Commons Sitting of 23 June 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [161], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Jurors Qualification (Ireland) [127], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—THE STRATHCLYDE COLLISION—THE TUG "PALMERSTON."—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM BAGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received the Report of the Dover Harbour Commissioners with respect to the conduct of the Captain of the tug "Palmerston," on the late lamentable collision off Dover; and, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, that an inquiry had been held on the 16th instant by Mr. Rothery, assisted by Captains Harris and White, as nautical assessors from the Board of Trade. The Dover Harbour Commissioners, by whom the inquiry had been directed would, no doubt, send him the Report, and he would then consider what portion of it it would be desirable to lay on the Table.

RAILWAY COMPANIES—DISMISSAL OF SERVANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Hour" newspaper, dated 19th instant, which is headed "The Board of Trade and Railway Accidents," in which paragraph it is stated that a porter named George Shoebridge had been dismissed the service of the Company without a character, immediately after the termination of the inquiry by Colonel Hutchinson; if it be true, as alleged, that Shoebridge was dismissed because he asked the Secretary of the Society he is connected with to be present at inquiry; whether he, the President of the Board of Trade, will take any steps to see that men are protected from arbitrary treatment on behalf of Railway Companies in such circumstances; and, if it be true that a Correspondence has taken place as stated with him on the subject, if he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I have no means of knowing why any servants of railway companies may be dismissed, and I am therefore unable to take any steps to protect them or to interfere between them and their employers. If the hon. Member thinks it

337
worth while to move for the Correspondence which has passed with regard to the presence of the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants at the inquiry which the Board of Trade directed to be held on the accident in question he shall have it.

NAVY—H.M.S. "VANGUARD"—THE RETURN.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Return ordered by the House on the 14th of March, relative to the "Vanguard" disaster, has not been completed; and, whether he has any objection to annex to the Return the correspondence which has since taken place on the subject with the Secretary of the Admiralty?
MR. HUNT,in reply, said, the Return in question was laid on the Table of the House a considerable time ago; he could not state the exact date, but at all events with reasonable despatch. The hon. and gallant Member complained that in the Return certain designs of ships which it contained were not drawn in the way he wished with respect to certain shadings and perspective. He (Mr. Hunt) could only say that the Return was drawn in the best way the resources at the command of the Admiralty would permit, and could not have been prepared as the hon. and gallant Member desired without engaging special artists, and thereby entailing considerable expense in the production of fresh copper-plates. He hoped the House would consider that the Return had been prepared in a reasonable manner. With regard to the Correspondence which the hon. and gallant Member wished to be laid on the Table, it consisted of letters from the hon. and gallant Member himself, couched in a sarcastic tone, with reference to the conduct of the Admiralty. He could not conceive that any public object would be gained by laying such a Correspondence on the Table, and he would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that if he wished any Correspondence of his own to be placed on the Table, he should frame it in a different character and in a more official tone. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press for this Correspondence, and that in any future communications with the Admiralty he
338
would address them in different language.
CAPTAIN PIM: I beg to give Notice that I shall move for a Return of the Correspondence that has passed between myself and the Admiralty.

JURORS QUALIFICATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 127.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
JURORS QUALIFICATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 127.]

  CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, as an Amendment, to substitute £40 for £45 as the qualification for jurors of the first class.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he was not quite sure that he understood the alteration which was to be made in the Bill. What he understood to take place on the previous day was, that the qualification originally proposed in the Bill was £50. In respect of certain counties, he understood, however, that £45 was, by a large majority of the House, placed in the Bill as the qualification. If Her Majesty's Government, from the information they had at command, had advised that £40 was a better qualification, he should probably have been willing to take their advice and vote for it. He had never thought a high qualification necessary for juries, provided they got into the box thoroughly competent men. On the contrary, it was his wish to get on the jury list as many competent men as could be got. At the same time, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, they should not put incompetent men into the jury box. It was clear that this rating qualification was only a means to an end. The end was a competent jury. This means was decided to be a high rating qualification. He should have preferred different means, but was perfectly ready to accept what the Government had decided to do. It had been said that he wished to exclude from juries a large portion of the population of Ireland. He wished nothing of the sort; he wished for nothing but that which experience had shown was absolutely necessary for the administration of justice. That was his sole object, and he had no wish to set up any opinion of his own in that respect against the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment was proposed in order that the understanding arrived at on the previous night should be carried out. Reasons were given showing that £45 was too high for all classes, and it seemed to him desirable that the same qualification should be adopted throughout. He preferred £45, but there was a strong feeling the other way. The difference between £45 and £40, however, was not one of principle, but one on which hon. Members had as good means of arriving at a decision as he had himself.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he sympathized with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow, and thought he was quite right in protesting against the attacks made upon him on account of the course he had thought it his duty to take respecting this Bill. It must be remembered that the hon. Member for Cork had delivered a long speech to show that the qualification ought to be reduced below £45, but he failed to convince the Committee, which had decided by a large majority against his proposal.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite had any ground for feeling dissatisfaction, because dissatisfaction was equally felt on his own side of the House. They on his side did not wish for the £40 qualification. On the contrary, they wished that the law should remain as it was at present, at a qualification of £30. Never, he ventured to say, had a change of so great magnitude been proposed without more information being given as to the ground of the change. With regard to the reasons for adopting £40 instead of £50, the hon. Member for County Cork (Mr. Downing) gave figures and statistics which were irrefutable, and could not have failed to convince the majority of the House, had they waited to listen to the argument. No doubt a large majority had voted against that proposal; but many of the hon. Members composing it had voted without hearing the discussion, and had mostly given a Party vote in order to back up the Government in their proposals, and thus a large majority was made up against those who represented the Irish people. The qualification had been raised from £30 to £40 without any reason being adduced. Nothing
  340
  was more grievous than that jurors should refuse to obey the law laid down by Judges either at quarter sessions or Assizes, but he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that, in disagreeing to a verdict in a doubtful case of murder, the Irish jury he referred to did not act properly.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he had hoped the discussion on the subject had ended on the previous evening. He was sorry to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen). The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary thought it would be a fair compromise to accept £40 when he (Mr. Downing) moved to omit the five from £45. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman was under the impression it was challenged, and but for the mistake the whole would have been over in a short time. He was glad to find that those who supported the Government approved of what had been done, and admitted that the facts brought forward were not answered by the Government or by any one on their side of the House.
  MR. HERMONprotested against the statement that hon. Members on that side had voted on the question without understanding it. He for one had listened, as he always did, most attentively to the arguments of the Irish Members when speaking on the affairs of Ireland, and it was unjust to charge him with unfairness. He objected to being lectured by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) merely because he had voted in accordance with his own convictions and had not been deferential to those of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, that he also had listened to the debate, and had arrived at the conclusion that either the Irish Members were wrong in fixing £40, or the House was wrong in fixing £45.
  MR. BUTTthought the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) should not have taken to himself the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Henry), who did not accuse hon. Members opposite of refusing to listen to Irish Members, but simply stated the fact that a number of hon. Gentlemen did come into the House last night and vote upon the question who had not heard the debate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the practice to which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr.

  341
  Henry) referred was not confined to Irish, questions, but applied equally to Scotch and English Business. As a matter of fact there were at least 46 Members who voted in the majority last night who did not hear the arguments. He confessed he himself had often voted without knowing anything of the subject, though it was not a very moral thing to do. He maintained that, whatever the faults of Lord O'Hagan's Bill were, he was entitled to the highest credit for his Jury Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words substituted.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to make an unusual application in respect to the Bill. The present law in Ireland relating to the qualification of jurors was of a temporary character, and would expire on the 1st of July. It was therefore essential that this Bill should come into operation on that day. It had yet to pass through the House of Lords, and in order to do that it would be a great assistance if the House would give a third reading to the Bill at the present moment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: On condition that there should be full opportunity for considering the Procedure Bill?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Certainly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. BRUENsaid, he was glad that the necessity for the immediate passing of the Bill had given the advantage of enabling them to discuss another Irish question at a reasonable time of day, and he ventured to ask the Government (for he knew the Chief Secretary was not responsible) whether they could not give equally good time on other Bills. Irish and Scotch Members would be very grateful if their business could be conducted at a time when they were not thoroughly worked out. Shortness of time had, do doubt, much to do with the informal way in which the question was decided on the previous day. If more time had been given they would not have voted a particular figure, and in the next moment turned right-about-face and reversed the decision.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would be glad to join in the application on behalf of the Scotch Members, provided that the Irish Members did not take the lion's share of the time. He hoped the Government would consider the proposition, and give as many Morning Sittings as possible to Scotch, and Irish Business.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [LORDS.]— [BILL 161.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [LORDS.]— [BILL 161.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,")
  MR. BUTT,in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in any Bill intended to constitute a Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland the rules of procedure should be settled and defined in the Act constituting the Court, in the same manner and to the same extent as they have been in the Acts constituting the English Court,"
  said, he was sorry to interpose at that stage of the Bill, as his Amendment might lead to some inconvenience and delay the Bill; but he felt it incumbent on him to bring the matter before the House. He must say he did not think that those who had had the framing of the Bill had given the whole question the thought and consideration which it required or deserved. Their purpose was apparently to assimilate the law of England and Ireland, but they had left out of this Irish Bill several of the clauses which were passed in the Supreme Court of Judicature (England) Bill. He did not think the different circumstances of the two countries, and the difference in the character of the tribunal, had been sufficiently considered and appreciated by the framers of the present measure. The English Act, the passing of which had been postponed for the purpose, laid down the most minute and particular rules in regard to almost all the matters requiring regulation, leaving merely a few insignificant matters of

