Commons Sitting of 1 June 1874

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. Antony Evelyn Melbourne Ashley,for Poole.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Special Report—Explosive Substances.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Payment of Revising Barristers * [127]; Sanitary Laws Amendment * [128].
First Reading—Courts (Straits Settlements) * [126].
Committee—Juries [18]—R.P.; Municipal Privileges (Ireland) (re-comm.) [119]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Magistrates (Ireland) and Commissioners of Dublin Police Salaries * [117]; Revenue Officers Disabilities * [15]; Fines, Fees, and Penalties * [59].
Third Reading—Marriages Legalization (St. John the Evangelist's Chapel in the Parish of Shustock) * [101]; Holyhead Old Harbour Road * [51].

GALWAY BOROUGH ELECTION.
Mr. O'DONNELL appeared at the Bar of this House, and claimed to make a statement to the House, before the Certificate and Report from the Judge selected pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, for the trial of the Galway Borough Election Petition, was read to the House.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER informed Mr. O'DONNELL, that he had already received the Judge's Certificate and Report relative to the Election for the Borough of Galway, from which it appeared that the honourable Gentleman was disqualified from sitting in this House, and that he therefore was not entitled to be heard:—
And Mr. O'DONNELL withdrew accordingly.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—DURHAM—BOLTON—GALWAY—WIGTON DISTRICT OF BURGHS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, Certificates and Reports relating to the Elections for the City of Durham; for the Borough of Bolton; for the Borough of Galway; and the Certificate, Report, and Judgment upon a Special Case relating to the Election for the Wigton District of Burghs. And the same were severally read to the effect following:—
Durham City Election,—Mr. Baron Bramwell reported "that Messrs. John Henderson and Thomas Charles Thompson were not, nor was either of them, duly elected. That no corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed with the knowledge and consent of any Candidate at such Election."
Bolton Election,—Mr. Justice Mellor reported "that John Kynaston Cross, esquire, had been duly elected and returned."
Galway Election,—Mr. Justice Lawson reported—

"1. That Francis Hugh O'Donnell, whose Return and Election was complained of, was not duly returned and elected.

"2. That the last Election for the said Borough was void.

"And, in compliance with the directions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, Sect. 11, Article 14, I report—
"That it was proved before me that, previous to and in anticipation of the day of polling, a system of intimidation was organised by the said Francis Hugh O'Donnell and his agents, by threats and mob violence, to unduly influence the voters; and that such system was, on the day of polling, carried out with the knowledge and consent of the said Francis Hugh O'Donnell; and the said Election, in consequence of such intimidation and undue influence, was rendered void.
"And I further report that the said Francis Hugh O'Donnell, the Revd. Peter Dooley, Roman Catholic Vicar General, and the Revd. Martin Comyns, Roman Catholic Curate, were proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of intimidation and undue influence.
"And I further report that it appeared in evidence before me that a great number of the voters of the said Borough were illiterate persons, and voting as such under the Ballot Act, and many of them unable to understand the English language, and that they were and are peculiarly liable to be coerced and unduly influenced. And I am of opinion, and do accordingly report, that the corrupt practice of undue influence has extensively prevailed in the said Borough at the Election to which the Petition relates."
Wigton District of Burghs,—Lord Ormidale reported "that Mark John Stewart, esquire, was not duly elected or returned as Member of Parliament for the said Wigton District of Burghs, and that his Election and Return were and are wholly null and void: but that the said Right Honourable George Young was duly

751
elected, and ought to have been returned, as Member of Parliament for the said Wigton District of Burghs."

IRELAND—DUBLIN UNIVERSITY—ANNUAL BALANCE SHEETS AND AUDIT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Recommendation, No. 22, in the Report of the Dublin University Commission, 1853, that—
  "The auditor of the College should he appointed by the Visitors, and that an audited balance sheet and statement of the income and expenditure of the College should be published annually,"
  has ever been carried out; and, if so, whether there is any objection to have the annual balance sheets and statements of income and expenditure from the date of the Commission to the present time laid before the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the Recommendation alluded to was accepted in a modified form by the Crown, and was included in Her Majesty's Letter of the 8th year of Her reign. The auditor, who was formerly appointed by the Provost and Senior Fellows, was now appointed subject to the approval of the visitors. He knew of no objection to producing the Papers excepting their voluminous character and the time that would be occupied in their preparation Perhaps the hon. Member would communicate with him privately on the subject.

IRELAND—LICENSING ACT (1872).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true the Constabulary in Ireland have received orders from their officers forbidding them to carry out the provisions afforded by the Licensing Act, 1872, against adulteration of liquor; and, if such be the case, to ask the reason for such order?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he was informed by the Inspector General of Irish Constabulary that he had issued no orders of the kind referred to, and he was not aware that any such orders had been issued. He had communicated with the County
  752
  Inspectors on the subject, but had not yet received their Report.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS—RETURN FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, seeing the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in his place, he wished to ask him a Question. The hon. Member had moved for a Return from Foreign Countries on Monastic Institutions which the Government had consented to give on certain conditions. Having regard to this Return, he wished to ask, whether the hon. Member intends to proceed with his Bill to-morrow night on the same subject?
MR. NEWDEGATE, in reply, said, that it was not his fault that the information respecting the Laws relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions was not already in the hands of Members. Inasmuch as the Monastic and Conventual Bill was for inquiry, nothing could be more appropriate than that the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill should consider the substance of the information which would be furnished by the Returns to which the hon. Baronet referred. He should certainly proceed with the Bill to-morrow.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE.
  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES COMMITTEE.

    SPECIAL REPORT.
    Order read for Attendance of Mr. R. S. France.
    MR. FORSYTH: Sir, Mr. France is one of my constituents, and he has placed in my hands a statement which is rather long, but which he wishes me to read to the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member proceeds, I must put to the House the Motion that Mr. France be called in.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Mr. R. S. France be called in."—(Sir John Hay).
    Whereupon Mr. FORSYTH read the statement accordingly, wherein were the following words—
    "But if in that Letter I made use of any term stronger than is allowed by the rules of this Honorable House, I most readily withdraw

    753
    it. I never intended to reflect, in any way, upon the House of Commons, nor upon the honour of the Chairman of the Committee, and I at once most cheerfully apologise if it is considered that I have done so, and withdraw the expressions."
    MR. FORSYTH: Sir, having read this statement, which is much longer than I could have wished, I have only further to state that Mr. France is a large quarry proprietor. He considers himself to have suffered from the course adopted by the Committee, and through the intervention of Professor Abel, and he makes various charges against that gentleman, which, however, have nothing to do with the question before the House. He withdraws and apologises for any expressions in his letter—those expressions which the House has most properly taken notice of, and which I could not justify—which may have violated the Privileges of this House, or reflected on my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Explosive Substances. I do not think he could do more, and I trust that under these circumstances the House will not think it necessary to call him to the Bar. I move, therefore, as an Amendment, that the Order for Mr. France's attendance be discharged.
    No hon. Member seconding the Amendment—
    MR. DISRAELI: It appears to me, Sir, that this case, as far as the House is concerned, is a very simple one. After a statement made by the Chairman of one of our Committees, the House unanimously resolved that Mr. France should appear before you, Sir, to-day. Mr. France has not appeared, and the House ought to express its sense of the laches on his part. He has, instead of coming here, sent an apology for expressions which were considered by this House as offensive, and respecting which they demanded an explanation, thus giving him an opportunity of making his explanation personally. By the course he has seen fit to take, Mr. France has, in my opinion, aggravated his offence. I, therefore, Sir, think it is our duty to insist upon Mr. France appearing at the Bar.
    MR. FORSYTH: I rise, Sir, to explain. Mr. France is here, and has been here from the first, and perfectly willing to appear; but he was told that
    754
    if he sent in the statement which I have read, it would be in conformity with the Rules of the House, and therefore it would not be necessary for him to appear in person.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that Mr. France be called in.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. R. S. FRANCEwas then called.
    Mr. FRANCEbeing at the Bar,
    MR. SPEAKER: Richard Samuel France, are you the writer of a letter dated the 20th May last, addressed to Sir John Dalrymple Hay, a Member of this House, and the Chairman of a Select Committee inquiring into Explosive Substances?
    Mr. R. S. FRANCE: Yes, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: Did you send copies of that letter to Members of the House of Commons serving on that Committee?
    Mr. R. S. FRANCE: I did.
    MR. SPEAKER: Have you any explanation to offer with reference to that Letter?
    Mr. R. S. FRANCE: All the explanations I have to offer are contained in the statement I have prepared, and which I believe has been read to the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Have you anything to add to it?
    Mr. R. S. FRANCE: No, Sir. If the whole of my statement has been read, I have nothing to add to it, except that if I have used any terms stronger than are allowed by the House, or if I have at all seemed to reflect upon the honourable Chairman, or upon any Member of the Committee, or of the House, I shall be most happy to withdraw them. No intention to use such terms or to make such reflections crossed my mind at the time I wrote the Letter.
    MR. SPEAKER: If no hon. Member wishes to put further questions to Mr. France, the proposal I have to put is that Mr. France do now withdraw.
    Question agreed to: Mr. FRANCE was accordingly directed to withdraw.
    MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have waited because I thought it probable that some one of the hon. Members more directly interested than I am would have made a proposal to the House. I have myself listened impartially to what has been said, and with no previous knowledge of the facts, and I must say it appears to me that on the whole the conduct of Mr.

    755
    France has not been satisfactory; and though this House is always ready to act on a merciful and even generous view of questions such as this which is now before us, it appears to me that this matter would not conclude in a satisfactory manner unless Mr. France is admonished by the Speaker for his conduct. I move, therefore, that Mr. France be again summoned, and that you, Sir, admonish him.
    Ordered, That Mr. R. S. France be called to the Bar of this House, and there admonished by Mr. Speaker for having written and circulated the said Letter, in breach of the Privileges of this House.
    Mr. FRANCEhaving been accordingly called in, was admonished by Mr. Speaker as follows—
    "Mr. R. S. France, the House has had under its consideration a Letter addressed by you to Sir John Hay, the Chairman of a Committee of this House. In that Letter you directly impute to him, in his capacity as Member of this House, and as Chairman of the Select Committee, unfair conduct; and you indirectly impute similar unfair conduct to every Member of the Committee of which he was Chairman. In so doing you have committed a breach of the privileges of this House, an offence which this House will ever be prompt to punish in vindication and in defence of its just rights and privileges. The House has heard an explanation given by you with regard to the writing of that Letter. That explanation is not wholly satisfactory to this House; but this House is willing to accept those portions of that explanation which contain an apology for the language you have used directed against the privileges of this House; and this House is not unwilling that the matter should go no further. I am therefore directed, as their Speaker, to admonish you as to your future conduct, trusting that this admonition will prevent the recurrence of such conduct on your part."
    And then Mr. R. S. FRANCE withdrew.
    MR. DISRAELI: I move, Sir, that these proceedings be entered on our Journals.
    MR. WHITWELLwished to ask whether the whole of the Letter which had been read by the hon. and learned Member for
    756
    Marylebone, and which contained grave charges against certain Government officials, was to be entered in the Journals of the House? To place these charges on the Journals of the House would be giving them a position which might be likely on some future occasion to injure the character of the Gentlemen to whom the allusions had been made.
    MR. SPEAKER: The letter which has been read must be regarded as a part of the statement made by Mr. France, and I apprehend that, under these circumstances, the material part, which contains Mr. France's withdrawal of the expressions which were offensive to the House, must certainly appear upon the Journals of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Ordered, Nemine Contradicente, That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker, in admonishing E. S. France, be entered in the Journals of this House.

