Commons Sitting of 26 March 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Sale of Liquors on Sunday nominated; Public Schools nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Local Government Supplemental.*
First Reading — Local Government Supplemental* [77]; Boroughs and Divisions of Counties * [78].
Second Reading—Perth and Brechin Provisional Orders Confirmation* [74]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners Orders in Council [69].
Committee—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (re-comm.) [63] — [R.P.]; Mutiny; Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000)*; Inclosure* [73].
Report—Mutiny; (£6,000,000) Consolidated Fund; Inclosure* [73].
Considered as amended — London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [43].
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries* [54]; Indian Railway Companies* [55]; Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) Amendment* [68], and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the working of "The Local Government (England) Act, 1858," and "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," and to the facilities afforded by those Acts to corporate and other towns in Great Britain to obtain power for the better execution of the Local Improvement Acts in force in such towns, without incurring the costs and expenses attendant upon Private Bill Legislation; whether it is his intention to propose any similar Act for Ireland, by which the advantages now enjoyed by the cities and towns of England and Scotland, and which have been so largely availed of, be extended to the cities and towns of Ireland; whether the Laws which provide for the keeping, for the auditing, and for the publication of the accounts of the municipal corporations, the boards of town commissioners, and some other public bodies in Ireland, are not very defective, and whether he intends to propose any remedy therefor; whether it is not the case that, in respect to the election of commissioners under "The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854," equal facilities are not provided for the exercise of the Franchise as are provided for the

  257
  election of the English local boards under "The Public Health Act, 1818." and "The Local Government Act, 1858;" and, whether he is prepared to take this subject into consideration, and propose a remedy?
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Law in regard to the matter in question was defective, and it would be a great public advantage if the same facilities for obtaining provisional orders which existed under the Local Government (England) Act were provided for Ireland. He also thought that the mode of taking the polls at municipal elections for Ireland was very defective, and ought to be remedied. It would also be a great public advantage if a more effective mode were adopted for auditing the accounts of local bodies acting under the Municipal and Towns Improvement Acts. He had given directions that the Towns Improvement Act generally should be very carefully considered, for the purpose of making some amendments in it; and he hoped shortly after Easter to lay on the Table a Towns Improvement Bill which would deal with the questions to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

ARMY—COOKING APPARATUS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the application of Captain Warren, R.N., whose patent cooking apparatus has been adopted for use in the Army by War Office Memorandum, dated War Office, 21st August, 1867 [B/a—1741], will be referred to the "Standing Committee for the consideration of the claims of inventors to rewards," in conformity with the War Office Circular, dated 28th June, 1867 [84 Gen. Nos. 1571 and 1601]?
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he also wished to ask, Whether a cooking apparatus of a similar character had been patented by Mr. Jaques?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, it was quite true that Captain Warren had claimed to have invented such an apparatus; but he believed that Captain Warren had been sufficiently rewarded by having his apparatus purchased from his own agents, and he (Sir John Pakington) certainly had no intention to refer the question to any Committee. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member
  258
  for Peterborough he really was unacquainted with the merits of Mr. Jaques' invention; but if the hon. Member would renew his inquiry he (Sir John Pakington) would afford any information which he might be able to obtain.

POST OFFICE—EASTERN MAIL SERVICES.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sums, amounting in the whole to £27,643, stated in a Return dated 7th December, 1867 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 68, of the present Session), to be the estimated receipts in respect of the Eastern Mail Services outwards and inwards for four weeks, are calculated at the rates of postage in force at the time when the Return was made up, or at the present increased rates; and, in the former case, what may be the sum by which the Estimate of £27,643 may be expected to be augmented by reason of the increased charge; whether the sums receivable in India or elsewhere out of the United Kingdom are included in the estimate in question, so as to come in further diminution of the sum which may be voted for the conveyance of the Eastern Mails; and, whether an exact account is kept of the postages received or chargeable in respect of the said Services?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the receipts were calculated on the rates in force at the time when the Return was made up. If the increased rates now in force had been taken into consideration, there ought to have been an increase in the estimate of £2,900 per month. The whole of the sums receivable in India, as well as elsewhere, were taken into account in this estimate, and a separate account of the outward and inward postage was kept.

RATES FOR SANITARY IMPROVEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any defect exists as regards the levying of Rates for Sanitary Improvements in the provisions of the forty-ninth Clause of "The Sanitary Act, 1866," and of the second Clause of "The Sewage Utilization Act, 1867;" and, if so, whether he proposes during the present Session to bring in any measure to remedy the same; and, whether any

  259
  steps have been taken, under the provisions of the above-mentioned Acts, to remedy the imperfect state of the drainage of Acton, Chiswick, and a detached part of Ealing, as reported to the Home Department in October, 1866, by Mr. Fulton, the engineer?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, in reply, said, he was not prepared to admit that there were defects in the Law to which his noble Friend pointed. Where the Secretary of State had reason to believe there was any disinclination on the part of the local authority to execute necessary drainage operations, he sent down a person to inquire into the case; if he found the local authority disinclined to perform the necessary works, he ordered them to be carried into execution, and he had power to recover the cost of the works. The remedy was by attachment of the property of the defaulting parties. In the case of a vestry there was no personal property; and it was a question, whether the Secretary of State could oblige the overseers to pay. The Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been taken last year, and, from their Opinion, it appeared doubtful if the Act of 1867 gave powers to the Secretary of State to issue a precept to the overseer to levy additional rates. But, believing that the Legislature intended to give him the power to enforce his order, his (Sir James Fergusson's) right hon. Friend intended to try to enforce it, and if he found that he had not that power, he would apply to Parliament for additional powers. The parishes in question had failed to execute the necessary works because the Metropolitan Board declined to allow them to drain into the only available outfall, on the ground that it was insufficient for the purpose. They would therefore have to take other steps.

IRELAND—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STOCKsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Law in Ireland is the same as that in England with regard to the treatment of prisoners convicted of seditious libel?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that he did not know whether this was quite a Question which he should be called upon to answer; but he might state shortly what he believed to be the difference of the Law in England and Ireland. In Ireland the Law did not provide for the classification
  260
  of prisoners convicted of misdemeanour; but in England the Prison Act of 1865 contained this provision—
  "And whenever any person convicted of misdemeanour is sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, it shall be lawful for the Court or Judge before whom such person has been tried to order, if such Court or Judge think fit, that such person shall be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division, and a misdemeanant of the first division shall not be deemed to be a criminal prisoner within the meaning of this Act."
  The treatment of persons undergoing sentences for this description of offences was that of first-class misdemeanants, which was regulated by Rules made by two Justices at Quarter Sessions, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. He would hand a copy of those Rules to the hon. Member.

ARMY—GRANT FOR FORTIFICATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Minute, dated the 16th August, 1867, for the audit of the sums granted for Fortifications annually has been carried into effect; and whether the results will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the annual audit of these sums had been carried into effect in accordance with the terms of the Treasury Minute, and the results of that audit would be laid upon the table of the House as soon as possible. He could not promise, however, that they would be ready by a very early day.

THE SURVIVORS OF THE "ST. ABBE.'

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If it is the intention of the Government to send out any person to the East Coast of Africa, to inquire into the truth of the report that there are detained as prisoners, by the Somali tribe, some survivors of the ship St. Abbe, which was wrecked off Tenadi Nuova in 1855?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that a deputation, consisting of members of the Royal Geographical Society, including Sir Roderick Murchison, waited upon him at the India Office some time ago, and represented that steps should be taken to inquire into the truth of the report relative to the supposed survivors of the ship St. Abbe. It was suggested by the deputation that the Government should

  261
  give facilities to a gentleman well acquainted with that part of Africa to make inquiries respecting those persons. The matter was considered by the Council of India, who did not think it right that any facility of that kind should be given, or that the Government should pledge itself in any way, and make such inquiries through an authorized agent of the British Government in a country with which we had no diplomatic relations. However, another suggestion was made, which was that there was a great fair being held at Berbera about this time of the year, and that among the large numbers of persons present there might be means afforded of making inquiries as to the existence of these alleged survivors, and it was suggested that a reward might be offered which should have the effect of bringing the required information. He had communicated with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon the subject; and, with the noble Lord's concurrence, he had communicated with the English Resident at Aden, authorizing him to offer a suitable award for any information respecting the subject of the report.

INDIA—THE BONUS COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the Bonus Committee sitting in India are likely to come to a settlement of claims to compensation made by Officers in the late East India Company's Army?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, several Committees were sitting upon this subject. Inquiries had to be made into the particulars of each case, and in a great number of instances an award had been made of the sums payable to the Officers. As fast as the awards were made the money awarded was paid over to those entitled to receive it.

DR. ROGERS, MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE STRAND UNION.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, What were the grounds on which the Board accepted the resignation of Dr. Rogers, the late Medical Officer of the Strand Union; and, whether that resignation implied anything unfavourable to the character or to the professional ability of Dr. Rogers?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, in reply, that the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member were these:—In December last the Board of Guardians of the Strand Union called upon their medical officer. Dr. Rogers, to resign, and the matter coming before the Poor Law Board, they asked for an explanation of the reasons for such a step being taken. The Board of Guardians returned for answer that Dr. Rogers had, for a long time past, committed a series of indiscretions which rendered it impossible for them to work harmoniously together, and exhibiting a great want of courtesy in his communications with the Officers of the Board. The result was, that the Board thought it necessary to suspend him from his office. With respect to the second part of the Question, he could not do better than read the concluding paragraph of the Board's letter on the occasion, which stated—
"The Board are happy to be able to add that no blame can be imputed to you in reference to the discharge of your strictly professional duties, and the Board do not doubt that you have shown, zeal and ability in the performance of them. This adds to the regret of the Board that you should, from other causes, have rendered it necessary for them to accept your resignation."

INDIA — RELIGIOUS PROVISION FOR SOLDIERS IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether an order has been issued by the Governor General in Council in India—
"Relative to providing a room in the Lines of European Regiments in India to which the men can resort for private reading and prayer, and for holding prayer meetings and other meetings of a similar character, and directing that a room of a suitable size, with such furniture as may be deemed to fit it for the purposes above-mentioned, shall be considered one of the recognized requirements in the barracks of every British Regiment or considerable detachment of British Troops; and further that a residence will be assigned to a Scripture Reader in the married quarters."
Whether the rooms contemplated in the above order will be available for the Roman Catholic Soldiers for similar purposes of united and public prayer and other devotional exercises consonant with their religion; and, whether in cases where Roman Catholic Soldiers comprise the majority or or other large portion of the troops, a residence will be assigned to a Roman Catholic Catechist or religious teacher, as in other cases to a Protestant Scripture Reader?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he had received no information on the subject of this order, although he had seen some reference to it in the newspapers. If such an order had been issued he would no doubt receive official information respecting it in a few days.

ARMY—DAILY PAYMENT OF MEN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Order for the daily payment of Men in the Army after Morning Parade in the presence of an Officer under Queen's Regulations 1859, page 132, sec. 65, is continued in the same way by the Queen's Regulations 1868, page 90, paragraph 387, which states, "that the issue of pay is to be made punctually, in accordance with Royal Warrant, Part I., paragraph 534," this paragraph not being set out in the Queen's Regulations; and, whether the Order for the daily payment of Men in the presence of an Officer renders it necessary to pay the Men on Sunday, in the presence of an Officer after Morning Parade, there being no other Parade except Church Parade, which does not always take place at the same hour for all the Men of a Regiment?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he had written to the Adjutant General with reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, but he had not yet received a reply. He would give an answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question on a subsequent day.

PETIT JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he intends to proceed with the Petit Juries (Ireland) Bill that night?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, in reply, that if there was any objection to proceed that night with the Bill, which was similar to the one introduced last year, it should be taken the next day.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it would be convenient that the House should know the business it is intended to take this evening. There are four or five subjects
264
of great interest and importance set down—Supply, the Mutiny Bill, the Controverted Elections Bill, and the Capital Punishments Bill.
MR. DISRAELI: Of course the arrangement of business for this evening will be greatly dependent on those Gentlemen who have Motions upon going into Committee of Supply, and if a considerable time is occupied with these, I must modify the proposed arrangements. In that case I shall not be able to proceed, as I could much have wished to do, with the Controverted Elections Bill, as I understand there is to be considerable discussion in Committee on the Mutiny Bill, and that is of so pressing a character. But if we go into Supply and obtain some Votes, then I shall avail myself of the privilege of going on with the Controverted Elections Bill. With respect to the Motion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice on the subject of telegraphy, we anticipated that probably the House would be satisfied with hearing his statement, and that there would be no discussion on it, and therefore that it might be made at a very late period of the evening.
MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask, what is to be done with the Capital Punishment Bill? I would also take the liberty of suggesting, with reference to the Telegraph Bill, that the subject is one of such novelty, and involving a number of complex details, that it would hardly be desirable for the House to proceed with it at a very late hour.
MR. DISRAELI: With respect to the Capital Punishments Bill, if it comes on late—and of course discussion is anticipated upon it—we shall not press it. If it is the wish of the House that the Telegraphs Bill should not be brought forward, of course we are in their hands, and shall not press it. In answer to Questions, the right hon. Gentleman added, that neither the Capital Punishments Bill nor the Controverted Elections Bill would be brought on after half-past ten o'clock.

