Lords Sitting of 21 July 1873

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Lytton, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Rating (Liability and Value)* (231).
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption) * (198); Revising Barristers* (218).
Select Committee—Report—Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders [No. 228]; Pollution of Rivers.
Report—Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders* (139–229); Pollution of Rivers* (59–230).
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3)* (166); Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* (224), and passed.

Royal Assent—Canonizes 36 & 37 Vict. c. 39]; Canada Loan Guarantee 36 & 37 Vict. c. 45
; Thames Embankment (Land) [36 & 37 Vict. c. 40]; Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property [36 & 37 Vict. c. 41]; Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment [36 & 37 Vict. c. 42]; Indian Railways Registration [36 & 37 Vict. c. 43]; National Debt Commissioners (Annuities) (36 & 37 Vict. c. 44]; Sites for Places of Religious Worship [36 & 37 Vict. c. 50]; Railway and Canal Traffic 36 & 37 Vict. c. 48]; Blackwater Bridge 36 & 37 Vict. c. 46]; Blackwater Bridge Composition of Debt) [36 & 37 Vict. c. 47]; Public Works Loan Commissioners (School and Sanitary Loans) [36 & 37 Vict. c. 49]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 4) [36 & 37 Vict. c. cxxxvii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 5) [36 & 37 Vict. c. cxxxviii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) [36 & 37 Vict. c. cxxxix]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) [36 & 37 Vict. c. call; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) [36 & 37 Vict. c. cxli].
THE LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND LORD WESTBURY.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, before I proceed to the task I have undertaken on the present occasion. I cannot forbear from alluding to the very great loss this House and the country have sustained since our last meeting. We have lost two of our most distinguished Members, who since Friday last have passed to their rest. My Lords, one of them was a noble and learned Lord who had attained probably the highest rank which it is possible for a layman in this House to occupy, and he had done so by commanding talent and great eloquence. The other was a man whom, for a great many years, I had the privilege and gratification of claiming as one of my most intimate personal friends, whose genial and social talents were such that his removal from among us will long be lamented by a vast number of sorrowing friends. My Lords, I do not think that on the present occasion it is right or proper that I should dwell further upon this melancholy subject. I should not have felt it just to myself if I had remained altogether silent.
OFFICERS OF HER MAJESTY'S ARMY—ABOLITION OF PURCHASE.

  ADDRESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had now, pursuant to Notice, to move an humble Address to Her Majesty for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the allegations of officers of Her Majesty's Army in reference to grievances which they state they suffer consequent upon the abolition of Purchase. He had refrained till this very late period of the Session from bringing forward the Motion in the hope that Her Majesty's Government would see fit to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission as their own act, and because he was most unwilling that the discipline and the management of the Army should be made a subject of discussion in either House of Parliament. We had not as yet "nationalized" our Army—it still continued to be the Army of the Queen, and was commanded and managed by officers appointed by Her Majesty, and for this reason, if for no other, 'he thought it undesirable that,
  622
  without good cause, questions affecting its interior organization should be brought before Parliament. There were, however, exceptional cases even in respect of a matter like this, and had he not believed the case of those officers was an exceptional one, he should not have brought it under the notice of their Lordships three months ago, and he should not now be coming forward with a Motion for an Address to the Crown. He asked their Lordships not to suppose that in any remarks he might make he intended to ask for a restoration of the system of Purchase which was abolished in 1871. That abolition was an accomplished fact, and it furnished him with one of the strongest arguments in favour of his Motion. For himself, he then thought, and he thought now, the abolition of Purchase a great mistake, because the system of Purchase, though ate anomaly, had worked most satisfactorily for a very long time, and because by doing away with it so much money was unnecessarily taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers. But Her Majesty's advisers had recommended that Purchase should be abolished, and had supplanted it by certain rules which were intended to facilitate the change, and Parliament had sanctioned their proposals. Therefore, whatever might be his opinions as to the effect of the change upon the Army, and the expediency of laying this heavy burden on the taxpayers of the country, he accepted abolition of Purchase as an accomplished fact not to be reversed, and should argue his case upon that basis. The first question was—did any grievances in reality exist? and the next was—was there any case for the redress of such grievances? He believed that there were real grievances; but even supposing there were not, he would still contend that there was a case for inquiry; because even if there were no grievances, he defied anybody to contradict him when he said there was great discontent. He could name several of the alleged grievances, and go into details to prove their existence; but, except so far as referring to one or two cases by way of illustration, he did not intend to go into details which, in his opinion, were for a Commission of Inquiry rather than an Assembly like their Lordships' House. He would, for example, mention the case of those officers who had been placed compulsorily

