Commons Sitting of 20 July 1871

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report — Letters Patent [No. 368]; Infant Life Protection [No. 372]; Thirty-second Report—Public Petitions.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Fees of Conquest, &c. Abolition (Scotland)* [260]; Beerhouses (Ireland)* [259]; Limited Owners Residence Act (1870) Amendment* [261].
Second Reading — Local Government Board [230]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c* [247]; Tancred's Charities * [239].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Juries (Ireland)* [231]; Intoxicating Liquors Licences Suspension* [234]; Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* [236].
Third Reading — Municipal Corporation Acts Amendment* [193], and pasted.

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAWLEYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Post Office Department undertakes or is prepared to undertake the construction of Lines of Telegraph for any person requiring such Lines, either distinct from or in connection with the Post Office; and, if so, whether he claims any exclusive right to do this or only a right to compete with private manufacturers, and if the latter only within what limits, and to what extent such right is claimed; and, whether, in purchasing the undertakings of the several Telegraph Companies, he is of opinion that the Department purchased not only the right to transmit messages, but also the right to continue any business which any of those Companies did or had the right to carry on; as for example the fitting up hotels with electric bells; and if this be his opinion, whether the Telegraph Acts authorize the Department to

  13
  carry on any such business; and whether he will give some public notice setting forth those branches of business in which the Department is to engage, either to the exclusion of, or in competition with other parties?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, all the telegraph companies whose business and privileges have been purchased by the Post Office claim to have, and are believed to have had, the right to erect private telegraph wires, either for the conveyance of messages between the office and factory, &c, of a private individual, or for the conveyance of messages between the office of an individual and the station of the general telegraphic system from which that message would have to be transmitted to some other part of the country. The Post Office inherited a large number of such wires from the companies whose undertakings it purchased, and I am advised that we have the right to carry on all the business which was carried on by the said companies. The exclusive privilege of the Post Office, however, extends only to public messages. It has no monopoly of private wire business; but it would, no doubt, be a dangerous competitor to any manufacturers who wished to compete with it for such business. I am not aware, however, that any manufacturers are desirous of competing with us for such business, or that any could offer to the public such advantages as it is in the power of the Post Office to offer. I am advised that we have the right to undertake the business of fitting up hotels with electric bells; but we have not undertaken any such business, and do not desire to do so. It is, moreover, a business with regard to which private manufacturers could compete with us on equal terms. In Mr. Scudamore's Report, which has been presented to and printed by order of Parliament, there is a full statement of the terms on which the Postmaster General carries on private wire business. A notice in accordance with that statement has for a long time been printed and put in circulation for the information of the public.

ARMY—INDIAN ARTILLERY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War, On what grounds Captains and Brevet Lieutenant Colonels
  14
  of the late Indian Artillery, promoted prior to the 14th October 1858, and now amalgamated with the Royal Artillery, are not receiving 2s. 5d. per diem under the Royal Warrant of 1854, headed "Distinguished Services Pay," paragraphs 225 and 226?
  MR. CARDWELL: This question, Sir, is now the subject of communication with the India Office. The ground on which the claim has not been admitted is, that it is understood that the officers were not entitled to the allowance while serving under the East India Company.

IRELAND—POSTAL FACILITIES IN THE ARRAN ISLES.—QUESTION.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has considered a Letter dated July 14th, addressed to the authorities of the Post Office, on the subject of the condition of Arran Islands as regards postal facilities; and, whether he will favourably entertain the prayer of the Inhabitants, 3,000 in number, to have a Money Order Office and Savings Bank established there?
MR. MONSELL: Sir, owing to the frequent interruptions of communication with the mainland, especially in winter, it is not possible to have, in regard to Arran, the very frequent check on which the security of the money-order system greatly depends; but if a person can be found who, while in other respects qualified for the office of postmaster there, is ready to give proper security, I shall be happy to establish a money-order office and savings bank there.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he cannot give a somewhat definite assurance that provided no emergency occurs of an unforeseen and urgent character, Government will make the Scotch Education Bill the leading measure of next Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he was not quite certain what his hon. Friend meant by "the leading measure of next Session," but supposed that he meant a measure which would take precedence of other measures. His hon. Friend could hardly wish to imply that the Government ought to have put aside

  15
  either the Army Bill or the Ballot Bill in order to take the Scotch Education Bill; but, presuming those two Bills to be out of the way, he was not aware of any other measure for the improvement of the law, setting aside measures of immediate and urgent necessity, which ought to take precedence of the Scotch Education Bill. That remark would apply both to the present and the ensuing Session.

MILITARY ATTACHE AT ST. PETERSBURG.—QUESTIONS.
MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the post of Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, now vacant in consequence of the death of Colonel Robert Blane, C.B., by the appointment of the honourable Frederick Wellesley, a Lieutenant in the Coldstream Guards; if it is the fact that he has not served more than eight years; and, if applications for the appointment were not made by senior officers of longer experience than Lieutenant Wellesley, and who had also the advantage of being acquainted with the Russian language?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, it is intended to fill up the post of Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, and the post has been offered to and accepted by Captain Frederick Wellesley, of the Coldstream Guards. Previous to this appointment being made, eight officers of different grades and branches of the service were "sounded" as to the probability of their accepting the post, but they all declined—one on the score of ill-health, some owing to the severity of the climate in Russia, others on the ground of the inadequacy of the pay to meet the heavy cost of living at St. Petersburg. I am informed that one application had been made for this post by an officer in the Royal Horse Guards, who stated that he was acquainted with the Russian language. Captain Wellesley has served for eight years, as stated by the hon. Member, in the Guards; has passed the necessary qualifying examination for the post of aide-de-camp; has served on the Staff of General Lord Strathnairn, who speaks in laudatory terms of his conduct as an officer and a gentleman; he has been for four years adjutant of his battalion, and is, I have
16
every reason to believe, an accomplished linguist.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that owing to the reply of the noble Lord, he should move to strike out from the Estimates the amount of the salary of the Military Attaché at St. Petersburg.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that the Question having failed to elicit the facts which he thought should be elicited, he wished to know from the noble Lord how these "soundings" were taken; how the principle of selection was applied in this case; whether Captain Wellesley was selected by the Foreign Office, and, if so, on whose recommendation; whether, if not by the Foreign Office, he was selected by the Commander-in-Chief, and, if so, whether with the sanction of the Secretary of State; and if Captain Wellesley was not selected by the Foreign Office, the Commander-in-Chief, or the Secretary of State, then by whom was the principle of selection applied here?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Perhaps the noble Lord would do him the usual Parliamentary courtesy of giving Notice of the Question.

ARMY (PURCHASE SYSTEM)—THE ROYAL WARRANT.

  QUESTIONS. GOVERNMENT STATEMENT.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I have to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether as this House has sanctioned their proposal for the indemnification of officers on the abolition of purchase in the Army, they intend to take measures to prevent the future violation of the Law involved in the continued payment of over-regulation prices for commisions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answering, as clearly as I am able, the Question of my right hon. Friend, I will first state that the attention of the Government has been specially directed to the subject-matter touched on by that Question. With regard to the point raised by the terms of the Question itself—that there prevails, and is now known officially to prevail, a systematic and habitual violation of the law—the Government have considered that such a case stood in a category totally different from one of ordinary discretion, and from one simply of the miscarriage of legislative measures of reform or change in either House of Parliament. I will first of all state what I conceive, after

  17
  consulting the authentic records of the proceedings of the other House, to have been done by the House of Lords in reference to the Army Regulation Bill. When the second reading of that Bill was moved, an Amendment was proposed to the Motion, which stated that the House was unwilling to assent to the second reading until it had certain information. It is unnecessary for me to specify the nature of that information, because no part of my reply will turn on its character. The Amendment was carried, and the effect of the success of the Amendment was not to reject or destroy the Bill, but simply to set aside the second reading on the particular occasion when it was proposed, leaving it, as I understand, perfectly open to any Member of the House of Lords at any period to propose that the House should proceed with the second reading and the other stages of the measure. That being so, I beg to remind the House that the question of Army Purchase is a question which, not by the Constitution merely, which assigns to the Executive the ordinary administration of the Army, but by the action of statute, is taken out, if I may say so, of the hands of the Legislature as a whole, so far as regards the proper and legitimate character of purchase. By statute it is enacted that only such description of purchase as it may please Her Majesty to allow by Royal Warrant shall be legal, respecting which Her Majesty may be addressed to abolish it by Royal Warrant. The effect of that enactment is that, by an Act of the Legislature, the existence of purchase, so far as its legal basis is concerned, is made to depend on the action of the Executive Government; while, so far as concerns the indemnity to those who have paid prices for commissions by the regular machinery of the Constition, that portion of the subject belongs to the House of Commons. But although this is the case, and although in the abstract the legality or illegality of purchase, or its prices, are placed exclusively in the hands of the Executive, yet, the matter being one of such magnitude and interest, the Government would not have thought it reasonable within their competency for them to take any important or vital step with respect to purchase without having some recourse to the opinion of this House. That opinion, I need not remind the
  18
  House, we have obtained in the most authentic form, and after long debates the judgment of the House has been pronounced against the continuance of purchase, on terms and conditions set forth in the legislative measure which has passed the House of Commons. Proceeding hence to the House of Lords, that measure has conveyed to the other House and to the country the judgment of the House of Commons on the point so fully and absolutely that in that respect there is nothing to desire, and the Executive Government have felt that it is no longer incumbent on them or required of them by any consideration of public convenience that they should again solicit this House for a declaration which they Lave already obtained in the most authentic form. This being so, with the view we entertain of the illegality of over-regulation prices, and with the declaration before us of the Royal Commission, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was Chairman, that those over-regulation prices could not be put an end to except by the extinction of purchase as a system—that declaration, of course, was liable, however authoritative it might be, to question and to confutation; but, cited as it has frequently been in this House, I think it only been referred to for the purpose of being accepted and approved—the Government have resolved to advise Her Majesty to take the decisive step of cancelling the Royal Warrant under which purchase is legal. That advice has been accepted and acted on by Her Majesty. A new Warrant has been framed in terms conformable with the law, and it is my duty, on the part of the Government, to state that at the present moment purchase in the Army no longer exists. When I say that purchase no longer exists, my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Cardwell) judiciously reminds me that the expression is true in the sense in which it would have been true had the Army Regulation Bill, which is now in Parliament already, received the Royal Assent. It does not mean that purchase in the Army is extinguished from the present moment, but that a day has been named—namely, the 1st of November in the present year, from and after which, as provided in the framework of the Bill, there shall be no purchase or sale of

  19
  commissions in the Army. That being so, the state of circumstances in which the Resolution of Monday last was passed in the House of Lords has been entirely altered; and it is not for us to say what course the House of Lords in these altered circumstances may think fit to pursue. We, of course, trust that august Assembly may be disposed to proceed with the second reading and with the other stages of the Bill, in dealing with which, although with respect to the money provisions, strictly speaking, of the Bill the House of Lords could not consistently with Parliamentary usage introduce any alteration, yet in other respects it would, I think, be open to that House to use its discretion. It is not for me to presume to anticipate the particular course which will be taken by the House of Lords; but, in considering this matter, we have had no other object in view but simplicity, despatch, the observance of constitutional usage—[Lord ELCHO: Observance of constitutional usage!]—yes, I beg my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire to mark the expression—I repeat we have nothing in view but the observance of constitutional usage and the speedy termination of a state of suspense, which we think most injurious—I will not say dangerous—to the Army, and calculated to delay the progress of a measure that is likely, in our judgment, to do full justice to the fair pecuniary claims of the officers, and the loss of which might make it difficult to find means of doing justice to those claims. Therefore, we propose to allow ample time to elapse in order to learn what course the House of Lords will be disposed to take with regard to the remaining stages of the Bill, and it would not be becoming or appropriate in me to forecast what course we shall take in case we should fail in prosecuting the Bill to its legitimate conclusion, as I sincerely trust we may be able so to prosecute it. But one thing it is my duty to state on the part of the Government, and that is that, come what may, under all circumstances, we shall use the best means in our power, mindful of the honourable pledges we have given, to secure at the hands of Parliament just and liberal terms for the officers of the Army. I think I have now explained fully and explicitly the acts and intentions of the Government. Argument in justification of them would
  20
  be at present out of place. My only object has been to state the facts clearly and conclusively. We have not hesitated to pursue the course that appeared to us to be recommended alike by policy and principle, and we have done that on our responsibility as Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. DISRAELI: I must protest, Sir, against the First Minister making an important communication — one of the most important I have ever heard in Parliament—in answer to a Question—I will not say a pre-arranged Question. I will not think this is treating the House of Commons generally with the respect which is due to it. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman has not followed the usual precedents which regulate the conduct of those who have occupied the position he now holds, and therefore, though I am the last person to wish to interfere unnecessarily with the general progress of business, yet, thinking this to be a matter of urgency, I throw myself on the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations, premising that, if necessary, I shall conclude with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had to deal with a question of great magnitude, and he dealt with it by Bill. The Army Regulation Bill, which he introduced, was, after much discussion, carried by a moderate majority. ["Oh, oh!"] Remembering what occurred at the last General Election, and the majority of which the First Minister has been in the habit of disposing, I am justified in saying that the Bill was passed in the House of Commons by a very moderate majority, being only half of the amount of the usual majorities for the Government. It may have been a sufficient majority; but it did not show that overpowering expression of feeling which the First Minister has on other occasions been able to obtain in this House. Well, the Bill passes this House and goes to the other House, where it is rejected—[Cries of "No!"]—where, at any rate, it meets with an Amendment, which has stopped its progress. No one for a moment pretends that the other House, in so dealing with the Bill, at all overstepped its constitutional privileges and rights. No one will insinuate such an opinion unless it be the First Minister himself. We are now told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion in the other House, which has virtually stopped

