Commons Sitting of 15 March 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts Amendment * [96]; Shipowners Liability * [97].
Second Rending—Explosive Substances* [76]; Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000)*; Marine Mutiny *.
Committee—Regimental Exchanges [3]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [72].
Considered as amended—Consolidated Fund (£882,661 8s. 11 d.)*.
Third Reading—East India Home Government (Pensions) * [74], debate adjourned.

NAVY—H.M.S. "ALBATROSS."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that Her Majesty's ship "Albatross," in the autumn of last year, was, shortly after her departure for foreign service, recalled to undergo extensive repairs; if he will state to the House the reason for and nature of those repairs, and the cost thereof; whether the state of the ship, which compelled her return, was due to bad workmanship in the dockyard, or to an original fault in construction; and, if the latter, who is responsible for that construction; whether it
  1800
  is usual in composite-built ships to use as an outer skin 2½ inches of soft porous wood; and, if any more ships have been or are being built of similar construction?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, it is the case that the Albatross was recalled from foreign service as described by the hon. Gentleman. The repairs were required on account of an offensive smell arising about the after part of the ship. On examination, it was found that the cause of the evil was attributable partly to bad workmanship in the driving of some of the bolts of the ship, and partly to the employment of some coarse grained and porous elm planking, and the parties responsible have been duly censured by the Admiralty. The cost of the repairs amounted to £1,500. It is usual in composite ships to employ elm planking for a few streaks near the keel. A large number of composite ships have been built with outer planking of elm to the same extent as the Albatross, and several of them have served more than one commission without complaint.

JOHN MITCHEL—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether originals or copies of any of the documents referred to in the Motion of the honourable Member for Kildare on Friday the 5th March instant, relating to John Mitchel, are in the possession of the Government, or within their immediate reach; and, if any of them are, which are they, and is there any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Louth, was for the production of Papers relating to the case of John Mitchel, and was negatived on the 5th of March instant by a large majority after debate and at a time when upwards of 200 Members were present in the House. The hon. Member for Louth, in the Question which he has just put to me, in substance asks me whether I am willing to give him copies of the same Papers as were moved for by the hon. Member for Kildare, or of such of them as are within the reach of the Government; but it appears to me that were I

1801
to do so, I should be taking upon myself to act in direct opposition to the decision of the House as expressed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare. I must, therefore, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Louth, state that I do not think it would be consistent with my duty to give copies of the Papers referred to in his Question.
MR. SULLIVAN: May I ask whether any of the Papers are in the possession of the Government?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: For the reason I have already given, I decline to answer that Question.

ARMY—THE MEDICAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, on the last occasion, only eleven candidates offered to compete for the vacancies in the medical service of the British Army; how many vacancies there are to fill; and, whether it is true that the first of the eight successful candidates in the late competition had only 84 marks beyond the last of the twenty successful candidates in the competition for the Indian Medical Service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the first part of the Question was perfectly correct, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the second part, there were now no vacancies to fill, there being seven in excess of the numbers upon the establishment. It was also quite correct that the last successful competitor for the Indian service was only 84 marks behind the first in the competition for the British service; but he was instructed by the examiners to state that the gentlemen selected were all qualified for the posts they had to fill. Upon other examinations, the reverse had been the ease. The last candidate in the competition for the British service in 1873 had 2,318 marks against 2,195 of the first in the Indian competition. The numbers varied at times; but he admitted that they were generally to the advantage of the Indian competitions.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT—THE REGISTER OF ELECTORS.—QUESTION.
MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board,
1802
If he will take into consideration the means of rendering the nominal lists of those in receipt of public relief available for facilitating the removal, according to statute, from the Register of Electors of all persons disqualified by such relief, inasmuch as many now continue upon the register in consequence of the difficulty to ascertain, by the method at present in force, the fact of their disqualification?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the nominal lists of those in receipt of public relief were, under the general order of accounts, made up half-yearly to Lady-day and Michaelmas. The qualifying year for electoral registration ended on the 31st July, so that there was no knowledge on the part of the overseers as to the number of paupers who might have gone on the list between Lady-day and that date. It might, he thought, be provided as a part of the duties of clerks of guardians, that they should furnish supplemental lists for that intervening period, upon the request of the overseers, and upon payment of a reasonable fee, such fee to be part of the expenses incidental to the preparation of the list. He was not aware of any objection to that course being taken; and if that were found upon inquiry to be the case, he would give directions accordingly.

MILITIA—EXAMINATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. AGG-GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that the privilege accorded by the Civil Service Commissioners to the unsuccessful candidates for direct Commissions, of ascertaining the marks obtained by them in the subjects in which they have been examined, is refused to candidates from the Militia; and, if so, whether there is any prospect of this apparent anomaly being redressed?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was not the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to state the number of marks gained either by the successful or the unsuccessful candidates for the Militia. In the Army, the number of marks given to the successful candidates were announced, and the unsuccessful candidates could ascertain the numbers on application. The Civil Service Commissioners did not think it

1803
would be desirable to state the marks in the case of the Militia, because what they wanted was to ascertain the number which would show efficiency on the part of the candidate.

INDIA—AFGHANISTAN—THE OCCUPATION OF HERAT—QUESTION.
SIR PERCY BURRELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the occupation of Herat by the Ameer of Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take such action as will be calculated to ensure the security of our Indian frontier, more especially with reference to Merv?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, as the language of the Question does not very clearly describe the facts upon which the hon. Gentleman bases his Question, I may be permitted to point out to him that Herat and Merv are not, as the Question implies, in immediate proximity to our Indian frontier. Herat is about 750 miles and Merv about 950 miles distant from Peshawur; and, secondly, I must remind him that Herat has been for many years an integral part of the dominions of the Ameer of Afghanistan, and that the action which the Ameer has recently taken in reference to Herat has been to send troops upon whose fidelity he could more confidently rely to replace the garrison previously occupying that post. The Indian Government are fully aware of the strategical importance of Herat and Merv, and that one of their duties is to insure, to the best of their power, the security of their frontier. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that in the performance of that duty the Indian Government will give every consideration to any circumstances which may occur in the vicinity of Herat and Merv.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. RODWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any objection to direct that when the Local Government Department make any Report upon any Private Bill to the Committee on such Bill, or to any officer of either House of Parliament, a copy of such Report shall at the
1804
same time be communicated to the agent or agents for the Bill?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: These Reports, Sir, as my hon. Friend is aware, are addressed, in pursuance of Standing Orders, to the Chairman of Committees and to the Chairman of Ways and Means, for their information, and for that of the Committees on the Bills. If the authorities of the two Houses see no objection, copies of the Reports may be furnished on application to the agents of the parties.

DESTRUCTION OF PEARL FISHING BOATS—H.M.S. "THETIS."—QUESTION.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What was the result of the inquiry made into the destruction of a fleet of pearl fishing boats by Her Majesty's ship "Thetis" during her voyage from Suez to Aden in June 1873; whether compensation has been paid by Her Majesty's Government to the owners of the vessels which were destroyed; and, if so, what was its amount; and, whether it has appeared on the Estimates?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the whole of the Correspondence on this subject between the Foreign Office, Treasury, and Admiralty is printed at Page 25 of a Civil Service Parliamentary Estimate (Parliamentary Paper No. 77). The amount of compensation was £12,000, which was voted, after considerable discussion in this House, on the 5th of March.

THE CAPE COLONY—BOUNDARY AT DELAGOA BAY.—QUESTION.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can inform the House when the decision of the President of the French Republic is likely to be given on the question of the disputed boundary at Delagoa Bay, which has been referred to him for arbitration by the Governments of England and Portugal?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the question of the disputed boundary had been for some time before the arbitrator, but had not yet been decided. More evidence was required, and when the decision was given Her Majesty's Government would, without delay, communicate it to the House.

NAVY—SHIPS OF THE LATE CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that besides the "Active," built upon the same plan as the "Volage," there are about thirty armoured and about the same number of unarmoured ships of war built according to the design furnished by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy; whether the sea-going qualities of the greater number, if not of all these sixty ships, have formed a serious ground of complaint by many of the most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's Service, besides that of Captain Fairfax, commanding Her Majesty's ship "Volage," just published; and, whether he will consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire and report whether the ships designed by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy can be considered as safe and efficient sea-going men of war, worthy a place on the Navy List of Great Britain?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the subject of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, cannot, in my opinion, be properly dealt with by a simple categorical answer. It involves much controversial matter, and is in effect an attack upon the professional ability of an hon. Gentleman who for some years held a responsible post at the Admiralty, and now occupies a seat in this House. I would suggest to my hon. Friend, if he thinks that the matter requires the attention of the House, that he should bring it forward in a way that would allow of his giving the grounds for the opinions he appears to entertain, and that would afford the hon. Member for Pembroke an opportunity for taking part in the discussion.
CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he would, in that case, give Notice that he should to-morrow move for a Committee to inquire into the sea-going and other qualities of the vessels designed by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy, Mr. E. J. Reed, C.B.

IRELAND—THE LINEN TRADE—CIVIL BILL OFFICERS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, on the renewal of the Acts regulating the Linen Trade in Ireland, which are at present of a temporary character, he will be prepared in the interests of that trade to render them permanent?
1806
The hon. Gentleman also asked, If it is his intention this Session to introduce a Bill to remedy the grievances of the Civil Bill Officers of Ireland?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, most persons who were interested in the linen trade in Ireland seemed to think that the Acts now regulating that trade ought to be made permanent, and, therefore, unless in the meantime he received some important opinion to the contrary effect, he should introduce a Bill to carry out that object. The grievances of the Civil Bill Officers of Ireland appeared to have reference mainly to the salaries they received; but as their whole time was not employed by their official duties, and as in many instances they were employed in other avocations, it was not his intention to propose an increase of their incomes.

