gentleman had made no allusion in his statement. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year there was a most important discussion on the organisation of the naval and military services of the country, and that on that occasion a pledge was given by the right hon. Gentleman, after a speech from the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, that he would take this subject under his special attention. They heard from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on Monday that some progress had been made in the general survey which it was hoped the Committee of the Cabinet would take, but the hon. Gentleman told them that, not being a member of the Cabinet himself, he could not tell the Committee what had been the nature of that progress, and to what extent the pledge given had been carried out. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had just told them that this was a vital question. He had told them, in general terms, that great strides had been made in it during the last few years, and he assured them that a satisfactory working had been obtained of the Joint Naval and Military Committee. He was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by it. He understood that the Joint Naval and Military Committee was a Committee composed of officers of both Services, who met to consider difficult questions referred to them by the Secretary of State. That was a most valuable Committee; its deliberations were most important, and were necessary to the proper handling of the two Services. But they had asked for something more than that. In the course of the Debate last year it was agreed that the system which had obtained up to that time, by which a Committee of the Cabinet occasionally met to discuss and decide disputed points between the Army and Navy, was not a sufficient interposition by the Cabinet in those affairs, and it was asked that this Committee of the Cabinet should have permanent records and confidential advisers. Then it might be assumed that the Cabinet would have the real points and difficulties properly put before them. The leader of the Opposition put this request in definite terms, and it was not too much to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War approved the view that was then taken. Well, what happened now? Had such a Committee of the Cabinet been permanently established? Did the Committee take a general survey of the whole question, or only sit to decide disputed points? Were any minutes of the meetings—any permanent records—now kept which might be passed on from one Cabinet to another, and which future Cabinets—having in view the same objects as the present Cabinet, and without political views—could consult? It would be reassuring if the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee satisfactory assurances on those points. He had been much disappointed at the speech and memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman, and also at the Estimates themselves, in reference to the question of the provision of stores. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee the additions he proposed to make to the Horse Artillery, but he had not told them whether he had made a further provision for a reserve of guns for the new batteries which he proposed to establish. It could not be seen from the Estimates whether he was using the present reserve of guns to create the new batteries. If a reserve was not provided, then they would be making of the guns a sort of stage army. He saw that the total amount demanded for the equipment and reserve of the field artillery in the present year showed a decrease of £3,000 on the Estimates of last year, and that fact was not, in his opinion, at all satisfactory. But there was a more serious matter, and it was in regard to the small arm ammunition. He brought this question before the right hon. Gentleman last year, and pointed out then that an adequate reserve of ammunition ought to be made. He was appalled to find that this year no provision whatever had been made for such a reserve. This was a subject on which they had a right to press for information; for if hon. Members compared the numbers of troops which could be put in the field in case of invasion with the number of rounds of small arm ammunition available, he did not hesitate to say that the House of Commons would take more interest in this matter than it had hitherto done. There would, he thought, be a feeling of disappointment that the re-arming of the Militia with the magazine rifle had gone on so slowly. The original scheme certainly contemplated the re-arming of the whole of the Militia and the whole of the infantry Volunteers by this time, not necessarily with the magazine rifle, but with a rifle of the same calibre as the magazine rifle. He had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say something on the question of the colonial contributions. A great deal of discussion had taken place in the Press, especially in the Colonial Press, on the subject during the last 12 months, and he should like to hear that the investigations which took place two or three years ago showed that the treatment of the Colonies was liberal, and not injurious to them. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the decision he had take to increase the Artillery. The reduction of the Horse Artillery seven or eight years ago had caused a great deal of feeling in the Army, and had been a subject of continuous criticism from that time. That reduction of the batteries of horse artillery was, on the whole, unfortunate. He could not go into the reasons for that reduction without giving pain to persons still living. No man was more unwilling to take the step than the late Mr. Stanhope, but it was forced upon him. It was represented to him as the most important reason for that step that the horse artillery was in excess of the proportion it should bear to the rest of the troops. That want of proportion no longer existed, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had realised that, and had gone back upon the previous decision. The Secretary of State and the Director of Clothing were to be, congratulated on the improvement that had taken place with regard to the Army clothing. That improvement showed that they had taken to heart the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Preston that in the event of an outbreak of war the arrangements for the transport of clothing would break down. The right hon. Gentleman was also to be congratulated on his decision in regard to the calling out of the Volunteers not to change the words "threatened invasion" to the suggested words "national danger or emergency." It was his misfortune to endeavour to carry a measure destined to make that change; and the reception given to it, not only by Volunteer colonels, but by experienced Military officers like the late General Hamley, was such that the Government decided not to proceed with it. He hoped that, as the Estimates had been maintained very much in the position in which they were last year, the right hon. Gentleman would have every facility for carrying them within a reasonable time.

said, he did not share the optimistic views of the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman laughed at those who desired to make large reforms of system. But even in that part of the speech of the Secretary of State there was a large admission and concession to the reforming element. The right hon. Gentleman said that the want of plan, which had been alleged with more or less truth to exist a few years ago, had been remedied by the Joint Committee of the two Services and the Committee of the Cabinet. This was an admission that the institution of these two Committees had brought about a joint view of the question of national defence which the Hartington Commission had pointed out to be wanting.

When I spoke of being reluctant to disturb the present system, I meant the existing system of the organisation of the Army. My right hon. Friend is speaking of the administration, of the Army—the relation between the Army and the Navy, and so forth. On that ground I am a Reformer. I signed the Hartington Report. That reform has not yet been accomplished, but when it has been accomplished I should be quite in favour of waiting to see whether the reformed system would work or not.

said, he was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's clear explanation. With regard to the Committee of the Cabinet, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty told them that since last year it had been in operation, and he claimed that it was an important new departure. Therefore it must be, at all events, an extension of the pre-existing system. There was a very wide difference of opinion in all parts of the country, and in the House itself, between what might be called the two schools on this question. There was a great deal to be said for the position which the Secretary of State had consistently taken up. Any Member of the House put at the head of the War Office would hesitate in disturbing the existing system because of the immense difficulty in replacing it by a completely successful new one. But there were others who felt that in Army matters, as in foreign and colonial matters, we were getting into the habit of treating all that existed as the best that was possible, and of not attempting to make changes which were really justified by the facts. The Secretary of State for War was undoubtedly very disinclined to move. He said that Mr. Knox, the Accountant-General of the Army, might be classed as an Army reformer. That threw a certain light on the opinions of the Secretary of State for War. The present Pope was, he believed, under the impression that he was an ecclesiastical reformer, but that opinion was not shared except by those in the immediate surroundings of his Holiness. The Secretary of State asked the Committee to sanction an increase in the number of guns. A few years ago the Committee was asked to sanction a decrease. On whose responsibility was that advice given? An hon. Member on the front Bench opposite told them he could not say, as, if he did, it might hurt the feelings of certain living persons. Surely this wobbling in a very few years on a question of very great importance illustrated the want of system and the necessity for some responsible advice in connection with the Army. In the event of war it had been contemplated by high authorities that two complete Army corps would have to be sent from this country to India. In the event of such a call upon our resources, our Army at home—if, indeed, we needed such an Army to guard against invasion and could not rely upon our sea forces—was very short of artillery for the support of our enormous body of half-trained infantry. We were very far short of what we ought to have in mobile field guns, and the more doubtful our force was for defence the more necessary was it for us to have a quantity of well-trained mobile artillery. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to get a portion of the increase from the depôts, he was counting in the increase a number of guns at Woolwich which had been always reckoned as a part of our national defence. It was satisfactory, however, to note that in the present instance the Secretary for War had informed the Committee of the authority upon which he proposed the increase—namely, Sir Redvers Buller and General Lloyd. The Committee might also congratulate themselves upon another matter mentioned in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of the probability of our being able shortly to use high—explosive shells. Reticence on such a matter could be well understood; at the same time, he did not much believe in it, because he had always found that foreign Governments knew about our experiments and failures in such matters. For example, the failures at Lydd had been published abroad. If our successes were not known abroad our failures, at any rate, were known there. It was, however, an interesting point that there was hope of our shortly coming into line with Germany and France on the question of high explosive shells. In view, however, of the fact that the French Minister of Marine had recently stated that it might shortly be possible to do away with very heavy guns at sea and to use high explosive shells in smaller guns, he thought this country was far behind its neighbours in regard to this matter. The Secretary for War, in the closing words of his speech, had alluded to the very large character of the demand made on the country in the present year. These were, in fact, the heaviest peace estimates ever laid before this country. Probably our expenditure on sea and land would be from £56,000,000 to £58,000,000, while next year it would reach the latter figure at the least. With the expenditure in the colonies, it would come to nearly £60,000,000, and after next year that figure would at least be reached. The country would vote the money willingly enough if it could be led to feel that it was getting value for its money. Generally speaking, he believed that the country did feel this in regard to the Navy, but as regards the Army that impression did not, in his belief, prevail. This country spent more upon its land forces than France, Germany, or Russia, although the last-named Power maintained more than 1,000,000 of men with the standards upon a peace footing. The reason which was always given for this was that we had no conscription, but he believed that, apart from the question of conscription, the expenditure upon our Army was at a vastly higher rate than that in other countries. He had formerly put forward suggestions for a certain arrangement between the Indian and Home Services. These had been criticised, and, he would admit, to a certain extent broken down. But Lord Roberts and other authorities far more competent than himself had made other suggestions, leaving the United Kingdom partially separate from the Indian system, and these if adopted would, he believed, prove cheaper for India and more effective for the United Kingdom than present arrangements, and were well worthy of consideration. It was an open secret that the most witty of the colleagues of the Secretary for War had described our system as resembling a man who keeps 20 horses in his stable, but who is hardly able to send a gig to meet a friend arriving at the station, and who, if a carriage and pair was required, was unable to turn it out and was compelled to hire. We had an immense nominal force, almost equal to that of one of the great Continental Powers, but we could only show for it an organised force of about two corps in India. All the rest was more or less chaos; and possibly, after six weeks or two months of preparation, we might organise another force of two corps at home. We differed from Continental countries in this—that we did not train our officers by giving them the opportunity of dealing with men in large bodies, and thus obtaining experience of some of the conditions of actual warfare. We had cavalry regiments of from 220 to 240 horses of military age stationed in the manufacturing towns of Lancashire. But single regiments of this description were hardly more than squadrons, and nothing but political reasons in the past had led to this dispersal of our cavalry force. We could not have cavalry in the Continental sense unless these regiments were trained together. He would not compare this country with the great Continental Powers, but he would take a small Power which, in a military sense, was as small and old-fashioned as ourselves—he meant Belgium. A few years ago Belgium had, in all, eight cavalry regiments dispersed in all parts of the country. Within the last few years these eight cavalry regiments had been brought to two stations, four to one and four to the other; and the strength had been brought up to 3,000 men and 3,000 horses of military age at each station. Under conditions of this sort you could do something with cavalry; but here we were still going on under the old wretched system, with the men scattered about in many places, which had the practical effect of throwing away the money we spent. Of course, in India cavalry occupied a more favourable position. Coming to another point, he would put a delicate question to hon. Members. If names were asked for, they could not be given in public; but he would ask those who knew anything about the present condition of the Army whether, in such a matter as selection for high command, there was at present in our system of military administration any security that those we put into positions of high command where they were able to get military experience, were only those men who were fitted for such posts, and who would hold command in time of war? It was within the knowledge of hon. Members that within the last year or two high divisional commands in India and at home had been given to those who might be very good fellows, but intellectually were not fitted for command in time of war. As long as this state of facts continued, there was not ground for the cheerful optimism which marked the present conduct of the War Office and the opinions of the Secretary for War and his immediate predecessors. On the general question, if we could adopt something like a half-separate system for India, which would consider Indian needs as far as a portion of our recruiting went, we should be able to adopt for home defence a system that would be vastly cheaper than the present. The large expenditure on our land forces provided something for India—some reserve for India, and very little, else. If we had to consider only home defence, we should have a system something like that of Switzerland or of our colonies. The colonies had adopted a system intermediate between our system of Volunteering and the system of paid armies; they had Volunteers who were paid for the actual time they gave to drill, and who returned to their usual avocations. In Switzerland, for a sum which did not exceed two millions sterling a year, and which, leaving out arms and supplies, would not exceed a million a year, they were able to put into the field 408 field or mountain guns, and by universal admission the force was one of the most efficient artillery in the world. The Swiss had in the first line 130,000 men, in the second line 80,000 men, and in the Reserve, for which arms and clothes were provided, 270,000 men. For Home defensive purposes, if we were free from the Indian problem, we could obtain plenty of men to go through the necessary training for less than we were spending. The Secretary for War had said little about manœuvres, and the reference to them in the printed statement was neither long nor satisfactory. The cost of manœuvres on a large scale had been the reason given for not having them in the past, and last year it was the difficulty of obtaining the necessary ground in a densely-peopled country. Unless we had such manœuvres we could not train Generals. Even without a great extent of land, there was something to be done, as had been shown in Russia, Germany, and France, by merely moving about large bodies of men. If we merely brought the men together, and moved them from London to the coast, we should find ourselves face to face with problems which had tried the most eminent commanders of Russia, Germany, and France. This year the French would bring into their manœuvres forces numbering from 120,000 to 125,000 men; and they were going to be exercised almost entirely in simply marching from one point to another, which would involve the solution of many problems as to the writing of orders and as to supplies. Even such movements as were possible on our Downs would test the efficiency of our Generals and the marching powers of our men; and the great distances that were from year to year marched by the men of foreign armies showed their endurance and the completeness of their organisation—matters in which it was to be feared we were falling far behind them. With conscription and short service, the work was made harder on the continent than it could be in this country; but still our deficiencies were worthy of the attention of the Secretary for War.