  343
  detail to be dealt with, by the Judges. After the Act passed, no doubt, the Judges of the Supreme Court had power to make alterations in the rules. But making alterations in the rules embodied in an Act of Parliament was a very different thing from the power to make the rules themselves de novo. Now in this Irish Bill there was not a single rule laid down. Everything was left to the discretion of the Judges in a very different manner from what it was by the English Act. So great was the discretion left to them, that there would be nothing to prevent them, if they thought fit, from abolishing trial by jury. He asked why one rule should be applied to England and another to Ireland? Why was this Bill reduced to the merest skeleton, to be clothed with flesh and muscle in whatever town the Judge might think fit? Past experience, either in England or in Ireland, should not encourage them to leave so much power in the hands of the Bench, for it had been shown, in several instances, that it was not wisely exercised. They had now an instance of its abuse recently in 1869. A Bankruptcy Act was passed, intended to prevent any man availing himself of the protection of bankruptcy except at the instance of his creditors. The Act, however, gave power to the Judges to make rules of procedure, and they made rules which entirely defeated the main object of the Act, so that the present Government had now felt it necessary to introduce a new Bill on the subject. The Judges were really the worst legislators in the world in matters of this kind; and there was truth in the old axiom—that one of the elements of safety was to keep the judicial and the legislative functions separate. One reason why that separation should be made was, that he thought it very probable that the Judges would fall below the point, in many cases, to which the House of Commons would be inclined to go. There were most important differences at present between the English and Irish procedure, and they ought not to leave it to the Judges to say whether these differences should continue or not. In England a very large number of matters were disposed of by what was called summonses at Judge's Chambers, in which no counsel were required to appear, suitors being represented by solicitors or solicitor's clerks, which
  344
  beside economizing judicial strength was a great convenience and saving to suitors, whereas in Ireland it was necessary for every application, however trivial, to be made to full Court by counsel. Now ought it to be left to the Irish Judges to say whether that system should be kept up? There were other questions involved in this discussion. There was a great demand for the reduction of the Irish Judicial Staff, and while giving no opinion as to whether or not the Staff was at present too large, he wished the House to consider the difficulty of coming to a decision on that point, until they knew what the rules of procedure were to be, and whether the motions were to continue to be disposed of in Court, with the time and expense involved through counsel being engaged, or whether they were to be disposed of in Chambers as in England. That would make all the difference. Another important question involved was that of venue. At present a large number of cases were brought to Dublin for trial, with which Dublin had nothing to do. Of all the cases tried there last term only one directly concerned the City of Dublin. Were they to allow the practice to continue in Ireland, destroying, to a great extent, the local administration of justice at the Assizes, the preservation of which he regarded as of the utmost importance? If they were to get rid of those foreign trials in Dublin it was perfectly obvious that the judicial duties in Dublin would not require the same number of Judges as now. All these matters had a bearing on the question of what number of Judges was necessary, and he was not one of those who wished to maintain a large number of Judges merely for the sake of giving patronage to the Irish Bar. He considered, on the contrary, that patronage had been a curse to the Bar. Not, however, until the Judges's rules were framed, and they knew what the Courts had to do, could they decide as to the number of Judges that ought to be kept up. He thought those matters and rules ought to be decided on in the House of Commons, instead of leaving them, as they were left, in this skeleton Bill to the Judges, who might be influenced too much by a regard for the interests of the Bar and the Bench. It was of very great importance to maintain an independent Bar, and these rules

  345
  might vitally affect that question. The point to which they must look was the diminution of the large number of counsel now employed in some Irish cases. He repeated that the Bill proposed to leave too much to the Judges. It might either do nothing, or else a great deal more than was wanted. Parliament ought to settle the rules for Ireland as they did for England. He regretted having to refer to matters of detail, which, it might be said, ought to be dealt with in Committee; but if he were to undertake to propose in Committee all the rules he thought necessary, the Notices of Motion would be so numerous that he was afraid there would be little chance of their being discharged that Session. Even as it was, he would not bind himself not to propose those rules in Committee; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would avoid any such inconvenience by promising to introduce rules into the Bill. If he would promise that, he (Mr. Butt) would withdraw the Amendment. After all, what was the hurry for the Bill? Ireland did not want it; nobody asked for it. There were such measures as the Civil Bills Court Bill which were really pressing. Why not proceed with them? There was another strong reason for delay. Every day the English Bar, the Judges, and the public were complaining of the unsatisfactory character in many respects of the rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and he was told that the Judges had called a meeting to amend the rules. Why should not Ireland have the benefit of this revision, and the Bill be re-introduced next year? The effect of his Amendment was, that the Bill ought to be the work of Parliament itself, and not the work of the Irish Judges. He had as much respect for the Irish as for the English Bench, but declined to entrust to them the task of legislating, which belonged to Parliament itself. The Bill should not be a faint copy of the English clauses, many of which were inapplicable, while everything else was left to the Judges, and he hoped that on all these grounds the House would adopt the Amendment which he now submitted to their notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in any Bill intended to constitute a Supreme
  346
  Court of Judicature in Ireland the rules of procedure should be settled and defined in the Act constituting the Court, in the same manner and to the same extent as they have been in the Acts constituting the English Court,"—(Mr. Butt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, his hon. and learned Friend had as usual made a very able speech; but having heard it he could not but look forward with feelings of gloom to the difficulties of passing during this Session a measure, which was certainly desired very earnestly by large classes in Ireland, who wished to have the benefit of the same reforms in Judicial procedure as had been adopted in England. Knowing the power of obstruction possessed by his hon. and learned Friend in that House, he was afraid that if he continued to deal with the Bill in the same spirit as he did now, there was not a very brilliant prospect of passing it this year. He would, however, put it to his hon. and learned Friend that he should, at all events, allow the Government, in Committee, to explain the points to which he had taken objection as the Bill went along. It would then be seen that the difficulties and dangers he had conjured up were not substantial. His hon. and learned Friend complained that rules of procedure and practice were not introduced in a Schedule of the Bill, as was done in the English Acts, and he had spoken of those rules as if they were the product of the mind and wisdom of Parliament, and were, to a great extent, the result of debates in the House of Commons. Nothing could be more opposed to the fact. Some rules, no doubt, were introduced in the English Bill of 1873, and were adopted by the House of Commons; but they had been very carefully prepared beforehand mainly by the Judges—the very class of persons to whom it was now proposed to entrust the preparation of the rules for Ireland. What was done then? Again, in the English Acts, although the rules were inserted in them, power was given to the Judges to enlarge, modify, and alter them, subject only to the condition that any alterations or additions should

  347
  be submitted to Parliament. His hon. and learned Friend, in dealing with this subject, was not quite so accurate as he usually was, for he overlooked the fact that the clauses in which it was proposed to give the Judges in Ireland the power to frame rules were almost exactly the same, word for word, as the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1873, and the Act of 1875. If his hon. and learned Friend compared this Bill, section by section, with the English Act, he would find that the words employed were for pages nothing more than a reproduction of the words of the latter. The whole frame of the Bill was a combination of the Acts of 1873 and 1875. Ireland would have the advantage of the precedent of the English Acts, the advantage of the rules which had been framed in England, and, what was no small matter, the advantage of the additional experience of six months which would elapse before the rules need be finally settled. Unless his hon. and learned Friend was enough of a Tory to hope to postpone an Irish Judicature Act until the English Judicature Act was repealed, the best thing was to have as soon as possible an exact unification of the two systems. His hon. and learned Friend feared the Judges might make rules which would deviate from the policy of the Bill, and prevent its being any good to the country; but he would remind him that the rules in the English Act were framed by the Judges, and passed through Parliament with little discussion, he was bound to say that if his hon. and learned Friend asked him to bring into the House of Commons a Schedule corresponding with that of the English Act of 1875, and carry it through the House of Commons, especially if he and other Irish Members had not much sympathy with the measure, he would not have a chance of passing it within any reasonable limits of time. They would soon have a revolt of the Scotch Members, not only against English, but Irish Business, if they were thus to proceed slowly to elaborate a system of rules in the House of Commons. The only conditions laid down when power was given to the Judges to frame rules were that those rules should be laid on the Table of the House if Parliament was sitting at the time, and, if not, within 40 days after the next meeting of Parliament, and
  348
  that if an Address were presented to the Queen in opposition to any of the rules they might be annulled. That power would be a complete and sufficient safeguard against anything improper being done; but it was a very different thing from having the rules framed by the House. It seemed to him only reasonable to entrust the settling of the rules to the men who best understood the subject, reserving to Parliament the power of exercising supervision over what they did. He would not enter into other matters which his hon. and learned Friend had touched on, and which could be better dealt with in Committee. The Bill came down to them with considerable weight and sanction from "another place," and he desired to adhere to the lines there laid down; but he was not unprepared to consider in Committee the suggestions of learned and experienced Members on the other side. He therefore appealed to them not to approach the question with the intention of slaying the Bill by slow degrees, but to assist the Government, so that they might that Session pass an Act assimilating the Judicature laws of England and Ireland, and obtaining for their own country the benefits which had already been conferred upon England.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he had heard with regret the determination of the Government not to yield to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. He desired to see a Judicature Bill passed for Ireland, not that he believed any improvement had been effected in England by the Judicature Act, or was likely to be effected in Ireland by a similar measure. He wished to see a Bill passed for Ireland merely on the ground that the systems in England and Ireland should be unified. The course taken by his hon. and learned Friend opposite deprived the country of the sole advantage which could be derived from the passing of the Bill. In England certain rules and a definite system were introduced into the Act. By this Bill it was left open to the Irish Judges to deviate as much as they pleased from the system in England. He thought they ought not to pass any Judicature Bill for Ireland unless it contained a full and complete system of rules of procedure and practice; and he hoped that they would have one perfect and harmonious scheme for

