Commons Sitting of 23 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—East India Finance [No. 327].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 22] reported—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Countess of Mayo's Annuity* [268].
Ordered—First Reading—Royal Military Canal Act Amendment* [270].
First Reading—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment* [269].
Second Reading—Military Forces Localisation (Expenses) [222], debate adjourned.
Committee—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) [198]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) (re-comm.) [138]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental* [238]; Law Officers (England) Fees* [257]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862 Amendment* [250]; Factories (Steam Whistles)* [263].
Considered as amended—Local Government Board (Ireland)* [90]; Parish Constables Abolition* [255].
Third Reading—Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [248], and passed.
Withdrawn—Building Societies (re-comm.)* [153]; Defamation of Private Character* [99].
The House met at Two of the clock.

FRANCE—DEPORTATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have, as the result of the instructions sent on the 11th of July to Lord Lyons, received from the French Government an explanation of the transmission from Dieppe to Newhaven by the French police of seven men who in the night of June 29 were shipped on board the steamer "Marseilles," in the custody of or under the escort of the police; and what is the explanation, if any afforded?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Lord Lyons brought the cases alluded to by my right hon. Friend at once under the notice of the French Government, and M. de Rémusat promised an inquiry into the circumstances and an explanation. Up to this morning no such reply had been received at the Foreign Office. I may inform my right hon. Friend and the House that instructions have been sent to our Consuls at the various Channel ports to watch the departure of the steamers, and to report at once, both to the Home Government and to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, every case that may recur of foreigners being placed on board these steamers under the superintendence of the French police authorities.
MR. DODSON: When the answer is received from Lord Lyons will the noble Lord communicate it to the House?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I will communicate privately with my right hon. Friend when the answer is received, and will then inform him whether I can make it public or not.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question springing out of that which has just been answered by the noble Lord. It will be in the recollection of the House, that during the course of the present Session many questions have been asked respecting the influx of Communists into this country. We understand that the Government have instructed Lord Lyons to use his best exertions to prevent this influx. No doubt, the Communists are a very criminal class; but in many cases they are misguided, and the victims of circumstances. The Question I have to put refers to an equally dangerous and obnoxious class. I refer to the Order of the Jesuits. My Question has reference to recent acts of spiritual power exercised in Ireland. ["Order."]
MR. MAGUIRE: I rise to Order. Is the right hon. Baronet in Order in indulging in these remarks?
MR. SPEAKER: I trust that the right hon. Baronet will not transgress the Rules of Order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask, Whether any and what steps have been taken, in compliance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, to prevent the influx of Jesuits into this country, which dangerous Order, as well as monks, have been banished by the Parliament of

1623
Germany, by a large majority for "plotting," in the language of Prince Bismarck and the Parliament of Germany, under the direction of Rome, against the safety of the German State, and attempting to impair and imperil the civil rights and status of the subjects of that Realm. I wish to know, Whether, if the Government is not taking any steps in the matter, they will be prepared to introduce a short Act to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1829, so as to enable that class of Jesuits and monks to exercise freely their principles in this country?
MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend must be conscious that he has put to me at a moment's Notice a Question of a very arduous and serious character—not at all one, I think, to be received except with great gravity; and I should wish, whenever it is mentioned, to treat it myself in the same manner. He can hardly expect me to announce the results of any recent deliberations on the subject. It is quite true that in Germany affairs have tended to bring to a crisis the question of the presence of the Order of Jesuits in that country: but there have been no affairs of that kind in England which have tended to impress upon the question at the present moment any character other than that which it ordinarily bears. We must consider, therefore, what that character is. It is perfectly true there are provisions of the law which are directed against certain Orders of the Roman Church. But, as my right hon. Friend is perfectly aware, that is the law of 1829, and now 43 years old; and at no period since it was enacted, to my knowledge, has any step whatever been taken to give effect to that particular provision of that law. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Oh, yes!] I speak subject to correction; but I am not aware of any steps that have been taken at any period to enforce that provision of the Act. Under these circumstances, without denying the right of the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member to raise any question upon the provisions of that law, and to challenge the Government to consider whether they will act upon that law or repeal it—which is a very fair question to raise—I am not prepared to place myself on either horn of the dilemma without further consideration. I think that that which has endured for 43 years without occasioning any fatal mis-
1624
chief to the country, may, so far as I am concerned, endure a little longer. In saying that, my right hon. Friend must not suppose that I think lightly of the the matter; because I admit that the question is one of a very grave and serious order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to say, in explanation of the Question——
MR. O'REILLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in saying anything in explanation of his Question after it has been answered?
MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman has any Question to ask the Prime Minister arising out of his answer, he will be in Order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: The reason I put the Question is this—I read the other day in The Times newspaper——
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in entering into a discussion.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I wish to give a Notice. I introduced a Bill this Session with respect to Monastic and Conventual Institutions, which would promote an inquiry into the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Question—that is, the influx of Jesuits and monks into this country. There seems, however, to be little chance of the Bill passing this Session. I beg to give Notice, therefore, that it is my intention, in that event, to introduce a Bill for a similar purpose early next Session; and I hope that the Government will give me fair opportunities for proceeding with it.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I also give Notice, that early next Session I shall call the attention of the House and of the country to the state of the law respecting those classes of persons.

PARLIAMENT—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the hon. Member for Walsall, Whether he intends to take any further steps with reference to the Petition presented to the House from Manchester against certain provisions in the Government Licensing Bill?
  MR. C. FORSTER: My hon. Friend must excuse me for not giving an answer to the Question until after the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on Thursday. If he will put the

  1625
  Question on that day I shall be able to give him an answer.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORDONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Lords' Amendments on the Education (Scotland) Bill, appointed to be considered upon Thursday next, will be placed upon the Paper as the first Order of the Day; and, if not, after what hour these Amendments will not be taken into consideration upon Thursday; and, whether the Amendments will, in that case, be considered on the morning sitting of Friday?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it would not be in the power of the Government to proceed with the Lords' Amendments on Thursday as the first Business, because they had engaged to give the House an opportunity of raising a discussion on another subject on that day. He was not aware, however, of any impediment of placing the Bill as the first Order of the Day, but these Amendments would not be taken after 12 o'clock; but any time before that he hoped the House would be prepared to consider them.

  IRELAND—CASE OF WILLIAM JAMES GRAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CLUREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he would state to the House under what circumstances a remission of the sentence passed by the Recorder of Belfast upon William James Gray for an assault on Dr. Dill was granted when he had been only three months confined?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that a short time ago a memorial was received by the Lord Lieutenant, numerously signed from Befast, by respectable inhabitants of the town, praying for a remission of the sentence passed by the Recorder on William James Gray. The Lord Lieutenant, according to the usual practice, referred the memorial to the Recorder. The Recorder in his reply recapitulated the circumstances of the case, and said that though he remained of opinion that it was a grave and serious case of assult, yet he was of opinion that it had been committed under the influence of drink, and that it was not premeditated. He added that considering the previous
  1626
  character of the young man, and also the fact that he had been in prison for six weeks previous to his trial, he was of opinion that it would be expedient to remit the remainder of his sentence. The young man had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, three of which had expired, and he therefore recommended that the remainder of the sentence should be remitted, which recommendation was acted upon. The prisoner was released on entering into substantial security for his good behaviour for 12 months.

  IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REPORTED PERSONS.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): Sir, in pursuance of the understanding given by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, that the Attorney General should state the course intended to be taken with reference to the persons reported guilty of undue influence and intimidation at the Galway county election by Mr. Justice Keogh, I now rise to state the course which we intend to adopt on that subject. I may, perhaps, be allowed, before I go into any details, to state some preliminary matters which the House had better understand, in order that they may more thoroughly comprehend the explanation of the action that I am about, on the part of the Government, to take. The House is aware that a Petition was presented by Captain the Hon. William le Poer Trench against the return of Captain John Philip Nolan for the county of Galway. That Petition was heard during several days during this year, and Captain John Philip Nolan was unseated, the learned Judge reserving the question for the consideration of the Court of Common Pleas whether the learned Judge was warranted in giving the seat to Captain Trench. That question was decided in the affirmative, and the learned Judge issued his Certificate to that effect, which was accompanied by the Report and Evidence now in the hands of the House. In that Report, at page 3, in the first part of the Evidence, I find this statement—
  "I further certify that the persons whose names I have set forth in the Schedule number "One" to this Certificate annexed, were guilty, at and

  1627
  previous to said Election, of undue influence within the meaning of the provisions of said Act."
  In referring to Schedule No. 1 we find 36 persons reported guilty of undue influence and intimidation. These include the Member who was unseated, Captain John Philip Nolan; his brother, Sebastian Nolan, Esq.; the Most Rev. John MacHale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam; the Most Rev. Patrick Duggan, Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert; the Most Rev. John McEvilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway; the Rev. Patrick Loftus, the Rev. Bartholomew Quin, the Rev. James Staunton, and a number of other clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, making in all 36 persons. The learned Judge goes on to state in his Report—
  "And I do further report to Mr. Speaker that the Roman Catholic clergymen whose names have been set forth in Schedule number "Two" to this Certificate annexed, being the persons of the same name included in Schedule "One," by threats and denunciations of temporal injury, and spiritual punishment, uttered during or immediately after Divine Service, and from the altars of their respective places of worship, and otherwise, as detailed in the evidence, intimidated and unduly influenced great numbers of the Roman Catholic electors of such County to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting against him. And further, it was proved that numbers of such electors who had promised to vote for the said William le Poer Trench afterwards had been compelled to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting for said William le Poer Trench, and had avowed they were so compelled by said intimidation and undue influence."
  On turning to Schedule No. 2, I find it contains the names of 22 clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, all of whose names are included in Schedule No. 1, so that there are 36 persons reported against altogether. All the names in the second Schedule are the names of Roman Catholic clergymen, and there is no Bishop included among them. Then I find that the learned Judge goes on to say—
  "And I further report that, although I have found and reported that the Most Reverend John MacHale, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and the Most Reverend John McEvilly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, were guilty of undue influence, it was not proved that the said Most Reverend John MacHale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, or that the said Most Reverend John McEvilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, sanctioned or had taken part in such denunciations as before-mentioned. And the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway proved that any such denunciations in a Roman Catholic chapel, and more especially if made
  1628
  against any person by name, are in direct violation of the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church in force in Ireland, as enjoined by certain Synodical decrees furnished to the Court, and which are placed upon the Notes of Evidence."
  The learned Judge further states—
  "And I have further to report that the Reverend Patrick J. O'Brien, parish priest in the archdiocese of Tuam, who was the proposer of the said John Philip Nolan at said Election, publicly announced on the morning of the polling, at the polling-place in Tuam, to a gentleman of the Protestant persuasion, who had there voted for the said William le Poer Trench, that 'there would not be a hair of his head disturbed'—that nothing would be done to him—'that they were all renegade Roman Catholics, who would be excoriated.'"
  That is all I think it necessary to state at the present time with reference to the Report. Now, Sir, under these circumstances, this Report having been presented to the House and the Evidence, and these having been printed, it was my duty, as Attorney General for Ireland, quite irrespective of any authority or action of the House, to consider what I should do in the premises. I have looked—I need hardly say with the greatest care—into all the evidence; I have read it with the closest attention and the greatest accuracy, and I trust that no Member of this House will think there has been any unnecessary delay in bringing forward my course of action. As a Member of this House, of course I have to attend to my duties in that capacity. As Attorney General for Ireland—as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Dr. Ball) knows, perhaps better than most others—I had to supervise all the prosecutions at the pending Assizes, and I had besides to read and carefully consider all this evidence. Not one moment was lost; but time was taken which, perhaps, might more judiciously have been spent in other ways. I found, Sir, that the statute which imposed a duty upon me in connection with this case was the 26 and 27 of the Queen, c. 29, s. 9. That section, taken in conjunction with the 16th section of the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, which substituted the Report of a Judge for that of a Committee of this House, imposed the duty upon me of considering this matter, and I will read to the House the words imposing that duty—
  "Such Report and the Evidence shall be laid before the Attorney General, with a view to his instituting a prosecution against such persons, if the evidence should, in his opinion, be sufficient to support such a prosecution."

  1629
  Now, the duty, it is plain, is imposed on me irrespective of any Order of this House. No Order has been passed by this House to prosecute any Member for corrupt practices since June, 1863, when, on the Motion of the then hon. Member for Knaresborough, who is now Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), a prosecution was ordered by the House of Mr. Barbour, who was the Member for Lisburn; but the then Attorney General for Ireland, who is now Lord Chancellor, stated that the Report had been laid on the Table before the Act had received the Royal Assent, and therefore he did not think it necessary or right to introduce any change in the practice of the House. Since then this Act has passed, and the duty is cast on the Attorney General, in his official capacity, to consider whether the prosecution should be instituted or not. From the earliest moment I had the evidence before me—and it being my business to ascertain the position I occupied with respect to this matter, and considering the case was one of such gravity and importance, involving so much not only to the persons concerned, but to the well-being not alone of Ireland, but of the whole Empire—I thought myself justified in obtaining every assistance I could in arriving at a sound and legitimate conclusion upon this matter. I have had the assistance of my learned Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland, who came over here for the purpose; but I have also had the opportunity of conferring with my hon. and learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General for England, and what I have now to state as the result of such consultations I am authorized to say is the result of our common opinion. I do not, Sir, put that forward for the purpose of freeing myself from responsibility. I take the responsibility upon my own shoulders to the fullest extent. I share that responsibility with no person; but I think I was entitled to ask for that assistance, more especially as on some of the matters before me I arrived at a different conclusion from that of the learned Judge who tried the case, and out of respect to him, as well as from an earnest desire to arrive at a right conclusion, I availed myself of that assistance, which was freely given. But the responsibility is mine, and mine alone. I will now, Sir, state the conclusion at which I have
  1630
  arrived. I have arrived at the conclusion that—in the words of this section—"the evidence be laid before me and considered by me," that there is evidence, in my opinion, sufficient to support a prosecution of a number of persons who are referred to in these Schedules. I will state the names of these persons. There are 36 names in all mentioned in the Schedules. The names are common to both Schedules. The Rev. Peter Conway, whose name appears in both Schedules, is since dead, so that only 35 remain—namely, 35 in the first Schedule, and 21 in the second Schedule. I have arrived at the conclusion that there are grounds for prosecuting 24 of these persons; that there are grounds for prosecuting the Most Rev. Patrick Duggan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, for undue influence; that there are grounds for prosecuting Captain John Philip Nolan, and Sebastian Nolan, Esq., his brother; and that there are grounds for proscuting 19 Roman Catholic clergymen, whose names are contained in Schedule No. 2, being all the clergymen mentioned in that Schedule except three—one being the Rev. Peter Conway, deceased; another being the Rev. Timothy Keevil; and the third being the Rev. Francis Kenny. The following are those against whom prosecutions are to be instituted:—The Bishop of Clonfert, Captain P. Nolan, Mr. S. Nolan, the Rev. Patrick Loftus, the Rev. Bartholomew Quin, the Rev. James Staunton, the Rev. Thomas Considine, the Rev. John O'Grady, the Rev. Jerome Fahy, the Rev. James Furlong, the Rev. Patrick Cannon, the Rev. Coleman Galvin, the Rev. Michael Byrne, the Rev. Eugene White, the Rev. Thomas Walsh, the Rev. James Madden, the Rev. William Manning, the Rev. Malachi Greene, the Rev. Patrick Coen, the Rev. Francis Forde, the Rev. William McGauran or McGovern, the Rev. John McKeague or McKeirgue, the Rev. John Kemmy, and the Rev. P. J. O'Brien. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for subjecting the Rev. Timothy Keevil or the Rev. Francis Kenny to a trial before a jury. The House must know that very different considerations influence a case when presented before a jury on a criminal prosecution to those which influence the mind of a Judge in trying an Election Petition. The prosecutions in this case must be instituted under the