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

ARMY—REMOVAL OF MILITARY OFFICERS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. W. M. TORRENS, in rising to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, before Her Royal sanction in time of peace is asked for the permanent removal from active service of any Officer who shall have held a Commission in the Army for three years, Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to direct that an option may be given him of having his case heard and adjudicated upon by Court Martial, said, he thought that now, when they were in the midsummer of Conservative repose, such a question as that might be advantageously dealt with. A just and jealous care for the position of officers in the Army was the duty of Parliament and their due. The nation was ready to bear the charge of a great and splendid Army, and to-confide its ordering and discipline to the responsible Ministers of the Crown; but it could not afford to pay £15,000,000 a year for an Army, however numerous

  757
  and well appointed, unless it was assured that its officers were contented with the manner in which they were ruled. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood that he did not in any way question the right of the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of State for War to remove any officer. What he wanted the House to consider was the way in which this should be clone. Where there was sufficient cause, neither House of Parliament had ever hesitated to tender its advice, with loyal deference to the Crown, as to the method by which the Royal functions should be used with most honour and advantage, and even to suggest respectfully the discriminating limits within which they were least likely to be abused. When the only regular Force in the Kingdom consisted of a few regiments and squadrons raised, equipped and paid by the Crown, it was natural that commissions should be held at plea-sure, and should be terminable at will; but on the establishment of Constitutional government, Parliament had undertaken to pay, to arm, and to provision the troops, and a Royal guard was exchanged for a National Army. In truth, this was an old controversy, which had originated at the time the first Mutiny Bill was passed. And it must not be imagined that what he had to propose was any new or theoretic thing. The ways and habits of authority changed from time to time, like the uniforms and arms of our troops; but the love of unlimited power never died, and the business of Parliament was to observe its mutations, and prevent authority, in new forms, from being misused. The power of the Crown to remove officers from its service, no one was at present prepared to dispute; and from him the House would hear no word questioning the legality, and impugning the validity of this Prerogative. What he had to say related entirely to the mode in which that power had hitherto been exercised, and the precautions Parliament might counsel the Sovereign to take for its legitimate exorcise in future. As times and circumstances changed, the exercise of Prerogative must either be adapted or abandoned. When they made themselves responsible for the cost, discipline, and efficiency of the public force, they loft its disposition and command to the King; but they kept the control of the money in their own hands
  758
  by the annual Estimates, and the definition of military offences and punishments in their own hands by the annual Mutiny Bill. The terms of the Act, and the nature of the offences cognizable under it, were not easily settled by Parliament to its mind. In the brief statute, passed to quell the mutiny at Ipswich in 1689, certain powers were given to enforce discipline and obedience; but even in that day of haste and misgiving, Parliament took care, in the Preamble, to remind the new Executive—
  "That no man may be prejudged of life or limb, or subjected to any kind of punishment—by martial law or in any other manner—than by the judgment of his Peers, and according to the known laws of the Realm."
  The difficulty of that troubled period was to get officers and soldiers; and, when they were got, to keep them in order. Parliament provided for the actual need, and did not stop to guard against unseen contingencies; it declared that every man, officer or soldier, should be punishable in any sort only after public trial, and the judgment of sworn Judges; it left many things unspecified which the Executive might do—amongst the rest, the power of removal and dismissal. For the moment, perhaps, it never occurred to Peer or Commoner that a Stadtholder King, with war abroad, and civil strife at home, would throw away the sword of any officer, if he could keep it. They would as soon have thought of forbidding the captain of a ship on fire to throw one of the pumps overboard. The whole history of our Legislature, as of our law, had been made up, precept upon precept, and line upon line, as practical need required—here a little and there a little. But we should not forget whence the ground plan of a constitutional army was furnished, and how it came to be adopted. There were no words in the first Mutiny Act to prevent dismissal of an officer without legal cause, but in its spirit there was much, and in the circumstances of the time there was more. Flatterers in office told the grandson of Charles, the son-in-law of James, that by Prerogative he could remove anyone he would, but William had not forgotten the teachings of De Witt. He felt that if he could not keep his English Crown by the confidence of Englishmen in his justice, he would not keep it

  759
  through their fears. And when called upon to dismiss an officer who had offended one of his Ministers, he quietly laid down the pen of right-divine, saying—"I suppose the Gentleman voted according to what appeared to him just and right at the time; he is a brave and good officer, and one who has always done his duty in his military capacity, and I will not remove him from his command for a political cause." Throughout his reign Parliament evinced its readiness and asserted its privilege to watch over the interests of the Army, and to advise the Crown upon the subject. In 1695 an Address was presented to the King, setting forth the pecuniary grievances of subaltern officers who were oppressed and impoverished by their superiors in command—
  "Notwithstanding they had a greater pay than was given in any other part of the world they were yet reduced to inconveniences and extremities which ought not to be put upon those who venture their lives for the honour and safety of the nation;" and the Commons represented their "confidence that those would be remedied by His Majesty's justice and wisdom."
  William replied, "That he would take all possible care to have the grievances redressed." And he named accordingly a Commission to hear complaints and report to him. He was a statesman as well as a soldier, a philosopher as well as a King, and so it came to pass, that, after a life of storm and battle, he died in his bed at Kensington. The first Sovereign of the House of Hanover had certainly as much need of discipline in the troops a jealous Parliament allowed him, as any Prince who ever occupied the Throne. Unread in the literature, and inapt in the language of his people; with a rival claimant of his Crown, born in the purple, and backed by the still unbroken power of France, the founder of the present dynasty had need of all the unity of action and all the decision of authority he could command; but he was fortunate in having Ministers at the most critical junctures of his reign capable of appreciating alike his personal interest, and that of the nation. Stanhope, then a soldier of distinction, and a politician of the highest promise, framed and carried more than one important measure while in power. A Bill was prepared by him, adopted by his Colleagues, and approved by George I., "for the securing the Constitution by preventing the officers of the
  760
  land forces allowed by Parliament from being deprived of their commissions otherwise than by Court-Martial." The Bill provided—
  "1. That no Colonel or officer of lower rank shall be removed or discharged from his commission, or be deprived of the pay belonging to the same, in any other manner than is hereafter prescribed, any usage to the contrary notwithstanding. 2. That in case of any breach of duty or misbehaviour, he shall be tried by Court-Martial. 3. That nothing herein is to prevent reduction of troops or regiments;"
  The 4th clause authorized removal without trial of any officer upon an Address from either House of Legislature. Before the Bill was brought forward its gifted author was struck down by a mysterious fate within the very walls of Parliament. Less patriotic men succeeded him, and under the corrupt and enslaving influence of Walpole, the condition of the Army sunk to perhaps the lowest point of inefficiency and subserviency of which we have any record. Officers were often dismissed without trial avowedly for no other reason than because they held opinions inimical to the party in power. General Wade and others stated in their places that they had been warned at their peril not to vote with the Opposition, and many excused themselves from taking part in military questions upon the ground that they did not choose to compromise themselves with the heads of their department. At length the Minister thought fit to dismiss the Duke of Bolton and Lord Cob-ham, confessedly for no other cause than their opposition to Government. Independent men of influence, both Whig and Tory, looked round for weapons of resistance to the overweening insolence of the Executive. Mr. Pulteney in one House, and Lord Carteret in the other, undertook to lead an attack upon the system; and the Bill drawn by Stanhope in the previous reign was furnished them by his kinsman, Chesterfield, and in 1734 it was brought in by the Duke of Marlborough. What purported to be a copy was given in the Parliamentary History; but lest any doubt should be raised as to its accuracy, he had obtained leave to have a search made among the records of the House of Lords, and he was indebted to the courtesy of the keeper of their Lordships' archives for permission to have a perfect transcript made, which he then held in his hand. An interesting de-

  761
  bate arose upon the second reading, in which several of the foremost politicians of the time took part, and in the course of which Lord Chesterfield made the best and most brilliant speech he ever delivered. When the measure was defeated through the influence of Government, a protest in strong terms was signed by upwards of 30 Peers. A Motion to the same effect was made in the Commons by Lord Morpeth, but the power of Sir Robert Walpole was invincible, and the attempt to give protection to officers against capricious and unjust removal failed. He (Mr. Torrens) ventured, with all respect to the Crown, to say he believed that when Prerogatives had become out of date, it was the duty as well as the privilege of Parliament to endeavour to adapt them to the altered circumstances of the time, lest, leaving them unamended, they might some day have to be abandoned altogether. They all knew that in former days the power of removal had been seriously abused, and that officers had declared in that House, that they had been warned by the Government of the day not to vote on military subjects, as if they did they would hazard the withdrawal of their commissions. Those abuses had passed away, but other abuses far more general and common had arisen in later days. During the administration of the War Department by Lord Castlereagh, and subsequently during his Leadership of that House, dismissals without trial were frequent, and the irritation thereby occasioned gave rise to more than one unsuccessful protest by Members of the Opposition. On 7th March, 1815, Lord Proby moved a clause in Committee on the Mutiny Bill, preventing dismissal of officers without previous inquiry by Court-Martial. He stated that in Austria and Russia no such practice existed. Lord Palmerston, Secretary at War, opposed the Motion because no sufficient case of grievance had been made out, and no abuse of the discretionary power vested in the Crown. But Mr. Tierney, in supporting the proposition, said—
  "On sound constitutional principles it merited his assistance. The decision of the House in 1734 only showed that Sir Robert Walpole's House of Commons approved of their patron's conduct. By the present practice the character of an officer might be whispered away, and no reason given, but the caprice of power, for depriving him both of that and of his commission."
  762
  The renewal of the war against Napoleon led soon afterwards to a vast augmentation of the Army, and during the same Session a similar Motion was made by Mr. Bennett, ending, as before, in rejection. Waterloo stifled all criticism of military organization for a time; and the arbitrary practice continued without check, limitation, or control. It reached its climax in 1821, when a General Officer of heroic fame, who had served his country nine-and-twenty years, was, on the demand of the Home Secretary, summarily dismissed from the Army. Political passions ran high; discontent and distress prevailed, and the Government had become odious by their baffled prosecution of the Queen. In the tumult that occurred at her funeral the soldiers came into collision with the populace, and to prevent senseless and shameful carnage, Sir Robert Wilson, happening to come up at the moment, forgot his sense of discipline in his pity for an unarmed crowd, and implored the Guards to desist from firing. Without the semblance of a legal investigation, he was forthwith gazetted out of the Army. In vain he asked for a Court-Martial. In vain he cited the opinion of the twelve Judges, in the case of Lord George Sackville, who had had that opportunity of defending himself after dismissal. He was too conspicuous an opponent to be spared; and, officially, he got no quarter. In his place he appealed to Parliament against the injustice of dismissal without trial. Fifty years have come and gone since then, and we could look dispassionately at the case, as few men in that troubled time could do. In the angry discussion which ensued, scarcely a word was said on either side about the General's impulsive act. The whole of the controversy turned upon the question whether a gallant and generous man should be stripped of his rank, reduced to penury, and branded with military disgrace, without a hearing, without evidence, and without the judgment of any but his political enemies, who happened to be in power. His appeal was overborne by numbers, but in the minority were found Denman, Brougham, Tierney, Whitbread, Lushington, Scarlett, Lord William Bentinck, and Lord John Russell. Lord Castlereagh on the occasion, with characteristic intrepidity, argued for the absolutism of the Executive. Disdaining alike history and logic,

