Commons Sitting of 14 August 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [August 12] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£22,132,036).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Prevention of Crime* [272].
Committee — Report — Leeward Islands* [170]; Military Manœuvres* [279]; Judicial Committee of Privy Council* [250–291].
Considered as amended—Union of Benefices Acts Amendment* [264].
Third Reading—Church Building Acts Amendment* [285]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [289]; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* [267], and passed.
Withdrawn — Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* [283]; Maynooth College* [243]; Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds, &c.) (re-comm.)* [242]; Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment* [244].
The House met at Three of the clock.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. M'MAHONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intends to bring in, during the present or the next Session, a Bill to amend the Representation of the People of Ireland, according to the principles adopted with regard to the Representation of the People of England?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he concurred in the general views of the hon. Member; but he was not prepared to give any pledge as to the introduction of a measure on the subject.

POST OFFICE—POSTAGE CARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEEK (for Mr. G. B. GREGORY)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the delivery of Postage Cards is frequently delayed beyond the time provided by the General Regulation No. 13; and, whether he will inquire whether such delay cannot be prevented?
  MR. MONSELLreplied that, considering the very large number of postage cards—about 1,500,000 per week—which passed through the Post Office, the complaints of delay in their delivery were very few in number. As far as could be ascertained that delay arose, in most instances, from the cards accidentally slipping within the folds of letters and large packages, and this it was impossible altogether to avoid. The best advice he could give to persons who were particularly anxious that their communications should arrive in due time was that they should send letters instead of postage cards.

COMMISSIONERS OF PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
MR. PEEKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Lords of the Treasury

1569
will be willing to cause an inquiry to be made into the relative duties of each of the Clerks employed in the office of the Special Commissioners of Property and Income Tax (Repayments Branch), with a view to its revision, and the adoption of a scale of salaries similar to that which has been recently awarded to the Registrar of Licences and the Warehouse Departments, and which have now been amalgamated, and denominated the "Storekeeper General's Department?"
MR. W. H. GLADSTONEreplied that the salaries of the clerks in this office were fixed as recently as the year 1866, after an inquiry had been made into the subject by the Board of Inland Revenue. The Board were fully alive to the duties discharged in the office, which they considered to be of a character different from those discharged in the Storekeeper General's Department, and they had not recommended the Treasury to make any alteration in the salaries.

LAW—NEW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether a Bill has not been prepared for the purpose of constituting a new Appellate Tribunal; whether a draft of the Bill has been submitted to the Judges for their opinions; whether the Judges, or some of them, have not sent to the Government reports of their opinions upon the proposed scheme; whether he has any objection to bring in the Bill, in order that it may be printed and circulated; and, whether he has any objection to lay the opinions of the Judges upon the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, such a draft Bill had been prepared and submitted to the Judges, some of whom had sent in reports; but as those were generally of a confidential character, they could not be produced. In his opinion, it would not be desirable to bring in a Bill at this period of the Session, as the scheme would require more consideration and revision before it could be submitted to the House.

INDIA—MONEY ORDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. FIGGINSasked the Postmaster General, If he contemplates extending
1570
the Money Order System to the Eastern Presidencies; if not, if he would state the nature of the difficulties in granting this great accommodation to the commercial community having small transactions with India?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that it had been the desire of the Post Office to extend the money order system not only to the Eastern Presidencies, but to India generally. Some difficulties were raised, however, by the Indian Government as to the terms of the arrangement; but about nine months ago it was supposed that those difficulties had been got over. Accordingly a despatch was sent to India with an intimation that the arrangement would be immediately carried out if a reply was received by telegraph. From that time to the present no communication on the subject had been received from the Indian Government.

NAVY—THE "AGINCOURT."

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If there be any truth in the reports circulated in the public papers, that great confusion and want of discipline existed on board Her Majesty's ship "Agincourt" during the time she was on the Pearl Rock, and that nothing was done towards getting her off during that period; and, if not, whether any acknowledgment of the fact that every effort was made to rescue the ship has been communicated to her Officers and Men?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that he had never seen any statement to the effect that there was any want of discipline, or that confusion reigned on board the Agincourt, except in one letter addressed to the public papers by Mr. Bland, who signed, himself "A Merchant of Gibraltar." He thought he could cite one proof that there was no confusion or want of discipline—namely, the fact that all the stores, &c., were saved. The Admiral wrote—
  "It only remains for me to say that of all the guns, stores, provisions, sails, and spars, nothing was lost except a few trivial articles. I confess I was astonished at finding that even the whole of the innumerable small fittings of iron and matters connected with the guns and carriages were so carefully removed to the shore that on the guns being taken back afterwards everything was found in its place, and the Agincourt, sailed out of

  1571
  Gibraltar ten days after the accident in as complete and serviceable a condition as on the departure of the squadron."

LAW AND JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What Minister responsible to Parliament is answerable for the details of the Civil Service Estimates under the head of Law and Justice; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, before those Estimates are submitted to the House of Commons next year, will be prepared to revise the particulars of charge, with a view to the reduction of any expenditure which may be found unnecessary or excessive?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that as the Question was not confined to that portion of the expense connected with Law and Justice which was presented in the form of Estimates annually, he presumed it had especial reference to that portion of those expenses which, although voted annually, was still under control other than that of the Treasury—namely, of high legal functionaries, according to Act of Parliament. That was a fit subject for investigation, and investigation having been recommended by the Committee upon Public Accounts, he had given directions accordingly, with a view to the carrying out of those recommendations.

IRELAND—CHURCH TEMPORALITIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of Government has been called to the fact that the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, in their notices to immediate lessees or tenants that they are willing to sell to them the fee-simple, almost invariably demand thirty years' purchase on the rack rent of the lands, although under the Act tithe rent charge may be sold for twenty-two and a half years' purchase, and perpetuity rents at twenty-five years' purchase; whether such a practice does not tend to destroy the right of pre-emption which it was intended the tenants should have, and to prevent the tenant farmers from becoming owners of their lands in fee-simple; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that, owing to the office of the Commissioners being temporarily closed, he had been unable to obtain any information on the subject. As soon as he got it he would communicate with the hon. Member.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTERasked the Postmaster General, When the clerks who were in the employ of the Telegraph Companies, and retained by the Government, are likely to be classified according to merit, and when they will be put on the same position as the permanent Civil servants of the Crown, by having a periodical increase of salary; and whether in the event of any further delay, a provisional rise will be given to them at once?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the arrangements for the classification, according to merit, of the clerks taken over from the Telegraph Companies obviously required careful and prolonged consideration, and proper study of the relative merits of the persons concerned. Those arrangements were being proceeded with as rapidly as circumstances would permit. In a great many cases, in which good reasons were shown, provisional increases of pay had been given, and in all cases the persons taken over were secured by the Act of 1868 in their position as Civil servants of the Crown.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DIXONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the examiners of the Science and Art Department, after having made their reports, had the papers returned to them, with an instruction to reduce the number of successful candidates, as an intimation had been given that the amount of the grant due upon those papers must be reduced by £20,000; and, whether, if this rumour be correct, the grants to which the teachers are entitled, according to the understanding upon which they worked, will not be reduced to one-half?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that no such rumour had reached the Science and Art Department, and, upon inquiry,

  1573
  he could not discover what had given rise to it. He could only, therefore, suppose that it was absolutely without foundation.

METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT—STORM WARNINGS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Meteorological Committee of the Board of Trade can or cannot furnish a Return of the number of storm warnings sent to the seaports in 1870, and their results respecting the occurrence or non-recurrence of storms on or after the receipt of the warnings?
No answer was returned to this Question.

BRITISH GUIANA.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received from the Governor of British Guiana a Despatch conveying a Memorial from a large number of Portuguese in that colony, complaining of the general course of legislation and the administration of justice therein; what course the Government propose to take in regard to it; and, whether he will lay the Governor's Despatch and the Memorial and accompanying document upon the Table?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, in reply, that such a Memorial had reached the Colonial Office. Full inquiries had been made into the allegations contained in the Memorial and the Despatch. The documents would be laid before Parliament.

BETTING ADVERTISEMENTS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his statement made a month ago, that "those betting advertisements which fell within the Law were now in the hands of the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Police," What has been the result of the prosecutions there referred to; and, whether, since the new Betting Bill has been abandoned, he will take steps to have the powers of the present Act put rigorously in force in London, and endeavour to induce local authorities in the Provinces to do the same?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, his hon. Friend must have seen from the police reports in the newspapers of that day that one person had been convicted on the prosecution of the police for an offence against the Act. Warrants were out against two more, and in a third case the authorities were investigating the facts to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction.
  MR. ANDERSON: As to the advertisements?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, no prosecutions had yet been instituted founded simply on advertisements, without reference to the place where the betting was carried on. No such case had as yet been brought to the knowledge of the authorities.

POST OFFICE—MONEY ORDER SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has made any and what arrangements for carrying out his undertaking with respect to an increase in the number of Money Order Offices?
  MR. MONSELLin reply, said, the necessary steps had been taken. The number of money-order offices established six months before the new regulation, sanctioned on the 27th of February, 1871, was 36. The number of offices established six months after that time was 171.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, Whether it is intended to proceed with these measures; and whether the Government are prepared to accept the principle of the Clause of which he had given Notice, for declaring beyond all doubt these Acts applied to Government Establishments?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Bill would be brought on to-morrow, he hoped at an hour which would insure its convenient discussion. The Government departments to which the noble Lord specially referred were, no doubt, the War Department and the Post Office. With respect to the first of these, there were some special difficulties which would render it premature to apply the principle on the present occasion. As to the telegraphic branch of the Post Office,

1575
there would be very grave objections to bringing it under the Act, and he could in no case consent to do so without very careful previous inquiry. In fact, it seemed to him that in no sense could this service be said to be a manufacturing establishment, and accordingly it was very doubtful how far the principle of the Bill was applicable to Government Departments at all.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman this Session, but should call attention to it hereafter, if the law proved to be in an unsatisfactory state.

THE LATE GOVERNOR EYRE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. ORMSBY GORE (for Mr. J. LOWTHER)asked whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence that has passed between the Treasury and Mr. Eyre's legal adviser?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there would be no objection to the production of the Papers.

ARMY—COLOURS OF THE 68TH REGIMENT.—EXPLANATION.
COLONEL NORTHasked permission to make an explanatory statement respecting the colours of the 68th Regiment. In a recent discussion he had expressed surprise how any colonel of a regiment could allow the colours to be taken away without a protest. Since then copies of an official correspondence had been forwarded to him showing clearly that the lieutenant-colonel commanding the regiment had protested to the utmost of his ability, and as far as he believed that his duty enabled him to do. On the receipt of the first letter from the Director of Army Clothing, dated September, 1870, directing him to forward the colours, the lieutenant-colonel wrote to Lord William Paulet, as Adjutant General, soliciting instructions on the subject. In reply he was informed that it was not necessary that the colours themselves should be sent, but that a pattern scroll should be forwarded, which was accordingly done, upon receipt of a second letter from the Director of Army Clothing. In a third letter from the same quarter, however, he was instructed
1576
to send the colours without the staff; and believing from the tone of this letter that a communication had passed upon the subject between the Horse Guards and the War Office, the lieutenant-colonel thought he had no course open to him but to comply. He, however, took the precaution of registering the parcel at his own expense, and it appeared to have reached Dublin safely about the 25th of February; but since then it had not been heard, of. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then read portions of the correspondence, in which the lieutenant-colonel, in asking officially for instructions on the point, had conveyed, in plain terms, his own opinion—
"Respectfully observing that as the colours of a regiment were presented with a religious ceremony, and were always looked upon as a sacred trust reposed in the regiment, he did not consider that they should be transmitted from one part of the kingdom to another in the same manner as if they were a bale of ordinary calico."
He thought it only fair to the gallant officer in command to make this statement.

ARMY REGULATION BILL—ROYAL WARRANT.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. VERNON HARCOURT: I have also to ask the indulgence of the House upon a matter of a personal character. On last Friday my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—who had not given me notice, or I would have been present—complained, as I learn from the ordinary sources of information, of the course that I had taken in the House on the previous evening. The House will remember the discussion on the subject of the Royal Warrant and the reference which was made by my hon. and learned Friend to a Statute of the reign of Charles II., on which he based his argument. About half-past 1 o'clock in the morning—a period certainly not very favourable to legal research—I undertook to challenge the accuracy of my hon. and learned Friend's reference to that Statute. My hon. and learned Friend came down to the House the next day, and as a matter personal to himself complained that I had contradicted him wrongly upon a matter in which he was in the right. Now, if that were the case, there would, I conceive, be only one course for a Member to pursue in this House—to retract the

1577
statement which he had made, and to apologize for it; or, on the other hand, show that the statement he had made was well founded. Now, having carefully considered the matter, I find that I was perfectly right in my original statement, and accordingly that the contradiction of the Solicitor General is not justified. As my hon. and learned Friend referred to the facts of the case and said that he had investigated and looked into the matter, I must ask the indulgence of the House while I make the point clear. My hon. and learned Friend when he came down to the House on Friday said that he had looked into a recent edition of Blackstone, which stated that the Act to which he referred was still in force, and upon the strength of that authority he relied to justify his statement to the House. Now, Blackstone is a book which lawyers generally refer to upon such subjects; I also have looked into the recent edition of Blackstone—that of 1868, which is in the Library — and I find, in the text a reference to the 13 Charles II., s. 1, c. 6—the Statute mentioned by the Solicitor General—the 13 & 14 Charles II., c. 3; and 15 Charles II., c. 4. Blackstone says—"It is true these have been repealed, but many of their provisions have been re-enacted." At the foot of the same page occurs this note—
"Blackstone says that the two last of the Statutes of Charles mentioned in the text 'are apparently repealed.' However, the first and the greater part of the two last are expressly repealed by the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 125."
The House will bear in mind that it was the first of these Statutes upon which such stress was laid by the Solicitor General. But my hon. and learned Friend went further, for he said that, not content with the statement in Blackstone, he had examined the revised editions of the Statutes, and, though not contained in the first volume, the Act to which he referred was expressly reserved therein. This first volume of revised Statutes has been, I must say, exceedingly unfortunate. Both the Law Officers of the Crown have found fault with it at different times. The Attorney General told us, the other day, that the book contained a Statute which was not the law of the land; and now the Solicitor General tells us that it does not contain a Statute which is the law of the land. But though the authority of this
1578
book is thrown over and discredited by my hon. and learned Friend, I must really stand up for the authority of the Commissioners, and the work which they have produced. The Statute is not in the book, admittedly; but if you look at the chronological index you will find it there stated that this Act of Charles II., which is entitled "the King's sole right over the Militia," is repealed in part by the Statute of 1863, and that the residue—I ask the attention of the Committee to these words—"the residue is reserved for the supplemental volume." Perhaps the House will like to know what this supplemental volume is. In the introduction to the volume of the revised Statutes, page 8, it is thus described—"Some Acts, not being of practical legal value, are omitted, and reserved for a supplemental volume." So that these are mere archaic curiosities, which have ceased to be the law of the land, and to this class belongs the un-repealed portion of the Act of Charles II. If further proof of this were wanting I might find it, even before the Act of 1863, in the expurgatory list of Statutes laid on the Table in 1855 when this Statute of Charles II. is described as an "expired Statute." But dealing only with the latest revised edition of the Statutes, and the portion of the Statute which is said in that volume to be still unrepealed, my hon. and learned Friend did not tell the House the whole story. What will the House think when I tell them that this portion of the Statute which is unrepealed is merely a fragment of the Preamble? I need not tell any lawyer—I need hardly tell any hon. Gentleman of experience in this House—that a Preamble of any Act of Parliament by itself never had any legislative force whatever. What remains, therefore, of this Statute of Charles II. is not an enactment, and never was an enactment at all; it is a mere fragment of a Preamble, preserved by the Statute Law Commissioners as an archaic curiosity, to show us what laws once existed. That is the condition of the Statute in respect of which my hon. and learned Friend came down to complain of me for having asserted that it had ceased to exist, and that is portion of this obsolete enactment of which my hon. and learned Friend reiterated that it was a Statute in force, and that it was, or ought to be, on the Statute Book

