Again, in Committee of Supply on the army estimates, Mr. Anderson addressed the House on the 11th March, 1869; and on the 17th June, 1869, he electrified the "Colonels" of the House by declaring, while speaking of the great expense of the non-effective services and pensions, that "he thought the whole system of pay and pensions in the army was rotten and wrong.... Officers ought to provide for old age out of their incomes, and even if their pay were proportionately increased, the service would gain in efficiency if the change made it less aristocratic, by throwing it open to men without private fortunes, who must live on their pay." Mr. Anderson has persistently, both in season and out of season, kept "pegging away" at the bugbear of Army Reform, and on the 2d August, 1870, he attacked the abuse of sinecure Colonels, 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.