I do not think I need detain the House with any observations in moving my Instruction. The object of the Bill, which affects the tramways in South London, is to introduce a cheaper form of traction, and I think the House will agree with me it is desirable that advantage should be taken of the opportunity to try and get improved facilities for cheap travelling by the working classes. I understand that the promoters of the Bill take no objection to the Instruction, and I trust that the House will assent to it. I beg to move.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I gave him private notice—namely, whether he is able consistently with the public interest to state to the House the essential conditions upon which Her Majesty's Government will alone entertain any peace proposal in connection with the present war in South Africa.

Papers on this subject will very shortly be laid before the House.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any foundation for the report that President Kruger has addressed any communication to the Government suggesting terms of peace?

I have already stated that Papers will be laid on the Table very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state in which districts of Cape Colony martial law has been proclaimed; and whether any record is kept of proceedings taken against persons or property under powers purporting to have been given by such proclamation.

Martial law has been proclaimed in the following districts of the Cape Colony:—On October 16th, 1899, in Mafeking, Vryburg, Taung, Barkly West, Kimberley, and Herbert; on 3rd November, 1899, at the military stations at Orange River Railway Bridge and at De Aar; on 15th November, 1899, in Molteno, Colesberg, Steynsburg, Albert, Aliwal North, Wodehouse, Glen Grey, Queenstown, and Cathcart; on 16th November, 1899, in Hay; on 15th January, in Philipstown and Hopetown; on 5th March, in Prieska, Kenhardt, Britstown, and Barkly East. In reply to the last paragraph, I have to say that the military officers have been instructed to furnish a record of any such proceedings as are referred to.

Has the proclamation been withdrawn in any district yet?

Not that I am aware of.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Cape Colonists of Dutch extraction being English subjects were arrested, and are lying in the gaols of Cape Colony and Natal, against whom no charge has been made, and who are denied the right of communicating with their legal advisers.

Sir Alfred Milner informs me that he has ascertained from the military authorities that all persons arrested are duly charged and their cases investigated as soon as possible, that the right of communicating with their legal advisers is not denied to any British subjects, and that every facility is given for their defence. The Governor of Natal informs me that in that colony eight colonists of Dutch extraction have been arrested under martial law and are now in gaol. Charges are pending against all of these except one, against whom no specific charge has yet been formulated. None have been denied the right of communication with legal advisers; on the contrary, full facilities have been given to such as desired it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is any official information to the effect that the Boers during the siege of Ladysmith or elsewhere attempted to contaminate the water supply by deleterious matter; whether our South African troopers taken prisoners of war are worse treated than those of the rest of the army; and whether, if so, the Government are doing anything and what to ensure their proper treatment as prisoners of war.

The report referred to in the first paragraph has reached us from official sources, but no proof of its correctness has been received. As regards the second paragraph there is some evidence to show that our South African troopers taken prisoners of war are worse treated than those of the rest of the army. We are endeavouring to ascertain whether these statements are accurate, with a view to further action, if necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of mounted men sent or about to be sent from Australia and New Zealand for service in South Africa, specifying at whose cost they have been or will be sent, and giving particulars with reference thereto.

The Australian colonies and New Zealand have sent about 4,000 men at their own cost. More will be provided at the charge of the Imperial Government.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I want to know the number of mounted men about to be sent from Australia and New Zealand respectively.

The Secretary of State does not consider it desirable to give further details on this point.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has telegraphed to Australia that the new Australian force would receive pay to the extent of 1s. 2d. per day while serving in Cape Colony and Natal, and 5s. per day while serving elsewhere; and whether he can state where besides Natal and Cape Colony it is intended to use these troops.

I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has telegraphed to the Australian Premiers stating that the new Australian contingent will receive 1s. 2d. a day while serving in Cape Colony and Natal, and 5s. a day while serving elsewhere; and, if so, in what other country besides Cape Colony and Natal, or in what military operations other than those of the present war, it is intended to employ these forces.

In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office to a similar question on Thursday last.^* The force will be paid at ordinary Imperial rates with, in certain circumstances, special local allowances which will make their pay up to 5s. per day. The force will be employed in any part of South Africa which the Commander-in-Chief may consider desirable in connection with the present war. This answer applies also to the question of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the circumstances which would raise the pay to 5s.?

Climate would be one.

Would not the circumstances of climate also apply to the British and Irish soldiers, and raise their pay to 5s. per man?

Are we to understand that this contingent can be employed except in South Africa?

It is only engaged for service in South Africa.

Is it not a fact that the circumstance of climate affects the Australian troops much less than the British troops?

You give them 5s. a day, and Tommy Atkins only 1s. It's a swindle!

I beg to ask the Lender Secretary of State for War whether he can conveniently state the number of men furnished by each of the colonies, respectively, to our forces in the Transvaal.

The numbers are approximately as follows:—Cape Colony, 15,000; Natal, 7,000; Canada, 2,820; Ceylon, 130; New South Wales, 1,800; Queensland, 810;South Australia, 340; West Australia, 230; Victoria, 500; Tasmania, 180; New Zealand, 730;

^* See p. 372 of this Volume.

India, 250—total, 29,790. Further contingents are being raised in Australia and New Zealand.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the French Society for affording Aid to the Wounded has sent from Paris forty-five cases of instruments, medicaments, and other useful articles for the use of our hospitals in the front in South Africa; and. if so, whether some, public recognition will be accorded to the society for its gifts.

Yes, Sir; Lord Want age, the chairman of the Central British Red Cross Committee, accepted the offer in fitting terms, and notified the gift to the public press at the time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the distress prevailing among the mining employees of the various companies in and around Kimberley, he will instruct the Government representatives at the South African ports, more particularly Port Elizabeth, to give all possible facilities for the prompt, forwarding by rail to Kimberley of any parts of mining machinery, necessary to replace the damage which has been occasioned during the Boer invasion, in order that mining operations may be restarted at the earliest possible moment.

Such instructions cannot be given, as the military authorities must have the full use of the railways.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will fully explain in his statement on the Estimates the item, Vote 1, F. (a), of £3,000,000 for pay of South African local forces, or will give the details by a Return or in reply to a question.

My hon. friend the Under Secretary of State will give the explanation in his statement on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the statement that the ambulance wagons attached to our forces in the field are in many respects inferior to those of the Boers, and whether the British ambulance wagons are without springs and, in consequence, are liable to jolt considerably, are so heavy in their build as to require ten mules to draw one wagon, and are so constructed as to provide accommodation for only two wounded men in a recumbent position in each wagon, as against eight in the case of the Boer wagon; and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of taking steps to secure in future an ambulance wagon of a design better adapted for the requirements of the field, and less likely to inflict unnecessary pain upon wounded men.

The British ambulance wagon has excellent springs, and in the Long Valley at Aldershot can be drawn by a pair of horses. It accommodates either two men on stretchers and four seated, or twelve seated. It contrasts favourably with the ambulance wagon of any European nation. Nothing is known of the construction of the Boer wagons. No complaints of the British wagon have been received at the War Office from South Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of the Queen sanctioning the raising of a regiment of Irish Guards, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of forming such regiment, in the first case, from soldiers selected from the Irish battalions now serving in the field.

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that the mode of raising the regiment has not yet been determined.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that amongst the troops in South Africa there are many temperance men; and in view of the fact that after exceptional exposure to the Weather rum is the only beverage offered to the troops, will arrangements be made so that some non-intoxicant beverage may on such occasions be available for abstainers.

The Secretary of State has no doubt that Lord Roberts makes every arrangement possible for the temperance men amongst the troops.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Volunteers who submitted themselves to medical examination prior to service in South Africa, and the number rejected owing to physical disabilities.

No Returns are available.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of companies of Imperial Yeomanry that have been formed, the names of the regiments and of the counties from which each company has been raised, the number that have embarked with horses, and the number that have left either wholly or partially without horses, together with the names of their companies; and whether this departure without horses was with the knowledge and sanction of the War Office.

I shall be happy to show the names and figures to the hon. Member, but they are too long to give in reply to a question. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the service company of the three Volunteer battalions of the Lancashire Volunteers has been in barracks for upwards of five weeks; and if he will state when, inasmuch as it is fully equipped, it will embark.

Information was only received on the 26th ultimo that the company was ready to embark. Companies have been detailed to ships in strict order according to notification of readiness. This company will embark on the "Tagus" about the 16th instant from Southampton.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the principles which govern the recommendation of a soldier for the Victoria Cross; and whether the fact that an act of gallantry has been performed by a soldier in pursuance of orders and not on his own initiative precludes a general from recommending him for this decoration.

The qualification for the Victoria Cross is defined by Royal Warrant to be—"Conspicuous bravery or devotion to the country in the presence of the enemy." There is nothing in this to preclude the Cross being given for an act done in pursuance of orders. The recommendation must, however, come from the officer in command, who must judge whether the act is such as, in his opinion, to merit the Cross.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to make supernumerary all Militia officers who have been taken away from their regiments and given appointments in, or sent on duty to South Africa, and to fill the vacancies caused by that seconding.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state that the necessary transport arrange- ments have been made for the 52nd Company of Imperial Yeomanry, and if he can state when they will embark for the front.

The 52nd Company will embark in the "Tagus" on the 16th instant at Southampton.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a British military commission was sent to and arrived at Pilsen, in Bohemia, last December, to purchase guns from Messrs. Skoda's works, and if inquiry will be made as regards results of alleged mission; whether any, and, if so, how many, saddles were sent from Bruenn to the British War Office; and whether 2,000 saddles returned to Messrs. Budischofski by the Austrian Government were bought and delivered to the English War Office after the declaration of war between the Transvaal and England.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that none of the questions contained in the question are correct.

I shall raise the point on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the potatoes for the use of our troops in South Africa are bought in America; and, if so, what are they costing per ton delivered at Cape Town; and what is the reason that they are not bought in this country.

My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. Potatoes are not being supplied either from home or foreign sources to the troops in South Africa.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the military authorities has been called by contractors for the supply of various stores to the applications received by them from persons employed in the Royal Ordnance Factories and in the inspection and supply depôts for donations and subscriptions to clubs and other funds; whether the names of the writers of such letters and circulars have been reported by contractors to the authorities; what inquiries have been made at Woolwich, Birmingham, Enfield, Chatham, and Weedon, as to these organisations, and as to the management of these funds and clubs; and what steps the Secretary of State for War has taken, or is prepared to take, in respect to any officer connected with the buying, examination, and weighing of supplies for the Army who is proved to be concerned in such applications to contractors.

I am only aware of one such case. When the attention of the War Office was drawn to it, investigation was made and it was arranged that two contractors who had contributed in reply to applications should prosecute a meat inspector at the Reserve Depôt at Woolwich by whom the application had been made, He was found guilty of obtaining money by false pretences and has since been discharged. Inquiry has been made throughout the factories, and no other case can be traced.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph.

I think the hon. Member, when he reads the answer, will see it covers the whole question.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether paragraph 423 of the Queen's Regulations for the Army applies to officers of the Volunteer force; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Adjutant General to take notice of the methods alleged to be adopted by commanding officers of Volunteer corps for the purpose of making known their opinions as to the orders and proceedings of their superior officers.

Volunteers except when employed on military duty under certain conditions are not subject to the Queen's regulations. It follows that so far as these regulations are concerned there is nothing to prevent Volunteer officers making known their opinions as to the orders and proceedings of their superior officers. Such action is, however, obviously improper and subversive of discipline.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the most recent regulations, the distances at which Volunteers are required to shoot in order to qualify as marksmen have been reduced; and, if so, to what extent, and why.

Yes, Sir. It is considered advisable that the musketry classification of Volunteers should be based upon compulsory firing. Previously individual firing was only compulsory up to 200 yards, and practice up to and including 800 yards was only carried out optionally by those desiring to be classified as marksmen. Compulsory firing is now extended to 500 and 600 yards, and on this the classification, including that of marksmen, is based.

Then the qualification for marksmen is reduced from 800 to 600 yards?

Yes, but it is higher at 600 yards than it used to be.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, as only those Volunteer corps that have sufficient funds at their disposal pay their men in camp, whether the War Office will consider the advisability of placing all corps on the same footing by providing pay and allowances to officers and men while in camp, thereby curtailing the officers' camp expenses, and making it possible for a mat to attend without being at a loss, and preventing dissatisfaction in the corps.

A statement will be made at an early date as to the conditions under which Volunteer camps will be held this year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether officers commanding Volunteer battalions can apply to the War Office for remuneration for the outlay in the construction of rifle ranges during the last three years and for the future, as it is understood that a large sum of money was voted for Volunteer rifle ranges in the Army Estimates of last and again this year.

No. There is no intention of making a grant retrospectively except where money may have been borrowed for purchase of land, when assistance by means of loan can be given under the Military Lands Act.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how many reserve companies of Volunteers have offered themselves, or been formed; and if, even though a Volunteer battalion may be ready to form a reserve company, such a company cannot be formed until the officer commanding the regimental district orders the men to be attested.

Reserve companies are still being formed, and it is too soon as yet to make any statement as to the number.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of Volunteer battalions with an establishment of ten companies in localities where it is not desired to raise a second battalion, but where such battalions supply each a full bearer company of sixty-four to their brigade, it would be permissible for them to recruit past their establishment so that the bearer companies be supernumerary to the present establishment; and whether the establishment in ten company battalions will be raised, so as to include a mounted infantry company; or whether such company can be recruited supernumerary to the present establishment.