  1631
  section of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854, which declares that if any person, directly or indirectly, by himself or through any other person acting on his behalf, is guilty of a misdemeanour, he shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by the law. There is a section in the same Act, providing, in the same terms, that a Member shall be unseated if, through himself or his agent, he is found guilty of corrupt practices; but to unseat a Member is one thing, and to convict him of a misdemeanour is another. In the case of "Cooper and Slade," which came before the House of Lords, a different construction was put upon the Act—that the agent was a special agent, and that there must be some knowledge in the mind of the person employing him that he was about to be guilty of corrupt practices; or otherwise it would be a fearful thing that a man, by the doctrine of constructive agency, should be held to commit a misdemeanour. Now, having regard to these circumstances, and to the fact that it was not proved before the learned Judge that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway had sanctioned or taken part in the denunciations which had taken place, I am not able to satisfy myself that there are sufficient grounds for putting those Prelates on their trial. The conclusion I have therefore come to is—that 24 of the persons mentioned in these Schedules must be put on their trial: 19 out of Schedule No. 2, and 5 out of Schedule No. 1—namely, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, Captain Nolan, Mr. Sebastian Nolan, the Rev. John Kemmy, and the Rev. Patrick J. O'Brien. I need not state that in the discharge of this duty I have felt it to be a most painful act to arrive at this conclusion, and I do not think that any well-judging or right-thinking man would differ from me in that respect. It is the most painful duty I was ever called upon to discharge, and I trust that I may never again be called upon to discharge one so painful. Nevertheless, it was my duty, and I could not shrink from it. The satisfaction I have is this—that what I have done is approved by my own conscience in the discharge of the solemn duty of the high office which I hold, and, looking solely to the discharge of that duty, I have nothing to apologize for, and nothing to regret.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Mr. Speaker, with a view to put myself in Order, I intend to conclude with a Motion. I do not wish to enter in the least degree into any controversy on this subject; but I desire to take this, the first opportunity which has presented itself to me, to state that I have the honour to number amongst my constituents that right rev. Prelate who is about to be prosecuted by the Attorney General for Ireland. I have also the honour of numbering amongst my constituents a number of the priests whose names are contained in the Schedules which have been referred to. But, Sir, amongst the names which have been inserted by the learned Judge in these Schedules are the names of two other Bishops in the county of Galway—the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishop of Galway. These three Bishops—the Bishop of Clonfert, and the other two whose names I have mentioned—have all petitioned this House that justice might be done them. The only mode in which justice can be done to them, is by submitting their cases to the decision of a Judge and a jury. They have petitioned this House to be tried by their Peers, and by the verdict which may be given they will stand or fall. But I protest, with all the energy of which I am capable, against the injustice of selecting one of those three Bishops, when the learned Judge himself draws no distinction between them as regards their guilt in having exercised undue influence, and as being properly subject, as he states, to severe and personal and degrading penalties under the Act of Parliament. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN: I do not wish to enter into any discussion upon this subject at the present moment. The Attorney General for Ireland has stated the case with great fairness; but I want to know whether, in consequence of that statement, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any other course on Thursday next than that of allowing the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), which stands first on the Paper, and on which there are two Amendments—to be proceeded with? I beg to ask my right

  1633
  hon. Friend whether he intends to leave the matter as it now stands, or whether the Government will take any other steps in the matter than they have already announced?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answering the Question of my right hon. Friend opposite I would venture to express a hope that, although the adjournment of the House has been moved, it will not be supposed that this is a fitting occasion for a general discussion of the question. I trust the House has at once comprehended the purpose with which the very clear, and, I think, dispassionate, statement of my right hon. and learned Friend was made. It was stated by him to be only just to the House, which has been invited by Notices of Motion to a discussion of the general question of the Galway Election, that the House should be placed some time before that discussion came on, and at the earliest possible moment compatible with the discharge of his arduous duties, in complete possession of the view that he took as to the important and arduous duty imposed on him by the Act of Parliament. It was for that purpose, and to place the House in possession of certain information material for the cognizance of this House, that this statement was made. Then my right hon. Friend opposite naturally asked me whether, in conjunction with the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps which they have not as yet announced to the House? My answer to my right hon. Friend will be that Her Majesty's Government have before them with perfect clearness the course which it will be their duty to pursue; but they have to recollect that there are other parties in this case, and especially there are hon. Gentlemen who have given Notice of Motions, and the Government, wish to place these Gentlemen particularly in possession of the intentions of the Attorney General for Ireland. But the only question as to which the Government wish to be informed is, what course those Gentlemen severally intended to pursue. If we understand—and I do not ask for an answer at this moment, because they may wish for a few hours to meditate upon the statement which has just been made—if we understand that they intend to persevere in the precise course that they have
  1634
  marked out for themselves, we shall immediately announce the course which we intend to take. But I think it is better that we should wait and give them the course of the day to consider what has been stated, and if they see cause to alter the Notices they have given, or to take the course they have announced, it will be our duty to take the circumstances into consideration. There will be no delay on our part, and the moment we know what is intended to be done by those Gentlemen—whether the Motions are to be altered or not—we will at once state the course we shall pursue.
  MR. BUTT: As far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to go on with the Motion which stands in my name. I think the time has come when the House should have a distinct answer as to whether I shall be permitted to bring on that Motion on Thursday or not? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes.] I thought there was some reservation. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] There is another matter that in some respects affects the privileges of the House. I understood the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the provision which existed in the old Corrupt Practices Act, by which the evidence was to be laid before him for his sole determination, was contained in the Election Petitions Act. I am not prepared to acquiesce in that view. So far as I can judge of the Election Petitions Act, I am disposed to think that provision does not apply to the Report of a Judge that these parties are guilty of under influence under that Act. I do not give that as a definite opinion; but I think it ought to be looked into before any final determination is arrived at: because, if the 9th section of the Corrupt Practices Act does not apply to the Report of a Judge under the Election Petitions Act, then I apprehend that, according to invariable practice, the Attorney General ought not to originate a prosecution unless ordered to do so by this House. I am by no means prepared to say that I acquiesce in the interpretation that has been put upon the Election Petitions Act, and I reserve to myself any course of action which I may think proper to take hereafter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): What I stated was, that, according to my opinion, the 9th section of 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29, coupled

  1635
  with the 16th section of 31 & 32 of the Queen, c. 125, imposes upon me the duty which I have undertaken to discharge. I can only form an opinion for myself. I may, however, state that my learned Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland is of the same opinion, and that the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England agree in that opinion. The four Law Officers of the two countries are, therefore, all of one mind, and I intend to act upon that united opinion.
  DR. BALL: The Attorney Generals have conducted several prosecutions in the North of England for bribery, without any orders from the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I may mention that when I was Solicitor General under the late Attorney General, Sir Robert Collier, all our prosecutions of this description were instituted when the House was not sitting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may perhaps be allowed to explain what I thought I had made clear before—that is, that we do not intend to interfere with respect to the order of Motions on Thursday, but simply to open a day for the discussion of the Galway Election, either on an original Motion ourselves, or else not to interfere with the constituted Orders of the House. We shall, therefore, propose, I apprehend, in the ordinary course, that the Orders of the Day on Thursday should be postponed until after the Notices of Motion relating to the Galway Election have been disposed of. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick is prepared to go on with his Motion. [Mr. BUTT: Hear, hear!] If so, we shall certainly not interfere, or attempt to deprive him of his right to priority
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MILITARY FORCES LOCALISATION (EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 222.]
  (Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Storks, Mr. Campbell.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HOLMS MR. HOLMS moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said he had from the first opposed
  1636
  the scheme, because he believed it to be based on an unsound principle, and entirely opposed to the principles which the Government urged upon the House in 1870 and 1871, but which they had now deliberately abandoned. He did not blame the Government for having so long delayed the introduction of the Bill, although he had from time to time, along with other hon. Members, endeavoured to obtain from Government an earlier period for its introduction and discussion. It appeared to him that the House should consider well before it put the country to the vast expenditure of £3,500,000. The scheme of the Government was preceded by a Memorandum drawn up by a Committee appointed to consider the organization of the military forces of the country. That Memorandum was dated on the 22nd of February last, from which time the question remained dormant until the 15th of July, when the present Bill came on for a second reading, although only a week previously a supplementary Report from the same Committee had been circulated among hon. Members. The supplementary Report showed very clearly that the Committee had not yet made up its mind as to what the scheme ought to be in its entirety. He thought the House was greatly indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) for drawing the attention of the House the other night to the importance and magnitude of this question; and, for his own part, having the strongest conviction that this was not a measure adapted to this country, he rejoiced to see that the Members of the House had at last risen to a full conception of the vastness and importance of the subject. He had always said—and would say again—that the more this measure was understood by the country and the House, the less it would be liked. Nor had he been without witnesses continually coming forward to show that that was the case; and one of the last and most important was the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), who had at first accepted the scheme, but who did not now believe that it stood so well with the country as it had done at first. He had asserted what he would now venture to repeat, that a large number, if not the majority of the military men in this country were dissatisfied with the scheme

  1637
  of the Government. ["No, no!"] He repeated that he had evidence in his possession to show that was the fact. ["No, no!"] Among the numerous letters which he had received on the subject was one from Major General Sir John Lintorn A. Symonds, dated the 10th of July, and he expressed apprehensions that the new depôt centres about to be established at a cost of £3,500,000 would have a serious and damaging effect in postponing the real reform of the Army, which he believed could only be brought about by placing trained soldiers in the Reserve. The question, he said, hung altogether on the time that was necessary to make a soldier, and he asserted that 99 out of 100 officers were of opinion that three months' annual training of the Militia would not answer the purpose. The same officer expressed his conviction that the depôt centres would prove a failure, and that the system would lead to idleness and inefficiency among the officers and non-commissioned officers. For his own part, he believed that if the tongues of the officers of the British Army were let loose for one day, or if they were asked to vote by Ballot as to whether they were for or against the scheme of the Government, they would decidedly declare against it. Such an expression of opinion coming from an officer of such high standing was in itself a reason, among many other reasons, why the House ought to pause before agreeing to this Bill. But there was another strong reason for delay, and that was because the Committee was not up to that moment ready to declare that this was the right measure. The supplementary Report, which was presented at a most fortunate moment, made it perfectly clear that certain counties wherein depôt centres were not to be established did not wish their men to go to the centres which it was intended to establish in other counties. Therefore, the Committee proposed to leave the Militia battalions at their existing headquarters, at least in the first instance. They stated in their first Report that they desired to buy the Militia headquarters, stores, and barracks; but now they said they would not purchase them, in the first instance, at all events. Then, as regards Ireland, it was stated that complaints had been received from certain places in that country to the effect that barracks existing there were not
  1638
  occupied by the regular troops; and it was expected that one result of taking a number of barracks on creating depôt centres for the accommodation of the Militia battalions would be to cause the Government to station regular troops at those places where barracks existed. There was a further reason why the House should ask for a short delay. In counties where it was not proposed to introduce depôt centres, the Militia authorities and the county interest generally were in favour of such depôts; whereas most of the large towns objected to depôt centres being established among them. ["No!"] He adhered to the statement he had just made. For these reasons, the House would, in his judgment, do well if they left the measure unpassed in the present Session. The Organization Committee had, no doubt, considered this question for four or five months; but they had not yet decided what was the best scheme. If the present measure were not passed, they would have seven months longer to complete the scheme; and if it were a wise and a sound one it would live and be strong in February next, when it would pass without difficulty. On the contrary, if it were weak and a sham, as he believed it was, it would die as quiet and as natural a death as its best friends could wish. In reference to the first Report of the Committee, two points struck him forcibly. One was, that although £3,500,000 might be the maximum cost in relation to the 66 depôt centres, it would not be the entire cost in relation to the scheme, because the counties where it was not proposed to locate depôt centres would ask to have them established there. Besides, every depôt centre would become a spending centre, adding every year to our enormous Army Estimates. It would be found by-and-by that this measure was intended to do little beyond extending the Militia, and establishing certain recruiting depôts. The Committee in their supplementary Report spoke of this as a system devised expressly for the benefit of the Militia; but if the Militia was the force on which the Government intended to rely, the House should have been told so before voting the money for the abolition of purchase. The Government in this Bill completely abandoned the principles which they had laid down in 1870 and 1871. On the second reading of the Army Enlist-

  1639
  ment Bill, the Secretary of State for War expressed his own concurrence with the opinion that "the system of short service lay at the root of Army reform," and defeated by a majority of 66 an Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) to extend the period of three years' service to five. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, speaking upon the Army Estimates last year, and referring to the scheme of the Secretary of State for War, said—
  "The mind and judgment of the country is set upon carrying forward with rapidity of execution the plan which has been formed for the efficient introduction of the system of short service …. and for the formation of those Army Reserves which we must hereafter look to."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 489.]
  He had supported the Government loyally through the whole of the abolition of purchase controversy, believing that the officers of the Army would be really professional in the future, more thoroughly under the control of the War Office, and therefore men who would more quickly bring up the Army and its Reserves to a proper standard of efficiency in drill and discipline. If he for a moment had thought that by taking this course he was encouraging and intensifying the Militia force, he should have voted against the Government obtaining one penny for the abolition of purchase. And what had been the "rapidity of execution" with which the formation of an Army Reserve had been pushed on? According to the Army Estimates now on the Table the Reserve Force number one—the only one on which they could rely—only showed 1,000 of an increase
  MR. CARDWELLwas sure the hon. Member wished to be accurate; but he did not know what he could mean by saying that the increase in the Army Reserve only numbered 1,000 men.
  MR. HOLMSrepeated his statement. Last year the Estimates made provision for 9,000 men of the Army Reserve; this year the number stood at 10,000, showing that this "rapidity of execution" of which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had laid such stress consisted in adding in 12 months 1,000 men to the Army Reserve. He believed he was right in stating that on the question of short service the Army practically stood very
  1640
  much where it did 25 years ago. There were many Members present better acquainted with the facts than himself. [Mr. CARDWELL: Hear, hear!] He had said that the term of enlistment now was really the same as 20 years ago—for an army must consist of a fair proportion of the various branches of the service, and enlistment in the Cavalry, Artillery, and Engineers was still, as heretofore, for a period of 12 years. He did not think the Secretary of State for War would contradict that statement. Accordingly, the Government, even yet, were hardly upon the road to a short-service system, though the country were asked by this Bill to expend £3,500,000. He could not go as far as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), who desired to have no Army at all; but he was sincerely desirous of doing anything he could to diminish the evils attending a celibate Army. By a Report dated the 13th of July, 1871—the latest which he could find—it appeared that out of 180,000 men in the Army, 57,000 were over 30 years of age, 20,000 were over 35, and a considerable number over 40. He looked upon the formation of an Army Reserve as the opening of a door by which these men might be allowed to go back to their own homes and to the ordinary occupations of life. Was there any Gentleman in the House who could tell, after all the discussions which had taken place, what the constitution of the Army would be in three or four years? The position of things at the present time could scarcely be considered sound, because it was clear that Englishmen were in a better position to predict the probable state of the armies of Europe in any given number of years than they were to foretell the probable condition of their own armaments. Was there anyone who would show where the economy was to come from? It cast a stigma and discredit upon England as a nation of business men, able in their private concerns to conduct enormous undertakings with profit, that she should at the present moment, in time of peace, be expending upon her Army a sum of money so frightful as that which appeared upon the Estimates. So far from economy being likely to result from the scheme now under consideration, he believed that if it were adopted they would in a very few years see the