THE REV. MR. WILSON.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. GREGORYasked leave to make a brief personal explanation, and to do justice to a gentleman to whom he had unintentionally done injustice. In the discussion which took place the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), he (Mr. Gregory) al-

  265
  luded to the language used by some clergymen at the different Church defence meetings held in Ireland, and, amongst others, referred to the language used by the Rev. Mr. Wilson, at Limerick, whom he incorrectly described as Moderator of the Presbyterian Assembly of Ulster. He was informed, and, at the time, he unquestionably believed it to be true, that the Mr. Wilson who made the speech was the Moderator of the General Assembly of Ulster. He now found he was in error, and as the statement had given that rev. gentleman very great pain, he took that opportunity of correcting the mistake.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

BANKRUPTCY LAW.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. MOFFATT, in rising to call attention to the position of Parliament in reference to the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy, and to the expediency of introducing a Bill into the House for that purpose without delay, said, that the law as it now stood gave immense privileges to debtors, restrained greatly the rights of creditors, and vested large discretionary powers in the Judge. He ventured to say that the Law of Bankruptcy was one of the most important of laws in a commercial community like that of this country. The Bankruptcy Law was amended by Lord Westbury's Act in 1861, and in 1864 the number of bankruptcies had increased from 1,432 to 7,224, whilst the amount of assets had decreased about 50 per cent. In 1867 the number of bankruptcies had increased to 8,994. By Lord Westbury's Act it was provided that persons might become bankrupts on their own petition; and in 1864 there were of these 5,260, and in 1867 the number was 6,532, showing an increase of gentlemen who, having nothing to pay, chose to become bankrupt, of 25 per cent. In 1864 there were discharged without any punishment 5,335 bankrupts, and the number in 1867 was 6,902; but the amount collected had shrunk from £677,000 to £583,000. The number of bankrupts who had paid no dividend was no less than 5,876; and this, he submitted, could not be considered a satisfactory state of things. He indeed believed that the whole
266
system had fallen into such a state that it was as bad as it could be. The figures to which he had referred did not at all show the extent of the evil; for the facilities given by the Act of 1862 for private arrangements had led to gross abuse, which reflected the greatest possible discredit upon the legislation of the country. Under the Act of 1862 composition deeds became a part of the Bankruptcy Law; and the number of them had since very largely increased. Their number in 1862 was 698, and in 1867 3,971, giving a gross amount of unsecured debts of £373,000, as against £8,246,432. The number of the deeds of assignment registered in 1862 was 1,886, in 1864 2,284, and in 1867 2,803; but the gross amount of unsecured debts had risen from £1,013,000 in 1862, to £5,725,592 in 1864, and £10,642,646 in 1867. The same result had occurred with deeds of inspectorship, which from 46 in 1862 had increased to 138 in 1867, showing a gross amount of unsecured debts of £190,400 in the former year as against £10,753,550 in the latter. No man could go into any counting-house in the City without finding the present state of the law strongly reprobated. It really would almost appear that the House of Commons had successfully endeavoured to invent some system by which creditors should be mulcted of the money to which they were entitled. Seeing how the Act of 1862 was working, the House in 1864 appointed a Committee which inquired very carefully and fully into the question, and afterwards made a Report, recommending the establishment of some cheap and simple mode of administering bankrupts' estates, such as the Scotch system. The Committee endeavoured to disentangle the question of punishment of debtors from that of the distribution of their estates, and they recommended the abolition of the Bankruptcy Courts, both the London and the District Courts. He could not say that these recommendations had been productive of much good. It was quite true that they caused the introduction of a Bill in the following Session; but that Bill was of so cumbrous a character and so little regarded the recommendations of the Committee that it soon ceased to exist. The Bill of 1866, though more formidable in appearance than its predecessor with its 480 clauses, required two Bills to prop it up, and was now considered useless. He thought that the House of Commons should be specially charged with a subject which was so intimately

267
connected with trade, and he found with deep regret that this great question was relegated to the other House. He could not refer to what had occurred in "another place"; but he hoped to receive some information as to the principles of the Bill which the Government intended to bring before the House of Commons. The present law was a remnant of the old system of protection which governed all our commercial dealings two centuries ago. We began by protecting the creditor, and then went on to protect the debtor. The result was that we had a system of protection so perfect for the debtor, and so adverse to the creditor, that it was as discreditable to fair dealing as any of the worst cases of protection in the matter of trade which had long ago ceased to exist. It might be described as giving immunity to fraud, and as confiscating the assets of creditors. In 1865 the amount divided among creditors was £450,000, and to divide that sum it cost £375,000. When they coupled this with the fact that every man could make himself bankrupt and get discharged from his debts with the greatest immunity, he thought that it must be felt that there could not be a worse system. A debtor who did not want to pay his debts frequently said, "I court inquiry, and I will put my affairs into the Court of Bankruptcy," and under this threat creditors took anything they could get rather than lose the whole. When these matters were considered they could scarcely be surprised at the distress which paralyzed the country, and the effect of this vicious legislation had been greatly increased by the facilities given to Limited Liability companies. In his opinion the sooner they abolished the whole system of the Bankruptcy Law the better. He hoped that they would adopt the Scotch system, modified to suit the wants of this country. Small changes would be of no use, and whilst they retained the present staff of Bankruptcy officials the Bankruptcy system would never have the public confidence, and would not deserve to have it. He wished to know the principles upon which the proposed Bill was founded; whether it was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1865; and further, whether, instead of a Bill framed in cumbrous and tortuous language, it would not be possible to bring in a short and simple measure? If they did not do this they had better at once repeal the existing Bankruptcy Law, and do for one year without a Bankruptcy
268
Law; for he was satisfied that this even would be a great relief to the commerce of the country.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it would be very inconvenient for him to state the principles of the measure. The House was perfectly aware that a Bill had been brought in and read a second time in the House of Lords; and, in due course, he hoped it would come before the House of Commons, when they would have the advantage of the hon. Member's knowledge of the subject in discussing the measure.
Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

(1.) £322,900, Clothing Establishments.

(2.) £506,300, Barrack Establishment.

(3.) £26,800, Divine Service.

(4.) £13,000, Martial Law.

(5.) £280,800, Hospital Establishment.

(6.) £686,800, Militia and Inspection of Reserve Forces.

(7.) £58,000, Yeomanry Cavalry.

(8.) £285,100, Volunteer Corps.

COLONEL BARTTELOTexpressed a wish to make some remarks upon this Vote. An influential deputation, composed of Volunteer commanding officers, had recently waited upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The deputation was most courteously received, but its prayer was not granted—that prayer being that some increase should be made in the amount of the Grant voted for the Volunteer service. He (Colonel Barttelot) believed that, in the opinion of that House and the country, the Volunteer force was considered a most valuable though inexpensive one, and that it ought to be maintained in an efficient state. The question for the House and the country to consider was, whether such efficiency could be secured by a small addition to the existing Grant, or whether, by the refusal of the application made, they were running the risk of diminishing the force or causing it to dwindle away. It might be said that the force had not fallen off in numbers; but had, on the contrary, increased, and was increasing. That was no doubt true; but, nevertheless, subscriptions to the force were gradually declining; and the conse-

269
quence was that a great amount of expense was thrown upon the force, and especially upon its officers. It was not, he believed, the wish of the House or of the country that that should be the case. If the force was to be kept up as a Reserve force some additional Grant must be made to it. All the Volunteers required was, that all expenses connected with drills away from head-quarters should be paid by the country. The Volunteers were willing to give their services to their country; but they considered that if they went to different places for the purposes of drilling for their country, that their country ought to pay their expenses. He thought that a Royal Commission ought to be issued to inquire into the whole question of the Reserve forces, of which the Volunteers were a valuable auxiliary.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHfelt that the Volunteer force must have been greatly disappointed at the answer given to the deputation the other day. The impression created in the minds of hon. Members, by the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War last year, was that this subject would be well considered and that some addition would be made to the resources of the Volunteer corps. The Yeomanry force was actually paid while out for training. That was not required by the Volunteers; but he thought, if the public provided the funds for prizes to stimulate rifle-shooting, all other necessary expenses ought to be borne by the State, and especially that of clothing, which was a necessary article of Volunteer equipment.
COLONEL SYKES, though not anxious to increase the public expenditure, thought that the Volunteers ought to receive something more than they did. The majority of the men composing the Volunteer ranks were workmen receiving weekly wages averaging from £1 to 30 s. per week; and in their case, after three or four years' service, when their clothing was worn out they were unable to replace it, and were consequently lost to the service. The regimental subscriptions were always considerable, and the officers in command deserved the greatest possible credit for the pecuniary assistance they rendered. In India when men were specially employed they received an increased allowance. And he thought that when the Volunteers went to such places as Brighton or Portsmouth, it would be well to pay for their transit. Such casual allowances might be made
270
without imposing any serious burden on the country.
COLONEL C. H. LINDSAY: Sir, I rise in the position of a Volunteer commanding officer, and as a duty which I owe to the service in which I am engaged; and I cannot help remarking that the question of an increase of the Capitation Grant is a much more serious one than many people seem to think. I shall, therefore, divide the remarks that I think necessary to make into three parts—namely, the past, the present, and the future, of the Volunteer movement. It is not difficult to describe the two former. With regard to the past, I will simply date back to the year 1859, and ask the Committee to remember what was the feeling which existed upon the question of invasion by France. It was, no doubt, an uneasy one, and one that was derogatory to the character and position of England; and if it had continued, most injurious to the interests of her trade and commerce. A remedy for this state of feeling was wanted. It was found by the bone and sinew of the country, who commenced the great national movement of defence; but which, for a time, did not inspire the necessary confidence. It must be, however, in the recollection of the Committee, that the movement did before long gain the approval and confidence of the country; and, from that time to this, a valuable and necessary armament has been recognized, possessing a great moral effect over Europe, settling the question of invasion, and dispelling alarm and panic, which would have been so destructive to every interest. So much for the past. With respect to the present position of the Volunteer service, it continues to exist. It exists partly upon the inadequate support it receives from the Government; partly, upon the support from private sources, and partly upon its own merits. It is more efficient than at any other period of its history. It has been mainly instrumental in the introduction of rifle shooting throughout the country. It has been instrumental in advancing science, in the manufacture of small arms, and it has produced the most remarkable skill in the use of those arms. Its discipline, its prestige, its morality, and its social element, are in a higher state of action than at any other time; and it is ready and anxious to continue to preserve those attributes, provided the Government of the day is willing to support it, and provide for its requirements; and this brings me to the important sub-

271
ject of the desired increase of the Capitation Grant, which is not going to be given. Now, Sir, as a Volunteer commanding officer, I have received in common with every other commanding officer in the country, that ultimatum, and I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that the axe has been laid at the root by that ultimatum; and that its continued existence and efficiency are endangered by it; and that we, as commanding officers, will be placed in a very awkward and delicate position. The time has arrived when some clear understanding is necessary, so that there may be no mistake as to the position in which we are, as the nation's guard of defence. This is the serious and natural view to take, and it bears especially upon the future position of the movement. Now, it has frequently been remarked that the Volunteer movement has taken deep root in the country. Sir, no institution can be said to have taken root at all, if it is neither self-supporting nor adequately supported by the Government; and it is partly for that reason that we have, on two or three occasions, recorded our almost unanimous opinion that the requirements of it cannot be much longer met with success, unless the Government consent to increase the Grant, for the purses of those who have always been friends of the movement are wearied out. Sir, that significant deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for War, a few days ago, informed him, through the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, what we, as commanding officers, considered to be necessary: that we did not ask as a favour, or a right, but that we considered our duty, both to the Government and the country, was to inform them of our opinion; and the noble Lord made it clearly understood that, in the event of an unfavourable reply, we should consider ourselves relieved from any responsibility should the Volunteer service collapse for want of support. We consider our opinion, as commanding officers, to be entitled to the fullest respect; and we cannot agree that the flourishing state of the service should be used as an argument against further aid from Government, for it would be a premium upon inefficiency and languor; and it is an unjust acknowledgment, after the extraordinary exertions that have been made to keep up the service in high efficiency and discipline for the honour and credit of the country. If the Volunteer movement is not worth any additional support
272
from Government, it would be better that that policy should be declared, so that our position may be clearly understood. But, unless something more be done in support of the movement, we may all find ourselves in a serious scrape; some eight or ten years hence, when the present dynasty of France may have passed away, when our army may be engaged in some European war, and our shores denuded of the British bayonet, owing to the Volunteers of the country having dwindled down to a myth. We cannot now expect any additional Grant this year, owing to the heavy expenditure required by the army; but we ought to receive some assurance that our necessary requirements will receive the favourable consideration of the Government next year; for unless it can do so, consequences much to be regretted might ensue, against which our efforts would be powerless.
MR. DENT, in answer to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith), said he supposed that the reason why the Yeomanry were paid and the Volunteers were not was, that the Yeomanry had to be away from home with their horses for eight days, while it seldom happened that the Volunteers were absent for a single night.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he had always been in favour of economy; but he thought it barely respectable for the country to take services which were admitted to be very valuable, and, at the same time, to allow poor men to put their hands into their own pockets for the purpose of rendering those services.
MR. OTWAYcontended that all men performing the same service should have the same rate of pay. When he had asked whether the serjeant-instructors of Volunteers were to have the additional 2d. as the same class of men received in the army, he was told that the matter was under the consideration of Government. He wished now to ascertain whether that question had been settled?
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the other evening, while he was calling attention to some remarks made by the Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Baronet had interrupted him for the purpose of declaring that he had not made the statement attributed to him. Since then he had enjoyed the advantage of reading a very accurate report of the speech made by the right hon. Baronet, and found that it exactly corresponded with the views which he had expressed, and that the right hon.

273
Baronet did, in fact, inform the House that it was his intention to put the Militia and Volunteer forces under the command of general officers of high standing in the different districts of England. He should therefore like to have some clear and specific explanation of the views of the right hon. Baronet on this point. In his reply, at the close of the evening, the right hon. Baronet stated that it was his intention to appoint officers of rank, who, in some way or other—he did not make it very clear how—were to have control over the Militia and Volunteer forces. Did he contemplate any proceeding which was to interpose any general officers, or any officer at all, with authority over those forces, between the Volunteer corps and Militia, and the Secretary of State for War? If he did, the matter ought to be very formally and distinctly brought under the consideration of the House. He apprehended it would be a wholly unconstitutional proceeding to divest the Secretary of State, for War of any part of his official responsibility in relation to the Militia or the Volunteers; and if any attempt were made, directly or indirectly, to place the Volunteer force under the control of general officers of the army, it must end in the total destruction of that body. The very essence of the Volunteer movement was that it was a spontaneous movement of the people, which should be carried on under the direct authority of the civil, without any intervention of the military power.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the intention of the Secretary of State for War was excellent—that of placing the Volunteers and other Reserves under a distinguished general officer, in order to effect as far as possible unity of action in the place of the present divided authority; but he did not see that the right hon. Baronet would be able to do more in time of peace by the change than was at present done by the inspectors. The Militia and Volunteers would never be required to be called out in the time of peace, and in time of war, then, ipso facto, they passed from these generals of Reserve to the complete control of the Commander-in-Chief as any other part of the regular army. There was a rumour abroad—he could not say whether it was correct or not—that Colonel Erskine had been, as it were, superseded; and that that gallant officer, who had been eight years intimately connected with the Volunteers (three or four years under Colonel M'Murdo) had been treated in this matter with scant
274
courtesy by the right hon. Baronet. The change had been made without his knowledge, or any previous consultation with him; and the first notice he received of it was an intimation from the Secretary of State for War of a new appointment of an inferior character, and between £300 or £400 per annum less in amount. He very much doubted whether, in the interest of the corps, it would not have been advisable, if the Secretary of State for War, before making so great a change, would have taken so old an officer into his counsel, more especially as he knew from personal knowledge that Colonel Erskine had some scheme in view for brigading and otherwise re-organizing the force. As regards the Parliamentary Grant, he wished to observe that the deputation who had an interview with the Secretary for War on the subject did not apply in formâ pauperis. Neither did they profess to agitate on the question, or desire to come to Parliament to ask for an increased Grant; but it was his conviction that there was danger of the necessary expenses not being covered by the present Grant, and of a very large portion of the force falling away in consequence. It was thought right to make known that danger, leaving the Government and Parliament to decide whether it was necessary to take any steps in the matter. The Secretary of State for War had informed the House that the Government did not consider themselves justified in proposing this year an increase in the Grant; and what he (Lord Elcho) would suggest, was that the present state of the Volunteer corps with that of our Reserves in general, should form the subject of inquiry under a Royal Commission, and he intended to bring the subject before the House after the Easter Recess.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he should not then consider whether the whole question of our Reserve force should be referred to a Royal Commission; but it would be very desirable to make the grievance of the Volunteer corps the subject of such an inquiry. The difference between the Volunteer and Militia forces was such that the inquiry into one ought to be to a certain degree independent of the other. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary of State for War would not consider himself precluded by the answer he gave the other day, from allowing this question to undergo a strict inquiry. The time had arrived when the inquiry of 1862 ought to be resumed, because at that time the Volun-