  21
  the Army Regulation Bill, if not negatived it, is to be set at defiance, and he says that the decision of the other House is of no importance, as he can effect the object he has in view by other means than by constitutionally appealing to the Estates of the Realm, for he can advise Her Majesty to exercise her Prerogative. This is a very high-handed course—I will not now say illegal course, for I reserve that point for future consideration. But it occurs to me to ask, if the right hon. Gentleman can deal with the question in the speedy and satisfactory mode he has announced tonight, why did he not do so at once? There was nothing in the Bill but abolition of purchase, and night after night we were assured by the Minister, with a triumphant air, that the re-organization of the Army could be secured without Parliamentary interference. The Bill was not required, we were told, to increase the Artillery, to establish Reserves on the principle of short service, or for providing experimental camps. Then, why did not the right hon. Gentleman take the course he has now announced at once, and why not have saved at least that paralysis of Parliament during the last six months, which was mainly caused by appealing to the House of Commons to pass the Army Regulation Bill? Look at the position in which the conduct of the Government in regard to this measure has placed the House of Commons. Is it not the fact that this House has been virtually deprived of its principal constitutional privilege during the whole of this Session, and has had no complete opportunity in Committee of Supply of controlling the expenditure? Is it not the fact that, at this moment, questions of the utmost interest to the country, only to be brought forward by the instrumentality of Supply, cannot, in consequence of the House being about to be scattered, be properly considered? I alluded the other night to an intended Motion respecting the loss of one of the finest ships in the Navy, occasioned, as it has been alleged, by the maladministration of the late Board of Admiralty. A noble Friend of mine (Lord Henry Lennox) has given Notice of a Motion asking the opinion of the House on the subject; but that Motion has never been brought forward in consequence of the whole time of the House having been
  22
  absorbed by this Army Bill which we are now told the Minister can settle in his secret councils and offices. There is another question of importance, regard being had to its immediate effect on the reputation and character of this country, and that is the Treaty of Washington. That great diplomatic act has been negotiated, and no allusion has been made to it in the House of Commons. There was a debate in the House of Lords, and criticisms of considerable importance were offered to the consideration of the country; but in the House of Commons we have had no opportunity of expressing any opinion on one of the most important diplomatic documents. A right hon. Gentleman sitting near me (Sir Charles Adderley), who wished to impugn some of the provisions of that Treaty, particularly in respect to their influence on one of the most considerable of our colonies, has in vain attempted to obtain an opportunity of asking the opinion of the House on the subject. Are we, then, to be told that it is only when the Committee on this Bill and the other Bills should be finished that the consideration of Supply is to be resumed? I say that the conduct of the Government in thus wasting six months of the Session has been most culpable — that is, has been most injurious to the influence, character, and reputation of the House of Commons. What has been its effect on general legislation? Most mischievous. We have constantly heard that this being a Parliament elected by householders great anxiety would be shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the interests of the working classes. We know that the working classes did expect much to be done for them by this Parliament in their favour, and certainly believed that the proceedings of this House would be in unison with those of former Parliaments, in which there was no want of sympathy for the wants of the working classes. They did expect Bills to be brought forward which, while maintaining the efficiency of labour, would have mitigated in some degree the extremity of toil to which persons in some occupations are still subjected. There is one Bill which for three years has been before the House, and which refers to certain subterranean employments, in the course of which accidents frequently occur. That has been entirely given up

  23
  in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman not settling this question of purchase in the free and easy manner he now has recourse to. I think this state of affairs most unsatisfactory. I do not see how the Government can vindicate the course they have taken during this fruitless Session, when the very measure which appears to have caused the delay of all other legislation is now declared to be absolutely unnecessary. I am not here to dispute the Prerogative of the Crown; but that is a very delicate subject, and I very much doubt the wisdom of the Minister who attempts to cut Gordian knots, which every now and then have to be encountered in dealing with popular assemblies, by an appeal to the Prerogative of the Crown. I hope the Prerogatives of the Crown may long exist and be long exercised for the advantage of the country, for the maintenance of our liberties, and the general welfare and interest of the community at large; but no Minister acts in a wise manner who, on finding himself baffled in passing a measure which he, no doubt, believes of importance, but which it is impossible after all that has occurred in this House can be considered free from something of the passion of politics, comes forward and tells the House that he will defy the opinion of Parliament, and appeals to the Prerogative of the Crown to assist him in the difficulties which he himself has created. I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  LORD ELCHO: Sir, I am not about to discuss the question of the advice which the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has stated the Government have recently given to Her Majesty; my object is simply to put a question to the First Minister. He asked me to take down the words he used—the words were "constitutional usage"—which I think rather strange phraseology to use as descriptive of such a course of proceeding. I should have thought the words "coup d'état" would have been more applicable; but whether "constitutional usage" or "coup d'état" be the correct description of the proceeding, the question I wish to ask is, whether the right hon. Gentleman will give the House of Commons an opportunity
  24
  of expressing their opinion on the course which they have recommended to Her Majesty; and, if so, when?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has moved the Adjournment of the House (Mr. Disraeli), has doubtless had ample opportunity of considering the remarks he should offer on this occasion; yet I must say, and I will undertake to show, that they are characterized by much inaccuracy, as well as, I think, by some exaggeration. I say by much inaccuracy, for the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have fallen back on the exercise of the Prerogative; and having thus introduced the term which he thinks will be unpopular, though he expresses a hope it may long exist, he warns us against the danger of putting Prerogative in conflict with Parliament. Sir, this is an instance of the inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We have had no recourse to Prerogative, and we have had no conflict with Parliament. We are supported by the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons. We are not opposed upon the question of purchase by the dissent of the House of Lords. The conduct of the Government, I admit, is impugned by the vote of that House; but the vote of that House does not assert the expediency of maintaining purchase. But, whether we are right or wrong, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in asserting that we have proceeded by Prerogative. We have exercised a statutory power committed to the Crown by the deliberate action of the Legislature:—and for what purpose have we exercised that statutory power? What was the meaning and intention of that statute but to check illegitimate proceedings in connection with the obtaining and disposing of commissions in the Army? And what was the purport of the advice we tendered to Her Majesty except to give effect to the intention of the statute by bringing to a close those proceedings when they have assumed the character of positive and absolute illegality? The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know how the Government can vindicate their conduct. For my part, I do not know how he can impugn the conduct of the Government. He has made an effort to-day, and if that be the measure of his argument or rhetoric the Government have little to fear from him. The

  25
  right hon. Gentleman says the state of things is unsatisfactory, and that the delay of the ordinary business of legislation is intolerable. I must say, Sir, that I have a qualified satisfaction at least in agreeing to both these propositions of the right hon. Gentleman; but I will not provoke controversy, which might perhaps meet the purposes of some, by investigating the causes to which the delays in legislation are attributable. My noble Friend (Lord Elcho) asks if we will give the House of Commons an opportunity of questioning the conduct of the Government. Well, let us see a Notice of Motion of a want of confidence in the Government; let us have such a challenge either on the part of my noble Friend or anyone else, and so far as we are concerned there will be no lack of Opportunity for discussing it. But the right hon. Gentleman has carefully avoided, on this and every other occasion, committing himself to the maintenance of purchase. On a former occasion he burnt his fingers. He said too much at one time against the reduction of the franchise, and consequently his Motions were not so free on his coming into office as they would otherwise have been. Instructed by experience, he has taken very good care on this occasion that, should he assume the responsibility of affairs, none may be able to taunt him with ever having committed himself to the maintenance of purchase. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, entirely failed in his endeavour to show that we are open to reproach in the course we have taken. At the same time, I will not enter upon any elaborate defence of that which I think has been but very feebly impugned. The right hon. Gentleman, however, stated two points which I will notice. He asked, first, "Why did you not proceed six months ago in the mode you now declare to be so satisfactory and perfect?" We have not declared it satisfactory or perfect in comparison with that which we at first adopted. We have declared it to be a mode which we felt it our duty to pursue in the face of the illegalities that prevail; but it is a mode which, for reasons often and accurately explained by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Cardwell), and by others, is known to be inferior to the regular, uninterrupted progress of a legislative measure dealing with
  26
  the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman opposite surely knows that it is only by a statute we can give a statutory title even to regulation prices: it is in the power of this House to vote them, but it is only in the power of the Legislature to grant a statutory title. It was for the Legislature to correct and to grant indemnity for those breaches of the law which, however frequent and flagrant they had been, and however imperative the duty to put an end to them, it would be pharisaical to consider as implying any reproach. It is only by statute that the revival of purchase itself by a misuse, as I conceive it would be, but still a possible use, of the discretion of the Executive can be prevented; and, lastly, it is only by statute that that object can be attained which we think honour, good feeling, and equity require—namely, that compensation may be awarded to officers in favour of overregulation prices. I trust, Sir, I have now given an ample and satisfactory answer to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman—why we did not proceed in this way six months ago, instead of consuming the whole Session with the subject of Army Regulation. Perhaps it is not so important that I should question the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the unsatisfactory state of business—which I admit; but I must show the exaggeration into which he has fallen. He says, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) has in vain appealed to us for an opportunity of discussing the recent Treaty with America. Undoubtedly we have not been able to meet his appeal so early as we could have wished; but I want to know why it is so? My right hon. Friend might have taken his chance, if he had liked, as other Members have done—he might have balloted for and obtained a Tuesday or Friday evening, and there would have been no want of attendance during the discussion of his Motion. But my right hon. Friend did not avail himself of that opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is not correct when he complains that we have been keeping back from the view of Parliament and from the possibility of discussion questions affecting our own conduct in connection with what I may call the national loss of the Captain—a question which he says it is almost impossible to

  27
  discuss except in connection with the Navy Estimates. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be in a state of unacquaintance with even the proceedings of his own immediate political Friends. The fact is, the Notice given in relation to the Captain has never been connected with the Committee of Supply; it stands among the list of miscellaneous Motions, for which no day is fixed. So much for the Motion relating to the Captain. There have been plenty of opportunities when it might have been brought on; and I really know not why this question, so important and so fitting to be discussed, has not been brought before the notice of Parliament. We are very desirous it should be discussed, and I was about to state this very evening that we have been endeavouring, so far as remains with us, to clear the list for Tuesday evening, if that will meet the convenience of the noble Lord who has charge of the Motion (Lord Henry Lennox). In conclusion, Sir, I will only say this—we invite free and full discussion of a measure which we believe not only justified but required by the circumstances of the case, and that the course we have pursued is that dictated to us by our general sense of duty to the Crown, by our anxiety for the discipline of the Army, and by our determination steadily to pursue that line of conduct which we think most favourable to the interests and just claims of the officers.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had no intention at present to enter on the discussion of the advice given by the Prime Minister to the Crown; but he quite concurred with all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) as to the most important part of the business of the Session having been put aside, to which no answer had been given. He had before insisted on the necessity of adhering to the old constitutional practice of discussing the Estimates of the year, and he desired now to have an explicit statement from the Government when they proposed to proceed with the Army and Navy Estimates.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he merely wished to correct a remark of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in regard to the Captain. He (Sir James Elphinstone) had given a Notice at the beginning of the Session
  28
  to call attention to the manner in which the Admiralty had treated the widows and relatives of those who had perished in the Captain, when he had hoped the Government would be prepared to vindicate the course they had pursued. He would have raised the whole question on that Motion; but he had been prevented from bringing it before the House in consequence of the Navy Estimates never having been discussed. When the Navy Estimates came on he would also show that they were characterized by extreme inaccuracy. He had also a Motion on the Navy Estimates relating to the conduct of the Government in granting contracts to their own political friends, which he was most anxious to have an opportunity of discussing; but at this period of the Session it was hardly likely they would be able to enter fully into the question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to make one remark in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister had stated that in the course the Government had taken they were not in conflict with Parliament. Now, it appeared to him that statement was extremely hollow, unless he meant that a majority of the House of Commons of itself constituted Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had no excuse whatever for saying that the measure he proposed for the abolition of purchase had the consent of the other House of Parliament, far less had he any justification in saying that the course he recommended Her Majesty to sanction had the approval of the House of Lords. When the precedent was examined with reference to the previous history of Parliament, it would be found to rest on the most doubtful practice. The whole Constitution was based on the assumption that there were three Estates, without whose consent no law should either be altered, evaded, or defeated. Now, he held that the intention of the law had been defeated by the technicality—for it was nothing but a technicality—under which the Government had sought to cover the means by which they had set aside the authority of one of the Houses of Parliament. In a constitutional point of view the step taken by the Government was a most doubtful one; and he asked the Government, either by laying on the Table the Order they had issued, or by some more direct means, to afford an opportunity to

