Lords Sitting of 27 June 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration of Births and Deaths* (179), Boundaries of Counties (Ireland)* (180).
Second Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2)* (172).
Report of Select Committee—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* (15); Debtors (Ireland)* (52).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (134).
Committee—Report—Review of Justices' Decisions* (164).
Committee—Report—Referred to Select Committee—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102).
Report—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* (15–175); Debtors (Ireland)* (52–175); Union of Benefices Act Amendment* (167).
Third Reading—Appointment of Commissioners for taking Affidavits* (133); Prisons (Ireland)* (108); Local Government Supplemental (No.2) and Act (No. 2, 1864) Amendment, now Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (130), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [35 & 36 Vict. c. 20]; Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal [35 & 36 Vict. c. 22]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 21]; Irish Church Act Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 13]; Isle of Man Harbours
260
[35 & 36 Vict. c. 23]; Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses [35 & 36 Vict. c. 14]; Royal Parks and Gardens [35 & 36 Vict. c. 15]; Cattle Disease (Ireland) Acts Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 16]; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 17]; Pacific Islanders Protection [35 & 36 Vict. c. 19]; Board of Trade Inquiries [35 & 36 Vict. c. 18]; Juries Act Amendment (Ireland) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 25]; Charitable Trustees Incorporation [35 & 36 Vict. c. 24]; Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads [35 & 36 Vict. c. xlix.]; Local Government Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xlv.]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xliii.]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xliv.]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxiii.]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxiv.]; Elementary Education (Provisional Order Confirmation) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxv.]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxvii.]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxviii.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxix.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxx.]

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARBITRATORS. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish, in the first instance, to acknowledge my sense of the reticence which this House has preserved. Since the meeting of the Arbitrators on the 15th of June at Geneva, your Lordships have abstained from putting any question which might embarrass the Government; and this abstinence makes me the more anxious to give you what information I can at the earliest possible moment. I could not have given you any at an earlier period; for it was only at half-past 4 o'clock this afternoon that I received a telegram from Geneva, in which I am informed that the Tribunal is no longer desirous of any secrecy as to the proceedings that have hitherto taken place before them. My Lords, your Lordships are aware that the Tribunal met on the 15th of June—the day to which they adjourned three months ago. The Agent of the United States (Mr. Bancroft Davis) at that meeting presented a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence on which his Government relied. The British Agent did not present a written or printed Argument, but delivered to the Arbitrators a Note in the following terms:—

  261
  "The Undersigned, Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, is instructed by Her Majesty's Government to state to Count Sclopis, &c., that they regret to be under the necessity of informing the Arbitrators that the difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States referred to in the note which the Undersigned had the honour to address to Count Sclopis when presenting the British Counter-Case on the 15th of April last, has not yet been removed. Her Majesty's Government have, however, been engaged in negotiations with the Government of the United States, which have continued down to the present time, for the solution of the difficulty which has thus arisen; and they do not abandon the hope, that, if further time were given for that purpose, such a solution might be found practicable.
  "Under these circumstances, the course which Her Majesty's Government would respectfully request the Tribunal to take is, to adjourn the present meeting for such a period as may enable a Supplementary Convention to be still concluded and ratified by the High Contracting Parties.
  "Having lodged the present application, the Undersigned is instructed to withhold the written or printed Argument which the Undersigned, as Agent of Her Majesty, is directed to put in under the Vth Article of the Treaty, although that Argument has been duly prepared, and is in the hands of the Undersigned.
  "The Undersigned is further directed to say, that Her Majesty's Government (while they would consider the Tribunal to have full power to proceed at the end of the period of adjournment, if the difference between the High Contracting Parties should then have been removed, notwithstanding the non-delivery on this day of the Argument by the Undersigned) continue, while requesting this adjournment, to reserve all Her Majesty's rights, in the event of an agreement not being finally arrived at, in the same manner as was expressed in the note addressed by the Undersigned to Count Sclopis on the 15th April."—[North America. No. 10 (1872)].
  The noble Earl proceeded to read a Minute of the further proceedings before the Tribunal, as follows:—
  "The Conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the Arbitrators were present.
  "Lord Tenterden and Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis attended the Conference as Agents of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States respectively.
  "Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then delivered in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to Lord Tenterden, the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence on which his Government relies.
  "Lord Tenterden then, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, presented the note of which a copy is annexed, requesting an adjournment of the Tribunal for the reasons therein stated, for such a period as might enable a Supplementary Convention to be concluded and ratified between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States.
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis stated that he could not say what would be the views of his Government on this motion, until he should know the time for which the adjournment was asked.
  262
  "Lord Tenterden slated that Her Britannic Majesty's Government believed that in order to afford time for the consideration of a Supplementary Convention by the Senate of the United States in their session commencing in December next, and for its subsequent consideration by Her Britannic Majesty's Government and for its ratification by the High Contracting Parties respectively, it would be requisite that the adjournment should be for a period of eight months, but that power might be reserved for the Arbitrators to meet at any earlier date, upon being convened for that purpose by the Secretary of the Tribunal upon the joint request in writing of the Agents of the two Governments.
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis said that his instructions did not yet enable him to state to the Arbitrators the views of the Government of the United States on this motion in full. He said that he was in telegraphic communication with his Government and he asked an adjournment until Monday, the 17th instant.
  "The Tribunal decided that the Protocols should be signed by the President and Secretary of the Tribunal, and the Agents of the two Governments."
  The Conference was then adjourned to Monday, the 17th day of June, at 2 o'clock.
  When the Conference met on the 17th, pursuant to adjournment, Mr. Bancroft Davis, the United States Agent stated that he was still without definitive instructions from his Government regarding the request of the British Agent for adjournment, and suggested a further adjournment of the Tribunal until the 19th inst., and Lord Tenterden making no objection, the Conference was adjourned accordingly. At the meeting on the 19th, Count Sclopis, on behalf of the Arbitrators, made the following statement:—
  "The application of the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government being now before the Arbitrators, the President of the Tribunal (Count Sclopis) proposes to make the following communication on the part of the Arbitrators to the parties interested.
  "The Arbitrators wish it to be understood that, in the observations which they are about to make, they have in view solely the application of the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government which is now before them for an adjournment, which might be prolonged till the month of February in next year; and the motives for that application, viz., the difference of opinion which exists between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as to the competency of the Tribunal, under the Treaty of Washington, to deal with the claims advanced in the Case of the United States in respect of losses under the several heads of:—(1) the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag; (2) the enhanced payments of insurance; and (3) the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion; and the hope, which Her Britannic Majesty's Government does not abandon, that if sufficient