said, that he believed the cavalry required thorough reorganisation. The number of men and horses voted by the House was, in his belief, sufficient for all probable purposes, but the cavalry force was rendered inefficient by its organisation, which was radically bad. The remedy for this evil was plain and clear, though, perhaps, somewhat drastic; but he had no doubt that the reform, though long needed, would be opposed by the Commander-in-Chief. The number of the rank and file on the Estimates for the cavalry, excluding the three household regiments, was this year 10,500, divided into 19 regiments. Besides this, there were nine regiments in India having five squadrons apiece, but, as he heard that they were tolerably efficient, he should say no more about them. Of the first 19 regiments referred to only six could be called anything like efficient. They were nominally 600 strong, but that would not give more than 500 or 450 efficients. The remaining regiments were on lower standard, and every cavalry officer knew that for purposes of war they were absolutely useless. It was no doubt the policy years back to maintain weak regiments which could be augmented in the course of a war. Such a policy as that might have been proper in the days when wars lasted seven or perhaps fourteen years; but such a policy at the present day was absolutely rotten and out of date. What was the use of a regiment unless it was fit to join a campaign before it was over? The two great wars within the last 30 years were those between Prussia and Austria and France and Germany. In the first the Prussians were under the walls of Vienna in 49 days; and in the second the power of France was broken up in the first five months. In face of these modern facts, what was the use of our cavalry organisation? A system ought to be adopted under which every regiment maintained on the Estimates should be thoroughly fit to start on a campaign to-morrow. The plan he wished to put before the Committee was this—to take the 10,500 men and to divide them into 14 regiments of 750 strong, each with five squadrons of 150 men each. That would give four squadrons for the purposes of war, and a depôt squadron. In this way there would be 14 regiments 600 strong, perfectly trained and perfectly fit for war, and a fifth or reserve squadron of 150, and he for one, both as a cavalry officer and a man of common sense and observation, would much rather have 14 effective regiments than 19 regiments which everybody knew to be ineffective. Two great objections were made to this proposal. The first was a sentimental one—namely the breaking, up of regiments with old and valued traditions. No one felt that more than ho did, but when it became a question of absolute necessity for the benefit of the cavalry, that ought not to prevail, and the change ought to be made at once. The other objection was the thorough distrust of the War Office which was felt by a great many old soldiers, the belief that the War Office would readily accept a reduction in the number of regiments, but in a few years, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hard up, would reduce the number of men, and the last state would be worse than the first. He did not attach any value to this view, for he did not believe that the House would ever be so wanting in its duty to the country as to allow that to be done. In view of the increased amount voted for the Navy when the necessity arose, he had no doubt that the House would always be willing to vote what was necessary for the Army. He believed the scheme he had proposed was a good one, and he hoped the Secretary for War, though he was an optimist and saw everything in a rosy light, would see that there was some force in what he had said—that without any increased cost to the nation and without any increase in numbers, there was no difficulty in rendering the cavalry force, which he believed to be composed of the best officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, equal to any body of cavalry that could be required in war. There was another point he wished to mention, and that was in regard to the reserve cavalry men. In the infantry he believed the reserve man was very useful, because in civil life he kept in work; in fact, he should think he did a great deal more work than the infantry soldier in barracks. But the case with the reserve cavalryman was quite different. He was employed about horses and stables, but they seldom or never mounted a horse, and the consequence was that after a year or two they became stiff in the muscles required for riding. He wished to suggest that after being two years in the cavalry reserve the cavalryman should be transferred to the infantry reserve. It would, no doubt, be objected to that that man who had been accustomed to the carbine would not take readily to the musket. He did not think there was anything in that. Though the man who had been using the musket found it very difficult to accustom himself to the carbine, the man who could shoot with a carbine would find no difficulty with the musket. But his point was, not to keep on paper men who could not be depended on for war. As to the mounted infantry, he had always been a strong advocate of that force, but they were not as well trained as they ought to be, and the expenditure upon them was greater than it need be. In the first place 300 or 400 cobs were bought, though he believed they turned out a pretty good speculation. Then his second objection was, that a large number of men were sent down to Aldershot to be trained by a staff which was much too small. His third objection was that the system was more expensive than was necessary. A better plan would be to send, say, 30 men from an infantry battalion to the nearest cavalry regiment for training. That should be done as soon as possible after the cavalry drill season was over, and the training should last from about October 8 until December 15. Another batch of 30 line men could join the cavalry regiment on January 1, and stay with it until March I5. This would give the men practice in the riding-school for two-and-a-half months. In London men could be sent in this way from the Foot Guards to the regiments of Household Cavalry, and no expense would be entailed. Similarly men could be trained with ease with the cavalry regiments at Aldershot, Shorncliffe, and York, and all other cavalry head-quarters. The plan could be carried out without expense. If it was thought that 30 men were too few to send from one regiment in a year to train with cavalry, let the number be increased to 60. He might be told that the cavalry regiments would object to the trouble, but he believed himself that on cavalry regiment would raise the slightest objection to this scheme. In fact, cavalry regiments would be glad to have these additional men, for in the furlough season they were always short of troopers.

said, he wished to interpose a very few words with reference, not to anything contained in the admirable statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but with reference to an omission which he thought was made in it. In reply to a question recently in the House referring to the rapidly diminishing number of the old soldiers of the Crimea, the Financial Secretary indicated that the right hon. Gentleman would make some statement on the subject to-day. When the Party opposite were in power, a very considerable addition was made to the number of these pensioners, but he thought the time had now come when the right hon. Gentleman might fairly consider whether, having in view how rapidly these poor fellows were disappearing, he could not deal with them as a body, and once for all grant them those pensions which would be of so much advantage to them in their declining years. There was another point. Under the present conditions, these pensions were given practically only to poor fellows who, if not in the workhouse, were approaching it and in receipt of outdoor relief. The condition that they must be in absolutely destitute circumstances was really most discouraging to the best class of these poor men; men who had some slight assistance from their friends, or who were able to earn three or four shillings a week, could not receive a pension. It was quite needless to dwell on the desirableness of such pensions being given. He had received only yesterday a letter from a distinguished officer who served in the Crimea, in which he said:

"More noble, devoted soldiers than my old comrades of the Crimea, especially those of the winter of 1854–5, never breathed the breath of life. Badly fed and overworked, exposed, ill clad, to all the rigour of a Russian winter, weak and ill in body, but undaunted in spirit, they nobly upheld the honour of the Empire against the far superior numbers of a brave enemy. Exposed in the open under most dangerous and distressing circumstances, they held their ground it the point of the bayonet. Owing to the position I then held in my regiment, I knew the men well, how in the midst of their sufferings and when wounded, they cheered and blessed our good Queen for her sympathy with their sufferings. As it was with my regiment, so it was with the others. Devoted and loyal to Queen and country, they nobly performed their duty as British soldiers, and surely now in their old age, in their declining days, something better than the cold shelter of a workhouse should be provided for them."

That was the testimony of a distinguished officer who saw, from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in that extraordinary winter what these poor fellows endured and suffered. He could not make an appeal more cogently, but he trusted that before the vote was passed, they would hear from the Secretary of State an intimation that something more would be done.

called attention to the recent fire at Winchester Barracks, and asked whether the barracks would be re-built. He understood that the Military Authorities had recently been surveying the site. He believed that, at the time of the fire the control of the water mains in the barracks was in the, hands of the barrack authorities, and that if was the custom to turn off all the valves at four o'clock in the afternoon, thus shutting off any inflow of water from the mains. He wished to know whether this practice was still continued, and whether it prevailed in other barracks, at Portsmouth, for example, where there, was a fire the other day. He understood that it was not the custom at the War Office to insure barracks. What, he would like to know, was the extent of loss sustained by the fire at Winchester, and how was it to be met? Was there any sinking or reserve fund available for the purpose?

drew attention to the difficulty of inducing officers of the Royal Artillery to serve as adjutants of volunteer artillery corps. Assuming volunteer artillery to be necessary, and considering the important positions allocated to it in the plan of national defence—this would appear to be the opinion of the Military Authorities—he held that there could not be a more important duty devolving upon officers of the Royal Artillery than the duty of assisting to instruct volunteer artillery corps. The truth was that this post of adjutant was not attractive, and there was extreme difficulty in inducing suitable officers to come forward. The term adjutant in the case of volunteers did not convey exactly the same meaning as it did in the case of the regular forces or Militia, because there were duties that fell upon adjutants of volunteers which did not appertain to the same position in the senior Services. Upon the manner in which an adjutant of volunteers imparted instruction depended to a very great extent the amount of attendance at drills, and so the efficiency of the regiment. The difficulty to which he referred was largely connected with the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. There was no doubt that it was a disadvantage to an officer in the Royal Artillery to accept the position of volunteer adjutant, for the allowances made to him did not cover the expenses which they were intended to meet. It was true that an extra allowance had been granted to these adjutants by the late Mr. Stanhope, but since then an increase of pay, called "armament pay," had been given to garrison officers in the Royal Artillery, so that the extra allowance had ceased to be an inducement to officers to serve as adjutants. The pecuniary position of adjutants ought to be improved. If the armament pay, 3s. a day, could be extended to them there would be competition for these posts instead of disinclination to accept them. It was undesirable that very young artillery officers should be posted to volunteer adjutancies. An adjutant of volunteers should have the experience of a captain, as is required of adjutants of militia. Another reason for the reluctance of artillery officers to become volunteer adjutants was their fear that when they rejoined their regiments they might be deemed ignorant of the latest scientific improvements in artillery. Such fear, however, would cease to exist if facilities were given to adjutants to attend classes at Shoeburyness or elsewhere. Allusion had been made to the scarcity of officers in the Volunteer force. They did not want pay, they did not wish to be covered with medals, and they did not wish Army commissions, has had been suggested, but they should be treated as integral portions of Her Majesty's defensive forces, and relieved of heavy expenses for what really and truly appertained to their means of instruction. He was sorry the Secretary of State found himself obliged to say that captiation allowances was a payment in advance based upon last year's returns, so that in the event of a new volunteer regiment being raised, it would have no right to capitation grant in respect of its first year. That declaration would be heard by commanding officers with dismay, because it was well-known that, in many instances, they had pledged their personal credit for debts incurred, on the understanding that the grant was by way of payment for past services. He trusted this matter would receive the serious attention of the Government. Again, volunteer officers should have better facilities for attending schools of instruction. At the present moment they were at a great disadvantage as compared with their brethren in the Militia, in respect of allowances. It was discouraging to them to find that the commissions they held did not entitle them to the privileges which similar commissions signed by Her Majesty conferred on other officers. The only remedy he had to suggest for the scarcity of officers was that the force should be united, as far as possible, with the Army, and that it should be clearly understood the Volunteers formed an essential and necessary portion of Her Majesty's defensive forces.

congratulated his right hon. Friend upon the absolutely unique position which he occupied, not only in presenting Estimates showing an absolute diminution of £22,000 upon those of the preceding year, but also showing figures less by £717,000 than those presented by the Admiralty for the sister service. Nor did it appear that this result had been arrived at by any diminution of the number of men, which displayed an actual increase, while the Inspector General of Recruiting bore witness that never at any time were his operations conducted under more favourable circumstances, nor the ranks better filled with recruits of good stamp, than during the past year. He knew that this was not altogether a circumstance bearing testimony to the prosperity of the country in other walks of life. On the contrary, it was probably true that industrial difficulty was military opportunity; but so far as this service was concerned, they must rejoice that this prosperous state of affairs had been brought about, not by any lowering of the standard of height, or accepting men of a less satisfactory physique, but by the actual offering of men of adequate stature, and improving physical conditions. Another most satisfactory feature was the diminution of the number of men who quit the Army by purchase, showing that those who were discontented with the conditions of service were a number yearly decreasing in strength. In 1892, 3133 purchased their discharge; in 1893, 2617; in 1894, 2454, bearing emphatic testimony to the increased comforts and attractions of the Service. He regretted extremely that the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to limit the manœuvres to a short distance from Aldershot, thereby depriving the troops of the experience to be gained by more extensive operations. Whatever zeal the Duke of Connaught and his Staff might display, it was hardly possible, when moving so short a distance from their base, that the two important Departments of the Commissariat and Transport should have adequate practice in their most essential duties. In any event, he trusted that the modest sum of £6,000, spent last year with such good effect in the Cavalry Manœuvres at Churn, would not be spared this year. It was hardly possible for any Cavalry officer or sergeant to have in any other way adequate instruction in brigade and division: our troops were so scattered or in detachments, especially in Ireland, that no commanding officer had a chance of bringing his regiment together and in contact with other troops, except in the large camps; and anyone reading the Memorandum of the Inspector-General of Cavalry upon the late manœuvres could not fail to discern the supreme importance which that general officer attached to the annual drill of Cavalry in large masses. Last year the Secretary of State said—

"There is a sum of £2,400 taken for drilling and training Army Reserves, which, although a modest sum, is a step in the right direction. It was for three days' training, or 12 drills to be done by men of 10 years' service."