An application to form an extra company will receive consideration. The question of allowing a mounted infantry company to be formed is being considered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of restoring to sergeant-majors of the Militia their status as warrant officers, as the deprivation of rank recommended by a Departmental Committee some years ago has been found to cause dissatisfaction.

It was found to be inconvenient to have sergeant-majors of Militia battalions possibly senior to the sergeant-major of the regimental district. Consequently the grant of warrant rank was restricted to the latter. The same inconvenience would arise if warrant rank were now granted, and the Secretary of State does not see his way to giving it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether advantage will be taken of the opportunity afforded by raising twelve new battalions to give effect to the frequently expressed wish of the Government and people of Canada that the 100th Regiment, sometimes called the 1st Battalion Prince of Wales's Leinster regiment (Royal Canadians), shall be repatriated as a distinctively Canadian regiment, recruited in Canada, and bearing the Canadian title of which it was deprived by the War Office in 1881.

The matter is the subject of correspondence at the present moment, but the proposal for repatriation has no necessary connection with the raising of the twelve new battalions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing there are no barracks in Ross-shire, or north of Fort George, will arrangements be made to provide for barracks at Dingwall in the scheme now in course of preparation for barracks necessary for the forces which are to be permanently added to the Army.

No, Sir. The increase to the forces docs not render necessary the provision of barracks at Dingwall.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the incompleteness of the Return just issued of rifle ranges closed in the Eastern District—for instance, Norwich closed for distances beyond 300 yards, Bury St. Edmunds entirely closed, Attleborough closed except for reduced charge ammunition; and whether he will obtain a full and and amended Return of ranges partially or entirely closed since the issue of the Lee-Metford rifle.

The Return is a complete Return of the ranges closed to full charge, firing with the authority of the War Office in the Eastern District since the introduction of the Lee-Metford rifle. The Norwich range was condemned as unsafe for the Martini-Henry, and has never been open for full charge Lee-Metford practice. The Bury St. Edmunds range was reported as unsuitable in 1891, and has never been included in the annual range returns. The Attleborough range is apparently a private range as to which no reports have been made to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the first, second, and third battalions of the Yorkshire Regiment are now on foreign service; and, if so, whether it is the intention to at once embody the fourth battalion; and, if not, whether he will explain the reasons for not doing so.

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The whole of the Militia will be embodied about the 1st May.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that direct commissions are only being given to candidates from the universities of the colonies over twenty years of age, commissions are being also offered to boys at the public schools, and if such boys will be older than the cadets at the Royal Military College and Royal Military Academy; whether it is intended that such boys shall also take precedence, of the cadets who have passed into the college and academy by competition, and have received military instruction; if the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of shortening the college course of the cadets so as to save their ultimate seniority; and whether commissions have lately been given to men who had neither passed educationally by the "literary" examination nor professionally by competition, while there are many who have passed a high qualifying test but were outstripped in the competition and who have not been offered commissions, such candidates having necessarily undergone a special and expensive preparation.

A few commissions are being offered to the public schools. The recipients of them will probably be a little younger than the Sandhurst and Woolwich cadets. It is impossible to further shorten the Sandhurst course, which has already been shortened by six months. A few commissions have been given to candidates specially qualified who have not passed the tests referred to. It has already been explained that in the pressing need for more officers exceptional measures have had to be adopted.

May I ask whether, during the Crimean War, cadets were not allowed to pass an examination in one half the usual time in order to fill the ranks of the Army, and, also, whether it is not the case that men who failed in the competitive examination of the Royal Military Colleges are actually receiving commissions in preference to cadets now serving there?

I should be glad, as this is an historical question, if my right hon. friend would kindly put it on the Paper.

The second question is not an historical question.

I think the right hon. Gentleman had better give notice.

I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities will consider the claims of cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, to receive commissions in the Royal Field Artillery before appointing direct to that arm of the service those who have not had the advantage of any instruction at that establishment.

Half the commissions given to the outgoing batch of cadets from the Academy will be for Field Artillery. It is desirable that the Garrison Artillery should have the remainder, and not be deprived of officers who have had the benefit of the education at the Academy.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the command and second in command of Reserve battalions will be given to officers on the Reserve when eligible.

Yes, Sir. In many instances this is being done.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Army officiating Episcopalian and Presbyterian chaplains respectively, and their average annual remuneration.

The officiating clergy are appointed by the generals commanding districts. The particulars required could only be obtained by reference to all the districts. This would involve considerable labour, for which there is no time at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the British Government intends to pay the Indian Government a capitation grant for the two the regiments it is taking from India, similar to the capitation grant which it obtains from India on every British soldier borne on the Indian establishment.

The Imperial Government defrays the actual charges for recruiting as claimed by the Indian Government in the case of these regiments instead of paying a capitation rate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the results of the further trials of Her Majesty's ships "Highflyer" and "Minerva."

The results of the last two trials of the "Highflyer" and "Minerva" are as follows, as reported by telegraph— 3rd March, 1900.—"Minerva" and "Highflyer" completed satisfactorily C 2 steam trials (i.e., of 60 hours duration at 17 knots). Coal, all purposes: "Minerva," 358 tons; "Highflyer," 375 tons. Coal per i.h.p., engines only: "Minerva," l·95; "Highflyer," 2·07. Coal per i.h.p., all purposes: "Minerva," 2·22; "Highflyer," 2·37. 7th March, 1900.—"Minerva" and "Highflyer" completed satisfactorily D 1 steam trials (i.e., of 30 hours duration at highest speed that can be maintained), Coal, all purposes: "Minerva" 225 tons; "Highflyer," 267 tons. Coal per i.h.p., engines only: "Minerva," 1·97: "Highflyer," 2·1. Coal per i.h.p., all purposes: "Minerva," 2·22; "Highflyer." 2·52. "Highflyer" averaged 400 h.p., and half a knot greater speed than "Minerva."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what percentage of men and boys recruited for the Royal Navy are rejected on account of bad teeth.

We have no statistics as to the number of men and boys rejected on account of bad teeth, but it is large. It might be as much as 25 per cent. Careful attention has to be given to the teeth of candidates as a test of health and suitability for service afloat.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government, now that it is responsible for the administration of Nigeria, is maintaining strictly the restrictions on the slave trade and the prohibition of the sale of firearms and intoxicating drink established by the Royal Niger Company in the region of the Lower Niger; what steps they are taking to extend these regulations to the whole of Nigeria; and whether they are taking any measures to put a speedy end to the slave raiding which is productive of such evils in that country.

The company's regulations as to the slave trade and the sale of firearms were practically the same as those in force, in the Niger Coast Protectorate and Lagos, and are being maintained. The sale of intoxicating drink was not prohibited by the company in the southern portion of their territories. The prohibition in Northern Nigeria is being maintained, but it is not practicable to extend it to Southern Nigeria. Measures will be taken in the future, as in the past, to put a stop to slave raiding wherever it is possible to do so.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether steps have been taken to secure tile possibility of messages to Cape Town by the new cable of the Eastern Telegraph Company, in respect of which a payment of £10,000 has been made in the present financial year, being sent without passing through any foreign stations; or whether it is contemplated that all messages shall continue to pass through a Portuguese station.

The payment of £10,000 was made merely to secure the opening of the cable between Cape Town, St. Helena, and Ascension at the earliest possible date, and had no reference to the matter alluded to in the question. That cable will, I believe, be extended to St. Vincent, through which, as now, messages will pass.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the income tax being raised to 1s. in the £ as from 1st April next, the rate of tax payable upon interest or dividends which have accrued for the year ending 31st March, 1900, but are not actually paid out till after that date, remains at 8d. in the £ and whether the tax payable upon interest or dividends accrued for the first six months of 1900 will be at the rate of 8d. for the first three months, and 1s. for the second three months, and for other periods in proportion.

Assuming that the question relates to the dividends of English companies, the answer to both paragraphs is in the affirmative (but the date on which the alteration of the rate will take effect is April 6th, not the 1st). The Inland Revenue will in a few days issue full instructions explaining the rules to be followed in deducting income tax in all cases.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention that the additional duty of 1s. per barrel on beer shall be of a temporary character as well as the additional duty of 6d. a gallon on spirits, and the rest of the indirect taxation proposed in the Budget.

If my hon. friend will look at the resolutions which have been passed, he will see that all this additional indirect taxation is on a temporary footing.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return of the local authorities in England and Wales that have carried out housing schemes under the Housing of the Work- ing Classes Act, 1890, showing details of cost and income, number of persons displaced and provided for, rate of interest on and period of repayment for the loan.

There will be no objection to a Return on the subject referred to in the question; but perhaps before the hon. Member moves for it he will place himself in communication with the Local Government Board as to the details of the Return.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the national schools of the parish of Hensall, Yorkshire, which Church and dissenting children alike are obliged to attend, there is in the mixed school an altar with candles, and a crucifix suspended over it, and in the infants' school another altar with two pictures of the Annunciation and the Nativity over it, and a crucifix suspended over the fireplace; also that the children of the parish, both Church and dissenting, are taken to hear Mass every Thursday at nine o'clock, and have been taken to church to the "Blessing and Imposition of Ashes," and are taught the rosary; and, if so, whether the Education Department will interfere to put a stop to these practices, and to have the emblems removed from the national schools.

The Education Department has no information on the subjects referred to in the question, and has no power to direct the removal of emblems or to interfere with the religious teaching in the school so long as the Conscience Clause is observed.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a modified scheme for the constitution of a governing body of an association under the Voluntary Schools Act was received from the Chester Diocese, and approved by the Education Department, in January last; whether he can state if this modified scheme was prepared by the governing body formed under the original scheme; and, if not, by what person or persons the scheme was prepared; whether the managers of the voluntary schools in the Chester Diocese had any notification given to them of the proposed changes in this scheme, or whether information on this subject was reserved until the scheme had been submitted to and approved by the Education Department; and, is he aware that the modifications which have been incorporated in the new scheme have resulted in restricting the liberty of managers in selecting their representatives; and, if so, have the managers any appeal against a decision which has deprived them of a liberty admitted by the Voluntary Schools Act, and which they were assured during the debate on the Second Reading of the Act should be reserved.

The answers to the first two paragraphs of the question are in the affirmative. In regard to the third paragraph, I understand that notification of the proposed changes was not given to all the managers. During the debates on the Bill the impression no doubt prevailed that teachers would be eligible as members of the governing bodies. But the Committee of Council are not aware that any pledge was given by any member of the Government that the Department would refuse to approve the rules of any association which did not admit of the representation of the managers by teachers. Under the circumstances, the Committee of Council are not prepared to decide at present whether this governing body have gone beyond the provisions of the Act; but the Education Department will communicate with them, in the hope that they will see their way to withdrawing the limitation, to which it appears from the hon. Member's question that some of the managers object.

Have local managers a right to appeal to the Education Department, seeing that they had no previous knowledge of the scheme?

Everybody has a right to appeal to the Education Department, but what power the Department may have to remedy their grievances I cannot say.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the result of an inquiry held after the railway collision which took place on 6th January outside London Bridge Station; whether he is aware that the report states that this collision, together with other recent ones, emphasises the need for improvement in the existing methods of fog signalling; and whether he will undertake to increase the public safety by advising railway companies to adopt some uniform system which shall satisfy the Board of Trade.

Yes, Sir. The report referred to has been under very careful consideration, together with that on the unfortunate accident at Wivelsfield. Immediately on the receipt of the reports I caused copies to be sent to the hon. secretary of the Associated Railway Companies and requested that the serious attention of the companies might be directed to Sir F. Marindin's observations in these reports as to the necessity for the adoption of some improved system of fog signalling on railways.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if an advisory or consultative committee has been formed, on his suggestion, to consider questions relating to the lighthouse administration of the kingdom; if so, who are the members of the committee, what are their functions and powers, by whom and on what principle they were elected, where and when do they meet, and are the expenses of the committee defrayed out of the Mercantile Marine or any other public fund.

An advisory committee has been formed by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing to the Board of Trade and the lighthouse authorities the views of shipowners and others with regard to all questions of new works proposed to be carried out by the lighthouse authorities. The committee consists of twelve members, of whom four represent English shipowners, two Scottish shipowners, and two Irish shipowners, one of the English shipping representatives having been selected by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. In addition to the shipping members, the committee includes two merchants selected by the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, and two underwriters representing Lloyd's and the Liverpool Underwriters' Association. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a list of the names. I have made arrangements for a meeting between the committee and representatives of the lighthouse authorities at the Board of Trade early next month for the purpose of considering the new works proposed to be undertaken during the coming financial year. There is no public fund out of which the expenses of the committee can be defrayed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether that part of the Companies Bill which, if passed, would give to simple contract creditors of a company in liquidation preferential right of payment over all secured creditors, is intended by the Government to be persisted in; and whether it is the intention of the Government to have this alteration in the law, invalidating many millions of securities, discussed in Committee of the whole House; and, if not, whether ample notice and time will be given for its full discussion on Second Reading.

