history if carefully traced out by a body which would speak with authority. Nor could he see any objection to the proposal that those to whom the House might entrust the task of making the investigation should suggest a remedy for the evils in question. That course would be quite consistent with the usual practice of the House of Commons; and if it did turn out that the facts dislosed were of a criminal character as regarded certain individuals, the ordinary tribunals of the country would be open to any who chose to bring them to justice. The causes of these failures were very well known, and the causes of the failure of insurance companies in general were not far to seek, although he admitted it was quite desirable that they should be probed to the bottom and put in an authoritative form before them. The causes of failure, he apprehended, were very simple, and might be stated in most general terms. The nature of insurance business was, that at first it was all receipts, and at last all payments; and mankind was so constituted that while it was all receipts they would not look forward to the time when the payments would come, and when that time did arrive it was too late for them to consider it. It was just like what happened in the land of Egypt when they had seven years of famine. Of course, in the seven years of plenty they ought to have laid up stores to have met the seven years of famine; but they, like our insurance companies, did not do so, and hence the seven years of famine. That was entirely in accordance with the laws of human nature, and he believed that any Committee who entered upon the investigation of the subject, would find that lay at the bottom of the failures. Whether they could leave those companies such liberty as all engaged in commercial pursuits ought to have, and at the same time exercise such an amount of control as would prevent the recurrence of these calamities for the future, was a subject well worthy of the consideration of the Committee; and with that view, the Government would willingly consent to the appointment of a Committee on some such terms as these -"To report upon the Albert and European Insurance Companies as to the causes of their failure, and also to report upon any further measures that may be necessary." Such a Committee might

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

tend to prevent the recurrence of the matters which had been complained of, while it would certainly avoid-and purposely avoid-the notion that in its appointment there was any ulterior view to criminal proceedings against individuals. That would be a course which the House of Commons might reasonably take, and, he would submit, would answer all the objects sought by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. GREGORY observed that it was, at all events, satisfactory to find that the Government recognized the necessity of inquiry, but he hoped it would be extended beyond the immediate subject of discussion; for, without agreeing with him on many points, he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), with regard to the subject of liquidation, and it was certainly a scandal upon our administration of the law that such cases as those referred to by the hon. Member should be possible. Cases were continually occurring in which persons speculated on the misfortunes of these com. panies, and sacrificed not only the interests of the shareholders, but of creditors and all who were in any way dependent on those companies. It was high time that a stop should be put to what was known as the system of "wrecking," and it would be a question well worthy the attention of the Committee appointed upon the subject to inquire whether some means should not be taken to limit the operation of the Limited Liability Act and the Act for the Winding up of Jointstock Companies.

66

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, he believed that undue importance had been attached by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) to what was known as wrecking"-a practice which he believed to be perfectly impossible in the case of these great insurance companies, unless they were grossly mismanaged. The statements made by the hon. Gentleman might, unless contradicted, create a wrong impression throughout the country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would accept the modified Committee, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, that he had already stated his opinion that a Parliamentary Committee would be useless. The inquiry, however, which he desired was precisely that which the

Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted to be desirable. His object was not to bring charges against individuals, but to secure the results indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, withdraw his Motion, preferring, as they could not agree upon the mode, to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY-THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS-PROMOTION IN THE ARTILLERY AND

ENGINEERS.

MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT, in rising to move for a Select Committee

"To inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers, at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate advantage to the Public Service," said, he believed that the intended promotion of first captains of Artillery and Engineers to the rank of regimental majors in the manner proposed by the Government would involve a large and impolitic expenditure, while it would cause great inconvenience to the public service, in consequence of the faulty organization by which it would inevitably be attended. The grievance that it would cause had been brought before the attention of the other House of Parliament, and the intended promotion of the 420 officers in the Engineers and Artillery to this rank would involve the supersession, if he might so term it, of 560 officers in the infantry and cavalry; 141 officers of 19 years' service would be superseded by 79 officers of Artillery and Engineers of shorter service, and 50 officers of 22 years' service would be superseded by 134 officers in the Artillery and Engineers who had served in the Army for a shorter period. The money recently voted by Parliament, moreover, would in a few years cease to cause a flow of promotion such as now existed, and therefore it would be unfair to forecast the future by the existing state of facts. The intended promotion had been attempted to be justified by the importance attached to field batteries of artillery; but if hon. Members would take the trouble to compare the numbers and distribution of the