  763
  he took his stand upon the official practice in which he had been bred. He held in his hand, he said, a paper containing the names of 212 officers who had been dismissed without trial within the last 10 years. When Returns were subsequently moved for, it appeared that from 1793 to 1821 seven colonels, 56 captains, and about 900 subalterns had been dismissed without trial; but from the night when Sir Robert Wilson's appeal was rejected, the power of deprival went more softly. The days of Castlereagh were already numbered, and under the sway of Mr. Canning a new system was adopted. It was a period of gradual thaw in the rigour of administration. Religious disability remained on the Statute Book, but Roman Catholics, wherever possible, were admitted to office. The severity of the Criminal Code was relaxed, and ex officio prosecutions for libel were discontinued. Instead of the forfeiture of their commissions, officers who were not favourites were permitted to sell out, or were compelled to go on half-pay; and, as Court Martials for trivial offences were certain to prove unpopular, recourse was more frequently had to Boards of Inquiry. The Duke of Wellington never retracted the words of condemnation which he poured upon Boards of Inquiry in 1809. He habitually turned a deaf ear to trumpery complaints. When officers got to loggerheads among themselves, he left them—to use an American phrase—to "worry through it;" but when a man did anything seriously wrong, he sent him to be tried, not by a Board of Inquiry, but by a Court-Martial. He, and after him Lord Hill systematically set their faces against the substitution of the lawless, secret, unauthorized, and thoroughly pernicious system of Boards of Inquiry for the open and lawful inquiry of a Court-Martial. They were also strongly opposed to resorting to the miserable system of compelling men to go on half-pay as a mode of punishment. In 1841, when the Government was called upon to dismiss, or put on half-pay, Lord Cardigan—a bitter opponent of the then Administration—Lord Melbourne, who in Army matters was mainly guided by the Duke's advice, firmly refused to seek popularity by such an abuse of power. As Secretary at War, Mr. Macaulay, speaking, as he said with the sanction of the greatest captain of the
  764
  time, as well as of Lord Hill, said that, "except for some heinous fault, no man, without sentence of Court Martial, ought to lose his commission;" and that, "as a punishment, no officer ought ever to bereduced to half-pay; that was not the principle on which the Half-pay List had been established, nor to which, while he held office, it should be perverted." He added "that the half-pay was no punishment. It was given partly as a reward for past services, and partly as a retainer for future services. Why, then, should it be made a reward for offences while there remained the alternative of a Court Martial? for the other alternative of a dismissal from the service without Court Martial would, he had the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army for saying, be a serious and, perhaps, fatal injury to the Army." These words of Mr. Macaulay ought not to be now forgotten. Lord Dalhousie told the Purchase Commission of 1857, that he invariably refused to act on suggestions to reduce men who had got into scrapes by placing them on the Half-pay List, as that list should not be made a refuge for officers who had misconducted themselves. He (Mr. Torrens) regretted to say that in the changes which took place subsequently to the death of the Duke of Wellington the whole of these principles had been allowed to disappear, and recently they had painful knowledge that the whole system had been changed. In the Regulations issued in 1868, and again in January, 1873, it was distinctly laid down that the Minister for War might, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, place any officer upon penal half-pay, and further reduce that half-pay to any amount he might think fit. Such a system would place officers at the mercy of the Minister of the day. He (Mr. Torrens) was not dealing with individuals, but with a system. The people were anxious that an efficient Army should be maintained to uphold the dignity of the Monarchy and to defend the country, and, accordingly, the expenditure of the War Department was never greater than now; but they were anxious, while seeing that they got a proper return for the money, that the Army should be governed upon principles of national and constitutional justice. As long as the Army was small—and he found its average strength in

  765
  time of peace in the last century did not exceed 20,000—dismissals could not excite any great feeling, and the officers were men of rank and influence, who could take very good care of themselves; it was in their favour that the Purchase system was mainly kept up, so that few grievances could arise; but what was our position now? We this year voted pay for upwards of 7,000 officers, and it was only two years ago that the House had set aside all the other business of legislation and devoted its attention for three months to re-organizing the Army fundamentally. It was agreed to do away with purchase, and open the door to the friendless and the nameless who should have had a decent education, who were to rise by "selection," whatever that might mean; but what was to be the position of those men, judging by the cases—which, unfortunately, were numerous—when getting to loggerheads with their fellow officers about trifling matters, or, what was more difficult to deal with, incurring the prejudice or disfavour of their commanding officer? As long as men could appeal to a sworn tribunal, friendless men might be safe, but they could not feel safe if on a charge by an unknown accuser, and judged by men nominated by the Secretary for War or the Commander-in-Chief, sitting with closed doors, they could be condemned without a hearing, and on the report of an unsworn tribunal be driven from their profession, and cut short in their career without appeal and without any sort of reparation from the Civil Courts of the Realm. He would mention an instance. An officer who had served 20 years with honour, who bad been decorated by his own Sovereign and by the late Sovereign of France, and against whom nothing whatever had ever been alleged, except that he had incurred the displeasure of his commanding officer, was removed from the service by the present Commander-in-Chief, with the sanction of the Minister of War, upon the report of a Court of Inquiry, which Court was not ostensibly summoned to inquire into his fitness to be retained in the service, but which had secret instructions to report thereon. The gravamen of the charge against him was that having been impeached before a previous Court of Inquiry, which acquitted him of any blame, this officer, like an honourable man, could not choke down
  766
  the sense of injustice which he felt. For reiterating the acquittal of the previous Court of Inquiry, he was considered insubordinate by those who had failed in the first instance to convict him; and for that insubordination he was brought before the second Court of Inquiry, and, upon its recommendation, was removed from the Service with a loss of about £7,000, the value of his commission and pay, and at the present moment he was on penal half-pay and without any redress whatever, for on being advised to bring an action against his superior officer, he was told by Mr. Justice Blackburn that evidence as to the truth or malice of the allegations against him could not be admitted. In the Exchequer Chamber, 10 Judges confirmed the ruling that Courts of Law could not interfere in military matters, and that even when the adverse report of a Board of Inquiry was said to have been obtained by unfounded or malicious allegations, an action for libel by the deprived officer could not be maintained against his military slanderers. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, whose name would for ever be indelibly inscribed among the greatest and the best defenders of constitutional rights, hesitated not to express his reluctance to recognize a state of the law which left a brave and honourable man without any remedy against intolerable wrong, and he did not conceal his hope and conviction that such a condition of things would not be suffered to continue. In "Dawkins v. Lord F. Paulet," when giving judgment in demurrer, he pronounced his opinion to be in favour of the plaintiff and against the demurrer, which necessarily, in point of form, admitted the averments in the replication to be true, and that the representations made by the defendant, Lord F. Paulet, in reference to the plaintiff had been made dishonestly, maliciously, and without a belief in their truth. He said—
  "To support this demurrer, it was necessary to maintain that in all matters relating to military authority and discipline a subordinate officer is, so far as civil redress is concerned, entirely at the mercy of his superior; that the latter may institute proceedings against him, without right or reason, on charges which he knows to be unfounded, may, under the disguise of duty, write concerning him that which he knows to be false, and may thus bring upon him consequences the most disastrous, without the party injured being entitled to redress in a court of law. While I fully agree that acts done in

  767
  the honest exercise of military authority are entirely privileged, I confess that I am not prepared to arrive at a conclusion so startling and apparently unjust as that, if the opportunity it affords is intentionally abused for the purposes of injury and wrong, no redress is to be had by the sufferer in a court of law."
  Sir Alexander Cock burn then proceeded to comment on the case of "Sutton v. Johnstone," and referred at some length to the judgment of Eyre, B., and to the remarks of Lord Mansfield, and to a subsequent case of "Warden v. Bailey," and on hearing afterwards before the Court of King's Bench, as a Court of Error, in which the reasoning of Lord Mansfield in "Sutton v. Johnstone "as to the action not being tenable was not adopted or followed, and in which Justice Laurence, in the course of the argument before the Court of Common Pleas, stated that he had heard—
  "from good private information that the reasons assigned by Lord Mansfield were not adopted by the House of Lords though his judgment was affirmed. While no man would more strenuously uphold military authority when legitimately exercised, or would more earnestly urge upon juries the propriety of presuming everything in favour of its legitimate exercise, and of requiring the most cogent and conclusive evidence of its abuse, to entitle an inferior officer to recover in an action against a superior, I cannot bring myself to think that it is essential to the well-being of our military or naval force, that where authority is intentionally abused for the purpose of injustice or oppression, where charges are preferred which to the knowledge of the party preferring them are intentionally unjust, where representations are made which the party making them knows to be slanderous and false, the party injured, whoso professional prospects may have been ruined and whose professional reputation may have been blasted, is to be told that the Queen's Courts, in a country whose boast it is that there is no wrong without redress, are shut to his just complaint. On the contrary, I cannot but believe that to a force depending on voluntary augmentation, it will be far more beneficial that its subordinate members shall know that against intentional oppression and manifest wrong, leading to consequences disastrous to professional interests or character, redress may be found in the civil tribunals of the country. But I think that if the law is to be thus settled it should he done by legislative enactment, or at all events by a court of error, and that, acting as a Court of First Instance in dealing with this demurrer, we should give judgment for the Plaintiff; but my learned brothers have arrived at a different conclusion, and therefore judgment must be given for the Defendant."
  That was no isolated instance, and he had not the least doubt that the Secretary of State for War only did what he
  768
  was advised to do, and what he had abundant precedents for doing; but the fact remained that Colonel Dawkins was deprived of his honours and emoluments without just cause. His object was to plead in favour of a class of men who were defenceless, and not to make any complaint against any particular Minister or Department. A few weeks ago a man sought an interview with him who had been deprived of his commission with ignominy after 28 years' service, after 14 of which he was promoted from the ranks. At the end of that second period his commanding officer, Colonel Wilbraham, wrote him this letter—
  "Dear Hawtree,—I cannot leave the corps without expressing to you my sense of the exemplary manner in which you have behaved on all occasions, and of the advantage I think you have been to the service."
  He asked if a man with such antecedents was not entitled to consideration even if in fault? He put it to the feeling of the country, was it right or prudent that suddenly, in his 29th year of service, this man should be ordered to give up his sword, and should be kept in arrest for a period of six months without any charge being brought against him in any tangible or definite form? At the end of that time he was, however, released from arrest and ordered to hold himself in readiness to serve on the West Coast of Africa. Two months elapsed, and by January re-inforcements were suspended, the authorities once more changed their minds, and the following order was sent to the commanding officer at Netley:—"In consequence of the facts found by the Board of Inquiry, Lieutenant Hawtree is called on to resign his commission." He was assured by this unfortunate man that he was, up to the present moment, left in ignorance of the specific charges reported against him by the Board of Inquiry, on whose ex parte decree he was doomed to professional ruin. If Captain Hawtree had been guilty of deficiency in his pay-lists or misstatements of accounts, why was he not confronted with his accusers? Told to resign his commission without indictment, proof, trial, or conviction, he did what every honest man would do—he refused, and asked earnestly and repeatedly to be tried by a Court-Martial. Why was his request not granted? There was not a pick-

  769
  pocket collared by the police—there was not a welcher on Newmarket Course—there was not a burglar caught in the act, with centre-bit and jemmy found in his possession—who was not certain of more justice than they had given this man. But he could mention another case, which was treated in a similar manner. Within the last three years the colonel of a regiment serving in India was accused at head-quarters of inebriety. A Court of Inquiry was appointed to investigate the charge. They sat several days with closed doors, and examined—not upon oath—many witnesses, all of whom denied the allegation, and said they had never seen him unfit for duty. The Report was unanimous that no case had been made out. Yet within a month he was dismissed from his command without any cause assigned. He was struck off the Staff Corps without trial, proof, or sentence of any sort. He (Mr. Torrens) complained of these so-called Courts of Inquiry, not for examination, not for advice, but for colourable trial and injudicial judgment. To use the words of Mr. Wyndham, the proceeding before a Court of Inquiry was in the nature of a preliminary investigation to report confidentially as to whether a public trial should take place—
  "Its members were a set of advisers, and not Judges; or, if Judges, Judges who were to judge of nothing but whether the matter ought to be submitted to judgment. But to pervert the tribunal is to produce a strange, anomalous, and inconsistent proceeding; a trial—which is no trial—for it can neither condemn so as lawfully to inflict punishment on the guilty, nor lawfully acquit, so as to protect the innocent."
  It was a mere evasion, under a certain form, of that which was the great protection of Englishmen. Military Boards of Inquiry, when kept to their proper purpose—namely, that of preliminary investigation and confidential advice—no one objected to. But a Board of Inquiry consisted of any three nominees of the officer who might be the accuser; it had not even the faculty of inflicting punishment where it condemned; and, what was far more important, it had not the blessed faculty of giving a man a full acquittance when he had been proved to be innocent. These wretched and lawless tribunals, so far as they were substitutes for Courts-Martial, only served to afford a screen or hoarding behind which something might
  770
  be done which it was not convenient should be seen by the public, and they infringed and subverted the spirit of the Mutiny Act. A Court-Martial was a sworn Court which tried upon evidence given under the sanction of an oath; but these Boards of Inquiry were exactly the reverse, for they were not sworn and had no power to administer an oath, for that House had always refused to give them power to take evidence on oath, and the Duke of Wellington strongly objected to their having such a power, as tending to enable them to supersede the legitimate Courts of the Army. He hoped that in future every officer before he was deprived of rank and pay would have a lawful trial, according to the principle and practice which every year Parliament ratified anew by passing the Mutiny Act. When the Government of India was taken over by the Crown the two Armies were amalgamated, and now the officers of the old Indian Army bitterly complained that they could not obtain a fair consideration for what they held to be their just claims. He maintained that it was the duty of the House to open their ears to the fact that there was great discontent among military officers owing to the insecure tenure by which they held their position. The Duke of Richmond in the late Parliament brought before the other House the grievances of the officers of the Army arising out of the abolition of purchase, and "defied any man to deny that great discontent existed among them, because they did not receive what they felt themselves entitled to when that great change was made." Ought not the House of Commons diligently to see that justice was done to that poor and friendless class of men who in future would have nothing to receive when they were compulsorily put upon half-pay or dismissed from the service? It could not be objected that in making his Motion he was interfering with the Prerogative of the Crown. He had no such intention, and he was prepared to alter the terms of the Motion, if it were necessary, to remove any doubt upon the point. A far more serious objection which might be urged was, that by doing what might be justice in one or two individual cases, he was risking the security for discipline in the Army. Upon that matter he had learnt what