The clause referred to by the hon. Member was not in the Bill as introduced in the House of Lords, and was not inserted at the instance of the Government. It will require careful consideration, but I am not able at the present stage to make any statement as regards the attitude of the Government with regard to any particular proposal in the Bill. The Government hope the House will refer the Bill to a Grand Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a memorial signed by a large number of prison officials with regard to the terms of their retiring pensions; and whether, in consideration of the nature of the work of prison officials, he is prepared to recommend that they should be entitled to obtain the maximum pension at an earlier date than under the Civil Service scale.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The question of pensions is primarily one for the Treasury, and to deal with it as suggested would require legislation, which I am afraid I must say I am not at present prepared to propose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the results of the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, promised by him last August^*, of the questions affecting British shipping which arise in connection with Departmental Circular, No. 17, dated 8th February, 1899, promulgated by the Treasury Department of the Bureau of Navigation at Washington, U.S.A., reciting an amendment in the Federal Laws of 1884 by an Act approved on the 21st of December, 1898;whether, under the amendment referred to, it becomes unlawful to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same; and whether Her Majesty's Government have been able by negotiation to reserve the British shipowners and British seamen in the United States the right to make and receive advances, which are legal in this country.

Advances to seamen are strictly prohibited by the United States Act of December 21st, 1898, but provision is made for allotment notes not exceeding one month's wages in favour of original creditors. The prohibition of advances is made applicable to foreign ships as to vessels of the United State. The Act appears to Her Majesty's Government to be directed against crimping. In those circumstances Her Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to enter into any negotiations at

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxv., page 1363.

present on the subject. The Act will be closely watched.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that a large number of persons in Scotland who vote in Parliamentary and county council elections are disqualified to vote for school board candidates by reason of their rentals being less than £4, upwards of 3,000 crofters and fishermen out of 3,160 being thus disqualified in the Island of Lewis alone, will he say whether, having regard to his recent promise, he has yet been able to consider the School Board Electorate (Scotland) Bill now before the House, and if he is prepared to support it.

We do not propose to sanction any change in the law at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the Bill which stands in my name?

I have not seen it.

:I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the town clerk of Belfast has received 73 claims for compensation for malicious injuries arising out of the late rejoicings in that city over the relief of Ladysmith; and can he state the exact amount of money these claims involve.

The town clerk of Belfast has received 76 claims, amounting to £617 12s. 5d., for compensation for malicious injuries arising out of the recent disturbances in that city, which were participated in, as the hon. Member is aware, not only by a few individuals who belonged to the Protestant party, but also by a Roman Catholic mob. The number of claims made by Roman Catholics, so far as I can ascertain, is 27, amounting to £172 7s. 6d.; by Protestants, 41, amounting to £382 9s. 2d.; and by 8 Jews, amounting to £62 15s. 9d.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements have yet been made to transfer the Inland Revenue Offices at Cork from the Cork Custom House to some more convenient neighbourhood, and what place has been selected for the purpose.

Not yet. The matter is the subject of negotiations between the Departments concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether arrangements are now complete so as to permit the work on the new post office in Cork to be begun; and, if so, when is the work to be begun.

Plans of the alterations have been prepared, and are under consideration, but they have not yet been finally approved. It is intended to begin the work during the ensuing financial year.

What caused the delay?

I rather venture to think they wanted a better plan than was originally designed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can see his way to relax the restrictions on the landing of dogs in England coming from Ireland for breeding purposes under proper guarantees.

I do not think it would be practicable to make any concession in favour of dogs brought from Ireland for the purposes to which the hon. Member refers consistently with full security against the re-introduction of rabies. The hon. Member will understand that the restrictions in question are of a temporary character, to be withdrawn so soon as the operations now proceeding with a view to the extermination of the disease in Ireland have been attended with success.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why performing dogs and greyhounds are included, classed together, by the English Board of Agriculture, as animals to which they were satisfied concessions should be made; and how many cases of rabies are reliably reported as having occurred in Great Britain and Wales during the past six months.

With a view to meet the convenience of the owners of the dogs concerned, we have hitherto seen our way to prescribe special conditions for the landing of performing dogs, and of dogs entered to run at certain coursing meetings which it was considered would secure the requisite measure of safety, but the conditions differ materially in the two cases, and they cannot be said to have been classed together. Six cases of rabies are known to have occurred since the 1st September last, the last being on the 10th November, but two of these were cases in which the dog had been placed under restrictions.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland how many cases of rabies are reliably reported and authenticated as having occurred during the past three and six months respectively in Ireland; whether any toxic results have been demonstrated; and upon what evidence the diagnosis of rabies was founded.

Eighteen authenticated cases of rabies were reported from the whole of Ireland during the six months ended 28th February, and of these, eight cases occurred during the past three months. Toxic results were demonstrated in eleven of the eighteen cases. The diagnosis of rabies in all these cases was founded either upon experimental investigation by what is known as the Pasteur inoculation method, or, where such investigation was not practicable, upon the results of careful inquiries made at the place of outbreak by qualified veterinary inspectors.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when he will withdraw the muzzling order now in force in the King's County part of Eden Derry Union, seeing that no case of rabies has occurred in this area for a considerable period, and that the order does not extend to the adjoining parts of the union situate in Meath and Kildare, within a very short distance of the town of Eden Derry.

The unit of area for the purposes of the muzzling of dogs Order is the administrative county, and not the poor law union. I hope it will be found possible to withdraw the Order from the whole of King's County in the course of next month.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken to extend to County Monaghan such benefits as may exist in the new law relating to agriculture and technical education.

No special steps have yet been taken in the direction indicated in the question, and until the new Department has been fully constituted it cannot be stated what action may be taken.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury it he will signalise Her Majesty's visit to Ireland by introducing, during the present session, a Bill to repeal the Irish Coercion Act of 1887.

No part of Ireland is at present proclaimed under the Crimes Act, as the House and hon. Members are perhaps aware.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Crimes Act does exist, and is at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant?

That is true.

And that's the point of my question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Act (1890) Amendment Bill.

The Bill will not be taken this week. I can give no more definite pledge on the subject.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question with regard to the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill and the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill—namely, whether he will give the Irish Members a promise that he will not take the Second Reading of either of these Bills without a week's notice.

I think that, perhaps, that question should more properly be directed to me than to my right hon. friend. I am anxious to give the Irish Members, and, indeed, any section of the House, as long notice as I can of the taking of Bills in which they are interested. But, as I have before observed, a Government may hamper itself too much by pledges of this kind, so that it would be almost impossible to conduct the business of the House, as accidents may, and do, occur. I will do my best, however, to meet the wishes of hon. Members, but I cannot give any more definite pledge.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that under the peculiar circumstances in which Irish Members are placed they ought to have some assurance in reference to the two important Bills in which they are so deeply interested. Yet he has given us no assurance at all.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his friends will upon reflection see that I do my very best to meet their wishes on matters connected with Ireland. I am extremely anxious to meet their desire, and will certainly do my best in the case of these particular Bills.

I desire to ask a question in regard to the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is not yet printed. He may also be aware that sometimes Bills as low down as No. 5 on the Orders of the Day, which is the position occupied by this Bill to-night, are unexpectedly brought on. Will he give us an assurance that this Bill will not be taken to-day, nor until it is printed? Can he also state definitely when it will be taken?

It certainly will not be taken to-night. I should be sorry to give any absolute pledge, but my hope is that the Second Reading may be taken on Monday next.

When is the War Loan Bill to be taken?

Tomorrow.

I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill, to enable the census to be taken in Ireland. (The right hon. Gentleman's voice was inaudible in the gallery, but he was understood to state that the measure was practically identical with the English Bill, there being only one or two alterations on minor points to meet the special needs of Ireland.)

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take a census of the Irish-speaking people?

Yes, Sir.

I rise to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, and I hope it will not be necessary for me to say more than a few words upon it. We have taken the fundamental principle which underlies the existing Act of dealing with this subject—namely, that the measure of compensation shall be the value to the incoming tenant of the improvement effected by the outgoing tenant. As the law stands at present, the tenant makes his claim and the landlord has a right to make a claim as a set off against that of the tenant, the amount of the landlord's claim being limited to that of the tenant's claim. We propose to improve the tenant's position, and to enable him to claim for certain improvements which he has not now the power to do. For instance, the Bill will enable him to claim for all corn consumed on the farm, whether grown on it or not. The Bill also simplifies the machinery under which the claim can be established, by bringing in the Arbitration Act in an amended form. Both tenant and landlord will be able to bring their claims before the same tribunal; and whereas at present the only claims which can be so settled are claims arising under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Bill enables all claims, including those arising under the common law, to be dealt with in one arbitration. We propose that there shall be a single arbitrator; we abolish the present statutory obligation to have a referee and umpire, and we give the landlord and tenant the greatest freedom in the procedure for establishing their claims. The machinery we set up should do much to diminish the expense of a settlement. The tenant will no longer be required to give notice of his claim. Formerly, if he failed to give notice he not only lost all the rights he enjoyed under the Act, but he prejudiced his other rights. We provide that no notice shall now be necessary, but the claim must be made within three months of the termination of the tenancy. Penal rents are altogether abolished, and certain ambiguities in the law of distress are removed. The schedule under which the tenant claims compensation is amended, and the Board of Agriculture is introduced as the governing authority instead of the County Court, in the case where the landlord has to borrow money to pay compensation and charge the estate with the loan. In this and other ways the procedure for the settlement of differences between landlord and tenant will, we hope, be cheapened and simplified. I believe that the measure is a practical and businesslike one, and I trust that the House will give it impartial consideration, in order that we may settle once for all the differences between owners and occupiers of land.

I suppose the Bill applies only to England?

To Great Britain only.

I should like to say one or two words upon the right hon. Gentleman's statement. In the first place I think that all interested in this question will welcome some of the proposals he has foreshadowed, and will be inclined to think that they are a step in the right direction. The Bill would seem to be rather a Bill for the improvement of the machinery for determining mutual claims and rights of landlord and tenant than for making larger reforms. The arbitration proposal would be welcomed as tending to cheapen and simplify the procedure of the Act. My right hon. friend has referred to one or two minor alterations of the law and to the extension of the Schedules for tenants' improvements which he proposes to make, but I could not help noticing one serious omission from his description of the Bill. There was no reference in his speech to two such questions as compensation for laying down permanent pasture, or for increased fertility from continuous high farming, provision for which the working tenants of the country have demanded as necessary to any satisfactory Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act. If I am to interpret the silence of the right hon. Gentleman as meaning that there is no attempt in the Bill to deal with two such important questions, which have so long exercised the thoughts of agriculturists, and have been voiced by them on so many occasions, I very much regret it, for we know it has long been felt that tenant farmers—who at great cost to themselves have carried out the highly advantageous improvement of laying down permanent pasture, when it is well done, and who have also added fertility to the land by continuous high farming—ought to be considered. If no attempt is made to deal in the Bill with these things I fear it will lead to a good deal of discussion when the measure is before the House. My right hon friend is well aware that the strongest expressions of opinion have been given by our Chambers of Agriculture in favour of accepting the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Chambers to deal with these subjects as the minimum of concession to working agriculturists. But the proposals fell far short of even the very moderate standard set up by the Chambers. I cannot sit down without offering a comment on the singular contrast presented between the belated introduction of a Bill which is to fulfil pledges given again and again by Ministers, but postponed year after year—no doubt to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman's friends—and the action of the Government, which shortly after it came into power devoted so much time to carrying the Agricultural Rates Bill when the question was the relief of the landlords. During the sessions of 1893 and 1894 we had to listen to furious and fervid declamation about the sufferings of distressed agriculturists, on Motions of Adjournment, about once a fortnight. And we remember the prolonged and passionate debates with which the Agricultural Rate Act was introduced in 1896. I think we can all understand how the enthusiasm then shown for the tenant farmers of this country ceased as soon as certain millions were ear-marked for the benefit of the landlords, with the result that we have had to wait five years before any attempt is made to deal with the case of the tenants in reference to a subject which occupies five-sixths of the Report of the Royal Commission. And now we have this Bill brought in in a speech lasting less than five minutes, and under a Rule which only allows one other speech to be made. I venture to think I am justified in drawing attention to the enormous contrast between the way in which the Government acted on behalf of the landlord class and the scanty and belated attention they are now giving to the demands of the working tenant farmers of this country.