  29
  the House of expressing their opinion on, if not a novel, certainly the unusual procedure they had thought fit to recommend to Her Majesty.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I wish, Sir, to say a very few words on this most important question. Nobody can regret more strongly than I do the Resolution come to by the other House of Parliament two nights ago. But nobody, I think, can deny that they were in the right, if they chose to do so, in coming to such a Resolution. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has noticed—what is certainly a strong point in the case—that they have not refused to pass the Bill which was laid before them. They merely agreed to a Resolution expressing their unwillingness to pass the second reading unless certain information they desired were previously laid on the Table; and if that wish and desire for information were honestly entertained—as we are bound to believe it was—by the majority of that House—for we must extend to their language and their actions the same consideration we should expect them to extend to us—if that desire for information was honestly entertained by them, I do not think any man of sense or judgment could gainsay their right to express their opinion. I must honestly say I do not think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has justified the course taken by the Government, no doubt after anxious and careful deliberation, as entirely free from the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). His point, as I understand it, was mainly this—the Government having proposed to ask Parliament, and having asked Parliament, to make this most important change in the constitution of the Army as it existed long before we were born—which has been part of the life-blood of the Army for more than one generation—having decided, and as I think wisely decided, to ask Parliament to assent to this change, and when one House of Parliament expressed the wish to which I have referred, the Government did not seek some other mode of reconciling the apparent difference between them and the House of Lords, but have had recourse to that Prerogative which in a case of this great importance ought to be allowed to sleep, and not to have been exercised by a Liberal Government in the face of those
  30
  principles of government by Parliament, and the bodies that compose Parliament, which we have been brought up to reverence. In the great struggle which the Long Parliament carried on with the Crown, which ended in the destruction of the Sovereign and the Constitution of this country, the point upon which the issue was taken was what was then called the right of the Militia; and even in those days, when the House of Commons really possessed the whole power of the country, their demand in reference to the Army was that the power of selecting those who selected the officers should be exercised not by the House of Commons alone but by both Houses of Parliament. But, as I understand this act of Prerogative now, it comes to this—that this grave and important change is to be made because those who are in the majority for the time being in the Commons exercise the Prerogative of the Crown in the name of the Crown, and are therefore able to over-ride the minority in this House and set at defiance the other House of Parliament. The main and principal clause in the Army Organization Bill, as passed by this House, was this—that after a day to be named by order of Her Majesty in Council, and in this Act referred to, no sale shall be made of any commission to any officer in Her Majesty's Army. Parliament was asked to agree to that, and this House, I think, wisely and rightly did so. The other House was asked to do so, and they passed the Resolution to which I have referred. But this clause has never been submitted to their judgment. They have put in a dilatory answer. They have asked for further information. If the Prerogative of the Crown was to be exercised in this matter, I take leave to think that it should only have been under circumstances of extraordinary pressure and emergency. We are told that the Warrant does not come into operation till the 1st of November. Well, then, I say before recourse was had to such a proceeding at least there ought to have been a deliberate judgment of the House of Lords on that clause. This proposal ought not to be offered to both Houses of Parliament, and one of them, when it asks for information, to be told—"No, your assent is not necessary, we will resort to Prerogative, which we might have exercised

  31
  six months ago, and thus have saved all the discussion and waste of time and trouble which the House of Commons have given to the discussion of this question. No doubt the difficulties of my right hon. Friend's position have been great; but I cannot help thinking there were other methods of procedure which he might have found without committing what I must be permitted to call an act of constitutional violence. I cannot help thinking it would have been more the part of a wise Minister, in a country like ours, and with a Constitution framed like ours, to have adopted some more simple and likely to be more effective means of seeing whether he could not get the concurrence of the House of Lords to the clause to which I have referred, rather than have recourse to this extreme and very objectionable measure.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, my right hon. Friend who has just sat down is a high authority upon all matters connected with the practice of Parliament, with what is constitutional, and what is due to the law; but it appears to me that, in speaking upon this subject, he has, rather strangely, omitted that which is at the foundation of the whole question, and is its most material part. We are not dealing with an ordinary question which we can lay aside for a moment without any evil following; we are dealing with a case in which, according to the Report of a Commission of the highest authority, there has been an open and an habitual violation of the law. The Commissioners say—
  "Among the chief incidents of the practice are the habitual violation of the law, supported by long-established custom."
  ["Hear, hear!"] Do hon. Gentlemen who cheer mean that long-established custom can condone and render right a long violation of the law? Let me tell them that observance of the law is the sheet anchor of the liberties and of the order of this country. The Commissioners further say—
  "There has been no real discouragement of the practice by any authority; there has been a tacit acquiescence in the practice."
  That may be an argument in favour of paying over-regulation prices now, but it is no argument in favour of the continuance of the custom. They say—
  "There has been a decided acquiescence in the practice, amounting, in our opinion, to a virtual
  32
  recognition of it, by civil and military departments and authorities."
  What, then, is the case with which we have to deal? The law is openly and habitually violated, and the authorities who ought to enforce it are themselves judged by the Commission to be the parties to its continued violation. No Minister ought to be expected, and I am sure no Minister will be permitted by the House of Commons to be a party to a continued violation of the law. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: That applies only to over-regulation prices. A noble Friend opposite reminds me that the Report refers to over-regulation prices; but would he have us attempt to put a stop to over-regulation prices and leave the rest of the system in existence? He knows very well he would have been one of the first to say that would be a paltry mode of attempting to deal with the question. The Royal Commissioners say it is proved to be impossible to check violation of the law as long as you tolerate by regulation any prices at all for commissions. What, then, was the position with which we had to deal? It is said that we might easily have done what we propose to do six months ago; but what did we want to do six months ago? Not only to put an end to the continuance of the practice, but we also wanted, first, to prevent the practice being restored by anybody, which only a decision of Parliament can do; second, to give an indemnity against the penalties of the statute to those who had broken it, which only Parliament can do; third, to give a statutory title to regulation prices, which only Parliament can do; and, fourth, to make that provision for the payment of over-regulation prices which we have always believed to be just and equitable, which only Parliament can make. Then, it is said, this is an act of Prerogative; but what is Prerogative? It is action emanating from the independent authority of the Crown; but this is the exercise of a power under an Act of Parliament. It seems to be entirely forgotten that in the year 1809 there was passed one of the most stringent and severe Acts of Parliament ever placed on the Statute Book for the purpose of preventing the sale and purchase of offices. There was one exception, and that related to such purchases of commissions in the Army as it might from time to time please the Crown to fix by regulation. The power

  33
  conferred by that statute it has been found impossible to exercise without defeating the whole object and scope of the statute. It was our duty to leave no longer an exceptional power which we saw was defeating the aim and intention of the statute; and we have cancelled that power, thereby acting in pursuance of, and in conformity with, the statute. We have not exercised what can justly be called a power of Prerogative; we have placed ourselves, not in opposition, but in entire accord with the will of Parliament. I have only to add that undoubtedly the Royal Warrant cancelling the power referred to will be immediately laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, my right hon. Friend who has just spoken has with great solemnity informed us that he has a duty cast upon him that he would do his best to endeavour to fulfil; he told us that it was important after the Commission had reported that steps should be immediately taken for the purpose of preventing the violation of the law, and getting rid of the purchase of commissions. If that is so, there is still less excuse for the waste of the Session, for if my right hon. Friend had taken the step that has now been taken six months ago, he could have put an end to the system at once, without this delay and unnecessary confusion. My right hon. Friend says that this is not an exercise of Prerogative; but there is a recognition of the Prerogative in that statute to which he refers, and it is the Royal Warrant that instituted this process, and not the statute. Exception was made in the Act because it was not intended to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown. Therefore I say that it is a question of Prerogative, and if it were a question only of statutable Prerogative, still it would be a question of Prerogative. He tells us that over-regulation price and regulation price are so interwoven that both must go together. But he tells us that he brought in the Bill for certain purposes, the chief one of which could be effected only by the Bill, and not by the step that he has now taken. He tells us that the chief object is to prevent the renewal of purchase; but he takes no step in this direction now. If the Prerogative can take away it can also create, and if Prerogative can destroy the purchase system,
  34
  the same Prerogative can set up that which it is now called in to destroy. I am not now going to argue a question upon which I am not fully informed, and which has come before us by surprise. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was prepared with his observations; but how could he be prepared when there have been as many rumours as there are newspapers in London, each paper taking a different view as to the course of the Government? He waited to hear what the head of the Government would say, and though I am myself never surprised at any course which the right hon. Gentleman may take, whether for the extension or the destruction of the Prerogative—and he is equally capable of either—yet I am surprised at the cheers with which this exercise of Prerogative was received by hon. Members opposite, when it may one day be used in the opposite direction. Again I ask whether, if the Government had had a majority in the other House of Parliament, and were in a minority in this, they would have acted in the same way as they have now done? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, he is setting up the Prerogative of the Crown against the rights and prerogatives of the House of Lords. On this subject I can add nothing to the clear and cogent argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); I will simply say that I agree in every word that he has said, and I am sure that when the country hears what is the course that has been taken, it will not be received with the assent which it has now received on the other side of the House.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I am sorry to say I share in the surprise and regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) at the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared for the intimation; but long as I have sat in this House I have never heard any announcement from the Treasury bench by which I have been so perfectly astounded, and I must say that the statement of the First Minister of the Crown derives additional importance from the circumstances in which we have

  35
  been placed during the last few weeks. Everybody has been saying to his neighbour how unsatisfactory, how deplorable is the state of things in this House—business confused, legislation abortive, Estimates postponed till they cannot be fairly debated, a loss of influence and authority on the part of the Government which is actually unprecedented, and all this imputed, rightly or wrongly—I do not say which, but I have heard it on both sides of the House—to the mismanagement of the Government. Further, our Parliamentary system has been brought into such discredit that you, Mr. Speaker, must view the state of things with some apprehension, and others in this House, the parties who are responsible for it, cannot view it with other feelings than shame and sorrow. In this state of things we hear that the House of Lords have rejected the Abolition of Purchase Bill; and no one can doubt for a moment that the manner in which that proceeding was met by the Government must tend sensibly either to aggravate or to diminish the difficulties of the situation. We were told that there was a Cabinet Council the next morning after the division in the Lords, and the Government had to consider by what wise and moderate course of proceeding they could conciliate their opponents in this House and maintain what was essential for the public interest at this crisis, or how they could, at least, lay the foundations for restoring—if not in this Session, in the next—those relations between the two sides of the House, without which my right hon. Friend will find to his cost no Minister can satisfactorily conduct the business of the country. But what is the course that has been taken? As if the present difficulties and embarrassments were not enough, they have taken a course that has further confused the condition of affairs in this House, and that can have no other result than to inflame ill-feeling, to provoke animosity, and to aggravate those difficulties we are all deploring. I make no objection to the course they have taken in abolishing purchase. I have long felt purchase to be dead and gone. But my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) asks us what is Prerogative? The Prerogative of the Crown is nothing more nor less than the will of the Minister of the day; and if he has a steady majority at
  36
  his back, and chooses to abuse that Prerogative, there is nothing to prevent him constituting himself dictator. Why was this Prerogative not used six months ago? The reason is very obvious. It is an antiquated notion that the Army is the Army of the Crown; the modern doctrine is that the Army is the Army of the nation, and therefore it is thought right that the representatives of the nation should assume the Prerogative that is no longer recognized as the Prerogative of the Crown. Let me ask, what has the House of Lords done? The Government, instead of availing themselves of the right of the Prerogative, thought proper to introduce a Bill for the Re-organization of the Army, and that Bill they would have proceeded with if it had not been that they found that it was unpopular on both sides of the House. The Notice Paper was crammed with Amendments; there were 20 pages, and the majority of the Amendments were to be moved from this side of the House; and therefore I say that the Bill was not popular on either side of the House. Then the Government discovered that all the reorganization part of the Bill was unnecessary, and therefore they determined to make it simply a Bill for the abolition of purchase, and so sent it to the House of Lords. I make only such assertions as I know the facts will support: I say this—that when the Government determined to divide the Bill, if they had called their party together, and asked them—"Shall we send up this fragment of the Bill to the House of Lords to be passed this year, or withdraw it altogether, and send up a complete and comprehensive measure next year, and proceed meanwhile with the Ballot Bill?"—I venture to say that 19 out of 20 Members on this side of the House would have preferred the latter alternative. ["No, no!"] This I will say, that I believe that the majority on this side of the House, if the Government had given them a choice, indicating no preference themselves, would have voted for postponement. What, I repeat, has the House of Lords done? They have merely adopted the original view of the Government, and stated that they wanted to have the whole of these proposals in one complete scheme, to be considered at one time. They said—"You are asking the people to bear a very heavy burden of