  263
  time were given for that purpose, a solution of the difficulty which has thus arisen, by the negotiation of a Supplementary Convention between the two Governments, might be found practicable.
  "The Arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two Governments as to the interpretation or effect of the Treaty. But it seems to them obvious that the substantial object of the adjournment must be to give the two Governments an opportunity of determining whether the claims in question shall, or shall not, be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators; and that any difference between the two Governments on this point may make the adjournment unproductive of any useful effect, and, after a delay of many months, during which both nations may be kept in a state of painful suspense, may end in a result which, it is to be presumed, both Governments would equally deplore, that of making this Arbitration wholly abortive. This being so, the Arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon.
  "With a view to the settlement of the other claims to the consideration of which by the Tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the Arbitrators have thought it desirable to lay before the parties this expression of the views they have formed upon the question of public law involved, in order that after this declaration by the Tribunal it may be considered by the Government of the United States whether any course can be adopted respecting the first-mentioned claims which would relieve the Tribunal from the necessity of deciding upon the present application of Her Britannic Majesty's Government."—[Ibid.]
  There will be some little difficulty for your Lordships in following a statement of this character, read for the first time; but I think it will strike your Lordships who have listened to it that in this declaration the Arbitrators avoid saying anything which might be objectionable to the Government of the United States or to the Government of Her Majesty. They do not assume jurisdiction, or propose now or hereafter to make any award or judicial deliverance. They make the principle of the Declaration extend not only to the disallowance, but to the exclusion from consideration of these Claims. They avoid, in the statement of their view, the use of language which could be cited hereafter as laying down any larger principle than that
  264
  really involved in the immediate controversy, or which could be made use of in the progress of the Arbitration itself as to any of the other Claims, as implying anything in their favour. They did not throw in any way upon Her Majesty's Government the burden of taking the action which ought to follow upon the Declaration. After the President of the Tribunal had read the Declaration, he asked Lord Tenterden if he had anything to say. Lord Tenterden replied—"Nothing." He then asked the United States' Agent, who requested an adjournment, to enable him to communicate the Declaration to his Government and get instructions on it. The Tribunal adjourned until the 26th of June; but, as the American Agent received his instructions somewhat earlier than he had expected, the Chairman of the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, convened a meeting for Tuesday last—the day before yesterday. At the meeting of the Tribunal on the 25th inst., the United States' Agent made the following statement:—
  "The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of the Tribunal for: 1st, the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag; 2ndly, the enhanced payments of insurance; and 3rdly, the prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved.
  "The Agent of the United States is authorized to say that, consequently, the above mentioned claims will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made."—[Ibid.]
  When the United States' Agent had made this statement, the British Agent said that he would inform his Government of the Declaration made by the Arbitrators on the 19th inst., and of the statement now made by the Agent of the United States, and request their instructions. The Tribunal then adjourned till Thursday (this day) at 11 A.M. At the meeting of the Tribunal to-day the British Agent read the following statement:—
  "The Undersigned, Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, is authorized, by Her Majesty's Government, to state that Her Majesty's Government find in the communication on the part of the Arbitrators, recorded in the Protocol of their proceedings of the 19th instant, nothing to which they cannot assent, consistently with the view of

