and abuses in the higher branches of the army; such as the Colonelcies
held by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, the chief military
secretary, and others. Mr. Cardwell, in his reply, alleged that these
were honorary, but was afterwards obliged to admit that the Prince and
the Duke were each paid for one colonelcy, the former L1350, and the
latter L2200. He moved large reductions in the salaries of the
commander-in-chief and the military secretary, in respect of their
holding incomes from colonelcies, and repeated his motion in 1871.
Although he was defeated in these motions, the result has been the
restriction of the salary of the military secretary by L700 a year, and
a prospective reduction of the commander-in-chief's by L450 at next
vacancy. But it is hardly to be expected that these reductions will
induce Mr. Anderson to desist from further attempts in the same
direction. In 1871 he was selected to second Mr. Trevelyan's motion on
army reform, and in speaking on that occasion he again attacked the
sinecure colonelcies and other abuses in the administration of the army.
He systematically opposes all increase of expenditure, particularly on
the army, and in 1870, on the outbreak of the Franco-German war, when
Government asked a vote of two millions for increased army expenditure,
he was one of a minority of seven who opposed it. In the debate on the
abolition of purchase, Mr. Anderson denounced the injustice of razing
over regulation prices, and thus rewarding men for knowingly breaking
the law. He pointed out that it would lead to officers getting not one,
but two over regulation prices, and he afterwards supported Mr. Ryland's
motion against that payment.

It is, however, to his Wages Arrestment Act and the Citation Amendment
(Scotland) Act that Mr. Anderson stands indebted for his prestige and
popularity as a legislator. The first of these is the bill which he
introduced last session with the object of limiting the arrestment of
wages. In Glasgow, and elsewhere throughout Scotland, the provisions of
the measure were discussed with a good deal of personal feeling--one
party arguing that the security afforded to shopkeepers by the power of
arresting wages enabled them to give credit to working men when they
could not otherwise venture to do so; while another class contended that
extravagance and distress were the results of too easy access to credit.
The general impression, however, appears to be that the bi