POST OFFICE—MAILS BETWEEN LONDON AND SALISBURY.—QUESTION.
MR. RYDERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in order to avoid the carriage for 22 miles by Mail Carts of the Mails to and from London and Salisbury at night, and the damage not unfrequently resulting therefrom to articles sent by post, he will sanction the Mails being sent by Railway the whole distance, in the event of either of the Railway Companies establishing trains at suitable times for this purpose?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that the mails to and from Salisbury and London were sent by railway, except on Sundays, when there was no train. The mail carts could not, however, be dispensed with, as they were required for the intermediate country letters. There was no evidence to show that letters or articles posted were more liable to damage when sent by mail carts than they were when sent by train.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE SLOOP "LARK."—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and what progress has been made since the last Session respecting the settlement of the claims against the Spanish Government arising out of the seizure of the "Lark" by the Cuban authorities in 1869?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that

1807
in October last Her Majesty's Government had directed the Minister at Madrid to request the Spanish Government to obtain a report from their officers in Cuba with reference to the subject, and that morning a despatch had reached the Foreign Office from Mr. Layard, in which a very different version was given of the occurrence from that which had been previously received from the captain of the vessel in question. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to consider very carefully what steps ought to be taken in the matter.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, After what hour that night he will not take the Friendly Societies Bill, which was the second Order? He likewise desired to know, "Whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the consideration of that measure on the Thursday before Good Friday? That would be an unusual course to take, as the House had certainly not met on the day preceding Good Friday for more than twenty years.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take the Friendly Societies Bill after 11 o'clock this evening. With regard to the other inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that until comparatively modern times the House always sat, for some generations, in Passion Week, and that it always met on the Thursday before Good Friday. I do not know of any exception to that rule. At the same time, it is my wish and my duty to consider the convenience of the House as much as I can consistently with the due progress of Public Business; and if it is more convenient to the House that on Thursday, in case the discussion on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is concluded, we should not take the Friendly Societies Bill, I would propose that we should take the Army Estimates on that day.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS—NATIONAL TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CLERYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention
1808
of the Government to consider the claim of the national teachers engaged in Irish workhouse schools to payment by results fees, having regard to the fact that such teachers have been debarred this payment during the three years in which the result system has been in operation, though required to carry out all its details?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that before he submitted to the House the proposals he sketched out the other evening, the claims of the national teachers engaged in Irish work-house schools to payment by results fees would be fully considered; but he might point out that these persons did not occupy exactly the same position as teachers in the ordinary schools.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hardy, Mr. Stanley.)
REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 4th March.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Motion, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  COLONEL NORTH, in explanation, said, that in his remarks the other evening, he had not the slightest intention, as had been represented, of imputing to the late Sir Henry Havelock that he had derived "pecuniary benefit" from the system of exchanges. What he had said was, that the system of exchanges had given Sir Henry Havelock the opportunity of remaining in India, which afterwards became the scene of his success and his glory. It was not his intention to use one word which would give pain to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Henry Havelock) or east a slur on the honoured name of his father.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no intention of saying anything which would tend to reopen the discussion on the main principle of the Bill. That principle he understood to be the legislative provision that the difference of value between one commission and another might properly be expressed by a money payment, and that there was no reason, military or moral, why officers should not make what arrangement or bargain they pleased in exchanging one commission for another. He need hardly say that he deeply re-

  1809
  gretted the decision of the House; but as the House had adopted the principle, after two nights of full discussion, by a very considerable majority, he did not think any useful object would now be served by reopening the discussion. He rose wholly for the purpose of eliciting some further information as to the mode in which the Bill was to be carried out, and as to the views which the right hon. Gentleman held in respect to some of the claims for exchanging which some of the officers might make. It would be useful and important for the Committee to know whether the Secretary for War intended to sanction all exchanges which might be proposed to him by officers, if there was nothing extremely objectionable upon the face of the transaction; or whether, on the other hand, he intended by stringent regulations to provide that only such exchanges should be sanctioned as, either for reasons connected with the officers' health or for strong reasons of personal convenience, might appear necessary. Some information on these points had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, who had stated that he did not wish to discourage exchanges, but desired that they should be decided on their merits and from considerations of public convenience, leaving the money payments to be settled between the individuals. From that statement, the Committee might gather that it was only in rare eases and for strong reasons that the right hon. Gentleman meant to sanction exchanges. Further on, however, he used words tending to an opposite conclusion, for in another part of his speech he had said that a man might wish to exchange because he did not like his regiment; because his father had been in a regiment and he wished to get into the same; from reasons of nationality; or for other reasons of that kind. Now, he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought that if this was to be the principle on which the Bill was to be worked, these instances would open the door tolerably wide, for one or other of them would be certain to apply; and, as a consequence, we should soon see a very general system of exchanges and paying for exchanges. That was no mere theoretical opinion. The evidence given by Colonel Bray and Colonel Campbell before the Royal Commission showed that before the abolition of Purchase, when payments
  1810
  were allowed for exchanges and the sanction of the War Office and the Horse Guards was required, exchanges were constantly made, a certain market for them existed, and they were hardly ever refused. Now, without speaking of abuses, that was the system to which we were going to recur. But were not abuses extremely likely to spring up under such a system? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Disraeli) said the other night he had heard a great deal of abstract reasoning against the Bill, but very little practical argument. The right hon. Gentleman, however, could scarcely have attended to the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), who showed how, under the system, it would be possible for an officer to purchase, not actual promotion, but the prospect of speedy promotion; while the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) showed how it would encourage the revival of the bonus system, by officers making a purse and thus enabling an officer who stood in their way to exchange out of the regiment; and how an officer might, by watching his opportunity, purchase a majority in a regiment. We might be told that the veto of the Secretary of State for War and of the Commander-in-Chief would be sufficient to prevent abuses. But we know that abuses of a similar character had grown up under the old system, and it was very much to be doubted whether the Secretary of State for War and the Horse Guards, even with the best possible intentions, would have the means of checking those abuses. The parties wishing to exchange would have the best possible reasons for doing so; they had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who by-and-by would find it difficult to discover what was the real motive for the exchange. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was rather proud of knowing nothing what-ever about the sum paid. But if he did, he might know something also about the ulterior motives; because if a very large sum was paid, it might suggest that some material consideration, which did not appear on the surface, had entered into the transaction. The right hon. Gentle-man had said over and over again that he would know nothing about the money to be paid for the exchange; that would

  1811
  be left entirely to the officers exchanging. But in adopting that course the right hon. Gentleman would refuse the only means that would enable him to judge whether the motives for the proposed exchange were honest and good. Moreover, supposing the right hon. Gentleman had resolved that the veto of the authorities should be brought into exercise to prevent the possibility of abuse, what an unenviable task the Secretary of State for War would be about to undertake. The right hon. Gentleman had said the other day,—"An invidious duty is cast upon us which we ought not to be called upon to discharge—that of saying what amount of money might be necessary to cover the reasonable expenses of an exchange." But any experienced clerk in the War Office would not have any difficulty in checking the amount that ought to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that would be an invidious duty; but what was the duty he was about to undertake under the Bill? Having sanctioned last week an exchange between Captain A and Captain B on what appeared to be good grounds, Captain C and Captain D would come the week after with an equally plausible story. But the right hon. Gentleman or the Commander-in-Chief might have heard something in the interval which led them to think that there was more in the matter than was apparent, and said,—"I can't allow this, though you bring forward very good reasons for it." Did the right hon. Gentle man think that Captain C and Captain D, who might be altogether guiltless, would think themselves fairly treated? In fact, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office would find themselves in this dilemma—either they must sanction exchanges generally, they must open the market to an unlimited extent; or they must restrict the power of exchange very much, and thus disappoint the expectations raised in the minds of officers, as well as the intentions of the Commissioners themselves, who had recommended payments for exchange in the interests of officers of slender means. How would officers of slender means be benefited, unless something like an open unrestricted market was allowed? Probably the Committee would be told that these abuses did not occur under the old system, and that there was no reason to
  1812
  think they would prevail under the new. But the answer to that was that things were entirely altered since the abolition of Purchase. When officers could buy promotion directly, there was no reason why they should buy it in a roundabout way. But when Parliament had closed the door against buying promotion in a straightforward way, it was very objectionable that they should be able to purchase it in a roundabout manner. Further, there was another reason why abuses should spring up under the new system which were not likely to arise under the old. That was the only outlet by which rich men would be able to turn their money to account, all the other outlets having been stopped up, and therefore it was far more likely that payment for exchanges would be made use of in an unlimited manner under the new system than when Purchase was allowed. There was one answer which would be likely to be given to his objections. When the Abolition of Purchase Bill was before the House, Lord Card-well was repeatedly asked to lay on the Table the Regulations he intended to make with a view to ensure a proper flow of promotion, but he always refused. But the cases were not at all analogous. It was impossible for Lord Cardwell to draw up a scheme until he knew how far the flow of promotion would be retarded by the abolition of Purchase, if it would be retarded at all. Lord Cardwell promised that the flow of promotion should not be retarded, and that as soon as the necessity arose he would bring forward a scheme. But the evils of the exchange system, if evils there should be, would arise at once, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared to meet them. The House, then, had a right to ask in what way he was prepared to do that. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman's answer would at least show that he was alive to the existence of at least possible dangers of abuse, and also that he would point out the way in which he intended to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman's answer would very much facilitate the debates of the evening upon the clauses of the Bill and the Amendments He could not pretend to say he expected that the answer would be completely satisfactory. The Committee could no help reflecting that regulations might fail. He was perfectly willing to give