  265
  the interpretation and effect of the Treaty of Washington hitherto maintained by them; and being informed of the statement made on the 25th instant by the Agent of the United States, that the several claims particularly mentioned in that statement will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made; and assuming that the Arbitrators will, upon such statement, think fit now to declare that the said several claims are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from their consideration, and will embody such declaration in their Protocol of this day's proceedings; they have instructed the Undersigned, upon this being done, to request leave to withdraw the application made by him to the Tribunal on the 15th instant for such an adjournment as might enable a Supplementary Convention to be concluded and ratified between the High Contracting Parties; and to request leave to deliver the printed Argument, now in the hands of the Undersigned, which has been prepared on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government under the Vth Article of the Treaty, with reference to the other claims, to the consideration of which by the Tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Majesty's Government."
  I have only just received the concluding portion of these proceedings, to this effect, that—
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis said, that he made no objection to the granting of the request made by Lord Tenterden, to be permitted to withdraw his application for an adjournment, and to file the Argument of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.
  "Count Sclopis, on behalf of all the Arbitrators, then declared that the said several claims for indirect losses mentioned in the statement made by the Agent of the United States on the 25th instant, and referred to in the statement just made by the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal; and directed the Secretary to embody this declaration in the Protocol of this day's proceedings.
  "He at the same time informed Lord Tenterden that the Tribunal assented to his request for leave to withdraw his application for a prolonged adjournment, and also to his request for leave to deliver the printed Argument which had been prepared on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.
  "Lord Tenterden then presented copies of the Argument in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the United States."—[Ibid.]
  Count Sclopis then read a paper about the importance of the functions of the Tribunal. The question of adjournment and further arguments by counsel is being considered. My Lords, I ask for no judgment on the statement which I have made—briefly, but with, I believe, complete accuracy. I thought it right to put your Lordships in possession as soon as possible of what has passed; and I cannot help expressing a
  266
  hope that when the Papers are presented to your Lordships—which will be as soon as we have received the written Despatches—and when those Papers are fully considered, your Lordships will be of opinion that not only do they meet the views of Her Majesty's Government and of the American Government, but that they are perfectly consistent with the honour and interest of the two countries. And I trust, further, that they will afford some evidence that the friendly relations between these two great and kindred nations will prove to be so sound that not only will they maintain harmonious feeling when things go smoothly, but that they can also resist the shock of those differences of opinion which must occasionally arise between two countries so constantly in contact in so many ways and on so many subjects. My Lords, I beg to thank you for your kind attention.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be glad to have heard at the earliest possible moment the document which the noble Earl has just read. So far as I have been able to gather their import, it would rather appear—speaking in simple language—that the result of the whole is, that the Arbitrators at Geneva have decided the particular and special point which I thought we had all agreed they should not be allowed to decide—namely, the scope and extent of the Treaty, and the question of what should properly come under their cognizance by virtue of that Treaty. As well as I can gather, the American Government have taken this decision of the Arbitrators on the Indirect Claims as a decision they have all along said they wished to be arrived at by the Arbitrators. I must congratulate your Lordships that, as things have turned out, that decision has been in favour of this country; but we should have been in a very awkward position if it had been the other way.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the discussion; but I utterly deny that we should have been in any false position whatever by a spontaneous declaration of the Arbitrators, whatever might have been their decision.
  LORD BUCKHURST: After the most important statement just made by the noble Earl, I will, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw my Notice on the Paper of this evening.