  771
  was done elsewhere, and he would confidently challenge any one to name a country in the world, enjoying Representative institutions, where this arbitrary power of removal without trial was used as the means of discipline in the Army. The Dutch in their days of greatest danger, never allowed the officers of their Army to be removed at the pleasure even of the great commanders to whom they were so much indebted for their emancipation; and in Holland at the present time no officer could be removed except by a Court-Martial. Before Parliament with us began to exercise control over the Army, our free and stout-hearted neighbours over the sea had taken thought about this matter and settled the conditions on which the Executive should raise and rule a national force. Having driven out the sea and beaten back the stranger, they were not the men to yoke the bravest of their youth to a lawless and capricious power of its own making. Willing to furnish troops and to pay for them under the command of princely generals, they never dreamt of putting either recruits or veterans beyond the pale of law. Soldiers, they thought, who renounced the protection of Civil Courts, all the more needed the protection of military tribunals, for the Dutch were a law-abiding people. The sagacious Princes of the House of Nassau who did so much to build up seven jealous provinces into one infrangible federalty, carefully kept faith with them in camp and garrison. They knew the indispensability of that public confidence which, in a free country, had its root in the sense of individual justice. Holland was indeed a little land, but in the history of European progress it had played no little part; it sheltered our fugitives for freedom's sake—many and notable—and when our fathers wanted help against the Stuarts they sought and found it there. From the earliest days of a regular standing force the colonels of regiments and all field officers were irremovable by the Commander-in-Chief; and even when the States General had acquired the functions of a national Parliament, they were not allowed to discuss the fundamental conditions which secured the rights of the Army. Throughout every vicissitude of fortune, our shrewd and self-respecting neighbours held on the even tenor of their way.
  772
  Hear, after three centuries, their conclusion of the whole matter. In the Army Regulations, published by Royal Authority in 1851, he found that no commissioned officer could be discharged against his will, from the active or non-active service, except upon the judgment of a military Council or Court. The constitution of the Council was provided for with scrupulous precision. Of seven members, three must be of the same rank but senior to the accused; and all were chosen by lot from the regiments of the district. The forms of procedure were laid down with nice regard to equity; and every document, however confidential, touching the conduct of the defendant must be furnished to him. If acquitted he could not be deprived of his commission, if found guilty the head of the State could only vary the sentence in his favour; no officer could be put on half-pay except for specified cause:—ill health, the reduction of his corps, the abolition of his post, a superfluity for the time being, of men of the same rank, or his being elected to the States General—but he waited to be recalled as soon as there was a vacancy to active service, when the opportunity was by rule afforded him in his turn by a Government with whom economy was a traditional maxim. Such were the prudent and righteous principles of the Dutch military system. Truly it might be said of them, as Lord Bacon said of the Swiss, that with great natural disadvantages "they last well, for utility is their bond and not respects." There was another monarchical but free country with high traditional claims on our consideration for haying early set an example of maritime enterprise and well ordered liberty, and whose means of military defence as a bulwark State against the further encroachments of semi-barbarous ambition, we were bound to note with solicitude and sympathy. Sweden might not occupy as prominent a place for deeds of arms as in the day of mediæval chivalry, but it was her good fortune to have a sailor and a man of science for her King, a Legislature that reflected every feeling of the community, an industry that never tired in the race of free competition, an Army and a Navy recruited from her labouring classes without difficulty, and officered by men of honour and education. But then they were by

  773
  law secure of treatment befitting honourable and educated men. He was indebted to Count Lewenhaupt, himself a soldier of old standing, for these particulars of their system. By the Ground Law which he was kind enough to procure for him (Mr. Torrens), the Sovereign at his discretion had the right to place, replace, and displace, all the supreme functionaries of the State, naval and military, diplomatic and executive. Admirals and generals were included in this category of Royal patronage; but up to the rank of colonels and commandants of fortresses no officer could be removed from the active service list without conviction and sentence by Court-Martial. Promotion was solely by seniority in the grades of lieutenant and captain; selection was absolute in the higher grades; in none could an officer be dismissed or compelled to retire from active service without judgment of a Court-Martial; when disabled by wounds or illness the officer retained his pay; when found incompatible with fellow officers he was transferred to another regiment; power of arrest and temporary imprisonment was in the general commanding; but if the subaltern felt aggrieved he might insist upon a formal trial, taking the risk of consequences if judgment were adverse. Let them turn now to their oldest rival in times past, and see if they managed things better in France. He (Mr. Torrens) had a letter from a Minister of the late Emperor, personally known to many around him, and who, by long residence in other countries than his own, was not likely to be undecerningly prejudiced in favour of French institutions. In answer to an inquiry whether the status of officers had been modified materially by the changes of government in France of recent years, the Due de Grammont, writing on the 22nd of November, 1873, said—
  "The law of 1838 is still the law which rules in France. It has not been changed, and that is a miracle in our country, where a street cannot keep its name five years. King becomes Emperor, and then Chief of the State; and Lieutenant-General becomes General of Division, but the law of the Army has remained as it was 36 years ago. The rank of an officer is a possession of which he cannot be deprived, unless guilty of some fault named in the Law, and in a legal way, according to the law, not by the decision of a single chief, however great he may be, but by a judgment. Suspension by the Minister can only be for a time. After that period the officer is called before a Court, where
  774
  he can defend himself, no officer is exposed to the effects of caprice as regards employment or advancement. The mere idea that an officer could be cashiered, or humiliated, or punished, otherwise than by arrest, without a regular trial, would in France upset every military notion."
  This was Imperialist testimony. What was the Republican view? An officer of distinction, holding a diplomatic position under the Government of which Marshal M'Mahon was the head, had within the last few days confirmed the accuracy of all those statements respecting military organization; and, if anyone still doubted its correctness, he (Mr. Torrens) would afford him the opportunity of reading in the Ordonnances of 1838, then before him, the minute details in which the equitable rights of all grades of the French Army were protected from bureaucratic, or military oppression—
  "Officers are only dismissed the service after having been found guilty by a Council of War of the following offences:—Absence from their corps for a period of more than three months if on active service or for residence out of the country without permission of the chief of the State after five days' absence. Officers are also for other offences condemned to various punishments which carry with them loss of rank, but which do not entail their dismissal from the service. No one on active service can he placed on the non-active list, except for one of the following reasons:—Disbanding of his corps, suppression of employment, return from captivity with the enemy after his post has been filled, temporary infirmity or superannuation or suspension of office. An officer is placed in non-activity by retirement or suspension of office, by decision of the Chief of the State on the Report of the Minister of War. Non-active officers by disbandment of corps, suppression of office, or return from captivity are called to fill up half of the places of their rank as they become vacant in the corps to which they belong, the time passed by them in non-activity is counted as effective service for their promotion, half-pay, or retirement. Non-active officers from temporary infirmity and by retirement or suspension of office are liable to be replaced in activity; the time passed in non-activity is considered as effective service only for half-pay or retirement. Half-pay is the position of the officer without employment, who, not being liable to be recalled to active service, acquires no rights to a retiring pension. An officer may be placed on half-pay cither in consequence of incurable infirmity, or for considerations of discipline, by order of the chief of the State, upon the finding of a duly-constituted tribunal. A retired officer is in the position of one who has returned to civil life and the enjoyment of a pension, conformably with the laws in force. There are three kinds of military Courts—regimental, divisional, and special. Each Court is composed of five members, selected according to the rank and occupation of

  775
  the officer impeached on the questions on which the Council have to decide. The voting is by ballot, and the vote of the majority forms the verdict of the Court. A procès verbal is then drawn up and submitted to the Minister of War, who acts in accordance with the verdict."
  Then as to Prussia: an officer of rank (Baron Weitzleben) lately told him that a German subaltern, whatever his extraction or intellectual capacity, had practically complete protection against injustice. The complaint against him must be made, in the first place, to the field officer who was his immediate superior, and who would call upon him for explanation. If he failed to clear himself the matter was reported to the colonel or brigadier of the district, and before each in turn he had an opportunity of exculpation. So that before the case came, not as a favour, but as a right, before the War Office or the Military Cabinet of the Sovereign, the officer had three or four opportunities of hearing everything that had been reported to his detriment. The power of the Emperor to remove without cause assigned was undisputed, but its exercise was practically unknown. In Russia similar safe-guards existed. The Emperor of Russia was an absolute Prince, unembarrassed by constitutional prejudices or forms; but when one of his officers was asked the other day what the course in the Russian Army was, he answered that it was not the custom to have a man removed from the service without Court-Martial. The late Emperor Nicholas had, indeed, on two occasions, exercised his power of dismissal; but accompanied it by a voluntary declaration that it arose from circumstances of great exigency, and was not to be regarded as a precedent. If they turned to the United States, whose laws and institutions were more like our own than those of any other great nation, they would find that officers were amply protected. George Washington adopted the English Mutiny Act of 1774, and got it re-enacted by Congress, only substituting President for King. During the great Secession War, Congress passed a law conferring and declaring the power of the President to displace and dismiss any man deemed unworthy of trust in the Army. It was not a time to be nice, and President Lincoln during the struggle broke several officers without waiting for trial. A general officer told him (Mr. Torrens) that during the cam-
  776
  paign of 1864, a young officer under his command was ordered to occupy a post on the extreme flank, which the Confederates threatened to turn. He was overpowered, and the post was lost. His comrades, under the smart of repulse, reported ill of him, and the General suspended him. The young officer appealed to the President for a Court-Martial, which declared him not to blame, and his commander acknowledged publicly that he had made a mistake, and restored him to his former position. The experience of that case and one or two others led to an alteration in the law, and an Act was passed in 1866 which annulled the law which had hitherto been in force on the subject, and declared that in future no officer of the United States Army in time of peace should be removed excepting after trial by Court-Martial. The American Secretary for War, in a letter dated December 29, 1873, addressed to General Schenck, wrote—
  "A commissioned officer of our Army can he dismissed only by sentence of a Court Martial, except in the single case of officers absent three months without leave, who may be dropped from the rolls.' Placing on half-pay, as the proceeding was understood in the British Army, was wholly unknown, and no punishment could be enforced against an officer upon the recommendation of a Court of Inquiry. For this purpose there must be a trial and conviction by Court-Martial. Officers were commissioned by the President and with the advice of the Senate, and held their commissions during good behaviour. The President could not dismiss an officer, although he was formerly invested with this power, Under the present law an officer could not in time of peace be removed from the service but by the sentence of a Court Martial."
  In the discussions of 1734, Lord Carteret and others, adopting the analogy in the case of the Judges, proposed that no officer should be removed without an Address from both Houses of Parliament. That was, perhaps, going too far, but he (Mr. Torrens) claimed that they should hold their office during good behaviour, and not during pleasure. He would leave the Crown its present entire liberty and discretion; but the Minister of War should be told that a man must not be deprived of his rank and pay without giving him the chance of vindicating himself. Why should a man be crushed who more especially needed protection, or why should our officers labour under injustice to which no other class of society was subjected? Lord Palmerston once said, in reference to a