275
teer force was so young that it was impossible to test the amount of expenditure that would be required by the officers and men in keeping up the force, and how far the Parliamentary Grant then proposed would meet it. He had received a memorial from 8,000 Volunteers in Scotland for presentation to the Secretary of State for War; but he had not presented it, because they were willing that their claims should merge into those of the general body. Many of the corps were now in a position which made it very uncertain whether they would be able, in consequence of the difficulty they experienced in obtaining officers, to keep up their efficiency. No doubt there were many officers who, by the same public spirit as led them to engage in the service, would be prevented backing out of it when they found the obligations falling on them rather too severely. Therefore they had a strong claim on the Government; and he hoped the House would not allow the matter to be settled by the declaration that, as long as the Volunteer force kept up their numbers, there was no occasion for any additional Grant.
MR. ACLANDhoped that the Secretary for War would give the House a fuller explanation than had as yet been afforded, respecting the scheme for the organization of the Reserved forces. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would state his views clearly and fully on that subject. His impression of what the Secretary of State said on a former occasion was that he had found it expedient for administrative purposes to concentrate certain offices in the hands of one general officer; and that he quoted a letter from the general commanding the forces in the North, to show that certain inconvenience arose from the present relations between the generals of districts and this auxiliary force. For his own part he must say—and his experience dated from the very commencement of the Volunteer movement — that a good deal of inconvenience now arose from the undefined relations between commanding officers of Volunteers, Volunteer associations, who endeavour not very successfully to provide the corps with locomotion, the assistant inspector, and the general of the district. It was quite true that, under the Act of Parliament, there was a line that might be drawn, which did clearly define their respective duties. But he could give very strong instances to show that great inconvenience did arise from this source. He
276
had had to deal with three successive generals at Plymouth; and if there was one thing more than another that characterized them it was their extreme unwillingness to assume authority over the Volunteers, or do anything to complicate relations with their officers. Many things were now done by a kind of tacit understanding between the parties, which it would be better to put upon a certain footing. But these things required to be looked into, and it was possible the difficulties might be got over. After the reference which had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) to the case of an individual officer, whom he felt pride in calling his personal friend, he must be allowed to say that he hoped the right hon. Baronet would be able to show that Colonel Erskine had been treated in this matter with proper courtesy. He had heard nothing from Colonel Erskine; but the report alluded to by the noble Lord certainly was widely current, and he must say, if it should turn out that a Minister occupying the high position of the right hon. Baronet had treated Colonel Erskine with any want of courtesy, there never was an officer whose character and services less deserved such treatment. He believed there was no individual in the country to whom the whole Volunteer force owed so much as to Colonel Erskine. He did not know whether it would be better that the whole force should be under one general, or under respective inspectors; but if Colonel Erskine had incurred a loss of income to the extent of some £400 a year, and if, instead of being promoted, he had been placed in an inferior position, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would at least be able to show that he had made an economical arrangement, which, from present information, he very much doubted. It would be premature to express any opinion with regard to the proposal of the noble Lord for a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the Reserve force generally; but, as colonel of an administrative battalion, he was able to state on the authority of his adjutant, that the ten corps under his command were in a good state of equipment, and if they had not a balance in hand they had not anticipated their future resources. Many of the gentlemen who commanded them had acted liberally, and he believed that the Volunteer force was most effective when it had partly relied on local pecuniary support. A relation of his, out of the ordinary resources, had been able to give his men great coats, and ano

277
ther captain had supplied his men with capes out of the ordinary resources of the regiment. The country corps were at present allowed 5s. per head for battalion drill, but none was made to the town corps; and, in that respect, he thought a change ought to be made, and some such allowance given to the town corps to go to the butts and qualify for the position of extra proficients. But he did not think that for equipment and the ordinary expenses of the corps it was necessary to raise the allowance. The Volunteers had been a good deal petted by public confidence, and care must be taken lest people should begin to think that they were making themselves too expensive. He thought it very desirable that they should, if possible, increase their efficiency and discipline before asking for much more money. If they could not obtain money for brigade meetings he hoped the case would be considered before another year. But still he had great doubt as to the expediency of an indiscriminate increase of the Capitation allowance to any very large extent.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was of opinion that unless some aid was afforded to the Volunteers they could not be kept at their present state of efficiency. The legitimate expenses of the Volunteer corps very much exceeded the amount they received from the Capitation Grant, and the commanding officers of regiments had generally a considerable amount to pay out of their own pockets. Even with the increased sum which was asked from the Government, he (Mr. Dillwyn) knew that he would still have to put his hand in his pocket, though not to the same extent. It was in fact a question, whether the Volunteer force was to be maintained on an efficient footing.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERobserved that the Secretary of State for War had informed the House the other night that it would be impossible to increase the Grant as a whole; but the Government should recollect that the object was not to increase the numbers of the force so much as to render the force efficient. For this end no arrangement was likely to be so serviceable as keeping them in the field with regular troops, and it would be worth while to allow them a field allowance for this purpose.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he thought that the time had arrived when no antique jealousy of the Crown should be allowed to interfere with the efficiency
278
of either the Volunteers or the Militia. He understood the Secretary for War to propose that the Militia and the Volunteers should be under the command of one general officer; but he should suggest that both forces should be under the command of the general officer commanding the particular district. In the event of war, the Volunteers and the Militia must be brought into the general military organization of the country, and they must, in that case, be placed under the command of the officers commanding the various districts; and if they were now to be placed under separate command and kept distinct from the rest of the army great difficulties would be incurred in effecting the change at the time of the breaking out of war. By putting the Volunteers and the Militia under the command of the generals of districts those forces would be brought into more perfect union with the regular military service of the country, and would render them more like soldiers than they were at present, while it would greatly increase their general efficiency.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he not only could have no objection to what had been said by his hon. Friend behind him, but he could not dissent from a word he had heard on the subject, with the exception only of what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Colonel C. H. Lindsay), who went so far as to state his opinion that, because the Government had declined to accede to the propositions which had been made to them, they were indifferent to the success of the Volunteers. He was anxious to say that there was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. As far as he was personally concerned, he could only express his regret that the hon. Member should have made a statement in support of which he could give no good reason. Those who were members of that most important deputation, and those who heard his statement on Monday night could not accuse him of having giving utterance to any remark that would justify such an accusation being brought against him. In his opinion the Volunteer movement was a very noble one, and he appreciated most highly the value of the fine body of men it had placed at the service of the country. His Colleagues entirely concurred with him in looking upon the movement as the most striking and successful one that had taken place in any country in Europe for a long time. From the time of its commence-

279
ment it had had a great effect upon the Continent; and it was a proof of the power of this country that it had been able almost in a moment to produce a defensive force of such great strength and efficiency. Under these circumstances it was clear that he could have had no intention to under-rate the importance of the Volunteer force. Her Majesty's Government had, however, to consider whether they could, consistently with their duty, accede to the request of the Volunteer officers for an increased Capitation Grant. He stated to that deputation that, so far as he had been able to form an opinion, the question was one that varied in different localities, and that if there were many places where an additional Grant would be convenient to the officers there were other places not thus situated. On Monday night he stated what were the facts and what was the reason why the Government could not, at this moment, grant the increase of the Volunteer expenses which they had asked. An hon. Member had spoken of the smallness of the increase asked for, and said it was a thousand pities that the Government had not increased the Grant. But the money was not small. The expense of the Volunteer movement, whatever might be its value, was £385,000 a year. Add £185,000 to the expenses, and, whatever might be his personal feeling to the Volunteer force, his belief was this, that if he had come down to the House and asked for an increased Vote of £185,000, numbers of Gentlemen opposite would have started up to ask upon what grounds he made such a proposal. He would have been asked whether the Volunteers were falling off in number; whether they were increasing their efficiency; and whether it was impossible that the movement could be supported by the allowance already made to them? He must remind the House that there had been a considerable change in the nature of the Volunteer movement since its commencement. The Volunteer force was originally intended to be a self-supporting force, and that it should consist of a class of men every one of whom should provide himself with uniform, and should pay his own expenses. He thought that, as far as the defence of the country was concerned, the Volunteer movement was worth all the money that it had cost us, and that it would be only advisable to give any moderately additional assistance which could really be shown to be necessary. His hon.
280
Friend the Member for Devonshire (Mr. Acland) had referred, as he presumed, to the increase in the allowance which he had proposed in order to enable members of administrative battalions in the country to meet together for the purposes of batallion drill.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he intended to refer to the Grant made for that object, and he had suggested that money should be granted for the purpose of enabling battalions to take part in brigade field days.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had proposed that increase because he thought that the case was one in which it might reasonably be given; and he should be ready to give his consideration to any case in which it was thought that a similar course might be attended with advantage. He would now turn to another matter, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) would not impute to him any disrespect when he stated that the hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken what he had said on a former occasion. The hon. Gentleman had said that he had referred to his speech. The hon. Gentleman had in that case done more than he himself had done; but, whatever report the hon. Gentleman had consulted, he could only say that he was misinformed when he stated that it was his intention to place the Volunteers and the Militia under the general officers commanding in districts. He had not the slightest idea of doing anything of the kind. His hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire had rightly interpreted his intentions, which, however, appear to have been misunderstood by several hon. Members. Hitherto the Volunteers and the Militia had been placed under the command of three different persons. The Volunteers had been commanded—or rather, placed under the supervision of an officer of the rank of a colonel or lieutenant-colonel. The Militia were also placed under the superintendence and charge of an officer of the rank of a colonel or lieutenant-colonel; and the Army of Reserve were similarly commanded. His belief was, that it would be better to place these bodies under the direction of one instead of three distinct officers, and that that officer should possess a higher rank than that of colonel or lieutenant colonel. He had therefore placed these bodies under the supervision of a general officer of high rank; but he had not intended to carry the change any further, or to alter the re-

281
lative authority of the commanders of the different corps, or their relations to the civil power. Under the new arrangement, the Secretary of State would be able so to improve the organization that the local authority would not, as hitherto, be deprived of the assistance of these forces in case of need. He would now turn to the remarks which his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) and his hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Mr. Acland) had made with regard to Colonel Erskine; and he regretted that he should be accused of a discourtesy, which he trusted was entirely alien to his nature or his character. His noble Friend had alluded to a circumstance which was the result of an accident—a mistake which was corrected and explained fully and frankly to Colonel Erskine himself, and he trusted, therefore, that he should not hear of it again. It had also been stated by the noble Lord that Colonel Erskine, on being deprived of his position in connection with the Volunteers, had been placed in the same position as the one which he had previously held.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not consider it a promotion; because, whereas Colonel M'Murdo had been promoted to the office of Inspector General of Volunteers, Colonel Erskine was only placed in the same position as that which Colonel M'Murdo previously occupied.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that his desire had been throughout to treat Colonel Erskine with the greatest possible fairness and consideration, and it was in that spirit that he was led to offer Colonel Erskine the command of the Military Train, which had been rendered vacant by the lamented death of Colonel Kennedy, who had fallen a victim to the exertions in connection with the Abyssinian war. He had been sorry to hear the hon. Member for Devonshire say that he had fined Colonel Erskine £400 a year. He did not know what the difference was between the value of the two appointments. [Mr. ACLAND said, that the effect of the change was to decrease Colonel Erskine's income between £300 and £400 a year.] Whatever it was, it was only a matter of two years; for at the end of that time Colonel Erskine's command as inspector-General of Volunteers would have come to a termination. He believed, however, that he had appointed Colonel Erskine to a superior position; and if anything should occur to interfere with the permanence of the present
282
arrangement, it would of course be their duty to make some provision for its effects as far as Colonel Erskine was concerned. He had not proposed the new arrangement with any special view to economy; but its results would be to produce a slight reduction of expense. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colcbrooke) had suggested an inquiry into the present state of the Volunteer force; but it was not necessary for him then to enter into that question, because the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had given notice of his intention to bring forward the same subject, though in a larger form, and when the noble Lord did so he should, for his own part, be prepared to give his best attention to the matter.
MR. ACLANDexplained that, in the remarks that he had made, he had spoken not for the Volunteers generally, but only for his own battalion.
LORD ELCHOfelt very strongly that it was not desirable it should go forth in any way to the public that the Volunteer commanding officers came to the House of Commons asking for money in formâ pauperis. He protested against any such impression getting abroad, as it was possible it might do, when the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Acland) said it was very likely that some officers might want more money to spend. They had heard a good deal about Government by minorities. Well, it looked to him very much as if on that question of the Volunteer force they were carrying on Government by a minority, because his hon. Friend who had spoken represented a small minority of that force. Both last year and this year every means had been taken to ascertain the real opinion of the force on that point, and he now ventured to say, speaking not as an individual or in the name of the London commanding officers only, but speaking advisedly in the name of the Volunteer force in general, that their deliberate opinion was that that force could not be maintained at its present strength with the present Capitation Grant. A commanding officer was sitting near him who spent a large sum annually upon his corps; and another Gentleman, also a Member of that House, informed him that his regiment cost him £200 or £300 a year. Their point was this, that in their opinion it was requisite to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that the necessary expenses of Volunteer corps were not covered by the Parliamentary