He should like to know the result of this experiment, and also whether this invitation to the men of the Reserve to come out this year was in any way connected with the same object? As he had been, since his connection with the War Office, advocating this step, he might be allowed to express his satisfaction that the Military Authorities appeared at last to share his views. To leave 84,000 men of the best and most seasoned material to take their chance of being able either to shoot or to drill, until the very outbreak of hostilities, appeared to him to be the most dangerous and foolhardy proceeding. The Secretary of State for War mentioned that some 800 of these men were due to each battalion of Infantry at home, and they could easily see that with proper care they would form the backbone of our Infantry force. How far they would respond to an invitation to come out this year was very doubtful, but he only ventured to advocate that they should do a certain number of drills and shooting with their local rifle corps, and not leave their occupations at all. He had only one other point to mention. Last year the Secretary of State promised that he would look into the question of the teaching of modern languages at Sandhurst. No provision was, he observed, made for either French or German teaching this year by the appointment of professors at Sandhurst, and we were in this anomalous condition that we gave 1,000 marks at the entrance examination for a knowledge of French and German, and we took every opportunity of discouraging the study of those languages amongst the students afterwards. Now there was a professor of German and a professor of French at the Staff College within the same grounds as Sandhurst itself. Might not those students, who desired it, attend lectures at the staff and continue their study of French and German, and be encouraged to keep up their knowledge of these languages by some recognition in the final examination by additional marks when competing for commissions?

, replying to the points which had been raised by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, said that arrangements for charging shells with high explosive acids were so far advanced that special buildings were being erected at Woolwich in which that work and the fitting of the shells with safe and efficient detonators could be carried on with the maximum of safety to the people employed in a comparatively dangerous occupation. In regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Guildford, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the store of small arm ammunition was so ample that it was not necessary to take a larger sum for the coming year than, was provided in the Estimates. The fact was that, although the manufacture of cordite was seriously interrupted by the regrettable explosion at Waltham, they had been able to profit by the supply of nitro-glycerine with which their own gun-cotton was saturated by private manufacturers. The paste so obtained could, without danger, be worked up into cordite at Waltham. With regard to the three extra batteries, he had to explain that it had been found possible to make a fresh allocation of the money taken in the Vote for stores since the printing of the Estimates now before the House. They had been enabled to do this by the decision of the military authorities giving approval of a pattern of 303 rifle, converted from the Martini-Henry weapons which had been superseded by the magazine rifle. Employment would be found at the Enfield factory on the work of this conversion instead of in adding to the store of magazine rifles, the reserve of which was regarded as ample. The arm so adapted would be submitted for practical trial, but there appeared to be no doubt that it would be regarded by the Volunteers as in every respect satisfactory.

did not wish to criticise the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in a hostile manner, because he believed it would prove satisfactory to the Army and the country generally. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had said that the Army here cost a great deal more than in Continental countries, but that was because the British was a voluntary army, and the Government were obliged to pay the ordinary rate of wages. He was sure neither the Committee nor the country would like to reduce the cost of the Army by reducing the wages.

I went on to say that attempts had been made, notably at the Statistical Society, on more than one occasion, to separate that portion of the charges of the Army connected with the presence or absence of conscription, and that even when this was done, our Army was still dearer than Continental armies.

said, that of course the main cost of our Army wan the cost of wages. With reference to the question of recruiting, whenever there was an increase in the number of recruits, it did not show that more people were wishing to enter the Army, but rather that a great many more people were out of employment. In the country districts many men joined the Army because of their inability to obtain work. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, incidentally mentioned that one of the most valued officers of the War Office had been obliged to retire on account of the system of compulsory retirement because of age. That was only a specimen of what happened to a great many officers of the Army, and there was nothing of which the officers complained so much as having to retire compulsorily at an early age. He hoped some readjustment would be made in the present system. It seemed absurd that because a man at the age of 45 had not become a lieutenant-colonel, that therefore he must retire from Her Majesty's service. At that age he was in the prime of life, and yet, because of the slow promotion that obtained in his regiment, he was turned out, and not only did they lose his services, but the country had to pay him a retiring pension. That seemed to him a most ridiculous thing, and one which would not be tolerated in any other industrial walk in life. Instead of being turned out at this early age, it was for the benefit of the Army itself that officers of such experience should be retained in the service, while there would be a great saving to the country, which would not then have to pay all these retiring pensions. He wished to call attention to the matter of deferred pay which was payed to the troops. He was quite sure that a good deal of that deferred pay, when it came to the soldiers at the end of 12 years, was absolutely wasted. When a soldier received £20 or £25 in his hand in one sum, he had never been in possession of such a large amount before, and he often spent it in a very rapid way. A case was in the police courts the other day in which it appeared that a soldier had drawn his deferred pay. Among his money he had two £5 notes; one of these was spent in about two hours in treating his companions, and the other would, no doubt, have gone in the same way had it not been purloined from him in a public-house. He thought some way ought to be devised by which the men should not get the money all at once, but should have it put in savings banks for use in their future life. The increase in the field artillery was, he thought, a most satisfactory feature of the estimates, but he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to abolish the present depot, or to gradually increase the officers and men in forming these new battalions. He thought it was very important to know where we were to draw these men from. Each of these three Army corps were to have from 84 to 102 guns, but in the German or French Army corps they had 120 guns, and our Army, he contended, should be armed in exactly the same way as the Continental Armies. With regard to sickness amongst the troops, he believed the troops were never in a more healthy condition than now, but it was not very long ago since the War Office laid a sewage farm close to the hospital in the Aldershot camp. He believed this had been remedied now, but at the time it caused a great deal of illness, and showed great carelessness on the part of the military authorities. He should have to call attention to the cost of the forage and provisions at the right time, because it was admitted last year that 60 per cent, of the forage was foreign, and that a great amount of the meat came from abroad, and he thought this was contrary to the wishes of the general public of the kingdom. He believed the general statement with regard to the Army would be received with satisfaction by the service itself and by the country.

said, they were all competent to discuss the amount of the Army estimates, which was in the gross 21 millions. He would not say one word in disparagement of the officers and men of our gallant Army, but he thought that cost too much money. The wages, clothing, food, accommodation, and everything else for each soldier was about £56 per annum, and each soldier cost the country £125 per annum, as some £68 was spent in administering his affairs. He was glad that so many things had been done to increase the comfort of our soldiers, but he thought it would be better to spend more money on our Navy and less on our Army. He believed we could have as many men as efficient as at present for far less money, because the money at present was spent largely on drones in office, and not upon the working bees. In the interests of the taxpayers he protested against the system of extravagance, which required such an enormous vote.

thought that denunciations such as those of the hon. Member were useless, unless suggestions were also put forward. He did not know whether the withdrawal of the troops from Cyprus was the beginning of a new policy, or a mere temporary arrangement, but in view of a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, it seemed as if it was part of a definite policy of withdrawal on the part of the Government. He was told also that there was an intention of withdrawing a battalion from Egypt, and if so, that would be very dangerous policy indeed. He thought our forces there needed strengthening rather than diminishing at present. He did not think they had had a satisfactory answer to the point in regard to the Artillery, or rather the guns, raised by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. In regard to a small matter, which, however, affected the comfort of the soldier and the welfare of the Army, he would like to know whether some steps could not be taken, not to prevent marriages outside the ordinary married strength of the Army, but to warn the girls who married these men of the hard life to which they undoubtedly exposed themselves. He thought it would be possible to make it more generally known through the clergy and registrars, by means of the issue of some circular. He was glad to hear what his right hon. Friend said with regard to the gallantry and service done by the West India regiments. Was it not possible to extend that system of commendation a little further? We were extending our Empire, and bringing within its scope a great variety of native races, and it seemed to him that we were wasting a great reserve of material if we did not make some use of these men. They were men particularly adapted to the warfare in which this country often engaged, and a regiment or two of native troops in South Africa would be a valuable addition to the Forces of this Country. As to recruiting, he was much struck with what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the compulsory cessation of recruiting during the winter months, owing to what he considered to be an absurd regulation. It was a very absurd regulation that the War Office, during the period of winter, which, he believed was the time really to get more recruits than any other period, should deliberately, by a hard and fast rule, shut themselves out from the opportunity of getting the very men wanted for the Army. With reference to deferred pay, he was certain that the payment of deferred pay in a large sum when the men left the colours was a source of infinite mischief, not only to the men, but to the Army itself. He believed the system to be a sheer waste, and he offered the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to pay the money by instalments, or add it to the actual pay of the men when serving with the colours. The system was established, no doubt, with a good idea, but at present it had the result, in the first place, of inducing the men to leave the colours as soon as possible. He thought it had also the very bad effect of discouraging certain men who might be very valuable in the Army by leading them to take the deferred pay on joining the Reserve. The money was squandered within a few months, and the money thus accumulated was of no good to the men. They were, indeed, left worse off than they were before.

, referred to the Yeomanry, and asked whether the allowance of £2 made to marksmen in the Yeomanry during the last two or three years was to be continued? As to the two days' preliminary drill, he showed that some years ago the Yeomanry troops were allowed to put in those two days' drill at the headquarters of the troops instead of at the headquarters of the regiment: now the system was reversed. The result was that it was impossible to get those portions of a squadron living far from the training ground conveniently together, so as to allow the men to be seen in their own districts. He belonged to a part of a Yeomanry squadron which lived over 20 miles from the district of training. If they were allowed to put in the two days' drill at their own headquarters they would probably gather a number of spectators to see the manœuvres, and thus give an enormous help to recruiting. Under the New Yeomanry Regulations, however, the troops could not show themselves for more than five minutes while marching through the streets of a town on the way to headquarters. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not possibly relax the rule, which, though in many instances a good one, yet acted to the detriment of Yeomanry regiments in certain cases. On the point of the permanent staff he stated that there was an adjutant to three Yeomanry regiments. He believed that the adjutant belonging to the Cavalry was absolutely required for the training of a Yeomanry regiment. But the office work which he performed for the remainder of the year could be as well overtaken by an officer of the Yeomanry regiment, and a saving would besides be effected. It would, moreover, be generally to the advantage of the regiment if, instead of an adjutant appointed for five years, they allowed each regiment to have an adjutant appointed for the office work out of its own officers, while permitting an officer to be sent from the nearest Cavalry regiment to do the work of the adjutant at the annual training.

said that the points of detail which the hon. Member had brought forward were unfortunately not familiar to him at that moment, and he thought they had better be raised on the Vote itself. He would then be better prepared to give the information, and if his hon. Friend would communicate the points to him he would inquire into them. He had stated in his explanation that the contingent allowance would be continued on a footing to last for three years; £3 to be given for those who passed the third class, and £1 10s. for those who did not. The hon. Member for Guildford asked some questions as to the Cabinet arrangements for the control of the Army and Navy Services. He assented to the general principle which had been laid down by the present Leader of the Opposition, but as to the particular recommendation that there should be a Standing Committee of the Cabinet which should keep records, and have a professional adviser, that was a proposal which had never commended itself to him, and to which he would personally entertain considerable objection, more especially to the professional adviser. It was undesirable that any fixed institution of that kind should exist. The Committee; of the Cabinet had full power to ask for any assistance it wanted, but he did not approve any permanent arrangement of that kind to include professional advisers. There was a proposal on the part of the Hartington Commission of a Council consisting of eminent professional men, and he agreed not to object to that particular paragraph of the recommendation, because it was hoped that there might be some advantage in the arrangement. He was not in favour of any rigid and stereotyped Committee of the Cabinet keeping records of their proceedings. This matter was now on such a fooling that the necessity for an arrangement of this sort was greatly exaggerated. There was the Prime Minister, and the Ministers for War and the Marine; and there were other Ministers more or less concerned, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for India and the Colonies. These, or the first three alone, for certain purposes constituted a Committee of sufficient authority.