ARMY—THE PURCHASE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD (The Earl of BESSBOROUGH)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of this House, of the 18th instant, as follows:—
  "I have received your Address praying that a Commission may be issued to inquire into the alleged injustice towards the Captains of the late Purchase Corps, occasioned by their supposed supersession by the first captains of the Scientific Corps, and further to inquire whether the intended advancement of the first captains of the Royal Artillery and Engineers to the rank of field officers would have the effect of removing the slowness of promotion in those corps, and as to the best means of remedying the same, and that in the meantime, until the Report of the Commission, the publication of the Royal Warrant may be delayed."
  "I have been advised that the establishment in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers of the rank of major, already existing in the other branches of the service, having been decided upon, after full consideration, and provision having been made for carrying the arrangement into effect, the revocation or delay of that arrangement would be inexpedient."
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought this reply so unsatisfactory that he begged to move the adjournment of the House in order to give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the noble Earl was hardly in order in taking so unusual a course on the occasion of an Answer by Her Majesty to an Address.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas of opinion that his noble Friend was quite in Order, and that there was no rule of the House to prevent such a course.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsubmitted that he was quite in Order in making the Motion for adjournment. A Motion for inquiry had been carried as to the complaints of a certain class of officers with respect to promotion. They asserted that their interests had been seriously prejudiced by recent arrangements. It was clear that the case required further consideration. A Committee had recommended an inquiry, and Her Majesty's Government had advised the Queen not to grant a Commission. He should, therefore, persist in his Motion that the House do now adjourn.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."—(The Earl of Longford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, nothing was further from his purpose than to express an opinion on the abstract question as to the circumstances under which it was or was not the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to give effect to an Address of their Lordships' House; but he did say that if ever there was an occasion when a Government was justified in advising Her Majesty not to give effect to such an Address, it was in the present instance. The whole question of the position of the Scientific Corps had been debated for several years, and had been fully and fairly considered by the public and Parliament—so that there could be no allegation of surprise, or that what had been done had been done without consideration. For six years the subject had been under the consideration of successive Governments, and at the commencement of the present Session Notice of the intention of the Government with respect to it was given by the Secretary of State in his speech in moving the Army Estimates on the 22nd of February, in no ambiguous language; and on the 11th of March, when the Vote of the number of men was passed, the attention of the House of Commons was drawn to the matter, and the Secretary of State repeated again in language as unmistakable his intention to adhere to his plan. All this had given rise to expectations which, he thought, it would be extremely unwise to disappoint at the last moment. On the 31st of May the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Abinger), for the first time, called attention to the subject in their Lordships' House; and then, at the eleventh hour, when the Government was prepared to give effect to the intention of the War Department, the noble and gallant Lord brought it forward a second time. This was on the 18th of June, and on that occasion, after a discussion, a division was taken in a House of 83, and the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord for an Address to the Crown was carried by a majority of 3. He should have hesitated to call attention to the composition of that majority—indeed, he did not think he would have done so—but for a statement of a noble and gallant Lord to the effect that the Scientific Corps was too well represented in the War Department.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDbegged to interrupt the noble Marquess. He hoped the noble Earl who led that House would confine the noble Marquess to the question of adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould not but think he was in Order and perfectly justified in alluding to the composition of the majority after the reference that had been made to the supposed influence of the Scientific Corps at the War Department. If the Scientific Corps were too well represented at the War Office, how were they represented in their Lordships' House? It was not too much to say that they were almost unrepresented, while of the majority by which the Address had been carried in their Lordships' House, he found that 19 had been officers in the Guards or in the Line, 7 had brothers in the Guards, 5 had brothers in the Line, and 2 had near relations in the Guards—so that out of the whole number of 42, only 9 were unconnected with the Guards or the Line. Under these circumstances, and considering that the other House of Parliament had expressed its opinion on the subject in the most deliberate manner, and had made provision for enabling the Government to carry the plan of the Secretary for War into effect, he submitted that Her Majesty's Ministers had had no other course open to them than that of advising Her Majesty not to give effect to the Address of their Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, this is one more illustration of the manner in which any claim for justice on the part of the Army is likely to be met by Her Majesty's present Ministers. I do not think that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has succeeded in making out any case to justify the conclusion at which the Ministers have arrived. I venture to repeat what I said on a former occasion—that the arguments used in support of the Address to the Crown proposed by my noble and gallant Friend were left wholly unanswered, and I am surprised, astonished, and grieved to hear the noble Marquess assert that the wishes of the majority of your Lordships ought not to have any weight given to them in a matter of this great importance. The noble Marquess has taken the trouble to analyze the division on that Motion, and has attributed motives to the noble Lords who composed the majority on that oc-
  270
  casion. Now, if there be the smallest foundation in fact for the insinuation conveyed by the noble Marquess, I say that not one of those noble Lords to whom the noble Marquess so pointedly referred is worthy of a seat in this House. I assert that the noble Lords who had been officers in the Guards or in the Line were the most competent to deal with this subject. The noble Marquess, however, imputed to them having voted in a particular way through having either served in the Guards or the Line themselves, and through having relatives who have so served. My Lords, I am proud to think that I have relations in both those corps, and I deny that that fact should furnish any reason against the expression of my opinions upon this question when it arises. If the noble Marquess meant anything by his references to the connections of noble Lords, he must have meant that the noble Lords alluded to were actuated by interested motives in voting with the majority in favour of the Address to the Crown. If the noble Marquess did not mean to convey such an imputation he should not have mentioned the matter at all.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he saw no occasion for the introduction of any acrimonious tone into this debate, and should be careful himself to add nothing to it. He would venture to remind their Lordships of the advice given by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief on a former occasion—that nothing should be said or done which might be calculated to array the Guards and the Line on one side and the Scientific Corps on the other, in a question relating to the welfare of the Army. He was happy to acknowledge that during the greater portion of the debate on the Motion for the Address, the tone of moderation in which that Motion had been introduced by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Abinger) had been maintained by their Lordships; but he must say he thought it was a bold assumption on the part of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) to say that the arguments were all on one side, that being the side which the noble Duke himself advocated. Now those who took the other side held exactly the same thing with respect to their views. He did not mean to say who was right; but he thought the attack made on his noble Friend the Under Secretary for