  349
  the whole Kingdom. He admitted that in the case of England, as stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, the rules as framed by the Judges were very little changed by Parliament last Session; but he asserted, on the other hand, that those rules had been pushed through the House almost with indecent haste, and that they were not ultimately such as they would have been if they had undergone due discussion. He should support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that the time it would take to discuss those rules in the House would infallibly lead to the postponement of the Bill till next Session. The Government had given a pledge that it was intended as far as possible to assimilate the rules of procedure and practice in Ireland to those of England; and next Session, when the new Code prepared by the Irish Judges was laid on the Table of the House, if it was found to be divergent from the system established in England, the House would have an opportunity of remedying the matter. If this debate had arisen in March, instead of in June, he should have supported the Amendment, but a fusion of Law and Equity having taken place in England, he thought it very important to the interests, not of the Bar or of the Judges, but of the public in Ireland, that the assimilation, which must eventually take place, should take place as soon as possible, instead of everything being left in doubt and uncertainty with different and contradictory systems at work in the two countries. He admitted that it would have been better if the rules had been scheduled, but he was not disposed to imperil the Bill on account of that omission, believing that the Judges were not likely to make rules merely for the convenience of the Bar without consulting the requirements of the public. If they did the interference of Parliament could be invoked, and if it were not done by anybody else he should not hesitate to call attention to the subject. He could not vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he sympathized with the object of the Bill
  350
  —the unification of procedure and the fusion of Law and Equity—and for that reason he would support the objection of his hon. and learned Colleague, fearing the efficacy of the Bill in its present shape. The House was asked to cast on the Irish Judges the responsibility it had itself discharged on the English Bill. Now, though very desirous of seeing a Bill of that kind passed, he insisted that the rules of procedure should be provided on the responsibility of that House. The Irish Judges were, no doubt, competent to frame rules and orders; but they might be disposed to stand too much upon the ancient ways, and, at all events, they should perform such a task under a full responsibility to that House and the country. While that measure was still in embryo, an eminent Irish Judge whom he would name—Mr. Justice Barry—had long since imposed on him the necessity of embodying the rules in the Act and relieving the Judge from the responsibility. The Act of 1853 had failed in producing a simple system of pleading, and the proceedings between Lord Justice Christian and other members of the Bench as to the rules of the Act of 1867 had been of a most painful nature, and sensibly affected the position of the law in that country. In order to avoid a defeat of the objects of the Act, there being really no hurry, he would rather see the Bill postponed, in order to give Parliament an opportunity of superintending the preparation of rules. The principal thing was to produce a perfect code, and even if two or three years were occupied in doing so he should not complain. The County Courts Bill was of more importance, and deserved attention first, in order to make legal redress accessible to the masses. He complained that the Lords, who had abundance of time at their disposal, sent the Bill down without the rules, and, on the whole, so much neglect had been committed in the progress of the Bill so far that it was necessary to be cautious.
  MR. LAWdid not believe there was the slightest danger of the Irish Judges exhibiting any of the eccentricities which certain hon. Members seemed to apprehend. In a communication which they had made to the Lord Chancellor, or, at all events, officially, and which had just been laid upon the Table of the House, they expressed the opinion that, for

  351
  many reasons, it was expedient as far as possible to have "identity of constitution, practice, and procedure in the superior Courts of England and Ireland." It was not too much then, he thought, to ask his hon. and learned Friend to place reliance on the Judges when they thus publicly express their opinions and determination to have a similar constitution and course of procedure in Ireland to that in England. It was provided, too, by the Bill, that the rules should be laid on the Table as soon as they were framed. What more was requisite? Surely this gave Parliament an adequate control over the Irish Judges. They must trust somebody. The House of Commons trusted to its legal Members, and it was not too much to ask the legal Members in turn to trust to this small extent the Judges, who were just as anxious as themselves to have identity of procedure. A good many of the other objections that had been made during the discussion were not of such a character as ought to interfere with the progress of the Bill. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick would, in the interests of the people of Ireland, which were greatly involved in their having a cheap and uniform system of procedure, withdraw his Amendment, so that some progress might be made with the Bill in Committee. If not, he should feel it to be his duty to vote against him.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was unfortunate that the Bill should have been read a second time without discussion, because that course had necessitated a discussion at an inconvenient time. He thought, however, that both sides who had listened to the discussion would see that there was something of much greater importance involved than the mere question of a Schedule of rules and of procedure. It was surely a very striking circumstance that an hon. and learned Member who was, and he (Mr. Henry) said it without flattery, accepted throughout the United Kingdom as one of the first law authorities in the country, and who at the Irish Bar held, if not the very foremost place, yet held a foremost place in conjunction with only one or two others, that he should feel it his duty to come to the House and entreat the House of Commons to postpone the Bill, not on matters of detail, but on matters of vital prin-
  352
  ciple. He hoped hon. Members on both sides would listen to the appeal. He believed there was in Ireland an amount of money paid in litigation which was out of all comparison with that spent in England and Scotland. That did not proceed from the magnitude of the fees paid to counsel, because he had more than once said that the fees paid to Irish counsel were inadequate, but it arose from the enormous cost to suitors, owing to the shocking condition of procedure. It was said that there were too many Irish Judges, and though his hon. and learned Friend had shrunk from stating that such was the case, he defied anyone who had listened to his speech not to draw that inference from it. He asked the House and the Government to lay down the principle that the English system of Chamber practice should be established in Ireland. There were an immense number of influences at work, but if they were to take away from the Courts Chamber cases, it would be found a very difficult thing to keep up the number of Judges, as those cases represented a great deal of business. He was of opinion that no one who had ever bought property in Ireland or made an investment there had failed to find that, by hook or by crook, he became involved in litigation. There was a great deal of speculative litigation in Ireland. He once bought some fisheries. They were not large ones, but the moment he was in possession of them a claim was set up which continued seven or eight years. It could not be got rid of. He would, with the permission of the House, narrate the story. He bought in the Landed Estates Court some fisheries. When he was comfortably in possession a gentleman disputed his right. The gentleman asked the Landed Estates Court for a judicial declaration. The case was heard in the Landed Estates Court after very great difficulty, and the House might be sure that great anxiety existed amongst the parties to the suit. The Judge made very light of the matter, and said he would make a declaration of title in favour of his (Mr. Henry's) adversary's right of several fisheries. He said to his counsel, "You do not seem to be attending to the case." The reply was—"Never mind, his decision is certain to be reversed, whatever it is." The case then went before the Judges in Appeal, and

  353
  they did reverse the decision. In doing so they expressed themselves in strong language, and indicated that the judgment would not have been known in an English Court of Justice. They directed an issue should be tried before a jury. After innumerable difficulties it was so tried by a jury in the county, and the decision was in his favour. Of course there was an appeal. That appeal came before the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. It was heard repeatedly. Days were fixed on which the appeal was to take place, but on every occasion when he and other litigants went down they found the way barred by little cases, which ought to have been settled in Judges' Chambers. The case went on, he might confidently say, for three years. It was then finally argued out, and just as the decision was about to be given one of the Judges died. The Court then directed the matter to be argued all over again, in order that they might have the opinion of a newly-appointed Judge. It was accordingly argued over again, and one of the Judges discovered a mistake. Being a black letter lawyer he found that a particular word had been wrongly translated in a document, which did not, however, turn out to be of very great consequence. A new trial was directed, and the witnesses all collected at the Assizes, but he then found that it would be better to compromise the matter, and the other side was also willing to do the same. He consented to arbitration, and an arbitrator was appointed, who gave his decision, and he had to pay a great deal more than the whole fisheries had cost. The fisheries were bought for £1,400, and the expenses were not less than £8,000 or £9,000 for both sides. What happened then? A proposition from his opponent was communicated to him by his own attorney, and he replied by saying that he preferred everything should be settled by counsel, because he had no confidence in the attorney on the other side. His own attorney sent his letter to the opposite attorney, who thereupon brought an action against him (Mr. Henry) for libel, and laid the damages at £8,000. That was a very serious matter. He asked his own attorney if it was not a confidential communication, and the reply was—"Oh, yes; but I asked you if you had any objection to me telling him so." He had no objection,
  354
  and therefore the communication was sent. The action was tried. It was a tremendous one. He (Mr. Henry) was not called to give evidence. He was defended by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and the learned counsel on the other side was annoyed that he was not called. While he was sitting down quietly in Court, the counsel of the other side began to abuse him and make comments on his personal appearance, pointing at him with his fingers. This was not stopped by the learned Judge; it was permitted. The jury returned a verdict that there was publication of libel, under the express direction of the Judge, and the jury returned a verdict of a farthing damages. Of course, in a very few days he was called upon to pay several hundred pounds of costs, and he did so at once. Then he came over to London. He met the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who said that that was an extraordinary decision in your case. He (Mr. Henry) passed an Act through Parliament a few years ago providing that in any case in which an action was brought the costs should follow the damages—that was to say, your opponent having a farthing damages you ought to pay a farthing costs. He (Mr. Henry) said that was a new revelation. He caused a new application to be made, but the Judges said—"We believe it is so, but it is too late to remedy it," and it was not remedied. He had since found that the Act of Parliament had been overruled by technical regulations of the Judges themselves. The Act was consequently of no use. He asked if the House was going to leave to the Judges in Ireland the making not merely of the rules and deciding as to the procedure, but the settling of great principles. He asked the House to determine that the Court rules and procedure in Ireland should be assimilated to the rules in England, and thus to protect in some measure the unfortunate suitors, of whom he was only one example out of many.
  DR. WARDcomplained that notwithstanding the introduction of the Civil Courts (Ireland) Bill, by which it was proposed to cut down nearly half the judicial business so far as it was transacted by the Judges, the present measure would fix upon that country the existing judicial staff, which everyone