  623
  on half-pay, and who, when they went before the Commissioners for their money, found themselves placed in a much worse position than they had any reason to think they would have been reduced to by reason of the abolition of Purchase. He would direct their Lordships' attention to a Return which he had moved for, and which had been presented to their Lordships' House, of the officers who, previously to the 1st of July, 1873, had memorialized the Commander-in-Chief with reference to their position and prospects consequent upon the abolition of Purchase. That Return showed the number to be 2,245. Those were officers quartered at home or in the home colonies. Now, what did such figures represent? Of Cavalry regiments they represented 9; of the Brigade of Guards, they represented 7 battalions; and of the Infantry of the Line they represented 68 battalions. Now, what were the total numbers of the officers of all ranks serving at home and in the home colonies? In the Household Cavalry there were 66; in the Line Cavalry, 333; in the Guards, 190; in the Infantry of the Line, 2,274 —making a total of 2,863, exclusive of colonels, who were not so much affected by the regulations for carrying out the abolition; so that their Lordships would see that rather more than two-thirds of Her Majesty's Army serving at home and in the home colonies felt themselves ill-used and ill-treated, and were therefore discontented. Although the General Officers who sent forward the memorials to the Horse Guards merely acted as machines in the transmission of the statement of grievances, some of them did express opinions which he would take the liberty of quoting to their Lordships. The first was from Major General Steele, commanding the forces in Ireland. He said
  "In forwarding these representations, I beg to say that it would appear therefrom that the officers serving in this command generally feel they have a grievance arising out of the abolition of the purchase system, and that they trust His Royal Highness may be able to devise some measures that may lead to the matter being duly considered."
  Then Major General Horsford, commanding the South-East District, said—
  "I have the honour to state that, while in no way offering an opinion on the merits of the various claims, it appears to me that it would be a satisfactory way of silencing complaint on the
  624
  part of the officers that their claims should be referred to inquiry of such a nature as would satisfy them as to its impartiality."
  Major General Greathed expressed this opinion—
  "There is a very strong feeling among officers that they have been dealt with in a summary manner, and I am of opinion that a very great relief would be given to this feeling of dissatisfaction by a full and impartial inquiry conducted by men whom the Army could trust."
  A letter from Lord Strathnairn, forwarding a memorial, was in these terms—
  "I have the honour to enclose to you, for submission to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, a letter from Colonel Baillie, commanding the Royal Horse Guards, conveying the individual expression of the grievances of himself, five captains, and ten lieutenants, arising from the recent Army Warrants for the abolition of purchase, and to express the hope that their respectful request for an impartial inquiry into the subject may be granted."
  In transmitting a memorial from officers of different regiments serving under his command at Aldershot, Sir Hope Grant stated—
  "I am fully convinced as to the strong feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction which prevails amongst the mass of regimental officers on the subject. This is mainly owing to the idea they have that their case has never been gone into before an impartial tribunal. Without some such investigation I am certain that this feeling will go on increasing in intensity. I would, therefore, beg very respectfully to suggest, for the consideration of His Royal Highness, that a Royal Commission, before which the officers could unfold their views, and state the points in which they regard themselves as having been unfairly treated, would do more than anything else could to allay the feeling which now so unfortunately prevails."
  He would ask, was it a satisfactory state of things when 2,245 officers were discontented, and one of the most distinguished officers in the service stated that nothing but a Royal Commission would remove that discontent? If he had nothing more than those facts, they would have made out his case for a Royal Commission. No inquiry would be satisfactory if it were not conducted by a perfectly independent tribunal. When the scheme for the abolition of Purchase was before the House of Commons, Mr. Cardwell, Sir Henry Storks, and Captain Vivian, speaking for the War Department, stated that they did not wish to place the officers of the Army in a worse position than they occupied during the existence of the system of Purchase. He (the Duke of Richmond)