283
Grant, which had to be largely supplemented by the subscriptions of the officers and men, and also, at the same time, to express the strong feeling which they believed to pervade the Volunteer force that those who freely and without pay gave their services to the State should be relieved from the necessity of incurring such personal expenditure. His right hon. Friend said the original intention of the force was that every man was to bear his own expenses. That might have been the theory; but in practice it could not be carried out, and a Commission in 1862 recommended Parliament to give the Volunteer corps a Capitation Grant of £1. It was proved before that Commission that two-thirds of the force were composed of artizans and men of the labouring class. Therefore, if they wished to keep up that force, and to relieve the officers from the unfair expenditure to which they were now put, Parliament must, sooner or later, be prepared to increase the Grant. But he might state that the officers had made up their minds to do nothing further—never to send another deputation to the War Office—never to make another appeal in that House; that having now finally laid their claims before the House and the country, they left it to the Government to say what steps they would take to recognize them. If it could be shown that the existence of the force depended upon whether 20 s., 30 s., or 40 s. was sufficient, he believed, in opposition to his hon. Friend, that the country would deem that a sufficient ground for an inquiry. At any rate, in 1862, it was deemed sufficient ground for an inquiry. But he did not propose that the inquiry should be limited to so small a point as that; but that it should be full and complete, embracing our whole system of military organization, with reference to its capabilities for expansion in time of war and for home defence. That was the question which he intended to bring before the House after Easter, and the incidental point now raised might fairly form part of the inquiry.
SIR T. F. BUXTONsaid, he thought it was desirable to have a wider range of selection for the commanders of Volunteer corps than they had at present. At present the class was extremely limited, because the commanding officer must not only have some knowledge of military matters, but he must be able from his own means to keep a horse, and to be prepared to spend from £300 to £600 a
284
year upon his regiment. He thought this limitation was a very serious one, and one that ought to be abolished.
Mr. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he believed that, under ordinary circumstances, the House would be disposed cheerfully to vote any reasonable amount that might be requisite for the Volunteer force; but he thought it might be preferable to give them the clothing, and leave the Capitation Grant as it stood.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) 39,600, Enrolled Pensioners and Army Reserve Force.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYwished to know, when the instructions relative to the Army Reserve and to the Militia Reserve would be issued; as it was very important that they should be issued before the Militia were called out.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to tell them what had been done, up to the present time, with the Army Reserve; and, whether anything had been done, or was presumed to be done, with regard to the Militia Reserve. Last year the right hon. Gentleman took a Vote of £30,000 for Volunteers in the Militia engaging to serve in a Militia Reserve Force, and £20,000 for men volunteering by commutation of service for enrolment in the Army Reserve Force. They had heard a great deal last year of these Reserve forces; but he could not hear that anything had been done.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord referred to this question on Monday last, and had charged him with having made no reference to this subject in his general Statement. The noble Lord was mistaken. He stated then—what he was prepared to repeat now—that one very important step had been taken, and that in accordance with the plan of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), the Government had decided that the entire corps of the Militia should be raised up to its increased quota—half the battalions in the present year and the other half next year. Last year, before the change was decided on, the Militia regiments were 5,000 below the strength of their reduced quota. But when the order was given to raise the regiments to their full quota recruiting commenced, and was so successfully carried on, that, instead of the force being 5,000 below the reduced quota, it was now only 2,300 below the

285
increased quota for the present year. With regard to the issue of the regulations to which the hon. Baronet had referred, the only reason why they had not been laid upon the table of the House was that before doing so he wished to have the opinion of General Lindsay respecting them, as he would have so large a share in carrying them into effect. The men were allowed to commute a portion of their army service for service in the Reserve; and the Vote of £7,000 for the probable number of men who would engage under the Army Reserve Act, 1867, was intended to cover the expense of whatever men they were able to obtain. But General Lindsay would enter upon his duties in a few days, and the regulations would be laid on the table of the House immediately after Easter. The noble Lord did not appear to be sanguine, and he could not say that he was sanguine either, as to the success of the scheme of a Reserve force.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it seemed to him that the original intention of the Government on that subject had not been carried out. It was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to commence the formation of the two forces last year; but he gathered from his statement that not a single man had yet joined either the Militia Reserve force or the Army Reserve force.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the first step he had taken to carry out the Act was to increase the number of the Militia.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £768,400, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £200,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the Charge of Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1868 to the 31st day of March 1869, inclusive."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that certain charges for police, &c., were transferred from Votes 3 and 12 to this Vote, and they swelled the Vote in appearance, although the sum asked for was not greater in reality. The Vote included a proposal to spend £20,000 upon hospitals for contagious diseases.
MAJOR ANSONcalled attention to the increase that had taken place in the establishment charges. In 1863 these charges
286
amounted to £78,000, and they had risen to the present charge of £100,544. In 1859–60 we did work amounting to £1,455,000, and the establishment charges for that year were only £56,526. In 1860 we did work to the amount of £1,752,000, and the establishment charges were £62,500. This year the Estimates for work to be done amount to £867,000, yet the establishment charges exceed £100,000. That seemed to him a most unnecessary increase, and he hoped that some explanation would be given. From a comparison of Returns which had been obtained in the years 1857 and 1867 respectively, he found that there had been a decrease in the barrack accommodation to the extent of accommodation for 2,000 men. Yet, in the intervening ten years, we had spent in brick and mortar, in one way or another, no less than £9,583,000. Naturally, one would have imagined that the barrack expenditure in colonial and tropical climates would have been very heavy compared with the outlay at home. But he found that we had spent during that period four times as much upon barracks at home as we had done in the colonies. With regard, again, to married soldiers' quarters: it was proposed now to devote no less a sum than £935,000 towards that object, in addition to £240,000 already voted; but it seemed that it had taken no less than ten years to spend that sum of £240,000; instead of providing, as seemed the natural course, whatever accommodation was required for married soldiers at once. At the same rate of expenditure it would take twenty-two years to expend this Vote of £935,000 upon the housing of married soldiers; and it seemed doubtful whether the expenditure was necessary when they could spread it over thirty years — at all events the House ought to be informed in this and every other case what increase of accommodation is secured for the money spent.
MR. CHILDERScalled attention to what, he said, formed a serious departure from the usual mode of stating some of the items of the present Vote. In the case of any Vote proposed for the first time and involving further liability, it was usual to set out in the first column of the Estimates the total amount which the Department had it in contemplation to expend upon that particular object. And having dealt thus frankly with the House, the Government were able to come down in any subsequent year, when a further instalment of the money was asked for and

287
objected to, and say that, to some extent, an implied sanction has been given by the House to the total expenditure when the matter was originally broached in the Estimates. This year, however, items, which last year gave no indication of being parts of a great whole, were stated in the Estimates as forming part of a total estimated outlay of £1,416,000, of which part had been voted in previous years. This would throw anyone off his guard, and was a very improper way of stating the items. Again, with regard to the two items of £75,000 each, for alterations to works for a revised armament in the principal sea batteries at Gibraltar and Malta, he thought it should have been stated that these sums were in excess of the original Estimate of £470,000, whereas he found no reference to past expenditure under this head. As to the proposed expenditure for additional barrack accommodation at Chelsea, such accommodation was probably wanted; but an explanation should have been given on the subject. The expenditure at Woolwich of £70,000 for storehouses for miscellaneous stores from the Tower he held to be perfectly unnecessary; for abundant accommodation might be placed at the disposal of the War Office by the Admiralty, as the abandonment of Deptford dockyard was contemplated. He did not know whether the Vote of £3,000 now proposed would pledge the Committee to the expenditure of the remaining £67,000.
LORD ELCHO, calling attention to the charges attending the camp at Aldershot, urged the desirability of adopting the recommendation of the Royal Commission by dispensing with a permanent encampment. The buildings were liable to constant expenditure for repairs, and it gave great dissatisfaction, both to officers and men, to be kept in camp during the winter. It would be much better to keep the troops in barracks in different parts of the country, and march them to these places temporarily, keeping them under canvas there. It was also desirable that as many officers or generals as possible should have the opportunity of commanding large bodies of troops, and such appointments should therefore be made yearly, instead of only once in five years.
COLONEL SYKEScalled attention to the charge for the surveyor, deputy surveyors, &c., of the Royal Engineers. He objected to an increasing establishment as an insidious thing which they could not get rid
288
of. He remarked that while there was a decrease in one Department of the least paid officials from twenty-seven to twenty-two, there was an increase of the higher paid from twenty-nine to thirty-two. He called attention to the increase, not only of the clerks, but of military foremen, and asked why it had taken place. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would, at his earliest convenience, give some explanation of the increase in the establishment to which he referred.
CAPTAIN VIVIANwished to say a few words about the camp at Aldershot. He had the honour of sitting in the House when the camp was first projected, and he then raised his voice against it. They had been told, with great truth, that one of the causes of the great losses which our troops suffered in the first Crimean campaign was that they did not know how to kill their meat, to forage, or to perform the other duties incident to the position in which they were placed; and the French troops had a great advantage over them because they had been instructed in routine field work. It was proposed, therefore, to form a camp at Aldershot to give a training to our soldiers, and that was all very well. But in a short time those large barracks were built at immense outlay. He would venture to say that it would have been infinitely better to have spent the money on improving the various barracks in London, some of which were a disgrace to the army. Aldershot, instead of being a camp, was now a large military town, and a military town of the worst description, and was extremely unpopular among the men. When a soldier came home from foreign service, instead of being allowed to go into country quarters or to see his friends, he was sent to Aldershot. He hoped that Aldershot would not be so much used as a winter quarter for the future. It might be available, however, in the summer months. He quite agreed with what had been said by his hon. Friend about the change made in the Estimates. It was a dangerous change. Close upon £40,000 had been spent, and spent wisely, on the establishment at Pimlico, and a large yearly rent was now paid for it. There was no doubt that there would be ample room for all the Woolwich stores in Pimlico.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that whenever he attempted to cut down a Vote for works he was always told that the works were in progress, and that it would be impossible to make any reduction. Last year, when

289
a new item crept into those Estimates, he and his Friends thought they should make an effort to reduce the Vote; but when they went to a division, they were, of course, beaten, the House being always in much the same condition when they were voting away millions, and there being always a number of Members ready to rush in from the gastronomical Department to support the Minister. In this Vote 14 there were some most objectionable items. The other evening they had a debate as to the military cost of the colonics; but the Vote taken on that occasion by no means represented the whole cost, because in this Vote would be found very large items with reference to those very colonies. For instance, it was proposed to spend £202,000 for the defence of the Mauritius. He doubted whether anyone was ever going to attack the Mauritius; but, in any case, the money would be only thrown away. It was utterly impossible to defend that island by any such expenditure, and by retaining in it two battalions of troops. Mauritius, if to be defended, must be defended by sea, and to spend so much money upon works there was to throw a great burden upon the taxpayers of this country. The whole of the columns of the Estimate book contained similar extravagant charges; and he could wish that some gentleman of military position, like his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), would take the sense of the Committee upon it. That would be the only way to prevent such an outlay in future. He had no hesitation in saying that a great portion of the expenditure upon barracks and works was caused by the erroneous system that was pursued. There was no man in the House that had a greater respect for the Engineers than he (Mr. Otway) had; he looked upon them as an unsurpassed corps, but they were the most expensive and extravagant set of men in dealing with public works that could possibly be found. They were greedy, not of money, but of work; they tried to monopolize everything, and the consequence was that the country was put to vast expense for repairs which it would be spared under a different system. Let the Committee conceive the idea of an officer in a barrack who had the lock of his door out of repair. Before he got it repaired he had to apply to an Engineer officer, who had to speak to the contractor; and it could not be put to rights without the contractor's permission, or by any man not employed
290
under the Engineer. The colonel of a regiment was intrusted with the happiness not alone of the 600 or 800 men whom he commanded, but of their wives and children, and yet he could not be intrusted with the ordering of a lock out of repair to be set right. They had all heard of the story about the bellows; but there was a similar story about a pump, concerning which a correspondence had been going on for years, and was, he believed, still going on. He had asked the commander of a foreign regiment if a pump was out of order what he would do, and he said he would of course direct that it should be mended. When asked by whom? he answered, "By my soldiers." And when the case was put—"Suppose there were no soldiers that could do it," he seemed to think that an absurd supposition, because a regiment contained artificers of every class; but he replied he would order a proper workman to go and do it. Now what he wanted to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman was the necessity for a greater employment of military labour. If the right hon. Gentleman would consult the most distinguished Engineer officer this country had possessed for many years, Field-Marshal Sir John Burgoyne, be would find that a great economy might be effected by the employment of military labour. He was told that the experiment was now being tried in the Isle of Wight. All that was wanted was to develope the system, and he ventured to say that a very large reduction would soon be made under the head of barrack repairs.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that soldiers really required something to do. The other day a deserter was brought before him when sitting as a magistrate, and he said to the prisoner, "You are an intelligent young man—why did you leave the army?" The answer was, that he hated the army—that there was nothing but drill, drill, everlasting drill, day after day, and that it was perfectly intolerable.
SIR HARRY VERNEYwas of opinion that nothing tended so much to make the army unpopular as Aldershot. It would be very well to send men to encamp there occasionally; but to condemn them to winter quarters in those vile huts had a very mischievous effect.
COLONEL NORTHconcurred with the hon. Baronet as to the effect of Aldershot as winter quarters. He could not expect men returning from twelve or fifteen years of foreign service to like being sent to