  271
  War was a most unfair one. A noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Longford) had stated that the Scientific Corps were very strongly represented at the War Office—the object of that assertion evidently being to lead their Lordships to the conclusion that in arriving at a conclusion on this question the War Department had been swayed by the Scientific Corps. In reply to such an argument, it was quite legitimate for his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to refer to the composition of the majority who voted in favour of the Address. He had not heard a single word from his noble Friend imputing unworthy motives to the other side; but when the noble Duke said it was monstrous to suppose that the views of noble Lords could be influenced in the slightest degree by their connection with the Army, or by their having relatives in the Guards and the Line, he must observe that, after all, human nature was human nature, and that esprit de corps not only existed but was very strong in the Army; and when a question like the one now before their Lordships was made the subject of discussion it was impossible that there should not be some bias imported into it. He was quite sure, however, that on reflection the noble Duke would be the last to suppose that the noble Marquess would charge any of their Lordships with being actuated by unworthy motives.
  LORD SANDHURSTsaid, he would not enter into any question as to the composition of the majority—he proposed to go into the character of the Motion itself, and to ask what was the question involved in the Motion. That question was twofold. The first question put to their Lordships was, not whether it was desirable to do away with the measure of the Secretary of State for War, but whether it was desirable to have an inquiry into the grievance which it was alleged would be suffered by between 500 and 600 officers. The second question proposed to their Lordships was, whether the objects which had been suggested by the Committees of 1867 and 1869 would be carried out by the plan of the Secretary for War. On both these points the greatest doubts had been expressed, and from Returns which had been referred to in their Lordships' House in proof of those grievances—so far as a superficial examination of them enabled him to judge, he was of opinion that they had been established. Seeing,
  272
  then, that there was this difference of opinion, were they to be told by the noble Marquess the Under Secretary for War that they were actuated by interested motives in voting so moderate a demand—because he must accept the interpretation put on the remarks of the noble Marquess by the noble Duke opposite? If the noble Marquess had no intention of attributing motives to certain noble Lords when he said they had served or had relatives in the Guards or the Line—then he was at a loss to know the meaning of his words. Again, their Lordships had been told that this plan had been debated for six years. If any debate such as that referred to by the noble Marquess had been held, it must have been held behind the official curtain. The question of promotion—especially in reference to the Royal Engineers, was one demanding the most serious consideration, and Committees had sat and reported upon it; but he was not aware that the particular measure which now formed the subject of debate had been recommended by a Committee or had been put before their Lordships in a practical shape. So far as he knew, the other side of the question was never really stated until the other night. He had often heard the matter mentioned in private conversation, but he never recollected that the question as to whether or not this particular means of promotion in respect to the Ordnance Corps had ever been brought distinctly forward—certainly, he had never heard of the scheme till last February, and he was not now aware that this measure had ever been debated in public before that period. It had long been admitted that promotion in the Ordnance Corps should be guaranteed—that it should not be of a temporary or provisional character; but he did not think it had been intended that the promotion of the officers of the Artillery and the Engineers should interfere with that general flow of military promotion which had been the object of inquiry and consideration by the Committees.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, he could quite understand that the decision of this question must be a matter which caused considerable trouble. The Artillery and the Engineers were strong and compact bodies, and they did surround the War Office with very great power—there could be no doubt of it—and he thought that they would eventually have to re-