  1813
  the right hon. Gentleman and the Commander-in-Chief every credit for their wish to do nothing to restore the system of Purchase; but the Committee could not feel any security that the right hon. Gentleman would always occupy his present position, and he might be succeeded by others who would not hold the same views. He trusted, in the few observations he had made, he had said nothing which could expose him to a charge of abstract reasoning. He had put forward some practical considerations which he hoped the right hon. Gentle-man would not think unworthy of a reply.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am not certainly without some surprise at the course taken by the noble Lord when I remember the course taken by his Government on the subject of the Abolition of Purchase. When the Bill of Lord Cardwell was defeated in this House, he at once proceeded to carry out the proposals of that rejected Bill by Royal Warrant, without any intimation to this House whatever as to the mode in which he proposed to abolish Purchase or to regulate exchanges; and he took upon himself—that is to say, the Government took upon itself—to regulate everything, oven to the minutest details, connected with one of the greatest changes of public policy ever known without any communication to this House at all; and the noble Lord now calls upon me to say exactly what I shall do when this Bill becomes law. I am not bound to follow the path indicated by the noble Lord; but as I have no desire for concealment or evasion, I will state on what I depend for security. How is it at the present moment? We are protected from Purchase by certain regulations. The noble Lord (Lord Cardwell) laid down the rule that the officer about to be promoted should make a declaration as to paying money. How, at the present moment, are we protected from the evils of undue payments in the case of exchanges? How have we any security that no money has passed beyond the actual expenses? Only the declaration of the officers themselves. When I see that that security contented the noble Lord, and that its efficacy has never been impugned, I feel that I may rely on the same declarations that he did. I am far from admitting that the evils shadowed forth so darkly by the
  1814
  noble Lord are likely to be the result of this Bill; yet there are some things which might occur, but which never did occur under the old system. The noble Lord opposite and his Friends have suggested modes by which, under this Bib, Purchase may be reintroduced into the Army. I do not believe that their suggestions will be followed. I think that danger may be guarded against as easily now, by the declarations of the officers concerned, as it is under the present system. An impression seemed to exist that some new law of exchange is about to be introduced. That is not the case. The Bill will not introduce any greater laxity into the system of exchanges than existed before. All that it will do will be to sanction by law what was sanctioned by custom, provided always that it be done under such conditions as shall prevent any one else being superseded, or in any way affected. What we want to do is to render the practice which so long existed conformable to law. My Predecessor at the War Office did not treat the question on the same high grounds as the noble Lord opposite. Be simply put it upon the grounds of personal convenience to the officers, so long as nobody was superseded. When the Purchase system existed, as Mr. O'Dowd said, there were no doubt a great many exchanges made simply and solely with the view of effecting sales afterwards. But that has all been done away with. It is absurd to think those purses we have heard of will be made up by gentlemen who can have no reasonable ground for believing they will get an equivalent. It is very unlikely that the captain will purchase out his senior, when the major is to be promoted by selection, and he can have no hope of obtaining the next step. If you will simply take the trouble to estimate the small number of exchanges occurring at present between majors and lieutenant-colonels, and study that in connection with this Bill, you will, I think, acknowledge the unlikelihood of any great increase in such exchanges. All I wish to do is to facilitate exchanges in all reasonable cases; and I do not admit that a man has either the right or the privilege to exchange whenever he pleases, with-out reference whatever to the general service. Such an idea has never been recognized. As an illustration of this, I may mention that a case occurred the other

  1815
  day, where an officer whose regiment was going to India exchanged into another stationed at home. Well, a very short time afterwards, the regiment at home was also ordered to India, and he was obliged to accompany it. In former times exchanges have often been refused by the military authorities, and for various reasons, such as where a man had exchanged too often, or even once before. What I propose, and what, under the Bill will alone be permitted, is this—that although the officer exchanges from one regiment into another, he is subject in doing so to the military authorities, and will find himself, whenever the good of the service requires it, in the position of a man who pays no money at all. He will remain just as much at the beck of the military authorities as if he does not exchange at all. In case he is required to go to India the very next day, he will be sent without regard to the money paid for the exchange. I have thus shortly touched on the points mentioned by the noble Lord. I say the same means by which exchanges are controlled under the present system will still remain in force. Exchanges in the Artillery and Engineers are not under the Act of Parliament at all. That point was brought out by Sir George Grey in the Commission on Over-Regulation Prices. "What is forbidden by the statute is, an exchange of commissions. There must be two regiments, or there is no change of commissions. Yet the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) wishes to put into the Bill the case of non-commissioned officers and privates—that is to prevent the exchanging commissions where there are no commissions at all. Then the noble Lord says this will be a roundabout way of buying promotion. Well, I have listened very attentively to the whole of the debates on the subject, and the only argument in that direction which I have heard is the making of a purse by the junior officers to purchase out one of their seniors. Now that, I think, can very easily be checked by the declarations to be made by the officer and the regulations of the service. When I reflect upon the former system of exchanges under the Purchase system, I cannot help arriving at the conclusion that our safety lay in the fact that there was no direct recognition by the State of the money that was paid by one officer
  1816
  to another. But what the noble Lord and his Friends wish to do is to fix and continue a regulation price. Well, all I can say is, that the dangers that were likely to arise under the old system were much greater than any which are likely to spring up under this Bill. In the American Army the consent of the two officers is sufficient for an exchange; no inquiry is made as to what money passes between them; and it is the same in France when the State is put to no expense. In conclusion, I wish to say that I simply desire to give a fair protection to officers in effecting exchanges; that when, on reasonable grounds, they demand such exchanges, unreasonable objections shall not be urged against them.; and that exchanges shall be granted when proper and reasonable grounds are stated on their behalf, and, as I said before, provided the professional prospects of other officers in the regiment are not affected.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in future, there would be the same protection as at present in the declaration to be made on the honour of the officer that he had not received more than the fair expenses incident to the exchange.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, at present, under the regulations of the late Government, they relied on the honour of the officer as to the amount received. He also relied on the honour of the officer in the declaration to be made under the new system.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTentirely agreed that they could rely on the honour of the officer; but the right hon. Gentleman had not explained to the Committee what declaration the officer had to make. That was what they wanted to know. What security had they that Purchase would not be restored? The right hon. Gentleman said Purchase would not be restored; selection would protect them from that. They had heard some years ago, on the highest military authority, that selection could not be worked; then promotion would mainly go by seniority, in a regiment; and, if so, it would be of great importance to a man to buy the place of senior captain, as he would have, if not an absolute certainty, a high probability of promotion. A junior captain wanting to get up to the senior captaincy

  1817
  would subsidise exchanges. That was what would take place. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh, oh!" but it was a well-known practice—[An hon. MEMBER: Not in exchanges.] That might not be so directly; but did they never hear of subsidizing an exchange? It was the commonest practice in the Indian Army. Where a man could not buy a step himself a purse was made to enable him to do so, and that would be done by means of exchange. The thing could not be done directly as in the case of Purchase; but it would be done indirectly by exchanges. What was to prevent a man helping one above him to the money necessary to exchange when he knew that when the exchange was made he would get a step? What security was there against a transaction of that character? The argument derived from the Artillery and Engineers was altogether inapplicable. The argument of the Secretary of State for War was founded on the idea that an officer was commissioned to a regiment; but he was informed that that idea was based on a complete misapprehension—that an officer was commissioned to Her Majesty's Army, and that he was only gazetted to a regiment. At all events, the Secretary of State ought to let them know what was the declaration on which they were to rely.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that after listening to the arguments of hon. Members opposite, he was unable to gather how it was that the proposal to facilitate exchanges could help promotion. If a junior captain exchanged into another regiment and found himself at the bottom of a list of nine, was it to be supposed that the Horse Guards were so blind that they would allow him to effect nine exchanges in succession? In the experience of the oldest soldier, there had been nothing approaching to such a suggestion. Under the old system of purchase a man could exchange with a poor officer, and, by paying a, regulation price, buy promotion over the heads of other officers; but under this Bill, officers would simply be allowed to exchange, subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief, for their own convenience, provided the exchange did not interfere with the interests of the service; and for the life of him he could not see how this privilege would give rise to traffic in promotion. The explanation of the Se-
  1818
  cretary of State was as clear as daylight to military men. It did not seem to be understood by hon. Members opposite, and he did not think if it were discussed for three weeks, they would understand it a bit better.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster must have been absent when it was shown there was a danger of exchanges being made the means of buying promotion, unless the Bill should be modified as proposed. He himself sketched the successive steps by which, as soon as the Bill passed, if not so modified, a major would have an opportunity of exchanging from a battalion in India, and in making that exchange he would look for a regiment whore the lieutenant-colonel must shortly retire, either on half-pay or full-pay, so that on arriving at that favourable position by exchange, there would virtually stand but one officer between him and that step—namely, the senior major. Then, if he chose his regiment discreetly, he might find the senior major accessible to a further exchange out of his way, and, by paying an additional sum, say £1,000, he would inevitably in the course of 18 months or a couple of years drop into the command of that regiment. The Report of the Royal Commission was full of such cases. It was said that there was a fallacy in that argument in consequence of the question of selection; but what had happened in the past, afforded some indication of what might take place in the future. Out of 149 cases occurring in three and a-half years there were only three which could be called instances of pure selection. As he had said on a former occasion, it was one of the evil effects of this system of exchanges, unless some check was put to it, that it tended to a division of the officers of the Army into two classes—a rich and a poor, with conflicting interests detrimental to the service; it would tend to stimulate what the authorities had been desirous of putting down—an extravagant mode of living in the Army—and if officers were thereby thrown into debt, they would be the more open to offers of money for exchanges.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, it was with regret he had to complain that hon. Members opposite had from the first onset treated the question as a Party one. By doing so, they increased the

  1819
  difficulty officers felt in discussing it as a purely military question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed the Bill with the intention of making the Act of 1871, introduced by Lord Card well, work more easily and harmoniously for the officers. It was perfectly clear that the facilitating of exchanges, which was the main object of the Bill, would be a great advantage, and render the service much more pleasant for the officers than if they were bound down by a hard-and-fast line; but he regretted somewhat that the Secretary of State for War did not fix a regulation sum within which these exchanges would be allowed. Without such a limit, he thought there was some danger that the Bill, instead of working in the direction in which the Secretary of State wished it to work, would have a contrary effect. A certain number of officers who wished to stay at home, and were willing to pay a sum of money for exchange, would inscribe their names in the Army Agents' books, and the officers who were willing to go abroad would do the same. If the number of the officers who wished to stay at home exceeded those who were willing to go abroad, the exchange price would rise, and he supposed it was not the right hon. Gentleman's wish that a bonus system should grow up which would carry an exchange beyond the means of officers in moderate circumstances. Much had been said about the privileges of the Guards. Well, they had privileges, and they highly valued them; and although of late years they had been pretty well cut down, still they existed; for they still had the privilege of serving in the immediate presence of the Sovereign, and the other great privilege, that they were the first to go out to service in the event of a European war suddenly breaking out. For himself, he would gladly pay £2,000 or £3,000 to enjoy those privileges—especially the latter. The Guards formed one of the best schools one could enter for the Army; and in the Guards, one had the advantage of coming under the eye of the Commander-in-Chief as well as of the Secretary of State for War. He did not wish to see those privileges ever done away with. The Guards were the standard regiment of the service to which other regiments looked, and he hoped it would always be so; but there was a danger
  1820
  in saying that you would allow an officer after serving a few years in the Guards to exchange and pay money for it. There was no doubt that those who were looking for good officers to serve with them went to the Guards to pick them out. For instance, the Governor General of India, the Governor General of Canada, and other high officials came to the Guards for their military secretaries, and their comrades in the Army did not grudge them these advantages; but if the price of exchanging from the Line into the Guards rose to £2,000 or £3,000, it would be very difficult to maintain the privileges of the Guards. What objection could there be to fixing a regulation price?
  THE CHAIRMANbegged to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was now anticipating an Amendment of his own, which would, in due course, come before the Committee.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, he was not aware that he was trespassing on the Amendment. His only object was to impress upon his right hon. Friend the danger of the amount that would be given for the exchange rising considerably beyond the sum he anticipated. He wished the Secretary of State would give the Committee some assurance that if these exchanges rose unduly, he would fix a limit and keep the power of regulating these exchanges in his own hands or in those of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to put a question to the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that we should in future have the same protection by a declaration on the part of the officers, such as had existed in times past, against abuses under this Act. What he wanted to know was, whether that declaration had any reference to the receipt or payment of money; and, if so, what that declaration would be?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I will give the right hon. Gentleman an answer as far as I think it consistent with my duty to do so. I reserve to myself the form of the declaration; but I have no hesitation in saying that a declaration ought to be made that an officer has not been assisted by his junior officers in. obtaining the exchange.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that a statement of his, made a few