  37
  taxation, in order to get rid of purchase, and then, having done that, you have no security for an efficient Army." We know the good faith and sincere intentions of the Secretary of State for War, bait he can neither command nor foresee the future; and next year, when the Ways and Means have to be provided, and when the panics upon which the Bill was founded have passed away, and when the powerful influence of the band of economists behind me is brought to bear upon the Government, no one can tell that the opinions of to-day will be those of to-morrow. It has been said that the House of Lords is in collision with the House of Commons; but my opinion is that what the House of Lords have done is really in accordance with the opinion of the majority of this House. ["No!"] I do not refer to the upholding of purchase; I think that the opinion of the majority of this House is in favour of the abolition of purchase; but I believe that if the opinion of the House had been fairly tested, and if the House had been left to its free choice, it would have said—"We will have the whole question postponed until next year." I doubt very much whether the House of Lords have adopted an unpopular course. My own belief is that the feeling out-of-doors has been much more accurately represented by the vote of the House of Lords, than it would have been by the passing of this Bill. I admit that the Government have been placed in a position of difficulty; but I think that they have acted in an unfortunate and an unwise manner. While they have acted from a sense of public duty, and have done what they believed to be necessary to meet the requirements of the moment, it is impossible but that political opponents will believe that the act of the Government is intended, though I believe it is not intended, to supersede the functions of the House of Lords.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he disagreed in every sentiment which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had uttered. He, for one, had listened with unqualified satisfaction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Horsman) had spoken of what he called the discredit which had fallen on the Government
  38
  during the present Session of Parliament. Now, he did not wish to say anything on this subject but what he believed to be true. There had been some discredit acquired by Her Majesty's Government during this Session, but that discredit had been acquired by doing certain things which were strongly supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The chief discredit which had come upon Her Majesty's Government this Session was the discredit which belonged to a Government which expended unnecessary money. There was an enormous increase of the Estimates, which would never have taken place if there had been a considerable number of Members on the other side of the House faithful to what he believed to be the interests of their constituents. But when they were told about the obstruction to legislation and about the confusion which had come over things in the House of Commons this Session, he ventured to say that that obstruction and that confusion, so far as they existed, were mainly owing to the course pursued by hon. Members on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) said that the Government was strengthening by this course the Prerogative of the Crown. He (Mr. Bright) took a different view of it. He believed that the Government had rather strengthened the prerogative of the people. He believed that the Government was increasing the influence of this House by such a course, and giving great satisfaction to those from whom this House had come. With regard to the House of Lords, they were generally in that House extremely unwilling to discuss the House of Lords, but his opinion was, that the feeling was growing in this country that the Members of that Assembly, knowing very little of the country in which they lived—[Laughter]—necessarily knowing very little from their peculiar social position, the feeling of the country was that that Assembly was rather too free in negativing the propositions which are sent to it by this House. One great cause of the obstruction of Public Business was the determination of the House of Lords to interfere with the conclusions of the House of Commons. And whatever the Government might have done to lessen its authority in the country

  39
  in the earlier part of the year, he was quite sure the course they had that day taken had placed them, in a position as strong as they were in on the first day of the Session.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he felt it his duty most emphatically to deny that the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jacob Bright) were the opinions of the people of Manchester. He was sure that all parties in that city would read with great regret the observations made by the hon. Gentleman in reference to the House of Lords.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would not be deterred from following the course he had indicated by the observations of the right hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and Liskeard (Mr. Horsman). He thought there was something in the borough of Liskeard which rendered its representative peculiarly apt to worry a Ministry at moments of crisis, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the lesson which his constituents had read to one of his predecessors, for they might not be satisfied with his attitude on the present occasion, and we might some day or other hear of him also escaping for his life over the roofs of houses in some borough in Ireland. Hon. Members opposite who asked why, if this were a proper course, the Government did not take it six months ago, might as well ask a man why he did not at once break open a door which he could not open with a key because the lock was rusty. He must also remark that if, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), had said—this House was "fast losing ground in the estimation of the country," it was because hon. Members opposite had persisted in a course of obstruction to which they had resorted for the purpose of impeding legislation, in favour of which the country had distinctly decided.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, with respect to this discussion, which has arisen on the Question that I put to my right hon. Friend, I am anxious to say a few words, which I hope will not tend to produce any feeling such as I am afraid we are liable to by continuing in the debates on this subject a tone that I think ill-becoming the subject and this House. I hope also that nothing further will be said in this debate which will
  40
  be in the slightest degree characterized by a want of perfect respect for the other House of Parliament, as a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, and entitled to freedom of debate and the exercise of an independent judgment in the decision of all matters. I confess I feel the extreme difficulty in which Her Majesty's Government are placed by what I cannot but regard the unfortunate vote that was come to by the House of Lords in reference to the second reading of the Army Regulation Bill; but I cannot, at the same time, feel that unqualified satisfaction at the present position of the question which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). I, however, feel it to be difficult, if not impossible, to point out what other course the Government could have pursued consistent with the obvious duty that devolves upon them, a duty which I have pressed upon them upon more than one occasion—namely, that of putting a stop to open violation of the law by the payment of over-regulation prices, particularly after Her Majesty had been pleased to appoint upon advice of her Ministers a Royal Commission to inquire into the alleged payment of those prices, and after the evidence and the Report of that Commission had been presented to Parliament. And when it is said that the Government have taken the course of appealing to the Prerogative of the Crown after Parliament has refused its sanction to their proposal, it must not be forgotten that the whole system of purchase rests, not upon Acts of Parliament, with one exception, but entirely upon Royal Warrants and Regulations which have been in force for a series of years, and which by the Royal Prerogative, and without the intervention of Parliament, have been altered from time to time during the last 150 years. When Prerogative is spoken of as obsolete in reference to the Army, I would remind the House that the last Royal Warrant dates only from 1866, and by that, I believe, a considerable impulse was given to this system of paying over-regulation prices, because by the terms of that Warrant absolute seniority among purchase officers was declared to be the rule of promotion in the Army. I have always felt, and it was expressed strongly in the Report of the Commission, that as long as the

  41
  officer knows who is to succeed him it is hardly possible to prevent a private arrangement being made between two gentlemen who are living together from day to day, and belong to the same regiment. It is in consequence of the Royal Warrants fixing the terms upon which purchase was to be effected, and also the rules which were prescribed for promotion, that the evil with which the Government have to deal has grown up. I think, therefore, they could not have taken any other course than that of exercising a power which is not obsolete, but has from time to time been exercised during many years, thereby placing an effectual check upon a practice which they are bound, as a Government, no longer virtually to sanction or to tolerate. But this question cannot be disposed of entirely by Royal Prerogative. It was with satisfaction that I heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) state that the Government would do their utmost to obtain for the officers of the Army those equitable terms to which I think those who have made those payments are entitled. That can only be done by Act of Parliament, and, therefore, this subject must be dealt with by Parliament. I hope that the expectation that the House of Lords may be induced to re-consider their decision with regard to the Army Regulation Bill, which is still open for discussion by the other House, may be fulfilled, and that we shall find that not only has purchase been abolished, but also that means will be provided for the satisfaction of those just and equitable claims to which the officers are entitled. I have learnt with very great regret, since the decision of the House of Lords that several hon. Members who voted in favour of the payment of over-regulation prices, are determined to do so no more. I deprecate any such course on the part of those who informed me that they intended to pursue it, and I can only express my deep regret that there should have been made elsewhere that most injudicious statement that there were hon. Members of this House who, arrogating to themselves to represent the officers of the Army, intimated to Members of the other House that they wished that House to reject the Bill. I utterly disbelieve that any hon. Member of this House was authorized by the officers of the Army to make any such declaration, and I earnestly hope
  42
  that this House will not be disposed to visit upon the officers of the Army the indiscretion of the hon. Gentlemen who made that statement. I wish to add one word with reference to a speech that was made elsewhere by one bearing a name that is honoured throughout this country, especially by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House—I mean the Earl of Derby—who, in the debate in the House of Lords, pointed out that it was not necessary to come to Parliament in order to abolish purchase, because that system rested upon Royal Prerogative, and the Government had the power to abolish it without the aid of Parliament, if they chose to do so. I wish to point out that the suggestion—I will not say the first suggestion—that Prerogative might be invoked to settle this question was made by a distinguished Member of the Conservative party in the other House of Parliament, and therefore I think Her Majesty's Government cannot well be charged with a violent strain of the Constitution in the course they have taken.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he thought that the House could scarcely look back upon its proceedings without a feeling of repentance, or possibly regret, for they had, as it seemed to some competent judges, been one series of blunders from the first. The first blunder that was committed by the Government was that of bringing forward a Bill nominally for the organization of the Army, which turned out to be a measure simply for the abolition of purchase. A second blunder was committed by his side of the House in proposing a premature Resolution relating to the question of purchase rather than to the organization of the Army. A third blunder was committed in rejecting the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) who had tried unsuccessfully to raise a sounder issue against the Bill. Some in this House might also be of opinion that the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) in "another place" was a blunder. The step now adopted by the Administration was the crowning and, he hoped, the concluding blunder. He, however, rejoiced at this step on the part of the Administration, because it relieved the party with which he was connected from an enormous responsibility. He

  43
  rejoiced at it because, come of it what might, the Government had taken upon themselves exclusively this enormous responsibility, and their course must tend in all cases to bring them nearer to the patriotic object which they all had in view—namely, the re-organization of the British Army.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was of opinion that on a mere Motion of Adjournment the great question which had been raised could not be satisfactorily discussed. The Government were charged, on the authority of the right hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and Liskeard (Mr. Horsman), with straining the Prerogative. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) said it was perfectly well known that the Prerogative of the Grown was nothing else than the will of the Minister, and that there was nothing to prevent the Minister, in the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, constituting himself dictator. [Mr. HORSMAN: I said with a powerful majority at his back, abusing the Prerogative.] He did not catch those words. Then it appeared that his right hon. Friend meant that the Minister wanted something more than his own will—namely, a majority at his back, to become dictator. But who was his right hon. Friend that he should disparage a majority of the House of Commons—a majority which his right hon. Friend characterized sarcastically as a reliable majority? That majority was supposed to express the opinion of their constituents—it was virtually a majority of the English people, and that majority would be a check to prevent the Minister abusing the Prerogative of the Crown or from constituting himself dictator. If his right hon. Friend objected to the doctrine of a reliable majority he must object to something more than Prerogative—he must object to the fundamental principles of Parliamentary Government, because he (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) did not know on what Parliamentary Government rested if it were not upon those reliable majorities which supported the responsible Minister in carrying out a policy which the people approved. If the course the Government had pursued was an unwise or unconstitutional course, it was for those who believed it to be unwise or improper to come forward and challenge it. That would be the proper constitutional mode
  44
  of discussing the great question which had been raised. What was meant by "the Crown" in reference to such a question as this? Not the personal act of the Sovereign, but the act of the Queen as trustee for the people acting upon the advice of her Ministers, who were responsible to Parliament and to the people who elected that Parliament. The First Minister of the Crown had stated in the presence of the House of Commons what course he had upon his responsibility recommended to the Crown, and he (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) felt that those who entertained such opinions as had been expressed by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), Liskeard (Mr. Horsman), and Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), were bound to come forward and propose a vote of censure upon the Government. Prerogative was a word not loved upon those benches (below the gangway), and he confessed that he had thought, in the first instance, it would have been a more convenient course if, before this final and decisive step had been taken by the Government, the approbation of the House of Commons had been asked to a formal Address to the Crown. But upon further reflection, and after hearing the statement of the First Minister of the Crown, he was disposed to think that the course the Government had adopted did not materially differ from that which he had suggested, for the abolition of purchase had been already over and over again sanctioned by the the House of Commons. If it were true, as stated by the First Minister, that the exercise of authority which the Government had put in force upon this occasion was one which rested upon statute, he did not know how those who were the most jealous of the word Prerogative could object to the exercise of such an authority as that. It was perfectly plain that within the four corners of the Statute of 49 Geo. III., s. 18, a regulation might be made saying that no payment should take place in respect of commissions in the Army, and then it would become illegal to make any such payment. The 8th section of that statute was to the following effect:—
  "Provided also and be it further enacted that every officer in his Majesty's forces who shall take, accept, receive, or pay, or agree to pay, any larger sum of money, directly or indirectly, than what is allowed by any regulation made by his