  1641
  largest Estimates ever known in England in time of peace. If the scheme had been proposed by the party now sitting in opposition it would have been so pulled to pieces in that House that there would have been no chance of its adoption by Parliament. Even if they were then on the right road, many years must elapse before a sound system of Army administration could grow up, because much required to be done in the way of decentralization, and the scheme proposed was not a step in that direction. He could not admit that the establishment of depôt centres, such as were contemplated by the Bill, would tend to increase the efficiency of the Reserve Forces. That could only be done by increasing the area of the centres, and planting them in districts where the men composing the Reserves could, when not in actual training, easily obtain employment suited to them. There were already in existence over 100 barracks, conveniently seated in different parts of the country, and he would suggest that they should be used in order to ascertain the practicability of some such plan as he had shadowed forth. It was proposed to establish recruiting depôts—recruiting traps he would prefer to call them—in different parts of the country; but he did not think they would be of any use as long as the present mode of treating soldiers remained in existence. Let the men be better treated and have greater inducements offered to them to join, and then it would not be necessary to do more than to advertise in the newspapers in order to obtain as many recruits as were required. He wished to see England strong in her peace; but no nation would, in his opinion, be likely to regard her as occupying a sound position for defence if they judged her by the present scheme of reorganization. The present Administration had done much good work of late years; but if they persisted in a scheme such as was now under consideration—increasing the Militia and neglecting the Reserve of trained soldiers—they would inevitably impair the defensive service of the country, and inflict injury, if not disaster, upon the Liberal party. What had occurred in the Navy ought to be a warning to them in dealing with the Army. They had thought that all was right at the Admiralty; but it turned out that much was wrong. A ship was lost, inquiry was made, and
  1642
  then the system was exposed. If it were found that our Army system was equally unsound, we might have to lament more than the loss of a ship. He complained that the House had not had an oppornity for the full discussion of this question. Great responsibility would attach to them if they adopted a plan of that kind without a free and full discussion. If this measure should pass it would retard our attainment of a sound military system. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Holms.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was desirous to add a few words to what had been said by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, because the House now approached the subject-matter of the Bill under circumstances totally different from those which existed when the Bill was last before them. He agreed with the hon. Member in regretting that the Government had left this important discussion till so very late a period of the Session. It was to be lamented that a matter of such great importance, which had been opened to them in February, should have remained so long without attention. Now, the hon. Member had said that he would divide against the second reading, and, therefore, hon. Members must make up their minds as to whether they would support Her Majesty's Government. He (Sir John Pakington) did not feel it his special duty to support the Government; but it was his duty to give an honest vote, and he could not make up his mind that it was his duty to say "No" to the second reading of the Bill. The change proposed was of great magnitude, and the Government had brought it forward on their own responsibility, and the House had before them the anxious question whether they would be justified in attempting to stop the Government in proceeding with a measure which they thought calculated to give stability and efficiency to our military forces to a degree which they never before possessed. He regretted the change of

  1643
  policy on the part of the Government, which had centred 70 battalions in this country where they were not immediately required; and, although that was not the question now, the battalions being here, we had to adopt such arrangements as would make them most efficient, and such as would, above all, aid the Government in carrying out that portion of their plan, in which he, for one, most cordially concurred, which was designed to bring together in harmonious action the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces of the country. This was one of the main objects of the Government, and to that he subscribed as cordially as any Member of the Government. He always thought the Government were right in bringing the Militia more directly under the Crown, and, differing in this respect from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), he would give greater efficiency and discipline to the Militia, in the hope that it would long continue to be the main Reserve of the Army of England. The hon. Member for Hackney, who had evidently devoted great attention to that subject, seemed to wish to do away with the Militia altogether.
  MR. HOLMS: By degrees.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: That is only a question of time.
  MR. HOLMSsaid, though he was decidedly against the maintenance of a Militia force trained for 28 days, or even for three months, he should not object to a Reserve Force which might pass into another force, which might be called the Militia if Parliament liked. That force would then consist of men who had been three years with the colours, and four with the First Reserve.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was clear that on that point no two men could be more widely separated in opinion than the hon. Member and himself. He looked to the Militia as their main Reserve, though he thought the Government were right in trying to form another Reserve. Still, he believed that for all military purposes in this country we must look to the old constitutional Militia as our main Reserve. He should give his vote with reference to the general objects proposed by Her Majesty's Government. In the difficulty in which they were involved by having so large a force as 70 battalions in this country, some plan must be adopted for the disposition, training, and discipline of that
  1644
  large force. He was not prepared to say that this was the best plan that human ingenuity could devise, but it was the plan before them; it was a practicable plan, involving certain obvious advantages, both directly and in connection with the Militia, and therefore he should not feel justified in opposing the Bill. He thought explanations were needed, especially as to the financial arrangements proposed, and he hoped to hear more on that subject, as well as with reference to the barrack accommodation to be provided, from the Secretary for War. He wished to know what was to be done in a county where there was not now any military establishment?
  MR. CARDWELLremarked that in such a case barracks would be built for the depôt companies.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONalso wished to hear something more about the disposition of the second battalions, especially during the winter months, and he should like to hear some explanations with respect to the camps at Shorncliffe and at Colchester.
  MR. GLADSTONE, who rose with several hon. Members, said, he was very desirous not to usurp any portion of the duty of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who would in due time answer the perfectly legitimate inquiries which had just been made, but to call the attention of the House to its general position with reference to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) might observe that he (Mr. Gladstone) smiled when reference was made to the late period of the Session when this important subject was brought forward, and the reason why he smiled was that he had heard the same remark made with reference to almost every important measure which the House had recently been called upon to discuss. The exigencies of the public interests rendered it impossible, consistently with the limits of human time and strength, to bring all important questions under the consideration of the House with due regard to those conditions of time and convenience which it would be most desirable, if we could, to observe. There was, however, less difficulty in approaching the Bill now than there had been with regard to several other important measures; because, although the House had never yet given a direct vote on the general principle of

  1645
  the Bill, yet it had given other votes on which the general principle of the Bill was distinctly understood to be involved. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very properly observed that it would not be a legitimate use of the time of the House if they were now to discuss the policy according to which the present Government had acted. Though the right hon. Gentleman conscientiously objected to the concentration of a large portion of the military force at home, he had given his frank approval to the principle of the present Bill. He would, therefore, come to the speech of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Holms), and he asked himself what distinct idea the House could gather as to the grounds on which it was called upon by him to reject the Bill. He did not intend to say that the hon. Gentleman had not stated objections to the measure. Undoubtedly he had stated all manner of objections; he had stated objections of such a nature, and in such number, that his speech could only be fairly described as a general and hostile review of the military policy and military administration of the country. As regards the military administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, the House had not shown any desire to interfere with it or to pass a censure upon it. And as regards the military policy of the country, so far as represented in the principle of the Bill, the House had discussed it, considered it, and approved of it. His right hon. Friend in his statement in the month of February last had not kept back any of his intentions. As far as time permitted he went into unusual detail, and with no small clearness and perspicacity he laid before the House the intentions of the Government as regards a distinct local plan of military organization for the country. The House was aware of the plan, discussed the principal Vote of the Estimates for several nights, and after several nights' debate it was pleased to grant its approval of the general plan of the Government by a majority of 234 to 63. The hon. Gentleman had said that this Bill showed some retrocession from the policy adverted to by the Government in the early part of the year, and he had also supported the principle of having no Militia in this country. He had certainly explained in what sense he was willing to have a Militia; but his expla-
  1646
  nation made it obvious that his use of the word Militia reduced the question to one of terms, and terms alone, while in respect of substance he sought to abolish the Militia. Now, this Bill, as regarded concentration, and as regarded the maintenance of the Militia, proceeded on the idea that there was to be concentration of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, and of the Militia in particular. No wonder, then, that the hon. Gentleman, who was opposed to the Militia, was opposed to the Bill, and the Government had not the slightest title to complain of his having moved the rejection of the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman should have moved the rejection of the Bill on the express ground that he was opposed to the Militia, and challenged the judgment of the House on that express ground. That point he had not placed in the forefront of the battle. The hon. Member said that the large towns objected to having depôt centres; but when he made that statement he was met with immediate manifestations of dissent from official and non-official Members. [Mr. HOLMS explained that what he said was that large towns in many instances objected.] "Many" was a word which would be estimated differently, by different persons; but the statement would be totally inaccurate if it described a general rule. The concurrence in the scheme was general, and the objections were isolated and few. With reference to the other complaint that the right hon. Gentleman had not carried into effect all the plans he had sketched out, the hon. Gentleman had made allusion to morality in the standing Army, and lamented that the attention of Parliament had not been sufficiently given to the moral aspects of the question. But the Secretary of State for War was entitled to contend that the policy of localisation, on which this Bill was founded, along with the policy of short service, was a policy which among its other advantages, among its more direct military advantages, went to reduce to a minimum whatever evil there might be attended with the institution of a standing Army with regard to the temptations to immorality of those who belonged to it. The House ought to be reminded of another of the resources of this Bill. On 19th June, 1871, it had been contended by the noble Lord opposite, the Member for Middlesex (Lord

  1647
  George Hamilton), that the places for storing the arms of the Militia ought not to be provided by the Justices of the Peace at the expense of the counties; but it was contended by him and others that that was a charge which it was fair enough to maintain as a local charge so long as the Auxiliary Forces were not under the direct control of the Crown, and that the change about to be made in the military organization required that the charge should be transferred to the public. Well, the Government did not dispute the principle of the Motion; all they pleaded for was that time ought to be given to them, and they promised they would not lose time; but so strong was the conviction of the House in favour of the principle of the Motion, that Government only succeeded in getting rid of it by a very narrow majority. To give effect to that scheme was one of the purposes for which the Minister of War had introduced this Bill. The hon. Member for Hackney, with all his regard for morality, nevertheless refused to give to the Secretary for War the means for abolishing billetting, which every one else thought it desirable to get rid of. The hon. Gentleman, when speaking of the abolition of the Militia, said he would take time to bring it about. It would take a great deal of time. The objects which the Secretary of State for War had proposed were—first, the policy of short service; second, the policy of a system of large and efficient Reserves, with a view to render it necessary only to maintain a very moderate force in this country with the colours; and third, the policy of combination of the Regular with the Auxiliary Force. These three principles had been fully discussed, and accepted by a large majority of the House; some of them had met with the unanimous and enthusiastic approbation of the House, and to the giving effect of the whole of these three principles this Bill was directly addressed. Was it possible that any Member of the House could forget that the Bill was only a sequel and corollary of a series of measures which had already passed the House? It would be hardly fair, after the House had approved of the principle, to make this Bill a means of reopening the entire question of the military policy which had been brought forward by the Secretary of State for War. His hon. Friend's (Mr. Holms') ground plan was that it
  1648
  was quite impossible for them to know what would be the strength of the Army some years hence.
  MR. HOLMS: What the constitution of the Army would be.
  MR. GLADSTONEbegged pardon. That statement, if meant to correct him——
  MR. HOLMS: It was the composition and constitution of the Army to which I referred. I said that no man would be able to tell how it was to be composed; whether mainly by Militia, and how large the standing Army would be, and how large the Reserve would be. I said that no man could tell—and I think no man can.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if no man could tell, it was not from want of copiousness and clearness in the expositions of the policy of the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Gentleman had argued that it was easier to predict what would take place in a foreign country than in our own, and he considered that a matter of hardship. In some respects that was true; but it surely ought to be taken into account that there was a greater degree of freedom among the people and a greater degree of power in the Parliament of this country. It would be, indeed, strange if his right hon. Friend, who had to deal with the free will of the free men he brought into the Army, could predict with the same certainty as a man who could send forth an edict and call upon a man and make use of his services within the conditions of the law as he pleased. What his right hon. Friend had planned and propounded he had planned and propounded with deference to the freedom of the subject and the authority of Parliament. The measure proposed by the Secretary of State for War, although it differed from our former system in making arrangements for a regular, uniform, and systematic application of the resources of the country for military purposes, was yet perfectly elastic and perfectly free, in so far as it left it with the House of Commons in future years to adopt whatever propositions it might think fit with regard to the amount of force, and the composition of the force which might be required by the public interest. The Bill, so far as the principle was concerned—and he admitted that it opened legitimately various

  1649
  questions of detail—was addressed to the purpose of giving effect to the military policy heretofore announced by the Government. That military policy, in its main features and details, had already received the adhesion of the House. Under these circumstances, it was scarcely necessary at the close of the month of July to cripple the War Office, and intercept the active exercise of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and his coadjutors, by withholding from them at the last moment the means of giving effect to purposes which had already received the deliberate sanction of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had laid a good deal of stress upon this being the 23rd of July; but two years ago, on the 2nd of August, the Secretary of State for War came down to the House and proposed a change in his Estimates amounting to £2,000,000, and involving 20,000 additional men. Surely if such a change as that were proposed two years ago on the 2nd of August, they were now entitled to go closely into the policy of the Government on the 23rd of July. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had got over this Motion in a very nice way by leaving the responsibility of this Vote upon Government, and casting it off from his own shoulders. There were some, however, who could not do that, and who, representing the people who had sent them thither, must speak a word as to the dangerous course Government was entering upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had on a former occasion described his policy as intended to blend the Army into one harmonious whole. This Bill, however, would do anything but blend the Liberal party into one harmonious whole. [Sir HENRY HOARE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Minister had argued in favour of the Bill by saying that the House had already sanctioned the policy of Government. But both the Vote and the Bill appeared to be extraordinary when they considered the time when the Bill was brought forward, who it was that proposed it, and the arguments by which it was defended. During the last 10 years they had spent upwards of £260,000,000 upon the Army and Navy; and here was another grand scheme for organizing the whole
  1650
  thing afresh. There was no threatening aspect of affairs in Europe, and Her Majesty's Government had now adopted the glorious policy of arbitration which they had reason to believe would be successful; and, nevertheless, the War Minister came down and asked the House to consent to a larger force than had ever been maintained in a time of peace. Then as to the person who proposed this policy, they should remember that at the last General Election he raised the great cry of the "Abolition of the Irish Church." But the Government rode a second horse—"Retrenchment." They all remembered the eloquent and telling speeches made by the Prime Minister in Lancashire in favour of retrenchment, and the conduct of the Government in bringing forward this large expenditure after their declarations before the country had done very much to shake the confidence of the public out-of-doors in their declarations. One of the most distinguished of the Premier's late Colleagues (Mr. John Bright) had declared that a Ministry which could not govern this country for less than £70,000,000 a-year was not worth supporting. As to that policy, he had listened during the present Session to find out any reason for having such an exorbitant Army, and the only statement he had heard was that, in the face of the enormous military powers on the Continent, the force asked by the Government was not disproportionate or absurd. Who was it that Government wished to protect us from? There was no need for this large Army if Government did not mean to interfere with foreign complications—and as for panic-mongers, they were quite unappeasable. The people of the country towns were afraid of the invasion of vice and immorality to which this new scheme would expose them, and a Petition presented on the subject by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) stated that the young people who gathered there from all parts of the country should not be exposed to the temptations arising from the presence of such a class of the population. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War must not suppose that he had the support of the whole Liberal party in the policy which he now proposed. On a former occasion when his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) moved the reduction of the

  1651
  whole Vote for the Army by £10,000, only 97 Liberal Members could be got to vote for the Government proposals, and they were not supported by a single Member for one of the great towns, such as Liverpool, Glasgow, or Sheffield, unless it were by the minority Tory Member for Leeds. Under the circumstances, he felt that those with whom he was connected were bound to protest against this measure, and to fight the question out, even at the cost of delaying the business of the Session. If the House endorsed the policy of the Government, they must be prepared for a permanent charge of £15,000,000 per annum, and for keeping up a military force amounting to 500,000. That was a policy to which he, for one, was strongly opposed; and if it were carried into effect—as he had no doubt it would be—it would only be by the agreement of the Leaders on both sides of the House; both of whom, however, when out of office, were inclined to speak in condemnation of "bloated armaments." The Bill, if it passed, would pass by the aid of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as had been the case in so many other instances; but he had confidence that the time would come when public opinion would endorse the view which he sought to impress on the House, and which in season and out of season he would maintain, because he believed the policy of the Government was as dangerous as the expenditure was reckless.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would, as an independent Member, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) and the moral essay of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), vote for the second reading of the Bill. The latter hon. Gentleman had, he thought, hardly done justice to the Army and the Navy. He stated, on a former occasion, that their moral condition was simply appalling, and that a military station, wherever it was located, was a corrupting and demoralising influence. Now, against the justice of that statement he, for one, most strongly protested. The Army and Navy were, to say the least, no worse than their neighbours; and he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he had never heard of any appalling vice and immorality among the mining population of Wales? It was true that his right hon. Friend the
  1652
  Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had very eloquently declaimed against Oxford being made a depôt; and he was surprised when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that when the Oxford Militia were being trained in that city, the discipline of the University could hardly be preserved. Now, as a rule, that Militia had not been trained in Oxford of late years at all, and last year and the year before they had been trained at Aldershot, and it was the wish of the colonel that they should be so trained, he probably being as much alarmed at their being exposed to the example of the students as his right hon. Friend that the students should be exposed to theirs. He had yet to learn, he might add, that when the Militia were not trained at Oxford, the proctors or the Castle could be dispensed with. As to the hon. Member for Hackney, he would remind him, when he spoke of the necessity of drilling a soldier for only three years, that the opinion of such men as the Duke of Wellington and Sir John Burgoyne was that the old soldier was the bone and sinew of the Army. He was aware that Major General Sir J. Lintorn Symonds wrote to the newspapers a letter in reference to the Militia; but he (Colonel Gilpin) doubted whether the knowledge of the writer was more than superficial. Further, he did not know what latitude was given to general officers in reference to their corresponding with editors of newspapers; but he could say that if regimental officers on full pay had written such letters to a newspaper, they would not only have been guilty of great indiscretion, but would have acted in a manner that would have been altogether contrary to the rules of the service. He was, he might add, entirely opposed to the scheme of the Government on the ground of expense; for, notwithstanding what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about its coming out of the balances, it must fall on the taxpayer. He was opposed to the scheme, in the second place, because nothing could be done under it which could not have been equally well done under the old system, and because it gave dissatisfaction in the Army altogether without parallel. The scheme, however, had been sanctioned by a large majority, and under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty to vote—although he did