1579
of the Realm. I venture to say that it is not and never ought to be on the Statute Book of the Realm, and the Commissioners have so decided. ["Order!"] I do not wish, Sir, to prolong this statement; but I feel it right to say that if the Solicitor General had thought proper on Friday to give me notice of his intention to make a statement, the House would have heard this statement then instead of now. I have shown that I did not contradict the Solicitor General without having good reason for doing so, and nobody who wished to stand well with the House would like it to be supposed that he was capable of making rash assertions upon a topic of so much importance.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if the adjourned debate on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) would be taken to-morrow at the 2 o'clock or 9 o'clock sitting of the House?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not then state with certainty. It would depend on the progress made in Supply. The Government looked forward with confidence to finishing Supply that night. If so, they would take the Report tomorrow, and then go on with the debate on the Lords' Amendments of the Army Regulation Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House to meet at 3 o'clock instead of 2 o'clock on Tuesday.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be convenient if the House were to meet at the same hour (3 o'clock) to-morrow.
Mr. NEWDEGATEIn reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE,
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, it was intended to go on both with the Glebe Loans Bill and the Maynooth College Bill. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire would communicate with him privately, he would endeavour to say after what hour they would not be taken.
MR. KINNAIRDcomplained that the House would not get the advantage of these private communications.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): My hon. Friend can ask me privately too.

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

INDIA — ARMY — DISTRIBUTION OF BREECH-LOADERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHrose to call the attention of the House to the Return, No. 306, lately issued to the Members, by which it appears that there are thirty-one of the Queen's Regiment now serving in India armed with muzzle-loading rifles; that arms of this description were issued to the 2nd Battalion 19th Regiment and the 96th Regiment in 1869, and to the 2nd Battalion 1st Royal Regiment last year; to call attention to the note opposite the 76th Regiment, viz.: Rifles at present in use condemned; Snider arms ready for issue to the Regiment, but no ammunition available; and, to ask what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to ensure these Regiments being properly armed without further delay. The hon. and gallant Member said, he had moved for the Return on the 10th of February, and it was laid upon the Table of the House on the 16th of June. On the 28th of July last Session his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cardwell) had been asked whether it was the case that several regiments in India were still armed with the old muzzleloader; and whether some of the recruits from England who had been instructed at home in the breech-loading exercise had to learn the muzzle-loading exercise? The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was true that in some few instances muzzle-loaders were still employed. During the Recess, however, he had learnt, from letters he had received, that the number was very great, and that the latter statement contained in the question was perfectly true. Indeed, one of his correspondents, a cavalry officer in India, stated that he had witnessed shortly before the half-yearly inspection of a regiment, and was surprised to see about 200 men drawn up on the reverse flank of the column; and on asking who they were was told they were a body of men lately landed from England, where they had been taught the breech-loading exercise, and had not had time to learn the muzzle-loading exercise.

1581
To his great astonishment, this Return, when presented, showed that there were no less than 31 regiments now serving in India armed with muzzle-loaders, and that arms of this description were issued to the 2nd battalion of the 19th Regiment and the 96th Regiment in 1869, and to the 2nd battalion of the 1st Royal Regiment last year. In the case of the 76th Regiment, Snider arms were ready for issue, but no ammunition was available, and probably if the troops were called into action Snider ammunition would be served to the muzzle-loading troops, and muzzle-loading ammunition to those who were armed with Sniders. That, he thought, would have been a curious dilemma for the 76th to have been placed in if they had been ordered to take part in an expedition, which was at one time thought necessary, against the Hill tribes who had attacked the tea plantations. The 10th Regiment was stationed at Madras and was armed with Sniders, having probably secured all the breech-loading ammunition in the Presidency as the 76th, also stationed in Madras, could obtain none. On the 23rd of February, a very few days after he had moved for the Return, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Northbrook), replying to a Question asked in the House of Lords, said that anything approaching the conclusion that our Regular forces were not armed with breech-loaders was entirely contrary to the facts of the case. After that statement of his noble Friend, he could scarcely believe his eyes when he found from this Return that two regiments of cavalry and 29 of infantry were still without breech-loaders. Some of the arms, too, went back almost to the time of the Crimea. The 76th, for instance, received theirs in 1859, as did also the 10th. The 108th received theirs in 1857, 1864, 1865, and 1866. He desired, therefore, to ask what Her Majesty's Government had done since the 28th of July, 1870, when the question put to his right hon. Friend must have drawn the attention of the Government to this matter. Considering that £16,000,000 was expended upon the Army, it was perfectly unjustifiable that there should be 25,000 men in India armed with muzzle-loading rifles. [Mr. CARDWELL: It has nothing to do with our Estimates; it is Indian money.] He did not care whose money it was;
1582
but these men ought not to stand in their present dangerous condition, for no body of soldiers could stand against five shots for one. He asked whether the men forming these regiments were properly armed, and ready for any expedition they might be called on to serve in.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, the answer given by Lord Northbrook was perfectly correct; but he referred to the troops at home, not the Indian troops. He would further say that he was able, he believed, to set the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman at rest. It was true that in October, 1870, there were 32 out of the 50 European regiments in India still armed with muzzle-loaders; but since that time the Government had sent out Snider carbines and rifles to arm every man of every European regiment in the country, and in addition there were very considerable reserves. Since the 1st of October, 1870, there must have been at least 12,000,000 rounds of Snider ammunition landed in India, and a further amount of 18,500,000 rounds was going out through the Suez Canal at the rate of 500,000 at a time, as fast as they could be supplied at the War Office. That would be perfectly sufficient even if there were any uneasiness in India, which at present was not the case.
COLONEL NORTHstated that the Returns were dated March 24, April 12, and April 26, 1871.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, the Returns were perfectly correct at the time they were issued.
SIR JOHN HAYstated that according to a Return laid on the Table by the Secretary for War there were 54,000 men then unarmed with the Snider rifle. Could the Secretary for War say that 54,000 Sniders had been sent out since that Return was made?
SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a sufficient number had since been sent to supply every man with the new weapon.
MR. EASTWICK: The arms have been sent; but have they been issued to the regiments?
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he could not answer that question, but had no doubt they were served.

ARMY—RECRUITING.

  MOTION FOR A COMMISSION.
  MR. SEELY, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the best method of raising, drilling, and organising the military forces of the Country, so as to render them thoroughly adequate for home defence; and also of providing for India and general service abroad such a number of troops as would be sufficient to enable us to fulfil our treaty obligations, and maintain the interests of the Country at as moderate a cost as possible,"
  said, that of course so long as they retained absolute supremacy at sea there was no fear of invasion; but, although what was commonly spoken of as their first line of defence was secure to-day, new discoveries might prove it to be defective to-morrow, and as it was absurd to suppose the Admiralty would take up an invention which had not been first adopted by a foreign Power, their first line of defence could not be wholly trusted. What, then, of their Army? Their difficulty seemed to be, in the first place, to get good soldiers at a moderate cost, and then to organize them. A good deal had been said about the importance of re-organization; but that was nothing more than the power of assembling all the forces of the country together, under generals capable of manœuvring them, and providing them with adequate ammunition and commissariat. The only practical way of getting this good organization was to put it in practice in time of peace. The best organization would fail if never tried, and the worst would fall into working order if frequently put into practice. The only reason why they did not assemble their forces together was want of money. They spent so much money in getting soldiers that they had none to spare upon proper organization. To keep a large standing Army without periodical practice in the field was like keeping a Navy in harbour until it decayed from age. The men in the Navy might know every rope by name and be theoretically acquainted with the whole system of navigation and gunnery; but if they were never allowed to test their theoretical knowledge by practice, they would fair badly in action. So it was with the Army; but no opportunities for practice were given to it. As regards the Army itself, the first and chief difficulty
  1584
  was the recruiting, and the inability to draw men to the standards was the high rate of wages obtainable by men outside the service. That was no temporary cause; the probabilities were in favour of its increasing. Not only were wages likely to increase throughout the country, but, as the people became educated, the offers of land in the Far West and the gradual decrease of taxation in America would increase the number of their emigrants and diminish the numbers of their agricultural population, their best source from which recruits were now gathered. The Government hoped by its plans to improve all this; but it was impossible to say, from the meagre information at command, whether their plans would produce the effect desired. The necessity for procuring sufficient information was his chief reasons for asking for a Commission. Accurate information was desirable upon the subject of remuneration, a most important point; in what way the interchange of officers between the Militia and Line would be effected, so as not to lower the officers of the Militia in the estimation of those whom they commanded; and in what way the short-service system had worked, and would be likely to work. Upon the last point he was clearly of opinion that respectable men were absolutely necessary to make the short system workable, because only men of good character ought to be retained in the Reserve. On a former occasion he had stated several objections to recruiting men who were not respectable for short service; only one had been answered in any way, and in that answer the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had expressed surprise that anyone should be afraid to trust the people with arms. He, however, was not afraid to trust the people with arms, but objected to a system which turned out a number of half-drilled men belonging to a class which it was not desirable to arm. The stock reply of the Government to all criticism was, that their new system was being designed for the correction of all the evils of the old. The Government expected that they would get a better class of men by teaching them trades, and by giving to them certain posts in the Civil Service. It would be excellent if young men could be drawn to the standards to be turned out in two or three years efficient soldiers and accomplished artizans; but there

  1585
  were no facts before the country to justify the presumption that this could be done. At present they had 100,000 men; if the system were to be of any use, it must be applied to at least 50,000; and as they could not have military workshops filled with apprentices, and as each apprentice must have a teacher, the machinery of the system would be expensive. Then the competition with ordinary trade would be great. If the Government induced lads of 18 to sign a paper in a moment of destitution, and set them to work at a trade for 1s. 6d. per week, and sold the produce in competition with that manufactured by men paid 25 s. per week, there would be an outcry at once. Then it was proposed to pass the men from the Army to the Civil Service; but he found that the men in the Post Office, Civil Service, Inland Revenue, and Customs, excepting, of course, the dockyard labourers, in 1861 were only 30,000, and their average term of service was 30 years, so that only 1,000 men a-year were needed, and therefore if the Civil Service were monopolized by soldiers, it was clear that only a very small number could be employed in that way. That showed how ill-digested the scheme of the Government was, and how necessary it was to gather information on the subject. A Royal Commission would be able to place the facts of the question clearly before the public, so that instead of the vague ideas that now prevailed their information would rest upon a firm basis. Questions were, moreover, continually arising as to the number of troops actually required for foreign and home service; but there was no official data to go upon. There had been no sound estimate formed of the number of men it would be possible for an enemy to land, presuming the Fleet to be defeated; indeed, he thought the general tendency had been to underrate the number it would be possible to disembark upon their shores. Some spoke of 100,000; but Napoleon assembled 2,000 transports, capable of carrying 120,000, with guns and stores, when he contemplated the invasion of England; and in these days arrangements could be made for transporting three times the number. An expedition from France had been compared to the transport to the Crimea; but it was ridiculous to compare a sea journey of 300 miles, starting from a
  1586
  base of operations 3,000 miles from home, with a 60 miles trip in weather that could be chosen. All these questions of detail could be better inquired into by a Commission than by Parliament. A Commission could take evidence upon which it would be safe to form conclusions as to the number of men required for home defence, the number necessary for foreign service, and what length of training a recruit would need. At present the most conflicting statements were current upon those points—especially the last. Sometimes Volunteers were treated as a useless body from want of organization; then they were counted as soldiers; one Minister stated that three years' training was needed to make a soldier, another gravely announced that three months' drill and a monthly drill for a year afterwards would suffice. These statements could not be all true, and some competent authority was required to inform Parliament on the subject. There was also the question of physical ability, and the country should not be left in ignorance as to how many soldiers we had capable of carrying a knapsack, marching 30 miles, and going without their dinner into the bargain. Now, what information had the country respecting the feelings of those whom it was desired to enlist. No information of the kind existed; and surely it was advisable that if the men themselves could not be examined those who understood their feelings should be—perhaps their employers or foremen. The Commission which had inquired into the subject examined 44 witnesses; but 41 were officers or soldiers, two had been, and the remaining one was officially connected with the Army. A Commission, too, would do good service if it could get evidence from which to form an opinion as to what the Army would be in five years' time and the cost of producing it. The different military systems of other countries, and especially France and Switzerland, might be examined by the Commission, and in many other points its labours could not but be extremely useful. But the greatest benefit of all would be that it would remove these questions affecting military administration from the domain of party politics, and would examine into them with an exclusive regard to their intrinsic merits. In the great changes which the Government were making in the Army