Before moving that you, Sir, do now leave the chair, I feel that I owe to this House some account of the objects to be covered by the Army Estimates, and some explanation of the form in which these Estimates are presented this year. The Estimates are altogether exceptional—in the first place, of course, in respect of their magnitude, but also because they present some features which are novel in our procedure, and the nature and the necessity of which demand some words from me. These Estimates have been framed for the purpose of effecting four principal objects. Hon. Members who have in their hands a copy of the Estimates will find on page 6, under four columns lettered a, b, c, and d, a discrimination between the totals which are set apart for each one of those four principal objects. The first principal object is the further prosecution of this war. I feel that I should be hardly justified in enlarging at any great length this afternoon on that section of the subjects covered by the Estimates. The sum set apart for the further prosecution of the war stands at a little more than £31,500,000. The Leader of the Opposition has more than once most patriotically assured us that, speaking for those who follow his lead, he will not stint the Government in any provision, for which they may ask for the prosecution of the war. He leaves to us the responsibility, and reserves to himself and his friends the right of subsequent inquiry and criticism. That being so, and seeing that during the debate on the Address I had occasion to speak at some length about the war proper,^* I feel that

See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol, lxxviii., page 316.

this afternoon I am not called upon to repeat that speech, because it would be mere repetition. I should cover the same ground, but in place of the amounts which I then gave I should be able to give a higher total for the men, the horses, the stores, and the transports which have been concentrated in South Africa. I am very loth to parade those totals. When I have given these mere enumerations, I have done so under the sincere belief that they were the subjects of legitimate curiosity. But I find that my action has been misconstrued in quarters outside; and that when I give figures I am accused of endeavouring to snap a bolt in favour of the War Office administration. Nothing has ever been further from my mind. I believe that many lessons are to be learnt from the war, and I hope as ardently as anyone that lessons will be learnt from the war and turned to the best possible account. These figures generally provide for the pay, subsistence, clothing, transport, and stores of the forces actually in South Africa, and I can only this afternoon reply by anticipation to some of the questions which have appeared on the Paper. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has put down a somewhat long and detailed question in respect of the colonial forces in South Africa. Now I am not able to answer this except in an approximate manner. What I said the other day is still true. These forces, both the force raised in South Africa and the other forces offered to us by our self-governing colonies are still increasing factors, and therefore it is not possible to give the exact total. In this Estimate, in order to cover all the numbers which might possibly come in, we are setting the total down at 35,000, and the numbers up to the latest I have—February 26—are—Of South African forces, 21,240; from other colonies already in South Africa, 4,829; and on passage or under orders, 3,204, or 8,033 from our other self-governing colonies, making a grand total in South Africa, or under orders, of 29,273. The House will see that we have left ourselves a margin of something more than another 5,000 in case those forces increase, as probably they will. The right hon. Baronet has also put a number of questions as to the rate of pay and conditions upon which the services of these forces have been accepted. With regard to the South African forces I need not repeat what I have already told the House as to the original terms. With regard to the other self-governing colonies they were to put the men down at their own charge in South Africa, and from the date of disembarkation the Imperial Government take them over at Imperial rates, pay, allowance, and pension, and undertook to take them back. But our colonies have behaved with so much patriotism in this respect that a time came when it was felt that we might increases largely those terms; and in respect of those under orders and future contingents we propose to undertake the whole burden of transport from the day they set forth. Then I come to the local South African forces raised there. Here the question is very complicated, and I do not believe that a detailed statement can be made. There were in South Africa a number of constitutional forces receiving traditional rates of pay. Some were raised on these lines at an early date; some were raised at the instance of Sir Alfred Milner and Sir George White. When I was speaking during the debate I found myself confronted with this criticism, that we had not been ready or prompt enough in responding to such appeals. But I was able to prove to the House that we only lost a week in the attempt to grapple with this very difficult problem of the different rates of pay. What would have been said if, in response to Sir Alfred Milner, who was under the apprehension of a rebellion, and what would have been said if, in response to the appeal of Sir George White, who was repelling the invasion of Natal, we had haggled over those details as to rates of pay? In my judgment—I do not know whether I am right or wrong—that would not have been the only, or the most mischievous, consequence of such action on our part. We might have throttled with, red tape the new birth of a force which we may live to see revolutionise the problem of Imperial defence; and that is why I deprecate any detailed discussion in this House of questions arising out of the terms of these offers which were made and the rates of pay accorded. The Dominion of Canada, the self-governing colonies of Australia, New Zealand, and many other dependencies of the Crown came forward, not under an obligation but of their own free will, to assist us when we went to the assistance of their sister colonies in the Cape and Natal. They did not fulfil a contract; they obeyed the instinct of an Imperial race; and that being so we must wait for the development of years before we can hope to grapple in detail with the very interesting question which will arise out of this employment of the colonial forces side by side with Regulars at different rates of pay. I may be sanguine, but I think it is public possible that our colonies, discovering and rejoicing in their new-found strength and welcoming the opportunity which is theirs, may play a very great part in the future evolution of this Empire, and will seek, not indeed to perpetuate these splendid efforts they have made from year to year, but to render their repetition more easy by adopting some kind of organisation on prearranged lines. If that be so, if it be true, we may look forward almost with hope to a time when in Canada, Australasia, and I will add in South Africa also, we may see forces akin to our own—Militia and Volunteers—rising up where they do not now exist, and being perfected where, as in the case of Canada, they already exist in large numbers. If we may look forward to that time, to the time when the colonies see fit to select and test the military merits in time of peace of those among the colonial subjects of the Queen to whom, and to whom only, they will accord the coveted post of honour in times of Imperial danger—if that be not too visionary, I can appeal to the House whether we, the representative Assembly of this country, are not likely to be guilty of a want of tact if we discuss too fully what are after all the affairs of other self-governing dependencies of the Crown. It is for them to act and not for us, in my opinion, with our vast accumulated wealth, even to solicit too earnestly any assistance from our colonies in view of their voluntary offers during the last few months. Under this first column there are many other subjects on which it is difficult to speak, but harder not to speak at all. In introducing these Estimates I must be allowed to pay my passing tribute to the heroism of our troops, to the stoical tenacity of Sir George White at Ladysmith, to the promptitude and versatility of the Naval Brigade, to the dogged determination of Sir Redvers Buller, to the swift precision of the cavalry movements which have been directed by General French, and to the yeomen service of the African colonial division, which, has been put to such a good purpose by that veteran of colonial and border warfare, General Brabant. All have won laurels, but of all who have won them the Irish regiments by their dash and valour and the price they have paid are entitled to the post of honour; all have won laurels, and all nave co-operated to crown with success the deep-laid strategy of Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. These successes have been so welcome that they may no doubt—and we believe and hope they will—accelerate the happy issue of this campaign; but they do not, in the opinion of the Government, justify any diminution of provision at present for the future conduct of the campaign. The financial course of this war—and it is that with which we have to deal—although it may ultimately, does not immediately alter with the fluctuations of failure and of success. It depends upon the difficulty and the cost of maintaining a huge army in the field in a distant country which is destitute of surplus supplies; and the Government feel that it would be rash, at all events at present, to think that the months during which that army may have to remain there are likely to be materially shortened. We are taking in this War Estimate what we believe to be enough money to prosecute our efforts at what I may call full pressure for another full period of six months. One need not necessarily believe that there will be fighting going on all that time, but as we think there may be a possibility of large numbers of troops being in the field we are making provision for carrying on our efforts, if I may say so put it, at half-pressure for a further period of six months. The House will see that such an estimate must be highly speculative. There will be no abrupt transition between the war at full pressure and the war at half-pressure, and the Estimate has been difficult to frame. The only fact we have to go upon is the fact that the Estimate of £23,000,000 for the conduct of this war up to the end of March will be, we think, very closely realised. Basing our calculations on that we have to take two considerations into account. These charges, including the £23,000,000, have been increasing charges on a scale which has ascended in proportion to the greater efforts we have had to make. On the other hand, that £23,000,000 includes the prime charges, the heavy cost of transport in this country. Calculated in that way we think that this sum of 31½ millions will prove sufficient for everything except what I may call the final charges. We are not asking for one penny in this Estimate for winding up and liquidating the transaction, bringing the troops home, and giving them gratuities at the end of the war. Then turning to the conduct of the war, I will ask hon. Members to follow me by turning to the third column "Temporary increases." There is a sum set down of £6,228,000. That is for the emergency scheme of the Government to meet the needs of defence which have arisen owing to the fact that so large a part of the home Army is no longer in this country. Upon that point the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton has asked me in a question to explain the additional numbers of this estimate of 217,551 men. I think this is a convenient opportunity to deal with that question because these additional numbers are due in part to the subject with which I have just, dealt—namely, the war, and in part also to the subject which I propose to deal with now—namely, the emergency scheme of home defence. The numbers are made up as follows:—For calling up the Reserves to the colours, 80,000; for Royal Reserve battalions—that is to say, soldiers who have served their time with the colours and in the Reserve, and who have now been invited for one year—we have taken in this Estimate, 50,000. But, as every one knows, the Vote for men is more of a constitutional safeguard than as an accurate forecast of what is likely to happen, and although we hope we shall get 50,000, we do not claim we shall get that figure, and I believe my right hon. friend has, in his memorandum, taken a lower figure than that for men who come back to the colours. Then, for soldiers transferred from the Indian to the home establishments, 10,000. That covers all those who have been borrowed for the purposes of the war, and it also covers—I wish to make it quite clear to the House—two battalions of native infantry who have been borrowed from the Indian establishment to take the place of British battalions at Ceylon and Singapore. Then, for the colonial troops I have given the number of 35,000; for the Imperial Yeomanry, 10,000; for the Imperial Volunteers who have been placed on the establishment of the Regular Army, including not only the companies who have gone to South Africa, but the companies who are waiting in readiness at home, 15,000; and for the gain from recruiting—not the total gain from recruiting, but the gain from recruiting which arises from the fact that discharges have been stopped, and which, therefore, may justly be put down as due to the war—17,000. And then there is a small figure, 551, for staff and departmental additions, and those, figures added together will give a total of 217,551 men who are voted to the establishment additionally in consequence of the war. Having disposed of that question that was put to me, I come back to the figure for our emergency scheme, and again, as the Leader of the Opposition has assured me that that he will not stint the Government in any demand which they may make for putting our home defence during this year upon a satisfactory basis, I may remind the House that in introducing the Supplementary Estimate^* I dwelt on this point at some length, in fact I think I made six speeches in eight days on the subject. But I have something now to add to what I then said, as our scheme has been worked out in greater detail. The amount of money which is being taken for the Royal Reserve battalions is £1,262,000. This is a very interesting experiment which we are making. We have often been told by certain Members of the House and by those outside who take an interest in our military system, that we have not in this country what they call a proper Reserve, that the Army Reserve is really part of our first line. I quite agree; I have always taken that view; but if we have no organised second Reserve, no Landwehr, in this country of men who have been through the Regular Army, at any rate we now find we have an unorganised material to draw upon for such a force. Invitation was our only course. Many critics tell us the time has come to command, and not to ask, people to serve. Of course it is said you can do anything by Act of Parliament, but there is one thing you cannot do in a free country by Act of Parliament, and that is to impose ex post facto a fresh obligation on a man who has faithfully discharged the original contract, and, therefore, we have to

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 1257.