I mean all meeting together.

said that, after all, people could consult without being called together. If three Ministers met in the Recess probably a great deal of time would be spent in discussing how they had been spending the Recess, and probably the business would be better attended to by the humble means of a despatch-box. On these grounds he did not think that it was desirable to overdo the necessity for a cast-iron scheme of a Committee passing down records from one Government to another. As to small-arm ammunition, the War Office, according to its competent advisers, stood very well in this respect now. There had been developed in this country a wonderful Facility for supplying small-arm ammunition, and it was unnecessary to keep any exaggerated reserve, as the War Office was advised that it had a sufficient supply for its purposes now. As to the contribution of the Colonies, there was an inter-Departmental Committee now sitting, which he hoped would soon come to a conclusion. It dealt with principles which would apply to all the vexed questions—the Straits, Mauritius, and Hongkong—and there was every prospect of an early decision, which he hoped would be found to do equal justice between the reasonable demands of the Empire and the necessities of the several colonies. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had taken large ground, and had discussed the whole organisation of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had a most ingenious scheme of his own, which he put forward many years ago. With great good sense his right hon. Friend did not pin himself to the details of the scheme, and admitted that many parts of it might be open to amendment; and he referred to an alternative scheme put forward by Lord Roberts. Both schemes practically involved a separate and secondary—though not second-rate—army for Indian purposes. He himself was suspicious of all these schemes. Soon after he became Secretary for War, knowing of his right hon. Friend's proposal, and hearing that he might introduce it at any time, he obtained and always carried in his pocket an elaborate financial analysis of the scheme, showing the most portentous and appalling results to the British and Indian Exchequers. He was prepared to discharge this pistol at his right hon. Friend's head whenever he might happen to broach the subject: but, unfortunately, his right hon. friend had been so long quiet that he had left this pistol at home. An enormous number of men had devoted their time and attention to this subject, and none with greater intelligence or knowlege than the right hon. Gentleman. The War Office had innumerable schemes; but he for one did not feel equal to the task of even criticising these schemes at the present moment. He could assure the Committee that all these schemes had been considered and every one had been found open to certain objections. He admitted that the existing scheme was also open to objections; but it was a workable acheme, and one which answered its purpose. In the name of common sense let it be continued for a certain number of years, at all events, until the Army had become thoroughly accustomed to it, and until people had ceased to expect that it would be changed from one year to another. Then, if it failed to give expected results, it would be time enough to turn to another. As to the comparative costliness of our Army, it was not only conscription that entered into the calculation. In those countries where conscription was in force the whole resources of the country were laid at the disposal of the Army, and all the civil interests of the country were made to take "a back seat." When troops were moving, the whole of the passenger and goods traffic was stopped that the troops might pass, and that was only one of the instances out of a hundred where there was a great difference here. For everything here the military authorities had to pay heavily, and no advantage was given to them over the ordinary public. In other countries, the public was nowhere. Let the Committee conceive what an enormous difference that made in the cost of the Army; and it was a difference which it was almost impossible to assess. Our Estimates had at least this advantage—that, large as they were and swollen as they might appear to be, they at least brought to the surface the whole cost to the country of the Army. The private resources of the country lost nothing on account of the Army which did not appear on the Estimates; and the same could not be said of the Estimates of any of the great military Powers with which a comparison was made. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that cavalry regiments were stationed in towns. But with respect to the amusements of the officers and men, and the pleasure of the community, it would be very much more desirable if the cavalry could be kept in quarters where they could be submitted to constant training. But this was very difficult to accomplish. Little by little stations formerly used had been given up, though he would not say that the scheme could be carried out entirely. The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to have great manœuvres. This year the sum put down for manœuvres was £24,000, as against £20,000 last year, so that there was an increase. But large manœuvres on a grand scale could not be conducted in this country, because it was so much enclosed and so highly cultivated. To show how, not only the interest of the public, but the interest of private individuals, interfered with the necessities of the Army, he would mention that he was strongly urged by the military authorities to introduce a Bill dealing with the rights of the shooting tenant, because all manœuvres were hampered and interfered with in every direction, not by the agriculturists, who were very glad to see the soldiers, but by the shooting tenants. The question for him was how many shooting tenants there were in the House of Commons, and he thought it better to leave the question alone. That was the way in which manœuvres on a grand scale were prevented in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire had made a most interesting speech on a subject, on which none could speak with greater authority than himself. He quite agreed with much of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew how difficult it would be to carry out a third part of his recommendations. As to his suggestion that the cavalry Reserveman's muscles would become too stiff for riding, he would point out that at any rate such a Reservist would be useful as a dismounted man in many duties where an ordinary Reservist would not do. As to campaign pensions, there were a number of men still who had not received them. But they were men who had no right to a pension, having preferred to give up their right by leaving the Army before the full time in order to seek civil employment. Some of them were now in destitution, and if they received pensions they were compassionate pensions altogether. What the Government proposed was a substantial concession—namely, that these pensions might be claimed by any man, eligible in point of service and character, who was over 65 years of age, or disabled by physical infirmity from earning his own livelihood. The hon. Member for Winchester had asked about the barracks at Winchester, and he could only say this matter stood where it did when last it was referred to. An officer of the Royal Engineers had made inquiries, but, as the hon. Member was aware, it was a question of getting additional ground. Then the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had asked a number of questions. First he spoke of withdrawal from Cyprus, and to this the reply was that it was a military and not a political withdrawal. A military withdrawal because a wing of a regiment was stationed there, and nothing was more injurious to discipline than that a small body of men should be isolated from other troops. Therefore, it being shown that the withdrawal would be attended with no evil consequences, the wing had been ordered to join the regiment at Malta. There would still remain at Cyprus a few men to look after the building there. The hon. Member also referred to the withdrawal of a battalion from Egypt, and he need hardly say the very first thing would be to have the full consent of Lord Cromer. Subject to that condition, it would be safe to make the withdrawal.

Has it been obtained?

said, No; consent had not been absolutely obtained, but from correspondence, he had reason to entertain hope that it might be possible. The hon. Gentleman asked about postal payments. The other day he made a mistake when he said that any tradesman could cash the order. That, he found, was strictly forbidden, and for the reason that it might lead to the pawning of pensions. It was neglect on his part to give the answer he did, for which he apologised. There must be very few places so far from a post office that a man could not without great inconvenience get his order cashed, but he was making inquiries to see if any provision could be made to meet exceptional cases. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the desirability of not exceeding the establishment for the year. It was his personal opinion that it would be absurd to lay down a strict limitation. It arose from the old jealousy of a standing Army. What was really wanted was that there should be no serious excess, that the average should not exceed a certain number; a rigid application of the figures would have much inconvenience. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the payment of deferred pay. The payment was now made at the time when a man left, and it was paid to his account in the savings bank, so that there should not he temptation to him to spend the money in debauchery among his comrades. At the same time a comparatively large sum would come into his possession, and the arrangement was made with a view to his having money for his new start in life. He hoped the Committee would now allow the Vote to be taken.

Can we take a general discussion on the next Vote?

Certainly. Not on the next, but on the subsequent Vote.

rose to speak.

appealed to the hon. and gallant Member to reserve his remarks for the discussion, which would he resumed at an early day.

asked if it was to be understood that this Clause was necessary, that there had been many breaches of the law.

said: Yes; that was so. The Act passed last year had become quite nugatory. No penalty clause had been added for breach of the Act, which consequently had become almost a dead letter.

said, then it was understood the Bill passed last year was incomplete, and consequently had now to be amended.

asked what business the Government proposed to take on Monday.

said, the First Order would be the Committee on the Navy Estimates. Sitting suspended at Five minutes to Seven o'clock.

rose to move—

"That, whereas in the opinion of this House, the reduction both at home and abroad of former markets for British commodities by the unfair operation of hostile tariffs and bounties, and the unrestricted importation of the products of competing labour, working under entirely different conditions from those imposed by law and custom in the United Kingdom, is largely answerable for the numbers of unemployed and the diminished earnings of the people in manufacture, agriculture, and shipping, it is the duty of the Government to adopt without delay such measures as may ensure the defence of British industrial interests."

He said that want of employment in many trades and industries, as revealed by the evidence of the Select Committee now investigating the subject, and by everyone's personal observation, coupled with the depression in manufactures, agriculture, and shipping, was one of the most serious problems of the time. He was therefore surprised to see the Government Benches empty, and still more surprised to see that some of the few occupants of the Treasury Bench were already beginning to move out of the House. He might be wrong in the views he held, but he submitted that the present condition of affairs demanded the consideration, at least for a few hours, of the Legislature of the country. The fact that a large number of his colleagues on the Opposition side sacrificed all their private engagements in order to be present at the Debate showed that they at all events considered the subject to be one of the most important and serious that could possibly be laid before the country at the present time. It would not be denied that there were at the present time great numbers of unemployed. To his mind it was the most serious national question this country had to grapple with. That was the view of the Conservative Conference at Newcastle last November. The Labour Gazette issued that evening proved it. In 84 Trades Unions only a fraction of the whole, no less than 30,624 members were reported on February 28th as being without work and wages, or 7·6 per cent. without the building trade, while in 22 Trades Unions 10 per cent. were unemployed. The Local Government Board reported that on a single day last month 406,381 persons had been supported by the poor rates, and no less than 158,783 in London and West Ham. Trades Unionists in work were being called upon to deduct 5, 10, and even 20 per cent. of their wages due to their wives and families on Saturday night for the support of unemployed comrades. Their generosity was magnificent and worthy of all praise, but the burden of it was grievous, and it was not business. The Reports of all the Labour correspondents of the Board of Trade were in the same sorrowful direction. Oldham said: "There is no improvement in the spinning trade." Bolton: "The cotton trade remains depressed." Burnley reported: "The weaving industry has shown a further decline." Manchester: "The tailoring trade continues bad throughout. Letterpress and lithographic printers and bookbinders report trade as bad." Barrow-in-Furness said: "The pig-iron trade does not improve." And so on all along the line. The wages of upwards of 300,000 operatives had been reduced since November 1, and further reductions in nearly every industry were in contemplation, while thousands of pauper aliens were being admitted to swell the competition for employment in the labour market. A Select Committee had, it was true, been appointed to consider the extent to which distress arising from want of employment prevailed, and what steps could be taken to meet the distress. It had issued an Interim Report, which declared that in 454 localities with a population of 10,000,000 there was exceptional distress due to the severe winter, and in 144 localities with 3,750,000 people there was—

"a want of employment owing to slackness of trade, depression of agriculture, or to particular local or industrial causes."

That proved the case. He need not argue it further, although he must add that the information of the Committee came solely from official sources, and all knew that they were always optimistic, and thought everything was for the best in the best of worlds, with good pay absolutely secured regardless of the state of trade, and the prospect of a good pension. His information came rather from the ranks of the honest, but unfortunate, men who were feeling the pinch in their daily life. The disease was there. Public charity and private philanthropy night alleviate it and soothe the pain it produced; but what was wanted was permanent cure—a remedy which would strike at the root of the epidemic, and put an end to a state of affairs which, aggravated by a few degrees of frost, reduced half the population and three-fourths of the producers to penury. The Select Committee had no immediate recommendation to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had assured him on February 28 that the Committee was to go—

"into the whole question of the Unemployed, its condition, cause, and remedy;"

and, as he had suggested, into the shrinkage of markets for British productions. But the Chairman of the Committee had caused him to be informed that it had no such power. That was obviously so under the terms of the reference. The House must, therefore, take the matter into its own hands. That was the object of the Motion he should conclude by moving. It took note not only of the Unemployed, but also of—

"the diminished earnings of the people in manufacture, agriculture, and shipping."