  273
  cede from the step they had taken. His main object in bringing forward the Motion for the Address was that the officers in the Army should have an opportunity of making their case known. He thought that the remarks which had been made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) reflected unjustly upon those who were connected with the Army, and who disclaimed any wish to do injustice to the rest of the Army. No doubt the majority of noble Lords upon his side of the House were connected with the Army, many of them being soldiers themselves; but so far from that being a ground for impugning the credit of the majority who voted for the Motion, it simply furnished a reason for supposing that they knew something of the matter they were talking about. If the majority were to be spoken of as they had been, then it might be retorted that the minority was composed mainly of the Members of the Government, or those who were under great personal obligations to them. On the other hand, the majority contained a number of noble Lords who sat on the Ministerial benches—indeed, if the noble Marquess looked into the matter, he would find that the majority had resulted from disaffection in the ranks on the Ministerial side. It was an inconsistent thing that the Government should take away the privileges of the Guards at the same time that they extended the privileges of the Ordnance Corps. The Artillery Corps was as much a privileged Corps as the Guards, and the latter thought it hard that their lieutenant and ensign privilege should be taken away—for it was granted in consequence of the gallantry displayed upon the field of Waterloo. Taking away this privilege would seem to imply that they never had any good title to possess it. Some years ago all the majors of the Artillery were made lieutenant-colonels, and now all the first captains were to be made majors. The Artillery officers would average 16 years' service before they were majors; but the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) had stated that the average length of service in the Line before a promotion to majority would be 18 years.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONbegged to interrupt the noble and gallant Lord. He had done nothing more than repeat the declaration of Mr. Cardwell. He had said nothing about the Artillery or
  274
  the Engineers. What he had said was that it was thought right the promotion in the Line should be maintained at what was called the "standard rate."
  LORD ABINGERsaid, that of 279 officers who would be superseded by the first captains of Artillery not one had less than 18 years' service. He thought, therefore, that, even in accordance with the pledge of the Government, a preference should be given to those 279 officers before the first captains of Artillery were promoted.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that with the permission of their Lordships, having had the honour of serving Her Majesty in both Cavalry and Infantry of the Line, and commanding a regiment of the latter (Infantry of the Line), he was induced to address a few words to their Lordships. It appeared to him (Lord Ellenborough) that Her Majesty's Government had overlooked, if not ignored, the claims of the British regiments lately belonging to the late East India Company, now incorporated in Her Majesty's Army, as regiments of the Line—namely, the 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th British regiments, which contained several captains of 27 years' service, and one an infantry regiment of the Line (59th), a subaltern officer of 18 years' service. In conformity with what had fallen from the noble Lord behind him (Lord Abinger), he stated it was some source of heart-burning the rank held by captains and lieutenant-colonels of the Guards; but there was no such feeling in reference to the rank of ensign and lieutenant, as they were not brought much in contact with officers of the Line. With respect to the uncalled-for observations of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) impugning the motives of noble Lords forming the majority who voted the Address, it sufficed to say that two of those noble Lords had commanded an Army—one, a noble and gallant Lord on this side of the House (Lord Strathnairn), and the other, the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst), at the present moment in command of the Army in Ireland, to show that there were grounds for inquiry, in respect to the promotion in the Artillery, in common with that of the Army at large.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

  (NO. 172.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to remedy certain defects in the Land Act of 1870, so far as related to the purchase by tenants of their holdings. The new regulations proposed by the Bill would enable a tenant to make application to the Board of Works for an advance after as well as before he had made his bargain for the purchase of his holding, and the Board might advance two-thirds of the value; when a tenant purchased his holding through the Landed Estates Court, that Court and not the Civil Bill Court was to charge the annuity payable in respect of the advance of the Board; and thirdly, the Board were authorized to make advances to the tenant on purchases effected through the Landed Estates Court; and fourthly, it was declared that the letting of portions of an agricultural holding for the purpose of building necessary cottages, with land not exceeding half an acre in each case, should not be a cause of forfeiture.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, the Act of 1870 was very difficult of comprehension, and would require many amendments before it could become clear. He would point out two or three doubtful points in the present measure. In future, if the landlord and tenant agreed upon the terms of the sale, and the Solicitor to the Board of Works was satisfied, it would be unnecessary for them to apply to the Landed Estates Court; but in that case the purchaser would not obtain a Parliamentary title to the land he bought. Again, under sub-section 4, a tenant was empowered to sublet a portion of his holding for labourers' cottages—a power that he was afraid would give rise to many abuses.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEpromised, on behalf of the Government, to consider bath the suggestions of the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND FIRE INSURANCE BILL—(No. 102.)—COMMITTEE.
(The Lord Egerton.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee, read.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYpresented a Petition from the Church of England Assurance Institution, praying that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Petitioners alleged that if the measure passed it would institute a monopoly in reference to insurance, and would be injurious to companies which had already started in the business. He hoped that their Lordships would reject the Bill.
LORD EGERTON LORD EGERTON moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not but think that every Member of their Lordships' House was liable to some share of blame for having allowed this Bill to be read a second time without a protest. The Bill proposed to establish a compulsory system of insurance of all ecclesiastical buildings capable of being destroyed or injured by fire; it compelled all ecclesiastical persons in receipt of income from any see or benefice to insure the buildings attached to their benefices and to pay the premiums. Further, they must be insured in one particular Office, and not in any other:—so that this was, in fact, a Bill to take away all fire-insurance business in the case of ecclesiastical buildings from existing Offices. The new Office which was to enjoy so high a system of protection was to consist of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, who were to have an entirely new set of duties cast upon them, because they were to become directors of a fire-insurance company—a business which they would find it very difficult to manage. Fire insurance was a trade which might result in profit or in loss, and if there should be loss on their fire-insurance business the Governors were to be "at liberty to employ any funds in their hands for the purposes of this Act:"—that was to say, they were to pay these losses out of Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. It was quite possible that the whole of the Fund might