  625
  quite believed that the Government were perfectly sincere in these statements, and that they had no intention of injuring these officers in the way they had been injured:—what he complained of was that the Government, in passing this measure, did not foresee the evils which would result from the operation of their scheme. But if they were sincere in their statement that they did not wish to place the officers in a worse position, and if the officers now said that they were in a worse position, were not the Government bound to grant them an inquiry, in order that the officers might have the means of showing how they had been injured and in what manner their grievances might be redressed? When the Army Regulation Bill was under discussion, the Government quoted the evidence of officers of distinction who were in favour of abolition. In March, 1871, Sir Henry Storks made this quotation from the evidence of Colonel Cameron, a distinguished officer commanding one of our infantry regiments.
  "I am entirely in favour of the abolition of Purchase, and think the Government have acted in the matter with the greatest liberality. The Purchase System, in my opinion, is bad in every way."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 1739.]
  But something must have happened since then to change Colonel Cameron's views—for when he looked to the Return containing the memorials sent in to the Horse Guards "consequent upon the Abolition of Purchase." he found attached to a memorial transmitted by Lieutenant General Lord Templetown, commanding the Southern District, the name of "Colonel Cameron, 4th Regiment." So that this gallant Colonel, who, when the scheme was under discussion, thought "the Government have acted in the matter with the greatest liberality," now included his name among the officers who had grievances to complain of in consequence of the operation of a scheme which he had commended so highly. Did not this show the necessity for inquiry? He would quote the testimony of another distinguished officer who had not only been an advocate of the scheme, but had himself acted as one of the Commissioners for the abolition of Purchase. On the 10th of March last, when the subject was before their Lordships' House, the late Lord Dc la Warr said—
  626
  "He would now point to a defect in the new system. He thought the powers of the Commissioners for the abolition of Purchase ought to be enlarged, so as to enable them to include among those entitled to compensation officers who ought never to have been excluded—for instance, old officers who, at the time of the reduction, were placed on the half-pay list without any desire of their own. They had lost an opportunity, and he thought they ought to be compensated for the loss; but if that one inequality were redressed, he would say that a large measure of substantial justice had been and would be meted out to the officers of the British Service under the arrangements of 1871."— [3 Hansard, ccxiv. 1598.]
  There was one great blot in the scheme which had given rise to the present state of things—there was no appeal from the Commissioners—their decision was final. If the officer who went before them did not like what they had to say, there was nothing for him but to make his bow and walk out. Nor was that all—for the Commissioners were not bound by the Act of Parliament to exercise their functions at all. Section 13 of the Act provided—
  "No appeal shall be had from any decision of the Commissioners under this Act, and the Commissioners shall not be compelled by mandamus, injunction, or order of any Court to exercise or abstain from exercising any power conferred on them by this Act."
  So that if any officer represented his case as one of hardship, and the Commissioners chose to say they would not entertain it, there was an end of the matter—they could not be compelled to go into the merits of the case. He must say that he thought the fact of there being no appeal from the Commissioners was an additional reason why a Royal Commission should be granted. By the Members of the Government the British Army had always been spoken of in the handsomest terms. The Secretary of State for War had stated—he was not sure whether it was not at the meeting of "The Druids" of which their Lordships had heard so much—that all which could be wished for was that the Army should be the same as the Army of Wellington and Marlborough. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think the Government were going the right way about it. The servants of the Queen in the Army should not be put in a worse position than Civil servants; and what had the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the position of the latter?—