  45
  Majesty in relation to the purchase, sale, or exchange of his commission," & c.
  Now it seemed to him that the course of the Government had been taken under the authority or implied authority of that section of the statute, and therefore he entered his protest against its being stated this was an act solely of the Prerogative of the Crown. They could not with advantage pronounce upon so serious a matter without further time for consideration, or until the Warrant showing upon what authority the First Minister assumed to act was before the House. He presumed that a copy of this Warrant would be laid on the Table, and then, if any hon. Gentleman objected to the course taken by the Government he could raise the question, and the House would have an opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, it appeared to him that it was not the purchase system, but a much larger question that was then before the House—namely, the relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He fully acknowledged the great difficulty of the position of the Government, and he could not help expressing his regret that they should have approached the question in any indirect way. If there was to be any collision between the two Houses—and it seemed to him that they were on the brink of such a collision—then he, for one, would much rather that the question should be raised in a perfectly direct form, and without departing from the usual course of procedure. He did not know how many hon. Members might agree with him, but he was perfectly certain that there was a large body of persons outside of that House who had grown very impatient at the disposition of things, and who felt that a dangerous strain had been placed on the whole Constitution by this equal division of power between the two Houses. Those who wished to act in a really Conservative spirit would be the men who would bring this question as speedily as possible to a solution, and who would assist in rescuing the House from what he must say, was a constant degradation to it—namely, that at any moment measures which had been fully discussed in that House should be rejected by the other House, or what was worse still, that over their legislation there should hang a perpetual
  46
  shadow of the other House, so that constantly measures were limited so as to lose many features of importance, from a fear that they would not in their more perfect form meet with the approval of the other House. He was quite certain that the support of the country would be given to the Government whenever they chose to face this large question, and attempt with as much moderation and conciliation as might be possible, but yet with the utmost firmness, to arrive at this conclusion—that the House of Commons should not be shackled and impeded by a body which was wholly irresponsible.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I should have preferred maintaining a silence which is always decorous, particularly when your mind is not made up, and when, as is the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare), you have nothing to say. But I have been dragged from the retirement which on the present occasion I should have preferred by my hon. Friend the Member for ^Chelsea—I mean the hon. Baronet the Member for that borough. [An hon. MEMBER: They are both Baronets.] Yes; but very different men. Why should my hon. Friend, with whom I supposed I was on the best of terms, exhume me, drag me before the House, and place me on a pinnacle which I think he himself will never attain? Why, again, he should have attacked the constituency of Liskeard I am at a loss to understand.
  SIR HENRY HOARE: I did not attack the constituency of Liskeard, but only the Member for that borough.
  MR. OSBORNE: Well, Liskeard is in an unfortunate situation, for it has but one Member, and it has never yet been wooed by the nobility of the Gentleman who has just addressed the House. This, I will ask him. When I lost the confidence of my constituency I resigned my seat, and I should like to know whether the hon. Baronet is prepared to do the same as regards Chelsea? I recommend him to follow that bright example. With reference to this debate, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) that we have neither the temper nor the necessary information properly to discuss the question before us, and as it will come before us in another form, I think we shall best show our sense if we abstain

  47
  from giving any direct opinion until we know what the force of this Warrant is. I confess that at the present time I am imperfectly informed as to what effect the Warrant would produce; but I am not imperfectly informed of the sentiments of some of the Gentlemen who sit around me. I have heard some of those sentiments with not unqualified satisfaction. I regretted to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). He talked of the House of Lords in an offhand way, as if the abolition of that House would not abolish him. Contrast this with the calm, quiet, and, I think I may add, rather watery manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. A. Herbert). I must say this. He has asked me once to dinner; but I hope now he will only ask me to tea. I say that these attacks by implication on the House of Lords do more than anything else to lessen the influence of this House in the country. I am not here as the apologist of the House of Lords; but I must say they have only exercised their constitutional rights. Will any hon. Gentleman or constitutional lawyer say that the House of Lords have not exercised their perfectly constitutional rights, not in rejecting, for they have not rejected the Bill, but in merely postponing the consideration of the question of purchase until a proper plan is brought forward for the re-organization of the defensive forces of the country? I am not prepared to say it was a well-advised step; probably it was not. Although I dissented from the Government Bill, which I think is a bad and an incomplete measure that deceived everybody, yet, considering that they had narrowed it to the question of purchase, knowing very well that purchase is not only dead and gone, but decently buried, I am not prepared to say that the House of Lords adopted a wise course to postpone its consideration. Nevertheless, it was a strictly constitutional course. But when those whom I may call the whippersnappers of politics jump up on these benches to attack one of the great institutions of the country, thereby endeavouring to gain a little ephemeral popularity out of the House, I must tell the enthusiastic Liberals behind me who constitute what is called a reliable majority, but which is also a very pliable majority, that if they desire to have
  48
  respect for themselves and for the Parliamentary system, it will be promoted by giving due effect to their sentiments in constitutional language in this House and not by running amuck at the other House of Parliament.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the question upon which the House had voted in reference to the purchase question was one entirely different to that which had been just raised. He wished to repeat the Question put by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and to ask the Government to afford the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the course now adopted by Her Majesty's Government. If they declined to do so, and called upon the House to move a want of confidence, it was only his personal reluctance to take such a course that would prevent him from doing so. The Government had taken the House and the country by surprise in the course they had taken.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that before the Question for Adjournment was withdrawn, he wished to ask whether the Government would be able to lay the Warrant immediately on the Table, and present it that night, in order that time might be afforded for considering any steps which it might be deemed advisable to take.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it should be presented to-morrow at the latest. He was not able to say that it was in his power to lay it before both Houses that night; but it should certainly be presented to them to-morrow.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government intended to bring in a Bill this Session to provide for the compensation of officers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that we shall wait a certain time to see what course the House of Lords takes with regard to the Bill before them. It is plain, I think, that that will be the best plan to adopt.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, as the discussion on the loss of the Captain had been fixed for Tuesday, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also fix a day for discussing the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), in reference to the Treaty of Washington.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LIQUOR TRADE IN THE COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state to the House what are the various Laws relating to restrictions upon the sale of intoxicating liquors in the principal British Colonies, and what has been the operation of such Laws?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman asked me privately whether I could give him information as to the state of the law in our principal colonies with respect to restrictions upon the sale of intoxicating liquors I replied at once in the affirmative. It occurred to me, however, that the value of this information would be increased if I could also show what had been the previous state of the law, and how any changes in the direction of restriction or otherwise had been found to work. I therefore obtained the consent of my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department to the preparation of a Circular to the Governors of those colonies, asking for such information. I have already drawn and directed the dispatch of these circulars, and as soon as the replies have been received they shall be laid before Parliament.

RUMOURED DISTURBANCES IN JAMAICA.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether in reference to the rumoured disturbances in Jamaica he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Judges' notes taken at three trials lately held at St. Ann's Bay and Port Maria, Jamaica, in the Queen v. Thompson, the Queen v. Phillips, and Cane v. Bravo.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, I have already told the hon. Baronet that the rumour of disturbances in Jamaica which has appeared in the newspapers came from New York, and related to certain squatters who, having established themselves upon lands to which they had no title, were said to be determined to resist eviction and to rise against the Government. I have also stated that we had no information which leads us to anticipate any such disturbances. But the trials to which the hon. Baronet alludes have no connection
50
whatever with these "rumoured disturbances," and indeed occurred at a different part of the island altogether. One was the trial of a negro for stealing a cane; the man was acquitted and brought an action against the prosecutor for false imprisonment and recovered damages. Another was the trial of a white man for an assault upon a black, of which he was convicted and fined. The third case related to the reported trial of a magistrate for a criminal offence, and his being still allowed to continue in the commission of the peace. Of that we have no information, but the Governor will be asked to report upon it. The Judge who tried the first two of these cases happens to be in England at this moment, and no doubt his notes could be obtained; but inasmuch as the trials were really of no especial public interest, and have nothing to do with the "rumoured disturbances" in Jamaica, I really think it would serve no useful purpose to present these notes to Parliament.

IRELAND — MAGISTRATES OF DUNGANNON.—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the police investigation held at Dungannon in June last, at which certain statements were made by Captain Ball, R.M. (when sworn), which have conveyed the impression to the public mind that he considered that the local magistrates had exhibited partiality in the discharge of their duty, Whether he can give the further information he promised to afford on Thursday, the 6th instant; whether he has communicated to the magistrates implicated, the Memorial, said to have emanated from the inhabitants of Dungannon, so as to enable them publicly to meet the serious charges advanced against them; and, whether he has decided upon the course to be pursued in a case that alike involves the character of the bench of magistrates and the due administration of justice in that locality?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that when he answered the noble Lord's Question on the subject the other night, he was under the impression that a copy of the memorial of the inhabitants of Dungannon had been communicated to the local magistrates, so as to enable them publicly to meet the serious charges of partiality

51
brought against them. He now found that he was mistaken in this impression, but a copy of the memorial had since been forwarded to them. Considering the nature of the charges made, an inquiry into the circumstances would be necessary, and that inquiry would be instituted without undue loss of time.

NAVY—INCOME TAX—OFFICERS OF THE NAVY.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Mr. G. BENTINCK)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any decision has been come to on the question of charging Income Tax to Officers of the Navy on monies expended by them for travelling expenses when on duty, and afterwards reimbursed to them?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the Lords of the Treasury had decided not to charge such expenses with income tax.

PARLIAMENT—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that in 1853 the Navy Estimates were closed on the 22nd of February, with the exception of a Supplemental Estimate for the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, then established for the first time, which was not presented to Parliament till the 29th of July; that in 1860 the Navy Estimates were closed on the 15th of June, with the exception of an item of the Half Pay Vote amounting to £12,000, for the retirement of Naval Officers of the higher grades, which was objected to when the Vote was under discussion, and deferred, by consent, for future consideration, and of a Supplemental Estimate of a Grant to the Marine Forces employed in China, presented on the 13th July; and that in 1861 the Navy Estimates were closed on the 9th of June, with the exception of a Supplemental Vote for Iron Ships, which was not presented till the 22nd of July?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I was much surprised when I saw the right hon. Gentleman's Question on the Paper, inasmuch as I have given particular directions in reference to my inquiries that Supplementary Estimates should be carefully excluded, and my private secretary sent to the Admiralty for that part of the Return which relates to the Navy. I believe, however, the statement
  52
  of the right hon. Gentleman is substantially correct, and I am at a loss to understand how the error, which I deeply regret, could have arisen in the report made to me. I am anxious, therefore, to assist the right hon. Gentleman in regard to any of the Motions which he wishes to bring forward. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) is not willing to take Tuesday evening for discussing the loss of the Captain, and, if it is agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman, he can bring on his Motion respecting the management of the dockyards on that day. A definite arrangement on this point can be made at a later hour of the evening.

ARMY—AMMUNITION FOR MILITIA REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WINGFIELD BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the reason why blank cartridge ammunition is no longer allowed to militia regiments while out on drill or on inspection days; and, whether it is intended to continue such disallowance, and for how long?
SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, by the Reserve Force Circular of the 1st of April last 10 rounds of blank ammunition are allowed annually in Militia regiments for each man present at training who has been previously instructed in musketry, and 20 rounds for each recruit or man who has not been previously so instructed. 10 rounds of blank ammunition per man are also issued to regiments taking part in a brigade field-day. This Circular is still in force.

NAVY—SIR SPENCER ROBINSON AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.—QUESTION.
MR. SCOURFIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement alleged to have been made, that Sir Spencer Robinson concurred in an opinion expressed that the work in one of the Royal Dockyards was done in a wasteful and imperfect manner; and, if such statement has been made, whether he is aware that there was any foundation for it?
MR. GOSCHEN: I think, Sir, the misapprehension has been caused by the ommission of several sentences in

53
the report of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely). Sir Spencer Robinson was sorry to see that he had been apparently misrepresented as having made the statement referred to in the hon. Gentleman's question, and accordingly he wrote the following letter to Captain Hall, formerly Superintendent of Pembroke Dockyard, and now Third Lord of the Admiralty:—
"I observe that Mr. Seely refers to some observations of the Member for Merthyr respecting the idling of artificers at Pembroke. I remember the statement being made and an inquiry following, when the story was completely and absolutely disproved. I need hardly add that while I was at the Admiralty, I may say all the time that you was at Pembroke Dockyard, neither idleness nor waste of money for which you were in any way responsible took place at that Dockyard. Pembroke yard was remarkable for good and economical work, and for the great and unwearied exertions made by yourself to promote the public service in every way. It is due to you that I, who was in a position to know the facts, should state this much. It would be most pleasing to me if it were possible for Mr. Goschen to make this statement in the House of Commons."

METROPOLIS—DESIGNS FOR THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended that the elevation of the New Courts of Justice shall be erected in conformity with the designs now exhibited in the Library?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would put the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as this business was not in the least in his hands.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Treasury had the arrangement of the matter under an Act of Parliament. They had not yet the elevations, and the object of placing the designs in the Library was to give the House time to express its opinion concerning them.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked whether any opportunity would be given to the House to express an opinion? Had a Bill on the subject been prepared?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no Bill; but hon. Gentlemen would doubtless find an opportunity of eliciting the opinion of the House.

