Commons Sitting of 12 June 1871

Preamble
MINUTES.—SELECT COMMITTEE—Twenty-sixth Report—Public Petitions.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels* [190]; Sewage Utilisation Supplemental* [186]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [187]; Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* [188]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* [189]; Vaccination Act (1867) Amendment* [191].
Second Reading—Promissory Oaths* [169].
Committee—Army Regulation [39]—R.P.
Committee—Report— Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal (re-comm.) [164]; Courts of Justice (Additional Site) (re-comm.)* [179]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* [175]; Local Government Supplemental (No.3)* [178].
Third Reading—Corrupt Practices Act Amendment* [152]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental (No. 2)* [163]; Land Drainage Supplemental* [158]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [127], and passed.
Withdrawn—Game Laws Amendment (No. 2)* [71]; Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2)* [21]; Game Laws Amendment* [30]; Game Laws and Trespass* [151].

ARMY—PROMOTION IN THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the extra sum of £5,000, allotted in the Estimates of the current year towards providing promotion in the junior ranks of the Royal Artillery, is to be distributed in the manner stated by the Financial Secretary a short time since, or whether any change in the application of that sum has been decided on or is in contemplation?
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that no change was in contemplation. It was still proposed to distribute the amount in the manner originally proposed; but the Warrant on the subject could not be made out until the Vote had received the sanction of the House.

SCOTLAND—NEW POST OFFICE AT ABERDEEN.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESasked the Postmaster General, When the new Post Office at Aberdeen will be commenced; and, what has been the cause of the long delay in beginning the works?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the Fish Market had been decided upon as the site for the Post Office, and effect would be given to the decision as rapidly as possible; but certain legal preliminaries had still to be gone through. The delay hitherto had been occasioned by the difficulties attending the selection of a site.

EDUCATION—CHILDREN IN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. BOWRINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering that children of eight years old placed in Industrial Schools are capable of receiving useful industrial training, and that the Government Grant of five shillings per week does not pay the average cost of the children in those Schools, he will be willing to reconsider, so far as respects children between the ages of eight and ten, the announcement contained in the Home Office Circular of the 27th April last that the Grant will in future be reduced to three shillings per week in the case of all newly admitted children between the ages of six and ten years; and, whether he will be willing to lay upon the Table any Correspondence relating to the above-mentioned Circular?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that the reduction to which the Question referred had been made after the most careful consideration, and consultation with the Inspectors. It had been found that the Vote continued to increase from year to year, and it never was intended that the whole cost of these schools should fall on the Imperial Treasury. As the cost of children under 11 was considerably less than after that age, the reduction had been made. He should be most

1903
happy, if the hon. Member would move for it, to lay on the Table the Correspondence on the subject, and he would find that many of the managers of the most important schools entirely approved of the course adopted by the Government.

POLICE—CASE OF INSPECTOR SILVERTON—QUESTION.
MR. EYKYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is correct that George Silverton, late an Inspector of the N Division of Metropolitan Police, has been allowed to retire upon a pension of £50 per annum after an inquiry into his conduct as Inspector; and, whether such inquiry was of so satisfactory a nature as to justify the pension being granted?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Inspector had been for a long time in the force, and had been 13 times commended for activity and good conduct. On two occasions charges had been brought against him; but upon investigation in neither of the instances had the accusation been proved. Under these circumstances, the Chief Commissioner did not think himself justified in refusing the pension; but the allowance was at a lower rate than usual, as the officer was not wholly disabled.

UNITED STATES—TREATY OF WASHINGTON.—QUESTION.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Second Rule in Article VI. of the Treaty of Washington is understood by Her Majesty's Government as prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters for the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms to a belligerent, only when those acts are done for the service of a vessel cruizing or carrying on war, or intended to cruize or carry on war, against another belligerent; and not when military supplies or arms are exported for the use of a belligerent power from neutral ports or waters in the ordinary course of commerce; whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ascertain that the Rule in question is understood by the Government of the United States in the same limited sense; and, if so, with what result; and, whether it is intended, in any communications
1904
which may be addressed to Foreign Governments with a view to the general adoption of this Rule, to guard against its being accepted or understood in any larger sense?
MR. GLADSTONE: With reference, Sir, to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I perceive that it has been framed with great care, and having considered our reply with equal care, while avoiding entering into any of the details of the Question, I am in a position to answer this part of the hon. and learned Member's Question in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I may state that we have had an opportunity of communicating with Lord De Grey, with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and with Mr. Bernard on the subject, who have all of them given us the fullest assurance that the understanding referred to in the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question is that of the United States in reference to this matter, and, further, that it has been in our power to communicate with the distinguished gentleman who has arrived in this country as the representative of the United States, who was a member of the Joint High Commission—General Schenck—who has informed Her Majesty's Government that such was his understanding also of the meaning of the Rule in question; and, indeed, we have been told by that gentleman that the President of the United States himself understands the Rule in that sense, and that the latter would himself be the first not only to admit and allow, but to contend for that construction of the Rule in question. With regard to the third part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I am able to state that Mr. Fish, the United States Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was also one of the Commissioners, has expressed an opinion that it would be advantageous if the two Governments were to make a joint declaration which should place the meaning of this Rule beyond all chance of misconstruction. I believe that communications have been entered into between some of the British Commissioners and some of the United States Commissioners and other distinguished authorities in America on the subject, and that they also have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to

1905
entertain the slightest doubt but that the meaning to be attached to the terms of the Treaty is that which the contracting parties themselves attach to them.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can fix a day for the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee on the best means of promoting the despatch of Public Business in this House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Government have some time ago considered the course which they should take with respect to the Report of the Select Committee on the best means of promoting the despatch of Public Business, and they have been anxiously waiting for the opportunity of finding a day for the purpose of submitting it to the consideration of the House; but I am compelled to state that, although I still look for the earliest opportunity it will be in our power to find, yet it is not in our power to fix any day for that or for any Public Business, except such as can be taken at the close of the business of the evening, until the Army Regulation Bill shall have passed through Committee.

  REAL ESTATE.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HOAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, to bring in measures to facilitate the Transfer of Land, to deal with the Law of Entail, and to assimilate the Devolution of Real Estate in cases of intestacy to that of Personal Property?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government had not forgotten that they had advised Her Majesty to announce in the Speech from the Throne in 1870 that measures to facilitate the Transfer of Land, to deal with the Law of Entail, and to assimilate the Devolution of Real Estates in cases of intestacy to that of Personal Property, would be submitted by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament. Her Majesty's Government felt that that obligation was still in full force, and they would look for the very earliest opportunity of fulfilling their promise.

  ARMY REGULATION BILL.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice, which is this—Whether, having regard to the period of the Session at which we have now arrived, and the unusually long time which has been occupied by the Committee on the Army Regulation Bill, and also the very long list of Amendments which are still on the Paper with respect to that Bill, the Government have decided upon the course which they may think it right to pursue with regard to the remaining clauses of that Bill—whether, in fact, a statement which has appeared in the public journals is true, that it is their intention to propose to divide the Bill into two parts, and postpone the consideration of the latter clauses of the Bill to a future period?
  MR. CARDWELL: The abolition of purchase must, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, be carried into effect without delay. We acknowledge it to be incumbent upon us as a duty to prevent the continued violation of the law, which was stated in the debate of Thursday night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth with so much authority as Chairman of the Royal Commission. We have now the power to prevent that violation in future, and to put an end to purchase; but we do not see how the full compensation and the security for it which we have sought to obtain for the officers of the Army can be obtained without an alteration of the law. Under these circumstances, we are determined that no share of the inconvenience which any delay in the passing of the Bill must occasion shall be attributable to us. Organization is the work of the Executive Government. The object of a Bill is not to lay down the details of a system of organization, but to remove obstructions and to confer powers. The transfer of power from the Lords Lieutenant of counties, to which no substantial opposition has been offered, we deem to be essential; but the other powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill, though useful, are not absolutely necessary, and we shall not insist upon any of them whenever we may find reason to believe that by doing so we should occasion delay in the progress of the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELI: In consequence of the declaration just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. Notwithstanding the rumours which have been prevalent, I have listened to that declaration with surprise, and, so far as I am concerned personally, with some embarrassment. It was the representation that I made to my hon. Friends that induced them to accede to the second reading of the Army Organization Bill, because it was a Bill brought forward in deference to the decided wish of the country for the re-organization and improvement of our forces; and because it was, as I stated to them, and afterwards to the House, that I believed the Bill to be the first bonâ fide attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to establish an efficient Army founded on an adequate Reserve. I must, therefore, protest against the course which Her Majesty's Government are taking. They are not complying with their engagements with the House and with the country to establish an efficient Army founded on an adequate Reserve; they are, in fact, blinking and avoiding the fulfilment of that great duty to which they were bound by every engagement that could influence public men. I considered myself, and I expressed my opinion, that the question of purchase, though an important, was by no means a paramount, or even essential, part of their Bill, and I believe that that interpretation was accepted by the Government. In the discussion, I said that that was a question on which, no doubt, there was much variety of opinion; that the ultimate decision of the House with respect to it this Session would, in my opinion, be greatly influenced by the state of our finances; and I thought it might be a question that might be dealt with in Committee. I did not for a moment recognize the abolition of purchase as the principle of the Bill for the re-organization of the Army; the institution of an efficient Army founded on the establishment of an adequate Reserve. We never, and I believe no hon. Gentleman in the House, accepted the question of a reorganization of the Army in that limited and restricted light. The discussions on the subject of purchase have opened very serious objections to the proposition of the Government with respect to that limited question. It has been felt
  1908
  by the House, and I believe it has been felt by the country, that the abolition of purchase in the manner proposed by Her Majesty's Government is liable to these two great objections—first, that it would involve this country in vast and indefinite expenditure; and, secondly, that it seeks to abolish an existing system without proposing any substitute in its place. In the face of those great objections, I do not think that Her Majesty's Government are entitled to press forward the abolition of purchase and, at the same time, avoid the fulfilment of the object which the country proposed to itself, and which, I think, Her Majesty's Government are bound to accomplish. If it is their opinion that they have not time, during the present Session, adequately and completely to deal with it; if they think that they cannot pass a measure which will fulfil the expectations of the country and the necessities of the State, it is open to them to withdraw their measure, and introduce one next Session which will deal with the whole question in all its bearings; and I cannot but believe that that course would be far more satisfactory to the country. The country never can be satisfied by a mode of dealing with so great a question as the military organization of the country in a manner so imperfect and now apparently so hurried, and so little calculated to meet the expectations entertained throughout the country when Parliament assembled. Under these circumstances, I must enter my protest against the conduct of the Government. I do not see how, if they withdraw those important provisions for welding together the Regulars, the Militia, and the Volunteers, and proceed only with the provision for the abolition of purchase, they can ask the House to read such a measure a third time. This is not the Bill to which we gave our assent on the second reading. Her Majesty's Government are not treating the House in a straightforward manner in pursuing that course. There is a want of candour and ingenuousness in their conduct which I should be sorry to see distinguish the conduct of any public men; and, so far as I am personally concerned, I feel some humiliation in having been induced to advise my Friends to agree to the second reading of a Bill which I now find withdrawn as to all the important provisions which induced