  1821
  nights ago, to the effect that many officers after a short service in the Army were useful in the Militia and Volunteers, had been much commented upon; but he had in his hand a long list of Militia and Volunteer regiments in which that was the case. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was in error in supposing that the Royal Warrant of 1871 contained any words about the passing of money. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), he would also remark that, by the Royal Warrant issued on the recommendation of Lord Cardwell, every promotion was to be made on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, with the approval of the Secretary of State for War. If any officers had been set aside, it must, therefore, have been with the consent of Lord Cardwell. In answer to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay), respecting exchanges from the Guards, he believed that since the year 1868 only one exchange per annum on the part of the officers had been made. These exchanges must not only have the consent of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War, but also the approval of the lieutenant-colonels of regiments, who watched exchanges very closely, and were very jealous of the honour of their corps. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford had changed his tone of late in reference to this question. It was not long since he was endeavouring to have Oxford made a military centre, and he painted in glowing colours the advantages which all concerned would derive from this object being attained. He seemed, however, to forget that the troops brought together in such a centre would be commanded by the "fancy officers" to whom he had referred in far from complimentary terms. He wished, in conclusion, to remind the House that the phrase "fancy officers" was not his. He quoted it on a previous occasion from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), to whom he begged to return the copy-right.
  MR. ANDERSONregretted that any remarks should have been made by the light hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War on his Amendment before it came under the consideration of the Committee. It was very unfair to endeavour to pre-
  1822
  judice that Amendment before he (Mr. Anderson) had been heard; and he thought that as the Chairman had called the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay) to Order for speaking on an Amendment not then before the Committee, he ought equally to have called the right hon. Gentleman to Order. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were entirely erroneous, because the Act of 1809 made it a misdemeanour to traffic in any commission, office, place, or employment.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHsaid, he was unable to see the force of the rich-and-poor-officer argument which had been so persistently trotted out in the discussions on that Bill. The fact was, that a very small proportion of rich officers existed in the Army, and that therefore there was very little money among them to pass from hand to hand in case of exchanges. Rich officers in the Army were like the plums in schoolboy's puddings—rari nantes in gurgite vasto. There were men in the service who were very poor, and their prospects had been destroyed by Purchase being done away with, because it was to many of them almost a necessity to get to India in order that they might live on their pay. In that case, it seemed to him, as he had said, to be a matter of course that there could not be much money to exchange on either side. A poor man with a wife and large family wanted to get to England, and a poor man who wished to live on his pay wanted to go to India.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that though stringent regulations had always existed in the Army against exchanges to which money considerations were attached, means had always been found to evade such regulations. He deprecated the course now followed of giving to officers the right by law to effect those exchanges which should alone be permitted on military considerations. No one was more anxious than he was to see the rights and privileges of men and officers thoroughly established; but there was a limit to these rights, and especially to the form now proposed, of an Act of the Legislature, to establish exchanges by law, instead of by a General Order or by a Royal Warrant. The fact was, that the evil effect of abolish-

  1823
  ing a European force for the Army of India was now being felt, and would, doubtless, be more severely felt in the future, so that it would end in having two classes of officers in our Army—one suited for the Colonies, and one for the Home Army. In that way, all the anticipations so firmly believed in, when the European Army of India was unwisely abolished, would be falsified, and the evils said to have existed under the former system of two Armies would be really felt, instead of being mainly imaginary.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he also wished to remind the noble Marquess who led the Opposition, and who had apparently made up his mind to thwart the Bill in every way, that those hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House were determined to carry the Bill in its integrity. He believed that it would increase the efficiency of the British Army and remove one great inconvenience which now existed.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he was unable to support the Bill, and he hoped it would go no further than its present stage. His principal objection was based on the fact that in certain favoured Cavalry regiments they were going to endow commissions with a money value. Officers in those regiments might, under the new system, exchange, and after a certain number of years retire from the service with the exchange money in their pockets, there being nothing in the Bill to prevent such an arrangement.
  Motion agreed to; Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Authorised exchanges exempted from Army Brokerage Acts).
  MR. ANDERSON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after "officers," to insert "non-commissioned officers and privates," said, he must confess himself surprised that the Secretary of State for War should have refused the Amendment, because he had thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been anxious to have removed from the Bill the stigma of being unjustifiable class legislation. The objection urged against his Amendment he had already stated to be entirely erroneous. What did the Bill pretend to do? All it said was, that the Brokerage Acts should no longer stand in the way of officers exchanging commissions.
  1824
  But the old Brokerage Laws were not confined to officers. The Act of 1809 provided that no person holding a commission, place, or employment under the Crown should traffic in the same. There was therefore no limitation whatever to officers who held commissions, and so his Amendment was quite regular. No one who had listened to the debates on the subject could have come to any other conclusion than that the only argument in favour of the Bill was that it would be acceptable to the officers. That was the basis of the Report of the Commissioners, and it was the basis of all that had been said on behalf of the Bill. It gave the chance of gaining money to the poor man, while to the rich man it gave the privilege of selecting his regiment as well as the district or country in which he should be stationed. Money to the poor, privilege to the rich—the very things those classes most desired. He did not blame the officers for thinking these things acceptable. The same privileges would be acceptable to any other class; but being acceptable and being such good things, why should they not have them all round? If they were good for the officer, why were they not good for the non-commissioned officer and private? It might be said to be beyond the Preamble of the Bill to extend it to all the public services; but distinctly it was not contrary to the Preamble to include non-commissioned officers and privates. That the privileges would be equally acceptable to them, there was no reason whatever to doubt. Officers were allowed without the Bill to effect exchanges, and the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) said, privates and non-commissioned officers were at present allowed to effect exchanges. Therefore, at present, they were all on an equality; but the object of the Bill was to stimulate exchanges by money payments. Why should they stimulate exchanges for money payments among the officers, and not do so among the non-commissioned officers and privates? It might be said that the sum they could pay would be very small; but it would be as great a relative price to the poor man who received it. In fact, the only objection he had heard urged was that the non-commissioned officer or private could not pay the cost of coming home from India. But the Bill was not limited to India.

  1825
  It had no geographical limit. Now, a non-commissioned officer might wish to exchange from Aldershot to London, or from Paisley to Edinburgh, or they might wish to exchange from one regiment to another from reasons in no way connected with locality. In the same way as the officers, they might wish to go into the same regiment where they had a brother or some other relative. But he had a word to say about the inability of privates and non-commissioned officers to pay for exchanges. A Return which had been recently issued showed that in the military savings bank there was a sum of £332,000 of the savings of these privates and non-commissioned officers, which showed that they had a little money to expend in this way. In those circumstances, he did not see why the non-commissioned officers and men should not have the same privileges as were given to the officers. A great deal had been said about the discontent which existed in the Army, and which the Bill they were now discussing was intended to allay; but it appeared to him that nothing could be more calculated to lead to discontent among the rank and file than the Bill itself. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "officers," to insert the words "non-commissioned officers, and privates."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Act of 1809 was passed with the view of bringing in certain officers not included in the old Act of Edward VI. The class of non-commissioned officers and privates were not affected by the Army Brokerage Act, and he did not think the Amendment was at all germane to the purposes of that Act. He would further remark that non-commissioned officers and privates were in no way affected by the Bill either, inasmuch as a rule at present was in force at the War Office by which a man might claim to go into the regiment where his father or brother was. In fact, they possessed the very privilege which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) sought to give them by his Amendment.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, he had always given the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) credit for knowing some-thing about the Army, and so when he
  1826
  saw his Amendment on the Paper he thought it must be a humorous one. He now found, however, that it was not supported by a humorous speech, and so he was forced to the conclusion that the hon. Member was in earnest. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had dissipated the impression in his mind that he knew something about the Army; but every hon. Member in the House, whether he belonged to the military profession or not, must be perfectly aware that the Amendment with which the time of the House had been taken up was perfectly useless. It was an Amendment which could not receive his support, nor that of the Liberal Party. He went further, and said that without drawing any comparison between officers and men—and no such comparison could be drawn—it could not receive the support of any one who had any practical knowledge of the Army.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that he could come to no other conclusion than that some of these Amendments were simply proposed with a view of delaying the Bill. He was opposed to what was called the "levelling" system; and, in his opinion, class distinction was necessary to discipline. No colonel ever troubled himself about exchanges effected by non-commissioned officers and privates, so that the soldier got the best of it. He therefore opposed the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN NOLANpointed out that the proposal would cost the Government of India about £200,000. Every year 6,000 or 7,000 men were allowed to return home from India. Of that number he believed 2,000 or 3,000 wished to stay in the country: but if they were allowed to exchange, there would be that number of men coming home every year in addition to the present number, and 2,000 or 3,000 others going out from England to replace them. He might support the Amendment; but he did so with his eyes open, and on the ground that, if adopted, it might be the means of improving the class of non-commissioned officers.
  MR. WHITWELLalso supported the Amendment, believing that in many instances the principle would be very valuable. He could not see why the privilege proposed to be given to the officer should not be extended to the soldier.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) intended to press his Amendment to a division, but he hoped he might be induced to withdraw it; for he had not satisfied him (the Marquess of Hartington) of the existence of any practical necessity for the legislation which he proposed. Therefore, not seeing any practical object in the Amendment, he hoped the hon. Member might be induced to withdraw it, especially as he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not support it.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had fully expected the officers to be jealous of their privileges, and therefore it was not surprising that all but one of those who had spoken against his Amendment were officers. He might also perhaps except the noble Marquess; but he had long since given up expecting anything thorough-going from that front Bench. The only practical argument was that of the hon. and gallant Member below him the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan); but in reply to him he had to say that he fully admitted that it was inoperative as far as India was concerned.
  MR. G. O. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman wanted an argument from below the Gangway, he would give him one in a single sentence. There were hon. Gentlemen there who objected to all exchanges of public offices for monetary considerations. They objected to it in the Courts of Law, and they objected to it in the Army; and what they objected to in the case of officers they objected to in the case of non-commissioned officers and privates.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 322: Majority 275.
  MR. HAYTER, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after "officers," to insert "not being regimental field officers," said, when Purchase was abolished the recommendation of the Duke of Somerset's Commission was adopted, that all these officers should be promoted by selection on the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. But it was impossible to retain the power of selection in the Commander-in-Chief and allow officers commanding regiments to nominate their successors. He
  1828
  wished also to call the attention of the House to the manner in which it would affect the position of superior officers. He had known a case where Major Eraser was serving with a Cavalry regiment—the 7th Hussars—as junior major in India. He exchanged into the 11th Hussars at home, becoming the only major. The lieutenant-colonelcy became vacant in a short time, and, having been appointed, Colonel Eraser became a full colonel in the Army in five years, thus far outstripping his comrades in the 7th Hussars, who remained with their regiment in India. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) had stated that out of 149 promoted by selection, Only three had been taken out of regimental promotion, but the case would be very different under the proposed system. Suppose an exchange was made, would that exchange be only for the unexpired term of five years, or would the man who succeeded come in for an entirely new term? In the latter case, the power of selection would be taken out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief; in the former, the perpetual change of command would be seriously detrimental to the discipline of the regiment and to the public service. He thought it highly probable that this Bill would be worked so as to bring back all the old evils of Purchase, and it was therefore he moved the Amendment. If it were carried, it would remove much of the evil principles of the Bill; but if, on the contrary, the Bill were passed in its present shape, it would be fatal to the system of selection; most injurious to all those regimental officers whose promotion was now the subject of consideration by a Royal Commission, and extremely prejudicial to the discipline among non-commissioned officers and privates, who would know that again, in the opinion of the House of Commons, the command of 1,000 men was to be a matter of purchase or sale to be hawked about in the public market.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "officers," to insert the words "not being regimental field officers."—(Mr. Hayter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman

  1829
  that the system of exchanges would remain as at present; the only difference being as to the payment. If there were two ranks in the Army to which the Bill would more properly be applied than another they were those of lieutenant-colonel and major, because to them the plan of selection applied. Another objection was this—it would interfere with promotion, because when a lieutenant-colonel or major were near the end of their time, other officers would come in and get the fresh term of five years; but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had already said that that would not be. It might as well be said that because a lease was originally for 99 years, if it should be taken from the original possessor after 50 years it would run back to the 99 years again. He thought the Committee would do well to reject the Amendment.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would have accepted that Amendment, for, according to his own showing, there would be in the case of field officers few, if any, exchanges, and he would therefore be giving up very little in admitting the Amendment. All the evils and dangers which it was feared would result from this Bill were concentrated in the case of the field officers of the Army, because the smaller the body to which and from which exchanges were to take place, the greater the danger would be. If selection for field officers' appointments was to be a reality—and he could show that it had been exercised during the last two or three years in a sufficient number of cases to assert the principle—nothing could more effectually neutralize it than the power conferred by this Bill upon an officer immediately to exchange into another regiment from that to which he had been appointed by selection. The Committee should not forget that the Bill practically conferred on the officers of the Army a right to exchange—a right qualified only by "military reasons." No answer had been given to the the question—what was meant by "military reasons," in virtue of which exchange was to be allowed? Was it that no exchanges were to be allowed that were not demanded by military considerations, or was it that no steps were to be taken to prevent exchanges
  1830
  unless they militated against the interests of the service? What sort of a position would the Commander-in-Chief Be in when he was called upon to assent to an exchange one day, and to refuse an application for an exchange the next? It would be almost impossible for him to resist the appeals that would be made to him, and to discriminate between the cases. The effect would be to give, contrary to the wishes of the House, a direct money value to the patronage of the Commander-in-Chief, for an appointment as field officer to a home regiment would be worth, by means of exchange, a considerable sum of money. If there were two or three officers of nicely-balanced claims as to merit, it would be a delicate matter to decide who was to be appointed to the lucrative command—namely, that which was convertible into money. If, on the other hand, selection was not to be used, and officers were to be promoted—as no doubt they would be in the great majority of cases—regimentally, evil results were certain, for an exchange on the part of one officer would secure promotion to another; and how could that other officer be prevented from contributing to the exchange? If the junior major in a regiment knew that the lieutenant-colonel was soon about to leave the regiment, would he not be tempted to help the senior major to exchange, in order that he himself might become senior major, and have the certainty of succeeding to the command of the regiment? Such a process might, as had been pointed out, be attended with greater difficulty in the lower ranks; it would, no doubt, be rather a tedious process for a junior captain to induce nine or ten captains to exchange; but this argument did not apply in cases where it was only necessary to assist one major to effect an exchange, and in such a case it would be difficult to prevent an abuse, however great the vigilance of the authorities might be. All these were elements of danger, and the Government did not deny their existence; indeed, the fact that they promised to take great precautions showed they were conscious of those dangers, and they reached a climax in the case of field officers. Staff officers also might plead for exchange as much as regimental field officers. They held their appointments on analogous terms, and there

  1831
  was the same uniformity of duties between staff officers at different stations as there was between field officers in different regiments. Let the operation of the Bill be limited, as proposed in the Amendment, and these difficulties would be avoided. Again, he would like to know whether the exchanging field officer was to serve in his new regiment for the unexpired period of his own original appointment, or for that of the officer whom he replaced? If the latter, an officer might, by always exchanging with an officer who had still the greater part of his five years to serve, prolong his term almost indefinitely; if the former, there would be a stoppage of promotion in the regiment he entered. It was thus clear that exchanges between field officers would involve personal and regimental complications, to avoid which he hoped the Committee would support this Amendment.
  MR. A. H. BROWN, who spoke amid continued interruptions and cries of "Divide! Divide!" was understood to say he should vote for the Amendment, because he wished to put an end to money payments in the Army.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) that a considerable portion of the officers whom his Amendment excluded—namely, the majors and colonels of Engineers—were the very men who stood most in need of the privilege of exchanging. He should, therefore, oppose it.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was obvious that hon. Gentlemen were determined not to allow of a fair and full discussion of the clauses of this Bill in Committee, and he should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped that the Motion would not be pressed. The hour was one at which hon. Members generally showed themselves impatient of debate, and it was not, perhaps, to be wondered at, when hon. Members repeated the same arguments over and over again, that they should meet with some interruption. He could not quite catch what the hon. Member
  1832
  for Wenlock (Mr. Brown) had said; but his remarks seemed to be a repetition of the speech he had delivered at an earlier hour of the evening. He trusted the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not persevere with his Motion. It was most desirable that progress should be made; and, for his own part, he was ready to listen to any arguments that could be urged by the opponents of the measure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in that case, suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should not give quite so much encouragement to hon. Members who sat behind him and below the Gangway on his own side of the House. It was a most extraordinary thing that those hon. Gentlemen should be so clamorous for a division when the Bill had only been three hours in Committee. This haste contrasted oddly with the debates night after night on the abolition of Purchase. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the critical hour, but that was passed, and what he complained of was, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite would not hear his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock, who supported the Amendment, they listened attentively to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan), who had supported the measure. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) was one which deserved discussion, and although the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said, speaking of the Conservative Party—"We as a Party are determined to pass this Bill," he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to think that "we as a Party" would not be able to pass any measure in a high-handed way without listening to arguments when those arguments might happen to be opposed to their particular views. There was no other course open to them than that which had been taken by the hon. Member for Swansea.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLrepudiated that view of the case. He admitted that some impatience had been displayed on the Ministerial side of the House, but it was perfectly pardonable. The arguments against the Bill had been repeated over and over again by the same speakers, in nearly the same words. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were convinced that the Bill would restore Purchase, nothing that could be