  1653
  so with reluctance—for the second reading of the Bill under discussion.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he did not know why it was he sat on the benches below the gangway. He entirely differed on subjects involving patriotic feeling from many hon. Members who sat immediately behind him; but he would remain where he was, thinking it desirable that those benches should be leavened by some solid patriotism. Three peaceful shepherds had already tuned their pipes behind him. The House had listened to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and rev. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). ["Order!"]
  MR. HADFIELDappealed to the Speaker to say whether such language was Parliamentary.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not a becoming expression, and the hon. Member would, no doubt, withdraw it.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he would do so at once, and at the same time apologize to the House for having used it, in consequence of a slip of the tongue. The House had also heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who would no doubt be followed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). Now, their reasons for voting against the second reading of the Bill amounted, when analyzed, to this—"We wish to see this country disarmed, because it was stated in the Speech from the Throne that we were on terms of amity with all European nations." Indeed, it had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that the only foe we had to fear was now prostrate. He, however, deplored the prostration of France, who was our nearest neighbour, our best friend, and our truest ally. Still, the circumstance of France being prostrate was no reason why England should not be in a position to withhold her assent to whatever the new military Power of the Continent might endeavour to dictate to her. Two years ago the Military Estimates were increased by 20,000 men and £2,000,000; but that increase was made in order to enable them to defend Belgium in the event of that country being attacked. But were they not as much bound now to defend Belgium against Germany as they were formerly to defend her against France? Again, were they to connive at the connivance of Prussia
  1654
  with the policy of Russia in the East? They should be armed because they ought to be in a position to resist aggression on their part. It had been stated that the ultimate result of the adoption of this scheme would be to double the Military Estimates, and to throw a vast burden on the finances of the nation. That, however, he denied. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had brought forward a scheme which would ultimately much diminish the military burdens of the country. If they could put their Reserve Forces into a state of real preparation and discipline, and if, in a few years' time, they could pass short-service men into their First-class Reserve, they might ultimately diminish largely the numbers of their standing Army. There were behind him many Gentlemen of the "Peace at any price" party, who would rather not have a standing Army; but he was sure the vast majority of Members of that House, and the great mass of the citizens of their great towns, would not like to see England rendered defenceless against any aggression or invasion. Some of the Gentlemen he had just referred to entertained so profound a horror of war that they would lead a hostile force into Woolwich or Plymouth rather than draw the sword in defence of the country. But he was sure the large constituencies of this country were quite willing to pay the price of its insurance, and the Gentlemen behind him would find themselves mistaken at a General Election if anything happened to affect the honour of this country, which the working classes, above all other classes, held dear, for they were as true patriots as any of the Gentlemen connected with the Army who sat on the other side of the House.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTagreed that the Army was by no means so moral as they could wish; but, at the same time, it should be remembered that the morality of large masses of the population could certainly not be held up as being superior to that which prevailed at our military establishments. There was this difference, however—that what took place in the latter localities was patent and open to view. The hon. Members (Mr. Holms and Sir Wilfrid Lawson) spoke of the position which they were now considering as being one which was likely to break up the Liberal

  1655
  party; but was the existence of the Liberal party to be preferred to the national defence? He did not believe that the two things were inconsistent; and he believed that the breaking up of the Liberal party would be a national misfortune, because the carrying on of Constitutional Government required the existence of two great parties. Shortly before the last General Election, in consequence of the pressure brought to bear on the Government by Members of Parliament, a stop was put to the extension of the system of regimental canteens, which were most beneficial for the improvement of the soldiers, not only because they retailed brewers' beer instead of public-house beer, but because they afforded to the men a well-ordered house, and thus prevented them from going into low company. The hon. Member for Carlisle's reference to the Premier's Lancashire speeches showed the simplicity of the Liberal party, who could not distinguish between speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman when in opposition and those delivered by him while he was a responsible Minister of the Crown. Lancashire was not, however, quite so credulous. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) no doubt brought great fairness and knowledge to bear upon this subject. He preferred a Regular Army Reserve to any Militia that ever existed. A foreign officer of European celebrity remarked to him (Sir Percy Herbert) last year at Aldershot—"Don't trust to your Militia." He replied—"That's all very well, but we have nothing else to trust to." The same answer might be given to the hon. Member for Hackney. No doubt, a Reserve such as the Prussian Army was able to bring into the field, composed, not of raw recruits and Militiamen trained only for a short period, but of men who had been three years in the ranks and who were from 24 to 27 years of age, constituted a very different body from anything we could turn out by means of our Militia. The Landwehr, too, were equally trained for the whole of their three years, and the oldest of these men were only 30 or 32 years of age. It was, indeed, a very discouraging thing to find that there were 57,000 men in our Army over 30 years old. The soldier who had a few years' experience of training and discipline, and had served through a couple of campaigns,
  1656
  was the most valuable old soldier that could be got. To carry out the objects which had been advocated so ably by the hon. Member for Hackney, it would be necessary to have a conscription; but as there was no prospect of this course being adopted by the Government, the only other alternative was a large increase of pay. Judging from the rapid rise of wages, an increase in the pay of the soldier was a question that must soon be faced. It was useless to compare the outlay on the British Army with that upon foreign armies, for in these the soldier was not paid a fair day's wages for a fair day's work, and men were taken from their families to serve whether they liked it or not. Universal liability to serve in the ranks was not compatible with our views at present; but it was possible that when we had undergone the misery of foreign conquest, we might come to look upon the conscription as necessary. Comparisons, again, with the Estimates of former years must always be fallacious, for the state of Europe and the strength and state of preparation of foreign armies did not remain the same. As regards the Navy, persons were never tired of saying that we ought to have a fleet capable at least of meeting the fleets of any two other nations in the world. But without an Army, of what use would our fleet be, unless it was to remain glued to our shores for the purposes of defence. He did not say that our Army should be large enough to meet two, or even one of the Continental armies; but it ought, at all events, to be large enough to meet any force it was likely to contend with. Invasion was not as impossible as it was sometimes deemed. With those who shut their eyes and went into a fool's paradise, argument was impossible; but those who discussed the matter with foreign officers, and persons who had studied the question, would see that surrounded as the prospect of a successful invasion might be with improbabilities, those would cease to be improbabilities if we went to sleep and neglected to take proper measures. Entirely as he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Holms) as to the superiority of an Army Reserve, he did not see any such prospect of its being established as to lead him to throw away the substance of the Reserve which already existed in the Militia for the

  1657
  shadow of a mythical Army Reserve. The belief confessed by the hon. Member that he had voted for the abolition of purchase because he believed it would give the country an Army Reserve was another proof of the simplicity of the great Liberal party. And he warned them fairly that they would not have seen the end of last year's Bill when they had expended the sum of £8,000,000.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he heard with regret and with pain, which he could hardly express, such expressions on the part of hon. Members around him, as that this Bill would diminish the political power of the Liberal party. There was something higher than party ends or party advantages, and he thought it greatly to the honour of the Secretary of State for War that he was one of those who set the good of his country above the good of his party. The great objection to the present measure was, that it was a panic expenditure. Now, in his opinion it was the crowning and concluding measure of a comprehensive course of policy. The first step was laid down by the Recruiting Commission, when they recommended localisation, and step by step that policy had been pursued. The abolition of purchase as a necessary step in that direction was opposed by many hon. Gentlemen; but they did not object to the localisation of the Army and its connection with the Reserve forces. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), he was disposed to admit that it might be desirable to have an Army consisting of three years' service men, and numbering from 150,000 to 200,000; but what chance was there of obtaining such a Reserve? It was quite manifest that we could never obtain that large number of recruits for short service. There were one or two difficulties of detail to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the organization of depôt centres. They were to consist of depôt companies of the two line battalions connected with them. No doubt the officers placed over them would be men of a certain age and inactive habits; but it would be a great mistake if these depôt companies were allowed to settle into a sedentary service. Another point was this—that if the battalion regiments were to have a real connection with the counties, each
  1658
  should be quartered in the county with which it was connected. He supported the present Bill because it had been introduced for the purpose of completing a policy which had been growing up for the last 10 or 12 years, and which had been accepted by the country.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was all very well to urge that Parliament ought not to go back upon its decisions; but he maintained that an expenditure of £15,000,000 upon the Army in time of peace was both unnecessary and unwarranted. Holding that opinion, he could not vote for a measure which would render necessary in the future what he almost felt called upon to describe as a profligate expenditure. In the Army itself there seemed to exist what was, to say the least of it, a considerable difference of opinion as to what was proceeding in the way of attempts to increase its efficiency. A great difference of opinion also existed as to the proposition for bringing the irregular and the Regular forces together—whether the irregular forces were to pull the Regular forces down, or whether the Regular forces were to lift up the irregular. When brandy and water were mixed together, the brandy became weaker, and the water sometimes only had just a taste of the brandy. He hoped that such would not be the effect of the present measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in moving the second reading of this Bill endeavoured to console the House by proclaiming his moderation. He said the scheme was founded upon the Prussian system, but he had only taken a small portion of it, and that if he had adopted the whole system he should have had to ask not for £3,500,000, but for £12,000,000. He was afraid they had poor security against being called upon at some future time to pay the residue of the larger sum. [Mr. CARDWELL dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and it was very likely that he would not be called upon to make the demand; but if the scheme as it now stood did not answer, it might be said that the larger expenditure was alone necessary to secure success. This scheme was said to have been based upon the Prussian system; but the circumstances of the two countries were entirely different. The Prussian Army was concentrated at home. Draughts from the

  1659
  English Army had to be constantly detached to the assistance of her dependencies. The present Government, to their shame be it spoken, had cast off the colonies of England; but if any of those colonies were attacked, no Government could stand which refused to render such assistance as was necessary. With respect to India, who could say that in the course of a few years 15,000 or 20,000 men might not be required? In such an event what would become of the present scheme, and what would become of those places from which they were taken. He could not support the present scheme, because he believed it was not necessary to incur such an enormously increasing expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to console the House by stating that a saving of £20,000 a-year would be effected with regard to the country. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend to relieve them from the debt which they were obliged to incur a few years ago for the provision of suitable buildings. And, besides, what security was there that the £3,500,000 would not be left a dead weight upon the country? Believing the scheme contained in the Bill would in a few years prove utterly worthless, he intended to vote against the second reading of the measure.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was one of those who agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a permanent peace establishment of £15,000,000 was greater than this country required. He accordingly moved an Amendment to reduce the number of men and the amount asked for; but having been defeated by a majority of four to one he felt bound to accept the decision as the opinion of the House upon the subject. The Bill under discussion had been brought in to complete the system then laid down, and in considering its provisions they had discussed the principle of great military establishments—amongst others, the Prussian system; but after all they must come back to the common-sense view of the question involved in the Bill—that of military forces localisation. He never knew an instance where the elements of discord were so combined together as in this discussion. The Reserve principle as adopted in Prussia was based upon conscription, and as so much had been said in its favour he would ask, were hon.
  1660
  Members ready to adopt it in this country? The men were registered at their births everywhere in Prussia, and when wanted for military service they must report themselves or produce a valid excuse. But if we had a body of Militia Reserve they would be living in all parts of the world, and when wanted on an emergency would it be so certain that they would be found? The Secretary of State for War had gone as far as he dared go in imitation of the Prussian system. His plan would bring about the working together of the various forces, and he asked whether that would be worth nothing? The best recruits would come from the Militia, and in the course of a few years the regiments would be more or less localised. The interest of the money required to carry out the scheme would amount to £118,000 a-year, and if the £70,000 now paid for the billeting system were deducted from that amount there would remain some £40,000 or £50,000 a-year to be raised by additional taxation. But he would be disappointed if ten times that amount could not be saved by the proper management of the depôts and the judicious execution of the various details of the scheme. He would not refer to the pretended demoralization that it was said the system would produce; for if they took any 133,000 young men in the prime of life, with time to enjoy themselves, he was afraid they would not find that they would act so wisely as it might be wished they should do; but if the House abolished the billeting system, would not that be a glorious gain in the path of morality? And then, again, the establishment of separate dormitories for married soldiers, would not that add to morality, decency, and honour, from their being treated as human beings? It was said that the country very much disliked the establishment of depôt centres; but he had heard nothing of the kind in his part of it. On the contrary, in certain localities the people had expressed their delight and satisfaction at the system. The new system as propounded would no doubt at first cause a considerable outlay; but believing that, on the whole, it would tend ultimately to a reduction of expenditure, and that it would work well, he should support the second reading of the Bill.
  CAPTAIN BEAUMONTsaid, he regretted that the Bill had been brought in at so late a period of the Session as to preclude the possibility of the proposed scheme being fully considered and discussed. He deprecated the statement of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), that it must be looked upon as a scheme which must necessarily result in dividing the Liberal party. It was essential that every Member should vote in reference to it according to his conviction, otherwise the Army would be looked upon as a means for keeping the Liberal party in power. The Bill appeared to him to foster a dual state of affairs—that of making the Militia a Reserve for the Army, and, at the same time, forming another Reserve by men who had passed through the ranks of the Regular Army. Such a state of affairs as that could not be right. Either they must look for the defence of the country to the Militia, or to the Reserves that had passed through the Regular Army; but the Bill appeared to countenance the two, with the view of afterwards arranging our policy with regard to them. The system proposed failed in two important particulars. First, as to economy. The country must be thoroughly and efficiently protected, and the question was, what military organization would effect that object for the least amount of money? The Liberal party came into power pledged to economy; but there was not the least shadow of a statement that had recently been made by the Government upon which the country could base any hope of future economy in respect of the Army. The scheme before the House would not be efficient because it did not recognize the necessity of having the corps d'armée as the tactical unit comprising in itself all the various departments of the service; and it was not an unjust criticism on the Bill to state that it was more of a recruiting Bill than anything else, and in that sense it might or it might not be a good Bill. In reorganizing a system sound principles should be recognized. The view held by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) was clear and distinct, and he was happy to see that it was gaining ground in the country. When he brought forward a Motion last year, that the Reserves should be formed of men who had passed through the Regular Army, he was met by the Secre-
  1662
  tary of State for War to the effect that the principle might be good, but that it was perfectly inapplicable to the country. It could not be said it was impossible to carry out the Prussian system without conscription, because the only difference between a free Army and conscription was a matter of pay—the price a country was prepared to give for its soldiers. If the pay of the Reserve were increased, the men could be more surely counted on, and the larger and better the Reserve the fewer need be the number of the Regular Army, so that a large well paid Reserve would certainly in the end be more economical than an underpaid Reserve and a large Regular Army. One defect of the scheme was the excessive number of depôt centres, which would detract from efficiency and yet increase the expense. A large tactical station in the North of England ought to be accompanied with a central Arsenal, and it could be established without an increased expenditure upon that head. The two ought to be considered together. The Bill was exceedingly crude, and showed that the details of the scheme had not received sufficient attention to warrant the outlay of a large sum of money. In conclusion, he expressed his determination to vote with the hon. Member for Hackney.
  COLONEL C. LINDSAYsaid, he, for one, was anxious that the Bill should pass without delay, and he said so for two or three reasons. In the first place, because it was a Bill which purposed to carry into effect a scheme for military reorganization, which was fully explained by the Secretary of State for War when he introduced the Army Estimates, and, if he mistook not, it found considerable favour on both sides of the House; also because the money which was asked for was for the purpose of putting the necessary machinery into motion in order to work out the various specifications which were contained in the schedule of the Bill; also because barrack accommodation and store-houses were obviously necessary for the purposes of localisation; and also because no hon. Member had been able to produce a counter-scheme, which was proved by the dead silence which had prevailed on the subject during the last four or five months, which was equivalent to consent, and consequently there should be no opposition or delay in passing the