QUEENSLAND—IMPORTATION OF SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table a Copy of all Correspondence with the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, respecting the system of importation of South Sea Islanders to the Colony of Queensland, a system, to use the language of Earl Granville, which involves not a mere Queensland question, but affecting foreign, although uncivilized countries, and the honour of the British name in connection with them; whether he is aware that there are only four small vessels of war now on the Australian station which extends over all Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, the Fiji, and New Hebrides groups; and, whether the Government will not at once take measures to put down the traffic in native labourers which is carried on between the Fiji Islands and Queensland, and which it is publicly stated is approved of by the Queensland Government?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, my hon. Friend has put to me a Question which it is almost impossible to answer concisely. We do propose to give all the Correspondence for which he asks, but there are several reasons which have caused delay. One of them is that there are two questions relating to the South Sea Islands—one concerning the deportation of labour, the other concerning the proposals for the annexation of the Fiji Islands, and care has been necessary to keep these two questions separate. Then, the matter being one partly concerning the Foreign and partly the Colonial Office, some delay has been caused by the necessary interchange of communications in order to prevent the same Papers being given twice over. Besides this, they are very voluminous, and some of the Correspondence has been going on until within a very few days. I have done all in my power to expedite the matter, but I regret to say that it is very doubtful whether I shall be able to lay these Papers upon the Table before the close of the present Session. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I must demur to his application of the word "small" to the ships

55
on the Australian station; but the Question is one which would be more properly addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, from whom, if it is put with due notice, my hon. Friend will, no doubt, receive a satisfactory reply. With regard, to the last part of the Question, I cannot allow my hon. Friend to state that Queensland immigration is "nothing more than slavery." We have heard of, and we fear there have occurred, cruelties and nefarious practices with regard to the kidnapping of the South Sea Islanders—not Fiji Islanders, for the Fiji group is a competitor with Queensland for imported labour. Against all such practices we have constantly set our face. But these cruelties have nothing to do with Queensland. That colony imports labour under the Polynesian Immigration Act, under restrictions originally suggested by the Home Government. The importation is carried on under strict regulations. Every care is taken to prevent cruelty and wrong being perpetrated, and only during the present year the Queensland Legislature has adopted the plan of sending a Government agent in each vessel for the protection of the Natives. If, therefore, that which is practically a slave trade does exist, it must be confounded with the legitimate arrangements for the importation of labour carefully and legally carried on by the colony of Queensland, which I cannot allow to be aspersed without a prompt vindication.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEwished to re-call attention to the language used by Earl Granville in reference to the Question.
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, as the hon. Gentleman only gave notice of the Question on the previous night, he was not prepared to answer it in every particular; but he should be glad to furnish him with any further information if he desired it.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
MR. REEDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the National interests involved in the speedy passing of the Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) Bill, the customary suspension of business on Tuesday and Friday evenings between the
56
hours of seven and nine o'clock might not be dispensed with during the remainder of the Session?
MR. GLADSTONE: I share, Sir, entirely in the anxiety of my hon. Friend to arrive at the end he contemplates; but I am afraid that 12 hours' continuous sitting is a little too much to expect. I confess I am not sanguine that the House would consent to remove the suspension referred to in my hon. Friend's Question. We are now coming to a time of the year when the House is accustomed to give precedence to Orders, and especially to Government Orders on Tuesday evenings, and when that is done the course of Business will, of course, be materially assisted. In 1869 that was not done until the 2nd of August — a date now not very far distant; and in 1868 it was done as early as the 7th of July. It may, therefore, not be long before we shall have to ask the House to assent to some such proposal.
Afterwards—
MR. NEWDEGATEdesired to know, After what time the Government would not bring on the Glebe Loan (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment Bill and the Maynooth College Bill?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he hoped to be able to make progress that evening, provided they could be reached by a reasonable time.

DUTY ON CARTS AND HORSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. RICHARDSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether persons using taxable carts or horses in attending occasionally at fairs, races, or horse shows, or in going to the seaside, are exempted from paying Duty on such carts or horses, and, if those persons are exempted, whether the exemption ought not to be extended to persons using taxable carts or horses in attending their usual places of worship; and whether the Board of Inland Revenue would charge Duty in cases where persons having carts or horses not otherwise taxable, lend them gratuitously on special occasions, such as school treats, clerical festivals, and meetings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that persons using taxable carts or horses in attending their usual places of worship were exempted

  57
  from paying duty, as were also persons having carts or horses, not otherwise taxable, who lent them gratuitously on special occasions.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mode of taking the Poll.
  Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling).
  Amendment moved, in sub-section 10, at commencement, insert "Within fifteen minutes."—(Mr. James.)
  After short discussion,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, in page 4, leave out sub-section 10.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrefused to consent to the omission.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made, in line 25, after "lock it up," insert—
  "And place his seal upon it in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking such sealing and shall."—(Mr. G. Bentinck.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "vote," to insert the words—
  "Shall have his name and description, and the qualification in respect of which he claims to vote called publicly by some person appointed by the returning officer."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must decline to accept the Amendment; but he should be willing to insert in subsection 12 words requiring the name and address of the voter to be called.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 17; Noes 80: Majority 63.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKproposed an Amendment to the following effect:—
  "The presiding officer at any polling station, on the application of any elector entitled to vote at such polling station, shall deliver a ballot paper to such elector, but before doing so shall mark the back of such ballot paper with his initials."
  One of the reasons urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster)
  58
  for the abolition of the present system of voting at Parliamentary elections in this country was that the Australian colonies had adopted the Ballot, which he said was a superior plan of voting. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose that the Ballot should be carried out here in the same manner as it was carried out in Australia, although he professed to prefer the Australian plan. From reports that had been received from the Australian colonies, it appeared that the voting paper was not stamped in any of them with an instrument, but that the returning officer marked it with his initials. He believed that the Australian plan of thus marking the voting paper was the best and most convenient that could be adopted.
  Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out the words "stamp or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the question as between an instrument and initials had been decided on the 8th sub-section. His objection to initials was that they could be more easily forged. Moreover, initialing would take up more time than stamping. He was not so fearful of fraud as many hon. Members, but a stamp, he thought, would afford better protection than initials.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, there was no evidence from the Australian colonies of any complaint having been made of the plan of marking with initials. On reference to the 19th subsection it would be seen that there would be some danger of an imperfectly stamped ballot paper being thrown away, to the loss of the candidate for whom the vote was intended. He should therefore press his Amendment to a division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 13: Majority 62.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he would propose that the voting paper should be stamped on the face instead of behind.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the hon. Member's Amendment, because the object of the Government was to prevent the presiding officer from seeing the face of the paper, so

  59
  that he should have no opportunity of ascertaining which way the vote was given.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made, in page 4, line 33, after the word "instrument" insert the words "and shall call out the name, description, and number of the elector as contained in the register of electors."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  MR. CORRANCE, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for West Suffolk (Lord Augustus Hervey), moved an Amendment, in page 4, line 33, after "instrument," insert—
  "And shall mark thereon in plain figures a number corresponding to the number attached to the name of such elector on the Register of Voters."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the principle of this Amendment having been already fully discussed and decided by the Committee, he thought it would be a waste of time for him to do more than state that he could not assent to the proposed alteration of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to propose an Amendment, in order to render the discovery of personation not absolutely impossible. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been unfortunate enough this year to frame a Bill without that amount of precaution which existed in the Bill of last year in cases of personation, and with reference to a scrutiny where there was an inquiry. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) proposed to insert words in the 35th line to give an opportunity for that inquiry. The wording of the Bill was—
  "Shall enter on the copy of the register of electors with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the elector has received a ballot paper."
  He proposed that the words "cross or other" should be struck out, leaving the clause to read "a mark;" and if that was approved of, he would add after the word "paper," "and shall make the same mark on the ballot paper." That would give the means of identification, in the event of a scrutiny.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that they had discussed this question of a scrutiny over and over again, and it was now at an end.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had great respect for the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend; but he must call on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) for an opinion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which had already in substance been negatived by the Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, in page 4, line 42, to leave out from "proceed" to "place," in line 43, inclusive. By that sub-section the elector, on receiving his ballot paper, was required forthwith to proceed into one of the compartments at the polling-station, and there record his vote. It was contrary to all the principles which had hitherto regulated English elections that the elector should be compelled under a penalty to go into one of these compartments to record his vote. In the Bill of last year there was a provision to the fact that any elector who thought fit to vote, but who did not enter one of these receptacles for the purpose, should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to two years' imprisonment. In the present Bill the penalty was reduced to £10. He did not believe in this Botany Bay principle. He thought it ought to be left optional with the elector to record his vote either in one of those compartments or outside of it, as he might prefer; and the object of his Amendment was to give the elector such a choice. It was only right that the British elector should be allowed to vote according to the principles which had hitherto governed British Elections, so far as that could be done consistently with the adoption of the Ballot.
  Amendment proposed, in line 42, to leave out the words "proceed into one of the compartments in the polling station, and shall."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman raised that question on sub-section 5, when he had proposed to strike out the words requiring the returning officer to provide those compartments. As the compartments were to be provided, the Government looked forward to their being used. He would not detain the Committee by repeating his former arguments on that subject.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the Government seemed desirous of getting a voter to skulk into the polling-booth and hide himself in a box, as if he were ashamed of being seen there, like a man going into a pawnbroker's shop. It was most improper to associate the exercise of the franchise with such degradation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the object of his supporters was to prevent intimidation, and for this purpose nothing but the utmost secrecy would suffice.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted some consideration would be had for the elector, and that he would not be subjected to this indignity.
  LORD HENRY THYNNEregretted that some endeavours were not made to check bribery and corruption as well as intimidation, to the prevention of which all the efforts of the Government seemed directed. The Bill was one that would give every facility to bribery and corruption, and would facilitate personation. He had known of bribery in quite as high quarters as that of the returning officer, and yet they were going to place attorney's clerks in that position.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, the description "forthwith, proceed" was rather grandiose, considering the elector had to sneak into a box to record his vote.
  MR. BEACHsaid, the provision was quite unnecessary, because if the voter sought secrecy he would turn his back upon everyone, while the more bold could fill their paper up before the eyes of all.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he would support the Amendment, as he thought that entering the box should be permissive.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, hon. Gentlemen opposite believed the Government exaggerated the intimidation which existed. But they on that side felt that unless they got this provision they did not attain their object. If voting secretly was left optional, influence would, undoubtedly, be brought to bear.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, hon. Gentlemen opposite argued from their own experience, having been returned by constituencies which had been grossly coerced. In his own case he was happy to say a large number of voters supported him openly in opposition to their landlord's brother.
  COLONEL CORBETTbelieved the result of the provision would be that, although intimidation would be put an end to, bribery would increase twenty-fold.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that when the House was considering the Elementary Education Act and its schedules referring to London, some described the method of voting prescribed there as a sham. The Vice President of the Council, however, replied it was nothing of the kind, and said it was arranged on the model of the Cumberland ballots, which answered every purpose; but now the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time imitating the inconsistency of the First Minister of the Crown, repudiated the Cumberland ballots as useless, and introduced a novel and undignified method of voting. What he (Mr. C. Bentinck) wanted was to give voters two alternatives—the Botany Bay system of skulking to the poll, and the system of voting like a free-born Briton, and he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 45: Majority 73.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in moving as an Amendment, in page 4, sub-section 13, line 43, after "shall," to insert "himself, or if requested by the elector the returning officer shall," said, those on that—the Opposition—side had been charged with bringing forward points of a minute character, not worthy the time they had occupied. But it could not be for a moment denied that the Amendment he was now about to propose eminently deserved consideration. Under the Bill a voter who was uneducated or ill-educated was practically disfranchised, and the point was, whether or no it was sound policy to adopt an educational test for the suffrage. In 1866, when the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) proposed such a test, the First Minister of the Crown said it was contrary to the policy which guided the distribution of political power. The argument was unanswerable, and it applied now. What he (Mr. J. Lowther) suggested by the present Amendment was that, if requested by an elector, the presiding officer should fill in the ballot paper in accordance with the elector's intentions. The Vice President of the Council had said, if that practice were allowed, an influence might be brought to bear upon the elector to submit his ballot paper to a presiding officer, through

  63
  whose agency a vote might be made known outside the polling-booth. But if you were not to trust even the presiding officer you were cutting away one of the foundations of the Bill. One of the sub-sections in Clause 9 allowed the presiding officer to fill in ballot papers of blind persons, or other persons incapacitated from voting in the manner required by the Act. Now, he contended that a voter who could not read was really incapacitated from voting in the manner required by the Act. However this might be, blind persons and others were placed unreservedly in the power of the presiding officer; and why, then, should the right hon. Gentleman object to give him the same power in the case of voters who could not read? The question was one of such importance that he thought it should have been laid before the Cabinet, end the Committee were entitled to have the opinion of the Prime Minister respecting it. As the Bill stood, thousands of electors would be disfranchised by a side-wind, for he must remind the Committee that not only uneducated, but imperfectly educated voters would be unable to decipher and properly fill up a ballot paper. He should be very willing to accept any suggestion as to the form in which the Amendment should be put; but he was determined to afford the Committee an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon this scheme for the disfranchisement of thousands of electors in all parts of the United Kingdom. In conclusion, he would beg leave to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed, in line 43, after the word "shall," to insert the words "himself, or if requested by the elector the presiding officer shall."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the proper place for such an Amendment was in sub-section 8, of Clause 9, where provision was made for the blind and other persons physically incapacitated, and he did not deny that, when the proper occasion arose, it was a question which might be fairly considered, though the Government did not think it necessary to make special provisions for those who could not read or write. As the Amendment stood he objected to it because it would apply to all electors. The Government were of opinion that the
  64
  uneducated voters would not be disfranchised by the operation of the Bill, because if they were men of common sense, they would know where to place their marks, on being informed before going into the polling-places.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the question was one necessary to be considered, for a great number of voters were certainly unable to read. He agreed that the proper place for the Amendment was in Clause 9, and he had given Notice of an Amendment to enable an illiterate voter to take a witness with him into the polling-place, to see that he put his mark in the right place. There was a precedent for this provision in the Victorian Act. In the case of a blind man the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that he should go before a justice of the peace and declare for whom he intended to vote; but considering that a poor man could not spare the time required for going to a justice of the peace, and then to the poll—such a provision would have the effect of virtually disfranchising such a voter. What the working men throughout the country felt very strongly was this—the Bill related not only to Parliamentary, but to municipal elections; and they very fairly, as he thought, urged that the returning officer was not the proper person to assist the voter in this matter, as that officer would very likely in the former elections, and certainly in the latter, be some great employer of labour, against whose influence the Bill was intended to protect the working man.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should certainly prefer to challenge the decision of the Committee on the point now, unless hon. Members opposite were prepared to show reasons against his proposal, for when Clause 9 was reached the Committee would doubtless be told that the question had been already decided by Clause 3. He was sorry he had not previously known that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. Cross) had an Amendment relating to this matter on a subsequent clause, as he should have liked to have consulted him upon the subject. He (Mr. Lowther) however must say he much preferred his own Amendment to that of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. Cross), as numerous objections would be urged against any person being admitted into