  1833
  said from the Ministerial side would convince them of their error; but the Bill would do nothing of the sort.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) was not in the House during the last Parliament, so that he did not see what took place during the Abolition of Purchase Bill, nor did he witness the tactics then displayed. What the Opposition complained of was, that although hon. Members would not hear the hon. Member for Wenlock, they were as quiet as possible when the hon. and gallant Gentleman who followed him spoke. He had just as good authority for saying that the Bill was intended to restore Purchase as the Government had for saying it would not.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYrose to Order. The hon. Member had stated the Bill was intended to restore Purchase, whereas he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had distinctly stated it would do nothing of the kind. By making such a statement he made an imputation on the character of those Members of the Government who were around him.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no wish to impute such an intention to the Government. What he meant to say was, that as good a soldier as any that sat in that House had expressed an opinion that the measure would restore all the evils of Purchase—["Name, name!"]—he alluded to the late General Storks, who was not a Member of the House when he made the remark; but who deplored that he was not so when this Bill was introduced last year, so that he might have opposed it. Besides that, he had the authority of a distinguished officer for saying that the measure, if carried, would place the poor man in India and the rich man in Pall Mall. He should support the Motion for reporting Progress. He had every confidence in the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, but unless the arguments on that side of the House were heard fairly, there was no other course open than to report Progress until the House was in a calmer mood.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, there was on his side of the House every disposition to listen to what might be urged in opposition to the Bill, but that they had waited in vain to hear any new arguments.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had no desire to prevent the measure from being pro-
  1834
  ceded with, if temperately and reason-ably discussed, and if it was the wish of the Committee he would withdraw his Motion. He hoped the Secretary for War would endeavour to preserve greater decorum among his subordinates during the remainder of the evening.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that, although there might have been some interruptions, yet several speeches from the benches opposite had been very patiently listened to. There was no disposition on his side of the House to prevent the fullest expression of opinion on the Bill; but they were naturally impatient when Member after Member on the other side got up and reiterated the same statement which had been so repeatedly and pointedly repudiated—namely, that the Bill was intended to re-introduce Purchase.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  In reply to Mr. T. CAVE,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that in the case where an officer with two years' service desired to exchange with another with five years' service, the military positions of the two would be so entirely different that no exchange could, in all probability, be allowed.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKpointed out that if that statement had been made before, much of the objection entertained to the Bill would have been removed.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 156: Majority 61.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, who had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert in page 1, line 13, after "corps," "or between officers belonging to the same regiment or corps," said he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL LORD-LINDSAY, who had given Notice that he would move the insertion in lines 13 & 14, after "expedient," of the words, "Provided that in no case the amount paid for any one such exchange shall exceed the sum of five hundred pounds," also intimated that he would not proceed with his Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZregretted the course taken by the hon. and gallant Member, whose Amendment, he thought, should be discussed by the Committee. He urged that there ought to be a definite sum fixed as the amount to be paid for an exchange. Believing himself to be within the Rules of the House, he would himself move that the Proviso of which the hon. and gallant Member had given Notice be added to the clause. Having had to pay £7,000,000 for the Abolition of Purchase, they should be cautious lest they did anything to revive that system. "When the Secretary for War said he had no intention to restore Purchase, he believed him; he imputed to him no arrière pensée, because they all knew the integrity of his character, and the straightforwardness of his political principles; but they had no security as to the principles and views of his successors. In such matters they must therefore trust to legislation, and not to the personal character of any Minister. If this Amendment were adopted, he believed it would have the effect of allaying the ill-feeling which prevailed out-of-doors on the subject, and which he felt convinced was much stronger than the Secretary of State for War imagined.
  Amendment proposed.
  In line 14, after the word "expedient," to insert the words "Provided that in no case the amount paid for any one such exchange shall exceed the sum of five hundred pounds."—(Mr. Muntz.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobjected to saddling the Department with any responsibility respecting monetary transactions arising out of exchanges, and it was on that ground that he had brought forward this measure. He could not assent, therefore, to the proposed Amendment. If his hon. Friend referred to the statute of George III., he would find that all money payments were illegal after the passing of that Act, except such as were sanctioned by Royal regulations. But that Act was only used for the purposes of Purchase, and never operated in respect to exchanges at all.
  MR. GOSCHENregretted that the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire had not moved the Amendment himself,
  1836
  instead of leaving it to be done by deputy. The hon. and gallant Member had recently written a letter to The Times, in which he had declared that the worst policy would be one under which the pecuniary means of the officers should be eked out by a large bonus system; that the real fault of the existing system arose from the inadequate pay of the British officer; and that under the Bill it would be more difficult for a poor officer in India to effect a homeward exchange than it was at present. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could answer that argument. The Bill would allow exchanges to be put up to auction, a course which he and those who sat near him objected to most strongly, while they thought that free exchanges were of great benefit and should be encouraged. The hon. and gallant Officer further stated in his letter, as he would no doubt have stated in his speech had he brought forward his Amendment, that the abuse of the Bill would be that certain privileges of the Guards, which represented a large money value, would be sold? Why had not the House received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that those privileges would not be sold? Was it, he asked, desirable that those privileges should be brought to market and sold to the highest bidder? He hoped before the Bill passed through Committee to hear some answer given to those questions.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, it could not be doubted that the foundation of the Bill was the inadequate pay of the officers, and that, too, was the reason the measure was received with such favour. He felt, however, that was too large a question to introduce into a discussion of this character. He thought a certain amount of bonus was fair, and considered that hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much responsible for this demand, because when Purchase was done away with they took upon themselves the responsibility of saying that the pay of the British officer must be increased. It, therefore, scarcely laid with them now to oppose—as he might term it—this measure of alleviation. He still thought that there could be no great objection to fixing a limit as to the amount within which these exchanges should be allowed, and he failed to see

  1837
  how it could possibly happen that the country would incur any pecuniary responsibility thereby. It was impossible to separate official from private knowledge; and, however much the House might wish to exclude the knowledge of what officers were paying, they could not help knowing it. The reason he did not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice was that the subject had been fully and fairly brought before the Secretary for War, who, he was persuaded, was only anxious loyalty to give effect to the Bill of his Predecessor. In that effort he was opposed in a Party spirit by hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill was founded upon the recommendations of a Commission appointed to consider the subject by Lord Card well himself.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagreed with the hon. and gallant Officer who had just down, that the pay of the officers of the Army was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would, he thought, act wisely if he took steps to remedy that state of things. The remedy was available by the use of funds now uselessly spent in paying for too many officers at present maintained for the Army. 1,000 officers of infantry could be struck off the establishment, not only with advantage to the service, but with the certainty of benefit to those who were kept up by providing for their advancement and retirement. The diminution in the number of cadres of regiments, companies, and batteries would also be effected with increased efficiency, and with the certainty of further economies. It was to reforms such as these that the right hon. Gentle-man could find ample means for improving the pay, promotion, and retirement of the officers of the Army.
  COLONEL NORTHhad asked himself during the progress of the debates on that Bill whether there were such persons as the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War, or whether the Army was to be placed in the hands of Army Agents. According to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, an officer had merely to go to an exchange agent, without any regard to the veto of the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief, and arrange an exchange off-hand. He denied that such would be the case, and believed that
  1838
  the supervision which would be exercised would be amply sufficient to prevent any abuses arising under the operation of the Bill. Further than that, he maintained that no officer could be certain of his promotion, and that no man in his senses would pay a large sum upon such a chance. It was refreshing to see hon. Gentlemen opposite standing forward as the friends of the poor officers. Those officers, however, did not appreciate the favour done them by the abolition of Purchase, nor were they grateful to hon. Gentlemen for their efforts to prevent these exchanges. The sooner the House went to a division the better, for both sides had made up their minds upon the question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentle-man had made up his mind; but if upon all subjects when hon. Gentlemen had made up their minds all discussion was to cease, the name of the House of Parliament had better be abandoned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception to arguments against that Bill, which were based upon the supposition that exchanges would be effected through the instrumentality of Army Agents; and himself held the view that nominal, if not active supervision, by the Commander-in-Chief, and of the Secretary of State for War would, if the Bill passed, prevent any of the abuses which its opponents anticipated from its operation. The evidence given by officers examined before the Army Purchase Commission entirely negatived the view of the hon. and gallant Member, and showed that the officers regarded the right to exchange through an Army Agent as a vested right on which they could raise money just as easily and as certainly as they could by drawing a cheque against the balance which might stand to their credit at their bankers. For instance, Captain T. Goune, of the 17th Lancers, said that under the old system he should have raised £2,500 by exchanging as a major to India. In what way? He said he should have gone—not to the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary for War, but to an agent—say Messrs. Cox and Co.—and said—"Find me an exchange as a major to India." He could have bought his majority by borrowing money. If he had £1,500 and wanted £2,500 he could have borrowed the money upon the cer-

  1839
  tainty of having it repaid by exchange. From that it appeared that the traffic was, and would continue to be, carried on through the Army Agents, and neither Commander-in-Chief nor Secretary of State knew anything about the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay) had expressed his opinion that the one thing necessary was to increase the pay of officers in the Army; but he omitted to say that the abolition of Purchase had already done that to the extent of doubling the pay. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might object to the statement; but if they considered for a moment, they would see that if an officer receiving from £400 to £500 a-year as pay, kept in his own possession the £6,000 or £8,000 which, under the old system, he would have paid for his commission, the interest of that principal sum would amount to doubling his pay. A peculiar feature in the debate had been the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire, whose physical courage was undoubted, had run away from his own Amendment. The reason given for that course by the hon. and gallant Member was, that he had entire confidence in the Secretary of State for War; but surely he had the same confidence when he put the Amendment on the Paper. There was something mysterious about the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had adopted with reference to his Amendment. Bills had mysteriously disappeared—not in that House of Parliament—under private influences which could not be fathomed, and that evening an Amendment had disappeared under influences which were not clearly explained. That Amendment had been picked out of the mire by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire had told the House that there would be enormous danger in exchanges unless they were limited to £500, yet he afterwards declined to move that they should be limited because he said he had confidence in the Secretary of State that he would take care that in the system of exchange there should be no abuse. But the day might come when there would be a Secretary of State who would make obnoxious regulations, like the last Secretary for War. How would he feel then? As the hon. and gallant
  1840
  Member for Berkshire had withdrawn his Amendment in consequence of some assurance from the Secretary for War, he maintained that the Committee ought at least to know what that assurance was. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) had stated the other night that those officers of the Guards who had given evidence before the Commission only spoke for themselves and not for the regiments they represented. If so, the Commissioners had made their Report on a wrong assumption, and a new Commission ought to be appointed. The opinion of those officers of the Guards was, that a man in the Guards had a right to sell his privilege, and that it was worth from £2,000 to £3,000. What, therefore, he wanted to ask the Secretary of State for War was whether he meant to allow that or not? That was a question which had not been answered, and it was one to which a reply ought to be given.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the evidence which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford had read as to officers in the Guards selling their privileges was the language of a jobber, who was well worthy of the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to designate one of the officers of the Army as a jobber I will give him his name.
  COLONEL NORTH: I believe if he had not been a jobber he would not have been supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of Order in making an observation of that description.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would at once withdraw the observation. He was answering the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had argued as if an officer had only to go to an Army Agent without obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, the Commission which was appointed by the late Government to cure the mischief which they themselves had caused, recommended the very course proposed by this Bill.
  MR. ASSHETONobserved, that the great distinction between the system now proposed and the system of Purchase was, that in the latter case money had to be paid to an officer by the State; but in the former, money would be paid out of the pocket of one officer into the pocket of another officer.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Secretary for War appeared to have some of that cotton wool in his ears, of which he would require a large quantity when this system of exchanges was adopted. The right hon. Gentleman had been repeatedly asked with regard to the privileges of the Guards, and the Committee were entitled to know his views on the subject. The question was whether the officers in the Guards were allowed to sell their privileges, but no answer had been given. With the greatest courtesy he requested the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have stated several times that the officers in the Guards are not entitled to sell their privileges. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they are not entitled to do so. He knows also perfectly well, that he is not entitled to put to me the questions which he has thought proper to put. I have laid down the principles on which I propose to act—namely, those which were acted on in the former system of exchange. I am determined that those principles shall be observed. I decline to give an answer with regard to particular cases.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they were entitled to exchange, but what his views were with regard to the policy of the Guards selling their privileges, for so they termed exchanges. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite looked at the evidence they would find that officers in the Guards said, when speaking of exchanges, "When we exchange from one regiment to another we are practically selling the prestige of our regiments." Now, that seemed to him to be a question of very great importance and of policy, and any Member of the House was entitled to put a question as to the views of the Government respecting it. What those officers asked for was freedom of exchange, coupled with the custom of selling the prestige of their regiments, as compared with the less privileged regiments. Colonel Burnaby, in his evidence
  1842
  before the Commissioners, referred to the custom of officers selling the intrinsic value of the prestige of commissions in the more privileged regiments, to recoup themselves for the difference in exchanging into the Line. The recommendations of the Commissioners were to the effect that assistance should be given to officers of slender means; but if the right hon. Gentleman made the stringent regulations he had lately spoken of he would fail to satisfy the officers, because they would not be able to sell the prestige of their regiments and to recoup themselves.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that Colonel Burnaby represented solely his own views, and not those of the Guards. There were, however, five other officers of the Guards who held views different from his, but somewhat in accordance with them. Well, he was glad to say only that small number of officers in the Guards did entertain such views. It was clearly shown that in making exchanges the Guards had never bartered their privileges. Officers had come into the Guards, perhaps as Queen's Pages, who had been unable to afford the expenses of a life in the Guards, or who found a wider field open to them in India, or some more active service, and who exchanged for those reasons alone. No doubt, under the old system of Purchase there were a very few cases in which officers accepted a "bonus," to use a commercial term more familiar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London than to officers in the Guards; but he maintained that such exchanges could no longer be carried out, as the officers had now no opportunity of "recouping" themselves, to use another City term.
  MR. GOSCHEN, interposing, said, the terms in question were not City terms, but were used by the officers who gave evidence before the Commission.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the terms were unfamiliar to him until he heard them fall from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be impossible now to revive the large prices of former times; but the surest way of restoring the old system would be to fix a regulation price, which would become practically the price to be paid.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that as no answer had been given to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member

