Lords Sitting of 28 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Intoxicating Liquors Licenses Suspension* (282); Lodgers Goods Protection* (283); Friendly Societies Commission* (284).
Second Reading—Sasines Register (Scotland) (200).
Committee — Report — Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* (270).
Third Reading—East India (Bishops Leave of Absence)* (268); Private Chapels* (275); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* (277); Sewage Utilization Supplemental* (254), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, had the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) moved the first Order of the Day for the consideration of the Royal Message, I should have postponed the few observations I have to make, and the Questions I have to put with regard to the course of Public Business; but as I understand that it is the intention of the noble Earl to postpone that Order, perhaps your Lordships will now permit me to make some observations upon the former subject. The matter to which I am anxious to draw your Lordships' attention for a few moments is the state of Public Business in Parliament—a condition of business which so far as my perhaps somewhat limited recollection extends, is perfectly without example. I do not refer to the condition of business in this House. We have to-night a certain number of Orders of the Day which I have no doubt will not occasion much delay or difficulty, and on looking over those Orders of the Day which are filed for future consideration, there do not appear to be any which can occupy much time in this House. We have a discussion fixed for Monday which, perhaps, we may anticipate will be concluded on Monday evening; and we have the Committee on the Bill which will then be moved, if the second reading should be carried, which possibly may not occupy more than until the following evening. Beyond that, there are only about eight public Bills in progress on our Paper, and none of those appear to involve any question of importance, with the exception of the Norwich Voters' Disfranchisement

  361
  Bill, and the House of Commons Witnesses Bill. I do not know whether I am quite right in supposing those to be public Bills, but I am told they came to this House as long ago as the middle of the month of June, and no effort has been made, although there has been ample opportunity, to move the second reading of either of them. I therefore think I may assume that there is no intention of pressing those Bills this Session. With regard to the Norwich Voters' Disfranchisement Bill I have nothing to say, I know nothing of its merits or demerits. As to the Bill which proposes to give power to examine on oath witnesses in the House of Commons, that is a Bill which certainly appears to me to raise questions of very great interest, and without expressing any opinion upon it at this moment, I may say that it appears to be one which would well deserve the full and careful consideration of your Lordships, at the same time when that consideration could be given without embarrassment. But it is rather too much to expect that a Bill, which has been waiting since the middle of June for second reading, should be brought forward at this period of the Session for discussion. That is the state of Public Business in this House, and I think it must be pronounced to be satisfactory. I come now to the state of business in the other House of Parliament; so far as I can gain information from it, and from the authentic records of the other House, I find that although a very considerable number of public measures have already been withdrawn from the other House of Parliament, yet that, taking the Order Book on Monday last, and looking at the Bills which were filed in various stages for last Monday and the days following, there are no less than 55 Bills—not Bills sent from this House, but 55 House of Commons' Bills standing for various stages, from second reading up to third reading, which have to be disposed of in some way or other. Of course, some of these Bills have been originated by private Members, but I believe the greater number are Government measures. In addition to that, your Lordships have sent down from this House for consideration in the House of Commons 18 public Bills; and besides those that remain in the other House, these Bills may again occupy your Lordships' attention, in consequence
  362
  of Amendments which may be made in them. We therefore have of Bills in the two Houses of Parliament, which, require more or less consideration, and which have to be disposed of in the present Session, a grand total of 73 public measures. On the eve of the 1st of August I doubt whether such a statement could ever have been made in any former year, and I think it is a condition of things absolutely without parallel. But that is not all. I find, in addition to these 73 public measures, that the three great classes of Estimates have virtually to be disposed of as a whole after this time. I mean the Army Estimates, the Navy Estimates, and the Education Estimates. Now, of course, your Lordships have nothing to say to those Estimates, so far as they propose to deal with the appropriation of the Supply of the country; but, on the other hand, your Lordships do not, I am sure, overlook the fact that upon the discussion of those Estimates—and upon their discussion alone—can some of the most important questions connected both with the Army and the Navy, and with Education be considered. And the discussion of those questions is of interest, not only to the House of Commons, which imposes taxation, but to your Lordships, and the public individually, for in disposing of them there arise a fair opportunity of revising several most important and interesting questions. That being the bill of fare which has to be dealt with by Parliament in the present Session, the attention of anyone reflecting on that state of affairs must naturally be given to the one measure which, at present, seems to occupy the greatest share of the public consideration, for the purpose of ascertaining what are the prospects of that measure. Tour Lordships will readily understand that I refer to the Ballot Bill. Upon the merits of that Bill your Lordships will not expect to hear from me, nor shall I say one word on this occasion. But, without glancing at its merits, I may say that it is difficult to imagine in what way it can be regarded as a Bill of urgency. There is no General Election, so far as we know, likely to take place within any limited time, and I think Her Majesty's Government themselves can hardly contend that the measure is one which is to be treated in any peculiar or exceptional manner on