  1909
  me to give that advice to my Friends. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government had obtained the Supplies upon false pretences. It was not only that this Bill had been read a second time, but also that the House of Commons had voted for the purposes of the Bill large sums which were now in possession of Her Majesty's Government, and were under their control; and therefore the House ought to object to the proceeding now announced by Her Majesty's Government as a violation of their duties inadequately securing the appropriation of taxes and guarding the public purse.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As far as regards the financial perplexity of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Newdegate) it appears to me a matter of no great difficulty to remedy that perplexity. The hon. Gentleman has said that Her Majesty's Government have obtained Supplies for the purposes of the Bill upon false pretences, the hon. Gentleman, in the innocence and simplicity of his mind, being wholly unaware that the House has not voted up to the present time a single farthing for the purposes of the Bill. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: I spoke of Supply.] No portion of Supply depends upon the provisions of the present Bill, except what is entirely insignificant. For the purposes of the present Bill, the House has not voted the money which it was intended to ask. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), however, has undergone much more serious mental trouble, for he has experienced a painful emotion of surprise; he has observed what must be still more grevious to him—a want of candour and ingenuousness on the part of the Government; and, thirdly, he has undergone a sentiment of humiliation. Well, to a certain extent, I can understand that there has been in recent proceedings occasions for surprise, and, perhaps, occasions for humiliation; but not that any portion of that surprise or of that humiliation is due to the proceedings of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that he conferred
  1910
  a very great service upon the Government by recommending his Friends not to divide upon the Bill which has been before the House and which forms the subject of the present discussion. But I may observe that his recommendation was not given until the end of a five nights' debate—a debate which had occupied two weeks and a-half of Government time—that is to say, time with respect to which the House places itself under the guidance of the Government; and I really am not aware that the opponents of the Bill, having thus debated it for five nights, or two-and-a-half weeks of Government time, have any reason to complain that they lost much in consequence of the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman himself states that he regarded the abolition of purchase as a very secondary portion of this Bill, for he considered it to be a Bill for the organization of the Army. But the question is, how was it represented to the House. Did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in introducing this measure, represent it as a Bill of which the abolition of purchase was a secondary part; or did he not, on the contrary, represent it as a Bill of which the abolition of purchase was the leading and essential feature? If the right hon. Gentleman regarded the Bill as one of which the subject of purchase was a secondary feature, who else upon that side took the same view? About what did the five nights' debate arise? Was it about the clauses of the Bill which relate to Army organization? On the contrary those five nights' debate grew wholly out of the consideration of the subject of purchase. It has been as a Bill for the abolition of purchase that this measure was presented by my right hon. Friend on the night when he introduced it. It is needless to quote from his speech particular passages, because the whole speech was instinct with that opinion and feeling. It was presented as a Bill for the abolition of purchase, and with that subject my right hon. Friend presented other matters of comparatively subordinate importance. If there was any other part combined with it which my right hon. Friend treated as of great importance, it was that to which he referred in the answer he gave to-night with respect to the transfer of the power of the Lords Lieutenant of counties to the

  1911
  Executive Government, and that transfer of power it is still his intention to ask the House to sanction. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has had much mental experience in connection with the history of this subject. We have not forgotten his declaration on the second reading in favour of the abolition of purchase, nor have we forgotten the satisfaction with which we heard it. Neither has it escaped our minds—the retractation of that declaration which he felt himself obliged to make on a subsequent occasion. He now has found reasons why the abolition of purchase proposed by the Government is bad; but are these reasons which have emerged in the course of the discussion? Has my right hon. Friend, in the course of this debate, changed his plan to the prejudice of the parties affected by the abolition? On the contrary, the only change of plan was a change regarded with approval by hon. Gentlemen on the other side as a very material one, and wholly in favour of the officers of the Army—I mean the removal of the limitation upon our power of purchase from year to year. The right hon. Gentleman has now found reasons why it is hardly to be expected that the House should accede to the Bill. But every one of those reasons was as patent and as palpable as it is now at the moment when he expressed the segacious opinion from which he unfortunately has since receded, that the time has come when the system of purchase should be abolished. [Mr. DISRAELI: I never said so.] Well, then, I will alter the form of my declaration, and call it the time when the pleasing, genial, and satisfactory impression was produced all over this side of the House, and I believe in the public out-of-doors, from the belief that the right hon. Gentleman had, however erroneously, yet in terms sufficiently explicit, declared his acceptance of the principle of the abolition of purchase. There is no want of candour or ingenuousness on the part of the Government with respect to this proceeding. We have adhered to the entire Bill until we have reached a period of the Session and a state of affairs which made it our duty seriously to consider the situation. We have spent eight days in Committee upon two clauses and a-half of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman who says that purchase is but one secondary portion of the Bill must shut his eyes to that
  1912
  fact during those eight days, and, I think, more than eight days, before we go into Committee, purchase, and purchase almost alone, has been the subject of debate in this House. We have seen discussions conducted in a manner to which I will apply no epithet whatever, but of which I will say that which must be palpable and obvious to anyone—namely, that if the legislative proposals made in this House were usually met in a similar mode, this House might as well shut its doors and abdicate entirely the functions of a Legislative Body. We have seen the Chairman of Ways and Means rise time after time to give his judgment against the method in which, upon every detail and every expression of the Bill, the whole principle of the plan was debated and re-debated, and we have seen that judgment of the Chairman of Committees advisedly passed by and trampled upon, and this method of opposition pursued until we have reached a point at which we have two questions to answer—first of all, whether this Bill is to pass, and, secondly, whether it is to be made the means of obstructing and preventing all the other legislative business of the Session. Sir, this is a grave state of facts, and the Government would not be justified in the position which it holds, and with the responsibility which it has to bear for the conduct of Business in this House, if, under these circumstances, it had not reviewed the various portions of this Bill in order to see in what manner we could, with the greatest convenience and advantage to the public, facilitate the obtaining of powers which we deem it important to obtain. And why do we deem it important to obtain those powers with regard to the abolition of purchase? It has been explained by an hon. and learned Gentleman. It is for no purpose of our own convenience; it is not because purchase rests upon statute—it rests partly upon regulation and partly upon defiance and contempt of statute; but the reason why we have deemed it important to obtain these powers is because we have come to the conclusion that a method of dealing should be adopted which appeared to us the most liberal and generous, and, if open to objection at all, only open to objection in the sense of those who condemned it as too burdensome to the public. And then we have found ourselves met by an opposition which aims not at debate, discussion,

  1913
  or illustration of facts, but at making legislation a physical impossibility. Under these circumstances, my right hon. Friend has explained the motive which has led us to impose upon the majority of this House the burden that it has had to bear in connection with this Bill. It is not because an Act of Parliament is necessary with the view to the abolition of purchase; it is because an Act of Parliament is necessary, in order to abolish purchase in that method which we think requisite, so as to do full and liberal justice to the officers of the Army that we felt it necessary to alter our plan; and it is on account of that desire on our part, and of our having modelled our plan according to that desire, that we have been met with the opposition we have encountered, and that this burden, which I have described, has been imposed on the House. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman kindly informs us that it is in our power to withdraw the Bill. We are, I am sure, much obliged to him for that information. I may, however, tell him that we have not formed the intention to withdraw the Bill, but we have formed the intention to lighten it, so far as depends upon us, of matters which are not essential to its great and main object, asking for those powers and provisions which we deem to be necessary, and postponing what does not come under that category. My right hon. Friend near me has announced that our great object in announcing this intention is that we may not be responsible for any delay in the passing of this measure. Whether it is or is not in the power of a majority of this House to give effect to its deliberate judgment is a question the solution of which was never, I believe, until this year regarded as doubtful. If it has been brought into doubt this Session, it has been by no act of ours. We cannot say which view the majority will take of the matter, or up to what point it may persevere in the exercise of its undoubted rights. But we, the Government of the Queen, have a responsibility which is separate even from that of the majority of this House, and having proposed to Parliament a plan so grave in its character, which undoubtedly modifies and alters the position of officers of the Army, whom we look upon as the heart and soul of the Army, we do not intend to
  1914
  reduce our estimate of that responsibility, and my right hon. Friend has stated, and justly stated, in the name of his Colleagues as well as his own, that in the judgment of the Government it is requisite the abolition of purchase should be carried into effect without delay. Of that responsibility we shall endeavour to acquit ourselves. But we have struggled, and are still struggling, to acquit ourselves of it in a manner by which alone, as we think, principles which we deem to be fair, and liberal, and generous, shall he most unequivocally affirmed and asserted on behalf of the officers of the Army. The decision which we have taken is justified by the position at which we have arrived—a position which we have not created for ourselves. Those who have created it have no doubt satisfied their own minds and hearts of the sufficiency of the motives by which their conduct has been governed. That, however, is a matter which it is not for me to scrutinize; but it is for the Government to consider what are their obligations; and those obligations, we mean so far as the abolition of purchase is concerned, by every legitimate means in our power to redeem.
  LORD ELCHO: There have been one or two points raised in the course of this discussion on which I wish only very briefly to touch. The Prime Minister has spoken of the genial glow of satisfaction which pervaded the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite at a declaration made by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), on the occasion of the second reading of the Army Bill, but that right hon. Gentleman now denies that any words calculated to cause such a glow ever fell from his lips. I would also observe when the Prime Minister talks of the opposition to the Bill having been carried for eight days in Committee, that it proceeded, not simply from this, but from the other side of the House also. I may incidently remark that a greater number of Amendments were, on the whole, moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite than by us sitting on these benches. The right hon. Gentleman objects to hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House when in Committee doing what? Why, adhering to the question which was really under discussion—the question of purchase. I should like to know whether, if instead of doing that, they had

  1915
  gone from one part to another of the Bill, and had debated Part II. or Part III. of the measure which the Government now, it appears, are about to drop, they would not have been called to Order by the Chairman, and whether the Prime Minister himself would not have endeavoured to stop hon. Gentlemen, by appealing to the Chairman, when he thought they exceeded the limits of debate? But these are incidental points in a grave question. What is the course taken by the Government with reference to this Bill? The Prime Minister has sought to lead the House to believe that the subject of purchase is the real question at issue. He says—"We have lightened the Bill of matters not essential to its great and main object." He tells us that the Secretary for War stated, in moving the second reading, that the abolition of purchase was the main object of his proposal—that it really was the soul and body of the measure. Now, I do not on the present occasion desire to enter at any length into this point, but I wish to put a question with respect to the opposition which was offered to the second reading. I, for one, did not oppose it on the ground of purchase. I took much wider ground, and I contended that the Bill was wholly unsatisfactory for the attainment of the object which its authors professed to have in view. I tested that by a gauge. How did I get at that gauge? I took it from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War himself. The gauge was this—that this measure of Army regulation or Army reform, call it what you will, was introduced for what purpose? To abolish purchase—to enable the Government to exercise the power of selection which they will not tell us how they are to exercise? No. According to the Secretary for War this Bill was brought in to render panic, or the apprehension of panic, for the future for ever unknown. These were the ipsissima verba of the right hon. Gentleman, on which I endeavoured to ring the changes on the occasion of the second reading. He used similar expressions, too, in Oxford, I am told, when addressing the Druids. But, be that as it may, we heard them in this House, and I apply the gauge which I applied on the second reading now again to this Bill. If you lighten your measure, as you say you mean to do, by casting overboard matters
  1916
  not essential to its great object, which you tell us is purchase, I wish to know, if the Bill passes in its mutilated shape, whether it will answer that gauge—whether, in the words of the Secretary for War, it will render panic, or the apprehension of panic, for the future altogether unknown? Tried by that standard your Bill seems to me to be a miserable failure. I, for one, shall not regret whether you withdraw any part or the whole of it, for I believe the whole scheme to be a great sham. But you have laid great stress on your Bill, and now you are going to mutilate it and leave in it nothing but the clauses relating to purchase; but instead of bettering your position by that course you will, to use a word which I have heard from the Prime Minister on more than one occasion, only "worsen" it, for you will be calling on the House of Commons to vote some £10,000,000, while there will be nothing to show for the expenditure of any sort or kind, except that a power will be conferred upon the Minister which he cannot, or will not, or dare not tell you how he proposes to exercise. It is really too great a farce to call this a measure of Army reform, or national defence; but there is another and a much graver one to be considered. The Prime Minister expresses his astonishment that surprise and humiliation should not be generally felt on both sides of the House owing to the course which has been pursued by the opponents of the Bill. Now, I, for one, am perfectly prepared to justify the course which I have thought it my duty to take with respect to it. It was necessary that the measure should be fairly discussed, and we have only done our duty in discussing it. But if the course which we who are opposed to its provisions have taken be unusual, which I deny—for a similar course has on more than one occasion been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—who are responsible for what has occurred? Is it the House of Commons, or we who sit upon these benches? I say not, but the Government, who bring in a Bill of this kind, which has been supported by majorities dwindling down from 120 to 16. It is the course which has been taken by the Government which is extraordinary, and not that of the opponents of the Bill; for never was so important a measure proposed about