  1843
  for the City of London, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James.)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he trusted the Committee would not take such a course, for it would be unprecedented. Any one might always find an excuse for making such a Motion by imagining that a question had been asked and had not been answered, and there would really be an end to all regularity and decorum of discussion if the Committee authorized such a Motion as that to be made for such a reason. He did not know that any one was justified in saying that a fair Parliamentary question had been asked which had not been answered. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made a charge, and very fairly, but he had only done so in a rhetorical manner. The right hon. Gentleman had not pretended for a moment that the inquiry he had made ought, in a Parliamentary sense, to be answered. He said—"This is a question of policy. I am not asking you a question as to the interpretation of the Bill, but as to your opinion on a matter of policy." The real answer was, that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to inquire what was the policy of the Government in regard to a matter which they had not introduced into the House at all. It was an imaginary point which the right hon. Gentleman had himself created for the sake of discussion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was as follows:—"I give credit to the Secretary for War for his intentions. I think it likely that his intentions will be realized by the measure he has brought forward, and that all his clients, the officers, will be disappointed." Well, the answer of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman was—"Well, if you think so, you had better let the Bill pass." The Government, on the contrary, said—and he said it himself in a tone of conciliation—"You are very disappointed that we are not restoring and reviving the system of Purchase." The Government quite agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite that no prestige of any British officer would be sold by auction under the Bill. They entirely agreed with all the inferences which
  1844
  hon. Gentlemen opposite had drawn, and believed that the Bill was a moderate but a useful one, which would disappoint officers like those whose evidence had been quoted, while it would satisfy such officers as were represented by his hon. and gallant Friend who sat behind him. Having discussed the measure very freely, very fully, and also with credit to both sides, he hoped that the Committee would not for a moment tolerate the proposition made by a Gentleman who bore an honoured name—for he (Mr. Disraeli) had sat for years in that House with his father—but who certainly had not had, with respect to Parliamentary proceedings, so much experience as his respected father. He asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion in an amicable spirit, and thus enable them, quite forgetting that it was made, to proceed to the business before them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the unusual course taken by the Government on the question made it not unnatural that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James) should have made the Motion. The question put by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) had not been accurately described as "a rhetorical question." It was an eminently practical question. It was in evidence in the Report of the Royal Commission, which was the shield behind which the right hon. Gentleman acted, that a certain number of officers in the Guards considered that, under the system of free exchange about to be restored, they had a right to sell the prestige of their commissions. It must be known perfectly well that the prestige of the regiments of the Guards was a saleable commodity; that many officers would be willing to pay a large sum of money for such an exchange. What they wanted to know, therefore, was whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to permit exchanges upon such a footing. Of course, these officers had no "right" to demand such permission; but everybody knew that these exchanges were looked upon as a right under the old system. In the view of the Government, then, were sales of the prestige of certain regiments to be permitted in future? If the Secretary for War did not choose to answer the question, the Committee, and he hoped the country, would draw their own conclusions from the silence of the right

  1845
  hon. Gentleman. He recommended, however, the withdrawal of the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 222: Majority 76.
  MR. WHITWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in lines 13 and 14, to omit from the word "expedient" to the end of the clause. The effect of the Amendment, he said, would be to strike out the words repealing the Brokerage Acts so far as they affected the payment of money for exchanges. He held that it was all the more necessary to maintain the Brokerage Acts, since the Committee had decided in the last division, that no limit should be placed on the amount to be paid for exchanges. The Act of Edward VI. was to prevent corruption, and subsequently the Act 49 Geo. III. was extended to commissions in the Army, subject to the Queen's Regulations; and the Bill would be understood by the country as intended to abolish those restrictions against corruption so far as regarded the Army, which were maintained against all other services.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. Member had by that Amendment, in effect, proposed to leave out the whole substance of the Bill, because it would not have been brought in at all were it not for the purpose of repealing the Army Brokerage Act as far as regarded exchanges. If that Act was to remain in force, he would have to lay down regulations as to the money to be paid on exchange, and to that he entirely objected. He might take that opportunity of saying that he had answered over and over again the question which the noble Lord had put to him, and his answer was that all exchanges, whether in the Guards or otherwise, if there were no military considerations against them, would be made without the amount to be paid being settled by the War Office.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was happy they had got an answer at last. They now distinctly understood that if there was no military objection, officers in the Guards or otherwise would be able to sell their prestige to the officers of other regiments. He
  1846
  did not wish to discuss that point any further, he would merely say that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), it amounted to a proposal to vote again on the principle of the Bill. He had voted twice against that principle, and he did not imagine any different result would be arrived at if the hon. Gentleman were to press his Amendment. If, then, the hon. Member for Kendal would accept his advice, he would not divide the Committee.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 16, after "in force," to insert—
  "Provided that no exchange shall be sanctioned in any case in which the officer paying money for that exchange would he placed in a better position as to his prospective promotion than he occupied before that exchange,"
  said, he had to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) for the frank and courteous explanation he had given of his statement the other evening with respect to the exchanges effected by his father, and in which money had been no object, but only regard for the rules of the service. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the Amendment, which was, both in its nature and its object, entirely in keeping with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he introduced the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was a Bill to facilitate exchanges; and the Amendment, if it had not that effect, would certainly not hamper that facility. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would not open a door for the reintroduction of Purchase, to abolish which the country had paid £7,000,000, and the Amendment had the same object in view. It had always been the practice in this country not to leave the interpretation of laws to those who administered them; but to introduce into every Act a distinct statement of the principle and purpose for which it was intended, and in order to follow that rule he proposed the Amendment. He did not doubt the assertion of the right I hon. Gentleman, that he had no inten-

  1847
  tion of retracing the step that had been taken as to Purchase; but Secretaries of State were not eternal, and his successor might not take the same view of the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman. Its meaning and intent, therefore, ought to appear clearly in the Bill itself. There had been a great change within the last few days in public opinion with regard to the Bill, because it so closely resembled Purchase in the Army that it was undistinguishable except by professional men. The apprehension which he entertained was not in any respect a theoretical one, but one founded upon actual experience. He had known within the last few years the case of a major of distinguished service whose name had been frequently mentioned in General Orders and in despatches, so that he had every right to look forward to the command of a battalion, but who was disappointed by reason of an exchange of the kind which it was the object of his Amendment to render impossible. That officer was so disgusted at what had taken place that he at once retired from active service and went upon half-pay. He would give the Government the names if they desired to investigate the case, the details of which, he believed, never came to the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief. His Amendment put the Bill upon its trial before the tribunal of public opinion, and although the Government, as they had been told by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), intended to carry the Bill as it stood, a victory like that in the face of the common sense of the country, resting not upon argument, but upon numerical force, was likely to prove the first nail in the coffin of the Conservative majority. The Liberal Party would, however, have it to say that they did their duty in protesting against such hasty and ill-considered legislation. He would conclude by moving the Amendment.
  MR. P. STANLEYwished to say, in no spirit of animosity, that it was impossible to assent to the Amendment, because it contained provisions which, even if adopted, it would be almost impossible practically to carry out. In order to give effect to it, it would be necessary to know what was the exact position as to prospective promotion of any officer in the Army, and to ascertain that knowledge, if it were possible, would involve an amount of actuarial labour which had
  1848
  not been undertaken to arrive at more definite results than had as yet been reached. It would be really very difficult to say whether a man would be placed in a better position than he would have occupied if he had not exchanged. In some military careers promotion had been for a long time very slow and then suddenly rapid; and all depended upon unforeseen contingencies which could not enter into actuarial calculations.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHILDERS, in rising to move, as an Amendment, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the provisions of the Army Brokerage Acts extending to the payment of any sum of money or valuable consideration by any officer or by any person on his behalf for or on account of an exchange between two other officers, one of whom may be senior to him, and in the same regiment: Provided also, That any person who shall negotiate, act as agent for, or otherwise connive at such payment as last aforesaid shall be deemed and judged guilty of a misdemeanor,"
  said, that he had added some words to make his proposal more precise. The ease was this. When an exchange took place between two captains or between two subalterns each went to the bottom of the list of his new regiment, so that every officer who was the junior of the officer with whom he exchanged got a step towards promotion. His object was to prevent the making up of a purse, or the subscription of a bonus, by junior officers to induce a senior officer to retire, and to prevent the reintroduction in that way of a part of the former system of Purchase. Some years ago, under Purchase the bonus system did not exist, but it crept in gradually, and ultimately assumed proportions the magnitude of which was unknown until Purchase was abolished and questions of compensation arose. The Duke of Cambridge, when examined about it before the Army Organization Committee said, he should be glad if anyone could suggest how it could be stopped, so pernicious did he consider it. But though the practice of paying for non-Purchase steps by a bonus from the officers who would be promoted to a vacancy occasioned by a full-pay retirement was admitted, it had been stated that there was no evidence of the existence in England of these contributions towards a purse by the