  363
  account of its urgency. I had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament for a great number of years, and during the greater part of those years a Liberal Government was in office, and I think I am right in saying that almost all the noble Lords I see opposite, who form part of the present Government, were in office in those former Governments. Yet all those Liberal Governments invariably opposed every proposition made in the House of Commons for the introduction of the Ballot. It is a question that has only of late been taken up by the Government, and I must assume that they have become converted of late to the Ballot from their former opinions. Not only is that so, but it is impossible, moreover, not to recollect that only last year the present Government, although at that time their conversion to the Ballot had probably taken place, were in favour of a form of Ballot altogether different in most material respects from the system which is proposed in the present measure. That being so, I would ask your Lordships to consider—and I am sure your Lordships will be glad of any assistance that the noble Earl opposite can render to us in doing so—witnin what time there is any prospect of that Bill coming up to this House, and what will be the capacity of this House for entertaining it. We find from the records of the other House that the Bill is in Committee. Being a Bill of considerable length, it has reached a certain stage in Committee; but there are still a great number of clauses to be disposed of, and further clauses to be introduced. Without going into any detail as to the length of time that will be occupied by it, I think any person would be undoubtedly sanguine who could imagine that the Bill could leave the House of Commons and come up to this House in less than a fortnight from this time. Well, a fortnight will bring us nearly to the middle of August. Now, I ask, is there any reasonable ground for believing that a measure of that kind, abounding in details, as well as involving a great general principle, can be considered by this House with that care and attention which such a measure ought to receive? I do not speak for one moment of what may be the convenience or inconvenience of particular Members of your Lordships' House, but I speak simply of that which is perfectly
  364
  well known and well recognized in the physical impossibility of any grave and great public measure being carefully considered after this time of the year, having regard to the fact that the arrangements which are made not by Members of this House alone, but throughout the whole of our social system, are founded upon the almost invariable practice of Parliament concluding its business about this period of the year. We cannot have better testimony on this subject than the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself; and this was the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the 10th of the present month. Speaking of the Scotch Education Bill, and assigning reasons on behalf of the Government for not proceeding with the Bill this Session, he said that—"The measure was one of national importance, and it appeared impossible to proceed with it during the present Session with any prospect of obtaining such a general attendance as would ensure its proper consideration." The attendance there spoken of was in the other House of Parliament. Again, on the same day, I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking of a proposition with regard to a Royal residence in Ireland, said—
  "At the present period of the Session, and in the present condition of Public Business, when the House was necessarily beginning to feel the sense of exhaustion, caused by debates on questions of great public interest, the Government did not think that it would be possible with advantage to bring the matter before Parliament."
  Now, I ask your Lordships to observe that in both those opinions, so well expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the reason for postponing the measures of which he was speaking was, not the pressure of Public Business, but the physical incapacity of the House and of Parliament to give that degree of attention and attendance at this period of the year which measures of great public importance require. If any more evidence of the impossibility of proceeding further were necessary, it would be found in the course which the Government have taken with regard to measures which I venture to say will be, in the opinion of your Lordships' House and in the opinion of the public, quite of as great importance as the Ballot Bill. What has been done with other public

  365
  measures? The Scotch Education Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman said was of great and Imperial importance, has been abandoned. The measures of law reform, promised in the Most Gracious Speech of Her Majesty, have never been introduced. Those measures of sanitary regulation which have been urgently called for by the Report of the Committee which sat upon that subject, and which I venture to think are still more urgently called for by that fearful pestilence which there is too much reason to suppose is making advances in its progress to these shores, have been entirely laid aside. With regard to measures for the supply of pure water, which perhaps may be classed under the same head, there is no prospect whatever of dealing with them. Then, again, we have got the Report of a Royal Commission dealing with a subject of great delicacy, which excites certainly as much interest, and, perhaps, I might say as much agitation in the country as any public measure of the present time—I mean the question of the Contagious Diseases Acts. But at this advanced period of the Session, we find that the Government are unable to deal with any legislation upon that subject. Measures for the regulation of mines are also urgently called for; but they, too, have been set aside. Here we have a catalogue of public measures, every one of which is as important as the Ballot Bill, which have been put aside because the period of the Session is such that no attention can be expected to be bestowed upon them, such as they would demand in the other House of Parliament. My Lords, it would be a great mistake, in reference to the Bill of which I more particularly speak, to suppose that the only consideration is, whether there would be opportunity and leisure in this House to discuss and deal with the question of the second reading of the Bill? I am perfectly unable to speculate as to what the fate of the Bill might be on the Motion for the second reading, if it should come to this House. Of course, if it were not read a second time, there would be a close to any question with regard to it. But, on the other hand, if it should be read, it is a Bill bristling with details; and those details, which have occupied a considerable time in the other House, might occupy a considerable time in your Lordships' House.
  366
  Not only that, but Amendments might be made in the Bill, and those Amendments would have to go down to the other House of Parliament. They ought to be considered there; but I ask what prospect there would be in the end of August, or the beginning of September, of those Amendments finding in the other House of Parliament Members ready and willing to consider them? In point of fact, it would be a perfect farce, for it would be utterly impossible for the Amendments of your Lordships to be considered by the other House of Parliament, and I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their grave opinion that, under the circumstances I have endeavoured to describe, at this period of the Session there could be any fair or proper discussion of a measure like the Ballot Bill? Moreover, if the measure were brought up to this House, I should be very sorry to suppose that there would be any justification for the feeling which certainly seems to be entertained out-of-doors. I am informed that a right hon. Gentleman, a very distinguished Member of the Government (Mr. W. E. Forster), who has taken a very important part in regard to the Ballot Bill, expressed himself to the effect that the wish of the Government was to pass the Bill in the House of Commons, send it up to this House, and leave the responsibility of rejecting it to your Lordships, if you should be disposed to exercise your right in that form. I should be very sorry to believe that those words were intended to convey the meaning they obviously bear—namely, that the Government felt themselves committed to pass the Ballot Bill in the other House of Parliament, and feeling themselves unable to recede from their engagement, thought their only chance of deliverance from the stringency of their pledge was to send the Bill to this House not to be discussed, not to be considered, not to be received, but to be rejected by your Lordships, thus removing their responsibility. I ask the noble Earl opposite whether he considers that this Bill could at this period be discussed in this House? Then, I am told there might be an adjournment of the Houses; and this has been said as if the adjournment of this or the other branch of the Legislature rested with Her Majesty's Government, than which there could be no greater mistake.