  1587
  it was desirable they should associate themselves with men of independent and unbiassed judgment, so as to inspire the public with a greater degree of confidence in their plans; for otherwise very inconvenient results might follow from the sudden accession of men to power who had made a party attack upon the military schemes of the Government. There were only two objections to a Commission. One was that it would delay, the other that it would relieve Government of responsibility. If the Government had the information at command, as it should have, it could be easily laid before the Commissioners, and it would not cause delay; while as regards responsibility, it was most desirable that the facts of the case should be put on record in case of a change of Government, so that the responsibility might be transferred; in short, neither of those considerations ought to stand in the way of their obtaining a good and efficient Army. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in seconding the Motion, said, that that subject was one that had occasioned a feeling of great anxiety and concern throughout the country, and the impression generally prevailed that their Army was in a state of unreadiness and of unpreparedness for any sudden emergency that might arise. He was no alarmist, and was willing to admit that there was little probability of their shores being invaded; but the very existence of an Army presupposed a necessity for it. A short time since the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War declared that nothing was further from his intention than to have recourse to the Ballot—that the Ballot ought only to be resorted to in case of emergency. But it would not do to postpone all reforms until an emergency arose. The youthful age of the men who were now being recruited deserved their most serious attention. Only the other day a most experienced officer assured him that even in his own regiment—the Guards—it had been impossible during the last year to obtain recruits over the age of 18, and, under the three years' system, they would be growing lads the whole time that they were in the Army, and would be sent to the Reserve just when they had become
  1588
  fit to undergo the hardships of actual service. Such was the experience of their crack regiments, and it was certain that the case was not better in the regiments of the Line. No greater extravagance could be committed than to accept the services of lads who, if they should be suddenly called upon to take the field, would succumb under the hardships and privations of actual war. Every Member of that House must often have noticed, in the course of the Session, the proceedings of the recruiting sergeants in the neighbourhood of King Street. He believed he was overstating the result when he said that each of the 10 or 20 sergeants employed obtained on an average only something like 30 boys between 17 and 18 years old in the course of the year. Now, what would be thought of any mercantile establishment, when hands were wanted, which should have recourse to such a system of obtaining them, and with such a result? He repeated that the greatest possible amount of efficiency in their Army ought to be their first consideration, and he was certain that one of 100,000 thoroughly competent men would be more useful in every way than an Army of 130,000 men and boys. The question really was, how long it would take to make an efficient soldier, and he thought it should be decided by competent authority. If the Government did not grant the Commission which his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Seely) had asked for, he hoped they would at least give some satisfactory answer to the questions put to them. It was the duty of the House not to wait for a demand from the country, but sometimes to anticipate it. It was their duty to tell the people what the real condition of their defensive establishments was. It was not for them to say that this was a very unpopular measure, and one that would expose them to odium. Let them reduce the number of men if they did not want them; but if they needed the instrument it ought to be efficient, and one on which they could rely at any time and under any circumstances. Reference had been made by his hon. Friend to the facilities with which an Army could be conveyed by sea, and they might have thrown on their coast a very large force at very short notice. He was informed, on good authority, that a transsport

  1589
  of 1,500 tons would carry 1,000 men with a full complement of stores, horses, and materials, and everything necessary for a voyage of three or four days—by that they could see the feasibility of the measure. At present he had no apprehension that they were in the slightest danger; but if such a danger arose from any quarter there would be no time to make their preparations, to obtain the men, to get their commissariat, their transport, and various forces into an organized and efficient state. The notice given to Prussia, except the low distant murmurs heard three or four years before, was but 14 or 15 days. With only 14 or 15 days' notice what would they be able to do? Could they call men into existence? It was almost ridiculous to speak of that as an emergency; it would be a simple catastrophe. With regard to the Civil Service absorbing a portion of the Reserves, supposing it were possible for that to be done to any large extent, surely they could not wish the whole Civil Service of the country to be stopped and disorganized the moment war broke out, a time when it was most necessary that the internal machinery of the country should be kept in good working order. He should be glad to see old soldiers who were not expected to render future military service absorbed into the Civil Service; but it was absurd to speak of the Civil Service as a source whence they could draw large Reserves for the Army. He thought this was a time of all others for ascertaining whether their present arrangements were such as could be justified in the face of the country. There was no danger at the present time; but it was their duty to make sufficient provision for the safety, honour, and dignity of the country, and that could only be done by the exercise on the part of the Government of the most prudent and careful foresight.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the best method of raising, drilling, and organising the military forces of the Country, so as to render them thoroughly adequate for home defence; and also of providing for India and general service abroad such a number of troops as would be sufficient to enable us to fulfil our treaty obligations,
  1590
  and maintain the interests of the Country at as moderate a cost as possible,"—(Mr. Charles Seely,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought that one remark made by the hon. Member for Westminister (Mr. W. H. Smith) would hardly find support from the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). No doubt in the event of invasion, if they had to withdraw men from the Civil Service, the Civil Service would to a certain extent be inconvenienced; but still it was right to hold out encouragements to men who had served in the ranks of the Army; and surely the example of Prussia ought to be an answer to the hon. Member in that respect. The hon. Member for Westminster, like himself, had never borne arms in any capacity; and his speech appeared to bear evidence of that fact, for certainly the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Army from top to bottom was not a course which military authorities would recommend. The hon. Gentleman said it was an emergency if their ranks were not full, but it happened that their ranks were full; that they were on the very verge of being obliged to consider what they should do, unless they exceeded their limit set by the Estimates. It had been said that the Reserve men would not come when called, and he thought that was a matter of experiment. If it was a matter of experiment, only think of referring it to a Royal Commission. How were they to solve it? There was no reason to suppose the men would not come, but there was every reason to believe they would, if the experience furnished by the Royal Naval Reserve could be taken as proof. A portion of the First Reserve had been called out for service, and he believed—although he had not yet received the Report—that the experiment had been perfectly successful. Then it was said there was a difficulty about recruiting. Why, they had obtained more than 33,000 recruits in ten months. That, surely, was a proof that their recruiting had not failed. As to the youth of the recruits, they would always have young people as long as they went on the old system of long service, and would be obliged to add to the Army by taking

  1591
  young men. But let them establish a large Reserve, following the Prussian plan, and they would have older men who had already served in the Army ready, and who were under engagement to join the ranks when emergency arose. By that plan they would do away with the necessity of having recourse to the services of such young men. The Government had done great things already; they had abolished bounty—a thing that was thought impossible. Nevertheless, they had got 33,000 recruits in ten months; they were doing everything they could to raise the character of the recruits; and the Reports of the Inspector General of Recruiting showed that their efforts were not without success. It was said they would have a difficulty in obtaining recruits for the Militia. Well, circulars were sent to the commanding officers of Militia in the autumn, and their answers were on the Table, and would not be found to confirm that assertion. With regard to the future increase of agricultural wages, he could only say if he held his present office when agricultural wages reached 30 s. a-week, he should be delighted to see it, and would endeavour to meet the difficulties of that day. But surely it could not be gravely proposed that they should now appoint a Royal Commission to inquire what was to be done when the wages of the agricultural labourer attained that figure? Moreover, they had a Royal Commission recently, and the result of its recommendations was that the pay of the soldier was raised by 2d. a-day—a measure to which in a great degree their facilities in obtaining recruits were, he believed, owing. Then it was urged that the Commission did not go to the bottom of the subject, and that much more remained to be found out than they discovered. What encouragement, then, was there to appoint another? [Lord ELCHO: Their powers were limited; it was simply a Recruiting Commission.] They were appointed to inquire very much into what the Commission now proposed would inquire, for its object was the raising, drilling, and organizing the military forces of the country. He was surprised to hear that time was no object, because they were not exposed to any particular danger, and yet in the next breath, in the event of an hostile attempt to cross the Channel in order to invade their
  1592
  shores, they were told that they could not rely on their Navy—their first line of defence. If their first line of defence was so insecure, how could time be of no consequence in regard to their second line of defence? Then they were told that Napoleon had been ready to throw more than 100,000 men on their coast, and the hon. Member for Westminister thought it impossible to tell how many men a foreign nation might at any time land here. But could any Royal Commission tell them how many men might be so landed? Would they call as witnesses on that point high functionaries from different foreign countries? Such an inquiry would be both useless and interminable. Then, again, it had been intimated that they ought to foresee what forces they might require. With regard to that, it was the duty for which the Executive Government was responsible to determine not once for all—that was absolutely impossible—but every year, what was the force which it was necessary that Parliament should be called on to provide for; and as to the appointment of a Royal Commission, with regard to that part of the subject, he believed such an idea had never before been entertained by anyone. With regard to settling the time requisite for training, had not the experience of last autumn taught them a great deal more as to that than any theoretical information obtained through a Royal Commission? Again, it was proposed that they should inquire why there was a difficulty in getting men, but he respectfully said there was no such difficulty at all. Further, he thought that, if the scheme of short service and Reserves, which they desired to institute, were left to work fairly, it would establish a large and efficient Reserve long before any Commission could come to any opinion on the multiplicity of questions to be referred to them. With respect to the matter of cost, he should have thought the last thing the House of Commons would be asked to do would be to part with the control over the cost of the Army, or to intrust the preparation of the Estimates to anybody but the Executive Government. Then as to party questions, he hoped there was no party in the State which had anything at heart on these subjects except the maintenance of the honour, the dignity, and the safety of the country, and it was not necessary

  1593
  that the House should discard them from its consideration to prevent their being made party questions. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Seely) had complained of a former speech of his having been misrepresented, but he had repeated the purport of that speech again, in saying that what he objected to was not trusting the people with arms, but to trusting that particular class of the people from whom they obtained their recruits with them. Aristocratic Prussia could venture to form her Army on the principle which the Government had recommended; Republican France was following her example; Monarchial Italy and Autocratic Russia were doing the same, and he saw no difficulty in Constitutional England venturing to rely on the same source of supply. He denied that they obtained nothing but worthless recruits; they were endeavouring by every means in their power to raise the character of the recruits; they had discontinued the use of dishonourable markings and badges; they had done away with the bounty system; they were extending as much as possible the education of their soldiers; and when the hon. Member for Nottingham asked what sort of factories and what kind of competition they were going to establish in the Army, he said none; they were going to enable a man entering the Army to be taught that which would make him a valuable member of society when he left its ranks, and fit him better to earn his livelihood, on his return to civil life. In conclusion, he did not complain of that Motion being brought forward, but felt convinced that it was not intended now seriously to press it to a division.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, his object in advocating the opening of the Civil Service to deserving soldiers was not to form a Reserve, which in time of war would be called out of the Civil Service to return to the Army, but to hold out a prize or an inducement to the soldier to serve well while in the Army; and one element of that inducement or prize was, that when he had settled in the Civil Service for life he should not be called away to serve even in that "emergency" of which the Secretary of State spoke so glibly, but which neither he nor his Colleagues ever attempted to define. He thought that the War Office might have more soldiers employed in it than at present,
  1594
  and that the Secretary of State should look to that office being manned mainly by retired soldiers. An hon. Member had said it was a mistake to have a civilian at the head of the War Office. That was a great question; but if the clerks were military men and competent to deal with those details, very likely many of those things would be better done than they were now—although he cast no slur on the civilians—and greater prizes would be held out to deserving soldiers. As to the present Motion, his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Seely) had done good service in bringing that question forward at the close of that eventful Session in so comprehensive and clear a manner. And when his views were endorsed by a practical man representing a large metropolitan constituency like the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), he trusted they would have their due effect. The Government objected to a Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had dipped his brush in those rosy colours in which he invariably painted everything connected with the Army and his Department. Unfortunately, however, the public would not view matters in exactly the same complacent light, but would prefer that they should be portrayed in graver and more sober tints. He believed that a Commission of this kind would be most valuable, and that it would be able to get at the bottom of many things which could not be fathomed by that House so long as the Government were backed by so large a majority. He felt so strongly on this point, that next Session, if the Government did not give the House some clear and satisfactory explanation of the organization they had established, and of their exercise of the powers which the House had confided to them, he hoped the House would appoint a Committee to inquire into the organization of the Army. If no one else did so, he should himself move for such a Committee, believing, as he did, that the Government had organized nothing, disorganized the only thing that was sound in the Army, and entailed on the country an unknown expenditure.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not yet given any information to the House or the country on

  1595
  various subjects which had occupied much time and attracted much attention. The remark made by an hon. Member of the Government that Parliament had nothing whatever to do with military questions was significant as to the temper in which the Government was disposed to treat such matters; but hon. Members would discuss the military administration of this country, when it was found to be in a state of hopeless and inextricable confusion. A mild reform would not do, a complete change being absolutely necessary; and he hoped that at the beginning of another Session the Government would take up such questions in a totally different spirit, for in that way only would they be able to do that good which could not be effected by putting hon. Members off with replies that were not answers. He desired to know how promotion was to be made in the Army for the future, and the way in which its proper flow was to be kept up, for up to the present time the House had only been told that the subject was under discussion. Another question had been raised as to whether an end was to be put to military sinecures such as full colonelcies, and he asked for some information also on this point, which would be sure to secure much attention from the constituencies during the Recess.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he regarded that discussion as showing that the interest felt by the House and the country in military matters had not diminished, and that the mistrust which was excited last year was not in the least allayed. Although they had now reached the end of the Session, nothing had been done, and both soldiers and civilians felt nothing but dismay at the policy of the Government as to military matters, and they looked to the future with despair. He should be sorry to see the matter referred to a Royal Commission, for there had already been 16 Royal Commissions and between 20 and 30 Select Committees on military matters. They were told that in the cellars of the British Museum were great treasures from which the public derived no benefit, and the same might be said of the Reports of Commissions and Committees. The appointment of a Royal Commission was the resort of a Minister who wished to avoid responsibility and to shelve a disagreeable question, and the only hope of the House was in keeping responsibility
  1596
  fixed upon the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War appealed to the officers commanding regiments he would be told that the quality of the recruits was now inferior to what it was 10 or 15 years ago, and that they had the greatest difficulty in finding men who were fit to be non-commissioned officers. Purchase having been abolished, he hoped that next Session the House would hear something of that military organization which had been promised, and that some attempt would be made to provide an Army worthy of this country.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he thought that, on re-consideration, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would see that their system of short service was not identical with that of aristocratic Prussia.
  MR. CARDWELL, in explanation, said, that what he alluded to was the training of the men and their return to civil occupations.
  MR. EASTWICKstill contended that the two systems were totally different, the Prussian one being the compulsory taking of men from every class of society, and thus their Army embraced some of the finest, and a large proportion of the most respectable men in the country, none of the men being under 19 years of age; while England had to draw younger men from the inferior part of the population. The country looked upon the question with great anxiety, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to reflect upon the responsible position he occupied, and to endeavour before the next meeting of Parliament to satisfy the nation on the subject of its Army.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he hoped the matter would be thoroughly investigated before the commencement of next Session, but was indifferent whether by Royal Commission or otherwise. It was desirable to include in the inquiry some reference to the colonies, and to the defence of their coasts and harbours, and he would suggest the propriety of there being deliberations on those subjects between the Admiralty and the War Office. The question of war and defence ought at the same time to be fully considered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—SUPERSESSION OF COLONELS.

  RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL ANSON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee that sat last year to inquire into the supersession of the Colonels of the English Army by the Colonels of the Indian Army; also to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons; and to move a Resolution—
  "That the Report of the War Office Committee, dated the 9th day of January, 1869, be adopted in order to mitigate the hardship inflicted upon the British Colonels,"
  said, he had greatly to complain of the conduct of the Government on this matter, which had been a subject of discussion in that House and before Royal Commissioners and Select Committees for seven or eight years, without anything having been done on behalf of those officers who were aggrieved. In 1864, after the amalgamation of the British and Indian Armies, a Royal Warrant was issued, giving to the Indian officers certain rights and privileges in consequence of the Report of a Commission presided over by Viscount Cranbourne in 1864. Next year Sir William Mansfield protested against the injury that would thus be inflicted upon British officers; but no notice of it was taken for a year and a-half, when the then Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) appointed a Select Committee in the War Office, presided over by Colonel Egerton, to consider the whole question. The Report of the Committee, however, did not satisfy the present Secretary of State for War, who appointed another Committee, presided over by Sir William James, Vice Chancellor, which Committee, although they were limited to making a proposal which would not impose any expense upon either this country or India, reported that the case was one of great injustice to the officers of the English Army, and that something ought to be done, whereupon a correspondence arose between the India Office and the War Office. Last Session he (Colonel Anson) obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, and after two or three sittings they reported, with only one dissentient—the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. Grant Duff)—that supersession should
  1598
  at once cease. That Report was presented at the end of the Session, and as soon as Parliament was prorogued there was further correspondence relative to the legality of that recommendation. Lord Cairns, Vice Chancellor James, and Baron Bramwell were appointed to inquire, and they reported, as had been before pointed out by the India Office, that the effect of the Report of his (Colonel Anson's) Committee would be to cause a breach of a Parliamentary guarantee that had been given to the officers of the Indian Army; but they agreed that the case was one of great injustice, and that either a stop should be put to the practice or that some compensation should be given. After that Report was made further correspondence passed between the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for India, and the result was an agreement that the supersession complained of should cease when the Staff corps promotion came into play; but the Duke of Argyll stipulated that the rate of promotion should be reduced from 23 to 19 per annum, which was an increased injustice to British Army officers. He resolved to oppose the Bill which was to be brought forward to carry out that arrangement, as it did not carry out the Report of his Committee. The question which he submitted the House had now to consider was, what could be done to mitigate the hardships which had been inflicted upon colonels of the English Army. Two Reports had recommended that 45 major generals should be appointed from the list of officers who had been superseded. That portion of the Report of his Committee was warmly supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was opposed to the second portion, which he did not insist upon; but now he found that he could not get either, although there had been an universal expression of opinion that this was a case of hardship. He hoped the Government would accede to his Motion; if they did not, and as it was impossible for him to obtain any redress from the House at the present period of the Session, he should bring the subject forward again next year. In this matter the India Office had defended the rights and privileges of the officers of that Department, and he wished that the War Office had acted in a similar manner. He did not think the House ought to

  1599
  grudge any expenditure that might be necessary to do justice to the officers whose cause he advocated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report of the War Office Committee, dated the 9th day of January 1869, be adopted in order to mitigate the hardship inflicted on the British Colonels,"—(Colonel Anson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson) was undoubtedly in the position of a man who brought forward a real grievance; for he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself was not prepared to deny that the supersession of English officers by Indian officers was a matter fairly calling for complaint. High legal authorities, to whom he was bound to bow, had declared that the course complained of by the hon. and gallant Member was in complete accordance with the guarantee received by the Indian officers in 1858, when the East India Company was abolished and its Army placed under the Crown. The opinion of those learned Judges would have been more satisfactory to his mind had they adverted to a subsequent stage of the affair—that was, to what happened in 1860, when the two Armies were amalgamated—the two Governments having been amalgamated in 1858; because it was quite evident to anyone, that principles that were laid down for portions of the Indian Army when it was a separate Army from the Queen's Army, though it belonged to the Queen, would not necessarily apply when the two Armies were absolutely amalgamated and made one Army. That being the state of the case, it became absolutely impossible, at least without an Act of Parliament, to give effect to the Report of the Committee of last year, and the question that remained was whether the Government, under these circumstances, having the Report of the Committee, but not having legal power to give effect to it, had made a fair and reasonable offer to the hon. and
  1600
  gallant Member and those whom he represented. The complaint was that the promotion on the Indian side was much more rapid, and thus a number of Indian officers were placed above English officers of older standing. With regard to that matter, he believed a rule had been laid down to the effect that, when eight or more officers had been promoted, the Staff corps would be carried over to the English side and would become part of the English service, the Indian officers belonging to the regiments of cavalry and infantry continuing still to enjoy the benefits of Indian promotion. He should have been very glad if he could have obtained a removal of the differences between these two services, so that the English and Indian officers should obtain promotion according to the time of their service; but that having been ruled to the contrary to the guarantee of 1858, the question was what terms he could make for the English Army. He thought that since January last four out of the eight officers of the Staff corps, on whose promotion the Indian Government insisted, had been already provided for; so that only four officers now stood between them and the time when the Staff corps would be carried over to the English side. If the plan proposed by the Government had been carried out there would be, perhaps, in about six months not merely an amalgamation of the Staff officers corps of the Indian service; that plan would apply not only to the Staff officers, but to the whole of the officers in the Indian Army. The offer of the Government was a fair and reasonable compromise, and the hon. and gallant Member would have thought so some time ago; but now the hon. and gallant Member repudiated the proposal of the Government that as soon as the remaining four colonels, out of the eight Staff officers, were made generals the whole of the two services should be entirely amalgamated, so that there should be perfect equality and no difference between them, and he asked him instead to take the course which he repudiated in the Committee, and which he thought the House would repudiate. The hon. and gallant Member asked him to agree to the recommendation of Colonel Egerton's Committee, that 45 generals should be created, at an expense of about £12,000 a-year, in order to satisfy

  1601
  some 45 out of 250 or 270 officers who had been superseded, and that the Government should go back to the year 1854, and re-arrange the list of generals according to the services of the different colonels who were promoted to be generals. The latter of these propositions would bring the whole Army into confusion; as to the former of those propositions, it was in effect this—that a burden of £12,000 should be imposed upon the taxpayers in order to create 45 new major generals, not because they were wanted for the public service, but because the hon. and gallant Member was not disposed to accept a proposal as fair as it was possible for the Government to make it. But with regard to the adoption of that course, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was inclined to think that the House would be of opinion that the Army was made for the people, and not the people for the Army. The hon. and gallant Member preferred to have the grievance remedied by a pecuniary mulct on the people of the country rather than in the way the Government suggested, and he for one could not agree to his Motion.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he thought that one of the courses proposed would deprive the Indian officers of the advantage thoughtfully secured to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Anson) was greatly to his credit, and he hoped some satisfactory settlement would, be come to; and, with a view to that result being attained, speaking in the name of the taxpayers, he (Sir Charles Wingfield) had no objection to the charge for an immediate promotion of 45 of these officers to the rank of general, instead of the gradual promotion to which they were entitled, provided that charge were borne by the Imperial Exchequer and not by the people of India. He thought that the superseded colonels were deeply indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bewdley, for the exertions he had made on their behalf.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought he knew his countrymen as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was certain that if £12,000 was required to remedy an injustice they would not scruple to pay it. Officers of the English Army found
  1602
  themselves superseded by men in the Indian Army, who were their juniors by 10 years; for instance, 18 English colonels whose commissions dated from 1858, found themselves superseded by Indian officers who dated from 1868; and he was astonished his right hon. Friend opposite had not made this clear to the Government. The Duke of Argyll had stated that it would not be right that certain officers of the Indian Army who had been looking forward to promotion should be deprived of it; and in this he was perfectly right. But the same principle should be applied to officers in the English Army, and if applied would meet with approval from the people of the country.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—ARMING OF THE FORTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it appeared by a Return laid on the Table on the 10th of August, 1869, that 1,628 guns were required to complete the armaments of forts, but according to a Return dated last April there still remained 1,425 to be completed. In two years only 203 guns had been added, and his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Storks) had stated that about four years would be necessary to complete their armament; but at the present rate of completion seven years would elapse before their forts would be armed. He thought that was a great deal too long. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to assure the House that very great efforts would be made to complete the armament of their forts, on which they had expended so much money for the defence of their country.
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that any delay that had taken place was due to the difficulty of determining what guns should be mounted. Considerable progress, however, had been made in the arming of the forts, and further progress would be made this year. Up to the 1st of July, 1870, the number mounted was 111, and up to August, 1871, there were 196, leaving about 1,021 still to be mounted. Her Majesty's Government were fully impressed with the importance of completing the armament of the forts, and he confidently hoped that at no distant period it would be completed. They proposed to manufacture

  1603
  272 guns this year, of various calibres, and there were about 1,100 7-inch 40-pound breech-loading rifle guns in store, some of which were to be mounted to replace smooth-bores at home, and others would be sent to Malta and Gibraltar as soon as the plans of defence were settled. He could assure the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford that that important subject had made great progress, and would not be lost sight of.

METROPOLIS—KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had given Notice of his intention, on going into Committee of Supply, to move the following Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Avenue in Kensington Gardens planted by the late Prince Consort should be immediately restored to its former state prior to the recent alterations, thus bringing back the Gardens to their original symmetrical plan; and that Her Majesty's Government should forthwith take such steps as may be necessary to guard in future against the possibility of big trees being cut down or important alterations being made in the public Parks and Gardens of the Metropolis, which are in charge of Her Majesty's Office of Works, without the previous knowledge of Parliament, and without plans and Estimates having previously been laid upon the Table of the House."
  At that late period of the Session, however, it would be hopeless to expect to carry it, and it was therefore his intention not to bring it forward on the present occasion, but to postpone it to the next Session of Parliament, hoping that during the interval of the Recess, hon. Members, the Press, and the public might be induced to visit the spot, and judge for themselves whether the Park had been improved by what had been done by the right hon. Gentleman the present First Commissioner of Works. He would not now express an opinion whether the cutting down of many of the largest trees in these Gardens was or was not a justifiable act, and one tending to improve the appearance of the Gardens; but he maintained, however, that great changes such as had been made in Kensington Gardens, ought not to be carried out without the knowledge and sanction of Parliament, and that would be the purport of the Motion which he intended to bring forward next year. Referring to what occurred in the House last Friday, he
  1604
  (Lord Elcho) would express a hope that in the coming Session the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would cast his shield over hon. Members who took an interest in art and subjects connected with the Royal Parks, so as to save them from being sneered at and having their questions answered in an unsatisfactory manner by the right hon. Gentleman. Although, it happened, as he should show next year, that the appointment of the present First Commissioner of Works was made solely in order that he might check the expenditure of the Department; yet, in point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was the only Member of the Government who was nominally responsible in matters relating to art. He was induced to make these remarks in consequence of what occurred last Friday.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire that he was out of Order in referring to a past debate.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was referring not to a debate, but to an answer which was given from the Treasury bench; he, however, thought he should, at any rate, be in Order in alluding to what he feared was going to happen. He had himself put to the First Commissioner of Works plain questions requiring simple answers, which, however, he had in vain endeavoured to obtain, and he thought it right now to bring the matter under the attention of the House, although at the time the questions were put he had sedulously avoided what he might call a catechumenical wrangle with the right hon. Gentleman. There had been certain "condemned" statues, which, after being exhibited on their pedestals in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Westminster, had been so strongly condemned by public opinion that they were withdrawn from the public gaze. This happened in regard to the statues of Lord Palmerston and the late Sir Robert Peel. Public rumour now affirmed, however, that those statues were to be resuscitated, and placed on one of the grass-plats or inclosures at the entrance to New Palace Yard. Public rumour likewise said that not only were these statues to be placed there, but that four, six, or even eight condemned statues were to be crowded into each inclosure like sheep in a pen. When questions on subjects of this kind were asked, the right hon. Gentleman

  1605
  at the head of the Government ought to take care that they were answered in a civil and satisfactory manner. Moreover, the public ought to be informed through their Representatives, whether there was any truth in those rumours; to have an opportunity of forming a judgment respecting the merits of the statues as works of art; and the system under which they were about to be grouped in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. He did not deny that the right hon. Gentleman possessed great ability and had had considerable experience in financial matters; but, regarded from an artistic point of view, his appointment to the post of First Commissioner of Works was most incongruous and astounding. All he wanted now was an assurance that before those statues were erected the public would have an opportunity of judging not only of their merits but of the positions in which it was proposed to place them, and he would conclude by repeating that he should most certainly bring forward the Motion early next Session.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had just made a touching appeal to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to throw his shield over hon. Gentlemen who professed to have a very great knowledge of art when they put questions to him on the subject. That shield he could assure the noble Lord would not be in the least degree required if those who professed to have such a profound knowledge of art would, in putting questions to him, draw them up in language—he would not merely say of courtesy, but in language not studiedly used for the purpose of giving offence. When questions were put in such a way he could easily imagine the disappointment of his interrogators at finding that the blows aimed at him recoiled upon themselves. No protection whatever was required for any hon. Gentleman who treated him with due courtesy and politeness. The noble Lord, however, had a peculiar mode of asking questions, and he did not think any other hon. Member would like to follow the noble Lord's example. With regard to the subject of his Motion, he must remind the noble Lord that it was brought forward in Committee of Supply during the noble Lord's absence, and at his request, by an hon. Member sitting on the Government
  1606
  side of the House. The whole subject was then gone into, and a full explanation given which the Committee accepted as being quite satisfactory. Therefore he hoped the noble Lord had ceased to mourn over the trees that were cut down. As to the statues, he gave the noble Lord a most clear and precise answer the other day.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not know that there was anything uncivil in Ms question.
  MR. AYRTONproceeded to say that he gave a precise answer to the question, which was framed in the peculiar manner of which, perhaps, the noble Lord was himself not quite conscious. After having received a distinct answer to his question, the noble Lord now made a statement, in which he said in a polite way that the reply was wholly untrue. That, of course, was a point on which anyone who was a judge of politeness could form his own opinion. There was no question of eight, or ten, or twelve statues under consideration at all. The only question under consideration related to three statues—those of Lord Palmerston, the late Lord Derby, and the late Sir Robert Peel. Before talking about statues being condemned, and using language which was extremely offensive to the committees appointed to superintend those statues, the noble Lord ought to make himself acquainted with the facts; and here he might remark that the noble Lord thought nothing of describing works by the most eminent sculptors as rubbish which ought to be carted away. The noble Lord thought nothing of wounding the feelings of distinguished artists, because if he used more moderate terms he would not place himself on the pinnacle from which he looked down upon all matters of art as an infallible judge. According to the noble Lord, he (Mr. Ayrton) was chosen to fill his present office on financial considerations only. Well, he admitted that he did not profess in a loud tone to have a profound knowledge of every question relating to art. His pretensions were, indeed, of the most humble and moderate kind, and he would therefore confine himself to the assertion that he perhaps knew as much of these subjects as the noble Lord did. The principle on which he proceeded had, however, given great satisfaction to some of the most eminent sculptors, painters, and architects, and