291
Aldershot or the Curragh. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that soldiers had nothing to do in connection with their military drill, and that they had much time at their disposal for the work which had been alluded to.
MAJOR ANSONasked for some explanation of the item of £10,000 for old forges and shops.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKinquired how much it was proposed to spend on military billiard-rooms this year? [An hon. MEMBER: £3,000.] If that is so, I shall move an Amendment to it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there had been a great many inquiries and criticisms on this Vote; but he could not help expressing his sense of the courtesy with which they had been made. As to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) on the establishment charges, he had to say that the increase to which they referred was to be attributed to the transfer to that Vote of charges previously made in other Votes. With respect to what his hon. and gallant Friend had said on the great expense for barracks as compared with the accommodation afforded, this was the result of the anxiety manifested by the House for the health and comfort of the soldiers. Under existing regulations one-third more cubic space was provided for the soldier than had been hitherto afforded to him. He believed that this was a very great improvement; but the House would at once see that one of its consequences must be that the expense, as compared with the actual accommodation of a given number of troops, must be greater than it had formerly been. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained that the War Department was not proceeding as rapidly as it ought to do with the married soldiers' quarters. This showed how careful they had to be in preparing these Estimates. On the one hand, they were liable to be accused of extravagance; and on the other, they were open to attacks for not doing this and not doing that. He was as conscious as his hon. and gallant Friend of the importance, for the propriety and respectability of the army, of providing a sufficiency of married soldiers' quarters as soon as possible. But this was attended with very considerable expense, and therefore it had been thought advisable to proceed gradually. The sum voted this year was £30,000 for this purpose,
292
and he believed that that sum would be asked in succeeding years, although, as far as he was concerned, he was sorry that he could not ask double that sum. He was afraid that they must look forward to even a larger expenditure than that which now existed. With regard to the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) on the exceptional form of the Estimates, it would be very presumptuous in him to criticize the decisions of high authorities at the Treasury, of whom, but a short time ago, his hon. Friend was not the least distinguished; and he (Mr. Childers) knew that in these matters the other Departments had to pay some deference to the opinion of the Treasury.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not objected to the form of the Estimates; but been introduced that year ought to have been noticed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not the champion of the form in which these Estimates appeared, and admitted that his difficulty in explaining the Estimates was much increased by not bringing the charge of the current year in close juxtaposition with the charge of last year. With regard to the estimated expenses in the last column, he did not at all intend thereby to involve the House in any pledge. He very much doubted whether it did pledge the House; it was intended only as a frank statement of the final cost of the works commenced. As to the charges for Malta and Gibraltar, they were only to defray a particular outlay; and he would not disguise from the Committee that, in all probability, if these two fortresses were to be placed in a proper state of defence, they must look forward to a much larger expenditure than anything entered either in the present Estimates or in those of last year. Another item alluded to by his hon. Friend was the expenditure proposed on account of Chelsea Barracks, and here his hon. Friend was under some misapprehension. It was thought desirable to extend the barrack accommodation at Chelsea, with a view to set free the St. George's Barracks, behind the National Gallery, for a recruiting depôt. In carrying out the new regulations with regard to recruiting, and those improvements in the system which were mentioned in the Commissioners' Report, a good recruiting depôt in London was found indispensable, and the most convenient place was the St. George's Barracks,

293
which would accordingly be appropriated for that purpose, while the Chelsea Barracks would accommodate the Guards heretofore quartered there. Then there was the proposed new store accommodation, and he doubted whether any one charge in all these Estimates was of more pressing necessity than this. Ever since the Crimean War our stores had been huddled together in a ditch at the Tower in the most unseemly, inconvenient, and extravagant way. Hon. Members would recollect the painful alarm that arose some months ago as to the possibility of acts of outrage in London. He did not feel at liberty to disregard the remonstrance, pressed upon him from the highest quarters, lest damage should be done to these stores. They were close to the east angle of the Tower, exposed to injury by fire thrown over the wall; and upon representations made by competent officers whom he had appointed to inspect the Store Department, he ordered the stores to be at once removed. They were very large in quantity and very valuable; and, having no place to put them, he was obliged to distribute them all over the country — a measure not only inconvenient, but costly. Under those circumstances, he arranged for the purchase of a large building on the banks of the Thames, opposite Woolwich, but legal difficulties unfortunately occurred, and he was unable to proceed with the purchase. His hon. Friend said, "Why did you not put them at Deptford?" He was desirous to put them there, and sent to inspect the site. But it was absolutely necessary to have a water access, and the Admiralty would not part with any portion of the yard which had a water access. The only remaining point he had to notice was the reference that had been made to Aldershot. On this point, he (Sir John Pakington) thought there was some misapprehension. He was asked to relieve the soldiers from the inconvenience and annoyance of being quartered there in the winter. Now, the reports which reached him were that regiments returning to this country were far from objecting to Aldershot. For the sake of the soldier and of the country, however, he thought it was desirable that considerable portions of the troops should be sent into barracks in country quarters; and had it not been for the unfortunate outrages which occurred in connection with Fenians, arrangements would have been made with this view. But great expense arose in moving soldiers
294
about the country, and he wished to check the expense of unnecessary marches. He would not therefore venture upon pledges which he might not find convenient, or, perhaps, even agreeable to the soldier, to carry out; and he could only assure the hon. Baronet that he thought the recommendations of the Committee worthy of careful consideration.
MR. CHILDERSconcurred in the wish that the Estimates had been more clearly prepared. He trusted that the Civil Estimates when produced would be found to be arranged, not after the fashion of the Army, but of the Navy Estimates. He wished to say a word about the storehouses at Woolwich. He was far from saying that more store accommodation was not needed at the Tower. But the Admiralty had valuable property at Woolwich and at Deptford suitable for storing purposes; and he did not see why the Admiralty and the War Office might not have referred the matter to the Treasury for settlement. The First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that he would abandon Deptford, and, after a time, Woolwich, as far as shipbuilding was concerned; but Deptford was the best store receiving place in the Kingdom; and it would therefore be a great waste of money to spend £70,000 for new storehouses at Woolwich. He trusted that the Admiralty and the War Office would come to some arrangement in regard to this matter.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreminded the hon. Gentleman that he could not prepare these Estimates in reference to an opinion uttered by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty only a few days ago. He should be glad, however, to come if possible to an arrangement with the Admiralty, in which event the proposed expenditure would of course be unnecessary.
SIR HARRY VERNEYremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the possibility of sending a portion of the Guards away from the middle of London to a most inconvenient barrack at Chelsea. Two years ago, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) suggested that the barracks behind the National Gallery might, perhaps, be done away with at some future time. On the very night that suggestion was made he chanced to walk from the House to Hyde Park, and there found a mob busily engaged in knocking down the railings. That circumstance plainly showed

295
the impolicy of carrying out the suggestion, as these barracks were of great importance for securing the tranquillity of the metropolis in the event of disturbances breaking out.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the whole matter had been duly weighed and considered before it was determined to remove the barracks to Chelsea.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that the sum of £3,000 proposed for the new storehouses would be omitted.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONassured his hon. Friend that no premature step should be taken; and that he would make inquiries to see whether there could be any arrangement which would render the proposed expenditure unnecessary.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had intended to move the omission of the item of £3,000; but would not do so if he received an assurance that the matter should be decided by the Treasury.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he intended that the matter should be referred to the Treasury.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKmoved to omit from the Vote £3,000 for billiard tables. He did not see that we were bound to provide the officers of the army with billiard tables, any more than we were bound to provide them with card tables, fowling pieces, or horses for fox-hunting. It was also desirable for the sake of the young men themselves that they should not be encouraged to frequent billiard rooms, which were often so full of tobacco smoke that one could hardly see from one side to the other. This created lassitude, and the frequenters of the rooms could not always very well tell what they were about. It was too much to ask the public to find amusement for young men who entered the army. If their wages were too small, let them ask for more.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £3,000, for Billiard Rooms in Barracks, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lusk.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONremarked that the worthy Alderman had fought this battle of the billiard board last year with great gallantry, and had been defeated. The item for billiard tables was inserted last year for the first time by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) and the worthy Alderman could hardly have forgotten the grounds on which the Committee allowed it.
296
The Committee was influenced by these two considerations—first, that the officers' pay was very small, compared with the position they occupied, and secondly, that it was of great importance that officers in the various stations should have every inducement held out to them to engage in innocent recreation and amusement. Upon these considerations the Committee determined, by a considerable majority, to promote their amusement by providing billiard tables. He trusted the Committee would see the force of the arguments adduced last year, and not refuse to grant this Vote.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he should vote with his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lusk) if the Motion were pressed to a division.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 72: Majority 48.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 63.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 63.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. MITCHELLsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice. He was sorry that the task of bringing forward this Motion had not been undertaken by some Member of more experience; but, no one else having taken it up, he felt it his absolute duty to do so. He thought local investigations into corrupt practices at elections would be more satisfactory than as they were now conducted. Investigations should be more rapid, and should be made by one who was intimately acquainted with the law — a man of honour, capable of sifting evidence; but, at the same time, he was convinced that the retention by the House of its own jurisdiction and the right of determining who were its Members was essential to its dignity and independence. There was to be no appeal from the Judge who tried the petition. The proceeding of the Judge was to be final, and his order was to be carried

  297
  into execution. The present Bill proposed to introduce a power between the House and the electors, which had never before been heard of in the history of this country. Before 1770, election petitions were decided by the whole House; but between that date and the year 1828 these petitions were referred to a Committee of fifteen Members. In the beginning of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria great alterations were made, and Bills upon the subject were also passed in 1854 and 1860, the last Act which regulated elections being passed in 1863. In the Bill of last year, which bore the same names upon its back as the present, the most careful provision was made for the protection of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. The present Bill completely destroyed the privilege of the House of Commons to determine who its own Members were. This was a most miserable and vicious attempt to deal with this question. If he might without presumption suggest a plan by which the object of the Bill could be obtained, he should propose that a Committee of the most important Members of that House — men of the highest position and highest honour — should be appointed to draw up a list of barristers of seven years' standing, one of whom should be sent down to the spot with full powers to conduct the investigation, accompanied by two Members of that House, one from each side, who were to represent that House, and who, on their return, would be able to state whether, in their opinion, the investigation had been full and fair. That Commission should make a Report to the House; and the recommendations in that Report should be carried into effect within a week, if the Report were not objected to by a Member of that House. His plan, if adopted, would preserve the right and privilege of that House to say who were its Members, and would settle controverted elections in the best possible manner. In conclusion, he implored hon. Members to recollect that the privileges of the House had been of old, highly valued by its most important Members; and that, if they assented to the Bill, they would be placing the power of the Crown between the electors and that House.
  MR. KINGLAKEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while earnestly desiring to provide
  298
  the best tribunal for the trial of Controverted Elections, to reduce the cost of such trials, and to ensure the detection and punishment of bribery and corruption, is not prepared to assent to any measure which aims at the destruction of its ancient right and privilege to hold in its own hands the power of determining who are its Members, a right which the House has asserted and exercised, to its great advantage, for several hundred years, and upon the possession of which the dignity and independence of this House and the constitutional freedom of the electors greatly depend,"—(Mr. Alexander Mitchell,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that having been a Member of the Committee, which last year recommended a Bill something in the nature of that now under theconsideration of the House, he wished to be allowed to state some of the reasons which had induced them to come to the conclusions at which they ultimately arrived. Before doing so, however, he must remark that the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. A. Mitchell) had, by the terms of his Notice, led the House to believe that he desired that the trial of election petitions should remain as at present; but, on the contrary, when he came to make his speech, he had proposed, as an alternative to the scheme of the Bill, a plan which was open to two or three grave and fatal objections. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman proposed that two Members of that House should accompany a certain set of lawyers, who were to be barristers of seven years' standing, down to the spot from whence the petition emanated to try the election petition. If that proposition were adopted it would often be impossible that the trial of election petitions could be entered upon immediately; because, if the House were not assembled, whence would they get the two Members who were to form a portion of the Commission? In the next place, if the House were sitting, it might place the Members selected to go down to the country in a most inconvenient position as regarded their respective constituents, who would naturally find fault with them if they were absent when grave and important questions were under the consideration of the House. The third objection to the hon. Member's plan was the most fatal of them all. The Grenville Act had been passed for the purpose of getting rid of the horrible system of bringing discussions on election petitions upon the floor of that House; but the hon. Member proposed, in contravention of the spirit of that Act, to bring the Reports of the Commissioners under the cognizance of the House on the Motion of any hon.

  299
  Member who might object to decisions at which they had arrived. It would almost appear, from the manner in which this question had been argued both in that House and in the Press, as though their only object was to substitute for the Election Committee another tribunal; but, for his own part, he would not have consented to part, with the power of that House with respect to elections petitions upon that ground alone. The two great objects to be kept in view were to secure an immediate trial; and to secure that the trial should take place on the spot. By trying the case immediately they would get rid of the disgraceful system, which he was given to understand prevailed to a large extent, of pairing off one petition against another, by which the worst cases of corruption were prevented from coming before the public. It was, of course, difficult to procure evidence upon this point; but he was afraid there was but too much truth in the charge. Then, as to the advantages to be derived from a trial upon the spot, most hon. Members had been present during the time that one of those disgraceful scandals—the trial of an election petition—was going on, and one of the worst features of those trials was that frequently answer after answer was given which everyone present knew was untrue. This would not be the case if the evidence were given in the face of those who were fully acquainted with the facts, and at the place where the witness lived. The trial of elections as proposed by the Bill would be surrounded by circumstances similar to those attending ordinary trials by a Judge in open court. The trial of a charge of bribery could not, therefore, fail to be associated in the minds of the people with the trial of other criminal offences; and would, in time, induce the belief that, after all, bribery was a serious offence of which an honest man should be ashamed. It was said, however, that the House was unwilling to part with its jurisdiction. But what was the jurisdiction of the House in that matter at present? He said that the House as a House had no more jurisdiction in the case at present than it would have under the Bill. The House had no voice in the constitution of the Election Committees, and it had not reserved to itself the right of questioning the decisions of those Committees. As Sir Erskine May had accurately said, it was impossible to conceive a Legislative Assembly more strictly bound by a public law over which it had no control, and in carrying out
  300
  which it had little or no discretion. The moment the House had allowed the General Committee of Elections to be appointed unchallenged it had no more voice in the matter. Another illustration of the erroneous impression existing with regard to the jurisdiction of the House was to be found in the case of a bankrupt Member. If after a year that Member's bankruptcy was not reversed, the House did not think its jurisdiction encroached on because the seat was vacated without a Parliamentary inquiry into the solvency of its Member. All that was wanted in the trial of an election petition was to ascertain a matter of fact—whether A. B. was guilty of tendering a bribe or not. That was not the province of a Legislature, but eminently within the province of a Judge. Some hoped to see bribery die out as constituencies were enlarged; but he had little faith in that prophecy. It was true the smaller constituencies had furnished cases of most flagrant corruption; the obvious reason being that it was easier and cheaper to buy a small constituency than a large one. Others had directed attention to the West, and perhaps an hon. Member experienced in United States elections would furnish the House with trustworthy information on the subject. His belief, however, was that any person in the streets of a United States' city during a closely contested election would soon be asked whether he had voted, and, if not, would be informed that a sumptuous breakfast and a ten dollar bill were at his disposal in a neighbouring house. Still, it could not be denied the changes proposed by the Bill were very great, and it too often hapened that it was only when a change had been made that the wisdom of the original practice was discovered. But, notwithstanding this, the House should inquire under what circumstances the Bill had come before it. Two years ago the table of the House was laden with petitions, and, from time to time, hon. Members had received the records of the disclosures to which those petitions led. Another General Election was impending, and if some such Bill as the present were not passed a repetition of these unwelcome proceedings must necessarily follow. He therefore contended that some change was demanded by the necessities of the times; and, in his opinion, the changes proposed by the Bill were one and all sound in principle. He would have been unwilling to refer the trial of election petitions to any tribunal which had not the full confidence of the