  367
  One of the first privileges of the Houses of Parliament is, that they regulate their own adjournments, and are themselves the judges of when they should rise and meet. Of course, I do not forget that in the earlier periods of our Parliamentary history, it was the practice for the head of the State to regulate this matter by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. But an excellent authority on Parliamentary practice (Sir Erskine May) tells us that the last occasion this power was used was in the year 1814, adding, that the results were such that in all probability it would never be used again. He did not, however, anticipate the use that would be made of the Royal Prerogative by a truly Liberal Administration; and putting aside that violent stretch of the Prerogative, it will be for your Lordships to say, and not for the Government—if the Session is not brought to an end by Prorogation—to what period this House shall stand adjourned. I do not forget that there is the power by statute of summoning Parliament at a notice of 14 days, notwithstanding the lengthened adjournment. But that is a power given to the Government in order to meet some sudden emergency, such as the Crown wishing to recur to the advice of Parliament, and not a power conferred in order by a side wind to overrule the Motion of either House for Adjournment. Now, I have no doubt that, if it were put to your Lordships that the interests of the public service demanded a meeting of Parliament earlier than the usual time, and that this could only be accomplished by means of adjournment to the autumn months, your Lordships would be guided by considerations derived from public advantage rather than from private convenience. But I apprehend the first inquiry would be into the supposed necessity of departing from the usual custom, and into the pressure said to exist; and your Lordships would require to be satisfied of the existence of that necessity and that pressure, before consenting to such an adjournment. Of course, it would be competent for your Lordships, if the Session were not closed by a Prorogation, to adjourn as usual until the month of February next year, and your Lordships might think it right to take that course. At present, however, I have to ask, what are the public measures which the Government anticipate
  368
  they will be able to bring up to this House; at what time they expect they will come before your Lordships; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any proposal to this House upon the subject of the re-assembling of your Lordships before the period at which the Prorogation usually takes place?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot at present give a categorical answer to the Questions involved in the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Cairns') speech, but I trust to be able to do so at an early period next week. The noble and learned Lord passed in review the state of business both in this and the other House of Parliament, and I was glad to hear that he deemed the state of business here satisfactory. He put a question with respect to two Government Bills. I have communicated with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who will lose no time in making inquiry of the persons who were in charge of them in the other House. The noble and learned Lord stated that within his memory, the condition of business in the House of Commons was unprecedented, and gave same details of the number of Bills and other work remaining to be disposed of. The chief point, however, of his remarks was a desire to know when the Ballot Bill was likely to come up to your Lordships; how Her Majesty's Government intended to deal with it; and whether they meant to ask your Lordships to consider it during the course of next month, or to give effect to a suggestion — much pressed upon the Government by several Members in "another place" — namely, to adjourn both Houses for a certain time in order that the consideration of that measure might be resumed. Now, the noble and learned Lord is quite right in remarking that business is not in its usual state in the House of Commons. It is far from my wish to say a word, either in praise or blame of any parties or individuals in that House; but I think your Lordships will admit, as a matter of fact, that the mode of treatment of some of the business which has been before the House of Commons has also been unusual. With regard to the Ballot Bill, there is no doubt that the privilege of debate has been very freely used; while, with regard to the Army Bill, nobody, I think, will deny that the forms of the House

  369
  were much strained in the way in which it passed through the House of Commons. Nobody cognizant of what has passed can doubt that Amendments to the same effect were proposed one after another; that the same questions were raised over and over again; and that on a great portion of those numerous Amendments the debates on the second reading were begun over again. That has been done to such a degree that Her Majesty's Government, who have been subjected to all sorts of attacks for incapacity and want of knowing how to conduct the business of the House, have thought it necessary to refrain even from defending themselves, lest they should give fresh opportunity of beginning debates upon utterly irrelevant matters. The state of things has been such that two or three months ago the Government declared in the other House that there were two Bills which they thought it their duty to press to a result. Of those, one, the Army Bill, has reached this House; as to the other, the Ballot Bill, it is impossible for me to say definitely when it will come up, for your Lordships are as well acquainted with the circumstances as I am. It is a Bill in which the country takes the greatest possible interest; a Bill which a great majority of the House of Commons approve, as there cannot be the slightest doubt, from their steady, unvarying, and undiminishing majorities; and a Bill of such importance that I think Her Majesty's Government have given a pledge, from which they could not release themselves without the full consent of the House of Commons, to whom the declaration was made. The noble and learned Lord referred to a declaration by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) on the subject. I might have stopped him, exactly as he stopped a noble and gallant Lord when referring to a declaration of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, which the other side apparently wished to prevent him from quoting.
  LORD CAIRNS: I did not stop him.
  EARL GRANVILLE: All I can say is, I never heard such shouts of "Order!" as proceeded from the front Opposition bench on the occasion. Noble Lords opposite had a perfect right to do so, but it is important that any declaration of a Minister should, in a peculiar case, be
  370
  commented upon; and I did not, therefore, interrupt the noble and learned Lord. However, passing from that matter, I must say that he showed a little want of that fairness which generally characterizes him, in putting a certain construction on the right hon. Gentleman's words, without the slightest allusion to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman subsequently gave. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Greene), however, stated that he found an excuse for not voting for the present clause, in some remarks of mine made on a previous evening; but it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood those remarks. He said that he understood I was pushing forward this Bill in defiance of the other branch of the Legislature; and I am surprised that he or any hon. Member should have such a notion. What occurred was this—The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) asked what was the use of the Government going on with this Bill, when they could not hope to pass it this Session; and to that my reply was, that we were passing the Bill through the House, because the majority of our constituencies desired it, and therefore we thought that the responsibility of its rejection, if rejected it was to be, should rest with the other House. There was nothing unconstitutional and nothing like defiance in that statement. I then went on to state, what I cannot think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) could have heard—that, judging from their past history, I believed that the House of Lords would, at some sacrifice to their own convenience, spend the time necessary in considering this measure, desired by the majority of the constituencies, and relating to the mode of electing the Members of this House by ballot. How the hon. Gentleman could suppose that in stating my belief that the House of Lords would give time to the consideration of such a measure as this, and in basing that expectation on their past history, I was offering a defiance to the other branch of the Legislature, it puzzles me to imagine."—[3 Hansard, ccviii. 185.]
  I must say that the noble and learned Lord, in commenting on what he believed to be a declaration of the right hon. Gentleman's, should have made some allusion to this explanation. I cannot conceive that there is any defiance to this House in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am rather surprised at so much sensitiveness being exhibited, when I recollect that in a recent debate I heard an allusion made to the other House of graver import than, anything the right hon. Gentleman said, when it was said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), that it was a House which could not pass any measure, except under the influence of the hatred of class against class, and creed