invite these ex-soldiers of the Queen to return to the colours. We have only in such a case to consider two things—the sufficiency and the fitness of the inducement you extend and the loyalty of those who, having once had the honour of serving the country, are likely to covet that honour once more. The response has been magnificent. We asked the men to notify their desire to serve by letter and to enrol on the 7th of March. On Friday, the 9th of March, 16,097 had responded, and on Saturday, the day before yesterday, the number had risen to 17,480 men. Of those 12,637 are for infantry and 2,222 artillery. The question of Landwehr has been so often discussed that, perhaps, I may say a word or two about it. It is quite clear, as I have said, that we had no claim on these men, there was no obligation upon them, they had had no retainer; and I am not quite convinced it would have been wise to put such an obligation upon men extending to so late a period of life. Our military system and our Army Act only contemplate a total engagement of twelve years. That engagement is entered upon, as a rule, at eighteen or nineteen years of age, but the men whom we have invited back are to be up to forty-five years of age. Now would it be wise, even if it were possible, to invite a young man of eighteen or nineteen to bind himself to make this tremendous sacrifice when he reaches mature manhood? I am not at all sure such a plan would be a sound one. But if that is not done, if you do not invite a youth to enter into this obligation, if you do not give him some compensation for undertaking it or give him some retaining fee, then it is quite clear that when you ask him to make such a great sacrifice you must give him, not merely pay, but what I may call compensation for disturbance; and that is why we feel, without being in the least unfair to soldiers who are serving with the colours at 1s. 3d., we can and we ought to give to these men who come back at their own free will the bounties which are proposed—namely, £12 on returning and £10 at the end of their term of service. That is an emergency scheme, and it is, if you like, a makeshift scheme; we call our scheme an emergency scheme, our critics call it a makeshift scheme. Of course, it is indefinite; but it is very difficult, we find, to satisfy all our critics in this House, and our critics who are so numerous, and in a certain degree so authoritative, in the press outside. I do not attack those critics. They are in earnest in discussing a problem of national importance. We welcome this new and deep interest in the problem of interior defence; but my case is that the scheme ought to be an emergency scheme, that we ought not to attempt at such a period any final and complete and symmetrical plan for making the whole of the Empire safe until the crack of doom. Why, supposing we had made this Landwehr part of our regular scheme, final, complete, and all embracing, we should have left quite out of account other forces at home, the Militia and Volunteers, which are obviously and admittedly capable of much further development, and which we propose to develop under another portion of this scheme. Now I come to that part of the scheme, and I am able to give details in addition to those I gave, the other day. In the first place, as to the improvement of organisation. We intend to divide into two that gentleman who is two gentlemen rolled into one, the Inspector-General of the Auxiliary Forces and the Inspector-General of Recruiting. We mean to have one officer at the War Office in future specially charged with the Auxiliary forces, and we mean to give him a staff—two deputy assistant adjutant-generals, one of whom will be for the Militia and the other for the Volunteers, in fact there will be a separate branch of the War Office to deal with our Auxiliary forces, men who are personœ gratœ with them and who are specially qualified to understand their interests. Part of our scheme with respect to the Militia and the Volunteers is an emergency scheme, but we also have some permanent proposals of which this is one. I think it will be clear to the House that we ought not to prejudge too deeply our permanent proposals for the Auxiliary forces until we have the advantage of the new organisation which we are about to create. It would be absurd to prejudice any question upon which we have not the material to judge rightly and properly. Taking the Militia and outlining our permanent proposals first, I have already announced that we shall give a separate messing in future. That will be permanent. I am not going into great detail as to our permanent proposals, but as far as I do go the House may accept it as permanent, It will be a separate messing in perpetuity during training. We intend to consolidate, and to increase the bounties which are given to the Militia. For that some additional obligation will have to be undertaken, but I cannot put it too clearly that in asking the Militia to undertake the additional obligation to serve abroad there is no intention, or shadow or intention, on the part of the Government that the Militia shall do garrison duty, or that the Militia shall go during small, or even comparatively large wars. The intention is that in return for the additional bounty the Militia shall be bound to do precisely what they have done during the last few months—namely, come forward during a period of grave Imperial emergency. Then we think that the training of the recruit should be for a longer period than at present—that he should train for six months; and we propose to create a reserve for the Militia, which is a very different thing to the Militia reserve. The Militia Reserve consists in taking away part of the Militia in order to add it to the Army Reserve. We propose to create a Reserve for the Militia by still allowing a Militiaman to purchase his discharge at a very low fee, but by only allowing him to do that if he will undertake the obligation to come back under such circumstances as those I have described. Then we hope to raise some of the disbanded battalions in order that every line battalion should have its proper complement of Militia battalions. We intend to give the Militia full regimental transport, and we shall encourage the Militia, and more especially the officers of Militia, to associate themselves as closely as possible with their linked battalions in the line. We shall give the officers further facilities for instruction, that being one of the means by which we shall bring them into closer touch with their brother officers of the line. That is our permanent proposal for the Militia. Now I come to the emergency part of the scheme. I need not go into it in detail. But the whole Militia is to be embodied; and for that it is to be given better terms this year. The main feature of the scheme is that we offer a bounty of £5 to every ex-Militiaman who re-enlists for this year, and an extra grant to every Volunteer of three years' efficiency who goes into the Militia. We can estimate the cost of the emergency part of the Militia scheme closely; we know the number of men that will be embodied, and so we will say that will account for £3,307,000. I now come to the Volunteers. I will deal first with the emergency part of the Volunteer scheme which, as the House knows, is enabling and not mandatory. I wish the House to understand distinctly that this is an emergency scheme for this year and this year only, and that we adopt it in pursuance of the line laid down in the second section of the Volunteer Act, which provides that Volunteers may, of their own accord, offer what is known as actual military service when the Militia is embodied. I wish the House to keep it in mind that it is because we are in a year of emergency; and it is because the Militia are embodied, that we make these emergency proposals with regard to the Volunteers. What are they? We still think that the period of training in camp to be aimed at should be twenty-eight days but in order to give that latitude which we have promised, the pay and capitation grants will be earned by any Volunteer corps of which half the strength does fourteen days in camp. Is that clear? That is, if there is a corps of 800 men and if 400 do fourteen days in camp, that corps will come inside our emergency scheme; and all the members of the corps—officers, non-commissioned officers, and men—will be paid at Army rates of pay and allowances, and will have a capitation grant of two guineas. But in the case of those corps who do not see their way to come into our emergency scheme, we shall not suspend the ordinary Easter camping. They will be able to camp under the current provisions at Easter if they so desire.

Is the capitation in addition?

The capitation is in addition to the pay.

Not in addition to the present capitation?

In addition to the present Volunteer capitation, but not in addition to the present camping allowance.

Will the capitation grant be given to the 800 men if only 400 go into camp?

Those who go into camp will earn the capitation grant.

Not the remainder?

No, I do not think that that will be so, but I do not want to go into too great detail now.

It is rather an important detail.

Surely, what is more important is the principle that if half the men do the time in camp, they will come in upon the higher scale. Beyond that I am not prepared to go at this moment. The sum of money which we are taking for the Volunteers will be £409,000 for this emergency scheme. Then as to the permanent proposals for the Volunteers, we have, on the Estimates, in addition to the £40,000 for ranges last year, a sum of £100,000. We are sending some officers to Switzerland in order to study the Swiss system on the spot. We propose to encourage the scheme associated with the name of Lord Wemyss of Volunteer Reserves to this extent, that we shall give them free ammunition; and although we do not discourage the formation of mounted infantry by Volunteers, more particularly where they do not trench upon the preserves of the Yeomanry, yet, having consulted many Volunteers, we feel that, except in the case of a few corps, the Volunteers will be putting their money on the wrong horse if they go in for mounted infantry. Therefore we propose to encourage them to put their money on bicycles, or rather to put our money on their bicycles, because we shall encourage every Volunteer regiment to form one company of mounted infantry on bicycles. To do that we will give an extra capitation of £2, which will amount to about £50,000 a year. Then we are instituting a Committee of Musketry to deal with this question in connection with the Volunteers. We think that if we can devise a plan of graduated capitation for different degrees of efficiency in musketry the Volunteer might, if I may borrow a phrase from the Universities, pass his "smalls" in musketry at local ranges, and his "greats" at Salisbury Plain or Altcar. To do that we need to co-operate not only with Volunteer corps, but with public bodies. Again, we intend to give the Volunteers transport upon the same scale as the Militia. We also intend to rearm the Volunteers with modern artillery. But that again is a question I cannot enter into in detail, because it will have to be settled almost battery by battery in accordance with whether a corps is now field artillery or position artillery. But in this £6,228,000 we are taking £750,000 for semi-mobile guns and £50,000 for hutting, for we must take into account the contingency that some of the Army may come back while the Militia are still embodied. I think this is all I have to say upon this point of the emergency scheme. It is a makeshift scheme, if you like to call it that; it is a voluntary scheme, and it is an indefinite scheme; but I think I have defended it from the criticism that has been launched against it upon those scores. I said at the outset, when dealing with the Royal Reserve battalions, that we must not attempt a final scheme of Imperial defence and leave out of account the Militia and Volunteers. But I will go much further, and I will add you can no longer afford to concentrate the whole of your attention upon home defence and home forces alone. If we fall into that error at the instance of some of our critics outside this House who dwell upon conscription, the Militia ballot, and other such new devices, shall we not run the risk of creating a most unfortunate misapprehension in our colonies? May they not think that we care only for our home defence? This is not the moment for a final scheme. We cannot leave out of account forces that may be further developed. We ought not, if I may so put it, to dictate to our home Auxiliary forces; and we ought not to solicit in too pressing a manner our colonies to come to our assistance. What we want are patience and time. We must await the gradual evolution of these forces. If we do that, I for one believe the moment will come for some far-reaching co-ordination of voluntary and reciprocal defence in all parts of our Empire. Some say that our scheme is too small and too voluntary. Others say that our scheme is too large; that we are inviting the auxiliary forces of this country to make too great a sacrifice, and that if they respond to our invitation we shall dislocate the industry of the country. I think we may set that fear aside. We based this proposal upon some offers which were made to us before we submitted the proposals in the first instance to the House. One Volunteer officer, Colonel Wallace, of the Monmouth Artillery, volunteered three whole batteries of field artillery to train for three months at Aldershot. We accepted that offer, and therefore we were emboldened to proceed with the scheme I have laid before the House. As to the dislocation of industry, we have withdrawn for this war some 75,000 Reservists from their civil avocations, and, judging from the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, the machinery for the creation of the wealth of this country has not thereby been seriously impeded. Then, again, we know that many Volunteer battalions at the outset of the war volunteered for an indefinite period to take the place of the Regular battalions as garrisons of some of our towns. So we are constantly assured that we can rely upon the patriotism of the Auxiliary forces and upon the patriotism of the employers of labour in this year, which is a year of emergency. I think the House will see that I have throughout these debates avoided everything in the nature of an alarmist tone. But some of our critics outside misconstrue that attitude altogether. Surely they cannot suppose or believe that a Government which finds itself already obliged to pile up taxation for war would not, in sheer gaiety of spirits, come to this House and ask for £6,228,000 unless they were impressed with the gravity of the situation, and unless they thought there was good reason for asking the taxpayers of the country to make this contribution. Indeed, there is no middle course for those who criticise our scheme. They ought to censure the Government for inviting the House to embark upon a wanton and wasteful expenditure of public money, or else co-operate most earnestly with the Government in order to assist in reaching that measure of preparation which we think it our duty to attain. What is that measure of preparation? We think we ought to organise in the course of the spring and the summer in addition to the Auxiliary forces, who, as I have already pointed out, would keep certain positions around London, a trained, organised, and mobile force of three army corps and three cavalry brigades. Nearly everyone agrees that we ought to have a force of about that size and that organisation—but for different reasons. I see that my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth is taking notes, in order to reply to me this evening—at any rate, I mean to evade him. And I will tell the House why. Some think (I do not include my hon. and gallant friend in these) we ought to have this strength available so as to be able to resist actual invasion, others to ensure that any threat of invasion shall never be turned into actual invasion, and others again so that all honest fellows should be able to go about their business without troubling their heads about invasion at all. And others, amongst whom I include my hon. and gallant friend, think that both the fact and the fear of invasion are alike chimerical, but that we ought to have this force to deal a counter-stroke at the enemy, when the Navy is humbled in the dust—or rather in the sea. I am glad it is no part of my duty to convince any three of these four schools of thought that they are wrong and that the fourth is in the right. It is quite sufficient for my purpose that they all desire the same thing, and the thing they desire is the scheme which the Government propose. There can be only two questions affecting the Government in this matter. The first is—Are we to blame for not having a force, so organised, ready in our hand? I confidently say we are not. Since the Government has been in office it has submitted certain increases in the Army from year to year. When my right hon. friend the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs occupied the place which I now hold he had to employ strenuous arguments to prove to the House that those increases were necessary. But the House voted them, and altogether, apart from any addition in the Estimates of this year, in the programmes from 1897 to last year, an addition was made to the permanent establishment of this country of 28,763 men. Because the Government has made these additions to the Army, we are now reaping the harvest of those efforts. We are able to do all that the Government had ever undertaken to do—that is to say, we were able to send out from this country to South Africa a force of two army corps, troops for the lines of communications, and a division of cavalry. We did more than that, for we sent to South Africa two additional brigades of cavalry, five additional batteries of artillery, and one additional battalion of infantry. That being so, they are no longer here. On the 1st of August last there were six and a half battalions of infantry in South Africa and 75 at home. Now there are 78 battalions in South Africa and only seven at home. How could anything else occur? That is the whole of the story. I have said often that I invite suggestions and criticism of our proposals, but I do hold that attacks on the Government for the absence of troops are neither critical nor suggestive. They are lamentations, they are jeremiads, they are the voice of Rachel weeping for her children because they are not. Of course they are not; they have been sent out to South Africa. The only other question which can be suggested is whether we have some reasonable prospect of organising such a force during the spring and summer by the methods which we propose. I think if the House will recollect the response we have already had for the Royal Reserve battalions; if they will consider that there are 88 battalions of Militia in this country and the facilities we are going to give them and the patriotism they have already displayed; if they will consider what may be done with the Volunteers with the new facilities which we offer, I think they will agree with me that out of so wide an area of selection it will go hard with us if the Adjutant-General is not able to work up to a proper state of efficiency 75 battalions of infantry. I do not propose to deal with the artillery, the cavalry, the Royal Engineers, the Army Service Corps, or the Army Ordnance Corps, which are permanent additions to the Army, because, as I understand, there is a very general assent to those additions. I come now to the permanent part of our scheme. That is the hardest part of my task, not, as I think, in order to justify the additions, but because it is rather difficult to explain to the House the way in which they are presented in the Estimates. If hon. Members will take the first column marked A "Normal" they will see a sum of £21,777,700. That is an increase of £1,160,500 upon the Estimates of last year. My first fear is that the House may think that we are, by some insidious means, add- ing yet another and a surreptitious augmentation to the Army under this column, while we have put the ostentatious permanent additions in the column which stands next. But I assure the House that that is not so. Of this increase £424,000 is accounted for by the portion of the whole scheme which has been voted and which falls to be completed this year—the programmes of 1897–98, 1898–99, 1899–1900. These mean the necessity of there being an increase of 6,539 additional men this year at the cost of £424,000. The men have all been raised, but they come upon the Estimates for the first time now. Then every year it is the duty of the Adjutant-General to present some changes in the establishment to the Secretary of State. These changes, which show a balance on the side of augmentation, account for another £203,000 of this addition to the normal Estimate. Perhaps the House will take it from me that there are only two items which really demand any explanation. One is the increase of 912 engineers. I cannot really distinguish between these 912 engineers and a further number of engineers which we are asking for as a permanent addition to the Army, except in this way, that in any case the Adjutant-General would have asked for that 912 even if there had been no new scheme of increase for the Army. They were complementary to the numbers of the Army as they already existed, and they have been rendered necessary because of the great increase in the use of searchlights about our harbours and even in the field. There is one other proposal which I ought not to keep back from the House. That is that the garrison of Mauritius will in future consist of one British battalion and of two battalions of the native Indian infantry. We are not borrowing those battalions from India. They will provide, for the first time, a very small foreign-service roster for the native Indian army. India will raise two more native battalions than she would otherwise do, and we will take them from her, just as India takes from us the 52 white battalions. To account for the remainder of this increase on the normal estimates there is a sum of £533,500 which is really for automatic and miscellaneous services. All that money, with one exception, is due solely to the fluctuations in prices or to a change in the date of payment. For example, so large a sum as £275,000 arises from the fact that this year we are paying the whole of the Volunteer capitation grant out of the Estimates for the year, and not one-half of it by a Supplementary Estimate—a course which has frequently been urged on the Government and which we have now decided to take. The only item in this large demand which imposes a new obligation which is in any sense a point of policy is covered by a sum of £48,000, but I must tell the House that this is the first instalment of what will prove to be a much larger sum. It is for increasing and distributing the store accommodation for clothing and munitions of war. We have been going very carefully into that question, we have been sitting from day to day, in fact, upon that question. We are determined that the outbreak of war shall never again find this country with such a small reserve of stores and munitions of war. But if you increase that reserve you have to increase the storehouses in which it would be placed, and since it would be folly, and indeed impossible, to pile up such reserve in Pimlico, it will be conveniently distributed in various parts of the United Kingdom. That is a question of policy which will involve a great deal of expenditure. This accounts for the whole of this increase on the normal estimate. There is nothing in it which need engage the attention of the House, except the borrowing of the two battalions from India for colonial stations, and this determination on our part to increase the reserves of stores and munitions of war.