  1663
  second reading. The question, therefore, resolved itself within a very limited though important compass, and that was the speedy establishment of depôt centres throughout the country. No doubt there were, and would be, conflicting opinions upon the judicious selection of those centres—opinions which were guided by various local interests and influences. But it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently fortified by the opinions of his military advisers not to be defeated by any undue and unnecessary pressure that might be put upon him; and as the responsibility of this new scheme, which was consequent upon the abolition of purchase, rested upon the Government and the Liberal party, the sooner it was put into active operation the better. Under these circumstances, he was inclined rather to leave the details in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who, be it remembered, forced on a great military revolution last year in spite of the opinions of all the leading and most distinguished officers of the Army; and who had assumed the responsibility of managing the Army in his own peculiar way. He was inclined to saddle the responsibility upon him and the Liberal party, rather than throw obstacles in the way of a measure which was not only inevitable and pressing, but which had been so well considered, and decided to be the best means of carrying out the intentions of the scheme. Now, there was no doubt that an improved organization in the Army was much required before purchase was abolished. But since that event, the Army was, as it were, in a chrysalis state, and would be, and must be, more or less, until the new scheme was actually in operation. For goodness then let the trial be made without delay; and let the attempt to advance the present efficiency of the Army and Reserve forces be assisted to the fullest extent; and, above all, let no false economy be allowed to step in, as was so often the case on these occasions, and like too many cooks, spoil the broth. Now, no doubt the working out of this scheme would be surrounded by various difficulties, which would crop up at every turn, which was generally the case with any new undertaking; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would go forward in spite of them, and endeavour to realize without delay the great object
  1664
  which he had in view of drawing the whole of his forces—bar one—the right hon. Gentleman knew what he meant—into his magic circle of harmony, and when he had got them there, through the instrumentality of the depôt centres, let him prove that his scheme was feasible, and let him and his party bear the responsibility and discredit if it was not. For now that the Army had been deprived of its ancestral character, and was passing through a significant crisis, it was only natural to suppose that the future action of the Government would be of a practical nature, and therefore a step in the right direction. He was, therefore, inclined to assist the object in view, which the Government was bound in its own responsibilities to realize without delay; and he trusted the Secretary of State might succeed in realizing a better state of things than at present existed, which was neither one thing nor the other. It was a great mistake to bring on a Bill such as this at so late a period of the Session, and at so late an hour in the night, as was the case last Monday, for it irritated hon. Members and tended to prejudice its passage by unnecessary argument and consequent delay, especially as most of the argument would have been better discussed in Committee, which would probably be rechauffé when the Bill was in Committee. He did not think that the views which had been expressed the other night by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) were likely to be endorsed by a majority in the House; for they simply came to this—that England would be demoralized if she became a military nation—that the Army was a hot-bed of everything that was vicious and abominable, consequent upon what he called "laborious idleness"—and that therefore for the sake of the morality of the country there ought to be no Army at all. He thought the best answer he could give him was—"Let those who live in glass houses beware lest they throw stones." And when he was on this subject, he hoped that the hon. Member for Merthyr, and those who agreed with him, had read the admirable and unanswerable letter which was addressed to The Times last week by an officer commanding a cavalry regiment, in reference to the remarks which that hon. Member had made against the soldiers of our Army. No doubt they had

  1665
  had the opportunity if they chose to take it; but as other Members might not have noticed it, he would, with the permission of the House, extract two or three sentences in defence of the British soldier whose moral character was so unjustly assailed, and in refutation of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr. That officer said, in reference to what was called laborious idleness—"My men, on an average, are at work, and hard work too, from 5.30 A.M. to 6.45 daily, and now we hear of laborious idleness." And in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts, he said—
  "Is it too much to require that, because we are anxious to preserve the lives of our soldiers from the deadly effect of disease, contracted among the civil population, the soldier should not be branded as an outcast from all society? They are unable to defend themselves, and, in their behalf, you must permit me to protest against the attacks which have been wantonly made on their good name."
  And he concluded—
  "I unhesitatingly assert that the morality of the Army is infinitely higher than that of the civil population, and it is to me a matter of painful surprise, as doubtless it is to many others, that Mr. Richard should have been allowed, unchallenged, to so recklessly malign the character of the English Army."
  The adjournment of the debate between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and not having commenced till past 11 o'clock at night, was ample reason, and he hoped would be satisfactory to the cavalry officer for not challenging the hon. Member for Merthyr there and then. He had taken the earliest opportunity since then, and he hoped that other hon. and gallant Members would do likewise. Now, with respect to this laborious idleness, as remarked upon by the hon. Member for Merthyr, he recommended him to read, mark, and digest the replies, which the Secretary of State for War gave to the hon. Member for the Montgomery Burghs (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) last Thursday, in reference to the industrial training of soldiers, when he told him that—
  "Pioneers of the following trades—namely, carpenters, bricklayers, smiths, masons, painters and glaziers, plumbers, and gas-fitters—have been selected and appointed in each regiment at home. These men, assisted by others who had learnt trades prior to enlistment, have performed a portion of the barrack repairs, and have worked for the Royal Engineer Depart-
  1666
  ment. Regimental workshops have been established at some stations by the re-appropriation of accommodation where it could be spared. …. Endeavours will be made to utilize military labour as far as possible."
  He held in his hand the Army Military Labour Return on the Employment of Soldiers in Trades and Industry during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1871, which was issued that morning to hon. Members; and he thought the hon. Member for Merthyr would do well to analyze it, for it would show him how the system was working in every regiment on the Home station, also the working pay that was earned, and it contained remarks from every commanding officer, together with results, and it summarized the total saving to the public. Now, laborious idleness was a very plausible expression, and it was one which might tickle the ears of those who shut their eyes and opened their mouths like little children who were told to do so, and see what they would get. But to those who—unlike the hon. Member for Merthyr—did know something about the life and occupations of the British soldier, such a description was as worthless as it was contrary to fact, for he had yet to learn that the habits, and inclinations, and intrigues of the civil population of our provincial towns was less vicious and abominable and demoralizing than the habits of the soldier. No; for if the comparative test of morality was to be applied by the hon. Member for Merthyr to the civilian as well as the soldier, he would find there was little or no difference between the gauges. Had the hon. Member condescended to visit a soldier's barrack and acquaint himself with the daily routine of barrack life and its obligations? Not he, for if he had he would have found that the frequent and almost hourly calls which discipline and duty imposed upon the soldiers, must effectually break the monotony of a laborious idleness which might otherwise exist; and he would also have informed himself that there were other compulsory employments unseen, and therefore unknown to those who, like the hon. Member, were not familiar with the mysteries of barrack life, and which at once refuted such an ill-applied expression. The hon. Member for Merthyr had written a long letter that morning to The Times, in corroboration of the sentiments which he had expressed on

  1667
  a previous occasion, and he quoted his brother's (Sir James Lindsay's) evidence before a Royal Commission some years ago in reference to the monotony and idleness of the soldiers' life, and its bad effects, which was quite true at that time. But the hon. Member forgot that since that evidence was given the industrial training of the soldiers and the attention that had been paid to their recreation and reading occupations, which were now in full force, had become matters of fact, and that everything was done to give the soldier an interest in his time, when on duty or off. He could not agree with what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Captain Beaumont) when he inferred that every town protested against the placing of a depôt centre into it, because, from what he could make out, the feeling was very much the reverse, in corroboration of which, he believed, he was correct in saying that deputation after deputation had waited on the Secretary of State in favour of these centres being established in particular localities other than those that had been decided upon; and he had yet to learn that the establishment of troops in various parts of the country was unpopular. His experience, on the contrary, told him that in former years, before Aldershot, Shorncliffe, and Colchester were constituted into camp and training centres, the quarters of troops in provincial towns was most popular, and an advantage in many ways, for it circulated a considerable amount of money in the localities, gave a tone and a spirit throughout the district, and made the Army popular, and consequently encouraged recruiting. But the hon. Member for Durham joined in the cry that there were too many soldiers in the country; so there were. But, he asked, who was it that supported the policy of withdrawing our regiments from the colonies? The party to which the hon. Members for Merthyr and Durham belonged. And, now that the colonial service had been concentrated, as it must be somewhere in the limited area of the British isles, there was a sort of panic for fear of the swarms of these essences of vice and abomination forming permanent settlements all over the country. He confessed that he was surprised at such a paltry feeling of alarm; but as our small Army could not be reduced, the majority of the electors
  1668
  of England, Scotland, and Ireland, whose feelings were so well represented in the present Parliament, must grin and bear it, as the result of the policy of their party. Now he thought that the following explanatory remarks which the Secretary of State made the other evening were such as to commend the principle of localization to the favourable judgment of the House of Commons and the country. He said—
  "The scheme laid on the Table would enable every colonel in every district, when called upon by instructions from the central authority, to arm and equip all the Regular Forces, and to call together the Reserves and to place them under arms without any reference to the War Office, or to any depôt other than that which he commanded."
  Now, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon this clear and businesslike explanation, as also upon the first blow that had really been struck at that detestable though hitherto unavoidable red tapeism of the War Office—a system that had always interfered with the responsibilities of those in command, and which had been such a drag-chain upon simultaneous action, which was one of the great attributes of organization. No doubt this scheme was far from perfect; but they must be grateful for any improvement, if it be so. Now, all must be agreed that the odious system of billeting for the Militia, when out for training, being abolished, was a step in advance; for it was distasteful both to the landlord and the tenant, and it was a decided interference with the liberty of the subject, and subversive of the maxim that every Englishman's house was his castle. It was a happy result of the new scheme of organization, and would, no doubt, be fully appreciated. It must be borne in mind, however, that the right of billeting, when absolutely necessary, still existed in order to provide for movements on emergency; but as far as the training of the Militia was concerned it was abolished. Now, before he went to another subject, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions were with respect to the metropolitan training-ground for Volunteers—for instance, where he proposed it to be established in the town; and what would be the principle upon which it was to be used by all? It was a question of considerable importance to the Volunteers, but until he knew the right hon. Gentleman's

  1669
  views upon the subject he would not take up the time of the House by raising the question; but he wished to know for what purpose it was intended—was it for the Brigade of Guards, the Militia, or the Metropolitan Volunteers, or for all conjointly? He did not think it could be intended for the Guards, as they had their own training grounds already, nor for the Volunteers at the West-end of London as they had the entreé to the various barrack squares, by the kind permission of officers commanding, besides Hyde Park, Regent's Park, and Battersea Park, to all of which they repaired when convenient to themselves. He concluded, therefore, that this training ground must be chiefly intended for the Militia of the district; but as they were only out for so short a time it appeared to be throwing away money to make such a training ground, unless it was at all times available for the East-end Volunteer Corps, who had, he believed, no convenient ground at hand for training purposes. It would not suit the Volunteers of the West-end if the ground was in the East-end, or vice versâ. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would throw some light upon the subject. And now having said this much, he must, before he concluded, refer to one question, and one only—and it was rather an important one—and that was, whether the selection of the depôt centres had been made with a due regard to the health of those who were to inhabit them? He had no doubt they had been, but as a great responsibility and a considerable expense was involved in the matter, the House ought to be reassured of the fact. Now, he mentioned this in consequence of the reply which he received from the Secretary of State a few days ago, when he asked him if the depôt centre of the counties of Oxford and Bucks, which had been fixed for High Wycombe, was to be established in or about Oxford, and, if so, where would be the situation? He was not satisfied with the reply, because the right hon. Gentleman was either unable or unwilling to tell him. He said that if General MacDougal's Committee were to decide upon Oxford, inquiries would be made as to where the most eligible situation could be got at a moderate cost. He was not satisfied at not getting a simple answer to a simple question, considering that the Bill had been on
  1670
  the Paper for the second reading for many days. Far was it from him to imply that Oxford was not the best spot in the two counties for a depôt centre. He believed it was, in a military point of view, owing to its railway and other advantages; but as he did not know on what side of Oxford the establishment would be, and as he did not know that any eligible site could be obtained at a moderate cost, he felt it his duty to point out that a considerable portion of the neighbourhood of Oxford was by no means healthy. For instance, there was everything to be said against the selection of ground in the neighbourhood of Cripley and Portmeadows, inasmuch as those localities were about 18 inches under water for four or five months in the year, and the soil was composed of such a chronic description of soaked matter that no foundation could be made for building purposes under a very costly outlay. Now, in corroboration of what he said, he made it his business a few years ago to inquire into the sanitary condition of this particular locality, having undertaken to oppose the establishment of the Great Western Carriage Works, the directors having been tempted to go there owing to the liberal offer which the Corporation had made of the ground in question. He succeeded in preventing, at the last moment, the job which it was; and the reasons were because of the unhealthy locality, and the enormous outlay that the making foundations would entail before a single brick could be laid. With respect to the objection that had been made to the selection of Oxford on the part of the University, there was no doubt much to be said; but as there were other University towns in the kingdom which possessed their barracks and garrisons, and which got on very well together, he thought that military requirements and convenience, in reference to a great scheme such as this, should be equally consulted, whichever way it might be ultimately decided. Under those circumstances, and being in ignorance as to the intended site for the depôt centre in the neighbourhood of Oxford, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept any offer of ground in that locality without a medical assurance of its having a clean bill of health. He would be glad to hear what his intentions might be, bearing in mind that if a palace were

  1671
  built on the ground alluded to, with all the latest improvements in drainage and sewerage, and concrete foundation, nothing would be gained, for the surrounding country would still be impregnated with damp and malaria and effervescence of obnoxious vapour which would be most injurious. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, but if he went to a division he should certainly vote against him.
  MR. BROWNasked the right hon. Gentleman to state what precautions he proposed to take in order to prevent the Estimates being exceeded? He also wished for some information as to what was to be done for the Scotch soldiers.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked for some explanation as to the relative proportions of depôt centres in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, since this was a measure which concerned the public business of the year, it could not conveniently be postponed; and he hoped he should be able in a few remarks to bring the discussion upon it to a close. ["No, no!"] Well, sometimes one succeeded beyond his hopes. In answer to his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington), with regard to the second battalion, he might say that the plan laid down in the scheme was this. Every two battalions would be divided into three, and the third or depôt battalion, would be quartered in the locality. With reference to the other two, one would almost always be abroad, and the other must be at Aldershot or some other garrison. As to the data on which the various financial calculations had been made, as they appeared in the last page of the Report, he had taken the maximum sum; and if he were to state the precise sums in every case, that would of course tend to bring the expenditure up to that maximum, which he was desirous to avoid. Everyone of the calculations had been based on past experience and the estimates of the most competent officers. He was not quite aware of the exact proportion of Scotch and Irish soldiers in the Army, but proposed by adding nine regiments to make them up to sixteen, and that a sufficient number of the regiments would be sent to Ireland, so as to make them fully equivalent to the proportion of recruiting in Ireland.
  In reply to Captain BEAUMONT,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that provision was made for the building of barracks where none were now available. He believed that a Reserve composed of men who had passed through the Army was essential to the moral discipline of the Army and to the protection and safety of the country. He did not, at the same time, at all differ from the view of the Recruiting Commission, that it was to the Militia we must look for our great constitutional means of defence.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished in a few words to state his objections to this measure. He objected to so large an expenditure of the public money under this Bill in the teeth of the economical professions on the part of the Government, and such uncertainty as to the ultimate cost, especially having regard to the present aspect of the labour market and the rising price of materials of all sorts. Another evil of the measure was, in his opinion, that it would lead to familiarizing the whole of the country with a military system, and what the Army would gain by being located in military depôts in various parts of the kingdom, the civilian population would lose. He cared very little for the military system; but he, nevertheless, claimed to be as good a patriot as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare). The civilian population had, he believed, a great repugnance to the Bill, and there would, he felt sure, be a greater outcry against it when it was more generally understood. If even the measure were a good one—and great fault had been found with some of its provisions from a military point of view—there could be no harm in giving more time for its consideration. He was one of those who regretted that the Government had yielded to the panic of 1870, and he thought the Prime Minister must now regret that he had so yielded. It was said at one time that if we had only adequate fortifications we should be perfectly secure; then it was contended that we must have an iron Navy; and, again, our glorious Volunteers, it was supposed, would save the country from the risk of panic. The result of every step, however, had been to increase our difficulties in controlling the military power and expenditure of the country. There could, he was sure, be no more honourable or conscientious man than the Secretary of