  371
  against creed—and no explanation has been given in regard to that very serious attack on the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord referred to the question of the adjournment of both Houses until the autumn. What happened was this—The matter was suggested in the other House, but the Government have, as yet, expressed no intention whatever. Being asked by several hon. Members to take that course they answered that was one worthy of consideration; that a desultory conversation like that did not indicate what was the opinion of the House of Commons; and that it would be desirable to obtain the opinion of the House of Lords on the subject. I alluded to the question of adjourning till the autumn or prolonging the Session in a private conversation with the noble and learned Lord, who I am sure will forgive me for referring to it, and who stated that he could not conceive how the consent of either House could be obtained, and I did not understand whether he implied that one course would be more agreeable than another. Now, in the statement he has just made, he rather condemned both the courses which seemed to have found favour with the House of Commons, and intimated that one course would, not be more agreeable to your Lordships than the other; but one thing I understood him, there was no doubt about, and that was, that the proposed adjournment to the autumn was unconstitutional. As to the course which he condemned as unconstitutional, I believe there are precedents for it, and that if the case arose we should be able to show good grounds why it is not unconstitutional. It may be a necessary act to adjourn both Houses, and I cannot see, therefore, why it should be unconstitutional. I am not at this moment prepared to yield that extreme deference to the noble and learned Lord's dicta as to the practice of Parliament which I should have paid a few days ago. Your Lordships will remember that the Duke of Richmond gave Notice last week of a rider to the second reading of the Army Bill, which struck us as of an extraordinary and un-Parliamentary character. I asked the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees what he thought of it? and for the first time in his life he refused to give me an answer on a point of form. I have, therefore, no right to quote him,
  372
  but I drew my own conclusion as to what his opinion was. We all know now what the universal opinion of that Resolution has been. The noble and learned Lord said last night it was not altogether without precedent; but we can find no precedent whatever, and the noble Viscount (Viscount Eversley), whose long experience of the other House, and attention to the forms of this House, entitle him to so much authority, declared it to be a dangerous precedent, which the House of Commons would never allow. After taking six days to consider it, the noble and learned Lord, who, I am sure, must have been consulted in the first instance, came down and substituted a Resolution which I admit to be perfectly regular in point of form. I am, therefore, disposed to question his assertion upon matters of this kind at this particular moment. As to the invariable practice of not considering Bills of any importance after the 6th or 7th of August, I find that the East India Charter Act and the Bank Charter Act were considered at a later date, and that the Irish Municipal Corporations Act was not passed till September. So that the noble and learned Lord was not justified in making the statement to which I have referred, although strengthening it as he did with the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for the noble and learned Lord quoted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the exhausted state of the other House, and concluded by appealing to me whether I thought that, in the present state of business, the Ballot Bill could meet a due consideration at the hands of the House of Commons, and, above all, could it be fully considered by your Lordships. But does he mean to say that, whatever good work we have done this year, we are so exhausted as to be unable to consider anything fresh likely to require a few nights' attention? I have always protested, and shall continue to protest, against this House, which very naturally clamours for work at a time when the experience of nearly a hundred years has shown that it is almost impossible to get it, refusing at a fixed season of the year when even they are not nearly so heavily taxed as the Commons, to give its attention to important measures that may be brought before it. I am sure it is un-

  373
  desirable for this House to hold that language, and I trust your Lordships will not continue to do so. Do your Lordships suppose that the Members of the Government are personally averse from holidays? We were told the other night that the vote of censure on us should be posponed for ten days because noble Lords had made engagements for this week. Now, to tell the honest truth, I would have given the world for the opportunity of making and keeping some of those engagements. There are heads of public Departments who are subject to such a strain of work that I cannot understand how they can bear it; and even though the work is so much lighter here, most of us, after the work and anxiety of last year, would personally be glad of a little holiday, but we think we ought to sacrifice those feelings where the public interest is concerned. I trust that feeling is shared by your Lordships, who have the opportunity of absenting yourselves and returning when you like, and that you will not think it a great hardship to be asked to consider a subject immensely ventilated by the House of Commons for weeks, and to give a few nights' attention to it. I hardly know any case in which your Lordships have given more than three or four or five days to the consideration of important Bills, on the ground that the whole matter has been thoroughly sifted elsewhere, and comes up here chiefly for the purpose of revision, whereas another House has to ascertain facts and make examinations which we have ready to our hands, and, consequently, those Bills reach your Lordships' hands in such a state of completeness as they did not possess before when they were first placed in their crude form before the other House. I assure your Lordships that the Government are desirous in every way of consulting your personal convenience, and where a great public object does not interfere, it is our duty to do so; but I trust you will not think it disrespectful if, when public objects intervene, we urge you to make some sacrifice, in order to settle a subject in which the House of Commons takes the greatest interest, and on which their constituents feel so strongly, that the Conservative Member for Stockport has said it is the one subject which the thousands of workmen, added by noble Lords opposite to his constituency, of
  374
  every shade of opinion, all desire to see settled.
  LORD CAIRNS: The noble Earl has, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented me on some points. As to the Resolution to be proposed on Monday, I am glad that he likes its present form, and I hope we shall have no difficulty in persuading him to accept it; but I must say the noble Earl's remarks on that matter rather appeared like trailing a herring across the scent in order to avoid answering my Question as to the intentions of the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I stated that I would endeavour to give an answer early next week.
  LORD CAIRNS: The points in which the noble Earl misrepresented me are these—In the first place, I never stated that it was the invariable practice of your Lordships not to entertain any public measures after a certain time. I simply reasoned from the analogy of the past the difficulties likely to arise out of the present period of the Session. Then, as the noble Earl has been good enough to refer to a private conversation with which he was kind enough to favour me, I may be allowed to state what he has probably forgotten. He said I had probably seen what had passed in "another place," and asked me whether I would prefer the House to continue to sit and discuss the Ballot Bill, or have an autumn Session to consider it in. He added—"I suppose you will tell me you don't like either." I said that was exactly what I felt; and that I should like both plans so little that it was difficult to tell which I should like least. The noble Earl then said it was very desirable to obtain the sense of the House generally. I told him I dared say it was, but I could not see how it was to be arrived at. That was the whole of the conversation. If he supposed I meant to say, or did say, that it was unconstitutional for the Houses of Parliament to adjourn either to a month in autumn or until next February, I can only assure him that I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was unconstitutional was the idea that the Government or the Crown could dictate to either House of Parliament as to the period to which it was to adjourn. I said that that might be a proposal coming from the Government; but with regard to your Lordships, it was for you to say to what