  65
  a polling-booth except the responsible official sworn to secrecy under heavy penalties, whom his Amendment proposed to intrust with this duty, and who could not be objected to in the manner that a friend of the voter, who might be an agent or other person having influence over him, could be taken exception to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must oppose the Amendment on the additional ground that it would open the door to a great evasion of the Ballot.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, a reference to the Colonial Acts would show that in every case but one provision similar to that now proposed was made for the blind and voters unable to read.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that in South Australia the provision was precisely what was made in this Bill.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to ask if the Government would be disposed to adopt some Amendment on the 9th clause if the discussion were postponed till then?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcould only say that the Government would consider the subject, and he hoped hon. Members on both sides would do the same.
  MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he considered it essential in the case of the working man that there should be no means of ascertaining how he gave his vote.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought this a most important question. He had no doubt the papers would be a mass of error, and he believed the result of the clause as it stood would be to disfranchise one-third of the new constituency.
  COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he entertained the same opinion. If they had agreed to the use of coloured cards the illiterate electors would have been able to see for whom they wished to vote.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, this was a municipal as well as a Parliamentary Bill, and it applied equally to female voters who might not possess that feeling of independence which was generally attributed to working men. Great numbers of persons would be disfranchised by the Bill until education was more thoroughly spread than it was at present.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he thought it a great defect in the machinery of the Bill that an illiterate voter would not be able to poll. He hoped the hon. Member for
  66
  York (Mr. J. Lowther) would take the opinion of the Committee on the Amendment. It was desirable that the country should know who were for curtailing the franchise, and who were really desirous of extending it. He believed the constituency would rather see a good election Bill than a Bill for secret voting.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he believed the protection proposed would be necessary in many eases for the educated as well as for the illiterate voter. Even an educated man having to run the gauntlet of a large crowd hissing and hooting, and forced into a compartment with a paper he was compelled to sign, might require assistance.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that what was asked for was reasonable, and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say how he proposed to provide for a bonâ fide difficulty in the case of an uneducated voter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, he had stated that Clause 9 would have afforded a much better opportunity of discussing the matter. The Government considered that they had protected the uneducated voter by giving him a list of candidates arranged in alphabetical order, and common sense would enable him to give his vote without any special provision. From his experience of uneducated men he thought they would have little difficulty in running a finger down the list, and voting for the first, second, third, or fourth candidate, as the case might be, having previously been told the order in which the respective candidates stood on the list.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, some one would have to tell the voter this, so that, after all, it came to dictation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must remind the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) that it had already been determined that public notice of the order in which the candidates stood should be given immediately after the nomination; and the working men to whom the right hon. Baronet referred must be more stupid than any with whom he (Mr. Forster) had come in contact, if, with that amount of information, they would not be able to fix upon the candidate or candidates for whom they wished to vote.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he might mention a case which occurred in the West of England. An election for Truro was held some years ago when there were four candidates—two Smiths and two Vivians, one of each name being a Liberal, and one of each a Conservative. This conjunction of names might have puzzled even a tolerably well-educated man. In such a case it was clear an ignorant man must get information from some one outside, and getting it would expose him to influence; it was therefore reasonable to ask that he might be allowed to consult the returning officer, who was hypothetically above suspicion.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, one reason for deciding the matter now was that no one had any idea when Clause 9 would be reached.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERmentioned an election for Lisburne at which there were two candidates with identical names—Jonathan Richardson.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the reason why it was necessary to discuss these details in Committee so fully was that they had not been discussed, as they ought to have been, in a Select Committee upstairs. Even now the Bill had better be withdrawn for the Session in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee next Session. As a representative of a southern county he could say that there were electors who could no more fill up their ballot papers than they could fly over the moon.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not think that the uneducated peasant or artizan would have any difficulty in knowing the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote as he would be put through a preliminary training, and would be told whether the name stood No. 5 or 6 on the list.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he must insist that the clause as it stood would disfranchise a large number of electors, and that there was as much reason in assisting a man who could not read and write as there was in assisting one who was blind.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he could not perceive what disadvantage could arise from giving a voter information before he entered the booth. Though acknowledging the educational attainments of voters in the North of England, he would mention a case which occurred in
  68
  a northern constituency, that he once represented, of a gentleman by no means uneducated who intended to vote in his favour. The gentleman's name was Bright, and on being asked whom he voted for he answered "Bright," with the object probably of pointing out to the returning officer the fact that his name was on the register. The returning officer, however, choose to record the vote in favour of "Bright," although there was no candidate of that name. This was one of many instances which might be adduced to show the desirability of making the change recommended by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, however much he might be opposed to a Bill on the second reading, yet when it came before them in Committee he, for one, should never be a party to anything like factious opposition. But he wished to state that he felt so strongly upon the point under discussion that, whether they went to a division or not, he should feel it his duty to divide upon the point when they arrived at the 9th clause, acting in conformity with a large meeting of working men, who were friends of the Ballot.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that the returning officer was a responsible official, who might be rendered liable to a penalty if he disclosed the way any elector had voted, whereas the obligation of secrecy could not be imposed on a private friend of a voter.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, in reference to what had been said as to the educational superiority of northern constituencies, he must remark that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was a native of Dorsetshire, and consequently belonged to the South of England.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he did not think the clause would disfranchise a number of voters, but it would certainly lead to their voting otherwise than they intended, and voting ought not to be a matter of haphazard. On such a subject as this the Committee ought to have the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Was it possible for the Prime Minister to shut their mouths, and if the Bill were not passed did he intend to apply for a Royal Charter? Hon. Members opposite knew perfectly well that the measure could not pass this year; they were bringing themselves into ridicule throughout the country, and at the next

  69
  General Election the Conservatives would have a large majority. ["Question!"] The question was whether voters should vote in the way they intended. For himself he might mention that he had been very fortunate throughout his career. Good fortune had followed him from his earliest days, and he had no doubt that any mistakes which occurred in the polling-booth would be in his favour. Whatever he thought he said, because, unlike hon. Members opposite, he was not afraid of his leader. In conclusion, he appealed to them, if they were free men, to state their opinions with respect to the Amendment.
  MR. RODENsaid, he would accept the invitation of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Greene) and express his hope that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would allow the division to be taken at once, as the sole object of the Opposition was to strangle the Bill. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had adverted to the ignorance of constituencies in the West of England: on the Government side there was but one opinion and one argument—namely, "We mean to pass the Ballot Bill in spite of all your opposition."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the want of intelligence was rather on the part of the hon. Member who had just sat down than on the part of his constituents. He had not said there was any particular want of intelligence among West of England voters, but had merely mentioned a mistake which occurred in that part of the country in consequence of a similarity of names, and pointed out that ignorant voters might be easily puzzled under such circumstances.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill would strangle itself without any interference on the part of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure had been justly lauded in the course of these debates, but it must now be obvious to him that he had undertaken a task so Herculean as to be beyond even his powers. The Bill was crudely and imperfectly framed; every word of it must necessarily give rise to a discussion; every clause contained a host of blunders, and every section was a comedy of errors. Members of Parliament ought to be allowed to express
  70
  their opinions, and if the Committee had had the assistance of hon. Members opposite on the entangled clauses of this Bill it would have been more advantageous than their sitting in silence and leaving all the work to those who sat on the opposite benches. ["Question!"] Would hon. Members neither speak themselves nor allow others to do so? Was the House of Commons to sit in dumb show under the dictation of one man? Was no Member to be allowed to express his opinion? If that were so, the sooner they left the House the better. Many of the difficulties and errors that were to be found in this hopeless measure might have been simplified or removed if the Committee had had the assistance of hon. Members opposite, who were not only thoroughly conversant with the details of the measure, but were prepared to state them until there came forth the stern dictum for silence. As far as they had gone, the proceedings showed that almost every clause in the Bill required alteration, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, at this period of the Session, looking to the difficulties which were before him, he would proceed unaided to carry out his design? The Bill was so crudely drawn that every line was full of mistakes.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 231: Majority 83.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I desire now, Sir, to make another appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. Earlier in the evening we were told that the Government desired to proceed this evening with at least three Bills of importance, two of them Irish Bills, and the third the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill; and I would, therefore, now ask the Government and the House whether the time has not come when we may fairly devote the rest of the evening to doing something like real business. We have now wasted five hours. [Loud cheers.] I cannot feel any surprise at this wild burst of unaccustomed liberty. It is but natural that hon. Members should desire to make themselves heard after so long an enforced silence, and no other result could be anticipated from this extraordinary

  71
  attempt to gag one side of the House of Commons. ["Oh!"] Still, Sir, we have wasted hours in this hopeless struggle on the part of Her Majesty's Government—["No, no!"]—to force this Bill, under such extraordinary circumstances, through the House of Commons. It seems to me that neither the Government nor the House can be fully aware of the magnitude of the task in which they are engaged. Here is not only a Bill of 57 clauses, but a Bill with no less than 133 sub-sections, each of which is, in fact, a separate clause. I ask the Government, I ask the House, if you have any reasonable hope at this period of the Session of being able to force the Bill through Parliament. [Cheers.] Then, if you really have any such hope, I appeal to the common sense of the House, and to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether it is right you should entertain it. What is this Bill? ["Ballot!"] I put aside now the difference of views entertained as to the wisdom or otherwise of the Ballot, but this Bill is an attempt to make a very great and important change in the electoral system of this country. Is it right—I appeal to the common sense of Gentlemen on all sides—is it right that a Bill of such importance, with this great number of clauses, should be forced on at the end of July with one side of the House bound to silence, and under circumstances which absolutely forbid the decent and decorous discussion of a measure of this immense magnitude? I beg, Sir, to move that you do report Progress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) does not seriously intend to ask us to stop our discussion so early (12 o'clock), and after having been engaged on this Bill so short a time. I do not think the right hon. Baronet is quite aware—indeed, I feel assured he is not, from the tone of his remarks—of the real manner in which this question is regarded by hon. Members on this side of the House. We have been constantly taunted with our wish to pass this Bill through the House, and hon. Members on this side have been taunted for not assisting in throwing obstructions in our path. From the fact that I have had charge of this Bill it has been my lot to trouble the Committee very often, and I
  72
  feel it due to hon. Members on this side of the House to explain what I believe to be the grounds which actuate them in the course they have taken. We believe—and we think we have reason to believe—that this Ballot Bill is desired by our constituents, and that there is no measure which they have more at heart. [Cheers and counter-cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen on the other side deny that. We say we are a majority of this House, and that the majority of the constituencies of the country have returned us, and we think we have a right to say what we believe our constituents wish. And when hon. Members on this side of the House are taunted with having preserved silence, and with having taken no part in the discussions in this Bill, they reply, and they have a right to reply—[An hon. MEMBER: But they do not reply.]—[Laughter]—I believe I am not going beyond my authority when I say that their reply is, that they believe that more discussion, more obstruction, has been raised upon this Bill and upon its details, with a view to delay, than is usually the case even with Bills of this importance. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House feel they are fulfilling the wishes of the country in supporting the Bill, and in doing their utmost to obtain the sense of the House of Commons with respect to it, leaving the responsibility of rejecting it on the other House of Parliament if they desire to exercise the right to do so, while they, at the same time, believe that the other House, acting in accordance with their past history, would not refuse to consider a Bill even at some sacrifice of convenience, which the majority of the House of Commons are in favour of, and which concerns the manner in which its Members are elected.
  MR. LIDDELL: Sir, I do not desire to see Parliamentary privileges strained unduly, but I must remind my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) that if there is a man who has set a precedent for factious opposition, he is that man. He took a very prominent part about this period of the Session a few years ago, in respect of another Bill, when he was in a minority. I wish to add that I do not think a more unfortunate remark ever fell from a Minister than that which fell from him to-night. The right hon. Gentleman talked about throwing on "another place" the odium and the

