would go into the subject he had alluded to with regard to Woolwich he believed he would find that great changes might be made there with advantage to the Public Service. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH) said, that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in asking the Government to consent to a diminution of this Vote, placed them in a difficult position. This money was not to be paid for flour and hay in the past, but for hay and other supplies in the future; and, therefore, by putting them to the necessity of dividing against his Amendment, he placed them in a very unsatisfactory position. All he could say was that, as far as it lay in his power, he would endeavour to secure that the business of the Department should be properly done; and he was convinced that his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance would spare no exertion to secure that any irregularities that had occurred in the past should not be repeated in the future. As to what had been said with regard to Government officials accepting bribes, he was not there to defend particular institutions; and if it was possible to point out a single case of the kind, the hon. Member for Glasgow might be assured that he and his hon. Friend would spare no effort to remove the person against whom an act of the kind could be proved. But his experience of the great majority of public servants was such as to compel him to acknowledge that they served the country efficiently and purely. Reference had been made to the case of the contractor who had delivered hay of a character totally unsuited to the purposes it was intended for, and very much below the quality undertaken to be delivered. Well, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), the late Surveyor General of Ordnance, felt that he could not prosecute in this case. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) would look into the subject again, and if his opinion as to the proper course to be taken differed from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, he was sure he would not object to serve the country by assisting in doing what was necessary. But he hoped the Government would not be pressed to consent to the reduction of the Vote, because, as he had pointed out, it would place them in an awkward position. Mr. Labouchere MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made one or two statements which he was very glad to hear fall from him. The first statement was that he recognized that in this particular contract there was something particularly unsatisfactory. The second statement was that the great body of public servants in the country had shown themselves above suspicion with regard to anything in the nature of corruption. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that if, on further consideration, there appeared any likelihood of obtaining satisfaction by action at law, that action should be taken. A legal friend of his, who was present when the case to which reference had been made was going on, had expressed his astonishment to him that such a rotten case should have been taken into Court. He understood that in actions of the kind the most overwhelming case had to be made out. But he said that, in justice to the whole body of Civil servants, the present Minister for War would do well to institute within the limits of his own Office strict inquiries as to who were the officials responsible in this case. It was due to the whole Service, if there were persons connected with it who were implicated in anything like unfair dealing, that they should be punished. It was perfectly obvious that if there had been anything like fraud with regard to this hay there must have been some amount of collusion. Therefore, he thought the House would look for a searching investigation into all the circumstances connected with the contract for, and delivery of, the articles in question. It was well known that persons guilty of delinquencies were sheltered in a manner that was extraordinary. He remembered the case of a high official who embezzled money, and who, instead of being prosecuted, figured on the pension list at the first opportunity. The case was partly investigated, but the man was not removed; the then Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion that he ought not to have been on the pension list, but in the dock at the Old Bailey. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) hoped that the present War Minister would leave no stone unturned to discover, no matter whether it was an official or other person, who had been concerned in anything like collusion in this matter; and he hoped also that when that person the whole business. He complained that had been discovered he would be treated the Commissary General had protested as he deserved. against the flour being sent out, and that his protest was of no avail. The country, as he had said, kept a number of gentlemen, the Commissary General, with assistants, at great expense, and their services were not utilized. In war time they were put aside, and the whole duty of providing for the Army was put into the hands of War Office clerks, who put themselves into the hands of the first contractor who presented himself, and who probably knew as little of the special requirements of the case as they did. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would thoroughly look into the whole matter, and thereby perform a great public service. DR. CAMERON said, after the statement and explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he would be satisfied in not pressing his Amendment to a division. He was quite certain, whether the right hon. Gentleman gained or lost in any proceedings he might take against the contractors, that the public would think he had done perfectly right in bringing his action. If he would take counsel with his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Marriott) he believed that he would possibly put him in the way of recovering from the contractors some portion of this money. They had been told that only one consignment of flour was bad; but he had read that the second consignment was bad also, and that all the flour was in a condition utterly unfit to be used. Attention had been called to the case of the Commissariat officer, who made a nominal inspection; but he trusted that a scapegoat would not be made of that officer, who had assured the Committee that he could not possibly have overtaken his work; that he had done his best; that he had worked night and day, and who had given his evidence in such a way as, without sheltering himself, to make a favourable impression on the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to look into the matter, let him look into the conduct of those gentlemen connected with the Supply and Transport Department and the Department of the Director of Contracts, who bought six different kinds of flour, and made five consignments of it on a sample contract, and who never saw that the flour was up to sample. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a scapegoat let him look for him in that direction. They were told that the flour was bought in the usual manner. Why, that was the very thing he protested against. He had not said one word against the military officials at the War Office-he was speaking of the civilian officials. The country, at a great expense, kept up a Commissariat Department at head-quarters, and the Commissary General received £1,500 a-year. In that Department there were men of great experience, men who so to speak had gone through the mill, and who understood Original Question put, and agreed to. (2.) £801,500, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH desired to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) to the change which took place some years ago in the mode of dealing with soldiers' worn-out clothing. It was a very important change, affecting, as it did, the Army generally and the interests of private soldiers, and the traders in the clothing in particular. He did not know whether the change to which he alluded was brought to the notice of the House by the Secretary of State for War in 1881. He had no doubt it was; but, judging from the statement which the Minister for War generally made in introducing the Estimates, he thought its importance was forgotten. It was the practice formerly for soldiers to be permitted to dispose of their own old clothing. That permission was, he believed, summarily withdrawn, and the whole of the old clothing was disposed of by the War Office. That was a very great change, and if it was not brought before the House in a systematic way at the time it was made it ought to have been. But, whether that were so or not, the time had certainly arrived when public attention should be called to the question, and when the Minister for War, especially a Minister just coming to his duties, should be asked to say whether he was satisfied the change had been made without any prejudicial effects. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) noticed that in the Vote the Committee was now The asked to pass no less a sum than £50,000 | for the soldiers, and that they found the was set down as the result of the sale of deterioration of the new uniforms so the old clothing. It was a rather remarkable fact that the same sum was set down last year. He should be glad to know whether that sum represented the net produce of the sales, and whether it was the sum at which there was a contract for the disposal of the whole of this enormous quantity of old stores? If £50,000 was, according to his hypothesis, the measure of the State's gain by the change, it was also the measure of the soldier's loss. If the sum were divided amongst soldiers of the Army quartered in England-he supposed the system did not extend beyond the Channeleach man would receive a substantial amount. There had been many letters in the newspapers from officers calling attention to this matter, which they regarded as a great grievance to the soldier; in fact, in some of the letters published in a most respectable daily paper a year and a-half ago what had been done was spoken of as absolute robbery. He had no doubt that some contingent advantages were given to the soldier at the time to compensate him for the withdrawal of this privilege; but he must say that, if he were a private soldier, he should view with some jealousy the way in which this privilege had been taken from him. But, whether justice was done to the soldier in the first instance or not, some explanation was demanded in the matter. The men who had enlisted since the change had come in, of course, under the new system, therefore they could not complain of any breach of contract; but he was told that the system was unpopular, and that it worked badly, especially in certain regiments. Formerly it was the practice of soldiers to hold over their old uniforms to wear on fatigue duty, or at other times when they were not required to be dressed in their best. He understood that, since the new system came into force, soldiers had been seen performing their fatigue duties in their new uniforms turned inside out for fear they would destroy their clothes. He quite agreed that there were other interests to be consulted in the decision of this question besides that of the private soldier-for example, the interest of the officers of the regiment. He was told that officers complained very much of the want of these second suits of clothes Mr. Sclater-Booth great that they connived at the men keep- ledge how they were made. Certainly, | tleman had called attention to this subthey were not concluded under any sys- ject in the interest of the slop-dealer, of tem of public tender, or in a way which the country, or of the soldiers. He (Mr. was at all satisfactory to the traders, Guy Dawnay) was perfectly satisfied who were encouraged for many years to that the change of system had worked deal in the stores, and who suddenly exceedingly well for the men and for found themselves deprived of their busi- the country. The right hon. Gentleman ness. Take the case of Aldershot. He must be aware that under the old system was informed that no less a sum than it was the commonest thing in the world £10,000 was kept continually floating in for the men to make away with their the transactions connected with soldiers' uniforms—indeed, it was chiefly owing old clothing. The people who had estab- to this fact that the country came to the lished themselves in that populous place conclusion that the whole system must with a view of administering to the be changed. The present system was wants and profiting by the needs of the this-that instead of allowing the slopsoldier population had been, by the fiat dealers to barter with the soldiers for of the War Office, ousted from their their old clothes, and in many instances business. He understood that now the get them for a mere song, all the old old clothing found its way to the Eastern clothing was got together in store, and Counties, and was there converted into then sold to contractors for what came shoddy. The War Office and the House to a very considerable sum of money could not altogether disregard the feel-£50,000. The soldier did not lose, ing of those traders, who had conducted but directly benefited by the change. themselves with propriety, and who, Instead of getting what he used to—a owing to a piece of caprice on the part few shillings for his worn-out garments of the War Office, had found themselves ousted from an honourable employment. He should be glad if his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), or the Surveyor General (Mr. Guy Dawnay), if that Gentleman replied to him, would assure him that this subject should receive his attention, and