  375
  period you would adjourn; and I said expressly that if your Lordships were of opinion that you should adjourn until February in next year, there being no Prorogation, I saw nothing whatever to prevent your taking that course. Let me now correct another matter of somewhat greater importance, because it involves a statement made by a Gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, and of whom I would not say one word in disparagement—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster). The noble Earl seemed to think that I had accused the right hon. Gentleman of defying the House of Lords. I said nothing of the kind. I said that he—so far from defying this House—begged and prayed for its assistance. But that was what I objected to—that the Government, in order to keep a pledge made to the other House of Parliament, should insist on passing a Bill and sending it up to the House, in order that the responsibility of rejecting it might rest on us. So far from misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, I have here in my hand an explanation much better than that given by the noble Earl, for it was the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, at the moment when he was challenged on the spot as to his observations. He said, in the first place, that—
  "Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House feel they are fulfilling the wishes of the country in supporting the Bill, and in doing their utmost to obtain the sense of the House of Commons with respect to it, leaving the responsibility of rejecting it on the other House of Parliament, if they desire to exercise the right to do so.
  That remark was challenged, and here is Mr. Forster's explanation—
  "He did not say that the Bill would be rejected in 'another place.' He spoke of the responsibility of its rejection, if it were passed by the House of Commons, being thrown on the other House of Parliament."
  Now that is what I said. The Government take up this position—"We are unable to pass this Bill; let us pass it here, and throw the responsibility of rejecting it on the House of Lords; it will be for them to deliver us from the difficulty in which we find ourselves." And now let me say one word more. The noble Earl has accused me of interrupting a noble and gallant Lord, and calling him to Order on a previous occasion.
  376
  I beg to say that I did not interrupt him; but the question raised then was different from the one before us now, when a statement is made by the Government calling for an explanation which we have a perfect right to give. On the previous occasion referred to the noble and gallant Lord was reading a speech which had been delivered in the other House for the purpose of adopting it, and enforcing his own speech by arguments founded upon it.

THE PROTESTANT ELECTORAL UNION—CASE OF MR. GEORGE MACKIE AND OTHERS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. George Mackie, now a prisoner in Winchester Gaol; also, to the prosecution by the Solicitor of the Treasury of Mr. R. Steele; and to the assault on Mr. Murphy at Whitehaven; and to move for Copies of any Correspondence that has taken place on these subjects between Her Majesty's Government and the different local authorities, said, he wished to protest against religious intolerance being brought in to act on the administration of justice in this country. Before entering on the subject, he wished to say he was not in any way connected with the Protestant Electoral Union, and only desired equal justice for all religious organizations. The case of Mr. Mackie was simply this—Mr. Mackie was prosecuted for distributing a certain book called The Confessional Unmasked, which had been previously published, and which had been found by the Court of Queen's Bench to be an obscene publication, and the Chairman of the Hants Quarter Sessions submitted the case to the jury on the strength of that decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, saying that the book had been found to be an obscene book, and that that was all they had to consider. There was also this point in the case—that it was very doubtful whether the jury had been legally sworn; but Mr. Mackie was condemned to three months' imprisonment, and to give security for his good behaviour for twelve months. There was one curious fact with regard to The Confessional Unmasked. He had looked through that book, and he had no hesitation in saying that it

  377
  contained matter of an extremely objectionable character; but it was still more objectionable that the matter which it contained should be published and taught in all Roman Catholic schools, as there was no doubt it was, and distributed by Roman Catholic clergymen, than that it should be distributed for the purpose of confutation. All the persons whose names he had included in the Notice of Motion which he had given were members of the society called the Electoral Protestant Union. The case of Mr. Steele was heard before a London magistrate, who was a lawyer, and that magistrate granted an appeal to the higher Courts; but it was refused in Mr. Mackie's case by the Chairman of the Hants Quarter Sessions, although that Chairman was not a lawyer. Mr. Mackie had been tried on a previous occasion for circulating The Confessional Unmasked, but the jury were unable to agree, though it was understood that all but one of them wished to acquit him. What he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) complained of was that while Her Majesty's Government felt themselves justified in liberating, in the case of the Fenians, criminals who had been convicted of some of the gravest crimes, they did not feel themselves justified in liberating that unfortunate man, even after he had completed his sentence, merely because from conscientious scruples he refused to give his own bail for his good conduct. The case of Mr. Murphy differed from the others in that it involved the right of freedom of discussion, and so demanded the serious attention of Parliament. Mr. Murphy was a gentleman of, no doubt, extreme opinions, and who put forward those views in an extreme manner; but he always did so in a room hired for the purpose, and not in a public thoroughfare or public place, where he might give offence to passers by; and in which case, if attacked while so occupied, no one would be surprised at his being ill-treated, but his lectures being delivered in a room where no one was obliged to hear them, and where those who did hear them went for that purpose by their own free will, he had a right to the protection of the Executive; if, under those circumstances, a man was not justified in stating his opinions, however disagreeable those opinions might be to other parties, freedom of discussion
  378
  had altogether ceased. What he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) complained of was that, although Chief Baron Kelly laid it down on the recent trial that Mr. Murphy was only liable to punishment in case his lectures were proved to be seditious or immoral, yet the Executive Government, instead of using the force of the country to protect Mr. Murphy in his own private lecture room, interfered on more than occasion to prevent his lecturing at all, and at Whitehaven, though they had full warning of what might be expected, they waited until Mr. Murphy had been attacked, and handled very severely indeed before they interfered to protect him. Their Lordships had now seen what was the course pursued by the Government with regard to these unprotected Protestant lecturers; but what course did they take with regard to great Roman Catholic bodies? One such body assembled in the spring at St. James's Hall, under the presidency of Archbishop Manning, and expressed the opinion that their loyalty to the Government of the country was wholly dependent on that Government adopting a certain foreign policy. He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had recently spent an evening in travelling to Scotland with a very distinguished member of the Church of Rome, Monsignore Capel, a very able and agreeable gentleman, who had taken a leading part in carrying people out of the Protestant communion, though he had not converted him. If such measures were resorted to against Monsignore Capel as had been used against Mr. Murphy, what would be said of such a case, and what would be the feeling of that House? Because Mr. Murphy was a poor unpolished man he was altogether unworthy of notice; but if he had been a man in Monsignore Capel's position, the greatest disapproval and disgust would have been shown against the treatment to which he was subjected. Mr. Murphy had as good a right to advocate Protestant views as Monsignore Capel and Archbishop Manning had to advocate the extension of the Roman Catholic religion, but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) believed that the Government, in dealing with these matters, considered their political ends, rather than the ends of justice. The conduct of the Roman Catholics was carried on under an organized system. Cardinal