  73
  responsibility of the rejection of this measure—and if that "other place," in the exercise of their unquestioned prerogative, should reject this Bill, Her Majesty's Ministers may, perhaps, exercise the Royal Prerogative against them. If such an act had came from this side of the House, it would have been called an act of the greatest tyranny.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think a reference to what had occurred at 4 o'clock would at all assist hon. Members in dealing with the question under discussion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) would find the Government prepared, at the proper time, to enter into the question. At present it was desirable that any observations which might be made should be confined to the subject immediately before the House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had paid a most questionable compliment to his own Friends, for he had observed that no speeches had been delivered on the subject of the Ballot on the Ministerial side, but yet that the whole of the evening had been wasted. A specimen of neater workmanship when the right hon. Gentleman for the moment acted in the capacity of leader he had never seen. As to the prospect to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had referred, that Her Majesty's Government would exorcise the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of interfering with the independence of the other House of Parliament in reference to the present Bill, he would only say that it was the pure creature of his own imagination. No such statement was to be found either in the language of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. W. E. Forster) or his own, and no Member of the Government had ever intimated any intention of the kind. As to the debate which had now arisen, it was quite clear, taking into account the animated manner in which it had begun, that there were materials sufficient in the House to prevent the further progress of the Bill that evening, so that, on the whole, it would, perhaps, be the best course to pursue to accede to the Motion which had been made, although whatever right hon. Gentlemen opposite might think, the Bill was regarded by the constituencies at large as a most important measure.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) should have deprecated any allusion to what had occurred in the early part of the evening, for anything more disgraceful to the House of Commons had never happened, or anything which, unless checked, was more likely eventually to imperil the liberties of this country. Why the right hon. Gentleman should be astonished at what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), considering what had previously fallen from the Vice President of the Council, he could not understand. The Vice President of the Council had gone out of his way to assume in the most unconstitutional manner that if the Bill under discussion went up to the House of Lords it would certainly be rejected.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not stated anything of the kind. He did not say that the Bill would be rejected in "another place." He spoke of the responsibility of its rejection, if it were passed by the House of Commons, being thrown on the other House of Parliament.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman in future never to explain, seeing that his explanation amounted simply to throwing the responsibility of the rejection of the Bill on the House of Lords. Was it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gloated with triumph over the idea of their taking that course, and that every hon. Member connected his expressions with what had occurred at the beginning of the evening, as if the whole thing were a part of a conspiracy into which the Government had entered—[Cheers]—yes, part of an avowed and shameful conspiracy against the undoubted privileges of the other House of Parliament?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the expressions "avowed and shameful conspiracy," as employed by the right hon. Gentleman, are not quite Parliamentary.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if there were any expression of his to which the Chairman objected he begged immediately to withdraw it. He believed, however, that he could, if necessary, furnish good precedents for the use of any expressions which he had employed.

  75
  They might, at the same time, be considered as withdrawn without hesitation. He wished, in the next place, to make a few remarks on what had just fallen from the First Minister of the Crown, and his happy sarcasm on the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), to the effect that five hours had that evening been wasted on the Ballot Bill. "If," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that time has been wasted, it must have been by you and your Friends;" but had he forgotten that five minutes before the Vice President of the Council had announced that he had been speaking the whole evening on the part of his political supporters? Therefore he (Mr. Disraeli) thought Her Majesty's Government, and those whom they represented in that debate, must admit that they had had their fair share of the waste of the evening. The real position of the case was that the Government had contrived, and had apparently long meditated, to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords. He wished to remind the House that it was but a short time back—only some ten days ago—since the right hon. Gentleman picked a quarrel with the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, little more than a week ago, rated and vilified the House of Commons, and told them that they had behaved in such a manner that they were unworthy of the privileges which had descended to them for centuries—privileges by which alone an imperious or incapable Minister could be kept under control, and that the consequence of their conduct would be that probably they would be deprived of those privileges. Therefore hon. Gentlemen opposite, who felt so proud of the hostile position which Her Majesty's Government had taken with respect to the other branch of the Legislature, should not forget that their turn might soon come, and that they had had an intimation, almost within a week, of the spirit with which they will be treated if they assert those rights and privileges which hitherto had been considered the best security for their liberties.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who is an accomplished actor, and who is capable of affecting a passion he does not feel, has taunted us on this side with our situation. Now, I may venture to
  76
  make one remark, and it shall only be one. ["Hear, hear!"] You taunt us with not speaking, and when we try to speak you will not let us. I was going to say that the right hon. Gentleman to-night has made a very important statement. He says there has taken place in this House to-day a scene which is shameful to the House of Commons—disgraceful to the House of Commons, and which is perilous to the liberties of the country. Now, the right hon. Gentleman occupies the great and responsible position of Leader of the Opposition, and I venture to say that the first duty of the Leader of the Opposition, when a scene occurs in the House of Commons which is disgraceful to this House and perilous to the interests of this country, is to propose a vote of censure on Government. If the right hon. Gentleman, after the language he has used to-night, shrinks from bringing forward such a Motion, he has exhibited an amount of political—what phrase shall I use?—timidity—I do not wish to indulge in strong language—I say he has taken a course of political timidity which has characterized no Leader of the Opposition in the Parliamentary history of this country. When Mr. Fox occupied the same situation, opposed to a great majority, he also used strong language, but he did not shrink from bringing his principles to issue in the House of Commons; and if we are to have language of this kind employed, I think it ought to be employed by a Leader of the Opposition who ventures to take upon it the sense of the House of Commons.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. V. Harcourt) has appeared in new colours; he has appeared as counsel for the Leader of the Opposition. He has cited the authority of Mr. Fox, a great Whig authority. Now, Mr. Fox never accepted the advice of his opponents in the guidance of his Parliamentary conduct, and I will quote one of the maxims of Mr. Fox with respect to the duties of the House of Commons. Mr. Fox emphatically says that deliberation, and not despatch, is the duty of the House of Commons. And, Sir, the whole tone of the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, supported and advised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), is the reverse of that. Mr. Fox understood the policy and practised

  77
  it by appealing to the country be fore he moved a Vote of Censure. The time may come, and I trust will come, when it may be the duty of the Opposition to move votes of censure; but at this period we have on the Table of this House an exemplification of the conduct which has been complained of this evening. Before this warrant is on the Table of the House it is idle for us to take the sense of the House. I wish to call attention to the position in which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are placing our business. Before the discussion on this Bill, I asked the Attorney General for Ireland to explain as to two Bills which have never been—[Cries of "Order!" and "Question!"]—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the Committee that they are a Committee on the Parliamentary Elections Bill, and that the debate is wandering from the subject. The question is that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I am very sorry, Sir, that I have followed the example of higher authorities, and violated the rules of debate; but I thought this Motion of Progress was that the House may proceed to other business; and I was exemplifying to the House the necessity of proceeding to other business. If I have been wrong I apologize. I rose to warn the House to terminate this discussion.
  MR. G. B. GREGORY: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) that it is the duty of hon. Members on this side of the House, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) to challenge the course adopted by Government. I consider the question one of the greatest constitutional questions which has been raised in this House, or over brought before the country. ["Question!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report Progress.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, if he can state when he will place on the Paper the terms of the clauses with regard to polling-places?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hoped to have done so this evening; but it will be done to-morrow morning.
  MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE: Will they include Irish polling-places?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: No, those are now under the consideration of the Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD BILL.
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. W. E. Forster.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD BILL.

  [BILL 230.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STANSFELD, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to concentrate in a new Department to be created by the Bill the existing functions of the Poor Law Board, certain functions of the Privy Council with regard to health, and the prevention of disease, especially the oversight of such matters as vaccination, the powers and duties of the Home Office and of the Local Government Act Office with regard to local government, and certain other powers and duties of the Home Office with reference to the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and the collation of local taxation Returns. This Bill asked no new powers whatever. It was practically the 6th chapter of the Eating and Local Government Bill, which was introduced by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and which had been withdrawn; but in consenting to the passing of this Bill, they would not commit themselves to the larger questions involved in the measure which had been withdrawn. The measure, which was introduced on its own merits, was based on the Report of the Sanitary Commission presented at the beginning of this Session. The 13th Resolution to which that Commission agreed was to the effect that it was expedient that the administration of the laws concerning public health and the relief of the poor should be presided over by one Minister as a central authority, whose title should signify his charge of both Departments. And the next Resolution was to the effect that the central authority should have general powers of supervision and inspection, and defined powers of control and direction over all local health authorities, and should exercise the sanitary powers and duties now exercised by the Privy Council, or the Home Office, or the Board of Trade, respectively.

  79
  He proposed by this Bill to carry out these two Resolutions, with only two exceptions. He did not propose to interfere with any of the veterinary functions of the Privy Council nor with the Board of Trade. The office of Registrar General of births, deaths, and marriages, the Medical Department of the Privy Council, and the Local Government Office, under Mr. Tom Taylor, would be transferred to the Local Government Board. It might be supposed by some that this Bill was an effort to introduce the thin edge of the wedge of a centralizing system. If that were the object of the Bill or the policy of the Government, he should be the last man to propose such a measure. There was nothing in the Report of the Sanitary Commission which he admired more than that part in which they expressed their conviction of the growing importance of local government in this country. This Bill, instead of destroying, would give new force to the principle of local government in this country.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in seconding the Motion, said, as the Chairman of the Commission on whose Report the Bill was based, he wished to say that it was possible that the title of the Bill might lead to a misunderstanding; it seemed to have been misunderstood by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight), who he saw by the Notice Paper intended to move the rejection of the measure. The object of the Sanitary Commission was to perfect and develop local government, and this was also the object of the Bill. They had had three objects before them—to consolidate the law, to make local government active and uniform, and to collect fragments of central supervision which were at present scattered through no less than four Departments, and place them in one central Department—namely, a Local Government Board united with the Poor Law Board. The enactments on the subject of local government had become so accumulated and confused that the law on that subject was wholly unintelligible, local government had itself been made a matter of option, and there was no practical local government in a great part of this kingdom. A central authority was required to carry out the purposes of local government. The Sanitary Commissioners had recommended, in substance,
  80
  the simplified central authority proposed by this Bill. They advised that there should be one consolidated statute upon the subject of all local government, and proposed, a scheme of which this one was a portion, to carry out their object. They had drawn up a Bill consisting of 400 clauses, which, he should have the honour of asking the House to read a first time next Tuesday, so that the matter might, during the Recess, be considered by the country, and he hoped that in substance it might next Session be adopted by the Government. That Bill would take the place of a number of independent and frequently contradictory Acts in relation to this subject. It was most desirable that there should be a law to establish a uniform and imperative system of local government; and for this purpose it was requisite that there should be established some one central authority to assist and stimulate local government. An economy of officers would also increase efficiency—for instance, the united central authority would have one set of inspectors for all local government, instead of having a variety of inspectors under various Acts. The machinery of the Poor Law Board would be sufficient in carrying out this work, their officers would serve for the whole, and the Boards of Guardians were ready to hand for local government in rural places. In his opinion there was no fear of any increase of centralization under this Bill. Centralization at the present time was excessive, and by this Bill would be reduced. By this Bill local government would be set at work throughout the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he regretted that this Bill should be brought forward at so late a period of the Session, and in so imperfect a state as it was. It was only a portion of a larger scheme which was not yet before the House. The real origin and explanation of this Bill was that it was sought to place the whole local government of the country under the Poor Law Board. When Mr. Baines was President of that Board it aimed at carrying out no aggressive objects; but now it wished to encroach on the power of the local authorities, and to

  81
  bring them entirely under its control. This it had done by promoting various measures; but the great coup was the Union Chargeability Act, which had led to a great increase of the rates. During the 12 years before the passing of that Act the rates amounted to an average of £6,016,000 per annum; and during the four years subsequent to its passing their average amount per annum rose to £7,443,000. That was the result of breaking up the sound principle of parochial chargeability; and the country would yet have to return to the old area of natural charity and mutual charity. Nothing could be more infamous than the present condition of the system of medical relief in the country, while the prevention of the adulteration of the food of the people was a matter of the utmost importance. The Government might have taken up these and other subjects with much greater advantage. The action of the Government in proposing this measure was a police action, and if such a system were to go on nothing soon would be safe from Government inspection in some form or other. He begged to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in seconding the Amendment, said, the Bill was another step in the direction of centralization, giving large powers and authority to a central authority, without giving any details as to the way in which these powers would be exercised, and he therefore objected to it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Knight.)
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he must deny that this was an act of aggression originating with the Poor Law Board; it was founded upon a recommendation of the Sanitary Commission. This measure was not a piece of centralization in the right sense of the term—that of taking powers from the local authorities. It only grouped together under one roof various authorities that were already centralized, and professed to place them under the control of one responsible Minister.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he was at first inclined to oppose the Bill, but had seen reason to change his opinion. The statement of the President of the
  82
  Poor Law Board had been very satisfactory, and he (Sir Massey Lopes) would support the second reading.
  MR. J. FIELDENopposed the Bill as an attempt at further legislation.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he only objected to the Bill because Ireland was not included in it. He thought it would secure local legislation for local affairs.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  FEES OF CONQUEST, &c. ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to abolish reductions ex capite lecti and the distinction between Fees of Conquest and Fees of Heritage in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 260.]

  BEERHOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend "The Beerhouses (Ireland) Act, 1864;" and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 259.]

  LIMITED OWNERS RESIDENCE ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STAPLETON, Bill to amend "The Limited Owners Residence Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAPLETON, Sir JOHN ESMONDE, and Mr. STACPOOLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 261.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.