  301
  country; but the scheme of the Bill left no room for criticism on this head. The new franchises conferred by the Act of last year, if used honestly, would be a source of strength to the House; but, if they became wares to be bought and sold, they would undoubtedly be a source of great weakness. If corruption entered largely into the composition of the next Parliament the money-elected would find that it was one thing to buy the suffrages of the people, but quite another to secure their confidence. Such a Parliament might well and fairly represent the heaped-up wealth of the country; but it would fail to feel the pulse which stir those working millions who go to make the real life-blood of the nation.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he feared some misapprehension existed regarding the constitutional question involved in the Bill. It seemed to be assumed that the jurisdiction of the House of Commons over its election petitions was a part of the ancient Constitution, and of the liberties of Parliament; but it could be traced back no earlier than Elizabeth's time, and originated in an anomalous usurpation by the House of Commons contrary to the common law of the country; though probably it was necessary, considering the influence of the Crown at that time, that Parliament should vindicate its right to say who should and who should not sit in the House. No such vindication, however, was necessary in these days. What, then, was the common law on the subject? Before that usurpation to which he referred, the common law was that a return to a writ, if triable, had to be invariably contested in the Court from which it had issued, and to which it returned. The writ for the election of Members of Parliament issued from the Court of Chancery; and the return was still made to that Court, and no Member could take his seat until the return had been so made. If questioned, the validity of the return was tried in the Courts of Law; if impeached by a demurrer, it was tried in the Court of Chancery, sitting as a Court of Common Law; if impeached by a traverse, the Lord Chancellor delivered the record into the hands of the officers of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the trial was made by that Court and a jury. This was the more worthy of remark because the Judges had lately declared themselves incompetent to decide any election questions; whereas, by the common law of the
  302
  country, the Judges were bound to decide such matters when they rested upon questions of fact. In cases of bribery, the Lord Chancellor, not being able to decide questions of fact, would in former times send the traverse to the Queen's Bench as a matter of course, and then it would be tried. So that it would appear that by the ancient common law every question of fact with regard to the validity of the return to the writ for the election of Members of Parliament was triable by the Judges with a jury, and not by the House of Commons, and that, when the validity of the election depended upon a question of law, it was decided by the Chancellor without a jury, sitting as a Judge at common law on the Common Law side of the Court of Chancery. So if the election of a Coroner, under the writ De Coronatore eligendo, or a Verderer, were impeached questions of law were decided by the Chancellor sitting on the Common Law side in Chancery, while questions of fact were triable by the Judges with a jury in the Court of Queen's Bench. The present anomalous power of the House of Commons had been assumed for political reasons; and he did not think that the House of Commons, in abandoning this jurisdiction, could fairly be charged with sacrificing any portion of its independence, especially when they remembered the great power which the House of Commons possessed and the diminished importance of the Royal Prerogative. Though he approved, however, the principles on which this Bill was founded, he doubted whether the mode selected was the one best calculated to carry out the objects which they had in view. He understood the Bill to provide that two Judges should be drafted from the Superior Courts, to decide upon this question of contested elections; but he much doubted whether they would be able to determine all the questions that would be raised after a General Election, while, at other times, they would have little more than sinecure appointments. He would recommend, instead of this proposal, that power be given to the Crown to issue a Special Commission whenever elections were to be decided upon—a plan by which the services of the most competent persons could be secured; while, when no election inquiries were pending, they would not have officials receiving salaries without rendering any services in return.
  MR. BERKELEYsaid, this was a Bill which had come down to the House by

  303
  lineal descent. A measure of this kind was first introduced during Lord Aberdeen's tenure of office after an election of more than usual vicious character, from a conviction that the electoral system might very well be altered for the better. The Earl of Aberdeen, however, shrunk from adopting the only remedy—the ballot—and the Bill was referred to a Committee composed principally of lawyers, and they as usual made a mess of it. The measure which that Committee brought forward was analysed by the late Mr. Coppock, in The Times, who concluded by saying, "When the House of Commons passes such a Bill as this, we all know what it means," and the Editor endorsed Mr. Coppock's opinion by this just remark: "This Bill is a pompous profession meant to be inoperative." The Bill found favour with the House because it contained one or two good clauses—such as doing away with bands and colours at elections. Every Member had felt the inconvenience and expense of such things, and so they passed the Bill. The result, howeve,, was, that the measure was found to be inoperative—nay, positively mischievous. It was, in fact, an Act passed to protect the candidates, and to punish the least guilty parties. The clauses against intimidation were a perfect farce; and those against bribery laid hold of the poor man, whilst the candidate passed by unscathed. The measure, however, died a natural death, and they then came before Parliament again for its renewal, but without the true remedy—the ballot. When the Bill went to the other House, Lord Derby gave it his parting blessing, and said that it was not worth more than so much waste paper. With that recommendation, however, it went to the country, when again, it was found inoperative, and to be, in fact, no more than so much waste paper. The First Lord of the Treasury had reproduced that Bill with a still more objectionable clause, and which proposed to give them a complete leap in the dark at the cost of £10,000 per year. The Committees of that House had not failed in their duty; the failure is in the law they are armed with. They might have passed candidate after candidate who had been guilty of bribery; but, with such a law for their guide, they could not find them guilty The Government did not attempt to deal with corruption or intimidation; but they passed a law to punish some wretched tailor or shoemaker who accepted £10, whilst they turned their back upon the candidate
  304
  from whom the £10 came. It had been throughout a mere tub for the whale, and they evaded the great and broad question of giving protection to the voter by the means of the ballot. Nothing but that would protect the voter, and cause purity of election. It was coming to that; but, according to the trick of the times and the fashion of the day, it would appear in that House as a Conservative measure.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that what the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said made, to a considerable extent, a case for the introduction of that Bill. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that since the recent changes in the constitution of the Election Committees of that House it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to point to any case in which those Committees had failed to do their duty; and that, nevertheless, in spite of the purity and efficiency of the Committees of that House, the system of bribery, as they very well kenw, prevailed to a scandalous degree. Well, the hon. Member had a nostrum of his own, and said, "Don't introduce anything to improve the present state of things till you give us the ballot." That, of course, was a fair line for the hon. Gentleman to take if he was anxious to recommend his own peculiar remedy to the exclusion of all others. [Mr. BERKELEY: I never said that.] That, however, was what the hon. Member's argument pointed to, because he contended that unless they gave the ballot it was of no use trying anything else. It was all very well for Gentlemen who believed the ballot was an invaluable, if not the only effectual, preservative against electoral corruption to argue in that manner. But those who were of a different opinion on that point, and who wished to consider whether there was any other way of grappling with that evil, were naturally led by their conviction that the Election Committees had done all that could fairly have been required of them, but without effect, to inquire whether it was not necessary to take a step further, and go beyond the precincts of the House itself in order to accomplish that at which they all professed to aim. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. A. Mitchell) expecting to hear from him a stronger case than he had presented. Of course, it was easy to say they all had the same great object in view, that they all desired to promote an efficient inquiry, and so forth;

  305
  but when the question came how that was to be done, the hon. Gentleman gave them a most vague and shadowy plan. And as to the hon. Gentleman's objection to the plan of the Government, he must say he never heard a more miserable objection; because, when reduced to its elements, it amounted to this, that, in his opinion, apparently, it was the House of Commons only that was interested in the character of the elections to that House, and that it would be a crying sin and shame if the House of Commons were to surrender its right to control and regulate the elections of its own Members. Now, he entirely disagreed with the hon. Gentleman at the very foundation of his argument; because he said it was not the House of Commons only that was interested in the purity of the elections to that House, but the whole country was interested in it. [Mr. MITCHELL here made a remark which did not reach the Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman might say it was an affair that rested with the constituencies and the House; but he held that the whole country was interested in the matter; and if by any particular system they could secure greater electoral purity, and could provide a better remedy against the evils which unfortunately crept into the election of Members of Parliament, he maintained that any attempt to resist that upon the ground that it involved an interference with certain imaginary privileges of the House of Commons was an objection to which the country would never listen, and ought not to listen. Of course, if he could show that the particular proposal contained in the Bill would be inefficient for its purpose, that was a valid objection; but the main ground on which the hon. Gentleman put his argument was that they would have another power in the State interfering between the electors and the elected. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had answered the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed extremely well, and had shown that there were now various instances in which another power interfered between the electors and the elected. The hon. Member for Bedford noticed the case of a Member of that House who might be adjudged a bankrupt; but he mentioned another and more frequent occurrence of the interposition of another power—namely, in the very settlement of the list of electors themselves. Who was it that adjudged whether an elector had or had not a right to his vote? Why, the Revising Barrister,
  306
  a power not appointed by that House at all—but as the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed would say—by another branch of the Legislature; and they might as well say it was an infringement of the privileges of that House that Revising Barristers should go round the country to decide whether a man had a right to his vote as that a Judge or any other tribunal should go to decide whether he had rightly exercised his franchise. He did not wish to occupy the time of the House by discussing that matter. It seemed to him that, if they were really in earnest about it, they do much better by proceeding to consider the Bill submitted to them by the Government, and not only by the Government, but by the careful Report of a very well-selected Committee of that House, comprising the most important Members chosen from all parts of the House, who gave great attention to that subject last Session. The Government when they brought in their measure last Session, did, indeed, proceed tentatively and cautiously, and it was true, as the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed said, that that Bill, as originally introduced, preserved the right of the House of Commons to review the decisions which another tribunal might come to on these matters. What the Government had felt was, that it was important they should introduce a measure which would be efficacious, and which would also be accepted, and that it was of no use bringing in one that might look well, but that would be exploded. Therefore, they proposed a measure which, in the first instance, was very carefully prepared, to preserve the ultimate control of that House over these cases. But the moment that Bill was introduced, Member after Member rose and said, if they were to make the attempt they should do it on sound principles, and not seek to bring the decisions of the external tribunal under the review of that House; and when the Bill came before the Committee, there was found to be almost an unanimous opinion there that it would be better to intrust that jurisdiction to a tribunal which would command confidence, and with which they could leave the final decision. The Government accepted the decision of the Committee, and the Bill had been brought in in accordance with that decision. If they went into Committee he should be prepared to discuss the particular framework of the tribunal; but he thought, if the House was really in earnest in its desire to check bribery at

  307
  elections, that it would fairly grapple with the question, and that it was, he might almost say childish, and certainly futile, to be raising these objections as to an unwillingness to part with an imaginary privilege of that House which stood in the way of serious improvement.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM - MARTINsaid, he approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) that the old common law practice should be reverted to, and the evidence on election petitions be heard before a Judge and jury. It was proposed to inflict a very heavy penalty on a man for bribery—no less than making him an outlaw for seven years, which was a great deal worse than the punishment which would be inflicted on him if he had robbed a hen-roost. And yet the man might have been guilty of no crime at all. They proposed not to subject him to the opinion of the country—to which there was no objection—but to the caprice of a single individual. He did not, in the least degree, impute any impropriety to the Judge, who would, no doubt, try the case conscientiously; but the opinion of Judges on the moral guilt of bribery varied, for he had himself heard one Judge assert that, in his opinion, there was no moral guilt to be imputed to a candidate for the former borough of St. Albans, because it was the custom to give the voters £10 a head all round, therefore, a man gained the same whichever way he voted; and another assert that, in his view, it was bribery on the past of a candidate to subscribe to the local charities, and even to the local rifle corps. If, as was said by the right hon. Baronet, bribery was an evil which it was to the interest of the whole country that anyone practising it should be subjected to the penalty, then the accused person ought to be tried by a jury of his countrymen. So strong were the opinions of some men as to what was bribery, that he remembered on the occasion of one of his elections giving a dinner to his own father, and the solicitor who was the agent came in, and insisted, under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, that his father should pay for his share of the dinner. His father had to pay, and the solicitor saw a regular receipt given for it before he went away. Now, was that an act of bribery or not? This Bill ought not to be made a trap involving the most fearful penalties for what might be a perfectly innocent act. He was told a few days ago by a most eminent
  308
  counsel and solicitor, both of them opposed to him in politics, that frightful extortion might be committed under this Bill. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) said that time was a great element in the matter; but in twenty days a man might be able to make up something that would extort a very considerable sum from an unfortunate Member. There was his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, who would not give sixpence away improperly, and who would yet go the length of subscribing to the Nottingham Rifle Corps. [Mr. OSBORNE: Yes; or a dinner to my father.] Suppose a man went in twenty days after on election to his hon. Friend, and said, "Your Friend, Mr. Wykeham-Martin, has been down to Nottingham, through his great zeal for you, and he, having come down on your account, having walked out with you frequently, and being, in fact, your agent, has given a quart of beer to one of the electors." [Mr. OSBORNE: He would not care much for a quart.] In that case there would be no suspicion of bribing; but there would be the offence much more difficult to avoid, of treating. If the man in that case did not have matters squared with him, the Member's career might be cut very short, and he would be made an outlaw for seven years. His hon. Friend might not, under such circumstances, submit to extortion; but many timid Members might. If this Bill only had those offences which constituted bribery properly defined, it might be made a very valuable measure; but if not it might become a most iniquitous one. If Her Majesty's Government would satisfy him that the Bill was bonâ fide, and not to be made into an engine of tyranny and oppression, he would cordially support it; but if not, he should be inclined to vote not with the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed but against the Speaker leaving the Chair.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: Sir, if the question were solely between the Bill of Her Majesty's Government and the Amendment, I should have no hesitation in at at once deciding for the Bill. Not that it corresponds or comes up in all respects to my notion of what such a Bill should be. Nor do I believe that by any one expedient—and there is only one expedient in this Bill—we can hope to put down corrupt practices. If the House are in earnest in their desire to put down corrupt practices at elections—and I am bound to believe that they are, however little credit they receive for such earnestness out of doors—I apprehend they