  1607
  not a few had used the phrase that the fine arts were beginning to look up, because he had not followed the example of certain persons, and assumed to possess an extraordinary knowledge of art. He had thought if they had to deal with matters of architecture, painting, or sculpture, the true mode of dealing with it was to place it in the hands of those who made the particular pursuit their profession; for a gentleman who had devoted all his life to a profession must know more about it than some dilettante gentleman who fancied he knew something about it, although only in a very loose and general way. Though a man in the expenditure of his own money might give expression to his own ideas and fancies, the Government had no right, when expending the money of the public, to give themselves up to caprices. If they were dealing with sculpture, it was not their duty to go about the town asking Mr. This and Mr. That what he thought about it; but they should go to sculptors, and if they found amongst them conflicting opinions they were enabled, by inviting them to meet together, to arrive at a sound conclusion. Thus, the course he had adopted in reference to the statues was essentially practical. He requested the two sculptors who were engaged on the statues of Lord Derby and Lord Palmerston to meet together and arrange the technical details, in which task they were assisted by the Director of the National Gallery. A meeting of that sort was, he thought, more likely to lead to a satisfactory solution of all questions that might arise than if he had gathered together half-a-dozen gentlemen who professed to be great connoisseurs or judges of art.
  LORD ELCHOasked were those the same statues?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, Lord Palmerston's was not made yet.
  LORD ELCHOasked whether it was to be cast after the model which was exhibited?
  MR. AYRTONreplied in the negative, as the statue would not be of the same size as that model. This matter, however, was placed in the hands of the committee. The sculptor who had received the order from the committee would do what was necessary for the erection of the statue. He certainly should not attempt to control either him or the committee. In the same way, the
  1608
  committee appointed to erect the statue of Sir Robert Peel would take their own course. He had no right to say to them—"You shall not put up a statue of Sir Robert Peel," because they were perfectly well able to form an opinion on the subject. If the statue were considered objectionable, the opinion of this House might be taken on the point after it was erected, and in the event of that opinion being unfavourable the requisite steps would, of course, be taken for the removal of the statue. But to override the opinion of an intelligent committee would be an assumption he was not disposed to admit, although it might be in accordance with the tone generally adopted by the noble Lord.
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDconsidered that the noble Lord, and one or two other hon. Gentlemen, had been rather unfair during that Session to the First Commissioner of Works, who had a very difficult duty to perform. It often happened that what were usually called the rights of the Crown clashed with what he believed to be the rights of the people, and the general opinion out-of-doors was that the right hon. Gentleman had always stood up for the rights of the public. And, therefore, quite apart from all those personal observations which had been introduced into the debate that night, the House and the country were indebted to the First Commissioner of Works for the marked improvement effected in the Parks during his administration; and it was felt that the general conduct of the business of his Department had been satisfactory.

ENDOWED HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) ACT. PROVISIONAL ORDERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. M'LAREN, in calling attention to the injury sustained by the cause of education amongst the working classes in Scotland, from the Provisional Orders applied for during the present Session of Parliament, under the Endowed Hospitals (Scotland) Act of 1869 not having been sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said, the subject was one of importance not to his constituents only, but to the country generally. In the Session of 1869, at which time the Endowed Hospitals were under consideration it was proposed that an Act of Parliament should be passed making

  1609
  those institutions amenable to some general authority, in the same manner as similar English institutions. The managers of these foundations, however, represented that they were themselves ready to undertake the management on a more liberal and extended basis provided sufficient powers and authority were granted them. This was assented to by the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncreiff) and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and an Act was passed which gave the managers a permissive power to act for two years in reforming these institutions, and with the proviso that the Secretary of State should have power to prolong the period for one year further. The Preamble recites—
  "That it is expedient that provisions should be made to enable the citizens, managers and trustees from time to time to apply for and obtain powers and authority whereby the usefulness and efficiency of the said hospitals and institutions may be increased and the benefits thereof extended."
  And the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, in advocating the Bill, said he should not be at all afraid of giving to the managers of these great institutions the opportunity of showing whether they were or were not willing to do what they stated they desired to do, by putting them into a position in which they might carry out the changes required; and that he was willing to give them a helping hand. Now, it was the essence of his (Mr. M'Laren's) complaint that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not only not given the managers that helping hand which had been promised, and which it was in his power to give, but had thrown obstacles in the way of reform. The House would observe that the power given to the Secretary of State was either to pass the Provisional Orders submitted to him, or to pass them with such alterations or modifications as might seem expedient—no power was given to refuse to pass them altogether without reasons assigned—they were then to be laid on the Table of the House, and if not objected to they became law. In the succeeding Session of Parliament the Merchant Company of Edinburgh applied for four Provisional Orders in respect of four separate institutions—one of them being Gillespie's Hospital—with the purpose of "extending the benefits of those institutions."
  1610
  The changes they proposed were sufficiently radical, but they were not radical enough for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who proposed that they should seek power to shut up the institutions altogether, and apply the funds to the purposes of education. The Provisional Orders finally received the sanction of Parliament; and it would give some idea of the radical nature of the reform effected, that the 45 aged persons who were maintained in the hospital had been pensioned off—to their great comfort—and the building was converted into a school, in which 1,200 children were educated. In the same Session of Parliament the managers of another Hospital—Heriot's Hospital—applied for a Provisional Order. All the managers desired was to reduce the number of boys maintained in the Hospital to 60, giving out-door allowance to those whom they thought would by that course be better provided for, be more comfortable, and obtain a better education: but bearing in mind the declared opinion of the Home Secretary in respect of the Merchant Company's Hospitals, what they applied for was to shut up the Hospital altogether, and apply the funds for the education of the poor children of the city. It was doubted whether that course was quite within the powers of the Act of 1869; but, having the authority of the Home Secretary's opinion in the other cases they made that application in July of last year. As the Session was then approaching its close the Home Secretary refused to grant the Order as applied for; but he gave an assurance that when Parliament again met he would issue the Provisional Order early in the Session. When, however, the Session arrived and the Provisional Order was applied for, the application failed. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt whether he had not exceeded his powers in respect of the previous Provisional Orders, and asked whether certain applicants could obtain for him the opinion of counsel on the subject of their application. This was done. Sir Roundell Palmer, Sir J. Wickens—the present Vice Chancellor—and Mr. Gordon gave a joint opinion that the changes sought for were within the powers of the Minister. But the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied, and he asked the opinion of the Law Officers

  1611
  of the Crown for Scotland. The opinion of those Law Officers was that those powers were not given by the Act of Parliament. It followed, if that opinion was correct, that the four Provisional Orders already granted were illegal. He (Mr. M'Laren) admitted that having taken the opinion of the Law Officers of Scotland the Home Secretary was bound to act upon it—because although not a question of Scotch law exclusively it related wholly to a Scotch institution. The managers then applied to the Home Secretary requesting him to issue the Provisional Order modified in any way he might chose, and they submitted a scheme out of which they had struck everything that could be of doubtful legality, and offered to submit to any further modifications he might think fit to make. But the Home Secretary answered that he had not sufficient information with respect to educational matters in Edinburgh to enable him to grant the Provisional Order. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had not obtained such information it was his own fault, because the Act of 1869 gave him special power to refer any such inquiry to two Commissioners—one the sheriff of the county, and the other a gentleman to be appointed by himself. But the right hon. Gentleman took no advantage of that power, and took no public means to obtain information. That was the only justification he had for saying he was not sufficiently informed as to the state of education in Edinburgh. The foundation in question was in a very peculiar position. Thirty-five years ago the trustees—who were a regularly incorporated body, and now consisting of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, six magistrates, 34 town-councillors, and 13 City ministers—54 members in all — obtained an Act of Parliament to establish out-of-door schools for the benefit of the poor of Edinburgh; and they had since 1835 established 11 such schools, which now gave an excellent education to 3,500 children. The children were not admitted by patronage, but simply by the parent filling up a schedule describing his position and family, and his need for gratuitous education — in fact, the more destitute the parent the better chance the child had of being admitted. They would have erected more schools but they were prohibited from touching their
  1612
  capital, and had actually £20,000 which they would, if they could have obtained the Provisional Order, have applied to the erection of additional schools which the revenue well enabled them to maintain. It might, perhaps, be supposed that, in their defective state of information, the Government refused to grant the Provisional Order from some suspicion of jobbery. If it were so, nothing could be more erroneous. The highest salary given to a master was £160, and the under-schoolmasters received about £50 a-year each. He believed the fact was that there was an undercurrent—first openly shown at the recent meeting of the British Association, which set in the direction of swallowing up Heriot's Hospital, and making it part and parcel of the University. The idea was to take it from the poor children, to whom it was left, and to make it into a "hall" in connection with the University of Edinburgh. In short, the plan was to rob the poor for the benefit of the middle classes. Another scheme was to treat the funds as if they were not intended for Edinburgh especially, but taken away from the City and applied to the benefit of Scotland generally. To what extent that idea prevailed he could not say; but, for himself, if Parliament passed an Act for any such purpose he should regard it as legalized robbery. Heriot was first a citizen of Edinburgh; but having come to London he became acquainted with the Blue Coat School, and his direction to the trustees was that the foundation he had instituted at Edinburgh should be conducted on the same principle; and it had been so conducted from that time to the present. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be a grievous wrong to apply these funds to any other purpose than that for which they were intended. The subject was altogether one of deep interest to those whom he represented, and it was at their request that he had brought the matter before the House.
  MR. PARKERsaid, he could quite confirm the hon. Member as to the spirit in which the Act of 1869 was passed. Those who supported it did so in the belief that, as no general measure was about to pass for the organization of higher education in Scotland, it was desirable in the meantime to give new powers to the trustees of these institutions, and to place faith in their good

  1613
  intentions. This confidence had been fully justified, for the schemes submitted for Provisional Orders by several of these bodies were highly creditable to them, and had been sanctioned accordingly. The present cause of complaint was that effect had not been given to the scheme for Heriot's Hospital. That, however, was not owing to any want of will on the part of the Home Secretary, but to want of power. The hon. Member had quoted opinions contrary to those of the Law Officers, but, at least, it seemed very doubtful what were the legal powers possessed by the Home Secretary under the Act. But what did the Home Secretary do? He gave Notice of a Bill, which had been read the first time, to enlarge the legal powers; and it was his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) himself who, by his threatened opposition, destroyed all hope of the Bill becoming law this Session. He did not think the course the hon. Member now recommended the best course that could be pursued — namely, the extension of the operation of the Act and of the Order in Council. He thought a better course would be to leave it to the Government to propose what might seem most desirable next Session, when he hoped they would be in a position to deal with the question of primary in connection with that of higher education in a general Education Bill for Scotland.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that if it was true that under the Act of 1869 he possessed sufficient legal power, and if it was also true that the scheme then put before him was sufficient, he admitted that a good case had been made out against him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). But he did not consider that the Act conferred on him sufficient legal power, and he arrived at that conclusion with very great hesitation and unwillingness. As to his hon. Friend's suggestion that there was a suspicion of jobbery on the part of the managers of Heriot's Hospital, he would at once set it aside. He had had repeated opportunities of meeting those gentlemen, and had never seen a body of men more earnest or single-minded in their endeavour to do their duty; and he would also say that he had not a shadow of doubt that the scheme they proposed was a very considerable improvement upon the present mode of applying the great educational endowment of that
  1614
  Hospital; but after every inquiry, and after consulting with those whose opinions in regard to a matter of this nature it was his duty to take—namely, the Law Officers of Scotland, he arrived at the conclusion that he had not legal power to sanction this new scheme. The hon. Member had said that a different conclusion had been arrived at by very eminent English counsel on the subject of Gillespie's Hospital; but the case of Gillespie's Hospital was essentially different from that of Heriot's Hospital. As to the want of information, it must not be forgotten that the Home Secretary had not in his office the means of making the best inquiry as to the application of these funds. The Home Office was not an educational department, and with the best will in the world the Home Secretary must feel that he was wanting in that fulness of knowledge and information which would enable him speedily to arrive at the best conclusion on the subject. The question was one which was of great importance to the education of Scotland. The funds in Scotland immediately devoted by former donors to the purposes of education in Scotland might be put at £75,000; there was also £25,000 a-year additional, so that the whole educational endowments might be stated at about £100,000, upwards of £50,000 of which sum arose in the City of Edinburgh alone; and he submitted that in dealing with the question of Heriot's Hospital, he had to consider not merely the case before him, but the case of all those other endowments for the purpose of education in Scotland, and determine what was the best manner in which they might be applied. The hon. Member for Edinburgh naturally wished to see the funds applied to the education of the poor in that city; but they knew that in Scotland there already existed very large means for educating the poor. At that moment there was before Parliament a Bill which, unfortunately, they were not able to pass, which would extend to Scotland the same means for providing for elementary education which existed in England; and that being the case, it was most important to see that those great funds were not simply applied in relief of the rates, but in the manner best calculated to promote education in Scotland. Now, they could not in Scotland draw that distinction between the