277
be swept away. Further, the Bill provided that there need be no policies, but the fact of insurance was to be entered on a register specially provided by the Governors—so that no stamp would be required.
LORD EGERTONsaid, that as to the noble and learned Lord's objection that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty might exhaust that Fund in paying losses on their fire-insurance business, everyone knew that the premiums were always paid in advance, and that therefore there were always funds in hand: so that the chance of coming upon the Fund at all, much more of exhausting it, was very remote. It was only to be expected that the existing Insurance Offices would object to the Bill; but representations had been previously made to those Offices that they should insure that class of buildings at lower premiums than were charged in other cases, in consideration of the smaller risks to which they were generally exposed:—for the insurance of those buildings had formed a most profitable part of the business of the Insurance Companies:—and it was only after their refusal to accept that offer, and at the earnest request of the clergy of the Church of England in Convocation assembled, that this Bill had been brought forward. The promoters of the Bill were fortified by the authority of eminent actuaries and other experienced persons, and the Regulations to be framed by the Governors for the purpose of carrying on this business were to be approved by the Lords of the Treasury and published in The London Gazette. The Governors were, moreover, to keep separate accounts, and lay before Parliament annually a report and balance-sheet. The Governors were, further, to frame every three years a scheme for the application of any profits arising from their insurances, which was to be laid before Parliament before acted upon. Most probably the application would be to the reduction of premiums.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in opposing the Bill, pointed out that, under the 6th clause of the Bill, the principle of compulsory insurance was extended not only to the clergy, but to all the laity who held Church leases.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that he could not see on what ground Queen Anne's Bounty
278
should be made liable for possible losses in connection with fire insurance transactions.
LORD DINEVORsaid, that the Bill was compulsory, and the clergy were bound to insure: but, unfortunately, many of the clergy had very small incomes, and they ought not in all cases to be required to insure to the full amount of the value of their houses. On the other hand, he did not think it would be quite fair to the Insurance Companies to establish the proposed monopoly, nor could he exactly see why those Companies should have been expected to insure a rectory at a cheaper rate than a layman's house.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDurged his noble Friend not to press his Motion to a division, for he thought the Bill was one which the House ought not to sanction. His noble Friend had stated as one of the reasons for the Bill that the clergy were extremely anxious that such a measure as this should become law; but he had omitted to tell their Lordships what the reasons were which had actuated the clergy in desiring that such an arrangement should be made. He had also spoken of the advantage it would be to the poorer clergy; but he (the Duke of Richmond) could not see how that advantage would arise, because the clergy would not be able to insure at much less than at present. The clergyman would be able to insure his house on exactly the same terms with the Sun and other Offices as with Queen Anne's Bounty. It would be wrong to compel the clergyman to insure with any Office against his desire, but should be at liberty to go to any Office from which he could obtain the best terms.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, there was some misunderstanding in the minds of some of their Lordships as to the objects of the Bill. A noble and reverend Lord (Lord Dinevor) had spoken as if the Bill for the first time made it compulsory on the clergy to insure. But it was not the present Bill, but the Dilapidation Bill of last year, which introduced the obligation on a clergyman to insure his house. Insurance was therefore compulsory already. Parliament had put upon the body of the clergy, many of whom were poor, a liability in that respect which rested on no other persons in the land, their houses being regarded in a certain sense as public property.