Was there an hon. Member who would deny the absolute truth of that proposition? The earnings of the people were not to be measured by the amount per piece, or per hour paid to this or that especially lucky or skilful man. The only test was the amount and regularity of employment. Intermittent work was bad individually and collectively. With the volume of trade so much reduced as in recent years, the employment of the great artisan population had vastly fallen. Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Bradford, and Newcastle knew that but too well. What were the facts? There were two markets for British production—the Home and the Foreign. The Home Market ought to be the best, for it gave a profit at both ends, and was ours of right. But he would consider the other in the first instance. They had definite figures concerning it, but not as to the Home Market. British exports, as shown in the Trade and Navigation Returns for February 1895, were declared by the talented statistician who prepared the clear monthly summary for The Morning Post to stand at a lower figure than in any single month for many years past. They amounted to only £15,900,000 compared to £17,600,000 for February 1894, and £21,000,000 in February 1890. The fall since then had been as "progressive" as the rise in metropolitan rates under the County Council. All classes of exports—coal, textiles, and metals—showed a decline. For the year ending February 28 last the exports of British and Irish produce amounted only to £214,500,000 compared to £263,500,000 in 1890. The imports of foreign produce, after deducting re-exports, amounted in the last 12 months to £344,000,000, or 129½ millions more than British exports. There was a decline, it was true, of £14,000,000 in the imports. But it was in just the most valuable part of the importation—namely, of raw material for manufacture. The increase was in articles we should produce ourselves, in articles of food, and in manufactures. Of foreign manufactures, no less than £69,326,000 worth had come in during the past twelve months, an increase of £6,000,000 worth in four years, and of nearly £20,000,000 in 15 years, while 30 years ago the importation of these manufactured goods was only nominal, for then we made for ourselves and the world. This importation, free of Factory Laws, of Trades Union custom, the production of sweaters and convicts, was free also of the rates and taxes imposed on all articles of home production, calculated at 12 per cent. of their value, and had entailed a loss in wages to the artisan population of considerably over £30,000,000, or sufficient to provide £100 a year to 300,000 families. He could go into much deeper detail. But it was not necessary and time did not allow. The condition of the cotton trade, the most important manufacturing industry, had very recently been the subject of comment in that House. It had been said to be deplorable. The Sheffield telegraph of last Saturday described "the outlook in the iron and steel trades as gloomy," and said—

"the worst point has not yet been reached. There is a lack of confidence in commercial circles which is assuming alarming proportions."

The able writer of the "Political Notes" in The Times, said the other day, on undeniable authority—

"Owing largely to the crippled condition of the tin plate trade, one third of the operatives have during the past two or three years been permanently unemployed, and the remainder intermittently so. A large percentage have been reduced to a pitiful plight."

Hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies on that side of the House had urged, and would urge, attention to the awful decline in that which should be our greatest industry. On an importation last year of agricultural products exceeding £142,000,000, The Field calculated that £108,000,000 represented articles of food which the soil and climate of this country were suited to produce. The value of the foreign butter, cheese, and eggs imported, had alone nearly been £23,000,000. The Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture had obtained reliable data showing—(a), That the gross value of the whole land of the United Kingdom had fallen in the last fifteen years by £13,400,000; (b), That rents had been reduced from 5 to 75 per cent.; (c), That the wheat crop which averaged £31,000,000 from 1870 to 1875 had fallen in 1894 to £7,600,000, and the whole corn crops from £70,000,000 to £30,000,000, a loss of £40,000,000 a year to the occupiers of arable land in 20 years; (d), That the land under corn had been reduced by 2,000,000 acres since 1873, and 4,000,000 acres had been laid down to permanent pasture; lastly, That between 1871 and 1891 the number of agricultural labourers employed on the land had fallen 28 per cent., or by more than a fourth. Mr. Giffen estimated the loss in money value of the agricultural products of the United Kingdom between 1874 and 1891 as £76,000,000 a year, and Mr. Martin Sutton, whose authority would not be disputed had put the reduction of the breadstuffs, grown in the country for the food of the people, at 44 million bushels in 20 years. The Daily Telegraph truly asked—

"Is the British farmer to perish without an attempt being made to save him:"

One word only as to shipping. The loss of profit was but too well known to shipowners and sailors. The shares of many companies stood at a depreciation of from 50 to 75 per cent. The figures laid by Mr. John Williamson of Liverpool before the Chamber of Shipping the other day showed—

"that in 1894 all articles of export show decreases, and mainly such as are of greatest value and employ most labour in their production—namely: Yorkshire goods, worsted, woollens, flax and jute goods, iron, tinplates and machinery amounting, excluding coal, to a decline of 474,000 tons; showing a loss in linen and jute goods of 15,000 tons, in woollens and worsteds of 19,000 tons, in machinery of 11,000 tons, in iron, pigs and rails, &c., of 257,000 tons, in tinplates of 25,000 tons, of copper manufactures 9,000 tons."

This proved that the decline was not merely a question of price. It was sometimes averred that the Merchandise Marks Act and other legislation to stop fraudulent trading, and therefore abhorred by foreign manufacturers and their agents in this country, many of whom tried to voice English opinion at the London Chamber of Commerce, had destroyed the transit trade. But, unfortunately for this argument, it had increased by £8,000,000 between 1886, the year prior to the Merchandise Marks Act, and 1892, and by 117,000 tons in 1894 over 1893. So much for the present condition of affairs. Permit him shortly to consider what was one of the principal causes. There might be some depression in other countries, but it was nothing like so acute as in England, and if it were two wrongs did not make a right. For instance French exports in January and February this year showed a gain of 60 million francs over 1894. Depression in other countries, even if it existed, did not prove us to be prosperous. The Chambers of Commerce of Sheffield, Birmingham, Bolton, Bristol, Cardiff, Newcastle, Nottingham, Stockton, North Staffordshire and other great manufacturing places, had this week in London declared these disastrous consequences to be due to the operation of hostile Customs tariffs. The superior voting power of such fashionable centres as Torquay, Tunbridge Wells, and a few comparatively unimportant places, had thought otherwise it was true. But the weight of industrial, if not mercantile opinion, had undoubtedly been in favour of the affirmative view, which the hon. Member for Islington, the President of the Chamber, had pronounced "a truism." The President of the Iron and Steel Institute had declared recently—

"We have lost the greater part of the Continental trade owing to protective tariffs. The gravity of the situation demands the closest consideration of commercial men and of statesmen. We may well look anxiously round to see where the markets for our produce and employment for our workmen and capital are to come from"

In an admirable book by Mr. Williamson, of Edinburgh, entitled, British Industries and Foreign Competition, and published by Simpkin, Marshall & Co., the opinion was quoted of Lord Beaconsfield as to the impossibility of fighting hostile tariffs with free imports, and comparing the struggle to that of prize-fighter and a galley-slave in irons. The truth of this had been absolutely proved by the progresssive and continuous growth of hostile tariffs directed mainly against British trade. He would show the House this by an illustration. Against those Manchester goods, a sample of which was on a card he produced, the French duty in 1860 was 12½ per cent., in 1882 16 per cent., in 1892 and now 42 per cent. Against those Leeds goods the duty in France was in 1860 10 per cent., in 1882 32½ per cent., in 1892 and now 50½ per cent. France snapped her fingers at British remonstrance, although we buy of her thrice as much as we sell—a nice balance of trade. The whole world, including British Colonies and dependencies, was in arms against our trade with foreign tariffs and foreign bounties, and we were trying to fight with free imports. It was hopeless. We had not the power of a mouse in commercial negotiation, for we had cast aside all our bargaining power. Why, even little Bulgaria the other day put up the duties against us, and we had not been able to do anything to restrain her. It was absurd and ridiculous. As Mr. Gladstone declared at Leeds in 1881—

"If you are In strike, you ought to strike hard. If you are to make the foreigner feel, you must make him feel by striking him in his largest interests."

Were the right hon. Gentleman there he would have urged him to arouse his colleagues and say to them, as he had said in the House of Commons on February l3th, 1843—

"Hon. Gentlemen surely do not wish to displace labour at home by the employment of labour abroad."

He would have reminded him of his dictum—

"The cry of cheap bread, considered by itself, means nothing that is necessarily beneficial to the labouring classes. We must look to their relative means."

This was analogous to the saying of Dr. Johnson—

"It is no purpose to tell me that eggs are a penny a dozen in the Highlands. That is not because eggs are many, but because pence are few."

He commended this view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade in their exultation over the fall in prices and cheapness, including, as it did, cheap wages. The President of the Board of Trade told the Associated Chambers of Commerce on Wednesday evening that he saw blue sky in the commercial atmosphere. The only blue sky other men could see was the advent of the Conservative Party to power. He also said—

"That trade with the United States was decidely a reviving trade."

From what source did he derive his information? Not from the Board of Trade statistics. In 1890 the British exports to the United States had been £32,000,000. In 1893 they had been £23,000,000. In 1894 the American purchases of British goods were not much more than half what they were in 1892, and not one fourth of the British purchases of American goods. Did the President of the Board of Trade rest his optimism on this Wilson tariff? It's author, the favoured guest of the foreign-rival-loving London Chamber of Commerce, had been defeated at the polls, and the Democratic Congress which had supported him sent to the right about by the voice of the great majority of the American people. No, there was no prospect whatever of free imports being sanctioned by the Americans or French, by the Germans or Russians, by Italians or Spaniards—by any self-governing community on the face of the earth. In 1844 Mr. Cobden said—

"You have no right to doubt that in ten years from the time when England inaugurates the glorious era of commercial freedom, every civilised country will be free traders to the backbone."

That was 50 years ago. We had waited and waited in vain, and should wait no longer. We should think of our own people, of our own country, once the workshop of the world. As the previous day's Times declared,—

"We are still excluded from many valuable markets by tariffs."

Some one might ask, who paid Customs duties? The answer was clear. The consumer, if the imported articles did not compete with a home industry, like the duty on tea, coffee, currants, tobacco and wines, which give us so-called Free Traders £20,000,000 a year, or more than any other nation received of fiscal revenue, and all raides on the wrong articles. But if the imported articles competed with home industries, then the producers or exporters paid the whole or part. ["Proof?"] Yes, he would give proof. The great firm of Sutton and Sons, of Reading, were informed the other day that they must cease to send mangel seed to France unless they lowered their prices to the extent of the rise in the French Customs duties. They had had to accept the situation and pay the duties by lowering the price even to an actual loss, or forfeit their connection. The President of the Iron and Steel Institute had shown how in January an English firm had tendered for steel rails wanted at Oldenburg. The English had to include the Import Duty of 25s. 6d. a ton and the cost of the carriage in the price. Goods sent to New York had to be delivered free of duty. The Englishman paid, and it fan taken out of English wages. Then, in addition to the free market we gave the foreigner here with no return, in addition to throwing away all bargaining power for the reduction of foreign hindrances to British trade, in addition to giving the foreigner a positive advantage in our markets of at least 12 per cent., thus destroying the home market for the British producer, in addition to encouraging English capitalists to invest their money abroad and not at home, Foreign Governments gave bounties on shipping, on the production of sugar, &c., amounting to some £20,000,000 a year. Was this fair play? He must not longer detain the House. It was for the interests of Britain and British industries that he pleaded. American and French favoured competition was at the bottom of the present dispute in the boot trade. He might be asked for a remedy. It was for the Government to find the remedy. It was their duty. It was the purpose for which they were appointed and paid. The House had only to point the way. Let them look at the facts and grasp them. Turning the other cheek to the smiter and twiddling our thumbs for 50 years had done no good. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, the biographer of Cobden, declared at Oldham not long ago that—

"If the productiveness of the land were increased, the condition of the labourer bettered, and more remuneration obtained by him for his toil, the effect would be that the agricultural population would have so much money to spend and there would be a more active demand for the things which manufacturing towns produced."

The President of the Board of Trade said' on January 24th:—

"The steady depopulation of rural districts, and the inordinate accumulation of masses of people in a few great centres, is to be profoundly regretted on many grounds.

That very week the Minister for Agriculture had professed to be anxious to encourage home production rather than foreign importation. The opportunity was now, if the will were present. Let the Government note the decline in our exports to foreign countries. They showed the injury done us by their tariffs. They amounted to £195,000,000 in 1872, and had fallen in 1893 to £146,000,000, although we had had many millions of additional mouths to feed. The only compensation lay in the increased demand for British goods by British Colonies and dependencies. In 1851 it amounted to only £20,000,000; in 1891 to £87,000,000. In this Colonial direction much remained to be done. Canadian duties on British yarns amounted to 25 per cent.; on woven 22½ per cent. In Australia the duties were higher. In South Africa there was a uniform duty of 12 per cent. All these Colonies offered us better terms than foreigners if only the Government had the courage to say to Germany and Belgium—"We must alter the half-dozen words in the Treaties between us by which you prevent us trading advantageously with our own kith and kin." But let the Government especially consider what would happen, where would be their boasted cheapness, if, for a day, the command of the English Channel fell into foreign hands? The illustrious father of the Speaker had declared in 1842 that—

"He certainly would not be a party to any measure the effect of which would be to make this country permanently dependent on foreign countries for any considerable portion of its supply of corn."