men composing the other branches of the service, they would find that at the present moment the Artillery had by far the largest number of field officers in proportion. In fact, so numerous were the officers of field rank in the Artillery that it not unfrequently happened a large proportion were on permanent leave, receiving full pay, in addition to those who were absent from duty on sick leave. Thus, in the Royal Artillery there were 29 brigades with 1,525 officers, of whom 174 were field officers, and it was proposed to add other 283, making 457 in all; while in the infantry branch of the service there were 4,760 officers, of whom 423 only were field officers, so that the Artillery, as would be seen, possessed field officers in much larger proportion than the infantry arm of the service. In the course of the discussions on this subject a great deal of use had been made of certain actuarial calculations-documents upon which the Secretary of State for War generally fell back when he desired to commit some gross injustice. Those calculations were of no value whatever in reference to the present question, because they related to a time when promotion by purchase was the rule in the Army generally, what were called the Scientific Corps being alone excepted. Actuarial calculations, therefore, could only possess value when an uniform system of promotion all through the Army had been in practice sufficiently long to allow of its effect being accurately judged. If selection were good for one branch of the service, surely it was good for the other; and he was unable to imagine on what ground the right hon. Gentleman could defend the system of retaining the officers of Artillery until they were willing to take retirements, without attempting to subject them to the rule which he intended to apply rigidly to the other branches of the service. It was no small matter, moreover, that this change had been carried out by a Royal Warrant without any discussion in Parliament, for from the Estimates it was impossible to ascertain that the money had been asked for or voted, because it was not included as it ought to have been in the item for ordinary regimental daily pay, but in the Miscellaneous Vote for additional pay. He challenged any Member unconnected with the Government to say he was aware that the promotion of these 420 officers from the rank of cap

tain to that of regimental major had ever been shown on the Estimates. It was proposed to abolish the privileges of the Guards; but the right hon. Gentleman was erecting in the Royal Artillery and Engineers a still greater close corporation, and one that would be more prejudicial to the rest of the Army. Piecemeal legislation like that for the Artillery would therefore certainly lead to applications being made for alterations in the organization of the infantry and cavalry. The instance of the Indian Army ought to have induced the right hon. Gentleman to act with extreme caution, and the warning given by Lord Sandhurst in the other House of Parliament would assuredly have made any prudent Minister pause before introducing such a change. The right hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the

end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate advantage to the Public Service," (Sir Percy Herbert,)

-instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. OSBORNE said, this was a most important Motion, and it was to be regretted that it should have been brought forward at such an hour of the night, and also at so late a period of the Session. He understood, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that at the beginning of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave notice, that it was his intention to do that to which the right hon. and gallant Officer so much objected, and that provision was made in the Estimates for the purpose. Now, he was surprised to hear an officer of such great ability and distinction as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman treat this subject as he had done, and talk of these distinguished corps-one third of the Army-the Royal Artillery and Engineers, as "a close corporation.' What

Major General Sir Percy Herbert

were the facts of this case which had been so carefully obfuscated at that hour of the night by the right hon. and gallant Officer? It was notorious that for years past there had been a total stagnation in the Scientific Corps. And what was that stagnation owing to, but to a want of a due flow of promotion? so that what was a private grievance among the officers of the Artillery and Engineers became almost a public danger. In 1867 the grievance rose to such a pitch that a Committee, of which Mr. Childers was the Chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. That Committee spoke of the "despondency" of the Force in consequence of the want of promotion, and proposed a plan of retirement so expensive that this House would not listen to it. In 1872 there was a War Office Committee, and what did it say of this "close corporation?" It spoke of the despondency of the officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers as being injurious to their efficiency. It should be remembered that majors of Artillery existed formerly, but were abolished in 1827. And now, there being no majors, there were first and second captains. A second captain scarcely ever obtained his distinguished rank until he was 40; and as for the first captains he was afraid to say what their age might be. The right hon. and gallant Officer opposite talked of "supersession" But what by these officers. was the average of their commissions taken from the day the first commission was obtained? Promotion meant the supersession of somebody, and if these captains were promoted at once to be lieutenant-colonels they would supersede every major in the service. The real question was this-ought a field battery to have a field officer in command? Now, he deprecated all comparisons between the brother branches of the service. He thought it mischievous to talk of any set of officers "tapping at the door of the Horse Guards." He lamented that the right hon. and gallant Officer should have followed a mischievous example in "another place," because the noble Lord who set it, and who was in very high command, ought not to have cast any reflection on a most important branch of the British Army. Did not everyone know that as science advanced, the importance of Artillery became greater and greater every day.