No part of the cost of those two battalions will fall on India, I suppose?

Oh, no. I now come to the permanent additions which are set forth in column B. There is a sum of £1,925,000 for permanent additions to the British Army. I may say that £900,000 of that is for prime charges, and though there will be some further prime charges next year, that will be a diminishing sum in the future. If these additions are made we shall have in this country, when the whole Army is at home, the artillery for five army corps. There is an addition, as the House knows, of twelve infantry battalions. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I have gathered the belief that there is a general, though not a universal, consensus of opinion that all these additions might be sanctioned with the possible exception of these infantry battalions. I will then confine myself to this point. Why twelve battalions? I may be asked; and, in the second place, I may be asked, is this addition due to a recent policy of Imperial expansion? I remember a number of hon. Members in this House saying that these Estimates would mount up and that we would have to make this increase because of our jingoism and adventurous policy in all parts of the earth. If that were so it would be a very serious state of affairs; but I believe it is possible utterly to demolish the figment, for it is no more than a figment, that these increases in the Army are in any way due to any recent policy. Let us first see what is agreed. I think it is agreed that, dealing with the infantry of the Regular Army, we ought to have as many battalions at home as there are abroad. That has been the idea aimed at by this and preceding Governments for more than thirty years. If that is so we have only to agree, if we can, upon the number of battalions abroad and the necessity for them, and then by doubling that number we shall arrive at the proper figure of the infantry battalions of the Regular British Army. India first claims our attention. Is it true that our presence in India is due to a recent policy of Imperial expansion? Of course not. The battalions of the army of occupation in India account for fifty-two infantry battalions. Will anybody say there is any prospect of reducing the garrison in India? Then there is Egypt. Is our presence there due to recent Imperial escapades? It was the predecessors of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who went to Egypt in 1882, and no one has ever been able to find the time or the occasion for withdrawing—and no one ever will. And what is the infantry garrison of Egypt? Three battalions. Will anybody say there is any prospect of, or that there would be any wisdom in, attempting to reduce that microscopic force? That makes fifty-five infantry battalions which must always be abroad in the armies of occupation in India and Egypt. Now we come to our colonial stations—purely naval stations. First there is Gibraltar. We are not in Gibraltar in consequence of any recent Imperial tendencies. We went there as long ago as 1704, and we are not likely to abandon Gibraltar. We have recently been full of elation over the siege and relief of Ladysmith. Why, the siege of Gibraltar lasted for three years and seven months, and because it happened over a hundred years ago is that any reason why we should not vibrate with patriotism over the courage of the men who sustained that siege? The garrison of Gibraltar is but three infantry battalions. Then there is Malta. Is the occupation of Malta due to a jingo policy of recent birth and development? We became responsible for Malta in 1800 after a blockade which lasted for two years, during which we co-operated with the people of that island to oust the troops of the First Napoleon, and a monument commemorating that event stands in the square of Valetta to this day, on which is inscribed their gratitude to this country. The garrison of Malta is seven infantry battalions. Does anybody say that we ought to or can safely diminish that force when you consider the vast stores of guns and other material there? Why, Sir, seven battalions is but a corporal's guard. Then there is Mauritius. We went there is 1810, when there was an expedition under Lord Minto from India. Mauritius accounts for only one battalion. Will anybody say that we should abandon that station which is on the route to the Cape, India, and Australia? Then there is Halifax. There is not much recent Imperialism about our occupation of Halifax. We first went there in 1447, and after it had been lost and re-taken, and ceded and receded several times, it has finally been ours ever since the Peace of Utrecht in 1713. I mean to go on if I may, because hon. Members think it enough to get up and say that these garrisons and increases are due to our recent policy of Imperial expansion. I find them due to the adventurers of Elizabeth, to the empire of adventure, or to the prophetic instinct which has given us the very cornerstone of our present Empire. Then there is Bermuda. The first Englishman went there in 1593, and it was finally colonised in 1620 as an offshoot from Virginia, and in these days when we are criticised, and properly criticised, for not having a sufficient reserve of stores, may I remind hon. Members that Bermuda was once defended by Henry Moore against two Spanish ships with three cannon balls. Two of them were fired and the Spanish ships retired, the station being left with one cannon ball as a reserve of ammunition. That is the way we muddled through in the old days. Then there is Jamaica. That jingo Oliver Cromwell went there in 1655. Then there are Barbados and St. Lucia. The latter was taken four times. Are we to give up these islands, with which such historic names as Rodney, Abercrombie, and Sir John Moore are associated? For those three stations the garrison is but one battalion of infantry. St. Lucia is one of the most important cable stations, and day by day we are directing our attention more closely to cables and cable stations. Then there is Ceylon. It was taken in 1796, Singapore was taken in 1819, and the occupation of Hong Kong dates from 1841. Each of these places has one battalion. In the whole of this chain can anyone discover any trace of a recent policy of expansion and Imperialism? Some of these places were captured in the hot heat of our contest against Napoleon, and perhaps those who took them did not know at the time how useful and of what practical import they would be; for they are the nerve centres of that network of naval stations and cables which is the only thing which binds together our vast Empire and gives it unity and strength. If hon. Members will add the strength of those garrisons up they will find it amounts to 17 battalions, which, added to the 55 in India and Egypt, make 72 battalions abroad. It appears from the memorandum issued by my noble friend that on June 1 last, instead of 17 battalions there were only 13½ at those colonial stations. We had to borrow one-fifth, because whereas South Africa, which so far has been left out of the account, was only entitled to two battalions for naval stations, we had at that time 6½ battalions there. But will anybody seriously contend that it is any longer right or safe to shuffle or borrow on this narrow margin of 17 battalions for those naval stations? I am prepared to admit that these 6½ battalions scraped together were not enough in South Africa. I believe that in the opinion of many men it was the fact that the garrisons stood so low that, led to the growth of a misconception in the minds of the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa as to our real strength. We must measure the size of our garrisons by our interests, obligations, and risks. You cannot be put off by the argument that South Africa is composed of self-governing colonies, and that we were never to give garrisons to self- governing colonies. You must consider the situation; and where the colonies are continental and contiguous to the domain of a military Power, then a fresh element comes in, and that is why in these Estimates we propose to put down the normal garrison of South Africa at 12 infantry battalions. If you will add that number to 72 you will arrive at 84 infantry battalions. Three of these can be under our existing arrangements provided by the Guards. That leaves 81, and, therefore, the proper figure should be 162 battalions of British infantry altogether. But we must have regard to the difficulties of recruiting, and we may cherish the hope that when the idea of the creation of auxiliary forces in our colonies is fulfilled, it may be possible to diminish that garrison of 12 battalions. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth greet that announcement with an ironical cheer. Will he say that we are in South Africa in consequence of recent Imperial expansion? We have undertaken no new obligations, but no matter what Government may be in office, the nation are determined that the old obligation shall be fulfilled. They are determined to act in the manner which is due to the sacrifices made by their forefathers, which is due to themselves, and due, above all, to our fellow-subjects in the colonies. The fabric of this Empire is only held together by the ocean courses of our warships. They are, as it were, the invisible girders supporting the Empire, and these naval stations are the points on which the girders rest, and it is the duty of this country to hold them until the young nations growing up in our colonial dependencies can relieve the mother country of some portion of that duty. That is my answer given in anticipation of any criticism of this permanent addition to the British infantry. It is also my answer to those critics who outside the House urge upon us to embark on a course of conscription or Militia ballot. Can you simply the garrison we require by any other than a voluntary system, which gives you comparatively young men enlisted for a short term of service? Yours must be a voluntary system. Take the figures for last January, before this increase was contemplated—you will find that, while you had 107,000 Regulars at home, you had 118,000 abroad. No tyrant since the days of Nebuchadnezzar has ever thought it possible to deport such a population as that except of their own free will. Your system must also be one of comparatively short service. I speak after being profoundly impressed as an ex officio member of the board of the commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and having read the melancholy returns which are brought up each month of men whose health has been ruined for ever, I am profoundly convinced that five years is long enough for any man to serve in such places. If you keep him there longer he ceases to be a good and therefore an economical soldier, and he becomes a burden in the future. If you are tempted to embark upon any long service system you will burden yourselves with a whole army of pensioners and invalids. Those are the conditions upon which the whole of our Regular system hinges. You have got to bear it. We are obliged to have eighty-four Regular Battalions of infantry, twelve Cavalry Regiments, and fifty-two Batteries of Artillery abroad. That is the position we have to face, and we shall not be able to face it unless we make up our minds to adhere to our present system. Even if it were possible to divide the two problems and consider the home question apart from the foreign question, would it be wise to depart from our present system of short service and Reserves? The Reserves stand, as the normal figure to be aimed at, at 90,000 men. To give barrack accommodation to one soldier costs you £120. Now, I do ask the House and our critics outside to consider this. Can they think any reasonable Government would invite the taxpayers of this country to sink £10,800,000 in providing barrack accommodation for trained men who wish to live at home, who wish to marry, who wish to enter into civic avocations, and who yet, as the experience of the last three months has shown, have all, with an infinitesimal exception of one per cent, responded at a moment's notice to the call to take part in a sanguinary war, 7,000 miles away from these shores? That is the defence I humbly submit of our present system. Let us perfect that system by all means. Let us search out its failings without fear or favour, but do not let us, in a moment of exasperation, such as was experienced some weeks ago, or in a moment of excitement which seems to have overtaken some of our critics outside, throw away the ripe fruit of thirty years' endeavour and of steady approximation towards success. I dare to put it as high as that. But I do not put it higher. I never have said everything is perfect. When we enumerate what is called the credit side of the ledger, we are accused of ignoring the debit side altogether. No, I say even the most sanguine may have to wait for years before they can say all is satisfactory; but when, by finding adequate inducements and by reforms in the methods of recruiting, the changed attitude of the people towards the career of the soldier is maintained, when the wrongs of South Africa are righted and the soldier is not slighted, when, in consequence of these changes, we can have a backing of some 60,000 recruits in each year for the Regular Army, when from the home Army we can send at a moment's notice two army corps fully equipped, with reserves, stores, and munitions, so that they may be maintained indefinitely without effort in the field, and when from the four corners of the Empire, which lie wholly or mainly within the temperate zone, at home, in Canada, in South Africa, and in Australia, we see Auxiliary forces growing up and being trained to take their place beside our Regulars—then, and then only, can we rest content. But the road to that goal is the one upon which our feet are set; we cannot miss it if we only persevere. Sir, I beg to move.