  777
  proposal similar in effect to that which he was then laying before the House, that such a change as was involved would give to officers in the Army freeholds in their commissions. The answer made to this by Mr. Tierney, the Leader of the Liberal party, was that there was no desire to endow the officers with freeholds in their commissions, but it was not right that they should be mere tenants at will. In conclusion, he would repeat that he did not want to limit the power of the Secretary of State for War, all that he wanted was the establishment of a fair system, under which officers who were charged with any offences might have the opportunity of defending themselves before legally constituted tribunals, and in a proper legal form. It was an important change that he advocated, for they could not afford to have either an unpopular or dissatisfied Army, and he would accordingly submit his Resolution to the House, merely promising that in order to obviate objection he had modified it by inserting after the words "any officer" the words "under the rank of Major General." At a cost of many millions, Parliament, as was said, had bought the Army out of mortgage; it would now be their duty to take care that it was not sold into bondage. The wealthy and the well-born were never in danger of being enslaved; and relying on their varied means of social and political influence they would possibly be content that the arbitrary power of removal and promotion should continue uncontrolled. But the interest and the honour of the greater number of middle class officers must be ever deeply concerned in the establishment of a definite and equitable rule of military administration; and if Parliament were sincere in the reasons assigned for the abolition of purchase, they must wish and expect that the proportion of men in future entering the Army without connection or fortune, would every year increase. He asked for them security and justice—he asked no more. It might be now refused as most things intrinsically good and right often were; but the demand would be reiterated until it was obtained.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  778
  "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that before Her Royal sanction in time of peace is asked for the permanent removal from active service of any Officer under the rank of Major General, who shall have held a Commission in the Army for three years, Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to direct that an option may be given him of having his case heard and adjudicated upon by Court Martial,"—(Mr. Tarrens,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury had made, as was usual with him, an eloquent and interesting speech, to which he (Mr. Stephen Cave) had listened with great attention, but he did not think it would be the general opinion of the House that his Motion was a necessary one. In his opinion, the hon. Member had not made out a single case of hardship that should call for the interference of the House with the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The hon. Member had referred to three specific cases of hardship. Two at least, of these, he thought he recognized. If he was correct, one was well known to the House, and had been long decided. The second was a case with which also, he believed, he was acquainted, and in which, if he was right, he thought there was little ground of complaint. The third he did not remember. With respect to the Resolution itself, there was no doubt that cases of individual hardship might occasionally arise—a state of things which could never be guarded against. The hon. Member also referred to former times, in which commissions had been lost in consequence of the political opinions of their holders; but he seemed to forget that it would be as difficult to revive such a state of things as to restore the Star Chamber. Again, reference had been made to the practice in foreign armies; but, in the first place, they knew very little of the internal organization and working of those armies; and, in the next, their main circumstances and conditions were different from our own. It would not be said that there had been very few removals in the French Army in consequence of political opinions, while in the Prussian Army there were preliminary Courts of Inquiry. In this country there was between Courts of Inquiry and Courts-

  779
  martial a material and important difference in favour of the officers, and he thought the hon. Member had been mistaken in his views on this subject. No one, of course, would wish a man to be punished in any case except by process of law; but there were many cases in the Army in which it was absolutely necessary that the power vested in the War Minister to dispense with the services of particular officers should be exorcised; and surely it would be scant mercy to any officer to insist that, because his services were so dispensed with for the good of the country and of the Army, he should be considered to have committed a criminal offence, and should therefore be tried by Court-martial. There might be many cases in which an officer was palpably unfit for his position, and in which his retention of it or promotion would be most unadvisable, but yet there might be no criminal act to bring him within the scope of a Court-martial. In such cases it was clearly for the advantage of the Service, which ought to be paramount, that such a man should not remain in a place where he might do infinite mischief. An officer might have mistaken his profession, and it was the kindest thing for himself, as well as for his comrades, that he should be quietly removed from it. In matters of conduct, the Crown—which meant the responsible Ministers of the Crown—must decide. They, not the members of the Court-martial, were responsible to Parliament for the good government of the Army, and if their power was limited by the decision of a Court-martial, then such matters would be placed beyond the control of the Crown. Again, if no one were removed from the Army except by Courts-martial, how could the plan of selection be carried out? The tendency of all modern changes in the Army had been to guard against incapacity, as distinguished from crime, in the officers; and the same rule had obtained in the Navy and the Civil Service, to the advantage of both. Again, there might be cases of gross immorality among officers of certain rank in the Army which did not come within the purview of Courts-martial, and nothing could be better than that in such cases there should be Courts of Inquiry dealing with the offence by putting the offenders quietly on the shelf. It was not the case that the Courts of Inquiry
  780
  always sat with closed doors. The proceedings were sometimes public, and the officers charged could always speak in their defence; the witnesses were cautioned that they must be careful, because the proceedings might lead to a Court-martial; not unfrequently newspaper reporters had been present; and by the 12th Article of War an appeal was given from the decision of the Court to the Commander-in-Chief. The danger that the hon. Member had hinted at, that an officer might be persecuted by a clique, was therefore amply guarded against. It was not merely cases of personal disagreement between officers that had to be provided against, because that might be done by permitting them to exchange into another regiment; but it was to meet cases of such unfitness of an officer for his position of command as would be calculated to cause discontent in the Army, to the detriment of the Service, that these Courts were appointed. Speaking as Judge Advocate, it appeared to him a merciful, kind, and considerate way of removing an officer from a situation to which he was unsuited, for a Court of Inquiry to tell him that his further services must be dispensed with, and that he must retire upon half-pay. Undoubtedly, the Duke of Wellington was quite right to refuse to substitute generally Courts of Inquiry for Courts-martial, inasmuch as there was a great difference between the matters those tribunals were appointed to consider; but it would be impossible to establish the converse proposition—that all Courts of Inquiry should be superseded by Courts-martial, and no man exercised the power of quietly getting rid of incompetent officers more frequently than the Duke of Wellington. The hon. Member appeared to think that because we were paying £15,000,000 a-year for our Army, and because we had reconstructed the Service, that now was the proper time for putting an end to Courts of Inquiry. He (Mr. Cave) ventured to think the hon. Member's suggestion was not well-founded. In former days, when men paid large sums for their commissions, there might have been some ground for saying that they had a vested interest in their commissions, and therefore that they should not be deprived of them without a Court-martial; but things had altered now, and he was surprised at hearing the hon. Member speak as though commis-

  781
  sions were the property of the officers who held them. Taking the power of the Crown to dismiss as granted—which, indeed, the hon. Member did not dispute—while fully acknowledging that such power should be exercised with great care and judgment, he thought that the Court of Inquiry was, in fact, a protection to the officer, who was not obliged to criminate himself when before it. The cases mentioned by the hon. Member proved nothing further than that it was possible for Courts of Inquiry to make mistakes. It was an error to suppose that these Courts of Inquiry were criminal Courts; they were merely tribunals appointed with the view of assisting the Commander-in-Chief in arriving at a just conclusion with regard to any particular officer's case. Taking a general view of the subject, he thought that where there was incapacity or unfitness of character on the part of an officer not punishable as an offence by Court-martial, it was most desirable that the circumstances of the case should be investigated by a Court of Inquiry. To restrict removal from the Army to cases of conduct punishable by Court-martial would be a retrograde step, and would be quite opposed to the desire of the nation that the Army should be led by competent officers, in whom it could place the most implicit confidence. Under these circumstances he thought that the hon. Member had not proved his case, and that it would be very much better that the present system should be retained, exercised, as it usually was, with the greatest caution.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, in supporting the Motion, said, the modification introduced by the hon. Member for Finsbury into the original Motion now enabled him to give his vote for it, and he likewise strongly wished the Secretary of State for War favourably to consider the question as to the continuance of the practice of dismissing officers without trial. If he (Sir George Balfour) thought the carrying of the Resolution would endanger the discipline of the Army, he would be the last to support it; but he did not think it could possibly have any such effect. On the contrary, he believed that officers, knowing that they would be more liable to be tried by a Court-martial than hitherto, would become more circumspect. He was sorry to hear the right
  782
  hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General state his preference for Courts of Inquiry to Courts-martial. A worse system than Courts of Inquiry could not possibly exist, and his own experience showed him that they were partial Boards, entirely at variance with the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act, and he regarded them not as the opportunity for an officer to defend himself, but as affording an opportunity to the commanding officer to judge as to what further steps he should take. The object of this form of inquiry had always been looked on as aids to the Commanding Officer. An officer of inferior rank had no chance of protecting himself before such Courts. If the opinion expressed by this Court proved favourable to the accused party it was not binding on the Commanding Officer. But it was often the practice to confine the inquiry to the collection of evidence, and not to record an opinion. Indeed, this was the proper form for such Courts to follow. It was different with Courts-martial. Few men would call such a Court into operation without some very strong ground indeed. The officer was defended, his explanations could be given, and the proceedings did not necessarily involve any criminal taint, as the Judge Advocate General remarked. He knew the very contrary to have been the case in India, where he had served from his youth upwards, and had known officers called before Courts-martial for trifling offences who had afterwards died gallantly at the head of their regiment. The consequence of the favourable action of such trials in India was that the Court of Inquiry had been superseded by the Court-martial, which had been attended by very beneficial results. He knew of no means by which they could better uphold discipline, and prevent the oppressive action of senior officers over juniors, and at the same time prevent the tittle-tattle of the Army, than by a Court-martial. He held that the Court-martial was not necessarily limited in any way to the nature of the charge before it—being of a criminal character, he believed that Courts-martial could be as-assembled for the trial of any conduct incompatible with military discipline and military efficiency, and if the opinion of the authorities were opposed to the extension of functions of such Courts, then he would urge this change upon the Secre-