  355
  outside the Profession would admit was far too large for the work which it had to do. The real reason, he added, why there appeared to be so much legal business in Ireland was that a number of paltry, wretched cases came before the Courts there which in England were disposed of in Chambers. From the Returns it appeared that an ordinary English Judge sat on 205 days in the year between the hours of 10 and 4, whereas the average occupation of an Irish Judge was between 11 and 2 or half-past 2 o'clock, on 178 days in the year. The result of the Irish Judges having little to do and plenty of time to spare was that they were appointed to other posts and made Commissioners of Education, in which capacity their decisions were too often thought to be influenced by Party or religious considerations. At the time of the passing of the Church Act, for instance, Mr. Justice Lawson, who already received £3,500 as a Judge, was appointed a Church Temporalities Commissioner, with an additional salary of £2,000, and he was besides an Education Commissioner. As to the rules, they were the real essence of the Bill, but the framing of them had been left to the Irish Judges. With all due deference to the Irish Judges, he did not think they had so much reason to repose confidence in them and their public spirit and action as to trust the important matter of broad principle to them. There were, as he had said, too many Judges in Ireland. There were 20 Judges of First Instance against 24 in England; they were 12 Judges of Common Law against 18 in England. They had an Admiralty Judge and a Judge of the Court of Divorce. Practically they had two-thirds more Judges in Ireland—for doing what business? The total number of judgments in Ireland in 1872 was 4,481, whereas in England it was 23,554—exactly five times more. If they were to keep up such an enormous staff the Government would leave themselves open to the suspicion that they were keeping a great amount of patronage for unworthy motives, besides the system injured the Bar, and was prejudicial to the cause of public interest and public justice. He would urge the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to proceed with his opposition until he received some guarantee that the important power of
  356
  framing the rules should not rest with the Judges.
  MR. MACARTNEYbelieved that the Judges in Ireland administered the law as carefully, as wisely, as impartially, and in as effective a manner as the Judges in England, no matter what politics or what religion might have brought them to the Bench. Indeed, it often occurred that Roman Catholics preferred to be tried by a Protestant Judge, because they thought the Judge would lean to their side in order to show that religion did not influence his decision. It appeared from the announcement made by the Irish Judges themselves that they would frame their regulations as much as possible in accordance with those in force in this country, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see that effected, it appeared to him they were taking the worst possible course for the purpose.
  MR. GIBSONsupported the Bill. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was not one really against going into Committee, and he therefore urged on the Government to press forward the matter without delay. The English Act of 1873 empowered the Judges to make rules which were, in fact, fully prepared when the amending Act of 1875 was introduced, and were embodied in its Schedule, because otherwise they would not have come into full operation until six months later. As, however, no previous Judicature Act had been introduced with regard to Ireland, it would be necessary to entrust the Judges with the duty and responsibility of framing rules. When Mr. Justice Barry said he hoped the rules would be as closely as possible after the English rules, and when they found a Petition from all the Irish Common Law Judges on the Table to the same effect, he thought there was very little fear that the rules when framed would not be entirely in accordance with English precedent and English procedure. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Henry) had given them an exceedingly interesting narrative. It was true he had been unfortunate; but there was, they all knew, something not unpleasant in the misfortunes of one's dearest friends. But many people had managed to live in Ireland without ever having being involved in any litigation. It was very unfortunate that almost immediately the hon. Member put

  357
  his foot into Galway, that he should be involved in litigation. He must have bought a lawsuit. The moral to be adduced was, that a man should be very slow to buy a fishery in the county Galway. As for the Act, which laid down that the costs should not be higher than the damages, he might remark that it contained a clause enabling the Judge to certify that higher costs might be given; this power was exercised at the trial against the hon. Member for Galway, and the inference suggested was that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick did not look after the interests of his client. The statistics given by the hon. Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) had been often exposed, and did not throw any light on this subject. It was not fair to measure the work of the English Judges against the work of the Irish Judges, because the latter did all the work themselves, and were not helped like their English brethren by referees and abitrators. Indeed, the Irish people would not be satisfied unless their cases were tried with the fullest sanction of publicity in open Courts. With regard to the administration of justice in Ireland by the Judges, he believed it was above all suspicion. It was true that the Judges there, before their elevation to the Bench, had held political views and belonged to political parties; but when the judicial ermine was assumed, they administered justice in a way that won the confidence of the public and of the members of their own Profession—fearlessly, without favour, and without affection.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought that, whatever might be the merits of the Bill, its passing was endangered as long as the Government withheld any overture in regard to the objections which had been raised. If the Government would only give a pledge to consider these objections next Session, he thought he could say for his own political friends that they would not interpose any more obstacles in the way of the present measure being proceeded with.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was exceedingly unfortunate that they were hampered in discussing the question by the fact that there had been no adequate discussion of the Irish Judicature system at any previous stage. There were great questions underlying the Bill which had
  358
  been kept out of sight. Where was the Civil Bill Courts Bill? They called for it. What had happened to that Bill? Why was it not brought forward before this measure? The English Judicature Bill was not passed until the English people had first secured to them a reformed County Court system. Why was not the same course followed with regard to Ireland? It was not until the basis of a County Court system was laid that the superstructure of a Supreme Court of Judicature could be built up. He could not understand the action of the Government in this matter, unless they were prepared to defend it on the principle of the Ulster Grand Jury a century ago, who having passed a presentment for a bridge, when told that there was no river at the place, said next year they would pass a presentment to give the bridge a river. There was no use in hiding the fact that there was a mutiny against Lord Cairns. When he attempted to deal with the Irish Judicial system, the hand of the Government was stopped, and the Civil Bill Courts Bill was put aside, not to satisfy public opinion in Ireland, but to placate certain powerful interests. Considerable dissatisfaction had been felt by the Irish Judges and Bar at Lord Cairns's proposals. He (Mr. Sullivan) was present at a public banquet, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was also there, and he advocated, not with bated breath and whispering humbleness, but with candour and honesty, certain reforms. He was dropped upon instantly, and he got a wigging on the very spot by one of the Judges. His Lordship plainly hinted that the Judges did not want their preserves poached upon by any Government, Whig or Tory. It was a dangerous thing for any Government to deal with. Why? Because it was confessed that the whole legal system was an anomaly. It was out of joint with the times. A Conservative newspaper, The Belfast News Letter, said that two-thirds of the Bar were Conservatives, and, as they had been kept out in the cold for 25 years by their enemies, they ought not to be kept out in the cold for the rest of their lives by their friends. An hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side had said that while the Irish Judges did their duty, the English Judges did not. Well, he had heard the same thing said before;

  359
  but it was rather strange that the English people did not seem to know it.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he cast no such imputation on the English Judges. What he did say was that much of the work for which the English Judges were credited was in reality to be ascribed to others—referees, arbitrators, and so on.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly stated that the Irish people would never consent to have their business administered in the way that the English business was done. The Irish Judicial establishment, tried by every test, was either greatly over-manned, or the English Judicial establishment was wholly inadequate. Various excuses were offered for this state of things. It was said that the Irish people loved pomp; but this plea he derided. The next argument was that the Bar wanted promotion. There were, he affirmed, at the disposal of the Crown in Ireland, of places, great and small, two for every three barristers who really practised. Lord Cairns went bolder at the system than others, but he was told to hold his hand. He (Mr. Sullivan) wished to see the Bar regarding the faithful and zealous discharge of its duties as the goal of its ambition, rather than the attainment of some scrap of Government patronage, or hankering after the nod of some Castle official. Because he had dared to advocate Judicial reforms an argument in Ireland had been used against him, and in order to make him unpopular he had been assailed in the Press and by his friends, because—so it was said—that as a Nationalist and Home Ruler he was bound to get for his own country the greatest possible sum out of the Consolidated Fund. But whether money obtained from that source was a curse or a benefit to the people depended on the use to which it was applied. It might be employed for purposes of corruption and intrigue; and if it was bestowed without honest value being given in return for it, it was a bribe. The Irish people only asked for strict justice, and that they had never yet received in regard to their system of Judicature. As Sir John Davies had said, the Irish loved nothing better than justice, and laws would lose their efficacy if they were not invested with the respect of the people. There was not, he believed, a Judicature in Europe more worthy of
  360
  respect than the Judges of Ireland on the whole were, both in their public and private character. But he nevertheless refused to trust them with the powers proposed to be given by that Bill, seeing that the House had not trusted the English Judges with those powers.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that having lately moved for two Returns on the subject, it occurred to him that hon. Members might wish to know on what grounds he had taken that course. He complained that by the Bill the House would be required to vote at the expense of the inhabitants of the whole of the United Kingdom for the Irish Judges a sum very much in excess of that which was necessary. The Returns he moved for were to bring out that fact. He had had no doubt of the fact himself, but the Returns, he thought, would bring it before the House adequately, and in small compass—in such a way that there would be no misunderstanding it. The last of the two Returns showed that there were 22 Judges in Ireland, who under the present Bill would be paid £83,000; that there was a Receiver at a salary of £2,500, a Master at a salary of £1,200, another at a salary of £1,400, and a third at a salary of £1,200. One would suppose from what hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House had said, that the Judges in Ireland had no assistants; but there were four assistants, who received £6,300 a-year amongst them. Adding this amount to the sum received by the Judges, it appeared from the Returns which had been supplied to him that the Judicial expenses, apart from the small expenses attending the Courts, was £90,000 a-year. Now, no one who inquired into the extent of the business in Ireland could suppose that to impose such a charge upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom was anything but an injustice. This would be apparent on reference to the statistics with regard to Scotland. To perform that which devolved on the 22 Irish Judges there were only 13 in Scotland, and the amount paid them was only £42,300. No doubt, there was what were called separate branches of law in Ireland—that there existed several Courts which were not to be found in Scotland. They had the Court of Exchequer, and there was not such a Court in Scotland. Scotland had possessed a Court of Exchequer, and that

  361
  within his recollection; but it had been abolished, and the duties which were performed in it were thrown on the other Judges. In the same way the Court of Probate, the High Court of Admiralty, and the Jury Court had been abolished, and the work thrown on the remaining Judges. The House might think that just as they diminished the number of Courts in Scotland, they would have to increase the number of Judges in the Courts which were left, and that, therefore, there would be no saving. But was that really the case? By no means. After all these duties had been imposed upon the Court of Session in Scotland, instead of increasing the number of Judges, it was reduced by two. What they gave the Scotch Judges £42,300 for doing, by the present Bill they proposed to pay the Irish Judges £90,000 for performing. The expenditure was injudicious. The salaries of the Judges would only be increased slightly, he admitted, and he was not prepared to contend that the salaries of ordinary Judges were too large; on the contrary, he thought that the salaries which the Scotch Judges received—namely, £3,000 per annum—might very well be increased. That was not the question before the House, but it was that the Irish Courts were underworked, and if that were so, why should they not cut down the number of Judges before they increased the salaries? In Scotland there were a great many more mercantile cases heard than in Ireland, and the Judges were worked harder—having probably double the quantity of work to perform for less than one half of the pay—and it would, therefore, be unfair to carry out the proposal contained in the Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that the proposals with reference to the rules were not substantially different from those adopted in the English Act. The hon. Member for Louth spoke at length upon what he considered the excessive number of the Irish Judicial staff, and objected to the mode of dealing with them in this Bill. Now, the proposals for reduction in this Bill were considerable. With regard to the Judges, the Bill proposed to reduce a Judge in the Court of Exchequer, one in the Court of Common Pleas, and one in the Admiralty Division, and an important legal official, the
  362
  Receiver Master in Chancery. It moreover proposed measures by which considerable reduction might be effected in what he might call the excrescences which grew up around the Judicial Courts when they were divided into separate divisions, and which, when these Courts were amalgamated, it would no longer be necessary to retain. These would be substantial reforms, and, he confessed, it was strange to him that the hon. Member, and those who agreed in wishing for greater reforms, should obstruct the progress of a Bill which, at any rate, did something to effect their object, merely for the idea that it did not go far enough. That was the surest way of preventing all reforms whatever. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had not pressed forward the Civil Bill Courts Bill. That Bill was introduced at an early period of the Session in common with the Highways Bill and the Valuation Bill. It had hitherto failed from want of time to obtain the attention of the House; but he must say there had been other reasons why it had been found impossible as yet to proceed with it. Not the least of these was the fact that a right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) gave Notice of his intention to move that it should be read that day three months, thereby preventing any stage of the Bill being taken after half-past 12, and then absented himself in Ireland almost for the time he mentioned in the Notice of Motion. He hoped to have an early opportunity of proceeding with that Bill, of the importance of which he was fully conscious. He felt bound to say, however, that the enthusiastic support which it had received in the course of the debate from hon. Members opposite came somewhat late in the day. If such expressions of opinion had been heard earlier in the Session, they would have had their weight with the Government and the House, and the Bill would probably have made substantial progress. The Bill now before the House came down from the House of Lords. It had been carefully sifted by those competent to deal with this great question, and in the fusion of law and equity it was a necessary supplement of legislation already on the Statute Book with reference to England. In other matters it proposed a real and substantial reform in

  363
  the direction that hon. Members opposite desired; and he trusted that the House might now be allowed, after spending four or five hours in almost unnecessary discussion, to proceed with the Bill in Committee.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that this duel in the House between the Judicature Bill and the Civil Bill Courts Bill seemed to represent a fight between the barristers and attorneys and the general public of Ireland. He certainly thought the Civil Bill Courts Bill was deserving of consideration as conferring great advantages on the general public. He thought the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick raised a thoroughly pertinent issue. It really was preposterous that this House should delegate to any number of Judges its authority to settle what should be the law. The rules of procedure ought to be settled in that House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the Scotch Judges got about half as much money as the Irish Judges, and did quite as much work. He should vote for the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 76: Majority 168.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. MELDONasked leave to say that if the Government did not adopt the principle upon which the House had just divided the fault would be theirs if the Bill were lost. He suggested that the Government should agree to introduce into the Bill in Committee a provision that the rules of procedure should be considered by the Irish Judges and then submitted to Parliament for approval. The date at which the Bill came into operation could be altered very conveniently to November, and thus what he proposed could easily be done.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the provision in the Bill at present was that the rules should be laid on the Table of the House, and he was quite prepared to say that if his hon. and learned Friend proposed such an Amendment as he now suggested in Committee—namely, to alter the time at which the Act should come into operation so as to give Parliament the opportunity of first reviewing
  364
  the rules of the Judges, the Government would be glad to consider it, of course on the understanding that the Bill was allowed to pass this Session.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would not conceal from the Government that on going into Committee he intended to set about trying to remedy the great grievance inflicted on the administration of justice in Ireland in the last division by bringing forward a series of Amendments, clauses which would go as far as the Act of 1873, in laying down the principles necessary to guide the Judges in the preparation of the rules.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the Bill ought not to pass until the Civil Bill Courts Bill had been considered.
  DR. WARDdeclared his determination to throw every obstacle in the way of the Bill until the other Bills dealing with the administration of justice in Ireland were discussed.
  MR. LAWpointed out, as to the complaints made in connection with the Civil Bill Courts Bill, that no good would be done to anybody by the passing of that Bill as it stood, without any adequate provision for an official staff to assist the Chairman. Before they passed the Civil Bill Courts Bill they must make up their minds to supply something better in that respect than was attempted by the Clerks of the Peace and Crown Bill which the Government had introduced, but appeared to have abandoned.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENwas also of opinion that the Civil Bill Courts Bill, while containing important provisions, would not in its present state meet the approbation of the House. It had nothing to do with the Bill before the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHdoubted whether the discussion was in Order, and would point out that it was impossible to proceed with two or three measures at once. He would therefore suggest that the discussion of the Civil Bill Courts Bill should be left for the proper time, and that the House should go into Committee on the Bill which was before it, when the Government would be prepared to give the most favourable consideration to any proposals which might be made by any one possessing such knowledge on the subject as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERdeclined to act upon this suggestion, and moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted the Government should be met by a Motion of the kind. He appealed to the House, seeing that the whole morning had been devoted to discussing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and that a division had been taken on it, to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, which would be an important step in advance, although, of course, the Committee could not at that hour be proceeded with.
  MR. BUTTthought that as the battle of those who were opposed to the Bill had been fought out at such length, the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman was not unreasonable. It was of little importance to prevent the House going into Committee if no further progress was to be made.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he would do what he could to facilitate the progress of the Bill if the Government agreed to the course he had already proposed, and postponed the date at which the Bill was to come into operation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was of little avail when the Government was met by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick with a threat to continue to divide upon rules proposed in Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 210: Majority 204.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Proceeding thereon stood adjourned till this day.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to make a statement respecting the course of Public Business for the ensuing week. It is proposed to take the Navy Estimates on Monday, and in case they do not occupy the whole evening the Report of the Poor Law Amendment Bill will be taken
366
afterwards. I am also anxious, if there should be time, to take the second reading of the Public Loans Bill, which is not a measure that need lead to much discussion, but upon which my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will make a statement which may be interesting in regard to the condition of local finance. On Tuesday morning, supposing the discussion on the Poor Law Amendment Bill Report to have been concluded on Monday, we propose to take the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill; but it will be necessary, first, to conclude the Report of the former Bill. Thursday is the day fixed for the resumption of the debate on the Land Tenure (Ireland) Bill, and on Friday morning we propose to take the Committee on the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. The second reading of the Prisons Bill is fixed for July 3; but I cannot now say anything about the Education Bill.
And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

ARMY—THE NEW MOBILIZATION SCHEME.—OBSERVATIONS.
CAPTAIN NOLAN,in rising to call attention, in connection with the new mobilization scheme, to the organization of the Army, said, it would be within the recollection of hon. Members that between the last Session and the present a new scheme was published in The Army List, and discussed in the newspapers, for the mobilization of the Army in case of war. The scheme itself had never come in any way before the House, although certain Votes had been taken for partially putting it into operation. On that occasion he did not intend to discuss the whole, he rather wished to confine himself to almost a single point in connection with the subject. He felt, however, that the subject was a very proper one to bring before the House, because, although the expense during the present year caused by the scheme would be very small, at some time or

367
another many millions might be expended under the Bill, and it would be too late, and some might say unpatriotic, to raise any question on the subject when the formation had been completed, or on the eve of a campaign—Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
CAPTAIN NOLANproceeded. He did not wish to find fault with the scheme in its general aspect; on the contrary, he thought the idea an exceedingly good one, sketched out with great ability, but he objected to one or two important details. The two faults he found were, first, that the scheme was too expensive—not, for the present year, £40,000 being all that was taken for this year; but in regard to the expenditure which must be incurred at some future time, if ever the scheme should be put in force. The second fault he found with it was that, in the present advanced state of military science it rather looked as if they ignored some of the lessons of the Franco-German War. The leading features of the mobilization scheme were to allow an offensive Force to be sent abroad on an emergency and also to retain a Force for the general defence of the country, and therefore, as only Regular Troops were liable for service abroad, there would be two corps made up practically entirely of Regular Troops. There were to be eight field corps, but the Volunteers would be excluded. One feature was, that a large number of Militia regiments were to be sent long distances from their homes. Now he thought this idea of sending troops great distances from their homes had been overdone. He approved to a certain extent of the Government scheme, but he found fault with it as likely to be too expensive in future. The units or brigades into which the Forces were divided were too small, involving increased expense in the staff of officers and in the cost of administration. It was obvious that the larger the divisions the fewer in proportion would be the non-combatant expenses. All the great Continental countries—Russia, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy—had very large divisions compared with ours, for while we had only 3,000 in a brigade, and 7,000 infantry in division, they had at least 6,000 men in a a brigade, and 14,000 or 15,000 in a
368
division. At the same time a corps ďarmée was not so much smaller in England than in other countries, for we put three divisions, while other countries put only two in a corps ďarmé'e. As far as he could make out, the total cost of the Staff pay of the eight corps ďarmée would be about £500,000, and that was only the beginning of the expense. He calculated that the present system of organization would be more expensive by one-third than the organization, of the Continental Armies as far as the Staff officers were concerned. The system had also military as well as financial defects. If in time of war two corps ďarmée were sent abroad they would be found difficult to manage. All military authorities were opposed to dividing an Army into two equal or unequal divisions, as it would probably lead to a conflict of authority between the generals in command of the two fractions when either was ordered by the Commander-in-Chief to detach aid to the other. In his opinion the best course to adopt in time of war would be to divide the two corps ďarmée into three corps ďarmée of two divisions, and he believed that whoever devised this scheme contemplated something of that kind; but still, this, though the best course, would be but a weak expedient. He asked the Secretary of State to tell the House the reasons why these small units or brigades had been adopted? He could suggest two reasons for the adoption of that system—one being that during peace manœuvres there was an advantage in having small divisions, because it enabled a large number of Staff and general officers to be trained, and afforded a good opportunity for making a number of appointments to well-paid posts; and the other being that it was intended to mitigate the evil of our regimental system, which had for its base a single battalion per regiment, instead of the three battalions per regiment used in Continenal Armies. The point on which he wished to get an answer from the Government, however, was not with regard to the regimental system, but with reference to the new mobilization scheme, and as to why the brigades and divisions were made so small and were so expensive, not only in the Staff pay of the officers, but also in the administrative service, and in many other respects. These errors were no mere fancies of his own. He

369
had only pointed out what all the Continental powers were doing in that direction. They had long since by experience discovered that small brigades were more expensive, because they required more officers, more Artillery, and more Cavalry in proportion. No doubt, it was more convenient for manœuvres in time of peace to have small divisions; but as the mobilization scheme was ostensibly devised for a time of war, it ought not to be based upon considerations only applicable to a time of peace. In foreign military states the administrative unit was 3,000 or 4,000 men, and the fighting unit about 1,000, and he should like to know why a different and more expensive system had been adopted in this country, by confining our regiments to practically a single battalion? He thought that the Government had done very good work in publishing a scheme for mobilization in The Army List, as now one had something definite to look to; and no doubt any scheme which the Government could have put forward would have been subjected to criticism, but he wished to point out that this scheme, although in many respects a good one, would entail much future expense, and he asked that the Government should give a reason for it, trusting that they would not fall back upon the answer that they had merely acted on the advice of the military authorities. If such an answer were the only one given, it must be remembered that on the other side there were such military authorities as Moltke, Blumenthal, and MacMahon; and he trusted that the Government would be able to give some reason why the mobilization scheme was specially applicable to England.
MR. J. HOLMS: said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) in thinking that the mobilization scheme was a very expensive one, and that it entirely ignored the lessons of the Franco-German War. He thought the forthcoming mobilization of two Army Corps would prove the unsoundness of the present military system of this country. Whether the English public did or did not take an interest in the changes going on in our Army, the fact remained that every country in Europe would give critical attention to them, and unless he was much mistaken, the
370
military authorities of such countries would discover in our so-called mobilization much that fell but little short of the grotesque. The scheme ought to have been submitted to Parliament before being adopted. It would almost entirely undo the localization scheme, which was adopted by the House at the instance of Mr. Cardwell a few years ago. A still greater objection was that it adhered to principles of organization and administration which had been condemned, and justly condemned, by all other military Powers in Europe. With respect more particularly to the scheme itself, the force indicated by its authors must either be required or not, and he could not believe that the Government would publish to all the world that they required a great many more men and horses for their Army, unless they were absolutely required. And at a time when every one knew that the country was not actually in the position to supply the number of men, guns, and horses which the War Office said was requisite. The statement of the War Office was that for eight Army Corps they required of Regulars 102,636 men, and for garrison duty in all 21,566; for the Militia they would require 221,469 men. The number of horses required would be 85,866, and the number of guns 720. But the Government had only—deducting the number of men in prisons and hospitals—in round numbers 93,000 Regulars, or 71,000 if the number required for garrison duty was deducted. The Militia numbered 100,000, of which number 34,000 was required for garrison purposes. The horses at the disposal of the Government were only 15,000, very far below the number said to be required, and of the 720 guns we had only 342. In other words, we had only enough of Regular troops to supply three Army Corps: our Militia would only be sufficient for four Army Corps; we had only horses for one and a-half Army Corps, and only enough guns for four Army Corps. Well, that being so, we had only men and guns for four out of eight Army Corps, and he was anxious to know what was to become of the other four Army Corps? Why, if matters remained as sketched out in the scheme, four out of the eight would be composed simply of 32 generals and 292 officers of the Staff. He asked the

371
Government whether they intended or did not intend to carry out their scheme. If they did, how were they to procure the men, guns, and horses? If they did not, why did they not reduce the number of corps ďArmée to the number of the men they intended to maintain? He protested against the scheme altogether. It would simply result in an increased expenditure, and would entail the appointment of 96 generals and 644 officers of the Staff.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
Mr. J. HOLMS proceeded: If the scheme were carried out in its integrity, the Army would be short by the number of 70,000 horses, 378 field-guns, 120,000 Militia, and 30,000 Regulars. He must therefore again ask if the Government really intended to give effect to the scheme? If they did, it would involve in the first year a charge of £8,280,000, of which sum £3,260,000 would be a capital charge incurred for horses and guns alone to supply the existing deficiencies, and each succeeding year there would be an addition to our present Army Estimates of £5,000,000 for the supply of the requisite number of men to bring up our Forces to the standard prescribed by the scheme. Mr. Cobden once told the House that he had been assured by high military authority that our Army organization was the most extravagant in Europe. Mr. Cobden was right in discussing that organization, for upon sound organization efficiency and economy entirely depended. A sound formation of an Army Corps system would be the very keystone of improvement in our military system; but the composition of the proposed Army Corps did not comply with the requirements of a sound system. They would, as he said, have the military attachés of every European Court criticizing our Army system next month, and he could not believe that their verdict would be altogether satisfactory. He believed that the ruin of the French Army was the scrambling for appointments which took place, and he was afraid that something very similar was going on in our own case. He could not understand how the military authorities should have selected for the command of one of the Army Corps an
372
officer, however capable, who was over 72 years of age, and had been out of the Army for years, and this when making a trial for the first time of a new system. Look at the composition, of the 2nd Army Corps which was about to meet at Godalming. So far from the men being close to their own homes, the Army Corps was to be composed, as far as the Militia were concerned, of men mainly drawn from the most distant portions of the Kingdom. How was it possible that such men could have been trained together? The General knew nothing of them, and they knew nothing of their General. Why, again, should the War Office draw men from Scotland and Ireland to the South of England for the purpose? Would it not be much more reasonable to have an Army Corps in the Southern counties drawn from the young men of that part of England? Tilbury Fort, which 200 years ago was the scene of a Dutch invasion, was to have its defence provided for by the Militia of Argyllshire, Bute, Ireland, and Northumberland, when surely there were enough men in Middlesex to defend it. In the event of invasion our Yeomanry would be called upon to discharge the duties performed by the Uhlans in the Franco-German War, which they were incapable of doing. Two conditions of efficiency they were supposed to possess—first, that the Yeomanry should own their horses, and, secondly, that they should understand their own county. From a recent Return it would be seen that the Yeomanry in many cases were not all provided with their own horses, and by this scheme they would be quartered, not in their own counties, but in different parts of the country, of which they knew nothing whatever. He should like to know whether the Militia and Yeomanry attached to the 5th Army Corps were to appear at head-quarters at all, or whether it was true, as he had heard, that, being short of equipment, they were to assemble and then return to their own homes? He trusted the House would receive some clear assurance of the intentions of the Government as to whether this mobilization scheme was really to be carried out or not, and whether they would re-arrange the Army Corps which at present appeared in The Army List, or remove it from that publication altogether.
MR. STANLEYsaid, some of the criticisms which had been made upon the scheme of mobilization would almost justify a retort like that of the horse dealer, when some one pointed out what he deemed to be a fault in an animal with many excellent points—"Do you really think it is a fault? For my part I think it is the best thing about the animal." Many of the so-called points of weakness in the scheme were deliberate departures from the rules which had guided the formation of large armies in foreign countries, and were intelligent applications of the same principles to the different circumstances under which we lived. There appeared to be a very considerable amount of misapprehension prevailing as to the precise objects and merits of this scheme. It did not aim at any very large increase of the Forces, nor at any extensive alterations of the mode in which they were arranged; but from the first it had purported to be an intelligent and intelligible scheme, marking out, as in a time table, the precise places where, until further orders, particular troops would rendezvous under given contingencies. From the very nature of it, therefore, there could be no finality about it. It was clearly shown, even from the mode in which the Army Corps were mobilized this year, that the intentions of his right hon. Friend was to test the orders for mobilization that had been established, and to test them openly before the public with all their merits and all their defects, and the last speaker seemed to have misapprehended the real state of things in that respect. To prove that he need only refer to the second Article. If it had been thought desirable to bolster up fictitious strength nothing would have been easier, for instance, than to attach to the 5th Army Corps, from places where they could be well spared, a sufficient number of batteries to complete the Artillery to the normal establishment, which would complete the Artillery of the corps ďarmée. So far, however, from that having been done, many batteries were wanting, and one corps ďarmée, appeared with an Artillery force of six guns only, instead of 90. Comments had been made about the Forces not being entirely composed of Regular troops; and he might explain that arrangement arose from the wish of the military authorities not to make a great disturbance
374
in the present military arrangements of the country, but to provide for the concentration of troops where they might be required. There was one point which it was impossible to leave out as a factor in these calculations. That was that although our frontier was penetrable at many places, it was not penetrable without a certain expenditure of time, and he was fairly entitled to use that fact when asked how regiments could be transmitted in time from one part of the country to another. Criticisms had been made as to the number of officers, the small units, and the number of divisions. Undoubtedly, if he were prepared to go into arguments which he thought more fitted for the United Service Institution than the House of Commons, he should have something to say about the different opinions existing between many competent authorities as to the exact composition of divisions and brigades. But he would only say at present, that there appeared to be an immense advantage in having a large number of small divisions. He would ask the House to separate this scheme from some others on which criticisms had been passed. This scheme was nothing more nor less than what it purported to be—a scheme for the mobilization of the military Forces of this country. It was wholly in its nature a defensive scheme, and on its merits and demerits as a defensive scheme he was prepared to meet any arguments that might be adduced. As to the supposition of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Nolan) that if it were proposed to send two Army Corps abroad, the two commanders from jealousy would do all they could to disorganize the Army, it was too late in the day to be guided by such minor considerations in devising any scheme. Under such circumstances, when large bodies of men were to be moved, was it not to be expected that some intelligible plan of action would be drawn out beforehand, subject to modification by the senior officer; and if there was any risk that two commanding officers might neutralize it, was it meant to be implied that there ought to be a third, so that a majority might settle differences? That would be something new in military matters. Then with respect to the Forces at home and the scheme of defence, he wished to point out that the scheme laid down where certain troops were to be

375
placed, in case of necessity, upon the basis of there being eight Army Corps. Before this scheme was brought forward a Committee on Organization was sitting at the War Office, and they laid down what was the plan that would be most effective for the right concentration of these Army Corps, excluding the troops that were to be set apart for the defence of certain fortifications, the rest being available for this special Army Corps. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) talked about the enormous cost of the scheme, but it involved a mere distribution of the Force now existing, and the cost had not been increased by the addition of one officer or man. Supposing also that the Force when distributed was found to be weak in one place or unnecessarily strong in another, there was nothing to prevent any troops from being detached from one place and attached to another by the simple process of a General Order. The hon. Member had also commented upon the mode in which the Force was to be moved from one place to another, but the difficulty of dealing with Forces was not so great when they got them together, as before they got them together and before they were organized. What they had to consider was how they might best meet that difficulty. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) had also spoken of the anomalies of bringing battalions from Scotland to serve in England, and sending battalions from the South to serve in the North. All these arguments as to interchange had met with intelligent consideration, and all he could say was that the changes themselves had not been in any way guided simply by local considerations. If the Northern portion of England was most open to attack, he should have thought that the highest honour was conferred upon those who were called upon to take part in repelling such a demonstration. In the Waterloo campaign the Brigade of England, Scotland, and Ireland earned for itself the distinction of being the Union Brigade, and well maintained its position in the history of that campaign. In case of hostilities, given a strategical point, lines of communication must be kept open, and taking the great lines of railway as the arteries of commerce, it was desirable to interfere as little as possible with the peaceful traffic of the
376
country, and it was desirable that a particular corps ď armée should be able to concentrate at a particular point and by the rolling stock of one line. Special management would be required in such a case, and that must be regarded as having no small influence on the question they were discussing. There were other considerations which had not and could not be put on paper. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) into a discussion upon Army organization further than to say that considerations connected with colonial, foreign, and Indian service had influenced the decision of these questions, and that in the nature of things there could be no finality about these measures; they must watch what was going on elsewhere, and from time to time adapt the military organization of this country to the most approved systems. The hon. Member for Hackney said that when Lord Cardwell brought forward his scheme for the re-organization of the Army he invited the consideration of the House to the whole question, and offered very full explanations of all the points of his scheme, and probably by implication the hon. Gentleman complained that the Secretary for War was not doing the same thing on this occasion. But the circumstances were diametrically opposite. Lord Cardwell's scheme involved very considerable alterations in the internal arrangements of the Army, and an essential change in our military organization; and the estimated cost of the scheme was £3,500,000. Naturally, therefore, on such an occasion, the House had a right to call upon the Minister for a full explanation of the conclusions at which he had arrived. In this case, however, the outlay involved was no more than for ordinary manœuvres, and, so far as the Votes of the present year were concerned, the cost was not so much as that of the ordinary Autumn Manœuvres. The Government only proposed a re-arrangement of existing troops. They did not propose to bring up the battalions immediately to a war strength. He thought the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney in relation to these Army Corps must be taken as fallacies. He could not but think that the hon. Gentleman had, in his calculations, taken the theoretical strength as it might be on a war establishment, instead of that which was

377
the fact under the existing scheme; but the filling up the Army Corps to a war strength would only be thought of in case of the most urgent necessity. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the enormous cost that would be incurred; but there would be no additional cost, except that of concentration and the ordinary allowances to troops who were under canvas. What his right hon. Friend wished was to see, in the first place, how these Regulations, put into operation in time of peace, would be likely to act in time of war; secondly, not only to see whether he would be enabled to call out a portion of the Reserves, but to test a matter as to which some persons had expressed considerable doubt—namely, whether the men would be forthcoming, and, if forthcoming, what they would be worth; and, thirdly, to ascertain how far the calling out of these men might cause a disturbance of civil employment throughout the country. These were points which should go a long way in recommending the scheme to the House. The hon. Member for Hackney had erred in mixing up two questions which were very distinct in their character—namely, the mobilization of the forces as shown in The Army List, and the localization scheme of the late Secretary of State for War; and he seemed to have thought that the former would completely upset the latter, but the two things had no necessary connection with one another. It was quite true that his hon. Friend, who had studied the interesting question on the spot, had come home from Germany very much impressed with the ideal of the German Army Corps. His hon. Friend said that the men of the German Corps were localized together, that they came from the same districts, and that they knew their Generals and their General knew them. But these were conditions which could not apply to the Army Corps system in this country, and if his hon. Friend looked at the first Report of the Localization Committee of Lord Cardwell, he would find a very intelligible account of the way in which our Reserve Forces must differ from those abroad. Here the men would enlist at a particular depôt to which they probably might never return until they were discharged. In our mobilization of troops the unit had been taken not of the battalion, but of the barrack in which the battalion was
378
placed. The battalion might belong to a Norfolk depôt, whilst it was placed in a garrison far away from there. Therefore our localization scheme must be worked on a different system from the German; and if the late Secretary of State for War were now in this House he would give the hon. Gentleman very nearly the same explanation of the localization scheme as had now been given. To carry out rigid localization would be to do that which caused so much difficulty in the French war; but this would be avoided by adopting the barrack as the basis. It had been said that the Yeomanry were no longer mounted on their own horses, but the Committee of last year brought that point to light, and a Regulation had been issued that no one should be accounted efficient as a member of the Yeomanry unless he fulfilled the condition of riding his own horse. As to the men being well acquainted with the country, troops in these days travelled over so much ground that a man must have a versatile talent and wide information if he knew the inns and outs of all the locality which he had to act in from personal knowledge, and he must rather trust to that derived from maps and other topographical information. He might say, in conclusion, that this scheme had not been taken up lightly or carelessly. It was not announced with any great flourish of trumpets. The sounds which heralded its approach did not partake of that inspired character which had been attributed to them, though the subject had evidently been handled in the Press by those who thoroughly understood the question. No extra cost beyond that of the manœuvring of former years had been incurred in connection with it. Not one single officer had been added to The Army List in consequence of this scheme. The only expenditure was that of the Parliamentary Vote in the usual Estimates. The scheme laid down as clearly as it was desirable to lay down, the mode in which, until other Orders were issued, troops might be concentrated at such particular points as the occasion of their being called together might render necessary. That had been done to avoid complicated routes and other complications. All this had been placed in an intelligible and practical form before the military authorities, and

379
the country would thus have no obscure indication of what the military forces were intended to effect, and without entering into further details, he thought it was a scheme which would command the approbation of the House and the country.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the House must approve of the object which the Secretary of State for War expected to be gained by the mobilization of the troops, in order to ascertain what improvements ought to be made, but he could not agree with the manner in which it was to be carried out. It was not by any means an easy task to bring together into two separate Corps or Armies the miscellaneous Forces which make up the respective strengths. And however excellent might be the Generals and Staff officers, yet it should be remembered that it required long associations with regimental officers in order to make the Staff known to the whole Army. It was only right to add that he thought the sum of £40,000 taken for this purpose during the present year would not be grudged by the House or country to enable us to ascertain how far we could rely on our military organization. But he desired to urge that it would have been better to have commenced the mobilization on a much smaller scale than that of corps. The formation of a brigade, or a division at the highest, would, if placed under very efficient officers, have done more good, especially if fully equipped. The whole success of mobilization depended upon the organization of the Army, and therefore it would be wise for the House to take into consideration the present Army arrangements. The organization at present into companies, troops, squadrons, and batteries, then into battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions and Army Corps was framed on a most wasteful scale, and greatly at variance with the experience of the Prussian Army, which set them an example of economy and efficiency. He believed Mr. Cobden spoke correctly when he said that in every possible manner in which expense could be created the organization of our Army was of the most expensive character. He (Sir George Balfour) did not object to men being made efficient in the field, but the expensiveness of the present Army system was not necessary to the efficiency of the Army;
380
on the contrary, it weakened the Army. The defects of the Army that was sent to the Crimea were well known. We neglected that part of military arrangements to which Germany carefully attended—namely, the keeping up of an army in the field. Germany, instead of allowing her battalions to dwindle away to skeleton battalions and the Cavalry to small squadrons, as we did in the Crimea, carefully filled them up to the full strength, so that the Infantry battalions before Paris were complete to the war strength. In the Crimea, on the contrary, we had many more headquarters of regiments than were needed if the men had been kept up. At the very time we needed cadres at home to train the many youths we recruited, we were uselessly keeping them in the Crimea. Then with regard to the two plans of Army Corps Organization and the Localization Scheme—the two plans did not appear to dovetail together, and certainly the Brigade depôt system appeared very extravagant. If the only object of the localization scheme was that 15 officers should undertake the training of a few men, the sooner that scheme was set aside the better. He trusted the Secretary for War would see for himself whether this scheme of mobilization was or was not suited to this country and ought to be maintained in a permanent form.
LORD ELCHOagreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) that our regimental and recruiting system might possibly be improved. Turning to the question of the organization of the Army, he thought we heard too much about Prussianizing our Army. It was a great mistake to attempt to introduce the Prussian system into our Service when we had not the Prussian basis of compulsory service to go upon, and while we refused to adopt the English system of compulsory service in the Militia. As regarded the mobilization scheme, we might criticize it upon this or that point; but we had the broad fact before us that for the last three or four years some of the ablest, youngest, and most efficient men in the Army had been working upon this scheme, which gave us, at all events, some data to go upon, and the result was that we had something like an organization in place of the ghastly

381
chaos of Regulars, Volunteers, Militia, and Yeomanry, which we should have had without it. He believed that the various routes the regiments would have to take in the event of war breaking out as well as the points which were most likely to be attacked were known to the War Office, and that in view of a possible expedition abroad every transport was numbered and the place of each regiment on board was determined. Under these circumstances, the nation, instead of looking a gift-horse in the mouth, should be grateful to those who had secured these great advantages for us.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKbelieved the mobilization scheme to be an honest and fair attempt on the part of the Government to carry the organization of our Army a little further than it had been carried when they came into office; but trusted that nothing which had been said on the present occasion would be considered as a final expression of opinion on the subject of mobilization. Greater progress had been made in the re-organization of our Forces during the three or four years before the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of War came into office than had been made during the previous half-century, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman was bound to go a step further in the same direction. He thought the criticisms which had been offered to-night were made at the wrong time, and that they would have been much more valuable if they had been made about the end of the present Session or the beginning of the next, when the result of the mobilization would have been ascertained. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought this subject forward (Captain Nolan) that we had too small a number of battalions in our brigades and divisions. The effect of the present system in case England was engaged in a Continental war would be that we should be opposing regiments, brigades, and divisions which were weak in numbers to forces vastly superior, considered from a numerical point of view. Perhaps the weakest point in the Army of this country was its Cavalry. As far as men, horses, instruction, and esprit de corps were concerned, the Cavalry was perfect; but it was weakly and fatally deficient in numbers, and in the fact that it possessed no reserves,
382
either to bring it up to proper strength in case of war or to fill up any vacancies that might result from casualties or loss arising from any causes. He trusted the coming mobilization of the Army would be made the occasion of testing several points in regard to which experience was wanted in order to improve the existing system. He hoped that care would be taken that the whole of the Reserve men should as far as possible be brought out, that they should be medically examined, and those unfit for service struck off, and that the men should not be detained from their civil employment one day longer than was absolutely necessary. He trusted also that the Government would furnish Returns showing how many men came when called out, how many were effective, and how far the equipment was adequate in the event of war. The great object of bringing out the Reserves was to take stock of what we had got, and to see if they would stand the test of actual work.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must complain of the statement of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) to the effect that this question had been withdrawn from the discussion of the House. That was scarcely correct, for the fact was that in introducing the Army Estimates he (Mr. Hardy) made a long statement on the subject, and on subsequent occasions ample opportunity was given for discussion. With regard to the language used by the hon. Member, it was for the country to decide whether the scheme was what he had described it to be. Public opinion, so far, appeared to be satisfied with it, and therefore did not confirm the opinion of the hon. Member that it was a scheme not fit for sane men. The system as he had described it had been elaborated with great care, and put on a footing which would bear a strict test, but its authors did not claim for it that it was perfect in all details. It was the intention of the authorities to call out the Reserves to test them, and see whether they were fitted for the discharge of their duties. The Militia reserves would be subjected to the same strict examination. With reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan), he had taken the advice of those who instructed him on

383
military matters at the War Office as to the various parts of this scheme, and he should continue to consult them upon matters of this character. The hon. Member for Hackney seemed to be so enamoured of the system under which corps ďarmée were formed on the Continent that he wished it to be adopted in this country; but as had been pointed out it was not thought necessary to go to the expense in this country that was incurred in the construction and maintenance of Continental Armies, and they were based upon a different foundation. The hon. Member for Hackney had spoken of the possible invasion of the country. He (Mr. Hardy) was one of those who did not share in the fear of a probable invasion, nor had the noble Duke to whose speech reference had been made spoken of immediate invasion, but of the necessity of putting the Army on a good footing in order to be prepared should it come. If it did he did not hesitate to say that the country would provide, and promptly provide, for any such emergency. It would not grudge the cost; on the contrary, he believed they would go further, and be ready to bear the expense of increasing as well as of filling up the battalions and brigades. He regretted that the hon. Member for Hackney had spoken in terms of disparagement of a gallant officer who had been appointed to the command of an Army Corps. General Sir William Codrington was one of the few officers who had commanded an Army in the field; and though he had not recently been on active service, he had, nevertheless, kept up his interest in the profession to which he belonged, and his appointment had his (Mr. Hardy's) hearty approbation.
MR. J. HOLMSdisclaimed any wish or intention to cast a slur upon the character of Sir William Codrington.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought when the hon. Member spoke of that distinguished general as being too old for the Service, that was speaking of him in disparaging terms. General Codrington having the misfortune to be out of employment had yet continued his military studies, and evinced his interest in military affairs, and he (Mr. Hardy) thought it most unfair to speak of him in such disparaging terms. He, however, did not wish to dwell on so ungracious a sub-
384
ject. He would only say, in conclusion, that he had arranged to call out these two Army Corps, in order to put what had been done to a practical test. One thing he could promise—that there should be no concealment as to what occurred. It would be seen whether the men would come and how they acted when they were brought together. He should have no hesitation in telling the House the number of men engaged in these operations. His object was not to deceive the country by a show of force which was illusory, but to let the country see how far it had forces which could be relied upon.

RIVERS POLLUTION COMMISSION—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
MR. A. BROWNrose to call attention to the final Report of the River Pollution Commission as regards the supply of water for domestic purposes in rural districts, and to ask the President of the Local Government Board what further steps he proposes to take to remedy the existing evils?
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.