  1615
  rich and the poor which, unfortunately, was drawn in this country. In Scotland all the people had an eager desire for education, and there was hardly anyone who, if he had energy and ability, might not obtain the best education which that country afforded. He thought, therefore, that the duty of any person who had to deal with this great question was to see how those funds might be applied, so as to enable the very poorest in Scotland to obtain the most ample and the best education. In his opinion the scheme laid before him, although a great improvement upon the existing scheme, and containing many points well worthy of consideration, was by no means a complete scheme. That being his opinion, he brought the subject before the Government, and their opinion was, that the best mode of proceeding would be not to attempt to enforce the scheme—the legality of which was denied by their legal advisers, and of the efficiency of which he was himself doubtful—but to bring in a Bill greatly to enlarge the powers of the managers, and also to give enlarged means of inquiry. With reference to the means of inquiry, the hon. Member said that sufficient means already existed, and that the Home Secretary, in case he had wanted information, might have referred the matter to the sheriff and some other gentleman to be appointed by himself. In one case that was done; but he confessed that as regarded these large endowments of Heriot's Hospital, he did not consider that that was a sufficient means of inquiry. The Bill the Government brought in provided, to a considerable extent, for existing deficiencies. He had no doubt that that Bill was capable of improvement in some respects; but the hon. Member for Edinburgh must excuse him for saying that that measure would have become law this Session if it had not been for his persistent opposition. He deeply regretted that they had not been able to go forward with that Bill. It would have enabled the Government, he thought, to have met the wishes of the people of Edinburgh, and given them large powers, which they did not at present possess. With respect to the whole question of education in Scotland, it must occupy the attention of the Government. They were as pledged to deal with that question as they could possibly be, and he should deeply regret if, when
  1616
  they came to deal with elementary education in Scotland, they did not take some means to secure the wise and useful application of the endowments which had been left by the liberality of successful promoters of education in Scotland.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he was sorry to hear the views that had just been expressed by the Home Secretary. The consequence of the course pursued with reference to Heriot's Hospital had been that the poorer classes of Edinburgh had been deprived of the education they would otherwise have had. They were now promised an Education Bill for Scotland next Session; the same thing had been promised them for the last three years; he confessed he saw no better prospect of obtaining it than in 1869. The excuse was that there had not been time to consider the Bill in the present Session; but there were down on the Paper for that evening three Irish measures which would take more time to discuss than a Scotch Education Bill. He did not, therefore, think that that was the sole reason for postponing that question.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £374,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Control Establishment, Wages, &c., which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
MR. W. FOWLER, on rising to move, according to Notice, on Vote 9, Sub-head D, Police employed under Contagious Diseases Prevention Act, to reduce the amount of the said Vote by the sum of £3,793, said, it was very unsatisfactory to him to bring forward that question for discussion when there were so few hon. Members present. That the Estimates should be considered in such a House was hardly endurable, and he trusted that a similar spectacle would never again be presented to the country. A Report had recently been

1617
presented to Parliament on the subject of these Acts, which were passed in 1864, 1866, and 1869, and under which the persons affected by them were placed entirely in the power of the policeman and the doctor, the system enabling the detention of any person who was merely suspected. Last year he protested against existing legislation as being scientifically a mistake, and as being both constitutionally and morally wrong, and the Report of the Royal Commission which had been since appointed to inquire into the subject, and to which he had before referred, fully sustained his allegations. That Report was signed by 23 of the Members, but there were only eight who did not dissent from one or other of the recommendations which it contained. Sixteen were in favour of getting rid of the system of periodical inspection, and eight approved of the proposed return to the system of 1864, and of its extension to the whole of the kingdom. The Report stated that any diminution of disease which might have taken place in the Army and Navy could not be traced with any confidence to the operations of the Act of 1869, and on moral grounds both statutes were objectionable. It recommended a return to the Act of 1864, and its application to the whole kingdom; and agreeing with the Commissioners that if that system were beneficial it ought not to be confined to garrison towns, he argued that if, on the other hand, it was an evil, it would be difficult to say why those towns should be afflicted with it. Periodical examination was an essential part of the system, but he contended there was no evidence that such a practice had diminished disease. For what had all these Acts been passed? To support a system which was objectionable and open to all the objections he urged against it last year, and such legislation had been resorted to in despair of getting rid of the evil. In doing that, he must contend they were licensing for that which was a sin in the sight of God and man, and that the honesty and good feeling of the whole community had unmistakably pronounced itself against this legislation. That was the only sin that was licensed by the law, and hon. Members who had a public duty to perform ought not to sanction it, while hospitals were dealt with in so peculiar a manner. At the present time small-pox
1618
hospitals, which were filled with patients who could not avoid disease, were languishing for want of funds, yet the undeserving were protected while the deserving were left to their fate. He came now to a most important point. The provisions of this Act, it was well known, could be better applied to men than women, yet this was a system which he contended would never be endured by the men of this country, in spite of all that was written concerning the "shrieking sisterhood." In fact, he would go so far as to say that no hon. Member would dare to introduce a measure into that House for the purpose of applying it to men. Men were not subject to the Act, because it was notorious that they would not submit to it. It was a case of the law of the stronger. Women were obliged to submit because they had no votes. The law, as it stood, encouraged men to think that they might, for their own purposes, oppress women as they would. Sir Charles Trevelyan had borne testimony against the efficacy of such legislation, and could it be said that the system worked wherever it had been carried out? Had it succeeded in France? No, it had utterly failed, as it also had in Hamburg, in Stockholm, and he believed in Prussia. Father Hyacinthe had protested against it, and said that two evils were eating into the vitals of France—the prolonged celibacy of its soldiers and the legalized prostitution of its women. He was not opposed to a reform in the hospitals, but that might have been done without new Acts of Parliament. If they allowed women to come into hospitals voluntarily, and treated them kindly, they would be grateful, and they would be more amenable to moral teaching than if they were hunted down and exposed to brutal indignity. But instead of that, he must say that he thought the treatment in hospitals had an hardening effect, because the law treated all alike; whereas it was well known that, as in every other circumstance of life, there were well-marked gradations among those pursuing that hateful avocation. Once a woman had the misfortune to fall under the notice of a policeman there was no help for her; the law branded her with the mark of Cain, henceforward only to be known as being subject to the cruel and revolting examinations prescribed by these objectionable statutes. Homes did some

1619
good, but Government could not help homes, nor did the Commissioners recommend them. The system was rough, rude, one-sided, and unworthy of a civilized people. Two excuses were given for the maintenance of the law—first, the money value of the soldier; and secondly, the reformation of the women. As to the former, it was not worth considering in a matter of such magnitude; as to the latter, he was not prepared to deny that, after having neglected these wretched women for years, once we cleared the streets of them and sent them into hospitals, some might be reformed. But he maintained that this reformation might be effected without these Acts of Parliament. If the women were induced to go voluntarily into hospitals, and were treated kindly there, much more might be done than by hunting them down by spies and degrading them by Acts of Parliament. It was notorious, notwithstanding all that was said about reformation under the present system, that the greater part of the women who were stated to have been restored to their families and friends returned to their evil courses. Indeed, he had been informed on good authority that the average period during which these wretched creatures prosecuted their miserable profession might be safely fixed at the low period of one year. From a Return laid on the Table last year it was perfectly clear that the longer the system had been tried—as, for instance, at Devonport—the greater the percentage of women who relapsed. But even if he were to admit that some good was done in the way of reclamation, the balance of evil was far greater. Besides, evil ought not to be done that good might follow. But besides the moral objection, there was another. He contended that the Act was unconstitutional, and gave the police a dangerous power. It was objectionable in a moral point of view, and it was objectionable even on the low ground of expediency. The law was so framed that there was no security against a false accusation, and there was no adequate trial to prove that the accusation was false. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, speaking of the Act of 1864, condemned it on the ground of discretionary powers given to the police. But if that was a good ground of objection to the Act of 1864, it applied, à fortiori, to the Act of
1620
1866. The spirit of our Constitution was that in any case of importance there should be a trial by jury, and not merely on accusation by the police. This was no paltry case of cab fares or the like; the liberty of every woman in England who did not ride in a carriage was involved. All the women of the poorer classes were liable to be accused. ["No!"] He did not say it was likely, he only said that they were liable. It was said that the police had acted moderately, and that the Act had not been abused; but his reply was that the Act was itself an abuse, and that therefore it was impossible to make it a greater abuse in application. Even, however, if that were not the case, he believed that many cases of gross abuse had occurred, and that the police had acted on very insufficient evidence. The real reason of the failure of these Acts in France and in other countries was that the system did not find out the vast majority of those who, according to the system, ought to be subject to it. As long as the examination was confined to one sex, the labour was in vain, and it was cruel to keep up the system in the face of the Report of the Commissioners. Last year 29,500 women were examined, and found free from all disease, and they were going to examine 30,000 more, perhaps, this year, under an Act which he was convinced, when it came to be considered, could not be maintained. In conclusion, he must say that, viewed under whatever aspect they liked, this Act had failed in reaching the source of the evils at which it was aimed; they were condemned by the Report of the Commissioners; and in reference to the legislation which had produced such measures legalizing sin as this, he could only quote the words of the wisest of Monarchs and of men—"Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." He would conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £372,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Control Establishment, Wages, &c., which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. William Fowler.)
MR. HENLEYsaid, he should have been very glad if this discussion could have been postponed for another year, but

1621
felt this to be impossible after the answer publicly given to the deputation by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which had the effect of raising a totally false issue before the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that—
"A strong feeling had been excited in the public mind by the repetition of statements to the effect that in carrying out these Acts outrages had been committed on innocent and virtuous women, which statements had not been confirmed. If they had been confirmed it would have been the duty of the Government, under any circumstances, at once to repeal the Acts. But the results of inquiry had been to satisfy the Government that the police were not chargeable with any abuse of authority; that there was no foundation for the charges rashly made and repeated; and that they had discharged their difficult and delicate duties with moderation and caution."
That answer which the right hon. Gentleman then gave, by treating only of one or two paragraphs in the Report of the Commission, coupled with the fact that discussion had been stifled on the subject in the manner it had, had a tendency to raise a false issue in the country, and would lead the public to believe that what the 600,000 petitioners who petitioned the House last year, and the 500,000 who petitioned this year complained of was gross and outrageous acts on the part of the police. Such was not the fact. What the petitioners—many of them high-minded Christian women—complained of was, that soon after the Acts had passed they had found out by degrees that women were subjected to treatment which no woman, however fallen, however outcast, ought against her will to suffer; that the treatment itself was inflicted not for a good, but for an immoral purpose; and, lastly, that the sexes were not equally dealt with, men being left entirely free from their operation. He thought that if the Acts were to remain in existence, they should, at least, treat both sexes equally. Those points were the burden of their song; and he spoke with knowledge, for he had read all the Petitions printed on the subject. The Commissioners themselves rebuked the tone of argument which had been adopted as much upon one side as on the other, and the disclosures of past Commissions showed that, at least, mistakes in carrying out the Acts were possible. Well, the next matter was the opinion of the Commissioners with respect to the question of
1622
fair play between men and women. The reasoning was very singular. They said—
"There is no comparison to be made between prostitutes and the men who consort with them. With the one sex the offence is committed as a matter of gain; with the other it is an irregular indulgence of a natural appetite."
Under any system, even of heathen ethics, he could not find that the tempter was less blameable than the tempted; and according to Christian ethics it certainly was not so. This could not go down with the Government, and he was sure it would not with the country. As he had said before, Christian high-minded women had upon the highest Christian grounds—upon the ground that they should do to others as they would be done by—taken up this question; they had also insisted by these Acts you are recognizing sin, and trying to render sin free from the consequences which the Almighty, whether in mercy to warn, or as a penalty to deter, had attached to that kind of life. He could not understand the reasoning of the Commissioners—16 out of 23 Commissioners had protested against certain parts of the Report—seven of those protested against one part, and six against another part, and yet the whole had signed the Report. The great body of the Commissioners recommended the repeal of the present Act, and that something like the Act of 1864 should be re-enacted; but seven of them protested strongly against that course, on the ground that the Act of 1864 gave a discretionary power to the police to lodge an information before a magistrate, who must hear on oath, against a suspected woman, and they said that that was a dangerous power. Nevertheless, they proposed to substitute for it a power authorizing a policeman of his own will to send any woman he liked to be examined. Neither could he understand how they could in any sense say that the one party was by necessity compelled to sin, and that the other stood in a more favourable position. Such questionable ethics as that could never be upheld, and the reasoning of the Commissioners, therefore, ought not, in his view, to go down with the Government; it certainly would not go down with the country. The Government should take one line or the other. The agitation was now against these Acts, for a large portion of the country had a strong religious feeling

1623
on the subject, and he thought the Government would not act wisely to run counter to it. They could not tell how soon it might be against them. Look at the countries from which they had copied this legislation. Were they more moral than this country? No sanitary grounds could justify such legislation; and he should certainly vote with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), for he had no other way of protesting against the fatal mistake committed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce), on a former occasion, when he addressed the House upon the subject. He had not a word to say against hospital accommodation. If they were once to stay their hands against relieving human misery because it was produced by human sin, little indeed would be done. So, he would say—"Throw wide open the doors of your hospitals; but do not seem to give a recognition to that which is against God's law. Do not seem to deal with these women not to deter or reclaim, but to enable them to carry on their vicious practices." The Commissioners advised that in many instances the laws should be more stringently administered; but it was remarkable that they seemed to think more of decency than virtue, and did not say a word about putting down brothels, although the evidence showed that they were the main sources from whence the police derived their information. The tenor of their Report was how to make vice more attractive and less dangerous. He was afraid that they were not treading on safe ground; it seemed to him that they were entering on a course without knowing where it would lead them. However, of this he was certain—that the humbler classes were not deluded by the sophistries put before them, and the House must take care that reform did not come from below. There was nothing in which the corruption of a nation was more marked than when they could not bear to see their own condition placed before their eyes. On the Government rested a vast responsibility. They must base their legislation on the high moral principles of Christianity, and woe, indeed, would it be for the country when they ceased to do so.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he very much regretted the vote which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire
1624
(Mr. Henley) was about to give, especially as he said it was the result of an answer which had fallen from him on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, no doubt unwillingly, misrepresented him in respect to that answer. What he had said on a previous occasion was that, burdened as the Government were with other important measures, and which they were unable to pass—near as was the end of the Session and imperfect as was the information in their possession, the evidence not being yet before them, they yet would have legislated upon this subject had there been any proof of the assertion so frequently made not in Petitions, but in the publications with which hon. Members were flooded — namely, that many innocent and virtuous women had been dealt with under these Acts. If there had been proof of that statement, it would have been the duty of that House to have legislated at any sacrifice of time with a view to remedy that which was, perhaps, the greatest and gravest charge against these Acts. But there being no proof of that charge, and the Government being solemnly warned by that very Commission, that any changes made should be accompanied by further important legislation, it became the duty of the Government to consider whether it would be right to propose the total repeal of these Acts without substituting the remedial measures recommended. Now, one of the difficulties which the Government had in dealing with that question was the great division of opinion which existed among the Commissioners themselves, differing as they did upon by far the greatest part of the recommendations. But there was one part of their Report as to which the Commissioners were unanimous, and that was the passage in the Report, in which the Commissioners said that the numerous innocent persons who suffered from those evils were surely entitled to consideration, and also expressed a hope that the attempt to stay the progress of a formidable mischief would not be hastily abandoned. [Mr. MUNDELLA said, that that paragraph had been protested against by several Members of the Commission.] Well, he must say he could discover no evidence of any such protest. The Commissioners recommended strong remedial and repressive measures, and, of course, such legislation,