On those grounds, as on the others he had mentioned, he would respectfully ask leave, in the presence of the equally-illustrious and greatly-beloved son of Sir Robert Peel, to move the Resolution which stood in his name, and which his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, a great undivided borough greatly affected by the present State of affairs, would second.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he entirely endorsed the remarks of the Mover. There were three separate interests, three sets of individuals affected, namely, the consumer, the capitalist producer, and the wage-earning producer. Improved transit and competition all over the world, assisted the consumer to defend himself. The capitalist producers could, to some extent, look after themselves by removing their capital to other countries, but the 13,000,000 of the wage-earning classes were absolutely helpless in the existing stagnation and depression of trade; they could not remove themselves and their families to other countries. It was said by some that if the British working-man would consent to work for lower wages, he would be able to get plenty of work; but from that doctrine he dissented. If our system of fighting hostile tariffs with free imports was fundamentally wrong; where was the reducing of wages to stop? A 5 per cent. reduction to-day meant a demand for another 5 per cent. reduction to-morrow. He was inclined to sympathise with men who struck against reductions in wages, which would ultimately land them in barbarism and industrial servitude. Therefore, the wage-earners were entitled to more consideration than the small number of capitalists, who could protect themselves. The first of two points on which he desired to lay stress was, the great decrease of our domestic exports. Let anyone compare our present condition with what it was in 1870–71–72. At that period, in two years, our exports went up no less than £57,000,000. But during the four years 1890–94 the exports of our domestic produce had decreased by the enormous sum of £47,000,000. Some said this was accounted for by the fall in prices; but it could not be wholly accounted for in that way; and, indeed, such an enormous sum must he accounted for by decrease in quantity. In 22 years, the population had increased by £7,000,000; but the exports for British workshops in that time had fallen £40,000,000. It was said that other nations were suffering equal depression. The excellent book which had already been referred to, "British Industries and Foreign Competition," showed that during 20 years the domestic exports of other civilised countries, with the exception of France, had increased, on the average, by 47 per cent.; while this country, excluding exports of coal and machinery, which ought not to be sent away to enable other countries to compete with us, had increased its domestic produce only by 4 per cent. In the face of these figures, could it be said that other nations were suffering as much as we were? Taking the average per head of the population, our domestic produce had gone down from £6 per head in 1872 to a little over £5 in 1894. We were losing our markets abroad. That would not affect the wage-earning classes if there was a corresponding increase in our markets at home; but in the past 20 years we had doubled our imports of manufactured articles. Our imports of food stuffs reached £150,000,000, considerably more than double what it was 20 years ago. And symptoms of the great national disease was the transfer of industrial capital from this country to others; there were firms, some of whose members had seats in that House, that had so transferred their capital. In his own constituency, a large firm of glassmakers had transferred a part of their business to Belgium, where they were employing the people of that country. He did not complain of the men who did this; but he did complain of the system which compelled them to do it. The book mentioned reproduced the following passage from the Report of Mr. Porter to the United States Government:—

"I found shoddy manufacturers from Batley and Dewsbury established in Aachen, Prussia; Lancashire and Scottish spinners in Rouen; Leicestershire hosiery manufacturers in Saxony; Yorkshire, wool-combing establishments in Rhcims; Dundee jute mills in Dunkerque; allwool stuff manufacturers in Roubaix; English iron and steel mills in Belgium; and English woollen mills in Holland. Removing English Capital to the Continent has secured a profitable home market, while England was near with widely opened ports to serve as a 'dumping ground' to unload surplus goods, made by foreign labour, superintended by English skill. In this way the English markets are swamped and her labour undersold."

This state of things was predicted by Sir Lowthian Bell in 1890 in his presidential address to the Iron and Steel Institute. He said:—

"Cottons, woollens, rails, machinery will be produced as heretofore and in overflowing measure; they may be oven produced by Englishmen, or by men of English race, as now; but they will be produced by them, not in Lancashire, Staffordshire, Lanarkshire or Yorkshire, but on the banks of the Ohio, at the foot of the Alleghany, or it may be in even more distant quarters still."

Would the hon. Gentleman say from what book he is quoting?

said he was quoting from a book entitled "British Industries and Foreign Competition," by A. Williamson. The same author said:—

"Brains and Capital will go where the best return is to be found, and if, as free traders contend, our fiscal policy provides the freest scope for the exercise of both, how does it arise that so many of both, whom it is said to benefit, flee from it to get under the sheltering wing of the one so directly opposed to it?"

Whereas other countries were spending all their energies and capital at home, we were doing our best to drive them abroad. He thought he had said enough to supplement what his hon. Friend had said to shew the magnitude of this industrial crisis. He wished now to deal for a moment with the latter part of the Resolution. It was not the business of private Members to recommend a remedy to Her Majesty's Government, but he wished to say a word from his point of view on the remedy suggested. There was only one way to protect industrial interests and that was by altering our fiscal system and adopting reciprocity. They would probably—those who advocated such a step would probably—be called protectionists. If protection meant putting on Import Duties regardless of what other nations were doing, if it meant putting a duty on the food supply and raw material, then he was not a protectionist; but if it meant fighting foreign countries with their own weapons in order to get free trade all round, then he was a protectionist. Free Trade meant free exports as well as free imports; but as a matter of fact we had not got Free Trade at all. We had only a sort of bastard Free Trade. We had free imports, but no free exports, and he submitted it was time we followed the example of other nations and fought them with their own weapons. He and his friends advocated fighting hostile tariffs with import duties, in the first place, because the history of the past 40 years, and especially of the last 20 years, was dead against our present system. Every prophecy of Cobden and Bright was unfulfilled. Other countries had not followed our example; trade was declining, agriculture was ruined, and we had lost trade where others had gained it. Other nations did not believe in Free Trade. In 1874 we first adopted fully the policy of free imports for com- peting goods. What happened? In 1879 Bismarck took advantage of this opening. Finding the German mills and factories languishing at that time, he raised the tariffs against other nations, and especially against us, and the result was that German mills and factories were running full time while many of our wage-earners were starving. In 1892 France doubled the duty on cycles. We were the only nation affected by that hostile tariff, and it was absolutely certain that in a year or two we should find our French trade killed, and France would be sending cycles into this country. Which policy did the Government think the men who earned their living by making cycles would support? The policy which allowed the trade to be ruined, or the policy which said we should fight hostile tariffs by import duties until we brought other nations to their senses? It was said that reciprocity would cause other nations to raise their tariffs against us; but there were only £60,000,000 exports on which they could increase their tariffs, while on the other hand there were less than £219,000,000 on which we could retaliate. The advantage on our side would be as three to one. They might be told that reciprocity, or, as some called it, retaliation, would be an act of industrial war. Well, if we were attacked by armies and fleets, we could only meet the attack with armies and fleets. We were being attacked by hostile tariffs, and the time had come when we ought to fight other nations with their own weapons. They would be told from the Ministerial side of the House that reciprocity, or protection, as some hon. Members would say, would result in a tax being put upon food. He was not prepared to advocate any tax upon food, at all events, at present, but if any hon. Member should tell his confiding constituents that they enjoyed a free table and loaf, he would be guilty of a grave error, for food was heavily taxed at the present moment. Much was said now about "sweating." Ask the British farmer and the agriculturist who was being sweated—the foreign producer who sent his supplies to this country and paid no taxation, or the home producer who was being taxed to death? The result of the present system was that there were in this country between six and seven million acres which were growing nothing but weeds, that 500,000 labourers had been driven off the land, and that 30,000 farmers were insolvent Reciprocity would enable us to form a vast commercial union with our Colonial Empire. There was the example of the United States. Inside the boundary fence of the States there was absolute free trade; outside commerce was guarded by a wall of protection. He had never seconded any Resolution with greater confidence and pleasure than he felt on the present occasion. This question certainly interested the working men of Lancashire, Lanarkshire, and Yorkshire more than any other. The time was not far distant when the wage-earners of this country would take the matter into their own hands and would compel the Government to do what they were asked to do in this Resolution.

wished the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House had heard the speeches delivered that evening. What would that illustrious man think when he should read those utterances, proclaiming the doctrines that we could tax the foreigner, and that if our markets were restricted the remedy was to restrict them still further. The hon. Member who had seconded the Resolution stated that he would not propose a tax upon food. Why not? Was not agriculture the most depressed industry in this country at present? And if Protection was the right remedy, surely, the first commodity on which a duty ought to be imposed was corn. That was the staple food in this country. Some hon. Gentlemen with, he would not say more courage, but more inconsistency than the Member for St. Helens, said that the capitalists of this country were transferring their capital to industry abroad. Still he did not blame them, he blamed the system. What system? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Free imports."] The systems of Free Trade [Mr. SETON-KARR: "One-sided Free Trade"]—a system which stood between the working classes of this country and the alternative of starvation and beggary. The hon. Member for Sheffield thought this country was being impoverished because it got more for its own labour than it received formerly. Perhaps he could convey by means of a simple illustration the nature of the process which was apprehended. The hon. Member for Sheffield no doubt had a tailor. He would put the hon. Member into the position of this country, and his tailor into the position of the foreigner. He would put the clothes the hon. Member received in the shape of imports and the money he paid for them in the shape of exports. Supposing his tailor's prices gradually diminished and the number of clothes which he received for a £10 note—not many—gradually diminished. Would the hon. Member apprehend that the result of that process, if carried on for a sufficiently long time, would reduce him to destitution? Rather he should say, the hon. Member would find that Mr. Poole would be glad to accept that view of the situation, and to act upon it to his own advantage. Did hon. Gentlemen think that when this country adopted Free Trade other, countries then adopted it also? Free Trade was adopted in the face of hostile tariffs, on the principle that the best way to fight hostile tariffs was by free imports. Did we admit the goods of foreign countries for the sake of conferring a benefit upon them? Why, of course, we admitted them for our own sake, and for the sake of nobody else. How were they paid for? In sovereigns? ["Hear, hear," from Mr. JAMES LOWTHER.] Then where did we get the sovereigns? We did not produce gold in this country. Did the right hon. Gentleman really suppose that a sovereign or any sort of foreign commodity could be got into this country without being paid for by the produce of British labour?

Yes, I do.

hoped, then, the right hon. gentleman would explain what was the extraordinary philanthropic motive which induced foreign countries to flood is with their goods for nothing. At this time of unfortunate depression in trade—a depression which had been more severely felt in every protectionist country in Europe than in our own—every sensible man was endeavouring to find new markets for British trade, and very new market of British trade involved an increase in the foreign commodities which were imported into this country.