  1917
  which so great a reticence has been observed by a Government, for in this instance we have been absolutely refused by the Government all information on matters of the greatest importance. When, therefore, the Prime Minister tells us that the House of Commons ought to shut its doors as a deliberative Assembly when a Bill is opposed as this measure has been, I would remind him that a House of Commons has never before been treated by a Government as we have been with respect to this Bill. The question which is thus raised is one far graver than any question of Army purchase or reform, for it involves the question whether the House of Commons has not been unworthily treated by the Executive.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had heard with surprise and indignation the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House did not believe that the abolition of purchase was the primary object of the Bill. The Opposition dared not divide upon the second reading of the Bill, they therefore tacitly adopted the principle of the Bill, which was the abolition of purchase, and every subsequent division had been upon mere points of detail depending upon the principle. The Secretary of State for War had said it was impossible to proceed with the re-organization of the Army so long as purchase prevailed, and hon. Members on his side of the House had acted and voted under the same impression.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would remind the House that a few years ago the Government of the day proposed to deal with the extension of the suffrage and the re-distribution of seats by a Bill in two parts; but the House of Commons refused even to discuss a Bill so presented to them, saying—"We will not be entrapped into lowering the franchise till we know what is to be done in the re-distribution of seats." It was now proposed to divide the Bill for the re-organization of the forces of the Crown into two parts. The Government had used the leverage of the popularity of that portion of the Bill referring to purchase for the purpose of recommending their proposals for re-organizing the Army; but they were now going to cast overboard the re-organization clauses, and endeavour to retain a vantage ground
  1918
  gained by them under false pretences. He hoped the House and the country would refuse to accept a Bill in two parts, one part of which had been carried under, at any rate, a misapprehension on the part of the House, because they were led to believe it would be an integral portion, though only a portion, of a comprehensive measure for the re-organization of the Army.
  MR. OSBORNE: Since this Bill has been introduced I have always deprecated any attempt to make so important a question as the reform of the British Army degenerate into a party question. For that reason, though viewing the Bill with some suspicion, and more dislike, I have taken no part in the opposition to the various clauses, because I thought it was wrong to mix up that opposition with any ingredient of party spirit. From the beginning I always foresaw that if the Government once brought in a Bill for the abolition of purchase, purchase was doomed and could not be preserved by any opposition in this House. I have therefore assented to the judgment passed by the House of Commons by large majorities upon that question. Nor am I about to reproach the Government for what they call "lightening" the Bill, however unfortunate I may think the term; on the contrary, this is the only reproach I will make—Early in the Session both my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Anson) and I called upon the Government to divide the Bill into two parts, feeling that purchase was assuredly a question quite important enough to be dealt with by itself. What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? He said it was impossible to take the course we recommended, and that one part of the Bill was so closely connected with the other that the thing could not be done. Now, I do not mention this so much by way of reproach, as because I think the Government have repented, and I am grateful that they have repented, because the second part of this measure was such a miserable piece of legislation that, instead of attacking the Government for withdrawing it, we ought to present them with a Vote of Thanks for so doing. My noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) seems to regard the Government very much as the old poet regarded the female sex. He says of them—

  1919
  "Men have many faults; women have but two—
  There's nothing ever right they say; there's nothing right they do"
  Well, I think they have done something right, and I hope there is the dawn of a better state of things. The great mistake of the Government all through the Session has been that they have brought forward a mass of ill-digested measures; and when the Opposition is reproached for the course they have taken, they have at least this excuse—that the Government have imposed more work upon the House of Commons and upon themselves than it was possible for any set of men to get through. If I possess any influence with hon. and gallant Officers opposite, I would ask them to remember one thing. The efforts of a great many gallant Colonels in opposing this Bill, originally an unpopular one, have contrived to give the Bill a shade of popularity. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lord Elcho) shakes his head. [Lord ELCHO: He is not "gallant."] Well, in all his attacks he leads a forlorn hope, and displays a gallantry which I think is worthy of a better cause. I say that if the Government determine to carry this Purchase Bill through, it is vain for us to oppose it. For my part, I repeat, I am glad, the Government have withdrawn the second part of the Bill. It was impossible to carry that part, and the wisest thing the House of Commons can do is to make the purchase provisions as perfect as they can.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in thinking that the Government had obtained money from the House under false pretences. One of two things was clear: either the expense consequent upon the Bill had been provided for in the Budget, or there was some afterclap in store, of which the House had heard nothing. At the beginning of the Session a strong apprehension was felt throughout the country—a wise apprehension, he thought, rather than panic—that the national defences were not in a satisfactory condition. The Government tried to remove that apprehension by means of the present Bill. What would be the feeling of the country when they were told that the attempt to re-organize the Army had been abandoned, and that purchase alone was to be abolished? Would such a decision re-assure and sa-
  1920
  tisfy the country? He believed that the country were willing to contribute largely towards the national defences; and, moreover, the Government had pledged themselves to strengthen those defences. Now, however, they had forfeited their pledge, and were merely attempting to remove a sentimental grievance without any practical reason shown for its removal. No attempt had been made by the Government during the present Session to increase the military defences of the country. He had on a former occasion stated that the cost of the Government plan would be something more than £40,000,000, and he asked how could any hon. Member in that House justify his conduct to his constituents in voting that immense sum without having anything to show for it. Upon economical grounds he was determined, as far as the forms of the House would allow, to offer every possible opposition to the measure.
  MR. CARDWELL: I have very little to add to what has already been said; but there are some things I wish to refer to, with the view of removing misapprehensions. We have had a great many nights of debate on this subject, and it really is marvellous what can have been the character of the discussion when hon. Gentlemen know so very little, after the whole of these nights, what has really been in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Bentinck) says that we have obtained large sums of money on false pretences—that is to say, that the provision which he approved for the standing Army, the provision which he approved for the Militia, and the provision which he approved for finding guns for the forts which are about to be completed, are worth nothing and are of no use to the country, because they are not contained in the future Bill, entirely ignorant or wholly oblivious that none of these things have ever been in the Bill at all, and have nothing to do with the points of which he speaks. There is a point in the Bill which has been provided for by the Estimates which I hope will not be opposed when the clause comes forward for discussion, and that is, to make the addition to the Militia rather greater than the statutory power enables us now to raise. We have not withdrawn that clause. We hope to meet no opposition to one so reasonable. But if we do, we be-

  1921
  lieve all objections will fall to the ground. Then comes the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho.) He does me the honour to pay great attention to anything that falls from me. He has had leisure to condescend to read that with which some very good friends of mine at Oxford and myself solaced ourselves during the interval of the Recess. I cannot undertake to answer for what I said at the Druids' meeting at Oxford, for I assure the noble Lord I do not carry it in my own mind now. But when I am charged with making such statements in this House, that is a more serious matter, and I would recommend it to the noble Lord, whether he writes letters to the Press, or whether he makes speeches in the House of Commons, that he should acquaint himself with the facts before he writes or speaks. Now, he says that when I made a speech on the second reading of this Bill, I expressed myself to the effect that it was intended to render a panic, or the apprehension of a panic, for the future impossible. Now, the noble Lord must excuse me. I stated that when I was introducing the Army Estimates—[Lord ELCHO: I wish to explain.] Excuse me, I am explaining, and explaining the remarkable misapprehensions and misunderstandings of the noble Lord. Sir, I never meant to trouble the House with a rechauffé of my own observations. But I have here—because I have been obliged to arm myself with some protection against the kind of discussion which has obtained—the actual statements I made, and I find that I drew the broadest distinction between the great questions which underlie all the details of military administration, and which must be settled by Parliament before any Department can undertake in a complete manner the work of detailed organization and the details themselves. I said, referring to some figures I had quoted, that they were
  "A necessary introduction to the first question which I wish to lay before the House—that is the question of voluntary or compulsory service."
  Well, we have had no occasion to go further on that subject, because the House of Commons and the whole country agree with Her Majesty's Government, and do not agree with the noble Lord, on the subject of voluntary and compulsory service. The two subjects which remain—the question of purchase in the Army and the position of Lords
  1922
  Lieutenant of counties in regard to the auxiliary forces, with reference to the relations which ought to subsist between the Regular and auxiliary forces of the country—I described these as the two great principles which must be settled by the House of Commons before any Department of the State could undertake the detailed work of Army reorganization. And what I said on the 16th of February I say again to-night. On the second reading of the Bill I had occasion to speak of organization. I said—
  "What is the object of a Bill? Organization is not a matter for a Bill. Organization is a matter for the Executive Government. It is carried on by Royal Warrant, by regulations sanctioned by the Sovereign, and by various acts of the Executive Government, approved and sanctioned by Parliament when submitted to it in the Estimates. What, then, is the object of a Bill? It is to confer power and to remove obstruction."
  I state the same to-night, and I challenge the noble Lord, when again he shall think fit to criticize what I say, whether he does it in writing or in a speech here, to take the trouble to be accurate. Now, we have not withdrawn these clauses. We have done this—We have said the blame of any inconvenience which the delay of this Bill may occasion, either to Parliament, or to the country, or to the Army, shall not lie at our door. We will leave the blame where the blame ought to be left. The noble Lord has told us to-night what he wanted. Towards the close of his speech he told us that purchase was the main principle of the Bill. [Lord ELCHO: No, no!] Yes—for I have here his own words, and therefore it was what in eight nights out of Committee and eight nights in it they have been speaking to. They said they were speaking to the point; but the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means was of a different opinion on that subject. And when the noble Lord refers to our majority thinning and dwindling to 16, I reply that that majority has not dwindled, but has risen. The everlasting speeches of the noble Lord and his coadjutors had wearied out our supporters, and on the night before the holiday's our numbers had dwindled to a majority of 16. The Recess revived the spirit of those who were drooping, and now we have a different majority. Sir, the truth is this—Organization is a matter for the Executive Government; and as that Executive