  379
  Wiseman, laid down a policy by which he wished to bring the Roman Catholic minority of the country so to act upon elections as to have a weight far beyond their real claims, and he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had been told by many Members of the other House that they dare not express their real feelings openly, because there was a small united body of Roman Catholics in their constituency which was sufficient to carry the balance one way or the other. He did not say that that was not a perfectly legitimate use of the power which these people possessed, but it was one which ought to be carefully guarded against. Day by day the Legislature was giving to the Roman Catholic priesthood powers which were refused to them in every other country in the world, and were repealing statutes made long before the Reformation as checks on the Roman Catholic system. They had a system of education paid for, but uncontrolled, by Government, such as was not allowed in any Roman Catholic country of Europe. To remhove wat as swtyled a sentimental grievance in their favour, the Established Church of Ireland had been disestablished, and only this year there was a Bill before Parliament, called the Glebe Loans Bill, which was for the purpose of enabling what used to be the Church funds of Ireland to be lent for the purpose of building convents, and paying off loans upon them. Great privileges and power had thus been intrusted to a minority consisting of no more than a fifteenth part of the people, and the least that could be done on the other side of the question was that political influence should be so guarded as to secure for the poor Protestant lecturer the same protection and consideration as for the Roman Catholic Archbishop or priest. He would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of correspondence respecting the imprisonment of Mr. George Mackie, now a prisoner in Winchester Gaol; also respecting the prosecution by the Solicitor of the Treasury of Mr. R. Steele; and also respecting the assault on Mr. Murphy at TVhitehaven.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had travelled over very wide ground, through the whole question of religious
  380
  toleration, and had brought forward several charges against the Government of a partial administration of the law. He (the Earl of Morley) must beg to decline following the noble Lord over that very wide ground, and need scarcely detain their Lordships by examining many of those charges, inasmuch as they were founded on misconception and inaccuracy in regard to the facts. He must at once say that he was unable to accede to the noble Lord's request that Papers should be laid before the House, for it was an unusual course to lay such Papers upon the Table, and in none of the three cases mentioned in the noble Lord's Notice was there anything which would justify a departure from the usual line of procedure. Mackie was tried at Winchester for publishing and selling a book called The Confessional Unmasked, an obscene book condemned by the Court of Queen's Bench.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It was not the same.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The alteration was a very slight one, and substantially the book was the same. The noble Lord said the Chairman of Quarter Sessions took out of the hands of the jury the question whether the book was obscene. On the contrary, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions directed the jury to consider whether the book was obscene, quoting the precise words used by the Lord Chief Justice in the Queen's Bench in pointing out various passages for their consideration. Nothing could be fairer than the way in which the question was left to the jury. Nor was there any informality as alleged in the swearing in of the jury, for they were sworn in the usual way, and, though the prisoner's counsel was present, no objection was made till some days afterwards. Mackie was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and to find sureties for his good behaviour during 12 months, and he was now in gaol merely because he refused to find these sureties. If the prisoner found the sureties, he would be at once released, and under such circumstances there was no reason why the Executive should interfere. As to the case of Murphy, the noble Lord complained that no attempt whatever had been made to prevent him from being severely handled at Whitehaven. The statement was entirely inaccurate, for Murphy was rescued

  381
  from the rioters by a large body of police about 10 minutes after the commencement of the attack, and no less than 15 men, Roman Catholic miners, had been arrested, and seven were committed for trial at the Assizes, of whom five had been sentenced to 12, and two to eight months' imprisonment. He did not know how the Executive could have acted otherwise. As to the case of Mr. Steele, it had been investigated at Bow Street, and all that need be said of it was that the magistrate had granted a case which would come in due time before the Court of Queen's Bench.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exercised a wise discretion in the matter of Mackie. He was indicted for circulating a book undoubtedly of a very obscene character, though nominally used for theological purposes. In prosecuting the case, two distinct trials had taken place, in one of which the jury were unable to agree; while in the other the jury were unanimous, and the prisoner was sentenced as already mentioned. Now, there was no difficulty in finding the necessary sureties; but the prisoner, wishing to appear a martyr, had declined to accept the sureties which were ready for him. Under such circumstances, it was unreasonable to expect a Secretary of State to exercise the Royal Prerogative in his favour. The noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had been not quite fair towards the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Though not a lawyer, no man paid greater attention to the cases brought before him, and no man was more competent to decide them. His summing up, too, followed that of the Lord Chief Justice in a similar case. Having some connection with Winchester, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was quite as desirous of getting rid of Mackie as the noble Lord was of setting him free, for, besides the expense to the county, Mackie had been during the last two or three months a very insubordinate prisoner, and had been punished two or three times for breach of the prison regulations. He was a perfectly voluntary martyr, free to accept the sureties at any moment, when he could be released, and the case was not one in which the Royal Prerogative should be used in his favour.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.

  PETITION. MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL NELSON, having presented a Petition of Clergy of the rural deanery of Stepnoy—
  "That in any scheme for the re-arrangement of the Hospital of St. Katherine near the Tower the spiritual character of the foundation and the local claims of the original precincts may be recognised,"
  proceeded to move the Address of which he had given Notice. He said he was directly at variance with the 29th clause of the Report of the Commission, which stated, with regard to those schemes relating to the local application of the fund—that it would not be expedient to fix on the property a merely local character, inasmuch as the Hospital never had such a character when it was originally instituted. As far as he understood, from the very first foundation of the Hospital, notwithstanding an order for the praying for souls, it had a local character. It was perfectly true that in 1545, in Henry VIII.'s reign, there was a Commission issued, when the property of the Hospital was seized for a time, and an inventory was made of it. By the first alteration in the original constitution of the Hospital, Catherine Parr nominated laymen, and in Edward VI.'s reign a layman was nominated, and in Elizabeth's reign another layman was nominated, named Dr. Wilson. But even Dr. Wilson, who tried to make it a lay institution more than any others, was obliged, and his lay successors had been obliged, and the present master—at least the late master—had been also obliged to acknowledge a clause which showed that the head of the Hospital was ecclesiastical. Dr. Wilson was actually sued for non-payment of tenths, and he succeeded in defending himself, by pleading that the Hospital was for the relief of poor men and women. But in 1640 an action was brought by one master of the Hospital against the executor of another master, and in the pleadings of both sides it was stated to be a beneficium ecclesiasticum. It began again to take its own character, and in 1681 the clerical brothers re-appeared. It was classed in the same list with the collegiate church of Westminster and others, and they all stood in the same category. Another strong proof of its local character was, that there was attached to the Hospital