The Under Secretary of State for War, in a speech of extraordinary charm and ability, such as he always makes to this House, has answered criticisms which have not been made and critics who do not exist. He passed over all those questions which are most dangerous, and which those in this House who take most interest in this subject most desired to hear about. The right hon. Gentleman has been skating on thin ice during the whole of his speech, and I shall now have to discharge the painful duty of drawing attention to what we consider are the doubtful parts of his proposals, and of trying to elicit a reply to the criticisms which he has not touched at all. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by pointing out the fourfold nature of the proposals he was making, and he told the House that the Leader of the Opposition has announced his inten- tion of not contesting the war proposals of the Government. He made allusion to the most doubtful of the items, and deprecated all discussion upon them. But there is one item in the first Vote to which I must draw attention—an item of £3,000,000 for the pay of the South African Volunteers. That is an enormous item, so great that we do not know how it could possibly be incurred. That is for pay alone, there is no provision for anything else, and we are told to-night that the number of South African Volunteers is 21,000, and that a margin has been allowed up to 25,000. This is an enormous cost for such a force compared with the cost of the home troops; and to this matter I must call attention, because the home soldier is fighting side by side with these men; and of all the incentives to discontent there is none greater than the feeling on the part of the home soldier that he is not paid so well as the men along with whom he is fighting. That item of £3,000,000 is one which we shall be able to consider when we come to the Vote, but it is impossible to consider an item upon which discussion has been deprecated, without taking into account its effect upon recruiting, which is an effect the difficulty of which we shall see in time to come. The Under Secretary has again avoided, as on all former occasions, telling the House of Commons what are the conditions of service of the Royal Reserve battalions which constitute so large a portion of the Government's temporary or emergency proposals. Although I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke six times in eight days earlier in the session, he did not tell us anything with regard to this in any of his speeches. The Secretary of State for War in another place made a statement to the effect that these men were to be confined to home service, but some of us who have a strong objection to military measures being taken, for home defence as contrasted with other purposes strongly deprecate the formation of a military force which is to be confined to home service, and which cannot be conveyed abroad It is, in our opinion, a retrograde proposal which ought to be opposed. There is not the smallest sign in the Estimates that the Government has taken into consideration the real problem of the defence of the country—the question whether it is not wiser or more expedient for defence purposes to spend money on the Fleet or upon measures of the kind that is now proposed. There are many of us here who believe that, if it is in fact necessary, which we doubt, to take local steps in order to protect the country from the danger of invasion, it would be better to spend this money on shallow-water ships—torpedo destroyers, and the like. That is an arguable contention, but to tell us that the country is obliged to spend a million and a half a year for a force which cannot go abroad only goes to show that panic really exists. This proposal was described by the Under Secretary for War as a makeshift proposal. It is more; it is an extravagant makeshift proposal, and one which is calculated to damage the Militia, which the Government say is a force which they desire to develop and improve, because a great many of these men will go into the Reserve regiments and get there £22 bounty, while the men who have joined the Militia will receive no bounty at all. These are proposals which the House will have a further opportunity in Committee of dealing with, and the first observation I have to make is that the permanent increase charge will be far greater than we are at present willing to allow. Stores and fortress armament will be greatly increased, and in the future there will have to be a greater increase of infantry for South Africa, or else of Australian and Canadian forces. The Under Secretary for War defended his increase of twelve battalions of infantry. The increase of twelve battalions of infantry means under the linked battalion system an increase of six battalions which could be sent abroad in time of peace. We are already four battalions in excess abroad in peace; the net increase over previous needs is therefore only two, and does anybody suppose that South Africa will only require an increase of two battalion of the Regular Army? But there is a solution of that which has been hinted at, which is that the new Australian force—not the original force, but the one which is now being asked for by the Government—is intended ultimately for garrison work in South Africa. Such a force would be enormously costly—much more so than home battalions would be, and the House will be living in a fool's paradise if it accepts this increase of twelve battalions which in reality only means two for the purposes of sending abroad. No one who has followed these figures can say that the future permanent charge is shown in these Estimates at all, and it is evident that we must be prepared for greater sacrifices in the future. The Under Secretary has not indulged in the somewhat grandiloquent phrases as to War Office management of the present war which have been used by some members of the Government. On the contrary, his account differed from the accounts given outside the House and given in the House during the course of our debates. That was when the existing system was defended, and the right hon. Gentleman defended it. In the conclusion of his speech he said it was necessary to consider what the present system has given us in the present War. The Leader of the House in his Manchester speech^* over and over again stated that the present system could give us three army corps, and over and over again he boasted that it had given us not only two army corps but three "without a hitch." On that ground I say the speech of the Under Secretary differs from the speeches delivered outside this House. Of course, it is certain that that number of men were sent out, but how were those army corps made up? They were made up partly by drawing troops from India, and partly by drawing troops from the colonies. There never was a doubt as to our power to find a great number of infantry. That was never disputed for a moment, but an army corps is not composed exclusively of infantry. Some time ago the Secretary of State drew up a scheme in which there were eight army corps, but the scheme was afterwards ridiculed even by the War Office. The First Lord of the Treasury, in his speech at Manchester, said that the critics had failed because three army corps had been sent to South Africa fully equipped with munitions and stores, but the statement differs very widely from what we have now heard; and indeed, the First Lord's declarations will not stand the test of examination for a moment. The House will remember the main case of the reformers in this House against the War Office for the last two years has been on the point of the mounted branches, and both in 1897 and 1899 Amendments were moved in respect of those matters. Has the war shown that those criticisms were wrong or right? Have they been proved or disproved? They have been

^* Speech of Mr. A. J. Balfour at Conservative Club, Manchester, 10th January, 1900.

proved in every particular. As late as the 21st of July last year, just previous to the outbreak of the war, we went into the question of the Government supply of cavalry, artillery, and the auxiliary branches for the purpose of making up army corps in detail in this House,^* and we showed that the establishment as regarded the horses had been starved; that it contained about 12,500 horses over five years of age of which the artillery horses numbered about 4,500. Nearly 1,000 fewer than there were in 1878, twenty-one years ago. How does it work out under the test of war? We are short of cavalry and artillery. The army of Sir George White was supplied from India, and the command of Sir Redvers Buller was short of guns. Everyone in the House knows what that means; and the brilliant moves of General French shows the value of horses in the field. The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but this is a serious matter, and should be considered both in its present and future bearing in order that what has occurred on this occasion shall not be allowed to occur again. Then, as to guns, the case which has been put forward is capable of conclusive proof. The critics of the War Office year after year have said that we were short of guns, and the War Office, bit by bit, has been drawn on to admit the truth of the statements. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury should have been advised to say, as he did at Manchester, that the Government had sent out at the time sufficient artillery for three army corps of Regular troops. Here are the words he used. Speaking equipment, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"So long as you are determined [to have a voluntary army alone] you cannot expect to put into the field a much larger or a better equipped force."

And on another occasion, on the 8th of January, he said†—

"We have at this moment in South Africa the infantry, cavalry, and artillery of three army corps of Regular soldiers."

Now what is the necessary amount of guns for three army corps? I asked a question as to how many guns at the date named were in South Africa in British hands, and the reply was 186 guns—but three

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxiv., commencing at p. 1614.

†Speech of Mr. A. J. Balfour, at Drill Hall, Ardwick, Manchester, 8th January, 1900.

army corps need 360 guns. We had nothing like the number of guns which, under even the low scale, ought to have accompanied the troops. When the First Lord of the Treasury said on January 8—"We have at this moment in South Africa the infantry, cavalry, and artillery of three army corps" he made an entirely misleading statement, for which, however, I do not hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible, but whoever at the war Office furnished the right hon. Gentleman with that information was attempting to mislead the country. The facts are entirely different. It is alleged by the War Office that we could not be expected to put into the field a better equipped force. Now, what is the most essential part of the equipment of a force? I should say the ammunition columns. As to the equipment of the troops, the ammunition columns, after those of the First Army Corps, were not equipped as they ought to have been, and the result of the way in which the troops were sent out was that not until February was Lord Roberts able to begin his northward movement. The greater the credit that is given to the Army the less credit must be given to the War Office, which has always expected the Army to do the impossible. It has been alleged that the War Office has every reason to be proud, because some part of its system has turned out better than one could reasonably expect. It was said that the critics were afraid the reserves would not come up, but they came up in 1882 and 1885. There does not exist a single Member of the House who is opposed to the reserve system as it is, though most of us are opposed to the system by which it is desired that the men should be increased without increasing the equipment. Most of our troubles in the present war have been directly attributable to inefficient equipment and supply of horses. As to the part borne by our colonies, is it not a reflection on our Government that no preparation has ever been made in time of peace for a system on which the colonies could join us in time of war? The Under Secretary expressed the hope that some system would be arranged far the future.

I said that it was for the colonies to make suggestions. It is wholly for them to make suggestions, and I feel strongly that suggestions made in this House are the most mischievous that could be made.

As it is now certain that the colonies would join us in any great war in the future, would it not be well to arrange for such co-operation in time of peace? But the Government has taken steps in the opposite direction by cutting down in 1896 the contributions from the tropical colonies in the East towards defence. It is impossible to consider the present system apart from the question of its cost, and the system is condemned by its cost, present and prospective, and by the difficulty of obtaining recruits. In 1897 the cost of the defence of the British Empire was 63 millions sterling, even when the rupee is reckoned at its selling value. In the present year the cost of the peace defence of the Empire is 75 millions and a half. But if, according to the Treasury's view, the rupee is to be reckoned as having the full purchasing power in the East of 2s., then the cost for the year in peace—that is apart from war expenditure—is 81 millions and a half. And that enormous expenditure, so vastly greater than that of any other Power in the world, is not complete, for it does not allow for a future increase of the garrison in South Africa and for a necessary rearmament. As to the system of recruiting, the Government professes to be extending the three-years system, but the Under-Secretary has systematically avoided the point in his speeches, although he knows the anxiety of this House on the subject. But it is impossible to say that the three-years system is being given a fair chance as long as the extra 3d. a day given to the ordinary recruits and to the Militia is denied to the three-years men. The Under Secretary of State defended more strongly than I think necessary, even for him, the existing system of the War Office. Many of us had great hopes of the right hon. Gentleman, because he came into office with an open mind, but I am afraid now that his eyes have been closed to reform. I have a recollection of a speech he made in July last, when he spoke of the system as an antiquated one, but he said there was no alternative which gave us a better system unless it were a system like that of the Swiss militia. I am glad that the Government are not proposing to-night any general reform of our military system at a time when war is pending, and while they have avoided an appeal from this House to some of those Commissions and Committees who would only tell us what we know already, yet I regret that the Under Secretary should have shown so strong and continued an adherence to what he calls the existing system.

I need not say that I have no desire to throw difficulties in the way of the Government, or to criticise in an unfair spirit the statement so admirably made by my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War. I should not like at the present time to say anything to embarrass the Government, nor am I likely to do so. It would be most ungracious to be wanting in admiration of the ability the hon. Gentleman has shown, and of the grasp he has taken of the subject. I have said on former occasions that the proposals of the Government are makeshift proposals. Well, others have said so, and my hon. friend has taken that remark not in very good part. I do not quarrel with the Government for not having submitted a comprehensive and permanent scheme. They had to get through the war into which they were suddenly hurled with the existing machinery, and that existing machinery has turned out better than many expected of it. It has produced magnificent results; it has accomplished far more than was claimed for it by its authors. We have been able to place division after division of magnificent troops in the field, and the reserves on which we have had to rely for making up our regiments and units for war service have come up almost in full force, with hearty readiness and self-devotion on the part of the men who belong to them. Some of us may have seen in the last few days two battalions who are about to leave these shores as part of the Eighth Division, following the masses of men who have been sent to South Africa. It must have been a great pleasure and pride to those who witnessed those magnificent battalions to know that in no sense did those battalions fall behind those who have preceded them. In fact, I make bold to say that those battalions are worthy units of the corps d'élite of the Army. We know that there is a large unexpended reserve of the same corps at the back of these battalions, with which even fresh reinforcements could be fitted out. Certainly no one has ever suggested as expedient for the defence of this country, and still less for foreign service, anything like Conscription. I have heard words wasted by some of the Government speakers in disclaiming all ideas conscription. Who, I should like to know, has ever advocated conscription for foreign service? It is not the time to discuss any alternative system, but there are many who, like myself, are desirous of supporting the Government in carrying out the measures which they consider best in the circumstances, yet who would have been glad to have seen some more comprehensive and national plan. There is no doubt that the present war has strained our resources. We have not only sent very nearly all our regular army into the field, but we have had to supplement for subsidiary service men whom the right hon. Baronet opposite not too harshly described as being little prepared for war. It cannot but be a great mistake and an absolute cruelty to send into the field against an able enemy men who had received so little military training that they cannot even be regarded as half soldiers. The devotion of our people is unlimited; their readiness to face death and suffering in any degree is to be found among all classes, and has been largely relied upon, and I think it would be the greatest misfortune to this country if it supposed it could improvise an army in case of national danger. Your citizens may be trained and drilled so that they could form an army for national defence, but training and drill are absolutely necessary. You cannot call up men from peaceful avocations who have no military training, and place them in the field. That would mean disaster and disgrace to our arms, and the disgrace would not be upon those who failed in the country's cause, but upon those who relied on unprepared forces to maintain the honour of the country. I trust that no great emergency may find us so little prepared, and that the measures which the Government have proposed may lead to a more efficient preparation of our Auxiliary forces, so that in time to come we may rely upon them to take their place in the second line and support the Regular Army of the country. The present is not the time for details, but nevertheless I cannot but call attention to the measures which are being taken by the War Office for the provision of young officers for the Army—measures which are unfair and unsatisfactory. When I think of the exertions that have been made by the War Office, and, I am sure, the unsparing efforts which those at the head of the Army have made to carry on this war, I regret to criticise it in any particular, but I think in the matter to which I call the attention of the House they have made a mistake. I have put some questions to the representatives of the War Office lately upon the intention of the Government to give commissions to University men, public school boys, and young men from the colonies in super session of the cadets of the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College. We have for a long time been endeavouring to officer the Army by scientific and educated men, requiring them to enter our military colleges by severe competition, which has necessitated a long, careful, and expensive preparation. Only a portion of those who get the qualifying number of marks enter these institutions. I think it is unfair and unjust that young men who have entered those institutions should be superseded by others who have had no military education whatever. It is a disadvantage to the Army that men should receive commissions by favour or by selection who had no military training, and supersede those cadets who have all their life been preparing for the Army. After the war there will be a certain reduction in the number of officers employed. Promotion is always slower after a war, and those young cadets who have entered a military college by competition will find themselves possibly prevented from ever attaining the higher ranks through their having been superseded by men who have received no military training whatever. I think that is unfair, and it is not calculated to keep up that improvement in the service which has been sought for so many years in our system of military education. What appears to be the worst feature of this system is that men are actually, I am assured, being admitted into direct commissions in the Army who have failed in the entrance examinations of those institutions in the last few years, and they are superseding the cadets, actually for all time, and going above those who have defeated them in open competition in the military colleges. I cannot conceive anything more unjust and inexpedient. I have put questions on the subject which have been answered by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I venture to think that the hon. Member had better be a little more candid, and not so facetious in his replies. The other evening^* I asked him if it was a case that direct commissions were being given to university men, colonists, and boys from the public schools, and whether they could supersede the cadets in the military colleges. The hon. Gentleman replied that those who received commissions from the universities and the colonists would be really older than the cadets in the military colleges, but he dropped out of his answer any reference to the boys in the public schools. I have had to answer questions in the House, and if at any time I was unable to give a full answer, I have always told the House so. I do not know whether the answer I have received is ingenuous. To-night I asked him whether if the candidates from the universities and the colonies are over twenty years of age, the boys in the public schools to whom commissions are being offered would also be older than the cadets of the military colleges. I do not think the hon. Member answered the question. It is not fair that cadets who have received expensive military preparation should be superseded by boys from public schools who have no military education at all. It is perfectly easy for the War Office to extend the means of preparation, and I put it whether it would not be expedient to give a short military course to the numbers of young men who are anxious to serve either in the Army, the Militia, or the Volunteers. I have also asked why commissions have not been offered to men who have qualified though not succeeded in recent examinations, and finally, whether this difficulty had not been met in the Crimean War by allowing cadets in the Royal Military Academy to pass the examinations in a year and a-half instead of three years, probably requiring a little more exertion on their part. The hon. Gentleman replied that he could not go into matters of history. I think that in the case of the War Office, which is guided very much by precedent, it certainly was not a very proper reply, and I would suggest that it was far better to let these young men enter the Army with shorter preparation than to take young men from the universities and the colonies without any military preparation whatever. It is extremely hard upon parents,