  1923
  Government, we cannot begin organization until purchase has been abolished, and until the powers of Lords Lieutenant of counties have been transferred to the Crown. There has been no considerable opposition offered to the latter of these two propositions. My predecessor in office, if I mistake not, expressed his entire approval of it in speaking on this Bill. I anticipate no objection to it, and we propose to go on with it. As I have already stated, and I now repeat it, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government it is essential that the abolition of purchase should be carried into effect without delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), whose remarks are always caustic, though sometimes agreeably so, has, notwithstanding, to-night encouraged us in the course we propose to take. We intend to pursue that which I stated to be the main and necessary object of the Bill. The other powers which we seek from the Bill are not, in our judgment, unimportant, but they are not absolutely necessary; but even these we have not actually withdrawn. But with the pages and pages of Amendments, we shall not hold them up for the convenience and amusement of the noble Lord, and by so doing place in peril the cardinal principles of the Bill. Those cardinal principles we are determined, by every effort in our power, to carry into effect.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down the Secretary of State for War has for the first time called our attention to what the Government propose to do in order to obtain the assent of the House to the scheme that is now before us. The right hon. Gentleman now announces that it is the intention of the Government to force the measure through the House by a process of threatening. He threatens us that if we will not pass this Bill the Government will, by some means or another, abolish purchase immediately, and thus visit upon the officers of the Army the vengeance they are unable to visit upon this House. This is a course which, it appears to me, is unworthy both of the Government and of those who profess to have the interests of the Army at heart. The right hon. Gentleman also says that the main and primary object of this Army Regulation Bill is the abolition of purchase. On the subject of
  1924
  the transfer of the power of the Lord Lieutenant to the Crown but little can be said; but I object to the right hon. Gentleman stating that the subject of purchase has been discussed in this House solely on the point whether it is right or wrong per se. It is not so much the question of the necessity for the abolition of purchase that has been discussed, as whether the method proposed by the Government for abolishing it is the right one. Not alone on this side of the House has discussion originated, for the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that many discussions which have arisen upon Amendments which have emanated from his own side of the House have been most useful. [Mr. CARDWELL: One.] It would be very remarkable if only one useful discussion had been held upon this Bill. All that I can say is, that they have had a very remarkable influence outside the House, and that they have occasioned a most extraordinary change in the opinions expressed by the newspapers on this subject. But is this merely a Bill for the abolition of purchase? It is called a Bill for the re-organization of the Army. You have been taking to yourselves the powers of re-organizing the Army, and therefore there ought to be a full opportunity afforded to us of discussing that subject. I say we have a right to know what system you intend to adopt with regard to the Militia and the Volunteers, and also what you intend to substitute for the effective system by which promotion in the Army is at present regulated. I speak from recollection merely; but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has always told us that by abolishing purchase he is about to do something which will lead to the re-organization of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to rumours out-of-doors; but we have heard from the best authorities in "another place" that the present system of recruiting is an entire failure, and that it is absolutely necessary that some step should be taken with reference to enlistment, both as regards the Army and the Militia. The part of the Bill which relates to the subject of recruiting is therefore very important, but the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us whether he intends to give it up or not; he merely gives us to understand that the Government will abandon it contingently, and tells us that they do not by any means

  1925
  withdraw it. The sole object that we have in view is to learn from the Government whether their scheme involves a real, permanent, and efficient re-organization of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman, however, instead of giving us any information upon this subject, merely asks us to trust to the Government in the matter. We wish to see a scheme brought forward under which we may hope to have an Army of Reserve; but, unfortunately, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman appears to offer us nothing beyond an Army in reserve. In withdrawing the clauses at the end of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is practically withdrawing the great question of the re-organization of the Army from our consideration, and is attempting to destroy that system which was efficient in providing that class of officers who have been described as the soul of the Army, without proposing to substitute anything in its place. By adopting this course, he is espousing a policy which may prove to be the death-knell of the Army.
  COLONEL ANSONsaid, that having been the first hon. Member who had suggested to the Government the advisability of dividing their Bill, he could not object to their present proposal; but he trusted that the Motion about to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury would be fully discussed. Whether the withdrawal of the latter part of the Bill would facilitate the passage of its first part would depend upon the conduct of the Government alone. If the Government chose to preserve the reticence they had hitherto shown on the subject of the system of promotion and retirement, he did not think that the opposition to the first part of the measure would be withdrawn. He wished to impress on hon. Members that his great objection to the Bill did not arise out of the amount of money that would be paid to officers for compensation, but to the mode in which this would be done, and he should oppose the Bill in every way, until the method for the abolition of purchase was altered.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, that the universal opinion of the country was, that this Bill was about one of the worst ever introduced to Parliament. He was speaking to an American the other day, who said to him—"The House of Commons is trying to destroy
  1926
  the Army. We have tried this short service in America, and we know it is a nuisance." That was the general opinion throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself for adding 20,000 men to the Army; but he took away 20,000 good men, and the House spent £2,000,000 to get some equivalent of the 20,000 men back in an inferior form.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he wished to read a few sentences from the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Session. It was stated that—
  "The lessons of military experience afforded by the present war have been numerous and important.
  "The time appears appropriate for turning such lessons to account by efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement. In attempting this you will not fail to bear in mind the special features in the position of this country so favourable to the freedom and security of the people, and if the changes from a less to a more effective and elastic system of defensive military preparation shall be found to involve, at least for a time, an increase of various charges, your prudence and patriotism will not grudge the cost."
  In the latter part of the Speech Her Majesty said—
  "I trust that the powerful interest at present attaching to affairs abroad, and to military questions, will not greatly abate the energy with which you have heretofore applied yourselves to the work of general improvement in our domestic legislation."
  There seemed to be in the minds of some hon. Members an idea that the Government were about to retreat from the promises which Her Majesty made to the nation. He did not, and dared not, fear that, being convinced that the Government were aware that the people of this country would not grudge the necessary supplies. He trusted the withdrawal of a part of the Bill would not materially affect their plans. He threw himself upon the faith of the Government.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, he would ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he would state what clauses after the 5th he proposed to retain in the Bill?
  MR. CARDWELLnot giving any answer,
  COLONEL JERVISsaid, it was most unfair that the House should be left in the dark on this matter. The explanation made by the Secretary for War could not be allowed to remain in its present position, for he had taken refuge in the statement that what he said about

  1927
  the amalgamation of the various forces was spoken in Committee of Ways and Means, and not on the second reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said he made that statement with a view to bringing forward a Bill, and that was accepted by the House. It was not until the Bill was printed and was found to be at variance with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that any opposition was offered to his proposals. The House had discussed the abolition of purchase with a view to the formation of one great defensive force, to be effected by an amalgamation of the Army and the Militia, and they had discussed the question as to how far they could assist in effecting that object; and, now that the Government had withdrawn that portion of their scheme, they were bound to explain, before again going into Committee, what part of the Bill they intended to retain and what portion they would omit.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had been told that he made a certain statement on the second reading of the Bill. He replied that he made that statement not on the second reading, but when bringing forward the Army Estimates for the year, and the statement referred not exclusively to what was in the Bill, but also to what was provided in the Estimates. He had already stated what clauses the Government considered it essential to retain. They were those relating to purchase and the transfer of power from the Lords Lieutenant of counties to the Crown.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must urge that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Secretary for War would say when he would state in detail what clauses the Government proposed to retain in their Bill. Money was voted on the Estimates to enable the Government to set at rest all questions as to future panic, and it was said that their measure would aim at welding together all the various forces at the disposal of the Crown; but the Government by their Bill, which was to blend the Army "into one harmonious whole," had led those forces and also Parliament into a very deep hole.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was desirable to know whether it was the intention of the Government to retain in the Bill those clauses which related to recruiting and short service?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, those clauses were intended to carry further the powers that were given to the Government by an Act of last year. So much opposition to them had been indicated by the Notices of Amendment that he did not intend to persevere with that portion of the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELI: Although I think on the whole that the wisest thing the House could do would be to adjourn, I will not press the Motion, because there is other business to occupy our attention. This, however, appears to me to be clearly a case in which the Bill ought to be reprinted. When great alterations are made in a measure of this importance, and especially whenever great ambiguity prevails as to the extent of the omissions, I do not think the Government ought to refuse the desire of many Members that the Bill should be reprinted. We want to have before us some document from which we can understand what is the object of the Government. I am at a loss on that matter, and, after the answer that the Secretary for War has just given to my right hon. Friend, I think it would be the most convenient course, as far as the Members of the House generally are concerned, if the Government did not proceed with the measure to-night, but reprinted the Bill and allowed us to take a general view of their purpose. I am convinced that would be the best mode of proceeding with the business.
  MR. CARDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman has had more important Bills than I have had to deal with, and those Bills have been very materially altered in the course of their progress through this House. I wish to state that the portion of the Bill to which I adhere is that portion relating to the abolition of purchase and the transfer of power from Lords Lieutenant of counties. I shall be very happy to adhere to any part of the Bill from which hon. Gentlemen may be good enough to withdraw their opposition.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIERRA LEONE—MR. MONTAGU.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Montagu, appointed by His Excellency the Administrator of

  1929
  the Government of Sierra Leone to the office of Crown Presentor for that Settlement, vacant by the death of the Queen's Advocate in April last, is the same Mr. Montagu who was removed from the office of Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land in December 1847, "for obstructing the recovery of a debt due by himself," as reported in Moore's Privy Council Reports, Vol. VI., and in condemnation of whose conduct during his residence in Sierra Leone a numerously signed Petition was presented to the Colonial Office in 1867; and, whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore trial by jury in Sierra Leone, of which constitutional privileges the Colonists have been deprived for four years, after enjoying it for a period of nearly seventy years?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, Mr. Montagu was the same individual who was removed from an office in Van Diemen's Land 24 years ago. He was subsequently transferred by the Duke of Newcastle to be stipendiary magistrate in the Falkland Islands, and afterwards moved to be Registrar of Deeds in Sierra Leone. A Petition was presented to the Colonial Office in 1867, impugning not his official capacity, but his moral character. In such a Colony as Sierra Leone there is very great difficulty in finding fit and proper persons to fill public offices. My noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office was at much pains to procure the services of Mr. Fyfe as Queen's Advocate, but that gentleman unfortunately died shortly after his acceptance of the appointment. There is no intention of appointing Mr. Montagu as his successor, although it is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of the Governor of the Colony with regard to any acting appointments during the vacancy. With regard to the second Question, trial by jury in civil, but not in criminal, cases was abolished when Lord Carnarvon was at the head of the Colonial Office. That was not done without full and careful consideration. It was found that the system was not suited to the condition of the Colony, and that the verdict was generally settled before the case was heard, by the head man of the tribe from which the jury was taken. It was certainly not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore a system which had been condemned by those
  1930
  best qualified to judge of the circumstances of the Colony.

GAME LAWS.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECIL, for Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, asked, What course the Government intend to pursue with regard to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Game Laws, which stood for that evening?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Motion he had proposed to make was one which would necessarily occupy a great deal of time, and he was sorry to say that in the present state of Public Business it was quite impossible for him to fix a Government night on which the discussion might conveniently take place. In the meantime, the Session was fast waning. They had already disposed of two Bills relating to the Game Laws, and such was the ardour for legislation on that subject that there were still four remaining. That proved that there was in the House, not merely great earnestness on that question, but also great diversity of opinion; and hence Government had thought that the best way of dealing with the matter was to refer it to a Select Committee to consider the various suggestions before the House. At that period of the Session, however, and especially if the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee was to be much further postponed, it would be impossible to have an adequate inquiry on the subject, and therefore he proposed to withdraw the Government measure, at the same time undertaking to move for the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject next Session.

ARMY—RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILwished to know, What course the hon. Member for Finsbury intends to pursue after the announcement of the Secretary for War with regard to the Amendment in the Army Regulation Bill, of which he had given Notice?
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he had received so many testimonies of the sense entertained of the importance of his Amendment prohibiting enlistment under 20 years of age from persons of great authority connected with the Army, and so many assurances of support from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the

1931
House, that he should certainly take an opportunity, when it was proposed to omit Clause 6, of calling the attention of the House to the subject, and moving his Amendment as a substantive clause.

ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Knight Storks, Captain Vivian, The Judge Advocate.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 3 (Compensation to officers holding saleable commissions.)
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTrose to move in page 2, after line 39, the insertion of the following words:—
"When an officer on the appointed day has not attained to a higher rank than that of subaltern he shall, if he so elect, receive the regulation price of his commissions, if he has paid for them or interest at 3½ per centum until repaid), and where an officer has not purchased his commissions or commission, such sums as he is entitled to according to existing regulations upon retirement."
He had already stated, at the commencement of the discussion, that he would not oppose the Bill if good faith were kept with the officers, and if the scheme of retirement were laid upon the Table. But the Government had declined to publish their scheme of retirement, which was, in his opinion, the most important part of the Bill. Then the Estimate that had been placed on the Table was of the vaguest kind:—it did not show how the sum was to be given, how the sum had been arrived at, and what ranks of the Army were to benefit by it. Now, he thought the Amendment he was moving could not be said to be unreasonable. A Return which was in possession of hon. Members showed the value of the regimental commissions of the officers of each rank in the purchase corps. It appeared from that Return that £800,000 was the value of the commissions of lieutenant colonels; something over £1,000,000 the value of the commissions of majors; about £3,500,000 the value of the commissions of captains; £1,600,000 the value of lieutenants' commissions; and under £600,000, the value of ensigns' commissions—making a total of about £7,600,000. All that he asked as a sort of compromise was, that the subalterns should have their money returned at once, or interest paid
1932
upon it. The amount in question was something like £2,000,000. There was a special reason why the subalterns should be treated in some such way as he proposed. The lieutenant who had paid £700 for his commission under the old system had a very good chance of succeeding to the company without purchase. From the Blue Book which contained the Report of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Committee, it appeared that one-third of the companies on the 1st of January, 1870, and one-half of the majorities and lieutenant colonelcies had gone without purchase. Therefore, there was under the old system one chance in three of the lieutenant obtaining his company, and an even chance of his obtaining his majority and lieutenant colonelcy without purchase. Then he was in this position—if he retired from the service he had the option of doing so either upon half-pay or upon receiving £4,500 for his commission, whether he had purchased or not. But under the proposed system he would be entitled to receive only £700 on retiring. It was obvious that such an officer would not be in as favourable a position as before. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. Friend would not give the stereotyped answer, that this Bill was not intended to put the officers in a better position than before; and he also hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not let it be thought that he was driving the hardest bargain possible with the officers, as it would most certainly be if he refused to accept this Amendment, in common with all others. It was because by the action of the Bill he would be placed in a worse position, that those who defended the rights of the officers claimed that whatever compensation it was thought right should be given should be paid at once. In conclusion, he begged leave to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and must say that no hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House had suggested any Amendment with the like view.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper, that in line 8 the words from "Provided" to "hereto," in line 12, be left out, and the following be inserted:—
"All subaltern officers who passed their examinations in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, and have received their commissions previous to the passing of this Act, shall at once

1933
receive back the regulation value of their commissions."
As this Amendment was to something of the same effect as the one which had just been moved, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) would at the same time promise to consider it, and save the trouble of bringing it forward separately. The amount required to carry out this Amendment would be £38,430, and it would place the officers on one level. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should make some compromise on behalf of the officers to whom his Amendment applied, as it was only just that junior officers should be placed in the same category as the older officers.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he could assure the Committee it was with great regret the Government felt themselves unable to assent to the proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who made it had assumed two things from the beginning of these discussions—that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War was desirous of driving the hardest bargain possible with the officers, and of interfering with their professional prospects. Now, as to the first point, he could assure him that the principle upon which the Government had proceeded from the outset in framing the Bill was that of acting with the utmost fairness both to the officers and to the public. They had no interest in driving a hard bargain with the officers; on the contrary, they had endeavoured to advance their interests as much as possible. Well, with regard to the professional prospects of officers, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had compared the position of an ensign entering the Army in 1870, who had paid £450 for his commission, with that of an ensign who would obtain his commission under the new state of things. That, however, was not a fair comparison. What he should have done was to compare the position of the ensign of 1870, as it would be in the future, with that which it would be if the present Bill had not been introduced. If purchase were not abolished, as was now proposed, the ensign of 1870 would have to put his hand constantly in his pocket in order to obtain his promotion, paying £7,000 by the time he became a lieutenant colonel. Purchase being done away with, however, that ensign would, if professionally he were properly qualified, be in a position to rise as rapidly as
1934
heretofore without paying a single farthing. Again, if it were right in principle to pay money, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested, on what logical ground could its payment to subalterns only be defended. Why should captains, for instance, be excluded from the benefit of his proposal? But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his Amendment as a compromise. It must, however, operate either compulsorily on the officers, or its action must be of a voluntary character. Now, if the whole of the officers were compelled to take a less sum than that to which they were justly entitled, the proposal would operate very unfairly in the case of a very large number; while, if the arrangements were voluntary, the bargain would be a very one-sided one. As a matter of course, all those officers who had determined to stay in the Army would take the money which was offered to them; while those who were prepared to leave the service two or three years hence would refuse the option which would be given to them, and would wait until they got the over-regulation price. The result would be that the taxpayer would get the worst of the bargain, inasmuch as every man, being at liberty to do so, would make the best bargain for himself. In regard to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Colonel S. Knox), he had to reply that the officers who purchased in 1870 and later had made their bargain with their eyes open. Parents knew that by waiting a few months they would get the ensigncy for nothing; but, instead of waiting, they wished to pay for it. He hoped the present answer would not be considered a "stereotyped" refusal to accept the Amendments offered; Government could not accept them without violating its duty to the State.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) furnished another illustration of the inconvenience and unfairness of the reticence observed by the Government with respect to their scheme. The hon. and gallant Gentleman informed the House that, under the new system, purchase being abolished, an officer might pass through all the ranks of his profession as rapidly as before, without being put to any expense whatsoever. Now, he should like to know

1935
how that rapidity of promotion was to be obtained, and what security there was that such a result would ever be attained? This, however, was exactly what the Government would not tell them. The Government declined to give any information on the point.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, it was already a recognized custom that if the ensign of a particular corps exchanged for his own convenience, or was transferred for the convenience of the Government to an Indian service corps, the value of his commission was returned to him. Why should not that be done in future in the case now under discussion, and which substantially resembled the instance he had quoted? Then it had been said that it would be hard upon the captains if the subalterns received their money. No doubt that was true; but they had tried their best to obtain the same privilege for the captains, although without success. The further progress they made in the Bill the more he was convinced that a compromise ought to be conceded. He himself had one to propose, in the shape of a clause, which he had great hopes might meet the acceptance of the Government, for a commutation of regulation and over-regulation prices. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) objected that the result would be that only the officers who meant to remain would accept the commutation, and that those who intended to retire would take the Government terms. He was not of that opinion. Officers intending to leave the service this year would, no doubt, accept the terms of the Government; but the great majority of them who had no such intention, and whose future movements were uncertain, would accept the commutation, and thereby waive their choice either of selling out or remaining in the service.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he must object to the Amendment, that it would block promotion by destroying all motives for retiring.
MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that if the promotion of officers under the Bill was to be on the same footing as at present, what would become of the principle of selection, and why was the country called on to pay this large sum for the abolition of purchase? He suggested that the Government should state whether they were prepared to admit any, and which, of
1936
the Amendments proposed upon this portion of the Bill. He believed that some plan of commutation would be of considerable service to the officers of the Army, and would also insure a considerable saving to the country.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he had seen no intention on the part of the Government to meet the just demands of the officers. A proposal for a compromise was put forward in a leading article in the leading journal to-day, and these proposals contained nothing detrimental to the plans of the Government. On the contrary, their plans would be facilitated, and the Government would then find the opposition by no means of a "factious" kind. He asked what was to be the position under the Bill of officers of the Canadian Rifles, of the two West India regiments, and the Cape Mounted Rifles, which had been disbanded? The officers of these regiments had been placed on half-pay under the impression that they would be replaced upon full-pay at the first opportunity. But, under the Bill, this most deserving body of officers would have no claim to full-pay. As the Amendment seemed rather invidious, for all should be paid or none, he hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Percy Herbert) would not press it to a division.
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, that he was very anxious to hear from the Secretary of State for War a confirmation of the sanguine views expressed by his hon. Colleague the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), that promotion would be as rapid under the Bill as now. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what was the ground on which that statement was made?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he had invariably stated, throughout all the discussions on the Bill, that it was intended that a reasonable rapidity of promotion should be maintained—meaning by that, promotion about as rapid as it was now. But who could possibly say, until the experiment had been actually tried, what effect the abolition of purchase would have upon the rate of promotion in the Army, and whether it would be necessary to increase retirement in consequence? In regard to the suggested compromise, he would only say, once for all, that a compromise was only possible when there was somebody qualified to conclude it on the part of the body of men in-

1937
terested, and authorized to express their adherence to it. It would have been a great facility to him if a commutation at once just and acceptable could have been arrived at; but no such proposal had been made, or could be, because no one could show that he had authority to speak in the name of the officers of the British Army.
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, he would ask whether, in the case of officers employed on the Reserve force, they would be employed on half or on full-pay?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought, in regard to the number of officers receiving half-pay who might be employed in the auxiliary forces, that it would be presumptuous in him to return a definite answer to the right hon. and gallant Member. It was not in their power even to commence the new order of things that would prevail under the Bill until it had passed the House. It was quite impossible to draw a distinction between the subalterns of 1870 and other subalterns. He stated, in his opening speech, that he had put a stop to first commissions being sold, from the feeling that that was the right step to adopt; but the Horse Guards immediately informed him that it would be great injustice on those who had already lodged their money. He then decided to give them the option, and the result was that in no single case was the money withdrawn; but, on the contrary, there were plenty of other candidates who would have been willing to come forward and lodge their money also.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he cordially sympathized with the spirit which had led to the proposal of the Amendment, but, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), he hoped it would not be pressed. From what had fallen from the Financial Secretary of the War Department, it would seem that the Government really knew what the scheme of retirement was to be. He desired, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman in distinct terms whether any such scheme had been drawn up and was now in existence, either in manuscript or print; if so, whether he would produce it? It had been said that eminent men had been engaged in drawing up the scheme; would the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was true or not? Also, whether any scheme for
1938
officering the Reserve had been drawn up, and, if so, would the right hon. Gentleman produce it? Lastly, was it intended that the Volunteer force was to be officered to any extent—and, if so, to what extent—by half-pay officers? Upon those points he invited the right hon. Gentleman to give him a simple and straightforward answer.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) had just left the House. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), as usual, was wishing to know a great deal. He had only to say that his statement that evening respecting the rapidity of promotion in future was only the same thing that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had distinctly stated both on introducing the Bill and on the second reading of it; and he had also said—what everyone must admit to be true—that whether the present system of retirement would be sufficient to procure the due rapidity of promotion, or whether it would be necessary to supplement it by additional retirement, was a point that could only be decided by experience.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he must observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vivian) had really given no answer whatever to the question he had put to him. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had a scheme of retirement and promotion, and, if so, what were the conditions by which the new principle of selection would be regulated; whether any such scheme was actually drawn up in manuscript; and whether a part of that scheme was that officers on half-pay in the Army were to have commands in the Volunteer force, and, if so, what commands?
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he thought that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had good reason to complain of the reticence of the Government, who had ample data in the average retirements in the non-purchase corps on which they might found a calculation as to the probable number of retirements that would occur in the Regular Army after their scheme came into operation, and as to the probable flow of promotion that would result therefrom.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that he was sorry to be troublesome, but that as the Government did not think fit to reply to