  383
  a peculiar jurisdiction, whereby all causes were tried within the precincts by the Chancellor; and though this was not acted on till the end, he believed that that peculiar jurisdiction was not repealed until 1846, when the Act was passed for abolishing old and peculiar jurisdictions. But he also found that up to the time of the removal of the Hospital the brothers regularly performed the pastoral duties of the parish, acting as pastoral clergy within the precincts. Under the 148th section of the Dock Act the Hospital was removed from its position, and the terms of the clause showed that up to the time of its removal it had been specially connected with the locality where it was placed. And here he wished to say that the remarks which he made two years ago in reference to the maladministration of the funds of the Hospital ought not to be held to reflect on those who filled offices therein, and he was happy to state that when he went to Stepney the other day he found that the lay master of the Hospital was doing a great work for the benefit of the eastern parts of London, at St. John's, Bethnal Green. In the new scheme it should therefore be placed again in a locality where it was capable of being of use, and he thought he was not asking too much, in requiring that it should be restored to the neighbourhood of the now dense locality from which it had been originally removed. The new scheme, which was to have an enlarged school in the Regent's Park, could not, he maintained, be carried out beneficially in the locality in which the Hospital was at present placed. There were there very few children to go to the schools, and very few persons among whom the master and the brothers and sisters would be able to minister. There was no use, therefore, in making them resident, if they were obliged to reside in a place where they could do little or no good. He was pleading on behalf of the eastern parts of the Metropolis, which required some persons who would deal with the spiritual destitution of the district. He had a dear friend, Mr. Edward Denison, whose death all who knew him must deeply deplore, and who found the best way to relieve those who lived in that quarter was not to give them money, but to go and live among them; and if the Hospital were only removed to the old place, the master, with £800 a-year,
  384
  and the brothers and sisters with their £400 a-year, would be just the stamp of persons whose presence in the district was most required. They would effect a great deal of good, which could not be accomplished in the locality in which the Hospital was now situated; and it was for those reasons he now moved the Address of which he had given Notice.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for having presented to Parliament the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into several matters relative to the Royal Hospital of St. Katherine near the Tower, and now situate in the Regent's Park; and praying Her Majesty that in any scheme founded on this Report due attention may be paid to the spiritual and educational necessities of the parishes adjacent to the old precincts of the Hospital.—(The Earl Nelson.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, as one of the Commissioners who had made the recommendation in favour of the present scheme, said, he felt it his duty to state how and why it was that the Commissioners, after much consideration of the various schemes which were presented, reported that they would not be justified in recommending the re-transfer of the Hospital to the locality from which it had been for upwards of 40 years removed. Looking into the early foundation of this charity—a charity of a very singular description—of which the Queen Consort, when there was one, was the patron, he saw that it was founded a good deal earlier than the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) appeared to suppose, for the foundress was Matilda, widow of King Stephen. There was an augmentation of the charity by Eleanor, wife of Henry III.; but the original documents in regard, to the foundress and Queen Eleanor had not been discovered, and all that was known of them was obtained from charters of a later date, granted in the reigns of the Edwards and Henry VI. It did not, moreover, from the first, appear to be a charity that was localized in the sense in which the noble Earl seemed to speak, for it was not a charity which had its origin in any particular regard or affection for the particular place in which it happened to be situated. It was a charity of a special class, and Queen Philippa extended the scope of the duties of the kind of college or body which had been established by the foundress, and precribed that they must see the poor, visit

  385
  the sick, and educate children. But that was not for the benefit of any particular district. The building had been placed at St. Katherine's, but not for the special benefit of the particular district. The charity had twice been the subject of decrees of the Court of Chancery — one in the time of Lord Somers, when several regulations for the purpose of preventing the taking of large fines and granting leases were made. Provision was also made for the education of a certain number of boys and girls. The second investigation in Chancery was in the time of Lord Lyndhurst, owing to what had taken place in reference to St. Katherine's Docks and the removal of the institution. St. Katherine's Docks not only swallowed up the local habitation of the foundation, but it also swallowed up the habitations of many poor almspeople, and their houses were removed and a large amount of population entirely destroyed. At that time it would, no doubt, have been a very good and seasonable opportunity for saying—"We will raise the question whether this charity should not be continued in this place where it has been for so many years." All that, however, was discussed in the scheme which came before Lord Lyndhurst, and it was ultimately resolved in Chancery, 46 years ago, that the institution should be placed in the situation it now occupied in Regent's Park. The arrangement which was then made was not, perhaps, quite that which the Commissioners would desire. The master had too liberal an allowance, which it was proposed to reduce from £1,200 to £800, and it was proposed that the master's house should be turned into a school. Many suggestions had been made as to the purpose to which the funds might be made applicable. One plan was for building a church in the parish of St. Greorge's-in-the-East, another was for founding a sisterhood in the locality. There was nothing in the statutes to show that it was designed that this institution should benefit a particular locality, and the present neighbourhood in which it was founded had partaken of its benefits for the last 46 years. Lord Lyndhurst's scheme increased the number of boys and girls to be placed in the school, and in that position the Commissioners found the Hospital. They thought that the funds of the institution might be greatly
  386
  increased, and so they could be at once by £2,000 a-year, or, if more time were given, by £4,000 a-year. The Commissioners were also of opinion that a valuable boarding-school might be established in connection with the day school, and scholarships were founded, which were to be supported out of the increased funds. Having arrived at these conclusions, they did not deem it desirable that the boarding-school should be located near St. Katherine's Docks where the children should dwell. They believed the Regent's Park to be a more healthy residence, and when the noble Earl said the same amount of good could not be done there, he would observe that while no one could dispute that there were a greater number of cases of distress at the East-end of the town, yet it must not be supposed there were no destitute poor in the vicinity of Regent's Park, or no persons standing in need of religious ministration. He should also bear in mind that children might be sent to the boarding-school from the East-end, and that they would be better located in the Regent's Park on the score of health. In a word, the Commissioners found nothing to show that the charity was originally provided for the benefit of a particular district, and that its having been situated at St. Katherine's Docks was simply an accidental circumstance, and they accordingly did not feel in a position to advise Her Majesty to recognize any local claims such as those which the noble Earl advocated. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not assent to the Motion, and would abstain from doing anything which would tend to overthrow a scheme which had been decided on after long and anxious consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, having expressed his regret at the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took a great interest in the subject, said, he felt it to be his duty to support the Motion. The real point at issue was, he contended, a very narrow one, and resolved itself into the question where the charity ought to be established; and in connection with that part of the subject he must maintain there was nothing in the statutes to lead to the belief that it was not the intention of the founder to benefit the locality in which the Hospital was founded. There was no doubt that in the beginning of that century, before