^* See page 376 of this volume.

many of whom have strained their private means to prepare their sons for the competitions in these institutions, to find their sons superseded by young men who get their commissions nobody knows how—by favour in many instances and good luck perhaps in others, but certainly not on any principle of fairness or for the advantage of the service which they proposed to enter. I think the matter ought to be considered and ought to be properly understood, and ought not to be approved of either in the House or the country. I trust the objectors to it will not be put off by flippant or evasive answers.

I wish to say a few words on the unpopular subject of £ s. d. and on the proposals for the permanent increase of the Army. The hon. Gentleman has made, a she always does, a most attractive speech, and he has dealt with the various topics with which he had to deal in a most lucid and artistic way. There was one subject to which he did not devote his attention, and that was the question of the cost of those beautiful schemes which he and the Department he represents are continually laying before this House. I would ask the House to consider what all this is really going to cost the country. We don't really get set before us the full cost of the military expenditure of this country. We had this year laid before us in the Estimates a charge amounting to £60,000,000 for the war. But the ordinary expenditure showed an increase of £3,000,000, so that the ordinary expenditure amounts to nearly £24,000,000. That is not all, for we will find in another page of the Estimates military expenditure borne on the Civil Service Estimates amounting to £300,000 or £400,000. There is also an expenditure of a million of money under the Military Works Act, these two items making together a total of nearly a million and a half of money. This is not all, for the House will remember, for it was mentioned in the debate last year, that this by no means embraces the whole of the military expenditure for which the taxpayers of this country have to pay. There is a large amount of military expenditure under the Colonial Office. There are no less than 20,000 troops under the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, paid by this country at a charge of something like a million per annum. The normal military expenditure, therefore, of this year, excluding war charges, is something like £26,000,000, and it is an increasing charge. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman's attention to this point—thatin the statement he has laid before us he does not state the full charges he is placing upon the country. In the memorandum which the Secretary of State laid before the House, he tells us that there are a good many of the Estimates which are not completeEstimates—that, is to say that they do not really forecast the total charge. There is an incompleteness in regard to the Volunteer charges, but there is a much more important want which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean with respect to the charge for warlike stores, The hon. Gentleman said the sum stated in the Estimates represented a small part of the expenditure to be incurred on this account. I do not think he pointed out how enormously in times past this item has increased. Two years ago it amounted to £2,000,000, last year it was £2,500,000, and this year it is 3,250,000. This is likely to increase in time to come at a still more rapid rate. There is a further expenditure not accounted for in the Estimates, and that is referred to at page 7 of the memorandum, where the Secretary of State tells us that no provision is made for barrack accommodation for the additional forces the Government intend to raise. We know very well the great expense of barrack accommodation, and we know from past experience how very serious an item it forms in our expenditure. I do not intend to say anything about the charges for the war itself. We have discussed them before, and we are perfectly prepared to grant to the Government any increase of money they want, and to hold them responsible for making proper use of it. I think the hon. Gentleman has shown a desire to meet the reasonable views of Members in all quarters of the House in giving us more particulars regarding the war expenditure than he has hitherto done. I think that he might go further. The actual pay for the colonial forces amounts to £3,300,000, while the ordinary pay of the British Army is only £5,000,000. Here we are asked to vote, without any knowledge whatever of the details, over three millions of money for these most excellent forces. No doubt they are comparatively small in numbers as compared with the Regular forces. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some further particulars with respect to this item in the Estimates. I want to say something about the permanent increase of the Army—that is to say, the proposals included in column B, upon which the hon. Gentleman dwelt in the last half of his speech. What are they going to cost? We are told in the table at the beginning of the Estimates that they are going to entail an additional cost of £1,995,000. They are actually going to cost in this first year, which is practically one of preparation, an extra sum of nearly two millions of money, and as I have endeavoured to point out already, it does not represent the whole cost, for in this column B of the Army Estimates the War Office enter nothing for works. Now the work will include barracks, and will eventually be a considerable item of expenditure in this matter of cost. Another matter refers to the non-effective charges, and these also will involve a considerable increase of cost.

That charge could not possibly come into the Estimates this year, and it therefore cannot be dealt with.

It might have been pointed out to us in the memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, the object of which is to set forth in full the consequences likely to ensue upon the adoption of the system he is putting before the country. I only put this before the House because the House is rather apt to believe that an increase of £2,000,000 would represent the whole extra charge involved in the adoption of this scheme. There will be a very much larger charge than that when it comes into operation.

Perhaps the hon. Member would rather that I did not interrupt, but reserved my remarks till I reply, but these are merely estimates, and therefore it is impossible to say the exact charge.

That is perfectly true; I did not express myself sufficiently clearly. This House has a right to know, when it is asked to commit itself to an expansion and enlargement of the military forces of the country, what charge will be entailed, not merely this year, but permanently. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman speaking for the War Office, where there are such excellent permanent officials, to say—

I said nothing of the kind; I said that these were only estimates.

It has been shown in the memorandum of the Secretary of State in previous years, and there can be no reason whatever why it should not be shown this year. The final charge upon the taxpayers may be £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 per annum, and we should have to look forward in a very few years to Army Estimates not of £22,000,000 or £23,000,000 as at present, but of £25,000,000 or £26,000,000, or even of not far short of £30,000,000, when the whole of this scheme is carried into operation. In addition to that, I should like to ask—Is this the time at which the Government should ask the House and the country to sanction a scheme of this sort? Everyone is aware that at this moment the country has special financial burdens imposed upon it for the purpose of carrying through this war, and it is not the time for imposing extra burdens which are not absolutely necessary. Still more would I demur to it being a proper time at which to commit the House to a permanent alteration in our Army system, seeing that as long as the war is progressing we really do not know what our future Imperial responsibilities may be. Various expedients are being and have been resorted to by the Government during the progress of the war which are perfectly justifiable in war time, but which I am by no means prepared to admit are justifiable for adoption into the permanent military system of the country. There is the totally new proposal to take over two native Indian regiments on to the British establishment, while the hon. Gentleman appeared to be going even further than that, for he stated the Government were going to establish a foreign roster in the Indian native army, and that two of the extra native regiments raised by India were to be taken over by Her Majesty's Government. That is a perfectly justifiable expedient in time of war, but we ought not to be asked now to sanction it as a permanent institution in our future military organisation. With regard to the colonial contingents, I entirely agree with what has been said as to the very valuable and important aid they have been able to render in the present war, but I submit that we ought not to be expected to commit ourselves to-night, not for this present year only, but for all futurity, to the assumption that the organisation of the military forces of the colonies is part of the regular military organisation of this country. There were one or two observations of the hon. Gentleman which rather aroused my suspicion, such as when he spoke of the possible remodelling of our system of Imperial defence, and when he referred to the evolution of various schemes of colonial defence. Those remarks justify my suspicion that there is an intention on the part of the Government when this war is ended to make these colonial forces a part of the regular military organisation of the Empire, to help in home defence as well as in colonial defence.

was understood to dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All I wish to say is that we ought not to be asked now to commit ourselves to any final decision as to what is to be done with this aid which the Colonial Governments have so spontaneously and generously offered. We ought not to be expected to commit ourselves to any organised or unorganised she me of Imperial defence, which rests upon the aid of the self-governing colonies. All these schemes of military consolidation between the colonies and the mother country, if the Government intend to go to that length, are, I think, a mistake. The stability of our colonial empire rests upon our self-governing colonies being left free and independent as regards military administration and military control in the future as they have been in the past. If you endeavour to tighten the reins over them and to make demands upon them for military aid, they will expect, in the first place, a quid pro quo, and, in the second place, they will be exceedingly jealous of anything which savours of Downing Street interference with the management of the military or any other part of their affairs. At the present time the House is not in a condition to express a settled and reasoned judgment on this subject. We all hope that we are now beginning to see the end of this war, and that soon the troops will be coining home victorious from that campaign, and this is not a moment to embark upon schemes of permanent reorganisation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman opposite may say, the whole of this large increase of military expenditure depends upon the policy of her Majesty's Government. He asked whether it was due to the recent policy of Imperial expansion. He might have answered the question from the Memorandum of the Secretary of State, for on page 2 of that document we are told that it is the growth of our Imperial responsibilities that renders necessary this increased expenditure, and therefore I agree with the Secretary of State rather than with the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not go so far as the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is the only person who has maintained or is capable of maintaining the extraordinary paradox that expenditure in no degree depends upon policy. The Under Secretary of State for War gave us, however, a very amusing and interesting history of the acquisition of the various parts of the Empire in which we have forces established at present. That was taken from a table at the end of the Army Estimates, but there were one or two stations which the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention.

I did not omit any British infantry battalions.

I daresay not, but I cannot distinguish from the particulars given here which are British regiments and which are native.

At page 22 of the Estimates the hon. Member will find that information.

The hon. Gentleman confined himself to British infantry battalions, but he will be the first to allow that the expansion of the Empire may be carried through with other arms of our military forces than British infantry battalions. I observed in this appendix that, leaving out South Africa and Egypt altogether, you have an increase in money charge upon the various places mentioned by the hon. Gentleman of no less than £185,000 in the present year, and the charge has been a steadily growing charge for the last three years. But there were two important places which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, namely, the West Coast of Africa and Wei-hai-wei. The Under Secretary for War acknowledged last year that though the expenditure on the latter place was then a small one, a vast amount of expenditure would be involved in the future, and we find that wei-hai-wei is included in this table for the first time this year, but it is certainly not the last time it will appear. That is certainly one of the simple cases in which expansion of the Empire and increased Imperial responsibilities have directly led to increased military expenditure. The hon. Gentleman passed glibly by South Africa. In his limited view to-night South Africa included only Cape Colony, which was taken from the Dutch in the beginning of the century, and Natal, which was taken about fifty years ago. But when was it we got Bechuanaland, Rhodesia, and Northern Rhodesia beyond the Zambesi? When was it we annexed British Central Africa, British East Africa, Uganda? We have been annexing, in the past ten years, millions of square miles in Eastern, Central, and Southern Africa. As to the West Coast of Africa, we find actually entered in this table the number of troops there, and the increasing charge coming year after year on the Estimates in consequence of the expansion of territory there and the increase of our obligations. It will be remembered, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statements of 1897 and 1898, I think, when deploring the increase of expenditure, mentioned as one of the causes of that increased expenditure our expansions in Africa, the annual cost of which he reckoned at £1,000,000 a year. It is beyond all question that this large increase of our military expenditure is distinctly due to the recent expansions of the Empire, and the hon. Gentleman cannot shift from the shoulders of his Government the responsibility which lies upon them for the expansions which have been undertaken under their auspices during the past five years. I have ventured to call the attention of the House to these particular matters, because the full liabilities to be imposed upon the country have not been properly and fully stated, and I also desire to protest against the House, being committed by the discussion to-night to an approval of a scheme for the perma- nent reorganisation of our military system, and increase of our military expenditure.