1939
his questions, and as the Prime Minister contented himself with giving utterance to ironical cheers whenever he rose to repeat his question, he begged to move that Progress he reported, in the hope that by taking such a course the Government might be induced to abandon the position which they had taken up on this matter.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he apprehended that the Committee were bound to confine their discussion to the question before them; but when the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) objected to ironical cheering, his conduct reminded him of the lines—
"Oh! wad some pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us."
He had already answered the noble Lord's question ten times, and, in fact, if he might be allowed to use such an expression, he had answered it before it had been asked. Nothing could be clearer than that it would be absurd to base the calculations as to the probable number of retirements in the Regular Army under this scheme upon the data afforded by the retirements in the Marines and other non-purchase corps. In the opinion of many eminent persons, however, the retirements under the new system would be as numerous as under the existing one. Unless he were a prophet, he could not answer more of the noble Lord's question.
LORD ELCHOsaid, no attempt had been made to answer two questions he had put—namely, first, whether the scheme for the proposed selection of officers had been drawn up and would be laid on the Table; and secondly, whether the scheme for the amalgamation of the Reserve and the Regular Army would extend to the Volunteer service, and to what extent it was proposed that the Volunteer force should be officered by officers on half-pay?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, as he stated the other evening, when the Bill was passed the scheme of regulations would be laid on the Table of the House. With regard to Volunteers there would be very considerable changes in the appointment of adjutants of Volunteers.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he must express himself satisfied with the reply, and that he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
Motion and Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, he would move an Amendment, to the effect that in case an officer who had joined the Army before the proposed regulations were established, and had intimated to the War Office a wish to sell out, should die before his request to sell was granted by the War Office, his widow and children should be entitled to receive the price of his commission, provided that he would have been allowed to sell out by the custom of the service at the time when he received his commission.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 39, after the word "day," to insert the words "in case any officer who obtained his commission before the regulation was established by which officers are only allowed to sell their commissions provided they live for six weeks after sending in their papers, shall intimate to the War Office his desire to sell his commission at any time prior to his decease either by letter or telegram, the widow or children of such officer, in case of his death before such request is granted, shall be entitled to receive the regulation price of the commission held by such officer, provided that he would have been allowed to sell by the custom of the service and the regulations in force at the time be received his first commission."—(Sir Tollemache Sinclair.)
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 78: Majority 62.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONrose to propose in page 3, line 21, after "if any," to insert—
"But no officer shall, under the provisions of this Act, in any case receive more money than he has actually paid for his commission or commissions, either for the regulation or the over regulation price; and every officer shall forward with his application to retire a statement of the sums paid by him for his commissions, both as to the regulation and the over regulation prices."
The hon. Baronet said, his Amendment was in the nature of a compromise, and if accepted would not entail any extra expense, but rather the reverse, for the over-regulation price would be saved to the country. His proposal would benefit a great number of the poorer officers in the Infantry, men who had families to provide for, and who had borrowed the money to pay for their promotion. It might be said that the officers had not been con-

1941
sulted, and therefore would not accept this compromise. But as it was optional no harm could be done. He had never offered a factious opposition to the Bill, and it was in no factious spirit he made the present proposal. He might observe, in passing, that the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), to the effect that the promotion of officers would, under the new system, be as rapid as hitherto, struck him as being altogether paradoxical. If, he might add, the compromise which he now suggested were accepted by the Government, the officers might be induced to regard the measure as more just to them, while some of the hardships which it would inflict would be mitigated. By means of such a compromise the hardship of doing away with promotion by seniority, for instance, would be greatly diminished; for it must be borne in mind that if promotion by seniority were abolished and promotion was given only by selection, the condition on which an officer had paid his money would cease to exist. He was not one of those who were of opinion that the Bill was an entirely bad one. Indeed, he believed that for the rich it was a very good Bill, although it certainly was not for the poor man. By a Return which had been presented to that House it was shown that the immediate total payment of all claims for regulation and over-regulation prices would amount to £10,000,000, while according to another the cost of gradual abolition would be £8,000,000. It was, therefore, evident that the Government, in the proposals which they made, were trading to the extent of £2,000,000 on the chances of death among the officers of the Army, a course which he did not think would meet with the approval of the country. He hoped, under all the circumstances of the case, the Government would see their way to accepting some such compromise as that which he proposed.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, all these compromises were open to one obvious objection—they would be accepted by everybody to whom they were a gain, and would be rejected by everybody else. The person who suffered, therefore, would necessarily be the taxpayer. The Bill was conceived in a liberal spirit, and dealt very liberally with those who retired. Now, what was purchase but a system of retirement, under which no-
1942
body got anything except those who did retire. He was sorry he could not accept the Amendment; but he was not going to compliment away the public money merely to make it appear that he was "reasonable."
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he concurred in the object aimed at by the Amendment, it being a small modicum of what the officers were entitled to.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he must complain of the practice of not placing on the Notice Paper important Amendments which were proposed. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) had submitted an entirely different scheme from that which was on the Paper.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, the Amendment moved was only a modification of that which had appeared in print. As to the argument of the Secretary for War, it did not follow that a compromise which would suit one man would suit another; and it might suit many officers to take their regulation money and sink the over-regulation money, because they contemplated remaining in the Army for a long time. He should not divide the Committee; but regretted that the Government had given their usual answer, and would listen to no compromise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, the object of the Amendment he would now propose was to remedy a grave defect in the Bill, which did not give adequate compensation to a class of meritorious and poor professional officers, to whom he was sure the House would wish to do justice. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) had been rather severe upon his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson) and himself for their views respecting the breach of contract, implied as between the State and the officer in this Bill. Now, in saying that when buying a commission an officer bought the right not to be superseded, he did not intend to imply that the officer bought a legal right not to be superseded. There was, however, a professional understanding that the officer had a right not to be superseded except for great misconduct or incompetency. The Bill provided that for every year he served the officer should get £100 for foreign service, and £50 for home. Sup-

1943
pose the case of a major, who, having obtained his commission without purchase, had served, when the Bill passed, 18 years, and whose services for nine years' home service and nine years' foreign service had become worth, according to the Bill, £1,350, he would be in this position: if he remained in the Army for two years longer, and became a lieutenant colonel, and then wished to retire, he would only receive £1,550. Had, however, the Bill not been introduced he would have received £4,500 regulation value, and £2,500 over-regulation, or an aggregate sum of £7,000. The loss of the balance between £1,550 and £7,000 (or £5,450) would be the loss which this officer alone would suffer by the operation of the Bill, and what he (Lord Eustace Cecil) asked was simply common justice—namely, that after 20 years officers should be in the same position as heretofore, and should be allowed the regulation price and over-regulation price of the commissions they now held. He would, therefore, move to insert in line 17, after the word "service," the following words:—
"Officers who have obtained one or more of their commissions without purchase, and who would have been entitled according to the rules of the service to realize the full regulation value of their commissions at the expiration of 20 years' service on full pay, if this Act had not passed, shall at any future time, on retirement after that period of service, receive the regulation and over regulation price of the commissions they now may hold."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, "now" was not in the original Amendment, and the word being introduced he thought the Bill already provided for the object the noble Lord had in view.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he thought this was rather doubtful, at least as far as he understood the Bill.
SIR HENRY STORKSconcurred with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in thinking the Bill anticipated the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it would be safer to adopt the Amendment, and then if the words were found to be surplusage they could afterwards be omitted.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that what they intended was that an officer who had not served out his time should have an opportunity of completing his service, so as to get the value of his commission. If, however, he should have served so
1944
long as to be entitled to more than that amount, then he would have that extra sum. He would undertake that the clause should be re-considered in that view, and the necessary Amendment, if it proved that any was required, should be made.
Amendment withdrawn.
An Amendment moved, in line 19, to omit all words after "price."—(Colonel Anson.)
After short discussion, Amendment withdrawn.
An Amendment made, by inserting after "price," the words "or any part thereof."
SIR WILLIAM RUSSELLsaid, the terms of retirement had been arranged, but the case of those who had made the Army their profession, and who wished to continue in it, deserved consideration. Were they to be forced out of the service in order to realize the value of their commissions? He asked that officers who wished to remain in the service should be at liberty to elect to take the same composition as was laid down in the Government Return—namely, the estimated price of their commission, less 30 per cent. With this view he would propose a proviso that every officer holding a saleable commission should have the option of applying to the Commissioners to pay him a fixed composition, in full satisfaction of all claims which such officer could have made on his retirement, and providing also that the Commissioners should draw up and issue a scale settling the amount of such fixed composition applicable to each rank, less such reductions as would be caused by taking into consideration the probable number of officers who would lose the value of their commissions in each rank respectively, either by death or by becoming general officers, and further by a reduction of 3½ per cent in consideration of making immediate payment.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided nevertheless, That every officer holding on the said appointed day a saleable commission in Her Majesty's Army shall have the option of applying to the Commissioners to pay him a fixed composition in full satisfaction of all claims which such officer could have made on his retirement from the service for the estimated price at