  1849
  junior officers who did not actually get promotion. There was hardly a military man present who would confirm that assertion. One of the colonels examined before the Commission in 1874 admitted that he had paid £100, not for his promotion, but to get rid of some one above him who prevented his promotion. What was the evidence given by Colonel Devitt, of the 71st? That he had given from £300 to £400 to induce officers to retire, as he was a junior captain and wished in that way to advance towards promotion. Another case mentioned by a witness was that he knew an instance where, by way of bonus, the second captain paid £400, the third £150, the fourth £80, and the fifth captain £60, and so on, in order to induce a major to retire. There were eight or nine captains in the regiment and all interested in inducing the senior captain to retire, in order that they might get a step in advance. In this case they paid altogether £1,750 for single steps, while the lieutenants paid altogether £1,090 in the same way. Without some distinct words prohibiting this, it would not exist in full force, but would be actually encouraged by the present Bill, as the War Office were to take no cognizance of money transactions. He proposed to introduce words which would prevent anything of the kind happening in future. The right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to make the officers exchanging declare that no part of the money had been received in the shape of contributions from other officers, and that showed that he thought it very probable some infraction of the Act would occur which ought to be guarded against. Now, was it best to rest the matter on a declaration or to introduce a provision making it illegal? That was the whole case. If a declaration were founded upon some distinct statutory provision there would then be some hope that it would be observed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Clause, the words "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the provisions of the Army Brokerage Acts extending to the payment of any sum of money or valuable consideration by any officer or person on his behalf for or on account of an exchange between two other officers, one of whom may be senior to him, and in
  1850
  the same regiment: Provided also, That any person who shall negotiate, act as agent for, or otherwise connive at such payment as last aforesaid" Shall be deemed and judged guilty of a misdemeanor."—(Mr. Childers.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He was not at all disposed to dispute the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, the evidence given before the Royal Commission in 1874 left no doubt on the subject. But bonuses were different things altogether from the objects proposed by this Bill, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman did not at all meet the case. Besides, he thought it was entirely unnecessary that an enactment should be made on the subject, or any such words introduced into the Bill. There was no such danger as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, and he was still of opinion that his way of dealing with the difficulty was the best.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government had given no reason why the words should not be inserted. If they did no harm, why not accept them, especially as many people believed they would guard against a great evil being introduced into the non-Purchase system. They, on that side, wished to show the public and the Army that the Purchase system was completely abolished, and not to be indirectly revived under a system of exchanges.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 242: Majority 82.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought it was impossible that the next Amendment—the most important on the Paper—could be satisfactorily discussed at a late hour, and would therefore move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be greatly to the advantage of both sides that the discussion of the Bill in committee should close that evening. There was only one other Amendment to the clause to be disposed of, and although it was, no doubt, an important one, yet he was sure there was quite sufficient time to enable the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) to propose his Amendment and to obtain for it attentive consideration. He believed it was

  1851
  not yet 12 o'clock, and he would, under the circumstances, appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who was always ready to give his assistance in the endeavour to secure that the Business of the country should be carried on in a satisfactory manner, to say whether it was not reasonable, seeing that the labours of the Committee might be closed in an hour or so, that he should ask him to use his influence to put a stop to such Motions as that of the hon. Member for Sheffield—Motions which were conceived in the heat of the Lobby, and which could scarcely bear the cooler atmosphere of the House. He felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion, but in no hostile spirit, and he would rather appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who sat upon his side of the House had throughout the evening, he hoped, shown no undue disposition to impede the progress of the Bill. He had every wish, so far as he was concerned, to facilitate progress, and had on two occasions already that evening been successful in inducing hon. Members not to press proposals; but the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had rather under-stated than over-stated the case for reporting Progress with reference to the next Amendment. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that it was the most important Amendment on the Paper; but there was another Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter), which was also of great importance, and it was impossible, he thought, that the discussion on those two Amendments could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion that evening. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would not consult the convenience of the House by taking two or three hours to consider those Amendments on another day. ["No, no!"] The Committee had already been at work on the Bill for seven hours; it was universally acknowledged that the most important Amendment on the Paper had been arrived at, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would consult the convenience of the Committee if he allowed it to be adjourned, instead of having time wasted in fruitless divisions.
  MR. DISRAELI: I shall not further object to the Motion to report Progress, but then I must propose that the committee should meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 74.]
(Lord George Hamilton, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 74.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  MR. FAWCETT, in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That it is inexpedient for Parliament to impose any new charges on the revenues of India until the Select Committee which has been appointed to investigate the Indian home charges has completed its inquiry,"
  said, he had to complain of the hurried manner in which that measure, which imposed a charge on the revenues of India, was pressed forward. It was to be regretted that the Committee which last Session began an inquiry with regard to the Home Charges connected with the Government of India had not been reappointed, for it had not gone further than the threshold of the investigation, the only part of the subject it had taken up being the military charges. The present Bill proposed pensions to certain officers, but before any measure of the kind was considered, it was most desirable that the whole question of Indian pensions should be investigated. If such an inquiry was held, and he had any share in it, he pledged himself that disclosures would be made which would astonish the House of Commons. Some remarkable differences existed between the system of pensions prevailing at the India Office and that which existed in the other Government Offices. A gentleman employed in the India Office might enjoy two distinct pensions, and in addition occupy a highly-salaried office. If he had occupied two or more offices under the Indian Government he might get as many pensions. The telegrams which had been received from India that day foreshadowed a

  1853
  financial catastrophe in that country, and therefore it behoved the British Parliament to enforce the strictest economy in every Department of the Government of that country. He asked the House to hear in mind that if there was to be profuse liberality and recklessness in the giving of pensions, it should be with the revenues of England, and not with those of India. What was the state of the Revenue of India? The Debt of India was increasing alarmingly, and the Revenue was rapidly diminishing; yet in the face of such a state of things, the burdens of India were increased. Contrast such a course of proceeding with that which was pursued with regard to England with its diminishing debt, rapidly-increasing revenue, and slowly-increasing expenditure. It was said if the Bill was not allowed to pass, the Government would find it difficult to pension the Members of the Council of India; but before those pensions were granted, the House should have the opportunity to consider what the character of the Indian Council was. By all accounts, it was a most extravagant, costly body. There was not a single Member of the Indian Council entitled to a pension. They took the office, to which immense salaries were attached, and they had no ground to come to this House to ask for pensions. In moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, he was only following the line pointed out by the present Secretary of State for India, when, in his evidence, Lord Salisbury said that the best and only security they could have for economy as regarded the finances of India was the constant watchfulness of the House of Commons. He cordially agreed in that maxim, and for one, he would watch their affairs, and try, by raising his voice, to protect their finances just as much as if the money were to be taken out of the pockets of his own constituents. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient for Parliament to impose any new charges on the revenues of India until the Select Committee which has been appointed to investigate the Indian home charges has completed its inquiry,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that if, as was alleged by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), extravagant pensions had been paid to employés in the India Office in times past—a point on which he (Lord George Hamilton) would not express an opinion—that would not have occurred if the whole of the recipients had been placed under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1859, as was proposed to be done with the gentlemen to whom the present Bill applied. Those gentlemen were the auditor, who, through an oversight, was the only member of the Indian establishment not receiving a pension, and certain Members of the Council, a body to whose Members pensions had to be given in order to secure the services of gentlemen best fitted to assist the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State gave any pension under this Bill the warrant for that pension would have to be laid upon the Table of the House, and the subject could then be amply discussed, if that should be thought necessary. The hon. Gentleman had introduced a great deal of extraneous matter, having nothing whatever to do with the operation of the Bill, which, in his opinion, would not in any way add to the charges upon the Indian Revenue. A telegram had been received from the Indian Government, from which it appeared that the state of the Indian finances was more satisfactory now than when he laid the Indian Financial Statement before the House last year. With respect to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member, it should be remembered that the Home Charges amounted to a very considerable sum, and that it would be impossible to take any step, however small, with respect to them until the Report of the Committee was presented, if the Resolution was adopted by the House. Under those circumstances, he could not agree to the Resolution.
  MR. KINNAIRDregretted that more notice was not taken of the affairs of India, and expressed his surprise that Indian affairs were not discussed until nearly the close of the sitting when not more than 10 to 20 Members were present.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 72: Majority 66.
  Main Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREinquired, whether Members of the Council of India would be entitled to superannuation?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that as he read the Bill, those Members of Council would be entitled to pensions who had served 10 years, and those who were already in receipt of pensions or superannuations because of services in India, would not be entitled to pensions under the measure.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point.
  MR. SULLIVAN, said, in order to settle the point, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid' he did not object to the Motion, as it would give him time to consult the Law Officers of the Crown; and if they thought it necessary he would introduce words to make his interpretation of the Bill perfectly clear. He hoped if he did so, there would be no further opposition to the third reading of the Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he must decline to accept the noble Lord's condition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
On Motion, "That the sitting of the House To-morrow, at Two of the clock, be subject to the Resolution of the House of the 30th day of April, 1869."
MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Friendly Societies Bill would not be taken after the Regimental Exchanges Bill had been discussed, as many hon. Members were not aware that there was to be a morning sitting.
MR. ANDERSONcomplained that the course of the Government, in fixing a morning sitting so early in the Session, was unprecedented, and he trusted that when they met in the evening, the
1856
Government would take care to have a House to enable him to bring on his Motion about the Currency, or else he would suffer materially by the change the Government had made in the sitting of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought there was no harm in putting the Friendly Societies Bill on the Paper, in the hope that if the discussion on the Regimental Exchanges Bill terminated at an early hour, they might proceed so as to enable them to get into Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, "That the sitting of the House To-morrow, at Two of the clock, be held subject to the Resolution of the House of the 30th day of April 1869."

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.

  LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CAWLEY, Bill to amend the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAWLEY, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Mr. HICK, and Mr. TORR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 96.]

  SHIPOWNERS LIABILITY BILL.
  On Motion of Captain Put, Bill to define the liability of Shipowners, Shipmasters, and others in command of British Merchant Vessels, in respect of loss of life or injury to the person on board ship, ordered to be brought in by Captain PIM and Mr. TWELLS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 97.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.