  1673
  State for War; but he was, he believed, the victim in dealing with the subjects of a delusion. The great commercial towns who were so deeply interested in the question of our security, had no feeling of panic. At the time of the Crimean War those who opposed it were regarded as being unpatriotic, in the same way as the opponents of the present Bill were; but they had lived to see that war acknowledged to have been a blunder by the very men who were most strongly in its favour.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till this day.
  In answer to Lord EUSTACE CECIL,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Bill would be proceeded with at the Evening Sitting, after the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill had been disposed of.
  SIR WILFRED LAWSONasked what was the latest hour at which the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with it?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Government were under a pledge to proceed with the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill that evening first; and they would take the other Bill at any hour before half-past 12 o'clock.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. Leeman, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Goldney, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Dodds.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHappealed to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) not to insist on the 6th clause. In that case he would assent to the passage of the Bill through Committee.
  MR. HIBBERTremarked that there was no chance of the Bill passing this Session unless Clause 6 were withdrawn.
  MR. LEEMAN, though extremely loth to part with the 6th clause, would withdraw it in order to insure the passing of the measure.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  And it being now Seven of the clock the House supended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL (Lords)— [BILL 198.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no desire whatever by interposing that any delay should take place in discussing most carefully and completely the provisions of this Bill; but in justice to those who had supported him in the measure which he introduced this Session, and which stood for second reading, he desired to say a few words. No doubt quite unintentionally, the promise made some time ago by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—namely, that his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) Bill should, after second reading, proceed pari passu with the Government Bill—had not been carried out. Many people who supported him were much disappointed at the results which had taken place, inasmuch as his Bill, to all intents and purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman himself must be aware, was now a dead letter. He felt, under those circumstances, that the only course left open to him was to attempt to move some of the principle clauses of his Bill as Amendments on the Government measure. He had taken that course and given Notice of those Amendments, which he hoped he would be allowed to state his reasons for pressing, and for which he bespoke fair consideration. He repeated that he only made those remarks to set himself right with those who approved his Bill and gave him their support. He trusted that in the discussion upon which they were about entering time would not be wasted—that criticism would be confined to two or three great principles, and that these would be fully debated.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Preamble postponed.
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
On Motion of the Marquess of HARTINGTON, the words "or Ireland" were omitted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Illicit Sales.
Clause 3 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license) agreed to.
Clause 4 (Occupier of unlicensed premises liable for sale of liquor) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Seller liable for drinking on premises contrary to license).
MR. WATNEYsaid, that by this clause the holder of a license for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises was liable to a penalty if the liquor sold was drunk on any highway adjoining or near his premises. Such a provision was open to great abuse, the penalty attached was excessive, and he begged, therefore, to move, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, to omit the words "or on any highway adjoining or near such premises."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that this provision was taken from the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and it had been found to work well. Besides, it should be borne in mind that the drinking on the highway adjoining the unlicensed vendor's premises must be with the privity or consent of the unlicensed seller of intoxicating liquor.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONalso defended this provision of the clause. It had been found necessary to make the Bill of 1869 more stringent in this respect. It was pointed out to him that until the second Act was passed, in all the beerhouses throughout the country benches were put outside the door, pots of beer were passed out, and the liquor being taken a little distance was drunk. There were several beerhouses in his own immediate neighbourhood which were doing an illegal trade in this way, and when the occupiers came for a renewal of the licenses he asked the chairman to explain to them this provision of the new Act, upon which, out of 11 applicants, nine immediately quitted the room when they found that they could no longer carry on this illicit trade.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WATNEYsaid, the clause imposed on the seller for drinking on his premises, or on any highway adjoining, the maximum penalty of £10 for the first offence, and £20 for the second offence, any conviction for an offence under this section to be recorded on the
1676
license of the person convicted. Now, whatever might be thought as to the advisability of imposing a penalty on the seller, he contended that for the first offence the conviction should not be recorded on the license, because, in point of fact, it would affect him to the extent of one-third of the value of his license. He begged to move, in page 3, line 3, after "section," to insert "other than a first offence."
MR. BRUCEobserved that it must be assumed that in all the cases against which the clause was directed there would be evasions of the license. For the protection of the Revenue, and for the preservation of good order, it was desirable that, as regarded limited licenses, there should be such a provision as that in the clause.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the clause was an important one, and ought not to be hurried over, but fairly discussed. As regarded the convictions, he had an Amendment on the Paper respective cumulative penalties, and when the proper time arrived should certainly move it. He would, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and introduce it, if necessary, on the bringing up of the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOCKEobserved that there was one thing he wished to prevent, and that was that no arbitrary rule should be laid down whereby magistrates should be obliged to endorse the license. He should therefore move, in page 3, line 4, at end, to add "if the convicting justice shall so order." There might be many cases where offences would be committed in the house of licensed victuallers without their knowledge or consent, and it would be a hard case to visit them with the penalties proposed by this Bill. All he asked was that in case of every offence the justices shall have an opportunity of exercising their judgment as to whether it ought to be inserted on the license.
MR. COLLINSthought the Amendment wholly unnecessary. There would be no offence if the liquor was drunk on the premises with the consent and privity of the landlord.
MR. LOCKEonly meant it to be understood that he simply wished to leave a certain discretion with the magistrates.

1677
If three separate convictions be recorded on a man's license, it was taken from him, and he himself probably ruined for ever. Now, that was a most severe and arbitrary proceeding, and he wished to put as many checks upon it as possible.
MR. WHEELHOUSEreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill made it necessary to have every conviction inserted on the back of the license; but certainly if the justices were to be the parties—as they were intended to be—in granting licenses, he saw no reason whatever why they should not be at liberty to exercise a discretion. That, in his opinion, was not only necessary, but just and fair to all parties.
MR. BRUCEpointed out that the clause applied only to persons holding a limited license for the sale of liquor off the premises; for such a man to allow it to be drunk on the premises would be a deliberate and serious offence; and if it was repeated three times in the course of five years the forfeiture of the license would be deserved, for the offence would be a scandalous fraud. He reminded the Committee that in cases of this description no magistrate would convict without the clearest evidence.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwas of opinion the clause effected the deepest interests of the trade. He wished to know if a licensed victualler carrying on a lawful trade and keeping a respectable house was led or involuntarily committed an offence against this Bill by means of his servants or otherwise, was he to suffer the extreme hardship of having convictions marked on the back of his license, which might ultimately destroy his prospects and ruin his business? What his hon. and learned Friend wished to secure by his Amendment was to give the magistrates a discretionary power in every case, so that they might act justly and fairly between all parties.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark entirely opposed to the principles of the Bill. He confessed that, much as he should like to see a discretionary power allowed to magistrates in cases where the offence was accidental, he could not see the justice of extending the benefit of it to persons who knowingly carried on trade in violation of the conditions on which they had undertaken it.
MR. F. S. POWELLbelieved there were many cases in which it would be proper and necessary to give discretion to the magistrate. He hoped, however, the Amendment would be withdrawn, and afterwards brought up again at the proper place.
MR. LOCKE, said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment in deference to the wish of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises contrary to license).
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved, in page 3, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "with intent to evade the conditions of his license," as the object of those words would be sufficiently attained by the final section of the clause.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert "out of or" after "liquor," in line 8. He said that in his Bill, passed in 1869, it was found that the clause was not sufficiently stringent to prevent large evasions of the Act. The words he now moved were part of those introduced into the Bill of 1870.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved, in page 3, line 18, at end, add "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member observed, that he hoped the Amendment would be allowed to pass in that form, as he believed it to be most essential to fair and effective working of the Bill.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert, "or place or places," after "premises" in line 20; and in line 23 to insert "as therein," after "thereon."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Sale of spirits to children. See 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47., s. 43).
MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 3, line 26, after "description of" insert "malt liquor, wine, or."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not consent to the insertion of these words. If a man went into a public-house with his children, and gave one of them a sip

1679
of beer out of his own glass, the publican would become liable to the penalty under the Amendment.
MR. COLLINS: Every boy at Eton or Harrow would be sent to prison.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved, in page 3, line 27, after "sixteen years," insert—
"Or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years."
He thought that 14 years was a proper limit, and one which the Committee might safely accept, as it would certainly prevent very young children being made to drink in public-houses.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 27, after the words "sixteen years," to insert the words "or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he approved of the Amendment, and would strongly advise the Committee to adopt it. Its object was to prevent very young children from hanging about public-houses. It was not desirable that children should booze about public-houses, and the Amendment would prevent that, while it would not prevent a child having proper refreshment.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the advice just offered to him, as the Amendment would only serve to entrap the respectable tradesman carrying on an honest business. A person carrying on a legitimate business ought to be subject to clear and explicit rules. If a clear rule were laid down on this subject, well and good; but nothing could be more absurd than to expect that a licensed victualler should be a judge of whether a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age. Children of the same age differed very much in their apparent age; and it was well known that young Spanish ladies of 14 were more advanced than English ladies of 16. How, then, could a person in trade be expected to know that a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age? Teetotallers had their own views and a right to support them;
1680
but they had no right to put down those who advocated different views, and any efforts in that direction would not succeed. The Amendment before the Committee was monstrous, and he hoped it would be rejected. He was glad the hon and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had resolved on a division, for the result of it would show whether the intention of hon. Members was to extinguish the business of licensed victuallers or give them fair play.
MR. T. E. SMITHreferred to the police reports as evidence of the evil that resulted from young people frequenting public-houses. It was only the other day that four boys had to be expelled from a Sunday school for being drunk. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to this Amendment.
MR. COLLINSjoined in the wish to have the words proposed inserted, for it was practically a question whether children of the age of 13 should be allowed to go and drink at public-houses.
MR. GREGORYthought the Bill was quite strong enough without the words now proposed to be inserted in the clause. Many a boy at the age of 14 had been glad to get a glass of beer after rowing on the river or similar exercise, and he had done so himself at that age without being any the worse for it.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the question was not whether there were occasionally deplorable instances of boys drinking in public-houses, but whether Parliament could reasonably refuse to allow young persons the indulgence of obtaining innocent refreshment. The clause as it stood provided that spirits should not be sold to children under 16 years of ago; but in addition to that were they to say that if a boy took a walk into the country and procured a glass of beer at a public-house the person who supplied him should be fined 40 s.?
MR. CANDLISHasked whether anything could be more unseemly than that boys and girls of 12 and 14 years of age should sit in a public-house, and make jolly and carouse there. That really did happen, he said, in the manufacturing districts.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the picture just drawn by hon. Member for Sunderland was very much exaggerated. The clause, which struck at the really vicious part of the thing—