1625
before it was adopted, would require very careful examination. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) had unintentionally misrepresented the recommendation of the Commissioners in stating that they were in favour of strong proceedings against unfortunate women, but were not in favour of more rigorous measures being taken against those who harboured them. If he would refer again to the Report, he would find that out of 12 different recommendations three suggested more stringent legislation than now existed against the latter class of persons. It was not for him to commit himself now to any opinion for or against the Acts, but he must say that his position was one of great difficulty, and that he was bound to give them, in common with the Government, his most anxious, impartial, and dispassionate consideration. It was an exaggeration to say that those women were hunted down by spies, and liable to be arrested on the mere suspicion of a policeman. It was not the practice of the police to act upon one proof, but upon several concurrent proofs. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had contrasted the proportions of diseased persons under the more recent Act with those examined under the Act of 1864. But the comparison was between things essentially different. Under the Act of 1864, those only were examined who were, on adequate evidence, suspected of being diseased. Under the Acts of 1866 and 1869, all women proved to be prostitutes were periodically examined, without reference to any immediate suspicion of disease. The consequence necessarily was that the proportion of diseased persons had been greater under the Act of 1864 than under that of 1866. But that fact proved nothing against the policy of the later Act. He was far from saying that those acts might not be open to well-founded objections, but, beyond all question, they had led in certain towns to an enormous diminution of open vice. It was, moreover, a remarkable circumstance that the opposition to those Acts was most vehement the farther off the objectors to them were from the scene of their operations; whereas a large proportion of those who had seen their working in seaport and garrison towns were in their favour. Why was this, unless it was because those Acts had been found to have a
1626
salutary deterrent effect; and the Government therefore shrank from sweeping away that legislation without substituting some other safeguards for the benefit of those miserable persons. Wherever these Acts were in force, it would be found that a considerable number of magistrates, of clergymen, of men prominent in good works, were in favour of their continuance. And why so? Because they tended to diminish the numbers of those leading a life of prostitution. By way of illustrating this view, he would refer to the case of Plymouth and Devonport, where only a few years ago there were 200 or 300 girls between the ages of 13 and 15 engaged in this traffic, whereas at the present time the number of such children had been reduced to two; while the total number of prostitutes in that district had been reduced from over 2,000 to under 600. In conclusion he would say that the Government had hesitated at the end of the Session to propose the repeal of Acts that could only be replaced by legislation of a wider bearing and a different character which could not be lightly submitted to the House, and, under those circumstances, they must decline to act upon the advice of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Fowler). All must admit the difficulty of the situation; but he hoped the majority of the Committee would be of opinion that, in the interest of those wretched creatures themselves, the Government was right in refusing to expose them again to all the dangers from which they had escaped by repealing those Acts without providing any substitute for them.
MR. TIPPINGsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had treated all facts and all evidence which militated against his own views with great contempt, although whenever any facts or figures appeared to toll in his favour he laid much stress upon them. The hon. Gentleman had, however, to make bricks without straw, for the whole of his straw had been swept away by the Royal Commission. That Commission had to consider whether the Act of 1866 had worked well for the Army and Navy, and whether it was desirable that it should to a certain degree be extended. He thought there could be no doubt, in the face of what appeared, that the present working of the Acts had been beneficial. This subject had been mixed up

1627
with women's rights and Bloomerism, for it should be remembered that those who had most actively opposed the Acts objected to an Army and a Navy, and to war altogether; and being of Quaker origin he had been greatly pained to find that the female members of that body had taken up this subject, and had even encouraged women to disobey the law. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Surveyor General of Ordnance, had been subjected to considerable obloquy for having described as a necessity that which was rather inevitable, and to show how hopeless was any attempt to deal with this question, he (Mr. Tipping) need only remind the House that 40 centuries had passed since veiled women sat on the roads of Judea, and that the numbers of such persons in any country had not decreased. Every conceivable means had been tried in order to suppress the evil, but without success, and although the severest measures had been employed they had failed, and only tended to increase it. England and the United States were the only countries in which some such laws did not prevail, and he would remind the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who thought he could find a model of all the virtues in Germany, that in Prussia the law on this subject was even more stringent than in France, while the President of the Police at Berlin had acknowledged that the evil could not be suppressed by any violent measures, and said that as any attempt to deal with the evil only increased it, tolerance should be exercised under the surveillance of the police. He did not admit the superior morality of this country on the subject, and denied that similar legislation had failed in France, while he was convinced that if the mass of people in this country understood the question they would not be led away by the calumnious misstatements that had been made. He did not believe that the effect of these Acts had been to increase the evil which, as regarded the Metropolis, ranged from Ratcliff Highway to Hyde Park, and he contended that what they sought to check was mainly confined to the lower stratum. The hon. Member for Cambridge had indulged in an ocean of sentimental sack, but had not given the House a pennyworth of fact. Hon. Members, however, should not give way to sentiment, but ought to face the question
1628
and admit that, as the evil could not be suppressed, it must either be left alone, or some system must be invented which would enable medical men to grapple with it. They ought not to look so much to what ought to be done with regard to attaining ideal perfection as to what could be effected, and, under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would think that the Acts deserved a further trial. If, after having had that further trial, they should fail to realize the expectations which had been formed of them, then let them be given up.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he disclaimed being a supporter of the German system in this matter, and alleged that the witnesses who were examined before the Committee of 1869 were chiefly those who were engaged in the prosecution of the Acts. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was wrong in supposing that no Member of the recent Commission had objected to the Act of 1864, for seven hon. Gentlemen had signed a dissent from it. As to the Report it was not consistent with itself. It was fought clause by clause, and word by word, just in the same manner as a Bill would be fought in that House. If the spirit of the Report had been adopted by the Home Secretary—if that right hon. Gentleman had suspended the operation of these Acts for a year as the Report recommended, there would have been no necessity for the Motion of his hon. Friend, which it was his intention to support. Every statement read by the Home Secretary as evidence was contradicted by other evidence before the Commission. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman said the police administration had been faultless. What was the power given to the police? It gave them absolute power over the persons of the women, the virtuous as well as the vicious; and though, no doubt, the influence of public opinion and criticism made them very cautious, they must remember that they had none of the women examined before the Commission. Was there no other mode of reducing disease than that of licensing and certificating women for the purposes of prostitution? There was evidence before the Commission that officers and gentlemen drove these women to the examination-rooms, and then when they were examined took them away for their own purposes. With reference to

1629
the Commission, only two or three of its Members were at first opposed to these Acts; but after the evidence practically brought home the real effects of these Acts to their minds, the majority of the Commission yielded to the conviction that they could not be maintained. He might, indeed, say that the evidence brought before the Commission was such that Professor Huxley and other eminent gentlemen shrunk from it in disgust. Moreover, the evidence was not in the possession of the House, and there was a disadvantage in a partial discussion on the subject. It had been said there was a possibility of stamping out this disease, but the mind of man never entertained a greater delusion than the idea that this disease could be stamped out; in fact, it was really impossible to do what the Acts contemplated, and therefore they might be said to be perfect failures. His idea was that, instead of aiming at suppression, they should seek as much as possible to prevent that which was the source of the legislation he and his Friends complained of, and seek by the aid of hospitals to ameliorate the condition of the unfortunates engaged in that miserable traffic. When the women were not of full age to be able to judge of the course which they were pursuing, and their parents would not be responsible for them, then it was the duty of the State to interfere, and send them to homes where they could be trained to become industrious members of society, and the parents of those who had allowed them to become prostitutes should be compelled to pay for their maintenance. Instead of that, however, when a girl went "larking" in the streets, the police placed a hand on her shoulder, and she was sent to an examination which lasted for twelve months. The police had power over every woman; and that affected the liberty of virtuous women as well as the immodest. He admitted that the police discharged their duty with good sense, with good temper, and with carefulness; and the medical men were actuated by a desire to reduce the disease. But was there no other mode than that of examining and licensing women? He said, extend, the provision of the Act to the men. Take the woman's accomplice as well as the woman. The agitation could not be put an end to by calling names. The Acts were dead—they could not be maintained—if both sides of the House conspired
1630
in their favour the country was against them, and the Legislature would have to abandon them. The evidence of town officials engaged in the administration of the Acts showed that a most demoralizing influence was exercised upon all who had anything to do with them; facts were stated, even in relation to children, which it was impossible to repeat. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War to do his best to rid us of that moral pest—a celibate Army; and, admitting the indiscretion of some who were engaged in this agitation, with which he was wholly unconnected, he warned the Government that there was in the country an intensity of feeling on the subject which was not to be met by charges of excessive zeal.
MR. G. B. GREGORY, referring to the position in which many of them were placed by the issue before them, said, they were asked to obtain, practically, the repeal of certain Acts of the Legislature by the reduction of a Vote in Supply. Nothing could be more inconvenient and worse as a precedent than such a course, because they were not dealing with the subject directly, but were attempting to get rid of a law by a side wind. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had brought before the House evidence from a Report which was not yet before the Committee, and other hon. Members had been doing the same. Now, it was most unfair to ask the Committee to reduce the Vote on evidence not yet before it. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had stated that the Committee of 1869 was appointed for the express purpose of maintaining these Acts in force; but he believed, on the other hand, that the Committee had been as fairly selected as any Committee had ever been, and it was open to parties to bring what evidence they pleased before it. He did not think it a fair course to impugn their decision by the means proposed to be adopted.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAM, in reply to some remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), said that the one feature of this agitation had been misrepresentation. The hon. Member for Sheffield had made a great point against the Committee in not having examined any evidence except what was in favour of the Acts. But the Committee examined Dr. Simon, and the

1631
whole evidence given by him was in spirit opposed to the Acts, and that was only one case among many. A headstrong ecclesiastic like the Dean of Carlisle had stuck at nothing, but taken any evidence which came from the lowest quarter of the kingdom. In what he had said, he merely wished to show that misrepresentation was the badge of the tribe.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that if the question before the Committee had been whether the Acts should be totally suspended, he would have hesitated to support the Motion for a reduction of the Vote until he had seen the Report on which the Motion was founded. But the effect of the Motion was to put a stop to the system of periodic examination until the Report was before them. He had read the evidence of last year, and he was astonished that upon the evidence of the Committee of 1869 such Acts should have been recommended to the House, because anything more unsatisfactory than that evidence he had scarcely ever seen. The only conclusion he had come to was that further inquiry was necessary, and the moment that Government agreed to the issuing of a Commission he said to himself that his opposition was at an end until he saw the Report. Well, he had now seen the Report, and he found that 16 out of 23 Members of the Commission had declared against periodic examination, and the question with him was, whether Parliament was justified in continuing a course which had been thus condemned by the majority of the Commission. They were told that there was no time to legislate on the subject; but the matter was one which had excited intense feeling throughout the country, and therefore it was quite idle to say that because there was no time to legislate the system was to be continued. In the town of Southampton persons had been improperly taken before the magistrates, who dismissed the summonses; and 29 persons had gone to prison rather than submit to examination. At any rate, they ought to put a stop to excitement, and that they could do by stopping compulsory examination for a few months. It was on these grounds that he would support the Motion for refusing to give money to maintain the police for the remainder of the present year, who were necessarily employed in discharging that
1632
part of the Acts to which he had especially referred.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the last suggestion somewhat surprised him. He thought that notwithstanding all the points on which they differed there was still one on which they might have agreed, and that was that they were not able to form an opinion in the present state of their information. There was strong evidence before them—he had strong evidence before him—that if they took the step proposed they would greatly increase the evil. The Royal Commission recommended measures to put an end to the evil. Would they not, then, give time to the House to see what evidence was to be laid before them? Should the country not have the means of judging before it decided? His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney) had argued that they need not repeal the Acts, and that they had only to suspend the Vote until the question was considered; but that meant that Parliament had imposed statutory obligations upon the Home Secretary and himself, and had deprived them of the money necessary to carry those obligations into effect.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 44; Noes 56: Majority 12.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £1,735,600, Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services.
MR. MELLORsaid, that as there were some differences in the charges for the movement of troops by railway, &c., he should like to know how they arose?
SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the charges for the conveyance of troops by railway were fixed by Act of Parliament. The Government were, however, negotiating with the railway companies for a reduction of those charges, and he trusted that in the Estimates for next year those charges would be found to be reduced considerably.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £878,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
MR. RYLANDSmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100,000. The number of men having been increased by 20,000, the increase in the Vote ought only to have been £145,000, but instead of that the Vote was increased by the sum of £327,037. The Control department was established with a view to reduce the expenditure in items of that description, and he could not say whether the creation of that department had been an improvement on the old system or not, for hitherto there had been no sufficient evidence on the point. Last year the expenditure under the head of Votes 9, 10, 11, and 12, was £3,174,900; but this year the expenditure on those four Votes was £4,804,000, showing an enormous increase. It was impossible to justify that increase in regard to Vote 11; and with regard to Vote 12, the increase there was so much greater that he should, at the proper time, move its reduction by a much larger amount.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £778,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. Rylands.)
SIR HENRY STORKSexplained that the increase arose from the augmentation of the Army, the calling out of the Irish Militia, the increase of the Militia, the short service system, under which a greater number of recruits joined annually, and from an augmentation of stock, as it was now proposed to have a supply of clothing on hand, as this was found more convenient than the practice of former years, when no margin was left for such a purpose. With regard to the Control department, in 1868–9 the number of members was 662, and the pay £166,959; in 1869–70 the members were 563, and the pay £142,248; in 1870–1 the members were 483, and the pay £133,992; and in 1871–2 the members were 467, and the pay £131,773. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
MR. NEWDEGATEinquired the present cost per man compared with the year 1866–7?
SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the present annual cost per head for all the services was about £4 9s.
MR. RYLANDSexpressed himself dissatisfied with the explanation offered, and urged the Committee to a division, if for no other purpose than to protest against the constant increase of cost per man, upon which, he maintained, some restraint ought to be put.
COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved that a considerable portion of the increase of the Vote was stated to arise from the Reserve men, but that could hardly be correct, for the number who accepted short service was limited. When the clothing establishment was first formed, the House was led to believe that the cost of the clothing of the Army would be very much reduced, but he believed that when the clothing was furnished by the colonels the expense to the country was at least 35 per cent less.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 27; Noes 73: Majority 46.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,815,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores for Land and Sea Service, including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
MR. RYLANDSobserved that there was an increase of £995,400 in the Vote, and the items deserved attention. He complained that the charge for gunpowder—namely, £155,815, as compared with £5,000 last year, showed culpable negligence in allowing the stores to run extremely low last year, and by going into the market suddenly raising the price of powder very unnecessarily. He thought there was no justification for buying large stocks of perishable articles which were not immediately required. In another item there was an increase of £144,062. That was for metals, which he understood included the guns for the fortifications. But surely it was not desirable to throw the whole of that charge on one year. There was also an increase of £123,638 on the sum for small arms, and with regard to that item it was his opinion that so large an expenditure should not be devoted to an arm about which there was so much difference of opinion. Altogether, that