How are these imports paid for?

had the greatest pleasure in telling the hon. Member for Peckham how these foreign goods were paid for. They were paid for by the labour of this country, and every diminution in foreign trade would add to the number of the unemployed, and increase the misery which, unhappily, to a certain extent prevailed even under our system of Free Trade. While he held Free Trade was good for all countries, in all circumstances and at all times, there never was a country and never a time when any departure from Free Trade would be more disastrous than in this country at the present day. Hon. Members talked as if purchases from abroad were a great disaster to this country. Well, what was the logical conclusion of that? Stop our foreign, trade altogether. What, he should like to know, would be the result to the people of this country of putting an end to our foreign trade? A state of indescribable and unimaginable disaster. The speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens was based on the argument of the disadvantage of getting abroad what they could get at home. But what had been the fundamental principle of Free Trade which had been accepted in this country for halt-a-century? That some things were better made at home and other things were better made elsewhere. The second part of the Resolution was that they should fight bounties with Import Duties. If foreign countries imposed bounties, such imposition was injurious to their own trade. Was it injurious to us? What harm did cheap sugar do us? There had been times in this country when, periods of distress coincided with very high prices, and did the working classes suffer less then than they did now? Periods of distress, great as was the suffering that was always entailed, were infinitely less onerous and disastrous when the prices of the necessaries of life and the staple commodities of industry were low. It might be said that prices could fall to a point where there was no profit and the industry must cease. Yes, but there was a very simple way of ascertaining when that point was reached. When that point had been reached the volume of trade must fall. The volume of trade had not fallen. The hon. Gentlemen talked about the decline of imports as if that was a disaster, but they had not attempted to show that there had been any appreciable falling in the volume of trade. He remembered a report issued in 1892 or 1893 by a Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in France. That Committee was appointed to inquire into the causes of distress in France, and its members found it was due to two causes—want of a sufficient system of Protection in the French Republic and the persistent prosperity of England. Both hon. Gentlemen opposite had said that it was for the Government to find a remedy, and not for them. But there was no mystery about the remedy. The system about which the hon. Gentlemen complained was a system of absolute Free Trade with all the world, and the remedy for that system was a more or less modified system of Protection. Why it should be modified he had never been able to understand. If Protection was a good thing, it would seem to him that the more they had of it the better, and the idealist Protectionist system would be that the population of this country should be absolutely dependent upon what could be produced within the limits of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman, in his very picturesque phraseology, said we had been twiddling our thumbs for 50 years. He supposed that meant that they had adopted that great financial system upon which the prosperity of this country had grown, and upon which, whatever temporary wave of depression might come upon us, she had attained and maintained a position which there was nothing like in the former history of this country, and which there was nothing like in the rest of the world now. This was no academic question; this was no question of abstract economies. Speaking as one who represented as many working men as the hon. Member for Sheffield, he said that this was a question which affected every working man in this country. If the proposals of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment were adopted we should see a state of misery and distress such as had never been known in these islands. There were political questions which excited great interest and passion, and even fierce animosity, such as the questions of Disestablishment and Home Rule. However they might be decided, this country would retain its place among the nations of the world. But there were two questions upon which the prosperity of the British Empire and the comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom depended. Upon the answer they gave to these questions, upon their upholding the principles which these questions involved, depended everything which to an Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman was dear. These two principles wore the steady maintenance of an invincible Navy and a resolute, unfaltering adhesion to the principle of Free Trade.

, after a complimentary allusion to the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, observed that as one representing a constituency comprising a very large proportion of helpless working men who, possibly more than those of any other constituency, were suffering from the various causes of depression, he desired to say a few words in this Debate. That afternoon he asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and received a very plausible answer from the right hon. Gentleman, which seemed to him to be very misleading on this very issue. His question was as to the increase in the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and the consequences likely to arise out of that increase, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that this must be a subject of great congratulation to everybody in the House, because it proved that the working people were getting thriftier and richer. He, himself, held quite a different opinion. The reason why the working people, in the county of Lancashire, at all events, were investing their savings so largely in the Post Office Savings Bank—where the rate of interest was so low as to be almost contemptible—was because other and more profitable avenues of investment had been closed to them owing to the shrinking in trade and the consequent greater difficulty that poor men experienced in advantageously placing their money. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked whether it was true that our imports, which had increased at such a tremendous rate, were not paid for by the products of English labour, and he went on to show that this increase in imports proved how vigorous and prosperous English labour must be Could any greater or more misleading fallacy be put before the House? Why nearly two-fifths of the imports into this country were paid for, not by the profits and wages of English labour in this country, but by the profits of English capital invested in other countries. It was the investment of money in Peruvian mines, and in foreign industries by large English capitalists in Continental towns, where they found it profitable to build mills and manufactories to enter into competition with our own trades—it was those profits which were pouring into this country wholesale, that enabled us to buy this great mass of imported material with which we were being flooded, and with which every small shop in every little village throughout the country was being filled. When the Government spoke on this question he hoped it would be faced on these lines—that the increase of imports into this country, instead of being a measure of the prosperity of our industries, was rather a measure of the facilities and the profits that were being so lavishly made by English capitalists abroad by the employment of foreign workmen. What he contended was—that cheap commodities were an entirely misleading value if the happiness of a community living upon wages—that it was the securing of a competent wage which was the first Clement in the problem. What was the good of cheapness to a man who had no income, or what was it worth to a man who had a large income? To a rich man, whether a 4 lb. loaf was at one price or another was of little importance; the real question to a man was that he should have a sufficient income to buy that 4 lb. loaf at all. This continual exaltation of cheapness at all hazards, meant, he supposed, that eventually the product of Chinese labour, which was the cheapest labour of all, was to displace English labour, which was the dearest labour of all. Was that a prospect of future prosperity? There was another fallacy which had been put forward, and it was that a tariff must inevitably increase the prices of commodities within the country where the tariff was levied. But where money was very cheap the profits upon commodities were measured by the normal rate of interest that was paid for capital in that country, and if that normal rate of interest was very low there was no industry which could exist, without an enormons competition, that showed a profit a little in excess of that rate of interest in that country; and, consequently, the internal competition within the wall of the tariff necessarily, and in all cases, reduced the prices of commodities to the people living within the wall of the same level, or nearly the same level, that they would be under conditions where there was no tariff at all. From inquiries he had made of large American producers, he had been told that money being cheap in America, and capital flooding every industry, the prices of commodities within the tariff there were little in excess of the price of commodities in places outside that tariff. They contended that the supreme factor in this matter was to secure a continuous income for their own operatives, and that it was an utterly misleading issue to tell the working man that in securing that wage by putting on a tariff they were going to increase the price of the commodities he would have to buy. That would not take place under any circumstances, except in countries where the rate of interest on money was very high, and where it did not pay for capital to flood those industries in which there was virtually no competition. Consequently, then they would have a monopoly, and with a monopoly very large profits, and then enhanced prices. Wherever the rate of interest was small they inevitably had, whether there was any tariff or not, the prices of the products of manufacture reduced to a level very little indeed above the level in which those commodities could be produced in those countries where there was no tariff at all. It seemed to him that they were being misled by some of those extremely plausible statements which had been made over and over again by the advocates of an unrestricted free trade. English labour had burdens placed upon it—some of them very properly by that House to enforce education and sanitary conditions of life—which foreign labour had not to bear at all; and yet at the same time, this foreign labour, which had no burden on its back, was to have the free and unrestricted right to compete with English working men. The problem was very different now to what it was years ago when competition was comparatively unknown. The introduction of machinery had largely done away with individual initiative, and the inevitable result was that the Hindoo, the Chinaman, and the Japanese, all of them men of great skill and tactical dexterity, were able in almost every handicraft to produce materials quite as good, as tasteful, and as finished as those produced by our own workmen. These men had precisely the same power of managing machinery as our own workmen, and yet, owing to conditions of climate and of food, they were able to live on an income on which an ordinary Englishman would starve. English workmen were told that it was a great gain to them that English capital should be transferred to India, China, and Japan, because, although they would have no employment and no wages, everything they consumed would become wonderfully cheap. The time had come when it would not be possible for optimists to speak with a light air about these great issues. So long as machinery was the special possession of this country we could defeat the world; but our monopoly in this respect was rapidly ceasing. Machinery was being exported in all directions, and at this moment the only industries in Lancashire that were prosperous were those connected with the manufacture of machinery for exportation. We could not prevent this exportation, and yet every machine exported must have the effect of excluding English competition in the country to which it went. With equal facilities for production, industry must go where labour was cheapest. It would not be the profits of capital, but the level of wages that would give one country the advantage over another. That meant that barbarous labour was going to exclude the labour of civilised men. By the distribution of machinery, and the fuel that was to feed it, they brought into competition with English workmen, burdened terribly with rates and taxes, the natural consequences of our civilisation, people to whom civilisation meant an income of a few pence a week, with which to buy enough rice to feed them and the two yards of calico which formed their clothing. He could not agree that it was possible to apply this remedy to one kind of industry only. They could not possibly in the ultimate event give protection to one part of Industry if they were not prepared to give it to the rest. Their object was not to make things dear, but to supply an income to men who were now starving. Working men knew and felt that if they were getting 30s. a week in nominal wages and out of that could only work three days a week, it would be a vast deal better for them to pay ½d. more for their 4 lb. loaf. He stood upon this, that the remedy they wished to apply did not involve, and could not, except in very poor countries involve an addition to the price of commodities in the country. The competition of capital naturally brought down the prices of commodities. It was an interesting fact that, although the price of wheat had come down to almost exactly one-half of what it was, the quartern loaf was now almost exactly what it was when wheat was at double its present price. It had been no advantage to the working man that the price of wheat had come down in the way it had, because almost the entire difference had gone into the pockets of the middlemen. It would have been a vast deal better for the working men and for other classes in this country if a little of that difference had gone into the pockets of the farmer and the labourer instead of into the pockets of middlemen. In these matters people were being misled by arguments which a little discussion and analysis would put an end to. He could refer to other commodities in regard to which the same state of things existed as in the case of wheat, but wheat formed an illustration that was most familiar to everyone. He hoped that presently, when an answer was given to the arguments brought forward in support of the Motion, the House would not hear mere optimistic phrases such as they had just listened to from the last speaker, but that the real question surrounding this very difficult subject would be faced. He spoke now as he had spoken for nine years in Manchester. His conviction was that he was a Protectionist. He was not a free-trader. He believed that every kind of fallacy that human ingenuity had invented had been accumulated round the fetish of free trade, before which so many hon. members opposite knelt and worshipped. It was for this reason that he had intervened in the present Debate.

desired to refer to the figures in regard to coal, to show that in that article at any rate there had not been a falling-off in exports. In 1880, the quantity of coal exported from this country to foreign countries was something over 17,000,000 tons, whereas, in 1894, the quantity had risen to move than 33,000,000 tons. One other point he wished to refer to. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution had not treated that side of the House quite fairly. A Member who brought forward an important Resolution might give them some idea of the remedy he would propound in order to get rid of the evils which they all admitted this country was suffering under. The real reformer's duty was not only to point to the disease, but to propound the remedy. The first question he usually put to Protectionists was: "What are you going to tax?" The ground was, however, cut from under his feet on this occasion by the hon. Member who had just spoken, as he said he would tax everything. The hon. Member was out and out; he was frank; in the most bold and unusual manner he declared himself a real Protectionist. If he were asked for a remedy, he thought he should begin by requiring some reduction in the rents of the country. He should then want to move out of the way the royalties that were paid. He should want to reduce some of the excessive ground rents, not only in urban districts, but on manufactories. Let him point out one of the conditions that a manufacturer had to deal with. He was going to speak of a case with which he was well acquainted. Thirty years ago there was a piece of land which was sandbank and bog which was utilised for the purpose of establishing a large manufactory. The land at that time was of no value. The parties who took the land for 60 years spent £40,000 to £45,000. Half the time of the lease had now expired, and a large portion of that value was rapidly passing to the ground landlord. In addition to this rent, had been paid amounting with compound interest to about £10,000, and it would thus be seen that the manufacturer who had to compete with foreign manufacturers had been mulcted in an enormous sum for the use of what was a valueless piece of land. He ventured to think that if they got rid of some of these charges, if it would not cure it would help to enable manufacturers at home to compete with manufacturers abroad, and so increase our trade and employ our workmen. But it was not only a question of rents. If the agricultural interest was prosperous, they might look for a large amount of prosperity in every other department, and they were all willing to co-operate in bringing about that improvement in agriculture. Whilst, therefore, he thought there was still room for lower rents to be paid, it was not only that they had to deal with. There were other matters. He had before him a copy of a lease of land which was now in existence, and he wanted to refer to some of the conditions imposed on the farmer who rented the land. The hon. Member then read some of the conditions of the lease, which amongst other restrictions limited the cultivation of certain crops, stipulated what manures he should or should not use, regulated the sale of produce, the cutting of trees, and the keeping of premises in repair. He marvelled how any farmer, under conditions of such a lease, could go on a farm with any chance of success. What hope had he of improving his condition and removing his difficulties with such a mesh of impossible conditions surrounding him? Hon. Members on the other side would do good service, if they would help in removing some of the real causes of commercial distress which he had indicated, and give up the futile attempt to upset our policy of Free Trade, to which was mainly due the commercial supremacy and greatness of the Empire. It would be impossible for hon. Members to convince the working men of this country of the unsoundness of the principle that if we were to keep our trade at all, it was only by freeing the channels and not by damming them up.