1681
the supply of spirits to children under a certain age—quite met what was wanted. If hon. Members wished to pass a fair and honest measure, they should not attempt to provide against such extreme cases as those which had been cited.
MR. BRUCEreminded the Committee that an enactment similar to that of the present clause was in operation in the metropolitan district, and that it was now sought simply to extend its operation to the country. Most of the mischief which had been referred to by hon. Members had been occasioned by spirits being supplied to children.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) must be aware that children worked at a very early age—certainly below 14—and that they must have their luncheons or dinners. Why should they not be allowed to have beer with their meals? The House of Commons seemed to deny everything to everybody but themselves; selfishness was creeping over those benches, which could not be put down too soon.
MR. H. B. SAMUELSONproposed to split the difference by modifying the Amendment, so that it would read "apparently under the age of 15 years of age."
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the Amendment applied to children and to children only, and that the Committee had no idea how strong the feeling was on the subject in some parts of the country.
MR. DIMSDALEwished for some definition of the phrase "apparently under a certain age."
MR. BRUCEremarked that a similar clause had been in force for 30 years, and that he had never heard any complaint respecting it.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, the Amendment would not prevent boys taking beer with them in their cans for their lunc-heons or dinners.
MR. FOTHERGILLobjected to any boy under 14 being allowed to drink in a public-house.
MR. DODSONsaid, that unless the hon. Member who had just sat down was prepared to prove that no boy of 13 could be thirsty his remarks could have little weight. As the right hon. Gentleman had explained, it was sought by the Bill to extend to the country a clause in regard to the drinking of spirits by children which had been tried in the
1682
metropolis. Beyond this it was not desirable to go. He had heard an observation to the effect that the present House of Commons consisted of men who were considerably advanced in life, and he could not but think that the discussion on the proposed Amendment was good evidence of it. It was so long ago since some hon. Members were 14 years of age, that they could not recollect what their condition and feelings were at that time. He asked the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to cast himself back, if he could, to the days when he was a boy in a public school, and recollect whether at that time, after handling a cricket-bat or pulling an oar, he never wanted to go to a public-house for a glass of beer.
MR. DIXONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that what was objected to was, not a boy taking a glass of beer, but taking it at a public-house, where he might fall into dangerous habits. He did not think that beer was necessary or useful to children of that age, and he did not believe that any child of his ever took beer at that age.
MR. HARVEY LEWISthanked God he was not one of the sons of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was afraid they would not be much credit to him in the future. It must be tantalizing to the poor lads when the hon. Gentleman entertained his friends at his hospitable board, to find that they were not allowed to have any share in the good things which were served there. It was generally found that boys who were placed under such restrictions sought after that which was denied them, and obtained it by some means or other.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 129: Majority 69.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 (Sale to be by standard measure) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved in page 3, line 41, after "every," to insert "licensed," for otherwise the bricklayer who made the intercommunication would be liable to the penalty, which ought to attach to a licensed person solely.
MR. BRUCEexplained that such had been the law in respect to public-houses in the metropolis for years past. The penalty would only attach to the licensed person.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was perfectly correct; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this clause was retrospective, and he would suggest to him if he could not so modify it as to render it prospective, else it would harshly affect a large number of houses in the country which had halls of entertainment built out from them upon garden ground.
Amendment negatived.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the clause as it stood dealt a heavy blow at vested interests in any communications that existed at the present moment.
MR. LOCKEproposed to insert the words "after the passing of this Act."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that would not have any effect, because the words would not have any practical operation until after the Act was passed.
MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, he knew plenty of rooms attached to and forming part of public-houses in the country in which audits and meetings of benefit societies had been held for the last 30 years. Were they now, he was desirous to know, to be held illegal?
MR. BRUCE: By no means. They are part of the licensed premises.
Amendment negatived.
MR. T. HUGHES MR. T. HUGHES moved in page 3, line 43, after "and," to insert "a music-hall or dancing-room, or," with a view of assimilating the law as regards music and dancing-halls in the country to the law on that subject in the metropolitan districts. Music and dancing were very good things in themselves; but attached to public-houses, experience had proved that they were highly objectionable. No harm could arise from compelling those establishments to take out a separate license.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he entertained very serious doubts as to the working of the proposed Amendment. What, for instance, would happen in the case of the large hotels at Leamington or Cheltenham, where dancing went on every night? But strangers were not admitted.
MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member who had proposed the Amend-
1684
ment in the clause could hardly have given much consideration to the place at which he proposed to insert it. The clause, if amended as proposed, would render it absolutely penal to make or keep open a communication between the licensed premises and the music-hall, even though a special license might have been obtained for the purpose.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he was willing to meet the suggestion by striking out "and" and inserting "or."
MR. DENTsaid, that in the large hotels in the town which he represented (Scarborough) dancing probably took place every evening. If for so doing it was suggested that they should take out special licenses, the proposition would, in his opinion, prove inconvenient and unreasonable.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the question raised by the Amendment were dealt with at all, it would require very full and careful handling, and not a mere passing reference in a clause. In the metropolis persons who wished to see music and dancing could easily go to buildings licensed for those special purposes. But the question was whether, if in a country place or small village, a harper struck up a tune, or a man sang a song and took money for doing so, he and a man in the room were to be punished. In towns liberty might easily degenerate into license, and it was right and proper to impose restrictions; but it was another thing to interfere in the country with the simple amusements of the people.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEasked whether the hon. Member intended his Amendment to extend to Masonic halls? If so, in the interests of the noble craft, he protested against it. He should unquestionably vote against any provision which would hinder the brethren from passing from labour to refreshments.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that one branch of this controversy—Music Halls v. Theatres—had occupied a Committee for six months. He deprecated the reopening of the question at 10.30 P.M. on the 23rd of July.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he had no wish to interfere with the "free and accepted Masons;" but wherever music and dancing formed part of a recognized entertainment, then, he contended, there ought to be a license.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was prepared to support the view of the hon. Member as far as dancing was concerned, and he had introduced a clause on the subject in his own Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member seemed to be desirous of attempting to set up a new system of licensing music and dancing rooms all over the country, which, if carried, would, in fact, interfere with the homely and innocent enjoyments of life. If when a party were met together in a friendly way they wished to have a dance or a song, why should they not have it? Why, he, for one, should be very sorry to see such an arbitrary and wholly uncalled for interference by Act of Parliament with the social pleasures and relaxations of the public. Would such an interference be tolerated in other classes who were in the habit of giving concerts and dancing parties in their own houses or grounds? He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should have lent his sanction to such a proposal, and for his own part he should, if it were pressed to a division, give an unhesitating vote against it.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to completely misapprehend what he had stated. In the metropolitan area, and for 25 miles round it, there were at present legal regulations for the opening of music and dancing halls, and by his Bill he had sought to make these regulations applicable to the whole country. [Mr. HENLEY: It would be a great curse.] The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a great curse; but for his part he could not see why the regulations applicable to the area he had mentioned should not be made general. [Mr. HENLEY: Why not propose to do so at once?] That proposal would have necessitated a fuller consideration of many questions than could now be given, and though he sympathized with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), he did not think at the end of July, and with so many more important questions before them, they could satisfactorily deal with the subject. He should, therefore, recommend the withdrawal of the Amendment.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, that in his own borough (Salford) they had an Act which was precisely similar to that for the metropolis, and, so far as he knew, it worked satisfactorily; but he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member that if his Amendment were agreed to the effect would be to compel the application for a special license in every case; whereas at present there was no such necessity in the case of licensed houses for general purposes, and the practical effect would be to exclude houses which were now licensed.
MR. FOTHERGILLstrongly objected to the Amendment. In North Wales, with which he was connected, it was the custom, both in public-houses and beer-shops, to call in a harper. They were very fond of a little music and a dance, and it would be felt as a very great grievance indeed, if every landlord of a public-house were compelled to take out a 12 months' license before he could allow his customers to have their songs accompanied by a harp or an impromptu dance by the music of the country.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERconfessed that his sympathies were with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Hughes); but looking at the many important questions it involved, he should advise his hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment.
MR. T. HUGHES, under the circumstances, said he would not ask the Committee to divide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Illicit storing of liquor) agreed to.
Clause 11 (Publication of names of licensed persons) agreed to.
Offences against public order.
Clause 12 (Penalty on persons found drunk).
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that he thought 10 s. was not enough. He moved, as an Amendment, that the penalty be 40 s., and that the imprisonment be a month instead of 10 days.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwould like to ask against whom this clause was particularly directed? To some people a fine of 10 s. would be as nothing, and a penalty of 40 s. would be equally unfelt. But it should be recollected that

1687
this Bill was directed more particularly against the working classes. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not suppose that the hon. Baronet who moved the increase of the penalty, or Members of that House, were likely to be found drunk on the highway; but it was very evident that a fine of 10 s. imposed upon some persons would bear heavier than a fine of £100 upon a higher and wealthier class. In 99 cases out of 100, if working men were fined 10 s. they would be sent to prison on account of being unable to pay.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, after the experience he had had in the county of Durham, where the penalty had been increased from 5s. to 10 s., he must say that he had never known the slightest difficulty in the persons fined raising the 10 s. In fact, the workmen were now earning £4 a week, and 10 s. was a penalty they found no difficulty in paying. For that reason, he proposed the higher amount and the longer period of imprisonment.
SIR HENRY HOAREobjected to the proposal that a working man should be called upon to pay 400 per cent more than was now imposed in the case provided for by the clause. In fact, the Amendment was beside the direct object of the Bill, which was not so much aimed at the prevention of individual drunkenness as the suppression of a system to which they all objected. The working classes were not the only persons who over-indulged occasionally. If they took too much beer there were others who drank claret and stronger drinks and if these heavy penalties were to be imposed, he suggested that they should be confined to those who paid income tax.
MR. ASSHETONthought that while 5s. was an inadequate fine, 40 s. was too much, and suggested that 10 s. was a fair medium.
MR. CANDLISHsuggested as a compromise that the maximum penalty should be 20 s., instead of 40 s., as proposed.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that a fine of 10 s. in the agricultural districts would absorb, in many cases, a whole week's wages, and the lengthened period of imprisonment would inflict a great hardship. At the same time, there were reasons for thinking that 5s. was an inadequate penalty. If they were to have an Amendment in the
1688
clause, it ought to take the form of the alternative of imprisonment. Very often a fine of 5s. was no penalty at all, and the stocks had disappeared from their punishments. They had evidence that in Edinburgh, where the alternative of a day's imprisonment had been introduced, drunkenness had steadily decreased, and that was a strong reason in favour of introducing the alternative punishment of imprisonment.
SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be led away by the idea that they could prevent drunkenness by severe penalties. No man went to a public-house deliberately to get drunk. Drunkenness was an accident; and it was not, therefore, by increasing the penalty that they could do away with it. Moral means were necessary to prevent men becoming drunk. He also wished to point out that the penalty with the costs varied. In London it was 5s., but in Tunbridge Wells it was 10 s., and in the county of Sussex generally it was 12 s. He believed they would do no good by increasing the penalties.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would stick to his proposition. It was an admirable one. The magistrates were not bound to inflict the full penalty; but it was very important that they should have power to inflict the heavier penalty of 40 s. There was an Act whereby a man could now be fined 40 s. if he was drunk and obstructing the highway.
MR. BRUCEobserved that one of the most difficult questions on which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion was this question of repressing drunkenness by penalties. He was very far from saying that this clause was a satisfactory solution of the whole question, and that heavier penalties for repeated offences might not be followed by good results. He did not agree with the worthy Alderman behind him (Sir David Salomons) that these penalties produced no good. If he would read the evidence of the stipendiary magistrate at Sheffield, and other magistrates, given before the Committee which sat during this Session, he would find that the opinion at which they had arrived was that short terms of imprisonment would be deterrent. He thought, however, that for the first

1689
offence of the nature to which this section applied 10 s. was sufficient. It was intended that this section should apply to persons found drunk on licensed premises, and therefore the great majority of persons on whom it would be inflicted would belong to the poorer—he would not say the working—classes. To them 10 s., if they were to pay costs, would be a sufficient penalty. It was a subject for the consideration of the House whether in the case of repeated offences it would not be right to give the power to inflict a heavier punishment. He was bound to say, however, that he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) went too far.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he would not have risen if the hon. Baronet near him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had not referred to the stocks. He was bound to say that as a magistrate he had applied that punishment many times in the past, and he hoped to apply it many times again. He had himself offered persons their choice, and advised them that it was far better to stand in the stocks for two hours than to pay the penalty of 5s. He thought the fine proposed in the clause was quite enough, especially when in the next section it was proposed that persons, if guilty of riotous and disorderly conduct, should be liable to a fine of 40 s.
MR. DODDSsaid, that he came from the same county as the hon. Member for Boston, and he should like to know where the punishment of the stocks was inflicted. He himself did not know where it had been inflicted in recent years.
COLONEL GILPINconcurred with the observations of the Home Secretary, and believed that, under the circumstances, 10 s. was an amply sufficient penalty. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he had understood that the stocks, like the pillory, were excluded from the laws of the country.
MR. BROWNsuggested that for the first offence the penalty should be 10 s.; for the second, 20 s.; and for the third, 30 s.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYshould like to know from the hon. Member for Boston where the punishment of the stocks had been inflicted? ["Oh!"] It is all very well to cry "Oh, oh!" but they should see whether the old statute was still in force when the hon. Member
1690
declared so ostentatiously that he had inflicted this penalty.
MR. R. N. FOWLERdid not think the question before the Committee was the question of stocks. The question was whether for the future the penalty for drunkenness should be 10 s. instead of 5s.; he himself thought it was quite a sufficient change to make in the law to raise the penalty to 10 s.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the question before the Committee was what ought to be the maximum penalty. They all knew very well that, as maximum penalties were very seldom imposed, if the maximum penalty was to be 10 s., there would be very few cases in which it would be inflicted; and therefore when it was said that 10 s. was the penalty imposed by this Bill, the statement was not accurate. They ought to give such a maximum as would be felt by any person on whom it was likely to be imposed, being well assured that it would be always reduced in proportion to the means of the person convicted. He thought that in dealing with a question of this sort it was better to adopt some reasonable penalty which magistrates might inflict at their discretion; and if the hon. Baronet (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) divided he should certainly support him. Penalties ought to be apportioned to the condition of the persons on whom they were inflicted. A fine of 10 s. was a severe penalty on agricultural laborers; but there were classes above them who got drunk. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Hoare) said that "our class" got drunk. ["No!"]
SIR HENRY HOARE: I beg pardon. I did not say that our class was in the habit of getting drunk. What I said was that the working classes were not more guilty of drinking to excess than other classes.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the hon. Baronet made the remark that we drank too much claret and champagne. There were classes who could well afford to pay a penalty of 20 s., and if they wished to check drunkenness by this means they should have penalties appreciable by those on whom they were inflicted. A penalty of 10 s. was nothing to an artizan who was making £2 or £3 a-week, because it was well known that these fines were paid by communities who combined for the defence of one another. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite

1691
seemed to desire to cram this Bill, like some other Bills, down their throats; but though he supported the Bill he would not permit it to be hustled through Committee without proper consideration. He thought that they should have a reasonable maximum penalty.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it might shorten time if he put before the Committee the views of the Government with regard to the various Amendments on this clause. After considering all the evidence on the subject, he was of opinion that there would be an advantage in having a scale of punishment increasing with the increased number of offences At the same time, he could not go the length of the extreme severity of the Amendment; but he thought that they might so far adopt it as to provide an increased penalty for the second and third offences. He would propose to modify the Amendment of the hon. Baronet by introducing words imposing a penalty of 20 s. for the second offence, and for the third offence, if committed within 12 months of the second, one month's imprisonment, with or without hard labour.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would allow magistrates some discretion.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that his experience convinced him that a penalty of 10 s. would be quite sufficient to meet the justice of the case. When penalties were too heavy it often happened that they were not imposed. He was glad the Home Secretary stood by the 10 s. penalty for the first offence.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that the statement of the Home Secretary took away his breath, and he stood aghast at the proposition that a man should be sent to prison for taking a glass too much three times a year. When the Bill was introduced, he thought it would be very difficult to make men moral by Act of Parliament; but after this discussion he considered it hopeless. The first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was reasonable enough, and he implored him not to go further, pointing out that the effect of putting a drunkard in prison for a month would be to throw his wife and children on the parish for that time, and thus punish the innocent ratepayers. The Bill was a mild and moderate one, and was acceptable to the trade and the public; but he was surprised that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins)
1692
should propose to revive the odious and barbarous punishment of the stocks. They ought not to treat men who took a glass too much like convicted thieves.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was anxious not to be misunderstood. As regarded the punishment of the ratepayers, if the Bill would not prevent drunkenness it would do nothing, and if it did it would certainly diminish the rates. Whether drunkenness was a crime or not, undoubtedly it was a grave offence, and one for which the wives and children of drunkards now suffered the penalty. It was a fearful parent of vice and crime, and he thought that if a man were three times convicted for such an offence it was a proof that fining him was no good, and that he should be sent to prison. His belief was that that the infliction of such a penalty would diminish rather than increase the rates, put an end to a great deal of human suffering, and raise the tone of public morality.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreferred to the experience of Scotland, where an Act passed in 1862, imposing a fine of 5s., or 24 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness in the streets, produced a steady decrease in the number of convictions.
MR. DENTthought the views of the Government deserved approval.
MR. HENLEYasked what would be the result of making the penalties too heavy? By increasing the penalties they would have fewer convictions. "Being drunk" was a very elastic term, indeed; and witnesses would give very different evidence with regard to offences visited by a low penalty from what they would give where the penalty was heavy. And where the penalties had a high range, there must be an appeal, in which the Judges would have to decide what was "being drunk." Again, how were the repeated convictions to be proved? He wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these points.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it must be recollected that all these penalties were optional; the magistrate was not bound to inflict them, but had the power to do so if he thought the case required it. The offences must take place within the year; they would be in the same locality; and the justices would have full knowledge of all the circumstances.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwished to call the attention of the Committee to the point they were discussing. The Bill imposed a penalty not exceeding 10 s. on any person found drunk, upon which an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) to make it 40 s. In addition to that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed various cumulative penalties: A man shall be fined for being drunk, and on the second offence that fine shall be doubled. But that was not all, for on a conviction for a third offence the party shall be liable to be sent to prison for a given period, with or without hard labour. Now, such a penalty as that was, in his opinion, too severe. ["Question!"]
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That 10 s. stand part of the clause."
COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Home Secretary, whether he would not allow an alternative of seven days with a fine instead of 14 days' imprisonment? It might be a positive kindness to a working man to have seven days' imprisonment with a fine of 10 s., instead of 14 days without a fine.
Amendment (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) negatived.
MR. DENTthen proposed, page 4, line 34, to insert—
"Every person who shall be convicted of drunkenness under this section within a period of 12 months, shall on the second conviction be liable to a penalty of 20 s., and for a third or subsequent offence to a penalty of 40 s., or at the discretion of the magistrate to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE moved to insert the words "and including costs." Now, it so happened that in the City of London no costs were ever added to penalties; and it was for the purpose of determining what they were that he wished to have these words inserted.
MR. LOCKEwas surprised to hear the proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to add imprisonment to the penalties inflicted by the Bill. When they saw the sentences which were frequently passed he certainly objected to give to magistrates the power of sending a man who might be in every regard respectable to gaol,
1694
and giving him a month's hard labour because he happened to be intemperate. It was quite possible, too, that the magistrate might be a man of a peculiar nature. He could pick out many in that House—men whom he would not trust to look after the character of a cat, much less of a human being. And it was to such men that it was proposed to give the power of sending a man to prison with hard labour, and to mix with the greatest vagabonds in the country, for a trivial offence which was altogether disproportioned to such punishment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the laxity he had displayed in yielding to suggestions, and not bind himself up in this proposal of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). Ten shillings was a large fine for a poor man, and he hoped it would be rejected. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by his first intentions and discountenances those cruel and fantastical propositions.
MR. DENTthought that no magistrate would send a man to prison with hard labour for a month without the option of a fine unless he believed that the accused was a confirmed drunkard.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that this was a serious matter. By thus sending a man to prison and giving him a month's hard labour they might be, in fact, ruining him for life. They knew there were men who took peculiar views on the subject of drinking, and that such men, if armed with the power, would be too ready to convict and send to prison a man brought before them on such a charge. It did not follow, moreover, if the charge were proved, that the man was not a good father, and otherwise respectable. The Committee should remember, too, that the poor man's stomach was too frequently not in a state to enable him to withstand the effect of strong drink. He went through a great deal of toil, and a little drink took great effect on him. He hoped such a law would not be passed.
MR. FOTHERGILLobjected most strenuously to the proposition that a man should be imprisoned for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He knew a man for whom he had the highest respect, and to whom he would have entrusted his life. That man, however, unfortunately gave way occasionally to intemperance, and to