should be considered, in the light of the experience of the last four years, dispassionately, and with a desire to find out what there was to be said against the change as well as in favour of it. All he asked was that inquiry should be made, and that the soldiers, public, and traders should receive the benefit of it. Some time ago he asked a Question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) on the subject; but the answer he received was ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It was due to the private soldier that they should know they had not been deprived of a privilege which they had valued; and it was due to the traders in old clothing, many of whom were old Army pensioners, that they should know they had not been ousted from a reasonable and proper employment except for the very best reasons. THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY) said, he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) with considerable surprise, because he did not understand whether the right hon. Gen the soldier now got a suit of blue serge, when he first joined as a recruit, a new forage cap annually, and an entirely new suit of civilians' clothes on discharge. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) said that complaints had been sent in by Commanding Officers. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had made some inquiries on the subject, and he had found that the change worked very satisfactorily as regarded the men; he certainly had heard no complaints from Commanding Officers. There was another point the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but in regard to which he laboured under a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman said it was very hard that the men should have their old clothing taken from them, and be compelled to do fatigue duties in their new uniforms. As a matter of fact, the men were allowed to keep their old uniforms for a year, and use them for fatigue duties. He could not say how long that rule had been in force; but he thought that every soldier in the Army at the present moment thoroughly understood it. In his opinion, the change worked exceedingly well for the Army and for the country. LORD EUSTACE CECIL said, he cordially agreed with a great deal of what was said by the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Guy Dawnay). The hon. Gentleman began by saying, how ever, he did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. SclaterBooth's) speech. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) could not think that anyone in the House was so innocent as that. Personally, he was convinced that his right hon. Friend had every wish to do what was right by the soldier, as well as what was right by the country and the trader. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) was in favour of Free Trade; but he was also in favour of fair trade. Anything that could be fairly done on the part of the War Office for a class of traders like the slop-dealers ought to be done; but he was by no means anxious or willing to sacrifice the true interests of the country in the matter. He, in common with others, was responsible for the introduction of the new system; and he believed it had worked exceedingly well. He entirely agreed with what his hon. Friend the Surveyor General said as to the advantages to the soldier; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman quite stated what the money advantages of the change was, and stress had been laid upon that point. Besides getting a new uniform and certain articles of under-clothing every year, the soldier received a suit of civilian clothes of the value of 308. on his discharge that was equal, in the case of an Infantryman and Cavalryman, to 68. a-year. It was seen, therefore, that, as far as the private soldier was concerned, there was a good deal of misunderstanding out-of-doors. His belief was that the private soldier really did benefit instead of lose by the change. But he was not in a position to say definitely how the matter stood with the trader. His impression was, however, that the smaller traders undoubtedly benefited by the old system. They went into barracks, and made their own bargains with the soldiers-whether good or bad he was not there to say-and they were often able to sell the clothes at a very great advantage. He knew that now there was a monopoly on the part of the big traders in this matter, and that the smaller traders complained very bitterly. If there would be no disadvantage to the Service-and he did not know that there would behe thought it would be worth his hon. Friend's consideration whether, by holding more frequent sales at various centres, an equal advantage could be Lord Eustace Cecil given to the small trader as to the large trader. If the present monopoly could be got rid of in some such way as he suggested, he felt sure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would be perfectly satisfied. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had done good service in calling attention to this subject, because he had been the means of it being made clear that the soldier did materially benefit by the change. With regard to the second point the right hon. Gentleman referred to, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil) that if the monopoly could be done away with, and the trade more generally distributed, it should be. But he rose more particularly to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether he was determined to preserve red as the colour of the clothing of the Army of this country? He was told that the cotton khakee which had been issued to their soldiers had been a perfect failure. He was told, too, that cotton khakee had been issued instead of serge khakee, to the great detriment of the health of the troops using it. Cotton khakee, he was informed, was very bad material for troops on service, especially abroad. What was wanted was clothing which would absorb the perspiration, which cotton khakee failed to do. He hoped that red serge jackets would be re-issued to their men, because, in his opinion, it would be infinitely better to keep to their old colour than to resort to any other colour. A red jacket might become stained, but it still retained a red mark in it; and whenever a red line was seen advancing it was well known that it was a line of English soldiers. It was the opinion of a large number of officers, who knew most about these things, that red clothing was the very best that they could possibly have for their Army. He mentioned that because, in these times, it was very often found that, unless questions were brought forward very prominently, the country was involved in changes at which it was exceedingly annoyed. THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY) said, there had been no disposition at any time on the part of the Government to |