  387
  the Hospital was removed, there was in the neighbourhood of St. Katherine's a cure of souls, a church, a minister's house, and there was also a large population who had no other church to go to. The first persons to be attended to should be those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the original foundation, and there was the more reason for it in this particular instance because the formation of the Docks brought into the place a class of people who stood peculiarly in need of temporal and spiritual assistance. He knew none who stood more in need of such assistance than the class of dock labourers. He did not agree altogether with the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) that there were no poor to be found in the vicinity of Regent's Park; but he did agree with him in thinking that the needs of those around St. Katherine's Docks were very much greater. He, for one, thought the money might be better distributed than by the scheme which the Commissioners recommended, for it appeared from the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that a large school was to be built in a neighbourhood which was able to supply its own wants. But what was asked by the noble Earl and himself was, that the school should be in the neighbourhood of the original foundation, where the people were not able to supply their own wants.
  LORD DE ROS, as one perfectly acquainted with the locality to which the Motion referred, said, he could bear testimony to the wants of the district. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said that when the Hospital was originally founded the place was not very populous; but the same could not be said to be the case now, for Wapping, Shadwell, East Smithfield, and the neighbouring districts were among the most populous places of London, and this charity was established for the benefit of the people who lived there. It would certainly be of much greater use in the neighbourhood of St. Katherine's Docks now than it could possibly be at the Regent's Park.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-contents 20: Majority 2.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)
SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 200.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that at present the registration of lands situated where several counties met was very defective. A long description was usually given of the lands, which were stated to be in two or three different counties, but it was not said in which county each portion of land was situated. The consequence was that very great confusion had arisen. The object of the Bill was to enable registration to be refused, unless the particular county in which each portion of land was situated should be specified. He had received that morning a communication from certain Writers to the Signet suggesting two modifications: first, that the time for the Bill coming into operation should be postponed to the commencement of next year; and, secondly, that an alternative should be given to those who were anxious to register their writs in the Sasines—that they should specify in what county each portion of land was situate, or if that was impossible, that they should state that after due inquiry they did not find it possible to do so.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, he would not oppose the second reading, on the understanding that he reserved to himself the right of stating objections to it at another stage. The Bill had been hurried through the House of Commons, and full opportunity had not been given to the parties interested to consider its provisions. He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) would give those who were interested time to understand the true nature of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY (STRATEGICAL EDUCATION).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNrose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of any measures that may have been taken for the remedy of or copies of

  389
  correspondence respecting the want of a system of strategical education and instruction in the army and reserve forces; for movements or reviews of large bodies, whether of the regular or reserve forces; and for camps of instruction for the practice of manœuvres representing operations in actual warfare."
  The noble and gallant Lord said, he begged to submit a few brief observations in explanation of the object of the Papers for which he now moved. Recent debates in their Lordships' House proved two acknowledged facts: first, the inefficiency of their military system of education in service essentials; secondly, the unfortunate results of these deficiencies in operations of war; and as the instruction of their auxiliary forces was dependent on the same system, it was, of course, characterized by similar defects. In his Report of the last Easter Monday Volunteer Review, the General Officer commanding (Sir Hope Grant) strongly recommended the discontinuance of great Volunteer reviews, for a reason which he (Lord Strathnairn) ventured to think was unanswerable — namely, that it was a mistake to attempt to exercise troops in the movements of large bodies, and the higher ranges of the art of war, who were imperfectly, if at all, instructed in its preliminaries, the movements of brigades, or small bodies; and if that were true, a second consideration presented itself. These extensive concentrations were very expensive, and consumed the savings made by Volunteers on their allowances, which would be much more advantageously laid out in providing essentials for their health and efficiency—great coats, knapsacks, or canteens for cooking. To move from 15,000 to 20,000 Volunteers to great distances from their homes, with no protection against bad weather, wet clothes, and hunger, with only the questionable commissariat of publichouses and ginshops, was to compromise the health and efficiency of these valuable troops, exposing the one to risk, and the other to irregularities and undue temptations. The gallant officer, in his Report, added another to the long list of the results of an erroneous system of military training which, it was to be hoped, would have moved the War Department, in the terms of the Royal Speech, to efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement. He said that, so false were the positions taken up on the heights by large bodies
  390
  of troops, that if it had been real warfare whole brigades would have been utterly annihilated by the enemy's artillery. In the interest of discipline, of the feeling and esprit de corps of the Volunteer force, he much regretted that that Report should have been published to the world by the War Department. It occasioned and drew forth counter-statements as to which he was sure that the authorities on reflection would frankly acknowledge and regret that they must be prejudicial to discipline. He had no right to constitute himself an arbiter of these differences; but the occupation of dangerous positions by various brigades was admitted by both parties. It was this and numerous other instances of a neglected art of war which had induced him, especially on the eve of the establishment of a new and very large camp of instruction, to ask for Papers which would show whether any and what steps had been taken by the War Department to correct past errors, and introduce a system which would teach the British Army and its Reserves the strategy and realities of war. He must express his firm conviction that, unless there were some improved method of teaching strategy, the coming camp of instruction, large and expensive as it would be, would turn out to be simply a great evil, and, in conclusion, would beg to move the Address which stood in his name.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of any measures that may have been taken for the remedy of or copies of correspondence respecting the want of a system of strategical education and instruction in the army and reserve forces; for movements or reviews of large bodies, whether of the regular or reserve forces; and for camps of instruction for the practice of manœuvres representing operations in actual warfare.—(The Lord Strathnairn.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, there were no Papers of that kind to produce. Her Majesty's Government were alive to the necessity of encouraging the instruction of officers of the Army on the points alluded to by the noble and gallant Lord, and it was for that reason that manœuvres had been ordered to be made in the autumn in a camp somewhere up the Thames, on the model of the system which had been practised with so much success in Prussia. Regulations had been issued as to the appointment of umpires to decide upon the movements of the troops in this mimic

  391
  campaign, during which the attention of the War Office would be seriously directed to those improvements which the noble and gallant Lord had so zealously advocated during the last two or three years. He hoped the noble and gallant Lord would not press his Motion.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, he hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for the War Department (Lord Northbrook) would receive the thanks due to him for his courtesy in answering the Motion; and, being entirely satisfied with the reply, he (Lord Strathnairn) would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for facilitating the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existing state of the Law relating to Friendly Societies—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 284.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.