1695
have to give such a man a month's hard labour would to him be most revolting. And he had known many such cases. The proposed legislation was all a mistake and he should vote against it if it was persisted in.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that the question of imprisonment was not then before them.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the Committee were now legislating upon a weakness of human nature, and not upon a crime. He was old enough to remember the time when it was fashionable for gentlemen to get drunk in the afternoon, and he thought it would be monstrous to make a man associate with felons, thieves, and vagabonds for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he observed that, following these clauses, three pages were devoted to clauses against adulteration, and in the schedule the ingredients were set forth which would have the property of causing or increasing intoxication. Now, until they had settled those clauses it seemed to him that they should not set about enforcing penalties against a person for an offence which perhaps was not his own, but was due to liquor which, they admitted, might be very bad and deleterious, because they took so many precautions to endeavour to ensure its being wholesome. He thought they would limit the penalty in the first instance to 10 s., as in the Bill, and afterwards, when it was in full operation in all its parts, they might visit offenders with the full penalty.
MR. BRUCEobserved that, presuming the House to be desirous of passing a Licensing Bill, he must ask the Committee to deal only with the Amendment. He sympathized with his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) in the objection he took as to the levying of costs; but next year he hoped to offer for the acceptance of the House a measure for paying the clerks of Justices by salaries, and not by fees. If his hon. Friend objected to 20 s., he had better try to reduce the amount.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the Bill as originally framed, and would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr.
1696
Dent). He should press his Amendment to a division and whether it was accepted or not, he should oppose the original Amendment, because he objected to a cumulative penalty.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member for the City would not divide the Committee, and urged upon the Committee the great inconvenience of legislating upon a very general subject for one particular case. Having acted many years as a magistrate, he felt quite as much as the hon. Alderman opposite the injustice of inflicting a much heavier penalty by way of costs than the magistrate desired to inflict.
MR. HARVEY LEWIShoped the Committee would not allow such an Amendment as that before the Committee to disfigure the Bill. It was totally at variance with all that had been done in the other House, and yet he understood that Government would accept it. If it were carried it would make a conference with the other House necessary, and that House might disagree with it. It would subject a man to penal servitude for a month for the simple fact of getting drunk. Such conduct would bring contempt on the legislation of Parliament, and lead the people to believe that the Government could not make up their mind. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) negatived.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he understood that the Government were prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). If that were so, he thought the Committee ought at once to report Progress. He was surprised at their assenting to such a proposal after the Bill had passed through the other House in a milder shape. The proposed change in the penalty for drunkenness would be repugnant to the feelings of the country. Surely they would not put a drunken man in the position of a convicted felon? As it had been pointed out, a drunken man was now doubly liable—both for being drunk, and for any mischief he might cause whilst in that state.
MR. COLLINS MR. COLLINS moved to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Dent) by striking out the words relating to imprisonment, and confining it to the cumulative penalties.
MR. DENTexpressed his readiness to accept that modification of the Amendment.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to adhere to the terms of the Bill. It was not so very long since it was a gentlemanly thing to get drunk at least once or twice a-week, and, therefore, he thought they should not bear so very hard upon the lower classes, who, of late years, had manifested much improvement. He would wish to see the Government rely more on the good sense of the people themselves than on a system of cumulative fines for the repression of drunkenness, and he hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the Bill.
LORD JOHN MANNERSthought it was sound advice to adhere to the Bill as passed through the other House by the Government. The reasons which induced the Committee, half an hour ago, to reject the Amendment of the junior Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would justify the Committee in rejecting the Amendment now proposed by the senior Member (Mr. Dent). They would do well to reject the Amendment even in the mitigated form in which the hon. Member now proposed to submit it.
MR. COLLINSprotested against the doctrine that they were to accept én bloc whatever was sent down from "another place" without giving it any consideration.
MR. HARVEY LEWISobserved that that was not the question at all. It was, whether the Government having passed the Bill through the House of Lords in a form acceptable to themselves should now alter it?
Words relating to imprisonment struck out of the Amendment.
Amendment, as amended, proposed,
In page 4, line 34, after the words "ten shillings," to add the words "and on a second conviction within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, and on a third or subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 141: Majority 41.
COLONEL GILPIN, seeing that the Government had adopted a very important Amendment and that there was
1698
other important business on the Paper, considered it his duty to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
MR. BRUCEhoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not press a Motion which would interfere with and mar the progress of the Bill. The Government had adopted the Amendment because it was not an unreasonable one. Was it, he asked, to be understood that under no circumstances whatever the Government was to accept an Amendment? Surely, if a Bill of this importance was to be conducted in a manner that would be satisfactory to the Committee of the House, it was the duty of the Government to give the proposals of hon. Members fair consideration.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsupported the Motion for reporting Progress, and complained of the Government for having essentially departed from the arrangement of the Bill as originally prepared by the Home Office.
MR. WHITBREADexpressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion. He was quite sure that if they were to go on with Motions to report Progress, that they would make but very little progress indeed with the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the adoption of the Amendment referred to by the hon. and gallant Member made no change in the structure or character of the Bill. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion to report Progress, and that he would allow the Bill to be proceeded with. The hon. and gallant Member was probably influenced by his strong sympathy for another Bill—the Military Forces Localization (Expenses); but if they were now to report Progress, it would not be possible to proceed with that Bill that night.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had an Amendment relating to persons in a state of drunkenness on the highway and in possession of firearms. He, on reflection, considered the term "highway" not sufficiently large, and he therefore moved after the word "highway," page 4, line 37, to insert "road or thoroughfare;" and in line 38, after the word "engine," to insert—

1699
"or who is drank when in possession of any firearms or other dangerous weapons, shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness and ma be apprehended, and."
MR. BRUCEadmitted that a person drunk and in possession of firearms might be regarded as dangerous, and if the Amendment, were in possession of "loaded" firearms, he should have no objection to it.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked how it was possible for any person to know whether the firearms were loaded or not?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, penalties had been provided years ago to meet such a case, and had been imposed. He thought the Committee ought to reject much that was in the Bill.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the proposition now made a second time was that the Government were bound to produce a Bill which should be altogether incapable of amendment. He could not concur in that. Nor could he altogether oppose the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), since he was in the habit of receiving constant communications from the Judges of the dangers resulting from drunken persons carrying firearms.
MR. GREGORYwas at a loss to know what the incidence of drunkenness was, and particularly of "aggravated" drunkenness.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he certainly did not know what "aggravated drunkenness" was. He could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in his idea that the Committee ought to reject some of the clauses én bloc. In his (Mr. Collins's) opinion the Committee might leave out all the words after "aggravated drunkenness."
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, the Bill had come down from the other House, and it was in all respects a very strong measure. The complainst against the Government was, not that they pressed it, but that they really did not appear to know their own minds, and particularly upon this monstrous clause.
After a few words from Mr. BRUCE,
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and omit from his Amendment the words "or other dangerous weapons shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness."
Words omitted.
MR. HENLEYobserved that the words "or other dangerous weapons" were a very wide description indeed to entail the penalty for what was called "aggravated drunkenness."
Amendment amended, and agreed to, as follows:—"Or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearm may be apprehended, and."
MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in line 39, after "shilling," to leave out to end of clause. As the clause stood, he said any man riding home might be liable, on the information of a policeman, at the discretion of the magistrate to be sent to the House of Correction for a month. The object of his Amendment was to do away with that discretion.
MR. BRUCEdefended the clause. There might occasionally be cases in which magistrates might not use discreetly the powers entrusted to them; but the clause was intended broadly to deal with a class of serious offences, and it was right to take ample power for dealing with them.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHhoped the Committee would support the proposal of the Government, as the Amendment was entirely framed in favour of the rich man.
MR. MUNTZsaid, it was not in favour of the rich man; but, on the contrary, was in favour of the poor one.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that many accidents arose from persons driving vehicles while drunk, and he therefore supported the clause as it stood.
Amendment negatived.
On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
MR. KNIGHTsaid, that he must take the sense of the Committee upon this clause. He regarded it as one of the most tyrannical ever inserted in an Act of Parliament. Any man who was driving, and was said to be in the slightest degree drunk, was liable to be put in prison for a month. He could not see anything that would work more hardly on the poorer classes, and he could not allow it to pass.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsupported the views of the hon. Member, and said that he regarded the clause as unnecessarily severe.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 49: Majority 170.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 5, line 10, after "or," to insert "knowingly."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved, in page 5, line 10, after "section," insert "other than a first offence."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he considered the offence dealt with in the clause one of the most serious nature, and he could not in any degree permit its severity to be relaxed.
Amendment negatived.
MR. BARCLAY MR. BARCLAY moved, in line 11, after "convicted," to insert "if the convicting justice shall so order." He thought the time had come when some discretion should be given to the magistrates. If the power which he advocated were not granted, their dignity would, in his opinion, be much lowered. He was anxious that full penalties should be imposed; but unless they were anxious to ruin the licensed victuallers some liberty of action ought to be left in the hands of the magistrates. This endorsement of licenses was a very serious matter. If the magistrates were armed with discretionary powers he believed they would most carefully exercise them.
MR. RATHBONEhoped the Government would not consent to any relaxation of the clause as it stood in the Bill. They were sanctioning an extension of enormously increased powers to the licensed victuallers, and the only excuse for giving them any monopoly was security for public order and morality. Nothing should he left to the discretion of magistrates in matters of this kind. In the earlier clauses of the Bill they had been heaping penalties on poor drunkards, giving the magistrates no discretion; but when they came to deal with a powerful body of men a different principle was endeavoured to be introduced. He looked upon the record of all convictions on the license for offences connected with drunkenness as one of
1702
the vital points of the Bill, and he sincerely hoped it would not be surrendered.
MR. LOCKE, after calling the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause, which he had given Notice of his intention to amend in the same manner as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay), said, that in a case of this kind it was quite obvious there ought to be power in the magistrates to act as they thought best according to circumstances. It was sometimes impossible to prevent drunken people entering a man's house—a policeman might enter, and a disturbance occur, the "licensed person" doing all he could to preserve order, and yet he might be unable to convince the magistrate that there was no blame on his part. A great deal was left in the Bill to the magistrates as regarded the measure of punishment to be inflicted, and he maintained that there ought to be similar discretionary power in respect of the recording of convictions on licenses. The words proposed to be inserted in the clause were only right and proper, and he should vote for their insertion.
MR. MELLYthought that if a man knowingly permitted drunkenness or violence in his house, he would commit a very grave offence, and there ought to be no discretion in the case.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the offence named in the clause might be proved against a publican though he was in no degree to blame. That was one reason why he favoured giving magistrates power to act discretionally in connection with the record of convictions. Then, again, they must all see that when the penalty was increased to the extent of endorsement on the license, conviction would become more difficult. It was well known that, generally speaking, the duties of licensed victuallers in the proper management of their houses were very severe indeed. Did any hon. Gentleman really know the trials and temptations to which a licensed victualler was often exposed? He must have a good temper; he must exercise the severest self-control, or he might peril his property at any moment. Take a man, or a parcel of men walking into his house, already mischievously drunk, and they demand to be served. If he refuse—and most probably he will—his barman, or barmaid, or himself is

1703
assaulted probably; and if what is called a "row" takes place the police come in, and it will be a most difficult thing for him to prove that he was not guilty of riotous behaviour. That was one of the cases where the discretion of a magistrate would be properly exercised, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend's Amendment would be adopted by the Committee.
MR. BRUCEregarded this as one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and hoped the Committee would support the Bill as it stood. The object was to secure improved order, and the great cause of disorder was knowingly permitting drunkenness. The publican did not run any risk of unjust conviction, and the public had a right to insist that every necessary security should be taken for the proper conduct of a business which was undoubtedly a valuable monopoly.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in view of the heavy nature of the penalties, it would be far better to give the justices discretion as to whether, on a conviction, they would take the first step towards the canceling of the licenses.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEwished to know if a licensed person was to be answerable for the acts or conduct of his servants? Because, if not, all he had to do was to go away from his house and allow them to do what they pleased. It seemed to him, looking at the whole case, that the magistrates ought to have discretion in such cases, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. STRAIGHThad some experience in matters of this description, and believed there would be found the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining a conviction at all. He thought there would be the greatest difficulty in getting magistrates to convict if the penalty were made so heavy, especially in very numerous cases in which they would feel that the evidence was just sufficient to warrant a conviction. He hoped the Amendment would be pushed to a division.
MR. FOTHERGILLpointed out that a landlord was liable to be convicted for suffering quarrelsome conduct; but what was "quarrelsome conduct?" He thought he had witnessed scenes in the House in which the occupants of the Treasury bench might be charged with quarrelsome conduct. And then, on whose evidence were parties to be con-
1704
victed? Nothing had been said about the police as yet; but he knew a great deal about policemen in reference to public-houses. It was known to many others that many policemen never paid for the drink they swallowed, and that publicans who insisted on policemen paying for their drink were always in hot water. Yet it was upon the evidence of the police that magistrates were to decide. Now, that was a very serious state of circumstances; but all that was asked was, that the magistrates should be allowed the option of not recording offences under that section.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to call attention to the effect of recording the offence a certain number of times. As regarded the tenant, he would not have his license for five years. The consequence to the landlord was much more serious, because if those convictions were recorded the premises might lose their license for two years—"if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so think fit to order." Then, if magistrates were to have discretion in a great matter like that, why should it be refused to them in trifling ones?
MR. RATHBONEexpressed his belief that the House would insist upon it that the owner of premises who had not taken proper pains to ensure that his house should be regularly conducted should be punished. The hon. Member for London had hit a great blot in the Bill, and that was the word "knowingly." If after having brought the fact of conviction home two or three times to a person, it was not to tell against him for serious punishment, they might as well throw the Bill into the fire.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsuggested that the provision of the clause should be "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the provision in the Bill was necessary from the peculiar nature of the monopoly which had been created for this trade. Magistrates hesitated to exercise the power with which they were armed by several Acts for taking away a license on a third offence. It was rarely they did exercise the power, and therefore, in the interests of society, they were justified in selecting a few offences under the Bill, and saying that in such cases the action of the magistrates should be compulsory.
MR. J. G. TALBOTthen moved to substitute "unless" for "if."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he could not allow the last statement of the Home Secretary to pass unchallenged. He could himself speak for the magistrates of Middlesex and of the City of London that they had never shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses when necessary, and afterwards application to obtain the licenses so refused had been made to the Lord Chamberlain, and by him granted. He should support the Amendment, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the statement of the Home Secretary was strong, and he believed unjustifiable. The magistrates had not shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses, but the truth was they were rarely called upon to do so. It was against beerhouses and not against houses licensed by the magistrates that they had to proceed in that manner.
MR. BRUCEhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kent would be withdrawn in order that the Committee might divide on the main question.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he felt so strongly on this point that he must press his Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought these words were necessary in order to make the Bill consistent with itself. It gave the magistrates discretion with respect to the period during which the House might be deprived of a license, and they ought also to have discretion with respect to the penalty to be inflicted.
MR. R. N. FOWLERhoped the hon. Member for Kent would proceed with his Amendment, for he feared the Government were going so far that the magistrates would not convict.
Amendment, as amended, proposed, in page 5, line 11, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 123: Majority 30.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

COUNTESS OF MAYO'S ANNUITY BILL.
Resolution [July 22] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAMCARTER, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]

ROYAL MILITARY CANAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, Bill to amend the Royal Military Canal Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL and Sir HENRY STORKS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.