  783
  tary for War, because the Army had been greatly altered within the past two years, and the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative was by no means likely to be so satisfactory now as when the purchase system was in operation. The right of dismissing an officer could not, of course, be withdrawn from the Grown, but it ought to be exercised with the greatest care and caution; and he thought it most advisable that every officer ought to be taken before a proper tribunal, which should judge whether he was fit or unfit for his duties. He trusted that in all such cases as involved dismissal without trial there would be the greatest caution exercised, and the utmost regard for the character and interests of the individual officer. If the power of removing an officer for incapacity were given to a Court-martial, or if Courts-martial were so constituted as to enable the authorities to send incompetent or unfit officers before such Courts, no greater benefit could be conferred upon the Army; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could discover a means of doing this, by bringing the matter before a competent tribunal, he would be adding to the efficiency of the Service.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no hesitation in giving the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had seconded the Motion the assurance for which he had asked—namely, that in all those cases—cases of the most disagreeable, trying, and responsible nature—the Secretary of State would not proceed without the utmost caution and regard for the position and character of the officer. The Prerogative in question was one which the Crown by no means sought to exercise. Whenever exercised, it was one which was, so to say, forced upon the Crown, and not made willingly available. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself felt the enormous difficulty of the situation, because he said that if the Motion were to have the effect of interfering with the power absolutely, he for one would not support it. Well, but what he proposed to do was practically to take away that power which the Crown had always possessed. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had quoted great authorities, but he might have quoted equally great authorities on the other side. Mr. Fox, when a question arose with respect to a noble-
  784
  man who had been dismissed from the Army, said—"Heaven forbid that I should deny the right of the Crown to dismiss an officer without assigning a reason." There was, in fact, no officer who entered the Army who did not know that he held his commission at the absolute will of the Crown. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury forgot how far his Motion would carry them. It would deprive the Crown of the power of disbanding or of retrenching, of placing officers on compulsory half-pay, or of removing them on other conditions, however necessary it might be to do so. Courts-martial now were held in all cases affecting the honour of the Service—as, for instance, for cowardice in the field; but there were a great number of other cases in which something must be done, and when they considered what a number of qualifications were requisite for the making of a good officer, it was obvious that there must remain somewhere a power of absolute dismissal. As he understood the altered Motion of his hon. Friend, he proposed that no officer below the rank of major-general should be dismissed without a Court-martial or placed on compulsory half-pay; but all other officers were to remain subject to the Prerogative. Upon that principle, a major-general who had had 48 years' service—for so slow was promotion in our Army that he might have been that number of years in the he attained the rank in question—might be summarily dismissed, while an officer of three years' service could demand a Court-martial. He could not think such a change desirable. An officer, as he had said, received and accepted his commission subject to this power, and the power must reside somewhere. In the case of the decisions of Courts-martial, the Crown had the power of revising those decisions. It was true that Lord Londonderry had referred to the fact that 210 officers had been dismissed in 10 years without Court-martial, but there were many instances on record in which officers acquitted by Courts-martial had been dismissed, and why? Because, while guilt could not be legally proved, there were circumstances affecting the character of the officer or the harmony of the Service which called for and required the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown. The existence of this power Lord Palmer-

  785
  ston had over and over again insisted upon as a matter of absolute necessity, and he supported his opinion by pointing to the fact that without it the officers of the Army would have the power of forming a fourth estate, and of saying whether one of their own fellow-officers should or should not be dismissed; and he added that a time might come when the officers of an Army might be compacted together, and when the Crown would be obliged to exercise with prompt decision the power of which it was sought to deprive it. His right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General had gone so fully into the question that it was not necessary he should further detain the House. The question was, he admitted, one which threw upon the Secretary of State for War a deep sense of the responsibility which he owed at once to the Army and to the country. If he were to show an inclination to do injustice to any one by acting upon the decision of an improper or insufficient Board of Inquiry, if he were to take up a trumpery case for the purpose of getting rid of a particular officer, then he would deserve to receive the censure which he would have placed upon another. He could not, therefore, exaggerate the importance of the position of the Secretary of State for War in reviewing decisions or advising the exercise of the Crown's Prerogative; and while the holder of that office was as sensible as he was of his responsibility to the House and the country, there was, he thought, little fear of the power he possessed being exercised to the prejudice or detriment of the British Army.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, it appeared to him that the Secretary of State for War and the hon. Member for Finsbury were in substance agreed as to the principle which ought to be acted upon, although not agreed as to the precise mode in which it should be carried out in the future. The hon. Member proposed that within a certain limitation no officer who had served in the Army three years should be removable without being first offered the alternative of a Court-martial. No one could be more anxious than he was that the Prerogative should be preserved in its full integrity. He had served for 28 years in every part of the globe, during 18 years of that time in Staff employment, 12 of the 18 in the Adjutant Ge-
  786
  neral's Department, which was specially charged with the discipline of the Army. He could therefore, he thought, speak on the question with some little experience, and that experience made him entertain strongly the opinion, that to have a Court-martial in every case of removal would meet with the hearty concurrence of the whole Army and the country in general. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman (the Judge Advocate General) had stated that which, while apparently opposed to the Motion, was virtually a development of the same idea. Supposing it were possible that in any case in which an officer's conduct should be impugned, and that conduct should be submitted to the judgment of a Court-martial, the officers composing it, sworn to administer justice, should acquit him, then, if Her Majesty were advised by the Commander-in-Chief to exercise Her Prerogative, he was sure that that would meet with the hearty concurrence of the whole Army, and of the country in general. It had more than once happened that an officer had been dismissed by the exercise of the Prerogative who had been denied a Court-martial; but it would have been conducive to discipline and more satisfactory to the Army had he been so tried, even, if after the Court-martial had acquitted him, the Prerogative had been exercised for his removal. All the circumstances would then have been investigated on sworn evidence, whereas suspicion might arise under the present system that the officer had been unfairly dealt with or had been the victim of his superiors' caprice. It was obviously desirable that no ground should exist for these insinuations. The argument adduced by the Judge Advocate General that an opportunity should be afforded of removing an officer who could be charged with no offence, but was unfit, from age or other causes, really told on the other side; for were the Motion adopted the epithet "penal half-pay list" would no longer be applicable, whereas the half-pay list now confounded together men incompetent through age and infirmity, and men against whom there had been a case, though not sufficiently strong to warrant a Court-martial. The right hon. Gentleman wished to reserve to the Crown the power of placing on half-pay for in-competency, but in his 28 years' experi-

  787
  ence he had never known an officer placed on half-pay for that reason. In fact, he should like to see some mode of making plain to an officer that he did not come up to the standard of efficiency, and inducing him to request his own removal. While at Berlin last year he was allowed by the favour of the Emperor, to see a great deal of the Prussian military establishments; and he thus obtained a great deal of information which could not otherwise be acquired. He asked what means they had of securing efficiency by the removal of inefficient officers; and he was told that if an officer was notoriously incompetent, he would receive a hint to that effect. If that were not enough, at the next promotion the man below him in rank would be placed above him. If he still resisted this hint that he was not up to the standard of efficiency, it was repeated; and the result was, that for more than a century an officer had never been thrice passed over; but, that were there one so lost to delicacy and right feeling as to allow this to happen, his inferiors would soon cease to salute him, a position which no officer could tolerate. If a few words were added to the Resolution to the effect that there should always be a distinction drawn between offences against moral character and mere professional incapacity—leaving untouched causes over which the best men had no control—it would act most effectually to meet the case, and accord much nearer with the views he entertained on this question; and he believed that with such a proviso the proposal of the hon. Member would work well. The more our Army became a professional one, composed of men whose interests were entirely bound up with it, the more necessary would be some safeguard of the kind proposed, drawing a broader line of demarcation between removal for misconduct and removal for temporary incapacity from unavoidable causes.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 31: Majority 60.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

(1.) £65,153, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland).

(2.) £5,346, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.

(3.) £1,448, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.

(4.) £11,300, to complete the sum for Learned Societies.

(5.) £8,361, to complete the sum for the University of London.

(6.) £7,697, to complete the sum for the Endowed Schools Commission.

(7.) £15,240, to complete the sum for the Scottish Universities.

(8.) £1,800, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c. Scotland.

(9.) £455,946, to complete the sum for the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland.

(10.) £555, to complete the sum for the Office of the Commissioners of Education, Ireland.

MR. BUTTsaid, he and several of his Friends were under the impression that the Votes relating to Irish education would not be proceeded with that evening. Indeed, it was stated on the Notice Paper that these Votes would not be taken.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was the Vote for English education which was referred to in the Notice Paper. The precedent of former years had been followed in the matter.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £1,980, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, Ireland.
(12.) £1,784, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.
(13.) £3,403, to complete the sum for the Queen's University, Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,476, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, in aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £213,792, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

789
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
SIR HENRY WOLFF, in moving the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 the increase of salary given to Sir Edward Thornton, said his objection was, that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington was the only member of the Diplomatic Service who had been singled out by the Government for an increase of his salary. In 1870, when the Committee on the Diplomatic Service made their Report, they stated that they had received unanimous testimony that the cost of living and the necessary expenses on the part of that Service both in Europe and America had greatly increased of late years. If, therefore, a general increase of diplomatic salaries had been proposed, he would have had nothing to say on that occasion. But the residence of Sir Edward Thornton at Washington had been signalized by a series of diplomatic disasters, among which were the rejection by the American Senate of a Treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, and the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington, whereby no compensation was secured for the Fenian Raids, and the Island of San Juan was sacrificed. Moreover, the House had been informed that no understanding had been come to with the American Government as to the interpretation of the Three Rules contained in the Treaty, under a breach of which £3,500,000 had been paid by this country to the United States as compensation. These Estimates showed that the Foreign Office had been inclined to cut down rather than to raise salaries. They had reduced the salary of the British Minister at Berne, when France had appointed an Ambassador at the Swiss capital; they had cut adrift Consular chaplains, and also certain Consuls; and the only person selected for an increase of salary was our Minister at Washington. He objected to that increase, because it would be viewed in the United States as a continuation of that approbation of the negotiators of the Treaty of Washington which had been lavished on them by the late Government. He believed that one of the considerations which influenced the last General Election was the humiliation
790
that this country experienced on account of that Treaty. He could see no objection to the Government transferring Sir-Edward Thornton to another appointment, where his talents might be more successful. He begged to move that the item of £6,000, being the amount of the salary proposed to be given to our Minister at Washington, be reduced to £5,000, the sum at which it stood last year.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £6,000, for the Salary of Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, be reduced by the sum of £1,000."—(Sir Henry Wolff.)
MR. BOURKEsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had taken that opportunity of casting a slur on Sir Edward Thornton. [Sir HENRY WOLFF denied that he had done that.] He had under-stood the hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of Sir Edward Thornton's career at Washington had been a disastrous one. He could not imagine a greater slur than that to be cast upon a professional man, and he hoped that if the hon. Member himself ever held a responsible diplomatic appointment he would not have such aspersions thrown on him in that House. He would not enter into the policy of the late Government in regard to the Fenian Raid, the Island of San Juan, or the Three Rules; but if there was anybody to find fault with in respect to that large bundle of questions, certainly it was not Sir Edward Thornton. The late Government had repeatedly accepted the responsibility as to the whole of the Treaty of Washington, and disclaimed the idea of thro wing that responsibility on the British Minister, or the British Commissioners. As to the additional salary proposed by the late Government for our Minister at Washington, it was proved before the Select Committee that the cost of living at that city had very much increased of late years, and also that the importance of the Washington Mission was growing every day, more especially in connection with the Canadian Dominion, as to which many important questions arose which brought them into relation with the United States. It was highly desirable that the Mission at Washington should be in a position to afford the necessary hospitality to people going

791
there from Canada, Europe, and other places, in reference to those great questions. Moreover, the climate of Washington was very dangerous to Europeans at certain seasons, and it was necessary that officials stationed there should leave that city for a considerable portion of the year. Again, the depreciation in the American currency had practically reduced the value of money; and altogether the salary of our Minister was deemed insufficient by the Select Committee. He believed that the interests of the public service would be benefited by the proposed arrangement.
SIR HENRY WOLFFthought the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs need not have made that a personal matter. Why was not the salary of the Secretary of the Legation at Washington increased, as well as that of his chief, on account of the additional cost of living? If the reasons for doing so were good in the one case, they were equally good in the other. Besides, the Select Committee reported that the cost of living had been much increased in Europe as well as in America. He objected to that singling out of Sir Edward Thornton for a special mark of favour at the Foreign Office; and, unless he received from the Government an assurance that it was not intended as a continuation of the approbation which had been bestowed on the negotiators of the Washington Treaty, he must press the reduction of the Vote.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 89: Majority 87.
Original Question put, and agreed to.

(15.) £204,574, to complete the sum for Consular Establishments Abroad.

(16.) £37,769, to complete the sum for Colonial Local Revenue, &c.

(17.) £2,930, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and Saint Helena.

(18.) £122, Slave Trade Commission.

(19.) £10,830, to complete the sum for Tonnage Duties, &c.

(20.) £4,460, to complete the sum for Emigration.

(21.) £15,686, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.

(22.) £359,957, to complete the sum for Superannuation Allowances.