  309
  will be obliged to have recourse, not to one, but to several expedients. Nevertheless, I think favourably of the Bill, because though it does in reality only one thing, that thing is a vigorous one, and shows an adequate sense of the emergency. It shows a sense that, in order to put down this great evil, it is necessary to go out of the common path. The truth is that, however possible it may be for Committees of this House to be impartial on the question to whom the seat shall be given—and I do not deny that they are often impartial in that respect, nor is it hopeless that they might be always so—nobody out of this House, and I think I may almost add in it, believes that so long as the jurisdiction remains in this House the penalties against the giver of the bribe will ever be seriously enforced. There are several reasons for this, some of which, perhaps, had better be understood than expressed. To confine myself to what may be said with safety; any tribunal that acts only occasionally as a tribunal, still more any person called for the first time so to act, as is often the case with Members of Parliament, has naturally a very strong indisposition to convict: and still more is this the case when those who have to decide are men of the same class, and the same general cast of feelings, and subject to the same temptations as the accused, and men of whom it must be said that hitherto they have been disposed to consider a scrape of this sort as much more a misfortune than a crime. I think that there is, after all, something in the objection to the proposal for giving the ultimate decision to a Judge not appointed by the House. There is some reason against their handing over their jurisdiction at once and for ever to a functionary appointed solely by the Crown; but there is an easy mode of getting rid of that objection—namely, by making the Act temporary. I am not sure that it should not be annual—that it ought not, like the Mutiny Act, to be renewed every year, so that there should never be any long time during which evil consequences need be suffered. And although I do not myself think that any evil consequences are likely to follow, still, as where there is a bare possibility there is always apprehension, I hope that, if the House adopts the Bill, the Government will see the propriety of introducing some limitation such as I have suggested. There is another point on which I wish to say something. Great objections appear to be felt to turning over these inquiries to the
  310
  Judges of the land. Would it not be a suitable way of meeting these objections if this tribunal were to be only a tribunal of appeal? Indeed, even if the House should not choose to adopt this tribunal — if they should keep these matters in the hands of a Committee of their own Members presided over by a legal assessor—and few, I think, will now deny that there must at least be a legal assessor—whether the House adopt this way, or whether they adopt the proposal of the Government—there are very strong reasons for making the tribunal only a tribunal of appeal. It is only by enquiry diligently made on the spot, that the truth in such matters can be discovered. I will make one suggestion, which will be found in a pamphlet which has attracted a good deal of attention, and has been read, I know, by Members of the Government. It is written by Mr. W. D. Christie, formerly a Member of this House, and who I hope may be so again. It is that there should be a local inquiry by a person of competent legal qualifications after every Parliamentary election, whether there is a petition or not. ["Oh, oh!"] Notwithstanding the dissent with which this proposition seems to be met, much may be said in its favour; for the very worst cases are invariably those in which petitions are either not presented, or, having been presented, are afterwards withdrawn, because it is found that an inquiry would be equally damaging to the case of the petitioner, both parties being tarred with the same brush. These are such flagrant cases that I am sure it must be admitted that, unless they are in some manner provided for, it will be impossible effectually to put down bribery. The officer whom I suppose to be appointed would proceed after every election to the spot, and there sit in public to receive any complaints that may be made. Of course it is a necessary consequence that this officer should have the power, where the complaints are frivolous, of throwing the expense on the complainant. And whatever expenses would not thus be met, should be defrayed by the locality—should be, in fact, a public charge. There is the more reason for appointing such an officer, as it is indispensably necessary that there should be an inquiry, not only into Parliamentary, but into municipal elections, which are the nurseries of Parliamentary bribery. Mr. Philip Rose, a Conservative solicitor, well known to many hon. Members opposite, has expressed an opinion on this subject which

  311
  is well entitled to attention. Mr. Rose says, in his evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, that in a vast number of places, illegal practices are carried on at municipal elections by a regular machinery, which is also made use of at Parliamentary elections. He adds that great pressure is brought to bear upon Members of Parliament to contribute towards the expenses of municipal contests, because it is held out to them that £10 spent upon one of these is better than £100 spent in a Parliamentary contest; and that it is an axiom among agents—"We were able to return our municipal candidate, and we shall therefore be able to return our Parliamentary candidate." After such testimony, coming from such a quarter, it is plain that, if you really wish to put down bribery and corruption at Parliamentary elections, you must extend your interference to municipal elections also. In addition to the duties which I have suggested that the Commissioners of Inquiry should perform after each election, there are a number of other duties which might well be performed by those functionaries. They would naturally act as election auditors; and, in places from which no petition proceeds, their principal business will probably consist in scrutinizing the accounts which Members are already obliged to render, and which ought to be required from them with greater accuracy and completeness. Belonging to the same class from which revising barristers are taken, there will be an obvious propriety in their acting also in that capacity; and they might even fulfil the duties of returning officers. ["Oh, oh!"] Whatever functionaries of this description may be appointed, no fear need be entertained that there will be any want of work for them. If you feel that the control of all these matters ought not to pass out of your own hands, you might leave the nomination of these functionaries in the hands of the Speaker; but any difficulty on that score will best be got rid of by making the legal authority proposed by the Bill of Her Majesty's Government the tribunal of appeal. These are the suggestions which I have felt it my duty to offer in reference to the measure brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Head of the Administration. The reasons in support of them will be found at length in the very able pamphlet to which I have referred.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, however unpleasant the proposal of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill)
  312
  might be to the House and to the country, which would have to pay for it, he thought one set of gentlemen, at all events, would owe him a debt of gratitude—he meant the revising barristers and barristers of seven years' standing. The scheme was so chimerical that he should not, at that time of night, waste the time of the House by answering it. There was to be, it seemed, a Court of Appeal, so that there would be two trials instead of one, which would perpetuate and increase the very objection now made to our present election tribunals, that they were so expensive. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), who had given reasons which it was impossible for any man to answer, that so far from the dignity of the House being concerned in retaining its jurisdiction, it was rather a point of weakness and dissatisfaction throughout the country to see the present unsatisfactory way in which Committees discharged their duties. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) lately say that the issues before the Committees were so simple that any body of men could easily decide them. One of the most complicated questions was that of agency. If the House gave up their jurisdiction, as he thought they would be quite right in doing, they ought to transfer it to the highest possible tribunal. He had as great respect for the dignity of the Judges, with whom he was more nearly connected, as the noble Lord opposite, and he put it to him, whether it would not be possible to get this jurisdiction undertaken by them: When this House gave the Judges the appointment of revising barristers they did not object that that patronage would destroy their independence and render them political, he recognized no right in the Judges to decide upon their duties; if they objected to discharge them, the course open to them was clear. In the words of the excellent prayer which they used to repeat in College, there would always be a supply of men duly qualified to serve in Church and State. The duties of the Judges had been very much diminished of late by two Acts transferring a large share of the business which formerly came before them to the County Courts on the one hand, and to the masters and clerks on the other. And further than this, it was proposed that three Judges should be allowed to sit in banco instead of four. The fourth, when he did sit, was always an outsider; for the Chief Justice sat in

  313
  the middle, with a puisne on either side of of him, and the fourth was unable to communicate with anybody. With every possible respect for the Judges, they should be invited to re-consider their decision. It might be necessary to add two or three to the total number, and when a necessity arose for sending down a special Commission connected with elections all the names might be put together and a couple of Judges chosen by ballot. The Scotch Judges had very little to do, and they might be got to try the Scotch petitions. The Irish Judges also, his friends told him, had a great deal of leisure on their hands; and if they were called upon to take cognizance of the Irish elections, that would be only "justice to Ireland." With a little coaxing and encouragement on the part of the Prime Minister, backed by an expression of opinion on the part of the House, the Judges, he was convinced, might be induced to undertake the duties which it was sought to intrust to their hands.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that one suggestion made by the hon. Member for Westminster, to the effect that any transfer of jurisdiction to an external tribunal should be temporary in its character and renewable from time to time, was well worthy of favourable consideration. The experiment was a bold one, and he entertained great doubts whether it would succeed. The House seemed hardly to attach sufficient value to the constitutional privilege which, to a great extent, it still retained of appointing its own tribunal to try those important questions concerning the seats of its own Members. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) had very properly objected to the proposal to place the trial of controverted elections in the hands of a Judge without a jury. For what was the present tribunal but a small jury selected with care by the House, and composed of men in whom it could trust, to try the question of facts, whether the sitting Member by his agents had or had not been guilty of bribery? Let the House bear in mind that this privilege had been only won from the Crown after a great struggle 250 years ago. It was thought then by our ancestors, who were as wise, perhaps wiser, than ourselves upon these matters, that it was essential to their independence that they should have the trial of these questions in their own hands. And if hon. Members thought fit to look back to the Great Remonstrance
  314
  presented by the House of Commons to King James at the commencement of his reign, they would find that this was one of the points most strongly insisted upon by the Commons. What was the proposal now made by the Government, with the sanction, apparently, of many hon. Members present, and with the approval of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread)? It was to transfer to one person nominated by the Crown the trial of controverted elections. The nomination of the Crown now-a-days was the nomination of the party commanding a majority in that House. And when party spirit ran high—and they knew that Judges, before their appointment at any rate, had not been untainted with party spirit—how long did the House suppose that the decision of a single Judge sitting to try, without appeal, the character of hon. Gentlemen and of constituencies, would continue to be regarded with respect? However pure and upright a single Judge might be they might rely upon it that, after a time, there would be, rightly or wrongly, a weight of odium accumulating against his decisions, rendering it impossible for such a tribunal to continue. He did not say that the present tribunal was a perfect one; but, like a jury, it ceased to exist as soon as it had given a decision, and though that decision might be found fault with by people out-of-doors, no personal imputation rested upon those who had composed it. They were in the long run admitted to have acted honestly, even if imperfectly, and no odium attached to them. But would this be the case with a single Judge? If a gentleman of the long robe who had taken a warm part in Parliamentary conflicts became a Judge, as often happened, and if he had to decide absolutely upon the seat and the character of the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition, would his decision be accepted as a pure and impartial one? He had spoken with eminent men of the legal profession on the subject; and they had urged with much force that such a jurisdiction involved an amount of odium and an imputation of party spirit which in the long run would assuredly destroy its weight and character. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, than whom there was no more competent authority, had stated this objection very forcibly, showing that Judges were now free from such imputations because they had not to try questions of this kind, and the argument was no mere ad captandum one, but was entitled to great

  315
  weight. His hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) had urged that the plan proposed would secure a trial on the spot and an immediate decision; but if, as the hon. Member for Westminster had suggested, there were a fishing inquiry into every election, there would be little prospect of an immediate decision, and even if only returns that were petitioned against were inquired into, he questioned whether the dilatoriness of the new tribunal would not far exceed that of the present one. Indeed, one of I the advantages of Parliamentary Committees, whether with regard to election petitions or Private Bills, was that their administration of justice, however rough and unskilful, was rapid. A decision was given within a reasonable time, whereas, if forty, fifty, or sixty petitions had to be tried by two Judges in all parts of the country, with the host of witnesses which a local inquiry would produce, he doubted whether the proceedings would be completed in less than two or three years. He thought I that a great deal of the public feeling which existed as to the unsatisfactory nature of the present tribunal was due to a misapprehension. The popular notion was that a Committee sat to try the corruption of a constituency; but in truth the simple issue to be tried was whether the sitting Member had been guilty, personally or by his agents, of bribery or treating, and the amount of evidence adduced by the petitioners was generally the smallest which could be adduced with safety to their cause. A Committee had not to inquire into the general corruption of a constituency, over which, indeed, all parties were more or less interested in drawing a veil; and the simple issue presented to them was one which a jury of English gentlemen were perfectly competent to determine. Moreover, the expense, unless from an unforeseen accident the proceedings were unusually delayed, was not excessive. An inquiry on the spot would, he believed, be more costly—["Oh!"]—because the expensive part of the machinery would have to be taken down to the inexpensive part. He believed it would be dearer for the counsel and agents to go down from London than for the witnesses to be brought up. However that might be, he thought the local inquiry should be confined to the charge of corruption against a constituency; and if the Bill provided a permanent tribunal for the investigation of such charges, whenever made, without the cumbrous preliminary of an Address by both Houses to
  316
  the Crown, it would be much better than the present proposal. While trusting that the House would weigh well the importance of parting with a privilege wrung from the Crown by our ancestors, he would recommend the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. A. Mitchell) not to divide the House upon his Amendment, since it was not favourably viewed, and he thought that in Committee the practical difficulties of the Government scheme would be so evident as to necessitate a preference for something like the existing system.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the House was now discussing for the first time a measure of great importance, and, before going into Committee, they ought to know how Scotch and Irish petitions were to be tried. Were they to be tried in the same manner, or were they to be tried in Scotland and Ireland by the ordinary Judges? He would not attempt the disagreeable task of persuading hon. Members to retain an authority which they felt themselves conscientiously unfit to exercise; but he doubted whether this measure would improve the administration of the law. It had, apparently, two objects—first to deprive the House of its jurisdiction, in regard to the right of Members to sit in it, and secondly to repress electoral corruption. Now, would it not be better to pursue the latter object alone, without dealing with the question of jurisdiction? That question had important constitutional bearings; and its transference to the Judges might raise the question whether a seat had been vacated, or whether a writ had been properly issued, leading, perhaps, to a conflict between the House and an authority beyond its walls. It had been said that there was a law of the land as administered in Westminster Hall, and a law of Parliament administered in this House, and that a Judge thoroughly conversant with the former might be profoundly ignorant of the latter. Now, a Judge vested with this authority might enforce what he held to be the law of the land without taking due cognizance of the law of Parliament. So far from their being likely to repress bribery, he believed these provisions were artfully conceived for the purpose of encouraging bribery. ["Oh!"]. He would tell the House why. A Judge of Assize was to go down, with all the dignity of his office, to try a charge of electoral corruption. He would not go down like those ferrets, the Commissioners, who had no dignity to uphold, and who could pur-