1945
which the commission held by him on the said appointed day would have been saleable if this Act had not passed; and the Commissioners shall for this purpose, immediately on the passing of this Act, draw up and issue a scale settling the amount of such fixed composition applicable to commissions in each rank. The amount of such fixed composition shall be the average estimated present price of commissions in each rank, less such deduction as would be equal to the diminution in such average estimated price which would be produced by taking into consideration the probable number of officers (calculated on the average of the ten years then last past) who would lose the value of their commissions in each rank respectively, either by death or by becoming general officers and subsequently attaining the age of sixty years; and further by the deduction of discount at three and a-half per centum in consideration of immediate payment."—(Sir William Russell.)
MR. CARDWELLsaid, this was only another form of the same proposal which had been made over and over again. As he had repeatedly said, purchase was a system of retirement. Even the strongest opponents of the Bill admitted that the arrangements made towards those who retired were very liberal indeed. They complained, however, that the Bill did not treat liberally those who remained in the service. Well, but the purchase system gave nothing to those who remained in the service. If, therefore, while indemnifying those who would have received anything under the purchase system, the Bill paid money down to those who remained in the service, it would do something more than the purchase system did. Now, the Government were not prepared to throw upon the taxpayers of the country more than had been thrown upon them already.
SIR WILLIAM RUSSELLsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Amendment did not propose to increase the charge to the country by a single farthing. On the contrary, it would probably reduce that charge by £1,000,000.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, it was clear, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, that there was not the slightest hope of any concession from the Government. He asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether it would not be wise as regarded his own dignity and position, and as regarded the House of Commons, the country, and the well-being of the Army, to make this concession, which would find favour both with the taxpayers and with the officers
1946
of the Army? In a late division the majority upon an Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Sir William Russell) was only 16, and that close division showed that it was the wish of the Committee to come to a compromise.
MR. GLADSTONEbegged, in answer to the complaint that the Government made no concession to those who advocated the claims of the officers of the Army, the House to consider the principle on which the Bill was framed. The principle was, in the first place, to give to the officers that to which they were equitably and legally entitled; and, in the second place, wherever a doubt existed as to the amount they could properly claim, to rule that doubt in their favour. Now, however, hon. Members asked for a compromise, the effect of which compromise was to be to give to the officer that to which he was not entitled at all. This provoked him to quote Mr. Mill, who had not long since been quoted against him. The hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson) would recollect that when, in 1866, the Government of the day proposed what many thought an inadequate measure, when they had reduced and clipped down a third of their measure for the sake of obviating opposition, they were then after all asked for a compromise. Mr. Mill, on that occasion, said that the Government having cut the apple into halves and presented half to their opponents, they were then asked to cut it again and give them another quarter. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir William Russell) asked for officers a compensation to which under no circumstances could they be entitled. He asked, in fact, for a new endowment. He forgot what a boon the Bill gave to officers who intended to remain in the Army. It gave them the boon of advancing step by step without purchase. As representing the interests of the people, Government could not give the officers any more. They gave the officers a full equivalent for purchase, but they could not consent to give them a new endowment. It was impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal if, in their attempt to do justice to the Army, they were to recollect the duty they owed to the nation at large.
MR. DICKINSONremarked that the Government scheme involved, besides the simple question of compensation to the officers, the reform of a vicious system, and it was unjust to make the officers pay for that reform. The system had been introduced into the Army by the Government of the country, and the money that the officers had paid under it ought to be returned to them. The scheme of the Government was unfair, inasmuch as it placed the purchase officers upon the same footing as the non-purchase officers. The just way to treat the purchase officers was to return them the money they had paid, and to give them the equivalent value of their prospects under the existing system.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he thought it was not fair to the officers, who were an ornament to their profession, to offer them such bad terms that they would be forced to leave the service. That was a false economy, and its object was to make the scheme of the Government appear to the country as little costly as possible.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, the expenditure proposed by the Government was £7,955,000; the present value of the officers' commissions being £6,821,000. That calculation was based on a limitation clause, which limitation clause having been withdrawn, he wished to point out that a new consideration came into play with regard to the expenditure proposed by the Government—namely, that unless the Secretary of State for War inspired the officers of the Army with confidence in his sense of justice, and confidence in his future proposals with regard to the Army, there would be a panic, a rush to sell, a general disorganization, and a very large increase of the expenditure proposed by the Bill. The Bill did not inspire the officers with confidence. The Secretary of State for War refused to accept even verbal Amendments of the Bill. The officers knew that the Bill was based on injustice. It would compel the poorer class of officers to serve on. He thought the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir William Russell) was a fair one. He (Colonel Anson) had proposed a scheme of commutation, and if every officer in the Army would accept that proposal of commutation——
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent for the hon. and gallant Gentleman
1948
the Member for Bewdley to discuss a scheme which he intended to propose hereafter.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, his only object in alluding to that scheme was to save time. He would simply state that if this scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir William Russell) was carried, it would effect a saving of £1,000,000 to the country. The Committee was told that the purchase system was immoral. Was it not a fact, notwithstanding this immorality, that Her Majesty's Government, who were so anxious to do away with the system, were yet so enamoured of the advantages that the country derived from it, that they were going to retain those advantages as long as they possibly could, and that by refusing commutation of any sort or kind they were to a certain extent relieving themselves from the necessity of going into the question of retirement. If that were so, then it was one of the most immoral transactions ever committed by a Government in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had tried to delude the Committee into the belief that in future the retirement would be very much the same as at present; but if that were so, there was no reason whatever why he should try to carry on a purchase system for the next 26 years. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment to-night, but allow time for understanding what it meant, and whether the Committee would be effecting a saving or not by accepting it. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman do report Progress.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Colonel Anson,)—put, and negatived.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
LORD GARLIESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would entail additional expense on the British taxpayer. But his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir William Russell), on the contrary, showed that there would be a saving of £1,000,000 by it. What was the line taken by the Prime Minister? That right hon. Gentleman said that the

1949
effect of the Amendment would be to give the British officer that to which he was not entitled. But if there would be an actual saving to the taxpayer, and if, at the same time, a boon would be conferred on the officer, it seemed most extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government could not be brought to see not only the justice but the wisdom of coming to such a compromise as the one now proposed.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 222: Majority 83.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAM MR. PERCY WYNDHAM moved that the Chairman report Progress. He did so, he said, on the ground that the present Bill was not that which had passed a second reading. Not to mince the matter, the House had been brought to the present stage of the measure under false pretences. As to the opposition which had been offered to the Bill, it was quite clear that no class could have the power of sustaining it were there not something deeper than mere class interests in the background. The truth, he believed, was that the Bill was not acceptable to the majority of the House, and would be found, after time was given for reflection, to be as little acceptable to the country. There were, no doubt, hon. Members of the House—such, for instance, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—so adverse to a standing Army that they would not object to have our present military system pulled down, without knowing by what it was to be replaced. That was a view which was at all events clear and intelligible, which was more than could be said of the Government scheme throughout. The proposal of the Government was an attempt to break up the existing state of things without giving the country anything in its stead.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
LORD ELCHOsaid, he had opposed this clause compensating the officers because he thought it was unjust to officers who remained in the Army. It had been described as just and generous. He could not, however, understand how justice and generosity could go together. Where there was justice there could be no room for generosity.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had added a new canon to our moral code. It was impossible, he said, that the same law could be both just and generous. It followed, therefore, that justice must always be ungenerous, and generosity must always be unjust.
Clause agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 164.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Solicitor General.)
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 164.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that on a former occasion, and even at a later hour of the night than that, he had endeavoured to induce the House, before it proceeded further with the Bill, to pause and to inquire; and he then stated the reasons why he was opposed to the measure. That question had now been in agitation—as everything connected with the Roman Catholic Church in that country and in Ireland always was—for the last four years. A Committee was appointed by the House in the year 1867 to consider the whole subject-matter of that Bill; and that Committee reported in favour of the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 by a majority of 1 only. In the next Session of Parliament the House of Lords appointed a Committee, and they went more fully into the subject, and reported directly against the repeal of the Act of 1851. Again, the question was mooted in the last Session; but the Bill, after passing through that House, was lost in the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in fact, adhered to the Report of their Committee. Now, what he wished the House to consider was this—They had it announced to the world, that a great change had taken place in the constitution and in the probable action of the Papacy, as regarded the whole of the Roman Catholic Church, and with reference also to the relations of the Roman Catholic community towards their fellow-subjects of other denominations.

  1951
  On a previous occasion, he had asked the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the probable consequences of that great change which had been effected by the Council which sat at Rome last year. It was the pleasure of a very thin House, however, to reject that proposal; but the House decided—that was to say, the Government decided—that they would send the Bill itself to a Select Committee. There was very great difficulty in getting hon. Members who agreed with the House of Lords in adhering to the policy of this country, confirmed in 1851, with respect to the status of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country, to serve on that Committee. He himself declined to serve on it, because the principle of the Bill was a principle to which he objected. Other hon. Members refused to serve, because they did not wish to be closeted in a Select Committee for the purpose of formulating, gilding, or commending a principle to which they were opposed; and the consequence was, that upon that Select Committee there was a great preponderance of hon. Members who were favourable to the repeal of this statute. No practical difference had been made by the labours of that Committee save this—that in the Bill which was before the House previous to the appointment of the Select Committee, the declaration that the assumption of territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, or other ecclesiastics, not sanctioned by the Crown, should be void in law, was set forth far more distinctly than it was in the Bill now on the Table of the House. Well, that was no small matter; because, what was the purport of the Bill? It was this—that, although the Bill forbade the assumption of jurisdiction in the sense of a right to revive the obligation on the temporal Courts of the country to enforce the decrees of the Roman Catholic hierarchy representing the Pope, still it would permit the assumption of those territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which are inseparably connected, according to the decisions of several Popes, and especially of the present Pope, with territorial jurisdiction and power over the temporal goods, as well as the spiritual interests of the whole Roman Catholic community; and by the decisions of the recent Council obedience in these matters had become
  1952
  a matter of faith. Now, it was no trifling measure that they were asked to pass. They were asked to sanction, indirectly, at all events, by the removal of prohibitions, the whole jurisdiction of the Papacy over the property, and over the actions, social, and political, of every Roman Catholic, which the Pope had declared it to be his right to exercise, and which he had enjoined, as a matter of faith. Thus they were asked to carry out the object of the Brief of 1850, which Cardinal Wiseman, in a lecture which he delivered in 1851, and a copy of which he had there, stated to be this—to organize the whole of the adherents of the Roman Catholic Church in that country as a separate and distinct community; and he assigned as a reason for the Brief of 1850, constituting the hierarchy with territorial titles, that according to the Roman Canon Law the Bishops, previous to the issue of that Brief, could not assemble in synod, and therefore had not, according to that Canon law, which was now to be a matter of faith with every Roman Catholic, the power of organizing the Roman Catholic community, as separate and distinct from all other religionists—as separate and distinct from their fellow-subjects in this country. He would beg the House to remember that that was no new notion, and no new idea, with the Papacy. It had ever been the object of the Papacy to obtain those territorial titles; not from a mere antiquarian fancy, but as symbols at once of the dependence of the hierarchy upon the Pope, and of the power of the Pope, through them, over matters temporal within the United Kingdom. If the House would permit him, he could not illustrate that better than by reading a few lines from Milton's great Epic poem—and Milton, the House would bear in mind, was secretary to Cromwell, and the writer of the correspondence with foreign powers, the object of which was to stay the persecution of the Vaudois. Not long afterwards he wrote these lines—
  "Then shall they seek to avail themselves of names,
  Places and titles, and with these to join
  Secular power; though feigning still to act
  By spiritual, to themselves appropriating
  The Spirit of God, promised alike, and given
  To all believers; and from that pretence,
  Spiritual laws by carnal powers shall force
  On every conscience."

  1953
  He (Mr. Newdegate) knew that hon. Members who were imbued with the idea that they could establish religious equality by merely declaring their own adhesion to the principle, would turn their eyes away from the dangers and difficulties which might ensue, if the Legislature of England withdrew its prohibition against the exercise of that power. They had had that, as applied to matters temporal, considered by previous Houses of Commons. In the year 1844, as touching the property, the charitable property, the property for the religious uses of Roman Catholics in Ireland, after a Committee of that House had investigated the subject, the Legislature deliberately decided that it would appoint a Commission, which should virtually act as trustee, and hold all this property for religious uses in Ireland. And what proved the wisdom of that decision? Why, that a Petition was presented after the passing of the Act, signed by a considerable number of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many of the priesthood, but none of the laity, condemning the statute of 1844, and for this reason—that it directly intercepted the action of the Canon law, through the hierarchy, in the disposition of this property, and because it was at variance with the Roman Catholic system, whereby the dying were enjoined to commute their sins in this world by gifts of property to the Church. That Petition he had quoted to the House three years ago, as illustrating the objects of the Papacy, which the Bequests Act intercepted, and was condemned for intercepting by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He knew that Her Majesty's Government had some reasons for their confidence, that hon. Members of that House had not studied the subject; and that, therefore, they would give a blind and an implicit support to the Government in the promotion of that Bill. But there was another reason alleged, besides the desire to gratify the Roman Catholic hierarchy throughout the United Kingdom, and it was this—It was said that, in the Irish Church Act of 1869, there was an omission or oversight, in consequence of which, if the successors of the present Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland should assume the titles of their predecessors, every one of those titles having been granted by the Crown, they would be liable to prosecu-
  1954
  tion under the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 for having assumed those titles The fact was, that in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 a clause was inserted, which relieved from the penalties of that Act the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. When that subject was before the House on the second reading, he (Mr. Newdegate) had suggested that, unless it was the object of the majority of the House to establish the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and of the Papacy in a manner which he would afterwards describe; if the only object were to relieve from the possibility of prosecution the Bishops of the disestablished Church, they needed but a Bill of one clause, which should include, under the exemption contained in the 3rd clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, the Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland, together with the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. When speaking on that occasion, he had stated that the present First Lord of the Treasury had, in 1851, suggested that that provision should then be introduced into the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the right hon. Gentleman contradicted him. He had since had an opportunity of referring to Hansard's Debates, and, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, he would show him that although he (Mr. Gladstone) did not himself undertake to extend the terms of the 3rd clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, so as to include other Bishops of voluntary Churches, besides the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, he had blamed the Government of that day for not having introduced such a provision. He (Mr. Newdegate) had found in Hansard that Lord Arundel and Surrey had raised the question, and complained that whereas—
  "It was true that the Bishops in Scotland were appointed by a native power, while the Catholic Prelates derived their authority from a foreigner, yet as the statute law of the country now permitted Catholics to acknowledge a foreigner as the head of their Church, it was absurd to legislate for them on a different principle from that applied to other Churches."—[3 Hansard, cxvii., 1024–5–6.]
  Sir George Grey, who was then Home Secretary, remarked—
  "That the Scotch Bishops stood upon a totally different footing, inasmuch as they did not hold their office from the appointment of a foreign Power. There was nothing in this clause, however, which gave them a right to assume these