MR. MELLORsaid, the Vote under consideration deserved attention, and he should like to know who were the recipients of the pensions in question, and on what basis those pensions were calculated? For example, he found a lady's name on the list whose father was placed on the fund in 1791, by Mr. Pitt, and who had received up to the present time no loss than £12,791. He also found that last year Sir Alexander Spearman retired from the office of Controller of the National Debt Office, with a pension of £2,500. This gentleman commenced his official career in the Treasury, and was obliged to leave in 1840, in consequence of ill-health. At that time he was in receipt of £1,200; but how his pension was calculated was a mystery, because it appeared that although he had been Assistant Secretary to the Treasury for 31 years, and was therefore only entitled to a pension of £1,240, he had received the liberal superannuation allowance of £1,330. Last year, when he retired from service, he received a full allowance of £2,500 a-year, but upon the ordinary basis he was only entitled to £1,930. There were many other items of the same character, and it really was absolutely necessary that something should be done to ascertain what was really the condition of what he might call the non-effective public service. It amounted at that moment to the enormous sum of £5,500,000 paid in pensions, and there was no doubt that we should have to pay income tax and taxes upon every article we consumed as long as this vicious system continued. Now, take the House of Commons for example. The sum paid for salaries was £41,976, and pensions £11,707. In the list of retired officials he found the name of Mr. Dorrington, a Parliamentary agent, formerly a clerk in the Private Bill Office, who retired in 1853 on a pension of £1,900 a-year, and who had since altogether pocketed £36,000 for doing nothing, except attending to his own private interests. In the Department of the Treasury the salaries were £58,000, and the pensions £14,282; in the office of the Paymaster General the salaries were £21,855, and the pensions £10,541; and in the Exchequer and Audit Department the salaries were £39,209, and the pensions £14,478. He could occupy the Committee an hour in showing the inconsistencies in some pensions as com-

793
pared with others, and he always found that the best men were worst treated. He, however, would not trouble the Committee with any more then; but it was time that public attention should be drawn to the subject.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend, that the subject was a most important one, and one that demanded the strictest inquiry. He could not, however, go into it then, neither was he prepared to go into the particular cases, not having had any information as to the intention of his hon. Friend to bring them forward; but he might say generally that the greatest possible precautions were taken that no person should receive any payments to which he was not entitled. If his hon. Friend would kindly give him the particulars of any case, he would have that case investigated, so as to show that the persons whose names were in the Estimates were still alive and were those who received the money. If his hon. Friend turned to the Estimates, he would find that Sir Alexander Spearman had served the country 53 years, and that he retired at the age of 79, having rendered very efficient service. But with regard to the heavy charge for pensions, the Committee must be aware that unless there were such inducements to retire, it would be impossible to get rid of old and faithful servants when they were no longer fit for duty; and, on the other hand, it would be equally impossible to secure the services of young and able men merely for the salaries that were now paid. A question which the country would at some time have to consider was whether they should largely increase the pay of all public officers and do away with pensions altogether, or whether they should continue the present system of pensions.
MR. MELLORwanted to know why the same rule was not applied in all
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor) for having raised this question. Everybody who had investigated the matter must feel that there were a great many anomalies connected with it; but he had come to the conclusion, that while there was much that was questionable in the system, there had of late years been a considerable
794
amount of improvement. In his opinion the whole system of pensioning was bad. He thought they ought to pay men properly for the services which they rendered to the public, and to leave them to make provision out of what they received for the future. They would in that way secure much better services than could be obtained under the present system, and although the payments might be larger for the present such an arrangement would in the long run be the most economical for the country. He did not think they had any right to devolve on posterity payment for the work done now, and the present system was certainly one under which the existing generation shirked its own responsibility and transferred it to a future generation. He thought they ought to pay public servants liberally enough to enable them to do without pensions.
MR. WHITWELLexpressed his satisfaction at the prospect that the system on which our public servants were paid would be looked into. He thought that the difficulty as to pensions might be met by establishing an insurance fund to which public servants should be bound to contribute, and had reason to believe that many of the recipients of those pensions were still capable of serving the community if restored to the service of the State. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would turn his attention to this subject.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had expressed no opinion whatever on the principle involved in this charge. He had merely said it was a grave and important subject and that under the existing state of things these gentlemen had a right to pensions which formed part of the bargain made with them when they joined the service. If a change was made it would involve an enormous increase to the annual charge as well as great difficulties of administration.
MR. MONKcomplained that resident magistrates in Ireland after 20 or 24 years' service received their full salary on retirement instead of, as in other cases, only a proportion of it.
Vote agreed to.

(23.) £32,238, to complete the sum for the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

(24.) £24,000, to complete the sum for Distressed British Seamen Abroad,

795

(25.) £15,760, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.

(26.) £4,148, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.

(27.) £4,593, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.

(28.) £19,102, to complete the sum for Salaries and Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions.

(29.) £2,645, to complete the sum for Oceanic Investigations.

(30.) £4,733, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.

(31.) £843,246, Customs Department.

(32.) £1,401,013, Inland Revenue Department.

MR. WHITWELLsuggested that in many parts of the country great improvement and economy might be effected by amalgamating the two systems of collection for the public service—the Excise and Customs.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was happy to inform the hon. Member that there was a Committee sitting which was charged with the duty of endeavouring to ascertain how far it was possible for one Department to act for the other in different parts of the country. He thought the proposed amalgamation might be advantageously effected in many parts of the country.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) AND COMMISSIONERS OF DUBLIN POLICE SALARIES BILL— [BILL 117.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) AND COMMISSIONERS OF DUBLIN POLICE SALARIES BILL— [BILL 117.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BUTT, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
  (Appointment of magistrates.)
  "Immediately after the passing of this Act, and from time to time, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland shall appoint a board of three fit and proper persons who shall from time to time examine into and certify the qualifications of all persons desirous to act as resident magistrate under the hereinbefore recited Acts, including
  796
  therein especially an examination of all such persons as to their knowledge of the duties of magistrates, and the laws relating to same, and of such other branches of knowledge as the said board with the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time prescribe; and after the passing of this Act no person shall be appointed a magistrate under the said Acts or any of them, unless such person shall have obtained a certificate of his fitness signed by two of the persons appointed to be such board,"
  said, its object was to provide that stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, whose duties were very important, should be required to possess some qualification for the office. He should suggest an examination.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must admit that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had raised a very important question in the clause which he had submitted to the Committee, but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think he could accept it, as its object was to transfer from the Government of Ireland the responsibility of the appointment of magistrates, and to place that responsibility in the hands of a Board of Examiners. In recent years the Lord Lieutenant had been very careful to appoint persons of proper qualifications to the office of stipendiary magistrate, and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government was most desirous that the appointments should be for the benefit of the country. If the same course continued to be pursued by those who were responsible for the appointments, it would be better and safer than the method proposed by the hon. and learned Member. It was quite true that these magistrates ought to have a knowledge of law, but there were other qualifications which a magistrate ought to be in possession of, such as firmness, decision of character, and the like, and which could not be tested by an examination. He trusted that, under all the circumstances of the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his clause to a division.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would not press the clause against the wish of the Government; but he would point out that he proposed no competitive examination, but simply a test examination, which was a very different thing.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MONKasked why there had been a departure in the case of resident ma-

  797
  gistrates in Ireland, from the rule that only a certain portion of the salary should be given as retiring pension?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that in addition to the amount set down as salary, there were various allowances given which it had been thought proper to take into account in fixing the retiring pension.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

REVENUE OFFICERS DISABILITIES BILL.— [BILL 15.]
(Mr. Monk, Mr. Russell Gurney.)
REVENUE OFFICERS DISABILITIES BILL.— [BILL 15.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was of opinion the clause ought not to stand part of the measure. The position of the question was this—Till a few years ago Revenue officers were disqualified not only from taking part in elections, but even from voting; but, in 1868, at the instance of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), a Bill was passed relieving them from the latter disqualification, still, however, leaving them subject to the penalties imposed by former Acts in respect of their taking part or interfering in elections. No doubt, the object of Parliament, in passing the old Acts, was to restrict the power of Government to influence elections, and to interfere with their freedom. The measures were very stringent, subjecting offenders to very severe penalties, which were to be exacted from them at the suit of any common informer, who was to receive a portion of the penalty. Circumstances having in the course of time altered materially, Revenue officers were allowed to vote, but remained subject to penalties for interfering in elections, and as these penalties were imposed by old Acts, some of which applied to one branch of the service and the remainder to other branches, the alteration that was made in 1868 left the law in a state of considerable confusion, and, no doubt, some amendment of it was to be desired. Inasmuch
  798
  as officers of the Post Office and of the Inland Revenue were now permitted to vote, and it was difficult to draw the line as to what was called interfering with elections, he thought it was perfectly reasonable to complete the work which was begun in 1868, by repealing these old and obsolete statutes. One of them which related to officers of the Post Office and to the Postmaster General himself was quite incompatible with the present state of things, because the Postmaster General might possibly be held under that statute to be liable to a heavy penalty for addressing his constituents. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Monk), and to the Committee, that very considerable inconvenience might arise, if officers of certain branches of the public service were, as a matter of habit, to take an active part in elections. He had been told there were a great many cases in which gentlemen connected with the Court of Probate, or some other branch of the Public Service, were excluded from taking their legitimate part as British citizens in elections, and he had no wish whatever to restrain them from taking such part. But it must be quite obvious that there might be, and that there were, certain branches of the Public Service in which there ought to be a good deal of discretion exercised as to how far officers ought to take an active part in elections. For instance, take the Post Office. With reference to some Election Petitions, applications had lately been made to Judges for the disclosure of a telegram on the part of the Post Office. Well, suppose that there was a postmaster in some borough, in which a very severe contest had been going on, who took a very active part in politics. Was it not obvious that he might be suspected of using his position as postmaster of the town, to inspect telegrams having reference to the election? We had heard of cases in some places where letter-carriers had been suspected of tampering with letters, or leaving them behind, because they had to do with electioneering purposes. Again, take the officers of the Inland Revenue, it was perfectly obvious that those gentlemen, going as they did at all hours into places of business if they were known to be very keen political partizans, and if they were dealing with persons who were also known

  799
  to be keen political partizans, would always be liable to be accused, however falsely, for political reasons, of having been severe, or of having been lax in matters connected with the Revenue. For reasons such as these—and he might extend his illustrations indefinitely—it was clearly undesirable that officers of certain branches, at all events, of the Public Service should take an active part in electioneering contests. And, therefore, although he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the law should be altered, and that old, obsolete, and inconvenient restrictions should be removed, he thought the House should do nothing to restrain the Executive Government from taking such steps as they might find necessary for preventing any unseemly or inconvenient interference of their own officials in electioneering contests. Now, the first clause might cause some difficulty. It provided that no person engaged in the Revenue Departments should be liable to any pains or penalties by reason of his having solicited the vote of any elector, or addressed any assembly of electors, in reference to the choice of any person to servo as a Member of Parliament. If they passed so broad an enactment as that, it seemed to him they would inconveniently impair the action of the Executive Government, and the Board of Inland Revenue or of the Customs might be held to have violated the Act, if they issued any order whatever with regard to the officers taking part in elections. Therefore, what he proposed was, that the Bill should be amended by striking out that section; that they should limit themselves to a repeal of the enactments which now prevented officers from taking-part in elections; and that they should explain in the Preamble that the reason for passing the Bill was, that the officers of the Revenue Department were still subject to severe penalties with reference to electioneering matters to which the officers in other branches of the public service were not subject, that it was desirable to abolish such penalties, and that then they should leave the matter to be dealt with at the discretion of the Government. He thought it very probable that the Board of Customs and of the Inland Revenue might think it necessary to issue some orders on the subject.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. MONKsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the omission of the clause, although he did not think it would prevent the Revenue Departments from issuing any departmental Order, with reference to their servants; but he went much further, he cordially agreed with almost every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped it was understood, that it was not the intention of the Government immediately on the passing of the Bill to issue any General Order, requiring the officers of these Departments not to interfere in elections, otherwise than by recording their votes. He thought the Government and the Commissioners of those Departments might very well trust the public servants not to take any step which would be improper with reference to elections. As to the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had put on the Paper, he (Mr. Monk) assented to them all, and he thought the Bill when altered as the right hon. Gentleman suggested would effect a very great public service.
  Motion agreed to; Clause struck out accordingly.
  Clause 2 (Enactments in schedule repealed).
  On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Amendment made in line 28, after "Act," by inserting—
  "And any enactments reviving or continuing the same, or any of the enactments contained in the Schedule to the Act of the thirty-second year of Her Majesty, chapter seventy-three."
  On the Motion of Mr. MONK, Amendment made, by adding at end of Schedule page 2, "2 and 3 Vic. c. 71, s. 6."
  Clause, as Amended, agreed to.
  Preamble.
  On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Amendment made in line 8, by leaving out from "still" to "restriction" in line 16, both inclusive, and inserting—
  "Are still subject, to the suit of informers and others, to certain very severe penalties in relation to Elections for Members of Parliament, to which penalties other civil servants of the Crown are not subject,"

  801
  "And whereas it is desirable to abolish such penalties."
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

FINES, FEES, AND PENALTIES BILL.
(Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr. Melly, Mr. Charley, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Gourley.)
FINES, FEES, AND PENALTIES BILL.