  317
  sue
  their inquiries when and where they pleased, and ascertain the truth. The Judge was to try an issue technically raised under an Act of Parliament. Well, the parties prosecuting might not appear, and then the Judge could no nothing; his functions were practically at an end. In order to ensure that the Judge should have; as little as possible to do, what did the Bill as propose? It proposed that a man should be compelled to give such a security as would make him very unwilling to act at all. And, then, in order to insure a full disclosure of corruption, the Bill provided that, in the case of an inquiry into the general corruption of a constituency, the expenses of the inquiry should fall upon the inhabitants of the place. He could not conceive any expedients better devised to render the inhabitants indisposed to a full and searching inquiry. Besides, the Judge would confine himself to trying the one simple and narrow issue—the right to the seat; and, the moment a single act of bribery was proved, the Judge would be called upon to decide the question of the seat, as it was not for the interest of anyone to expose general corruption or to risk the disfranchisement of the borough. He was perfectly ready to go into Committee for the purpose of seeing whether they could discover a mode for putting down bribery and corruption, though he held that the Bill would wholly fail to effect the main purpose for which it was said to have been introduced. He recommended the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he believed the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was very easy—namely, that, by the very provisions of the Bill now before the House, Her Majesty's Government must almost of necessity bring in a measure which, regard being had to the different circumstances of the country, would establish as nearly as possible the same system for Scotland and Ireland. The objections taken to this Bill were of four kinds. The first objection insisted on in the Amendment, and still more strengthened by the argument of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), was that it was proposed to take away the jurisdiction of the House. But the Secretary of State for India had shown very clearly that the privilege supposed to belong to the House was clearly imaginary. It was very true, as the right hon. Gentleman had reminded them, that the House
  318
  had 200 years ago extorted this privilege from the Crown. But the state of things was very different 200 years ago from what it was now. Then it was the law and custom of Parliament to determine the right of the different electors to vote for the different places, and that law and custom of Parliament could not be interpreted by any authority but that of Parliament itself. But the moment they turned the right of election into statutory law, then it was no longer a question for the House of Commons to determine, according to the custom of Parliament, but according to the rules by which Courts of Law decide that and other questions. The question which was sent to a Committee upstairs to decide was not what the Parliamentary custom might be, but what the statute law was. Then, the second objection taken by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) was to this effect, that they were about to transfer to the Judges of the land a power which they might exercise in a manner not satisfactory to the House, inasmuch as they were appointed by the Crown. Such an objection as that would also have been very good 200 years ago, when the Judges were removeable at the pleasure of the Crown; but when once the Judges were made independent, they were as independent of the Crown as of that House in administering the law. The next objection was one that was urged by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykeham-Martin), and there was some force in it—that they were giving power to a single Judge to try questions affecting the character of individuals, and to inflict upon them very heavy penalties. Now, the Bill dealt with two different subjects—the one a question of law, the other of fact. With regard to the question of law, that would be referred back under the Bill to more Judges than one. But with regard to the question of fact, it might be worth while to consider in Committee, whether in some cases it might not be the privilege and right of persons whose interests were affected to insist upon having the matter tried by a jury under the direction of a Judge. The last objection was raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—namely, that they would by this Bill increase, instead of diminish, corruption and expense. But how could that be proved? The fact was, that if they sent these matters to an independent tribunal, where the Judges were not interested in the least degree in

  319
  upholding corruption or in screening it, the probability was that they would do more to put a stop to the vicious practices than if they were to keep the inquiry in the hands of those who might come personally into contact with the gentlemen implicated in the alleged crime, and who, therefore, might be disposed to be more lenient than a Judge of the land would be. On the subject of expense, his hon. and learned Friend could hardly be serious in arguing that to try these questions where the witnesses were not brought from a great distance, where large fees were not paid to counsel, and where constant adjournments would not take place, could be more expensive than it was at present where such inconveniences also necessarily occurred. It is true that by this Bill the alleged corruption of any particular constituency would not be investigated, because the issue would be raised not with regard to the general constituency, but with regard to the particular seat, and, in such cases, recourse must be had to a petition presented to that House, and the matter must be tried by a different tribunal when the charge of corruption was distinctly brought against a whole constituency. For these reasons he hoped the House would go into Committee, in order to constitute a better tribunal than that which they had been hitherto able to obtain.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was anxious to say a few words on this Bill. He thought it was incumbent on those who wished to make a great change—to take away a privilege of 200 years' standing—to show distinctly that what they proposed would be an improvement, and that it would stop that corruption which it was its professed object to put down. Let them look to the tribunal constituted under the Bill. The House was now discussing a second proposal. The first proposal was for Judges of a certain standing; but now they had got to Judges of higher salaries and greater honours, and not only that, but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) said that they must have a jury also. But where were they to end? Now he, for one, was of opinion that they were departing from the old principles of our law and jurisprudence in putting crimes of such vast consequence not only to individuals, but to the country, upon the judgment of a single man. He cared not who that man was for; they could not show, in the whole range of our law, an instance in which issues of this kind were placed at the will of a
  320
  single man without appeal. For what were they doing? They were not only depriving the individual of a seat; but they were putting it in the power of this Judge to stamp with infamy for seven years, any man whom he might condemn honestly, no doubt, but perhaps mistakenly. If the case were a simple one, where there was no conflict of testimony, it was not of much consequence what kind the tribunal was, for justice was sure to be done. But in these cases there was always a great conflict of testimony from the mouths of witnesses not the most reliable; for, generally, the class of witnesses on election petitions was tinged with party feeling. He did not mean that they said what they knew not to be true; but in the heat of elections people acted under the influence of strong feelings, and the most contrary evidence of what took place was given. The proper tribunal for such cases was a jury; and if the House wanted to have justice done they would take care to have juries where men helped one another to come to a right conclusion. Juries would do justice where a single Judge would not do it. In the conflict of testimony a single man would shrink from coming to a hostile conclusion. And why did they say that cases where a a man's life, or character, or property was at issue should come before a jury, and not merely before a Judge? Well, if they were right in that, on what principle would they hand cases of contested elections over to a single Judge? At present a Committee of five was a jury composed of a man's equals, and that was the principle of our law from beginning to end. He thought it was incumbent on the Government to show that the Court which they proposed to establish would be better, more in consonance with the usages of this country, and more likely to stop corruption. He did not believe it would be. He gave the Government great credit for endeavouring to deal with this very difficult subject; but he did not believe that their plan would be an improvement on the existing system. If this were so, it would be better not to proceed. He did not think that abstract Resolutions were convenient. It would be far better to have no abstract Resolution at all on the matter. He was sure that the House would even give up a privilege if by so doing they could stop bribery and corruption; but he repeated that he did not think this Bill would have that effect.
  MR. CRAUFURDopposed the progress of the Bill, on the ground that it would, by its operation, entail as much expense as, or more expense than, was caused by the present system. He thought that it was due to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and to the House that the Head of the Government should meet the objections which had been urged against the Bill. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  This Amendment met with no Seconder.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  MR. DISRAELImoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. AYRTONhoped that before the Motion was agreed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would state the intentions of the Government with respect to Ireland and Scotland.
  MR. DISRAELI: We propose, when this Bill is carried, to introduce Bills for Ireland and Scotland analogous in their nature to this, though not exactly the same. We do not contemplate that it will be necessary to increase the number of Judges either in Ireland or in Scotland.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Dodson, Sir John Pakington, The Judge Advocate General.)
Order for Committee read.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 22 (Providing for the infliction of corporal punishment).
MR. OTWAYsaid, that this question had been so often argued in the House that he should not dwell upon it at any length. Last year he showed that corporal punishment had failed as a remedial measure; that those soldiers who had been subject to it had become worse men; and that, in modern armies, with one exception, corporal punishment had been abandoned. In the Russian army he believed the lash was still administered; but even there it was more equitable than with us, seeing
322
that not only private soldiers, but officers, and even noblemen, were occasionally subject to the infliction. The question had very much progressed since it had last; been discussed in that House, although in the House itself the cause had retrograded; their proceedings with respect to the practice having been something like the Pyrrhic dance — a step forward and then another backwards. Although flogging had been abolished for certain offences, the distinction which had before prevailed was abolished. Formerly all soldiers when first enlisted belonged to the first class, on which corporal punishment could on no pretence be inflicted; but, in a weak moment, the Minister for War yielded to the representations of Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and abolished the distinction of classes which Lord Herbert had pronounced to be the great protection of the soldier. It might be said that this question should not be discussed now, because the larger question of Courts martial was submitted to a Royal Commission. Of late an extraordinary theory of Government had been acted upon when difficult questions were for settlement, which was to relieve the Executive of its responsibilities by referring the matter to a Royal Commission. Passing that by, the Royal Commission in question could not command the confidence of the country. With the exception of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), until the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) was appointed the other day, the Members of that Commission had, by voice or vote, expressed themselves in favour of corporal punishment. Yet he assumed that the most important thing to be decided by the Royal Commission was this very question of corporal punishment. Pending the decision of this Royal Commission, he maintained that it was important that the punishment of the lash should be suspended. What would be the feelings of any man who was punished while the question was under consideration? And who were the men on whom we inflicted this degrading punishment? In all times, from the days of Cressy and Agincourt to those of Waterloo and Lucknow, the British soldier had been a model of valour and discipline, and yet he was to be subjected to the same degradation as a cowardly garotter or a convicted felon. Parliament had recently admitted the fathers and brothers of British soldiers within the pale of the Constitution; let them do one thing

323
more—let them endeavour to elevate the soldier rather than degrade him; let them make him feel that he was the armed citizen of a free country. In conclusion, he moved to omit part of the clause, and to insert—
"No court martial shall for any offence whatever committed under this Act during the time of peace, within the Queen's Dominions, have power to sentence any soldier to corporal punishment."
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "any," in line 36, to the word "shall," inclusive, in line 40, in order to insert the words "no court martial shall for any offence whatever committed under this Act during the time of peace, within the Queen's Dominions, have power to sentence any soldier to corporal punishment,"—(Mr. Otway,)
—instead thereof.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that considering the present position of the question, he should not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member at any length. He would merely remind the Committee that very great concessions were made upon this subject last Session. Corporal punishment was now in a very different position from that in which it had ever been before. The Government had recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission, which was to inquire not only into the constitution of Courts martial, but into the whole system of military punishments. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he rose to correct two inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Chatham. Before last Session men might be flogged for mutiny and insubordination, whether they were in the first or second class, and that rule was continued; and besides the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), there was another unpledged Member of the Royal Commission, and that was himself. Last year he expressly guarded himself against giving any opinion as to whether corporal punishment ought to be done away with or not. As the subject was now before a Commission, of which he was a Member, he must abstain from taking part in any division upon it.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, last year he voted against the continuance of corporal punishment, and he held the same opinion still; for he believed it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would state that it should be abolished — that would, he thought, tend to increase the morâle of the army more than anything else; but the House had been informed that he had been appointed a Member of
324
the Royal Commission; and, after consulting the other Members of it, he felt it was a delicate matter to give a vote upon a question which that Commission had to try. Therefore he trusted that the question would not be pressed to a division.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, that having the honour of being Chairman of the Commission which had been alluded to, he also should refrain from voting on the present occasion.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLobserved, that last year it was said by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) that men were deterred from entering the army by the existence of corporal punishments. Now, the fact was that, during the last year, 26,000 men had re-enlisted; and this was a larger number than those for the whole seven years before amounted to, and recruiting had during the year enormously increased. The cases of corporal punishment had also during the year amounted in number to only seventeen for the whole army. They, at this time of day, were rather in favour of jumping to conclusions all of a sudden. Much improvement had taken place in the army, and this was caused to a great extent by the measure of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who increased the pay of the soldier 2d. a day, and the consequence was that they were getting better and more contented men. As a proof of this, he might mention that out of the 812 men who composed his own battalion, there were only two who could not sign the pay-book. He hoped that corporal punishment would grow less yearly; but his own opinion was that, for the ruffians who were in the army — for there were some such—there ought be retained the power of inflicting corporal punishment, which power should be exercised with discretion and with great reluctance.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the strongest statement in favour of the Amendment was that there had, in the year, been only seventeen cases of corporal punishment, whilst enlistments were largely increased by the extra 2d. a day. This being so, there was no reason why they should not send the seventeen bad bargains packing, and do away with this degrading punishment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 152: Majority 25.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 32 (Expenses of confining military prisoners in county gaols).
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHmoved an Amendment. The hon. Member explained that, according to the present regulations, Government only allowed 1s. a day for the maintenance of military prisoners in county gaols, which, in many cases, was not sufficient to cover the expenses. He moved that words be added to the clause enacting that a sum equal to the expense which each prisoner might occasion for maintenance and establishment charges in such prison should be allowed by the Government.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONresisted the Amendment, on the ground that 1s. a day covered all expenses in the case of military prisoners.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 67 (Interpretation).
LORD OTHO FITZGERALDmoved an Amendment, with the view of placing Ireland in the same position as England and Scotland with respect to the billeting of soldiers. In the latter two countries private individuals were exempted from having soldiers on the march billeted upon them, and what he wanted was that Ireland also should be included in the exemption, which could be effected by leaving out of the clause the words "in Great Britain." The noble Lord moved accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)opposed the Amendment. The grievance complained of was seldom experienced, and limited to a few persons. The fact was that the scarcity of public-houses in certain parts of the country in Ireland rendered it necessary to billet soldiers upon some private houses.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that having exempted England and Scotland from this grievance, the Government sought to impose it upon Ireland. This, then, might be considered one of the causes of Irish discontent.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that having made inquiries upon the subject, he found that, from the scarcity of public-houses on certain roads in Ireland, it became necessary sometimes to billet soldiers on private houses.
MR. CHILDERSbelieved that the same reasons precisely had been urged in favour
326
of the power of billeting soldiers in Scotland. In spite, however, of such reasons, Scotland was exempted from this annoyance, and no inconvenience had been experienced in consequence.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Preamble.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that words were inserted in the Preamble which were not true—namely, that the British army was kept up for the purpose of "maintaining the balance of power in Europe." If he wanted an authority upon this point, he need only refer to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who stated that the British army, which consisted of only 40,000 or 50,000 men, could have no effect upon the balance of European power. He therefore proposed in lines 7 and 8 to omit the words "for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, though not concurring in the reason urged by the hon. Gentleman for the omission of the words, nevertheless did not consider them of sufficient importance to contest the point.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 43.]
(Mr. Dodson, Lord John Manners, Mr. Hunt.)
LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 43.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for consideration of the Bill as amended read.
  MR. AYRTONmoved the following clause:—
  "The accounts of the Coal and Wine Duties shall be audited by the auditor appointed by the Secretary of State under the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth of Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty, in the same manner as the accounts of the Metropolitan Board are directed to be audited under that Act, and the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London shall lay before the auditor all the accounts and vouchers relating to the said Coal and Wine Duties, and the auditor shall have and exercise in regard to such accounts all the powers that he has in regard to the accounts of the Metropolitan Board."
  Clause brought up, and rend the first time.
  MR. CRAWFORDobjected to the clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he should persist in moving the clause. It was one that ought really to be adopted. There should be an independent and efficient audit.
  MR. GOSCHENdid not see why in a Continuance Bill a different audit should be established from that already provided.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when the matter was first mentioned to him he saw no particular objection to the appointment of an independent auditor; but he had not then heard the objections of the City authorities. As no charge was made against the mode in which the accounts had hitherto been audited, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would withdraw his clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 82: Majority 54.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL (Lords).

  [BILL 69.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MONKasked for some explanation of the legal difficulties which had rendered such a measure necessary.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Bill was essential in order to establish the validity of certain sales of capitular property under Orders in Council, on the legality of which some doubt had been thrown by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  MR. BOUVERIEexpressed a hope that the measure would not only establish the validity of what had already been done; but would provide for the commutation of Other ecclesiastical estates not already commuted.
  MR. BENTINCKintimated his intention to oppose the Bill on its next stage.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL Bill.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the districts of Workington, Walton on the Hill,
  328
  West Derby, Eton, Llanelly, Oxenhope and Stanbury, and Keighley; and for other purposes relating to certain districts under the said Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.