  1955
  titles. The right had been denied by the Court of Session in Scotland, and this clause left them just as they were before."
  Mr. Gladstone said—
  "He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that there was a distinction between Bishops holding office by foreign authority and those who did not so hold it. But the question which he wished to put to Her Majesty's Government was of a different description. He wanted to know why this clause was not to extend to other Bishops who might choose to hold territorial titles, but might not hold them under the authority of a foreign Power. Perhaps the answer would be, that there were no such Bishops."
  The right hon. Gentleman himself had since provided not only that there should be, but that there were, and he might have said there would be such Bishops. He went on to say—
  "There were some persons in Scotland professing to be Episcopalians, who were dissatisfied with the arrangements of the Scotch Bishops, and who had taken steps to obtain the appointment of a Bishop of their own. Why should they be prevented from doing this? Then, why should not the Wesleyans, if they chose, call their superintendents of circuits Bishops with territorial titles? If they were going to lay down this restrictive law, they ought to tell them why they did it. He, himself, with the views that he entertained with regard to this Bill, certainly would not undertake the responsibility of attempting to amend it; but he thought Her Majesty's Government on their own principles — not on his principles, because that would not satisfy him with the Bill—but on their own principles, they ought not to make the assumption of titles unlawful, except they were derived from a foreign authority."
  The Chairman was putting the clause, when Mr. Gladstone said, "He hoped there would be some answer to the question." Sir George Grey said—
  "The right hon. Gentleman asked why this clause should not extend to the Wesleyans. His answer was, that the Wesleyans, as a body, supported this Bill. They did not ask for any indulgence of the kind, and that their cause was an imaginary one, put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government had dealt with the bodies of religionists they found in existence, and had not found themselves bound to provide against supposititious cases. It was only within the last few years, that the Scotch Bishops had partly assumed these titles; he said partly, because in legal documents they did not assume them. Those titles were not legal. At the same time, it was totally unnecessary to subject the Bishops who assumed them to penalties."
  Mr. Gladstone said—
  "It was perfectly true the Wesleyans had no Bishops, and he did not point out the discrepancy as an immediate evil to anybody; but they were introducing a restriction against civil and religious liberty without giving the slightest reason for it. He wanted to know why these persons who had just as much right as any Scotch Bishops, to assume titles, were to be precluded from so doing?"
  1956
  He (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, seeing that he thus insisted upon the duty of the Government to include other Bishops, or those who might wish to be Bishops, under that clause, why he had not performed the duty which he enjoined upon the Government of 1851, and simply introduced a Bill, including under the same category, and the same provisions, the Bishops of the disestablished Church of Ireland with the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland? There was another reason—there must be some other reason for this Bill, besides the difficulty in the Irish Church; and it was this—that the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government had determined to promote the assumption of territorial titles by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland; and he would say, that that was the first step towards the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, because they were taking it without reference to the organization already provided in Ireland for the administration, to use a technical term, of the temporal accidents which were incident to religious life in the case of Roman Catholics, and because they were sanctioning in the minds of the Roman Catholic hierarchy the idea that they had a right to control the property of their co-religionists, devoted to religious purposes, which he could show the House they could do through contract. For what was the reason adduced to account for the difficulty, said to have been created by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, jointly with the operation of the Irish Church Act of 1869, in the case of the successors to the present Bishops of the disestablished Church in Ireland? It was this, that unless they were permitted to assume the titles of their sees, they could not enter into contracts in virtue of the office that they held; and he argued from that, that the intention of the Bill before the House was to arm the Roman Catholic Prelates with a like power of dealing through contract, with the property devoted to religious purposes in Ireland, exactly on the terms in which they wished to validate the action of the successors to the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. If he was wrong in that supposition, all he could say was, that he had taken good advice upon it—advice which he doubted any lawyer could defeat. He

  1957
  would say again, that the meaning of that Bill was to contravene the intention of the Legislature in 1844 and 1851; that it invalidated the safeguards which those measures contained against the exercise of a temporal jurisdiction by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; inasmuch as that, although they closed the Courts against them by process of Common Law, they opened the Courts to their jurisdiction through contract by process of equity. He would ask the House whether that was the time, when, before that country or any other had had full experience of the altered constitution of the Papal Church—for it was now a strictly Papal Church—you should proceed to break up a settlement, which had at once guarded the peace of the country, and, he spoke it advisedly, the liberties of the laity of the Roman Catholic persuasion. There had been a good deal of controversy upon that question, and he held in his hand a copy of an able letter from the pen of Dr. Döllinger. No one could say that Dr. Döllinger was a mean authority upon the operation to be expected from the decisions of the recent Council at Rome. He reviewed them throughout, and he would beg the House to allow him to read to them the concluding passages of that eminent man's wise letter on the subject. Dr. Döllinger said—
  "He who wishes to measure the immense range of these Resolutions [of the Council] may be urgently recommended to compare thoroughly the third chapter of the decrees in Council with the fourth; and to realize for himself what a system of universal government and spiritual dictation stands here before us. It is the plenary power over the whole Church, as over each separate member, such as the Popes have claimed for themselves since Gregory VII., such as is pronounced in the numerous Bulls since the Bull Unam Sanctum, which is from henceforth to be believed and acknowledged in his life by every Catholic. This power is boundless, incalculable; it can, as Innocent III. said, 'strike at sin everywhere;' can punish every man; allows of no appeal; is sovereign and arbitrary, for, according to Bonifacius VIII., 'the Pope carries all rights in the shrine of his bosom.' [That is, the Pope is made supreme over all Canon law and universally absolute.] As he has now become infallible, he can in one moment, with the one little word orbi; [that is, that he addresses himself to the whole Church] make every thesis, every doctrine, every demand an unerring and irrefragable article of faith. Against him there can be maintained no right, no personal or corporate freedom; or, as the Canonists say, the tribunal of God and that of the Pope are one and the same. This system bears its Romish origin on its forehead, and will never be able to penetrate
  1958
  in Germanic countries. As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, as a citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine. Not as a Christian, for it is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, and with the plain words of Christ and of the Apostles; it purposes just that establishment of the kingdom of this world, which Christ rejected; it claims that rule over all communions which Peter forbids to all and to himself. Not as a theologian, for the whole true tradition of the Church is in irreconcilable opposition to it. Not as an historian can I accept it, for as such I know, that the persistent endeavour to realize this theory of a kingdom of the world has cost Europe rivers of blood, has confounded and degraded whole countries, has shaken the beautiful organic architecture of the elder Church, and has begotten, fed, and sustained the worst abuses in the Church. Finally, as a citizen, I must put it away from me, because, by its claims on the submission of States and Monarchs, and of the whole political order under the Papal power, and by the exceptional position which it claims for the clergy, it lays the foundation of endless ruinous disputes between State and Church, between clergy and laity; for I cannot conceal from myself, that this doctrine, the results of which were the ruin of the old German kingdom, would, if governing the Catholic part of the German nation, at once lay the seed of incurable decay in the new kingdom which has just been built up."
  Hon. Members should consider that the Empire of Germany is similar to that of the United Kingdom. The numerical population of Protestants and Roman Catholics were much the same; and if Dr. Döllinger, who was acknowledged to be one of the highest authorities on the subject to which he referred, saw reason to warn his country against the danger that was threatened by the despotic innovations carried out by the Jesuits; if he felt that danger to be so great, why should that House, which was only last week engaged in passing a measure to deprive Irishmen of their liberties on account of the disturbances in that country; why should that country be indifferent to the prospect of disturbances similar to those which Dr. Döllinger declared were now threatening Germany? Was there anything in the aspect of the world; was there anything in the opinion of those who were competent to form an opinion which could commend to them the innovation they were now asked to make upon the settled policy of this country for centuries; and for what purpose? They thought to do a complaisance to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. They thought of gratifying a mere fancy of the Pope. He would tell them, on the authority of those who, like Dr. Döllinger, had studied the subject, that they were striking at the prin-

  1959
  ciple which, by guarding the independence of this country, had enabled them to preserve to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the opportunity, and he trusted the capacity for freedom, which their co-religionists did not enjoy in other countries. He thanked the House for having allowed him thus briefly to state the objections which had weighed with statesmen now gone to their rest, which prevailed last Session in the House of Lords, and he hoped would not be thrust aside in that House as a matter unworthy of its attention. He begged to move that this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. M'LAREN, on the part of the people of Scotland, objected to the Bill. He thought it was an intolerable thing that in every large town in Scotland they should have two Bishops—one Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, which was not recognized by the law, and one Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The people of Scotland held that every minister was a Bishop in the New Testament sense of the word, and they objected to a man being set on a pedestal as if he were above others. The existing law, he thought, ought not to be altered.
  DR. BALLsaid, the Bill did not make any alteration in the law except with regard to the power of enforcing penalties. He had always thought it was a very undignified proceeding to assert a great constitutional principle by the action of common informers.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 91: Majority 85.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Charley.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 168: Majority 102.
  Preamble.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that the Bill had been proposed solely in the interests of Ireland, and he contended that in Ireland there was no conflict of jurisdiction, as there was no State Church; but, in regard to England, there was such conflict of jurisdiction, and therefore he proposed that the recital should be amended so as to apply the Act only to Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALrepeated the arguments so frequently urged in favour of the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and pointed out that it was wholly unnecessary also to repeal the 24th section of the Catholic Emancipation Act. That section, he again stated, was not applicable to Ireland.
  DR. BALLconcurred in the opinion expressed by the last speaker.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he saw no reason for repealing the Act. This was a Bill to establish the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and to enable them to take territorial titles.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he accepted the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone as a specimen of peculiar Liberalism. The Act was the offspring of panic and of political trickery, and he trusted that it would be swept from the Statute Book.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone involved the principle of religious liberty. He was himself one of the strongest opponents of the original enactment. The Act was not and could not be enforced, and was a mockery and a pretence.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcontended that the Bill was operative, and asked why, if it was not, there was all this agitation to repeal it?
  Preamble postponed.
  MR. CHARLEY MR. CHARLEY moved the addition of a new clause confining the Bill to Ireland.
  New Clause (Application of Act,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 124: Majority 79.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF ST. BRIAVELS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BAXTER, Bill to make further provision respecting the opening and working of Mines and Quarries in Her Majesty's Forest of Dean and in the Hundred of St. Briavels, in the county of Gloucester; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAXTER and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

  SEWAGE UTILISATION SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Sewage Utilisation Acts, relating to the districts of Gainford, Hillmorton, and Hurworth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the districts of Acton, Altrincham, Bognor, Bolton (Lancashire), Harrogate (two), Henley on Thames, Kingston upon Hull, Litchurch, Malvern, Nelson, Over Darwen, Pensarn, Prescot, Ramsgate, Redcar, Saint Leonards, Stamford, Tottenham, Ware, Widnes, and Wimbledon; and for other purposes relative to the district of Stamford, under the said Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the Law relating to Industrial and Provident Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. MORRISON, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. THOMAS BRASSEY, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the
  1962
  Burgh of Crieff, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

  VACCINATION ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Bill to amend the Vaccination Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.