, thought he would hardly be justified at that late hour in going into the very interesting question raised by the hon. Member. He and his hon. friends had been asked what would they tax? The hon. Member for Salford very properly said that he would place no imaginary limit to the articles to be taxed. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh asked whether they would tax wine. He did not think that the most ardent advocate of the productions of this country would claim any preeminence for that manufacture. What they desired to tax was competing products—that was to say, articles which this country could manufacture or produce in considerable quantities. He had not, of course, any preference for prohibitive taxation; but he had always advocated, so far as the necessaries of life were concerned, the imposition of duties based on the principle of a sliding scale which would automatically operate when that figure was attained which would, by general concurrence, represent that price at which the article could be produced in this country. By such a means all famine prices could be absolutely averted. They were always told that the idea of any country in the world being able to compete with the United Kingdon was absurd. The President of the Board of Trade was aware that at this moment the pig-iron manufacture of the Southern States of America—Alabama—was being landed at Glasgow at a price lower than that at which it could be produced at a profit in the great iron-producing centres of the United Kingdom. A large employment of negro labour was one of the elements in the manufacture of this iron, and no doubt yellow labour was also one of the elements which the English working man would have to contend against m the future. The House was told by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that goods were always paid for by goods. Then, if German prison-made brushes were sold in England, there would be a greater demand in Germany for British manufactures. Would the hon. Member for South Edinburgh endorse that view? But the House of Commons had unanimously decided that that competition between foreign prison labour and English labour should not continue; and did the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that if the competition had been that of black or yellow labour, instead of prison labour, the decision of the House would have been any different? The public opinion of the working classes was decidedly set in the direction of protecting their labour from such competition. How did the hon. Member for South Edinburgh make out that goods were always paid for by goods, seeing that this country's imports very largely exceeded in value the exports?

It is because of the very good bargain we make.

said, that it was pointed out to him that money must leave this country to pay for the goods imported in excess of the exports. But the answer of the Free Trader was that the interest on British capital employed abroad must be brought into the calculation. Yes, the interest on British capital driven from this country.

Twelve hundred millions.

said, that of course his hon. and gallant Friend was responsible for that figure, but he had no doubt that, if anything, it was under the mark. This British capital had been invested abroad for the purpose of getting beyond the range of these hostile tariffs. It was reducing argument to an absurdity to regard British capital driven abroad by the falsity of our fiscal system as a source of British revenue, while it was paying wages to the foreign workman to the detriment of the English workman. That argument would not influence the starving operatives in the Government centres of industry in this country. Those who advocated the imposition of reasonable duties upon foreign competing produce, were not without feasible suggestion for protecting this country from any danger of scarcity in her supply. Her Majesty's Government recently sent a Commissioner (Lord Jersey) to attend the Colonial Conference at Ottawa. What was the suggestion of the assembled delegates there? That facilities should be afforded throughout the British Empire for inter-British trade upon preferential terms; and that certain Treaties should be renounced with the view of once more enabling this country to have a free hand in the arrangement of affairs within the limits of the Empire itself. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh, in a strong appeal to the House, had spoken to two things as essential to the British Empire—a strong Navy and Free Trade. What was the attitude of the British Empire towards the one-sided Free Trade which the hon. Member advocated? Why, nine-tenths of Her Majesty's subjects were dead against it. He would undertake to say that nine out of ten of her Majesty's subjects were dead against it. He did not confine himself to the limits of these islands. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was developing into a Little Englander. The inhabitants of these islands were only about a tenth of her Majesty's subjects, and throughout the other portions of the Empire these falsely so-called free-trade doctrines were denounced.

But the predominant partner.

admitted that, but the other partners had not adopted the same fiscal policy. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) made a sound and gesture indicating derision; but did he doubt that, with the solitary exception of the United Kingdom, her Majesty's subjects were in almost every part of the Empire of protectionist principles? Then the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the statement?

That nine-tenths of the British Empire are protectionist?

said that was his statement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman meant to exclude India, but after the recent discussion he would not be inclined to follow up that argument. At all events all the self-governing portions of the Empire except the United Kingdom had at one time or other in recent years pronounced in favour of protectionist principles. The only exception that could be made was New South Wales, but into that there was not time to enter—which colony had modified its tariff in a way that did not carry with it the good wishes of the right hon. Gentleman. Foreign imports and hostile tariffs against the produce and manufactures of this country had forced on the public opinion of this country that some decided steps must be taken to remedy the present state of affairs. If the Government could only offer the cold comfort the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian offered to the Cobden Club the last time he addressed them, then there would be great and deep disappointment among the toilers of this country. The Government were asked for a policy, and they were found mumbling the dry bones of political economy.

said, he had waited for an expression of opinion from the Front Opposition Bench, and had not waited in vain. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) represented the Front Bench——

I represent myself.

said, then the silence of the Front Opposition Bench was the more significant. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Colonel Howard Vincent) in the earlier part of his remarks said that the only hope of agriculturists and manufacturers in the country was the advent of his Party to power. Did he still retain that view?

Certainly.

Though not a single Member of the late Government came to support the hon. Member's Motion? Did he still retain that view when remembering that during six years the late Government made no movement in the direction of such a Motion?

Trade was too good then.

said the hon. Member's recollection must be short indeed if he thought trade was good in 1891–2.

In 1890.

said, the hon. Member did on one occasion succeed in surprising, he supposed he must not call it a Conservative caucus, into a declaration on this subject at Oxford. A resolution similar to this was carried, but the first result was a prompt disavowal—what might be called a "hot potato" disavowal—from Lord Salisbury, and he ventured to predict the same result from the carrying of any other resolution of the kind. Free Trade principles had never been more fully set forth than by the President of the Board of Trade under the late Government (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and if the Conservative Party had any idea that such a proposition as was embodied in this Resolution would be carried into effect by a Conservative Government, they were very much mistaken indeed. He could not help noticing a sort of crescendo in the speeches of Members who had supported the Motion. The hon. Member for Sheffield complained of the evils, but suggested no remedy; he was followed by the hon. Member (Mr. Seton-Karr) who proposed to draw from its scabbard the sword of retaliation, and then was reached the higher level on which the hon. Member (Sir H. Howorth) and the right hon. Gentleman avowed themselves thorough-going Protectionists. The hon. Member for Salford did not shrink from the proposal to protect food and agricultural produce, and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would carry this policy so far as to prevent British capitalists from investing money abroad or lending money to industrial enterprises in foreign countries. The hon. Member for Salford did not quite go so far as those who wrecked machinery 60 years ago, but he looked with grave disfavour on the export of machinery and coal, because he thought those commodities would enable our competitors abroad to succeed. But to return to the Motion before the House, had the hon. Member who moved it succeeded in proving the propositions on which it rested, or in holding out the slightest hope of success by the remedies at which he was apparently driving? The hon. Gentleman had evidently had a great deal of trouble over that Motion. It had appeared in three successive shapes. In the first shape it suggested no remedy at all; in the second it advocated the preferential tariffs of the Ottawa Conference; and in the third it confined itself to saying that the Government ought to take measures, but what measures had not boon at all indicated by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said: "It is not for me to suggest measures; that is for the Government." But why had not the Conservative party suggested measures? The only Members of the front Opposition bench present were the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, and apparently it was from them the future policy of the Conservative Government on this matter was to be taken. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield in his Motion ascribed the increase in the number of the unemployed to the shrinkage of foreign markets and the operation of foreign hostile tariffs. In a paper published in 1894, called "Statistical Tables relating to the Progress of the Foreign Trade of the United Kingdom and other Countries," this subject was fully and instructively discussed; and it showed that under the operation of Foreign tariffs the trade of the country, so far from declining, had actually been increasing. Despite those foreign tariffs, the foreign trade of this country had increased; had held its own with the trade of other countries, and this country had as firm a grasp of the general trade of the world as in any previous time. The next point of the hon. Gentleman was as to bounties. Would the House believe that foreign bounties were given only on sugar and on shipping. Sugar was not a great industry in this country. It employed only about 9,000 people and had not suffered substantially from foreign bounties. But what was more instructive still was that an attempt was made by the late Conservative Government to deal with the sugar bounties. A Congress met in 1888—hon. Members would find in the Blue Book all the correspondence that had been exchanged on the subject—a Convention was actually signed, but the Conservative Government never took any further step in the matter, and the whole thing had remained dead till this day. So much for dealing with foreign competition by retaliation. Then as to shipping, surely if this country held a conspicuous position in the world for anything it was for its shipping. If bounties were a danger to us, least of all could they be shown to be a danger to an industry so eminently successful as shipping. The Motion said that the earnings of the people had diminished. Earnings might be tested by wages, and the House knew that wages had risen nearly double in the last 50 years, and within the last 30 years they had increased 25 per cent. The wages of agricultural labour, in particular, had risen steadily over the whole country until with the last few years. If hon. Members would refer to what was said by the Commission on the Depression of Trade which sat a few years ago, and the data of the Labour Commission, they would find that this statement was borne out. There had been a steady and continuous advance in the character of our industrial population. The values of our products had been maintained and the quantities enormously increased. Even now, in the unfavourable returns for February, the diminution in quantity was very slight. In the prices of food and clothing and almost everything (except house rent) which was necessary for the well-being of the people there had been a very marked, steady diminution. In 1880 the consumption of pounds of tea per head was 4·57; in 1890, 5·17; in 1893, 5·41; in 1894, 5·53. The consumption of sugar, which in 1880 was 63·4 pounds, had risen to 80. The consumption of tobacco had risen from 1·42 per head to 1·69. Then to take the question of meat, which was perhaps more important still, he found that within the last 20 years the consumption of meat in this country had increased per head of the population no less than 25 per cent. Something had been said about the competition of the products of labour produced under conditions less favourable than ours. To that he would reply that the better you pay a man the better worth you out of him, and every improvement in the status of our working classes—shorter hours, lower prices, and higher wages, had been followed by an improvement in the quality and quantity of the work which was turned out. There was nothing more true than that cheap labour was dear labour. Those who desired that we should not have our labour competed with by that of foreign workmen working under different conditions must adopt one of two alternatives; either they must exclude foreign manufactured products altogether, or they must ask to repeal our Factory Acts and go back to the state of things which prevailed 50 years ago. The hon. Member for Sheffield assumed an increase in the number of the unemployed, but he had given not a title of evidence on the subject, and, setting aside the exceptional circumstance of the hard frost, there was evidence that the number of the unemployed as it stood at Christmas last was distinctly less than it had been two years before. In regard to pauperism, they had statistics to show that in 1857 no less than 4·86 per cent. of our population were paupers in England, and in 1862 no less than 5·43 per cent.; but in 1893 it had fallen to 2·45 per cent. That under the policy of Free Trade this country had thriven was the opinion of those who knew most of the country. Only on Wednesday last a gentleman from Sheffield brought forward a Motion at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce couched in much the same terms as the Motion before the House, and it was rejected by 40 to 26—by a large majority of those who had reason to know what were the conditions of commercial prosperity and what was for the real commercial benefit of this country. He hoped he had shown that the hon. Member for Sheffield had not attempted to substantiate any of the arguments he had advanced. As to suggesting any remedies for what he deplored, he was a perfect blank. Periods of depression pressed less on Free Trade countries than on those in which protection prevailed. The hon. Member for St. Helen's wanted this country to imitate the United States in his protective policy. Did he not know that the depression in trade had been much more severe in the United States, and nearly in every part of the Continent of Europe where protective tariffs prevailed, than in this country? He would appeal from the hon. Member for St. Helen's, who urged that we should fight other nations with their own weapons, to the hon. Member for Sheffield himself, who said we ought not to follow the blind leading of other nations. The Government were absolutely firm against any kind of protection or fair trade, by whatever name it might be called or in whatever disguise it might masquerade. He need add nothing to the admirable speech on the general question, of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. It had been by a free trade policy that the greatness of this country, commercially, had grown during the last 50 years. The Government believed that by that policy the commercial greatness of the country would, in the future, be promoted and maintained, and they did not believe a responsible Government would ever be found to propose or a British Parliament be found to sanction any return to the doctrines of protection.

said, he knew nothing about this Bill, and therefore moved to Report Progress.

appealed to the hon. Member not to press the Motion, as the Bill was not in any sense a contentious one.

I have such a high appreciation of the honesty, democracy, and decency of my hon. Friend that I withdraw the Motion. The other Clauses were agreed to, and, the House having resumed, the Bill was read 3°.

said, that the Bill was sent to a Standing Committee, and was now, after a few days' interval, set down for Third Reading. He objected to this rapidity of procedure, and intended to give notice that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

pointed out that the Bill had been Reported by the Standing Committee without Amendments.

moved the Third Reading of the Bill, but objection having been taken he named the 19th of June for that stage.

said, that as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Member for East Manchester had pronounced an opinion unfavourable to this Bill, he should ask leave to withdraw it. He, however, threw the whole responsibility for the loss of the Measure upon the two right hon. Gentlemen whom he had designated.

said, that the Order being for the resumption of the Debate on the Motion for committing the Measure to the Standing Committee, the Bill could not be withdrawn now. The Motion must stand over until another day. Before the Bill could be withdrawn the Motion must be withdrawn.