  [BILL 59.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (The words "borough or place" to extend to boroughs or places having a separate commission of the peace and supporting a police force).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN IBBETSONin moving the following Amendment, of which he had given Notice; to add at end of clause—
  "Provided that where any sum becomes payable in pursuance of this Act to the treasurer of any borough or place, which sum would, if this Act had not passed, have become payable to the treasurer of the county, riding, division, or liberty in which such borough or place is situate, then if the person liable to pay such sum fails to pay the same, and is imprisoned for nonpayment thereof in the prison of such county, riding, division, or liberty, such borough or place as aforesaid shall, in addition to any other sum it may contribute to such county, riding, division, or liberty, defray the expense incurred in respect of the conveyance, transport, maintenance, safe custody, and care of such prisoner to and in such prison,"
  ("Sections 18, 20, and 21, of 5 and 6 Vic. c. 98, shall apply to any expenses payable under this Act.")
  ("Sections eighteen, twenty, and twenty-one of the Act of the Session of the fifth and sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-eight, intituled "An Act to amend the Laws concerning Prisons," shall apply to any expenses payable under this Act in the same manner as if the borough or place by which such expenses are payable was a borough to which a separate court of quarter sessions had been granted, and as if the prison in respect of which such expenses are payable under this Act were the prison of the county within the meaning of the said sections of the said Act,"
  said, the Proviso would carry out the necessary objects under the Bill. It would place the boroughs referred to in the Bill on the same footing as those having quarter sessions; while those which had separate quarter sessions of their own would not be affected by per-
  802
  sons confined in the county gaol by commitment from the Assize Courts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with new Short Title—[Municipal Corporations (Disposition of Penalties) Bill]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]
(Mr. Lopes, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Goldney.)
JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 73 (Trials to be continued notwithstanding that the jury may be reduced in number).
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: The clause proposed that in the event of the death or illness of any juror or jurors during any trial, civil or criminal, except only in a trial for murder, the Judge should have power, if he thought fit, to proceed with the reduced number of jurors, provided that that number should not in any case be less than five; or, in cases of murder, the number should never be less than 12. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had given Notice of an Amendment which would confine this power to civil cases only, but he would postpone it to the Report. He thought that to give this discretionary power to the Judge would be inconvenient and dangerous, and therefore he should, in the first place, propose to leave out the words giving this discretion, so that the clause should enact absolutely that the trial, in the case referred to, should go on with the remaining 10 or 11 persons. He should afterwards propose, if it should be decided that in the case of murder the number of jurors should in all cases be 12, that the same rule should apply to trials for treason, misprision of treason, treason-felony, sedition, and blasphemy. There ought to be every safeguard in a case in which a man was put upon his trial for political or religious opinion, and therefore in such cases he would take away the discretion of the Judge to proceed with a diminished jury. Such a responsibility ought not to be thrown upon a single man, and if it was fit that the trial should

  803
  proceed with a diminished jury, the Committee ought to have the courage to say so. He proposed the omission of the words "civil or criminal, the Judge presiding at such trial shall have power."
  MR. LOPESconsidered the clause a valuable provision of the Bill, which he was unwilling to relinquish, particularly as, since they were last in Committee, he had ascertained that all the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench highly approved of this discretionary power being given. Further, they thought it would be almost a pity that murder should be excepted. He thought it would be better and more logical not to exclude it from the operation of the clause; but he should certainly refuse to include the crimes mentioned by the hon. and learned Member among the exceptions.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsuggested that the question should be reserved for the Report, when he would propose to strike out all exceptions, and provide that the trial should proceed when the number of the jury had not been reduced below 11. He thought this would meet all practical ends, for it was extremely unlikely that two members of the same jury would be disabled at the same time.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought it was necessary that discretion should be vested in a Judge to decide upon evidence as to the temporary character or permanence of a juror's illness, and to say whether the trial should proceed in his absence or not.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsupported the clause, remarking that he could see no probable danger or inconvenience likely to arise from investing Judges with the discretionary power included in the clause. He approved of the exception of cases of murder. He believed the public would not be satisfied even with an unanimous verdict if it were returned by less than 12 persons.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was illogical to provide for the illness or death of a juryman, and not—what was much more likely to happen—for his stupidity or corruption. In the course of a long experience he had never known any serious inconvenience arise from the sickness of a juror.
  SIR JOHN KARSLAKEthought the clause was a good one, as it would provide for rare and difficult cases. He saw no valid reason for refusing to con-
  804
  fer upon. Judges such a discretionary power as was provided by the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved to insert words extending the exceptions to trials for treason, misprision of treason, treason-felony, sedition, and blasphemy.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and the words "any capital offence" substituted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 (Challenges in civil trials in the superior Courts).
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDdesired to place informations and indictments for misdemeanour on the same footing as civil cases in respect of peremptory challenges.
  Amendment moved to insert, in page 21, line 5, after "courts," "and in all trials of indictments for misdemeanour and informations."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  MR. LOPESsaid, he would accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, and would insert in the Interpretation Clause the Informations intended to be covered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he objected to the clause that it limited the exercise of the suitor's right to object to a juror to a particular mode. The object of the clause was to enable persons in civil trials to object peremptorily to a certain number of jurors; but they could only exercise that right "by delivering to the officer of the court, whose duty it shall be to call the jury, a list of the names objected to before the jury are called." This condition would entirely thwart the object of the clause. He should propose to strike out the whole of this direction.
  An Amendment moved, page 21, line 8, after "number," leave out to end of clause.—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  After some discussion, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Panel to be delivered to the accused in high treason), agreed to.
  Clause 76 (Viewers not to be peremptorily challenged), agreed to.
  Clause 77 (Criminal trials may be tried by special jurors.)
  MR. LOPESmoved an Amendment enabling a Judge at his discretion to direct a case involving a charge of felony to be tried by a special jury, as it was provided he should have power to do in ease of misdemeanour.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 21, line 29, to leave out from the word "information" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "at the assizes or Central Criminal Court, on the application of either the prosecutor or accused, a judge of the superior court may, if he think fit, direct the issue to be tried by a special jury, provided that the party mailing the application shall give such notice as shall he fixed by any rule of court to be made as hereinafter prescribed."—(Mr. Lopes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOPWOODobjected to the prosecutor being allowed to apply to the Court for a special jury. He thought the power was an invidious one, which the Judge would find some difficulty in exercising.
  MR. GREGORYurged that some cases, such as charges of poisoning, were beyond the capacity of a common jury. The sole object of the clause was to secure a fair trial, and there were many cases in which it was most desirable in the interests of justice that there should be power to refer it to a special jury. The question was one which might fairly be left to the Judge.
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that there was more in this Amendment than appeared when viewed superficially. It was essentially class legislation. In the case of a night poacher or a trades unionist being tried, the application on the part of the prosecutor for a special jury would result in placing in the jury-box just the men who were most averse to the accused: the poacher would be tried by landowners, and 'the trades unionist by the employers of labour, and nothing but complaint would be the result.
  MR. OSBORNE MOEGANagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment should be agreed to an opinion might arise that in cases of petty larceny the prisoner would not get a fair trial on account of being tried by a jury of gentlemen.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the clause a reasonable one, and it gave equal facilities to both sides. The Judge would not accede to the request of either
  806
  unless he considered the case one which required to be tried by a special jury. For himself he thought there were many cases in which a special jury might be had with advantage.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSthought the clause threw a slur on the tribunal which the Bill set up for the trial of criminal cases and it would be unfortunate if it were inserted in the measure. Common juries had hitherto disposed satisfactorily of the most difficult poisoning cases that had been submitted to them. Take for instance the Palmer Case, and the Essex poisoning cases, which occurred some years ago, and which required the utmost diligence and attention—yet the Essex jury were probably not above the ordinary run of jurors at assizes in capacity.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)believed the power of calling for a special jury would be sufficiently guarded from abuse by the necessity of obtaining the sanction of the Court. He did not suppose that in such venues as London and Middlesex the judge would exercise his arbitrament, but he might do so where the area of selection was narrow, as in the Welsh counties, and rescue the case from the hands of an incompetent jury.
  Mr. GRANTHAMpointed out the fact that special juries were unknown in civil cases until they increased in importance. Of late years criminal cases had assumed particular importance, and on the same principle ought to be tried by special jury.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he was sorry to differ upon that clause from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), whose kind and cordial assistance in regard to the Bill he gratefully acknowledged. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that though they might have a special jury in a case of misdemeanour they could not have one in a case of felony. But at the present day the distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony was nothing but a sentiment. The distinction was meaningless and practically obsolete. The clause, as it stood now, had received the approval of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, that if the argument of his hon. and learned Friend were good the power given by the clause ought to be extended to the Quarter

  807
  Sessions, where the bulk of criminal cases were tried. The cases in which the new proposal would be acted upon were so few that it was not worth while raising the broad question of principle.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYthought the Committee was losing sight of the main object—the insuring of right verdicts from juries of more, instead of less, intelligence; and, as the discretion was to be exercised only by a superior Judge, he could not see any objection to giving it. Applications were constantly made on behalf of prisoners for the removal of their trials from the Central Criminal Court, to a Superior Court, for the express purpose of securing a jury of a different character. If the Committee wished in felonies as well as misdemeanours to insure that there should be a jury of the greatest possible intelligence, they would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Lopes.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that at present, cases of misdemeanour were removed to the Superior Courts by writ of certiorari, not for the purpose of obtaining a special jury, but because difficult points of law were involved. The effect of the Amendment would be to give to every rich misdemeanant the power of having a special jury. The less the Judge had to do with the selection of juries the better.
  MR. FORSYTHsupported the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 107: Majority 12.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR HENRY JAMESgave Notice that on the Report he would move the omission of this clause.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTthought the clause was an entire innovation on the practice of the criminal law, and he thought it most important that it should be challenged on the Report.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he could on no account relinquish this clause. The Committee had given its decision, and those who desired to do so might challenge it, if they deemed expedient, at a future stage.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Thomas Chambers.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 110: Majority 17.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENwas of opinion that an important change in the law had just been carried under very peculiar circumstances; and, with the view of giving Government an opportunity of re-considering their position in the matter, he moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the right hon. Gentleman somewhat dictatorial in his manner of giving advice to Her Majesty's Government, and submitted that the usual course was to renew the opposition on Report. Considering, however, that the minority in favour of reporting Progress was large, he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lopes) that it might be better to yield to that desire.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENdisclaimed any wish to be dictatorial, and expressed a readiness to withdraw his Motion if the proposal to report Progress was accepted.
  MR. LOPESacceded to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy).
  Motion put, and negatived.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSagain moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Thomas Chambers.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 11: Majority 171.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PAYMENT OF REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend the Law relating to the payment of Revising' Barristers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]

  SANITARY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to amend and extend the Sanitary Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. CLARE READ.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock,