Lords Sitting of 13 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences (Ireland).
3a Census (Scotland); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance.
Royal Assent.—Oxford University (No. 2); Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Tithe Commutation; Game Certificates, &c.; Senior Member of Council (India); Admiralty Jurisdiction (India); Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment;
1160
Police and Towns Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment; Labourers' Cottages (Scotland); Militia; Railways Act (Ireland) (1851) Amendment.

ROYAL NAVY—THE RESERVED LIST.
THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYsaid, that in moving for Correspondence, commencing November, 1859, between captains on the reserved list and the Board of Admiralty, he should trouble their Lordships with a few observations on a subject affecting the officers in Her Majesty's Navy to whom it referred—the captains on the reserved list. Those officers, it appeared to him, had been treated with a considerable degree of hardship, if not with something very near akin to bad faith. The case was a very short one, and rested on one or two orders that had emanated from the Admiralty. Previous to the year 1851 the promotions of officers in Her Majesty's Navy were conducted in this way:—Eirst, there was promotion from the various lists by selection, and afterwards there was what was called brevet promotion. The latter generally took place when there was some national event of importance, such as the birth of a Prince. That course was found to be inconvenient, as burdening the active list too much, and making the flow of promotion difficult, if not impossible. In the year 1851 the reserved list was created. The officers put on that list were not to be called upon to serve the Crown except in cases of emergency^; they were to advance one step in rank, and to receive the half-pay of the rank to which they were promoted. Previous to 1851, when an officer was put on the retired list with a captain's commission, there was a distinct bargain made with him that he was to remain on the superior list on which he was placed—that he was never to be moved from it, but should continue to receive the lowest rate of half-pay—10 s. 6d. a day. However, by an Order in Council of the 25th June, 1851, it was directed that captains promoted to the rank of admiral and placed on the reserved list should receive the half-pay of rear-admiral, but be allowed the same advantages in respect of rising as if they remained on the active list. In the case of commanders put on the reserved list as captains, there was no stipulation that any were to remain at the lowest rate of half-pay, and therefore they considered that they had a right to advance on the list and receive the increased half-pay given to those nearer the top. There were three classes of those officers;

1161
the first 70 captains on the list were entitled to 14 s. 6d. a day; the next 100 to 12 s. 6d.; and all below that to 10 s. 6d. The great grievance of this last class of officers was that they were kept at 10 s. 6d. By the change that they made in 1855 they only received an additional Gd. per day, because had they continued on the commanders' list they would have got 10s., and they now only received 10 s. 6d., although they were placed on this list for meritorious service. Their Lordships were aware that a new scheme for retirement had been propounded. Those officers hoped they would be allowed to participate in the benefits of that scheme, according to which they would be allowed to retire from the active list at the age of 60 with an allowance of 18 s. a day. It appeared that those officers who had allowed themselves so long ago as 1851 to be placed on the reserved list were now treated as if the were only commanders. The absurdity of this interpretation of the Order in Council was made sufficiently manifest by the fact that some were placed on the reserved list for not having served and others because they had served. A good deal of correspondence had passed between these officers and the Admiralty, by which Department all recognition of their claims had been refused. He would now leave the case in their Lordships' hands. In pleading the cause of these meritorious officers he was only advocating the claims of justice; and he trusted that some expression of opinion might emanate from their Lordships would induce the Admiralty not to persevere with a measure calculated to disgust the service. The pecuniary amount involved in this question was a mere bagatelle. These officers had been cajoled into allowing themselves to be put on this reserved list, and many of them would now be glad to get back to their former position. Indeed, several of them had-applied to be reinstated as commanders. He hoped that the noble Duke, who would be the last person to wish to do an injustice, would not finally dispose of the claims of these officers in a hurry. If there had hitherto been any misunderstanding in this matter, let there be none in future, and if hereafter an officer went upon the reserved list, with a knowledge that he would only receive 10 s. 6d. a day, ho would have no right to complain. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before the House Correspondence, since November, 1850, between Cap-
1162
tains on Reserve List and the Board of Admiralty."
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had been requested to assist his noble and gallant Friend in bringing the case of these officers before their Lordships, and he did not undertake the task until he had heard some of their personal statements, and had satisfied himself, on careful examination, of the justice of their claims. He was convinced that every one of their Lordships had an earnest desire that justice should be done to a deserving class of officers. He had no intention to cast any reflection upon the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, who, he was sure, had been uniformly actuated by an anxious wish to perform his duty with perfect fairness towards all branches of the service. He believed either that this case had never been properly brought before the noble Duke, or that his view of it was erroneous. The question depended upon certain regulations of the Admiralty, which were passed for the purpose of carrying out an Order in Council of the 25th of June, 1851, on the subject of promotion and retirement in the navy. Prior to that time, apart from promotion for distinguished services, there was a system of brevet promotion, which took place on occasions of public rejoicing, or periodically at intervals of four or five years. Under the head of "captains," there appeared the following regulation, which was intended to carry out the Order in Council to which he had referred:—
"While my Lords have to recommend the abandonment of the system of brevet promotion in future, they are, nevertheless, desirous of meeting the claims of old officers who have served long and well, and who seek their promotions rather as a reward for past services than in expectation of further employment. To meet those claims equitably, and, at the same time, not to fill the active list with officers who cannot long continue fit for service, their Lordships will promote by selection fifty commanders to the rank of captains."
By an Order in Council of January, 1856, this number of fifty was increased to one hundred. These officers believed that under this regulation they would be entitled to all the advantages which officers upon the active list enjoyed, with the exception of having a right to active employment. The right, however, was reserved in the Order in Council to employ these retired captains on the reserved list. They considered that they would be entitled to the gradual advance in pay and rank, and

1163
all the advantages of the out-pension of Greenwich Hospital, and other privileges which that class enjoyed. The officers who were advanced to this rank, of course they became entitled immediately to the lowest scale of captain's half-pay, amounting to 10 s. 6d. a day. The Admiralty, however, construed this regulation at the present moment, though not from the first, as en titling these officers merely to the 10 s. 6d. a day for their lives, without any advance in rank or in pay, and without any of those concomitant advantages to which he had referred. There were parts of this Order in Council referring to other classes of promoted officers to which he requested particular attention. The next class, numbering 100, were under the head of commanders, to be promoted to the rank of retired captains, and these were persons who agreed to take that rank on the un derstanding that they were not to advance in rank or pay, but to retire from the ser vice on the increased rank given to them. The third class, under the head of com manders, were to be placed on reserved half-pay—namely, all commanders who had not served afloat or in the packet ser vice within twenty years, or who were physically incapable of service. Now, they were not here dealing with officers selected in consequence of meritorious ser vice, but with, those who had not served for twenty years, or who were physically incapable of service. And what were the advantages they had? They were to be allowed to retain all the advantages they now enjoyed, of rising in pay and rank, and receiving the Greenwich out-pensions. Here, then, was the anomalous inconsistency of the construction put by the Board 'of Admiralty at present on this Order in Council with respect to the retired list of captains. They were to be advanced as a reward for meritorious services; the others because they had not served for twenty years afloat, or were physically incapable of service. They deprived those who were selected for promotion, as a reward of merit, of any advance in rank and pay, and all corresponding advantages of the out-pension of Greenwich Hospital, and gave all those advantages to the other class, not as the reward of merit, but merely as the consequence of physical in capacity to serve. The half-pay of commanders was 8s. Gel. a day; but the first 150, whether on the reserved or active list, had 10s. a day; so that these meritorious officers, had they continued commanders,
1164
would have risen to 10 s. a day; nay, to be captains with increased pay, and to rear-admirals ultimately with 18 s. a day. The reward for the service of these meritorious officers, therefore, was only 6d. a day for their lives without any advance. He asked whether it was possible to put fairly and justly such a construction on this Order in Council as the Admiralty of late years, and only of late years, had put upon it? Bat it appeared to him that by some regulations they had lately issued the Admiralty had almost given sentence against themselves. The Navy List was published by authority, and it was rather remarkable that from the time this Order in Council of 1851 was passed down to 1856 there was no class of half-pay for the reserve captains. At that time the Admiralty entertained the notion that they were entitled to all the advantages they now demanded, and three of them were actually given the outpension for Greenwich Hospital. In the year 1859 Captain Gordon, who was at the head of this reserved list, and who became entitled, as being within the first 170 on the list of captains, to the advanced pay of 12 s. 6d. a day, applied for it to the Admiralty, and was told there was some recent regulation, or some opinion was entertained, under which he was not entitled to it, but that he must continue at 10 s. 6d. a day for his life. Since 1856 there had been a class of reserved captains upon the half-pay list at 10 s. 6d. a day, placed below the retired captains at 10 s. 6d. a day; so that, in point of fact, these reserved captains, advanced for merit and long service, were placed by the Admiralty precisely in the situation of the retired captains on 10 s. 6d. a day, which they had agreed to accept and retire from the service. It was important to observed the distinction that was made in the Commissions of reserve captains and captains on the retired list. The former were actually appointed to a ship With the addition of "for rank only;" and the latter were appointed not to a ship, but "to the rank of retired captain" only. He held that the case of these officers on the reserve list was almost irresistible, and it was quite impossible fairly and justly to put the construction upon this regulation for which of late years the Admiralty had contended. During the present year regulations had been published in the Gazette, according to which the retired pay of commanders who had been advanced to the list of captains, and who had served more than twenty years at sea, was to be

1165
6s. 6d. a day; and to this there was a note—"Commanders who have been promoted to the reserved list of captains, under the Orders in Council of the 25th of Juno, 1851, and the 20th of January, 1856, will he entitled to increase of pay on the above scale, according to their length of service." If the Admiralty was right in treating these officers as they had done since 1856, as retired captains, only entitled to 10s. 6£ per day, on what principle did they now say that they were and should be entitled to an increase of pay according to length of service? Was this intended as a boon, or only as the tardy acknowledgment of a right, and if it was a boon, why was it so grudgingly given? According to the true construction of the regulations, these officers were entitled to advance from rank to rank, and from pay to pay, until they arrived at the rank of Hear Admiral, when, not having served for their flag, they would be put upon the reserved list of Admirals, and would he entitled to 18s. per day, to advance from rank to rank, and to receive the pay of their rank if they were called into active service. Was this retirement to be compulsory or voluntary? If it was proposed to give these officers the choice of retirement, let them at least have the benefit of the highest scale, to which they were entitled; while if the retirement was compulsory it was one an addition to the injustice which had already been practised, because they were in fact to be replaced in the class of commanders, for the purpose of compelling them to retire upon the terms applicable to that class, and to that class alone. He had pleaded earnestly and anxiously for these officers, because he believed that their case was a good one. There was 100 of them, and the difference between 16 s. 6d. and 18 s. a day would only amount to twenty-six guineas a year for each of them. Ho hoped that so paltry a saving as that would not be allowed to stand in the way of the recognition of the just claims of a most deserving and meritorious class of officers.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he must claim the indulgence of their Lordships, because he came down to the House, knowing indeed that a question was to be put to him respecting the reserved list of captains, but not at all aware that the question was to be argued with all the legal ability with which the noble and learned Lord had just discussed it. There was, it was said, nothing so terrible on board ship as "a sea lawyer." His noble and
1166
learned Friend had assumed that position, because he had argued this matter with all his legal ability and with all his attachment to his former profession—the navy. He could assure their Lordships that he was anxious in this, as in all other eases, to treat the navy with perfect good faith. It was not correct that what the noble and learned Lord complained of had been done by the present Board of Admiralty; he had done no more than follow in the course he found already laid down, and if ho had followed any other line of conduct he should have been acting contrary to the decisions of previous Boards of Admiralty, and must have obtained a new Order in Council. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury) had imputed to the Board of Admiralty that they had treated these officers with had faith, and had construed the Order in Council as it had never before been construed. Neither of those imputations was well founded. Under the Order in Council of the 25th of June, 1851, which was passed when Sir Francis Baring was First Lord of the Admiralty, commanders on the reserved list were to be made captains. The object was to reduce the number of commanders on the active list, and that was to be attained first by placing on the redundant half-pay list commanders who had not served for twenty years, and allowing them to rise in rank and in pay; and, secondly, by selecting other officers for immediate increase of rank and pay, to whom, while giving that immediate increase, the plan offered no prospective advancement. The wording of the Order in Council did not point to any increase of rank; and it had been declared by Sir Francis Baring that it was not the intention of the Board of Admiralty of that day to grant to captains on the reserved list the advantages which they now sought for. In April, 1856, a commander applied to the Admiralty to know whether, if he consented to be placed on the reserved list, his half-pay would increase in the same ratio as officers on the active list—whether, in fact, if he went on the reserved list he should go on rising? The Admiralty in their reply distinctly stated that officers promoted to the reserved list were not entitled to any increase of half-pay. in November last a letter repeating the same inquiry was addressed to the Board, the only difference being that it proceeded from officers who had consented to be placed on the reserved list, while in the other case the officer prudently

1167
wrote before accepting the offer, and finding that his half-pay was not to increase refused to allow his name to be transferred. The Admiralty in their reply stated that
"Removal to the reserve list carries with it increase in rank as well as increase in pay. The officers on the reserve list cannot, therefore, he placed in the same position as those on the active list."
It was obvious that the moment the same advantages were given to the reserved as to the active list, officers might as well be kept on the active list for all practical purposes; the object of all schemes of retirement being by immediate payment of an increased sum, to attain eventual economy. But as it might fairly be considered that the word "reserved" did not carry with it the same meaning as "retired," he had been willing to give to officers on the reserved list the advantage of any distinguished services which they might have had the opportunity of performing: to extend this boon, however, to the length of placing them in every respect on a footing with those on the active list would be positive injustice to the latter, over whom they had already obtained promotion and increase of pay. He contended that there had been no breach of faith on the part of the present Board of Admiralty with the excellent and meritorious officers whose requests they would gladly have complied with had it been possible justly to do so; but they had strictly followed the precedents established by former Boards. He would offer no objection to the Motion, on condition that it was made to include correspondence previous to 1859, so that their Lordships might have the whole case before them.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought the noble Duke, if he had any professional feeling or knowledge of the matter would have dealt differently with it; but as it was he was compelled to treat it in accordance with the information of the Admiralty Office, instead of being guided by his own high sense of justice and independence of character. He did not think that the noble Duke had the slightest intention of doing an injustice; but, the fact was, that a class of officers who were placed on the reserved list by brevet promotion; (and their names written in italics, to show that they were placed there for rank and pay alone;) but were not eligible to be employed in the command of ships. When the Admiralty brought in that most unjust act of forcing a reserved list on the
1168
navy, they said that the abolition of the system of promotion by brevet, and the substitution of that described in the Order in Council, was intended as a reward for the past services of meritorious officers, and was to be equitably carried out. He was sorry to say that the conduct of all Boards of Admiralty in reference to these reserved lists had been nothing but a system of shuffling; and this arose probably from their having to deal with officers who were weak in Parliamentary power, and who had against them the desire which naturally existed in the House of Commons to save money. This accounted for the way in which the Admiralty dealt with officers whenever they thought that they could get a few shillings out of their pockets. Their Lordships could but little understand the feelings of officers, who, having entered the service with high hopes, were suddenly stopped in their career, and compelled to leave the service; but this was the condition of many officers. There was an order of the Admiralty, which went to this extent, that these officers should never be employed. He knew one particular officer on the reserved list who during the war with Russia was anxious to serve; and Sir Charles Napier having been told that, as he had a great and important duty to perform, he might choose his own officers, chose this particular officer for his captain. The Admiralty, however, refused to make the appointment; the only reason being that this officer was on the reserved list. Such a course of proceeding was not in accordance with the spirit of the Order in Council. He thought the conduct of the Admiralty amounted to an act of bad faith and treachery towards officers who had been compelled to go on to the reserved list. He did not think that any system of retirement could be conducted justly, except on these two grounds—that there should be a retirement for officers, who from age and infirmity were unable to perform their duties—and this should be a compulsory retirement; and a voluntary retirement (within certain limits) for officers who wished to do so. Every other system of retirement must be founded upon injustice. Take the case of the compulsory retirement of captains at the head of the list, because they had not served for six years. Why, the officers could not get employment, because the country had none for them; and for this they were visited with punishment. Suppose those at the head

1169
of the profession wished to promote an officer, they could refuse to employ the officer who stood before him, and thus force those officers to the retired list. Another point he would suggest was, that it might be advisable for Parliament to advance a sum of money for the purchase of a certain number of commissions from officers annually who wished to retire, and who would prefer having money, instead of taking half-pay. He was sure that many officers would consider this arrangement a great boon, and that the country also would benefit by it.
THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY,in reply, said he only wished to get at the whole truth, and therefore he would assent to the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  EARL GRANVILLE moved to Resolve,
  "That, inasmuch, as the Money to be paid under the said Bill is a Grant of Supply, and the other Enactments of the Bill are only for providing certain Regulations which are necessary in connexion with the granting of the said Licences, the said Bill may be read a Second Time as a Bill of Supply."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Then the Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD DENMANmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months. The Bill, he said, was very imperfect, and would require a great deal of consideration. A Wine Licences Bill in 1660 had been opposed in the House of Lords, and more time had been given for its consideration. He earnestly implored their Lordships not to extend this Bill to Ireland, as the Bill for Scotland had been withdrawn, and petitions against it had been presented from Wales. He referred to an Irish Act, which gave the magistrates power to refuse licences on the grounds of distance from other houses, and read two clauses of that Act—one as to the powers of magistrates, and the other as to appointing inspectors of all houses licensed for the sale of liquor; and he hoped the Government would introduce a general measure for England, Ireland, and Scotland.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months").
  THE EARL OF HARRINGTONsaid: My Lords, I pray you to bear with mc for
  1170
  a few moments, for this is a question, as I view it, so unpopular, except among the working classes, so unfashionable, too, that no one of note would undertake the discussion of it in this House. My Lords, I have ever been a friend of free trade, but I object to the police portions of this I Bill, more especially to the increase of the public-houses, for it is a known statistical fact that the greater the number of public-houses the greater the drunkenness and the greater the number of crimes. My Lords, Mr. Gladstone has passed this Bill through the House of Commons as a measure calculated to promote sobriety—that is to say, a Bill that is intended to flood the country with wine to promote peace with France, that increases the publichouses thousands, that does not diminish the consumption of spirits, and still less of beer; such a Bill is intended to sobriety England and Ireland ! My Lords, like Mr. Gladstone, and in his words, I have in past days occasionally "indulged in no illiberal potations of wine;" he for his health, I for my pleasure; but I never yet discovered that those "no illiberal potations" had a soberizing quality. Lest I should misrepresent Mr, Gladstone I will now quote his words:—
  "I am not going to propose this to the House of Commons as a measure essential to lowering the wine-duties commercially considered. I wish that it should be tried, and stand or fall according to the conscientious judgment of Parliament upon the question whether it will not tend to promote sobriety."
  Following the example as regards the Gin Bill of some of your Lordships' famous ancestors, I have opposed and protested against a similar Bill to this on a former occasion. Permit me, now, to recall to your Lordships' memories some of those great historical statesmen who distinguished themselves in the discussion of the Gin Bill in 1743. The temporal Lords wore Chesterfield, Harvey, Lonsdale, and Talbot; the spiritual Lords were Oxford, Salisbury, Sarum, Canterbury, St. Asaph, London, Norwich, Gloucester and Bristol. My Lords, I entertain profound respect for the spiritual Lords of this House. I admire them for their charities, for their profound learning, and above all, for their sacred office, as the great heads of our Protestant Church. It is for these reasons that I have ventured to bring to their notice an example worthy to be followed, the conduct of some of their saintly predecessors. I do so the more readily because

  1171
  it might be supposed either that the Bishops did not take the same interest in the Temperance movement that is taken by the working classes, or that they had been bit by Mr. Gladstone in considering this as a soberizing Bill, or from prudential motives that they did not agitate the question, regarding it in the light of a Money Bill. My Lords, this is a mixed Bill, partly fiscal and partly of a public character. It is, therefore, quite within the constitutional sphere of the Peers of this House, and especially it is the sacred duty of the Bishops to discuss the Bill, and to make such Amendments in the police portions of it as they may deem necessary. I speak with confidence, because I have the authority of Mr. Gladstone for what I state. These are his words:—
  "If the House of Lords make any alterations in the police portions of the Measure, the House of Commons, though it would not accept the Bill so altered, as it was technically a revenue Bill, yet if it approved of the alteration, might send up to the Lords another Bill, embodying the Amendment."
  In contradiction to what I have stated, it may be said that this is a wine Bill, not a Gin Bill. Yes, it is far worse than the Gin Bill. The promoters of the Gin Bill did but get their wedge in. Now, Mr. Gladstone, with an iron will and an iron arm, has driven it homo to free trade, or something nearly approaching free trade, and which, if not checked, must lead to it, and be a saturnalia of drunkenness. My Lords, we have the high authority of Mr. Gladstone that the measure is to lead to sobriety. Against his authority, I set that of a king of France. Up to the day of his fall, he was considered one of her greatest monarchs. Louis Phillipe said "he wished every vine in France was rooted up, except those devoted to the food of man." I will now state a still higher authority, that of the greatest and wisest of mankind. Lord Bacon said, "Of all things known to mortals, nothing excites and influences the passions like wine. It is, indeed, the common fuel of them all." Let me point out the relative strength of beer, of Mr. Gladstone's wines, and of gin. Beer contains eight per cent of proof spirit. Mr. Gladstone's light wine has 10 per cent of proof spirit; so it is stronger than our delicious Derbyshire ales. It is composed of the skins and stalks of grapes, of the sediments of the first brewing, mixed with a small portion of water, and trodden out by dirty feet. His strong wine is 40 per
  1172
  cent of proof spirit, just five times the strength of beer. Strong gin has 6G per cent of proof spirit, but as it is sold in the gin-palaces it contains not more than 50 per cent of proof spirit. It is, therefore, nearly on a par with the 40 percent wine, which is a sort of gin in disguise. My Lords, I call these Gladstone wines, because no pure juice of the grape, when fermented, contains 40 per cent of proof spirit. Do not, my Lords, imagine that this Bill will diminish the consumption of spirits or beer. No! These are Mr. Gladstone's words:—"I do not believe that the extended use of wine will act very powerfully in limiting or restraining the use of spirits; still less do I believe that it will act powerfully in limiting or restraining the use of beer." Conceive, my Lords, if you can, the beneficial effects that would have been entailed on future generations if those illustrious statesmen and bishops whom I have named had succeeded in their opposition to the Gin Bill. Further reflect on the benefits that would have followed if the Free-traders had been thwarted in carrying the Beer Bill, with its 42,000 pot-houses. Then, judging from old experience, you may prophesy the results of this third curse. Permit me, my Lords, to give you a slight sketch of Frederick the Great's mode of soberizing his motley legions. It was not on the Gladstonian principle, by increasing the consumption of light or of strong wines, or of light or strong schnapps—such, for example, as the "creme d'amour," or "mother gin" that he soberized his soldiers; nor did he lead them into temptation by increasing the number of his public-houses, but rather delivered them from evil by his preventive justice and the rigour of his laws. By Frederick's code, for every crime committed in a state of drunkenness the punishment was double. Thus for the highest of military crimes—cowardice—an officer would be sentenced to be beheaded; but for the same crime, if drunk, he would be sentenced to the ignominious punishment of being hung. Permit me, my Lords, to tell you what Mr. Gladstone has not told you—namely, how this Bill will, in no sham language, lead to sobriety. It will do so by leading to the poor-houses, the mad-houses, the ragged schools, the penitentiaries, the reformatories, the jails, the penal settlements, and finally to the gallows. Now, mark well, this is no claptrap, that in all these places an absolute system of teetotalism is rigidly observed.

  1173
  My Lords, there are two noble Lords in this House—namely, my Lord Llanover (an ex-minister) and the noble Duke of Argyll—who have shut up the public-houses on their estates. I understand that great benefit has arisen from this measure. I therefore ask the noble Duke why a measure which has proved so advantageous on his estate should not prove equally beneficial on every estate in the kingdom? My Lords, these two noble Lords are not the only Peers who have shut up the public-houses on their vast domains. Twenty other Peers have, I understand, done so likewise; and among the rest the Prince Consort, who represents Her Majesty the Queen in all Her virtues. Add to these that great minister, Lord Palmerston. My Lords, I see no reason why that which has been carried out by the Prince Consort and twenty Peers of this House with such marked success, should not be adopted in the towns by the people or the ratepayers in the way of a permissive Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREcomplained that the Government had made the present a Bill of Supply, with the purpose of compelling the House to pass it, or reject it as a whole. The two or three clauses which made it a Supply, might very well have been embodied in a separate measure, and then their Lordships could have made such alterations as they thought desirable in the other provisions, which were not of a fiscal nature. The measure was simply a police regulation; and there were no circumstances which required it to pass at this part of the Session, when the Standing Orders must be suspended for the purpose. In Ireland, there were no beerhouses, and, in consequence, no such machinery existed for the working of the Act as in England. In consequence of the Ribbon plots still planned in Ireland, it was necessary that public-houses in which these lodges met should be under the constant supervision of the magistrate; but one of the principal points in the present measure took away their control over wine-licensed houses. As he had no other plan of opposing such objectionable machinery as he complained of, he felt there was no resource open except to vote against the second reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEreally thought it would be unnecessary to reply to the arguments used by the noble Lord who had moved the rejection of this Bill, as they were exactly the same arguments as were used by his noble Friend on a former oc-
  1174
  casion against the first Bill, and which their Lordships had refused to entertain. He trusted the Motion would be withdrawn.
  THE MARQTESS OF WESTMEATHhoped the Government would pause before proceeding with a measure which disarranged the entire police arrangements on which the tranquillity of Ireland depended; more especially at a period when it was notorious that Ribbonism was rife throughout the country.
  LORD MONTEAGLEfelt it was impossible to exclude the sale of spirits from these refreshment-houses. He had no objection to the second reading, provided the Government allowed changes to be introduced in Committee, whereby the magistrates should retain the jurisdiction they at present possessed over public-houses. Should the Bill not receive the changes himself and other Lords wished, he would resist its progress at later stages; but the period at which the Session had arrived scarcely justified their expecting the Commons to pass another on the same subject, to which its rejection now must lead.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONtrusted his noble Friend would persevere in his Motion. This was a Bill of a very serious character when viewed in connection with the peculiar, state of things in Ireland. Nine-tenths of the Ribbon conspiracies were hatched in public-houses, and, therefore, he looked upon the measure as one of the most dangerous ever laid on their Lordships' table; for it was impossible that the police could have an efficient superintendence over houses of this description. It was an unfair and unjustifiable proceeding on the part of the Government to force such a Bill on at the fag-end of the Session, and when there were very few Irish Peers in town.
  THE EABL OF MAYOthought the Bill was very defective; but if the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would give a pledge to amend it in Committee, he should not be disposed to vote against the second reading.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought that Her Majesty's Government must have found out by this time that there was no noble Lord in the House connected with Ireland who did not view the provisions of the Bill with the most serious apprehension; and he trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend the President of the Council would not persevere in the attempt to pass the measure in its present shape. No doubt the effect of the rejection of the

  1175
  Bill would be that this particular tax would not be levied in Ireland, but there were a great many clauses of the Bill which had nothing whatever to do with fiscal matters—in fact, there was one clause among the police clauses which had no reference whatever to the subject matter of the Bill,—and it would be most unfortunate if, because there was one clause in a Bill referring to fiscal matters, their Lordships should, therefore, be debarred from considering the other parts of the Bill which had reference to subjects on which their Lordships ought to have coordinate authority with the other House. Nothing was more common, when a Bill of this sort had been altered by their Lordships, than to drop that particular Bill altogether and introduce a new Bill containing those enactments only on which both Houses were agreed. That had been done over and over again, and, unless some course of the sort were adopted, it would be obviously impossible, in a great many instances, for their Lordships to exercise any discretion in matters which had no connection with finance. If he understood from the noble Earl opposite that by consenting to the second reading they would not be precluded from submitting Amendments in Committee, even though at the risk of the Bill being dropped and a new one brought in, he had no hesitation in saying that he should be quite ready to support the second reading with a view of giving to those noble Lords most conversant with the subject an opportunity of stating their views and proposing their Amendments; but, on the other hand, if his noble Friend thought the position of matters to be such that no alteration-whatever could be made in the Bill, and no understanding come to between the two Houses, but that their Lordships must either take the Bill as it stood or reject it altogether, then, though very unwillingly, he should be obliged to support the Amendment. He asked the noble Earl opposite whether ho considered that their Lordships were at liberty to exercise a judgment upon this Bill in reference to moving Amendments, not of a financial character, but such as were purely technical as regarded the police. He should certainly vote with reluctance against the second reading of the Bill; but he hoped, at all events, that they would not be tied down by a declaration of the Government that no alterations whatever could be made by their Lordships in the measure.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas not prepared to say that this was a Bill which their Lordships could not amend, if they thought fit. He did not think that it would be at variance with practice, or unconstitutional, for their Lordships to amend any parts of the Bill, which did not relate to financial matters. He could not, however, pledge the Government as to any particular course in the event of such amendments being adopted. At the same time, as their Lordships knew, it was the practice of the House of Commons to reject Amendments in a Bill of Supply. The Bill had been well considered in the other House, and all the objections he had heard stated tonight were objections to its principle, and not to its details. Ho should regret, therefore, if their Lordships should deem it their duty to introduce Amendments, though he could not pretend to say that it would he contrary to their usual practice to do so, as far, at all events, as police regulations were concerned.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that after the answer of the noble Earl, and as they would have an opportunity of considering the details of the Bill hereafter, he thought the House should not be inconvenienced by a division on the present stage. He thought it would be an ungracious course for the noble Lord to persevere in his Amendment.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he was extremely sorry he could not acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Earl, as he felt himself compelled to divide their Lordships upon his Amendment.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?—their Lordships divided:—Contents 27; Not-Contents 5: Majority 22.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,moved to Re-Solve,
  "That, inasmuch, as the Postponement of this Bill will withhold a Power of effecting a considerable annual Saving which may be made under its Provisions, and will thus practically continue for a Time an unnecessary Liability on the Public, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary.

  1177
  The noble Duke said, that when he undertook the charge of the Bill he had no idea that it was to he opposed, and still less that it was to be opposed by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) on the cross benches. He could not help thinking that there was some misconception as to the object of the Bill. It was quite true that several matters connected with savings banks had been matters of keen controversy in the other House of Parliament; but this Bill had nothing whatever to do with those matters. The most strenuous opponents of this Bill when it was first introduced were now strongly of opinion that the measure should pass in its present form. The facts were shortly these. The public were under an obligation to pay to the trustees of savings banks interest at 3^ per cent, and, at the same time, they were bound to invest this fund in certain public securities, provided only they were part of the National Debt of the country. The result was that the interest due from them was much less than they received. Consequently there was an annual loss to the public, which they were certainly not compelled to pay every year, but which was, nevertheless, continually on the increase. At the present moment the amount of deficit was £3,000,000 beyond the amount provided for by the Act of Parliament. The object of the present Bill was simply to allow the trustees to invest these funds in other securities, and thus enable them to obtain a larger amount of interest. There was another question as to the power which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had far financial purposes over this fund. It had been said in former times that this financial power had been exercised in a way which was convenient to the Government of the day. But this Bill did not in any way increase or diminish the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with these funds for financial purposes.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he felt it necessary to bring shortly under their Lordships' notice the real question which was at issue in regard to this Bill. That question was of the first importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could now at Ids discretion go into the Stock market and purchase or sell particular security, according as it suited his financial views to raise or lower the value of that security, and for effecting this purpose he had the disposal of £40,000,000; thus possessing a power over the public securities far
  1178
  exceeding that of any individual or any confederacy of individuals. All this, which had hitherto been a surmise or a suggestion, was now matter of proof and of Parliamentary record; for a Committee had lately been sitting under the able and trustworthy presidency of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, before whom all that he (Lord Monteagle) had in former times asserted had been fully proved. A Bill had been introduced professing to be founded on the report of that Committee; but it had failed to satisfy the expectations of Parliament or to meet the exigency of the case. Though it proposed to withdraw £30,000,000 from the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it still left him £10,000,000 with which to operate on the money market. This Bill had been withdrawn. The present Bill of two clauses was produced as the only record of the proceedings of the Select Committee and of the other House in this matter. It was inadequate and incomplete. He maintained that there could be no urgency for such a measure. Where an evil was admitted there was nothing more imprudent or more unbecoming than for Parliament to pass a Bill which affecting to reform a grievance did not go to the root of the evil, and provide an adequate remedy. This measure contained no remedy at all, and yet it might hereafter be used as an argument against the adoption of a larger and more satisfactory Bill. He objected to the power given to invest deposits in many different securities. Safety was sacrificed, for the chances of a higher rate of interest. Whether in regard to savings banks, private banks, or the Bank of England, immediate convertibility was the principle which ought to be adhered to, a diminution of convertibility for the sake of a better interest was a danger which no trustee ought to incur. In conclusion, he maintained that there was no justification for a departure from their Lordships' Standing Order in favour of this measure, and permitting it to be read a second time at the very close of the session.
  LOUD REDESDALEsaid, he had previously expressed his disapprobation of the Bill, and it was viewed with surprise by some of the most important savings banks in the kingdom, and he had a letter from one of the largest and most important of them in St. Martin's Place, in which they said they had considered the subject, and that they disapproved of the Bill. It was true that the Committee on the Savings Banks

  1179
  did not object to the extending the limit of the security on which the money should be invested, but they disliked it so long as the funds remained in the hands they were in at present. There was a suspicion with respect to savings banks that the subject did require great caution on the part of Parliament, circumstances having occurred in connection with them that had created excitement throughout the country, and which did not render the proposed extension desirable. The advantage to be gained was small, and hardly to the interest of the savings banks. The gentleman who wrote from the St. Martin's savings bank said the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hands had been tied up since 1858, and they had better not be relaxed by passing this Bill, as it would give sanction to transactions in this £40,000,000 in the market, seeing that funds were wanted for India and for fortification purposes. Any advantage to be derived was far less than the danger. There was a feeling that in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about £3,000,000 of money in the savings banks had disappeared by jobbing and transfer, and this came out in Committee; and as the Bill only took up a small portion of the general legislation required on the subject, and as there was no urgency in the matter, he should oppose the Resolution.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say he did not see the validity of the objection to the measure or that the investments in the proposed securities were objectionable. The general objections to the Bill were very weak. It was confessed that general legislation was required, but it was said that passing a Bill dealing only with a small portion of the legislation required might be urged as an objection to entering into the consideration of the entire subject at a future opportunity. The Bill could do no possible harm by extending the investments to certain securities guaranteed by Parliament, such as the Turkish Loan, the Canada, Jamaica, and other West Indian Loans. Why their Lordships should deny the public the advantage he could not at all understand. With regard to the question of urgency, it was surely enough to say that the Bill would save the public money.
  LORD MONTEAGLEobserved that the Bill would have the effect of extending the agency in buying and dealing on the Stock Exchange on the part of Her Majesty's Government, thereby giving a sanction to
  1180
  a practice which was condemned and deserved condemnation; and the small saving that might by possibility be effected would be a most incomplete and insufficient return for the sacrifice made in sanctioning a bad system.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 18.
  The Numbers being equal it was (according to ancient rule) resolved in the negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Camoys, L. [Teller.]

  Cranworth, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Chichester, E.

  Harris, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Ducie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Spencer, E.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Normanby, M.

  Dungannon, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E.Donoughmore.)

  Westmeath, M.

  Amherst, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Derby, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Desart, E.

  Denman, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L. [Teller.]

  Mayo, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Wynford, L.

  The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill read, and discharged.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter before Five o'clock.