279
Yet these persons were compelled to lay out their own funds in insuring them against fire. Under those circumstances, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty were strongly urged by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury to invent a mode by which the new pressure thus occasioned to the clergy might be in some degree lightened. With this view the Governors were ready to undertake this business of fire insurance in the hope that they might be able considerably to reduce the charges now made for insurance, and also out of their profits to aid the poorer clergy in other respects. The money saved would go, therefore, first to diminish the cost of insuring; and, secondly, to the directly eleemosynary purposes of the Bounty Fund. The whole peculiarity of this Bill was that it required those insurances to be effected with the Governors, and not in any other Office; and the question was whether there was a sufficient reason for such exceptional legislation. It had been thought that Parliament having enforced the peculiar liability, might be expected to give a peculiar benefit as its correlative. Experience proved, on a very large inquiry, that the houses of the clergy were far less exposed to the risk of fire than the ordinary insurances taken, by the Companies; and insurance being now for the first time made obligatory upon the clergy, it had been supposed that the existing Companies might consider whether they would not insure that particular description of buildings at a cheaper rate, but they had declined. The best possible advice had been taken on the subject, and this advice amounted to an assurance that a certain gain of several thousands a-year might be made for the benefit of the poorer clergy, and that the Board might undertake the duty without the smallest risk to the Bounty Fund. The question as to whether the leases of Church property should be included was a question of detail, which with other similar matters might be fairly dismissed from consideration for the present.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYstated that the Company whose Petition he had presented against the Bill made an allowance of 10 per cent on the premiums paid by clergymen.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, if the Bill were rejected, a serious injury
280
would be done to the poorer clergy. The only persons who could have the slightest interest in opposing the Bill were the Insurance Companies, whose profit, as far as it arose from policies issued to clergymen, would be taken away and divided among the clergy themselves—who, in fact, would become their own insurers. It was well known that it paid a man to become his own insurer if his property was sufficiently large. It was bad policy for a large landed proprietor to insure his farm buildings; why, then, should not the clergy, on the same principle, combine to insure themselves?
LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Cairns.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsuggested, as an alternative course, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORconfessed that, on the first aspect, the Bill had been unpalatable to him, and he had considered what could possibly be the view which could induce the promoters to bring forward a Bill which, on its first aspect, appeared so unreasonable. It was unreasonable that there should be compulsory insurance at all; it seemed unreasonable that there should be compulsory insurance with a particular body; and it appeared unreasonable to expose a body like the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to the risks of this business. But, on the other hand, it appeared that the clergy having been placed under an obligation to insure would be placed in a difficult position. In the first place, they would naturally seek the offices which took the lowest premiums, and therefore offered the worst security. Under these circumstances, it seemed reasonable that they should have means of insuring with perfect safety at a low rate. The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty would offer that perfect security, and they would in regard to this matter have only one object—to give the clergy the full benefit of the system, without profit to themselves. Rather than that the Bill should be lost, he would support the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 14: Majority 2.
Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Tuesday, July 2, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

L. Abp. York.

L. Bp. London.

M. Salisbury.

L. Bp. Manchester.

M. Bath.

L. Dinevor.

E. Belmore.

L. Portman.

E. Chichester.

L. Stanley of Alderley.

E. Powis.

L. Egerton.

E. Nelson.

L. Penrhyn.

E. Harrowby.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of Correspondence between Lord Redesdale, as President of Cheltenham College, and the Secretary of State for the War Department in relation to the times appointed for the examinations for admission to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, said, that his reason for moving for the production of this Correspondence was that it had been complained the examinations were so fixed that boys desirous of passing them had to prepare for them during their holidays. He hoped that some satisfactory arrangement might be arrived at?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the desire of the Government to meet the convenience of the public schools as far as possible was expressed in the correspondence to which the noble Lord referred, and to the production of which there was no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion agreed to.

NAVY—GUNNERY EXPERIMENTS—H.M.S. "HOTSPUR" AND "GLATTON."

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEasked, Whether, during the forthcoming trials at Portland, it is proposed to test the effect of a shot striking the pilot tower? His object was that it should be ascertained whether the human frame could stand the shock of the concussion such as the Glatton was about to be subjected to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the sole object of the trials about to be made at Portland was to ascertain whether the turret of the Glatton would become jammed, and so be prevented revolving, by being struck with a 600 1b shot fired from the Hotspur at a range of 200 yards. It was not intended to make a general test of the ship's vulnerable points, and therefore the experiment desiderated by his noble Friend could not be tried on the present occasion.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEexpressed a hope that the important experiment to which his Question referred would be tried at the earliest possible opportunity.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths in England—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 179.)

BOUNDARIES OF COUNTIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to the fining of Boundaries of Counties and other divisions and denominations of Land in Ireland—Was presented by The Marquess of LANSDOWNE; read 1a. (No. 180.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.