1635
was an extravagant Vote, and he would therefore move to reduce it by £500,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,315,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores for Land and Sea Service, including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. Rylands.)
COLONEL ANSONsaid, that on a small Army this country—although a manufacturing one—spent more than double the amount allowed by any other nation for warlike stores. He found from a Return that in 1847–8, when they had 9,000 men fewer than they had at present, the total amount of the Army Estimates was £9,500,000; while in 1867–8, it was £14,600,000. They knew that the additional 9,000 troops and additional pay had cost £1,100,000; and the remaining £4,000,000 had gone entirely in the spending departments of the Army. The Committee must pay greater attention to the spending departments of the Army. Three years ago he took up that subject, and he had shown that their expenditure in 15 years had been £8,500,000 greater than the French in the same time. The great fault the House committed was never to ask what had been done with the money voted, and economy never would be practised until they had insisted on having Returns of where the stores went after they were purchased or manufactured. The increase in the manufacturing departments was £1,100,000, and the decrease in the purchase of warlike stores from manufacturers was £300,000, leaving an increase of £800,000. There was no control over the manufacturing department, and there was no idea what was the cost of each article manufactured, and for that reason he had been always opposed to their extension. The French, German, and other nations that had lately been engaged in war, relied more on private enterprize for warlike stores than on their own manufacturing departments. Enormous sums were voted for the capital account of our manufacturing department, and that went on year after year without any control over the expenditure. He hoped that the attention of the constituencies would be directed to the subject.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he intended to support the Government in this Vote on two grounds; but, in the first place, he would point out the extreme inconvenience of discussing the Estimates at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible to do justice to the subject. He should support the Government in the Powder Vote and the Small Arm Vote, because for the last two years the Votes had been starved. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance was doing his duty in those respects like a man, and he would support him. Without, then, discussing which was the best small arm, a breechloading arm was wanted. Last year they had only half a rifle to a man; but he was glad to find that steps had been taken to provide one for every man.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he went entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the last speaker (Sir John Hay) against the Estimates being taken again so late as the 14th August, when it was utterly impossible to discuss Estimates of that character; in fact, it was a perfect farce to attempt to do so. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had given positive instructions, during the last two years, to the expending departments to reduce the amount, and they had done so, in order that he might carry out the pledges of economy he made on the hustings at South Lancashire, and the result had been to starve the service for an apparent and not a real economy. It was a disgrace to the country, and it was high time a stop should be put to it for ever. Last year the right hon. Gentleman said there were plenty of guns for the forts that were completed. That was true in one sense; but it was not correct in another. It was true they had the guns; but it was untrue that they had the carriages for them. Under those circumstances, the Government had no right to say that the country was prepared for any emergency. The Estimates had been decreased in two years £2,361,000; but they had been increased that year £2,286,700, irrespective of £600,000 appropriated for the abolition of purchase. That was not a creditable or reputable state of things. He should like to have a distinct understanding as to what was being done with the Martini-Henry rifle. The sole responsibility

1637
of that rifle would rest entirely on the head of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office; and therefore he should like to know if he had altered the manufactory so as to make nothing but Martini-Henrys, and none of the ordinary Snider-Enfield rifles?
LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not vote in the last division, and would not do so in the coming one, because he would not take on himself the responsibility of refusing what the Government asked for; but he agreed with other hon. Members with regard to the question of time, in thinking that it was an outrageous thing that Votes of that kind should be brought forward at half-past 12 on the morning of the 15th of August. The Government had, in previous years, claimed credit for effecting a reduction of expenditure; but there really was on those occasions no reduction at all, because what it all came to was, that they had been living upon their old stores. He held in his hand a pamphlet, written by Sir E. Sullivan, which clearly showed this, or, to use a phrase which had been previously referred to, they had been "living on their fat." For instance, in 1869 gunpowder and gun-cotton cost only £6,000. In 1870 the cost was reduced to £5,000; but in 1871 it was increased to £155,815. The Vote for clothing in 1869–70 was £644,868; in 1870–1 it was £551,299; but in 1871–2 it was increased to £878,836. Then horses cost last year £39,000, this year they would cost £139,000. He should like to know now whether the Government were manufacturing guns to put into the hands of their Reserve forces; and also what was the number of ammunition and ambulance waggons in store?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), in that style of manner which he alone introduced, had quoted from a pamphlet, of the author of which he (Mr. Cardwell) knew nothing; but he must say that he regretted, quite as much as the noble Lord, that the Estimates were brought forward at so late a period of the year; and he must also say that there were few persons who had contributed to the delay more than the noble Lord himself. A very large part of the expenditure now condemned was attributable to their having furnished 150,000 Snider rifles to the Volunteer force, a course of proceeding which had
1638
been strongly demanded by the noble Lord. But ex nihilo nihil fit; if the Government had not got the Sniders, they could not distribute them, and in order to get them a large expenditure had to be incurred. The store of Sniders was larger when the Franco-Prussian War broke out than it was when he came into office, and therefore the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) could hardly find fault in that respect. It was said that £2,000,000 was now required simply to replace stores which they had consumed; but such was not the case. A considerable part of the reduction they had effected was by lessening the colonial military expenditure; and this year they had added nearly £500,000 to the Estimates by increasing the force of Artillery. The noble Lord never objected to that increase of force, and, of course, could not properly object to the increase of cost. Did he mean to say that because they had saved money by reducing the number of black troops on the coast of Africa therefore they should not increase their Artillery force? They could not add 20,000 men to the Army without cost for clothes for them, and an increase of Artillery necessitated an increase of horses. The expenditure of 1867 and 1847 had been contrasted; but to the present Estimates £1,621,900 was the expenditure for their Reserve forces, whilst in 1847 there were no Militia, Volunteers, or Army Reserve. Guns were also much more expensive now than they were in 1847. The largest gun in this last-named year cost not much more than £100, whilst now our largest gun cost £3,572, and each discharge cost something between £12 and £12 12 s. The increased charges in respect of gunpowder and gun-cotton were caused by using up old powder preparatory to getting an improved sort of powder, and to gun-cotton not having been required for torpedoes and other things in former years. A change in the kind of small arms had also caused increase under that head.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he also was very much dissatisfied with the House having to discuss the Estimates at so late a period of the Session. He admitted that the Ballot Bill and other measures of great importance had been brought forward; but he considered it one of the first duties of the House of Commons to examine the Estimates,

1639
which were now larger than they had been for the last six years; and he trusted that in future the Committee of Supply would be closed before the end of July. It was impossible for men who had many other matters of business during the day to attend afterwards and discuss matters in the House for 12 hours, with advantage to themselves or to the country. The other day the House met at a quarter to 4, and went on until about a quarter to 4 the next morning, and even then the Government wanted to go on discussing various Bills. It would be much better to pass a few good Bills and go through the Estimates carefully than to attempt to do what no mortal men were able to do. He thought it very undesirable to include so many matters in one Session, and overwork hon. Members as they had been recently overworked. With respect to the objections raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson), he must say they had not been answered, that 20 years ago the spending departments did not ask for so much as they do at present by £4,000,000. The manufacturing department spent more than it accounted for in the shape of wages; and nearly all articles purchased by the War Department cost the Government more than any private firm would pay for them. At the Admiralty the anchors were now obtained better and cheaper than they were four or five years ago, and he believed that at least £1,000,000 might be saved in the War Department if the Government would carry out, with respect to the Army, the principle upon which they had acted with regard to the Navy, and thus not only encourage economy, but also do good to the public service.
SIR HENRY STORKSremarked that all the warlike stores manufactured at Woolwich were obtained at a much cheaper rate than they could be supplied by the trade. It was not fair to institute a comparison between the armaments of 1847 and those of the present time. The guns were larger, the charges were heavier, and there was an increase in price in everything connected with them.
COLONEL BERESFORDthought it was desirable to increase the stock at any price, and he congratulated the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance on having taken the
1640
bull by the horns, and manufactured powder at a less expense than he could purchase it. No complaint had been made of the Government not going on manufacturing the old sort of powder. The complaint was, that they had ceased to manufacture powder two years ago. He certainly should vote against the Amendment.
SIR HENRY STORKSobserved, that the reason why the Government had not gone on manufacturing powder was, that that kind of powder had been condemned. They were waiting for pebble powder, which was a much better material.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he desired to learn whether the sword-bayonet was to be abolished with the Martini-Henry rifle? The proposed sword-bayonet with the rifle, he was told, would be two inches shorter than the present weapon, and the balance also was not as good. He wished to know whether that weapon was to be issued to the whole of the infantry? Another question was, whether the military accounts were to be submitted to the same independent audit as the other accounts?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the new sword-bayonet had been recommended by a most competent Committee. It would not, however, be issued in large quantities until it had been thoroughly tested. On the question of the military accounts, he would refer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy to the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts.
MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that, by the perpetual changes in the form of balance-sheet, anything like a fair comparison between the expenditure for particular purposes in successive years was out of the question.
MR. RYLANDS, after the discussion which had been held, would not trouble the Committee to divide, but would allow his Amendment to be negatived, as a protest.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would make a formal Motion to report Progress, with a view of eliciting information as to the course of Public Business. The other night the House had been unpleasantly taken by surprise through the Vaccination Bill having

1641
been brought on at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid (it was then ten minutes past 1 o'clock) that opposed Bills would not be brought on after 2.
MR. W. E. FORSTERregretted very much that all the discussion which could be desired had not arisen on the Vaccination Bill. He did not, however, understand that the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had any opposition to offer to the Bill. It was, however, a very important measure, and with that, as with others, in the actual state of Public Business, the choice lay between the total loss of the Bill or proceeding with it at an advanced hour.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(5.) £983,800, Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
(6.) £139,700, Military Education.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £43,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he must reiterate his objection to the appointment of Captain Wellesley as attaché at St. Petersburg. The justification which had been given of that appointment appeared to him to be wholly insufficient. If this appointment was the first instance of selection on the part of the Commander-in-Chief it was most unsatisfactory. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £600, the salary of Captain Wellesley.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £42,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive." — (Mr. Rylands.)
LORD ELCHOwould have preferred the selection of an officer of more experience, and said it was worthy of notice that the first appointment made on the principle of selection had been made the subject of dispute in that House.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, he would also call attention to the fact that that, the first appointment by selection since the Army Regulation Bill had come before the House, was questioned.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he could most conscientiously defend the appointment. Before it was made the matter was referred to the Commander-in-Chief, who sounded eight officers of different ranks and of various branches in the service, and they all refused. All inquiries necessary had been made respecting Captain Wellesley, and the answers were most satisfactory.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 13; Noes 56: Majority 43.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £194,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Salaries and Miscellaneous Expenses of the War Office, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
MR. ANDERSONmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £6,200, his object being to withdraw the salaries of the sinecure colonelcies held by officers on the Staff.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £187,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Salaries and Miscellaneous Expenses of the War Office, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. Anderson.)
CAPTAIN VIVIANopposed the reduction.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 12; Noes 57: Majority 45.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £27,400, Rewards for Distinguished Services, &c.
LORD ELCHOcomplained of the long delay that occurred in the distribution of medals.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £72,800, General Officers Pay.
(11.) £543,600, Reduced and Retired Officers Pay.
MAJOR ARBUTHNOTcomplained of the slowness of promotion in the artillery and engineers.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £155,200, Widows' Pensions, &c.
(13.) £19,900, Pensions for Wounds.
(14.) £33,900, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
(15.) £1,262,900, Out-Pensions.
(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £162,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superannuation Allowances, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."
Lord ELCHOIn answer to Lord ELCHO,
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that all future enlistments for short service would be without premium.
MR. RYLANDSprotested against the pension of Sir William Brown. It was rather hard for the House to be asked to continue a pension to an officer who had been so reported on. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £800.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the pension of Sir William Brown had been reduced from £1,100 to £800, although he had 41 years' service.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £162,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superannuation Allowances, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. Rylands.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(17.) £18,900, Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,202, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for Tonnage Bounties and Bounties on Slaves, and for Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(18.) £603,000, Army Purchase Commission.
LORD ELCHOasked, in connection with this Vote, if the Secretary of State for War could state the names of the Purchase Commissioners?
MR. CARDWELLreplied that he could not, as the names were not yet filled up in the Bill.
(19.) £14,202, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties.
(20.) £7,345, Emigration Board.
(21.) £257,972, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, of the Superintendence of Convict Establishments and of the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Item of £31,000 (Purchase of Land), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Sir James Lawrence.)
The Committee divided: — Ayes 9; Noes 43: Majority 34.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(23.) £18,703, National Education, Ireland.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.