  627
  "The Civil servants make a bargain with the State, and the State makes a bargain with them for their whole lives, and every man comes into the service under well-known rules and conditions, and neither the Government nor the servant can depart from those rules and conditions. We hold the Civil servants to their bargain, and they hold us to ours, and beyond this we cannot go."
  Surely, officers serving in the Army ought not to be placed in a worse position than that? But the officers of the Army were not treated in that fashion—the bargain under which they entered into the service of the State had been broken by the State, and it was not to be wondered at that discontent should be the result. He now came to the point that the tribunal of inquiry ought to be an independent one—he would not say an impartial tribunal, because he assumed that the Secretary for War would not make it anything but an impartial one. He ventured to say that no tribunal would be satisfactory if its members were nominated by the War Department. He meant no offence by this; because, with all respect for His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, he should say the same of any tribunal nominated by the Horse Guards. He held that no one sitting on the Commission should have the slightest interest, official or otherwise, in the subject matter of investigation. If a railway company proposed to take a man's land, he was reconciled to the proceeding because it was allowed only after an investigation by a thoroughly independent Committee. When it was remembered that Purchase was put an end to by an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, it could not be expected that officers who felt aggrieved would be satisfied with an inquiry conducted by a tribunal named by the Ministry who had advised that exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It might be said that the terms could not have been so bad for the officers, or they would have thrown up their commissions. The obvious answer to that argument was, that as the Act of 1871 had passed the officers could not sacrifice everything, but must put up with the terms of that Act, unless redress were given them by means of an inquiry. It would be a mistake to suppose that the discontent was only among the officers. It was felt by the men. Everything which affected the interest of the officers the men felt—
  628
  and rightly felt—to affect themselves; and they felt that their chance of getting any grievance of their own inquired into by an independent tribunal was very remote, when their officers failed in a case like this. He would now anticipate an objection which might be urged against his Motion. Such a Motion was not without precedent. On the 28th of April, 1863, Colonel Lindsay moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to a appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the claims of 21 Officers of the Army, who were promoted to the rank of Colonel in 1855 and 1856, as Aides de Camp to the Queen, and for distinguished service in the Crimean War, who, by a recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1858, which had reference to another class of Officers, have been deprived, to an undue extent, of the position they attained by the promotion conferred upon them; and to report to Her Majesty whether they are entitled to any redress; and, if so, to recommend in what form such redress should he accorded to them."—[3 Hansard, clxx. 864.]
  At the end of the debate Lord Palmerston said—
  "Sir, there are two things which I think it desirable to avoid, if possible. One is, the habitual interference of this House with the detailed management of the Army, because that is no part of the Constitutional functions of the House of Commons, and, if continued, must naturally lead step by step to very objectionable results; and the other is, the presence in the public mind of any circumstances which give rise to the opinion that injustice has been done to any class of deserving public servants …. The course which I would venture to suggest to the hon. and gallant Member opposite would, in my opinion, meet both objections. I should propose to him to withdraw his Motion, thereby avoiding committing this House to an interference with the detailed military administration of the Army; and, if he adopts that course, I will, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, engage that a Commission shall be issued. I trust that that will show that Her Majesty's Government have no desire to avoid inquiry, and have no wish to resist any suggestion which is founded upon a sense of injustice, whether rightly or wrongly entertained."—[Ibid, 873–4.]
  Under these circumstances Colonel Lindsay did not press his Motion—a Royal Commission was issued; General Peel was appointed Chairman, and the Commission was in these terms—
  "Whereas it has been represented to us that 21 officers who were promoted to the rank of Colonel in the years 1855–1856 as our aides-de-camp, &c., 'consider that by the operation of our Royal Warrant of the 14th October, 1858, founded on the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1858, they have been deprived to an undue extent of the position they attained by the promotion bestowed upon them;' and

  629
  whereas it has been represented to us that certain captains and lieutenant-colonels of the Guards, &c., 'consider that their positions have been unduly injured by the operation of the said Warrant, &c. . . . . . Commission to report whether these officers are entitled to redress, and if so, to recommend in what form such redress should be accorded to them."
  But it might be urged, by way of objection to the Motion, that it would be against precedent to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of an Act of Parliament. He thought he would be able to show that there was abundant precedent for the course he asked to have adopted in this case. In 1837, when the Marines complained of the inferiority of their position, as compared with the rest of the Army, a Royal Commission was at once issued to inquire into their complaints. When the Indian officers were transferred to the Royal Army in 1858 they received a Parliamentary guarantee that all their privileges should be preserved to them, and when certain Petitions were presented to Parliament complaining that this guarantee had been violated, a Royal Commission was at once issued to inquire into the alleged grievance. When the Royal Artillery complained of the slowness of their promotion, inquiry was at once made into the question. After that a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the laws regulating the sale and consumption of excisable liquors in Scotland. In 1862, one was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act to substitute in certain eases other punishments in lieu of transportation, and an Act to amend that statute. In 186;5, there was one appointed to inquire into the operation of the marriage laws; in 1866 there was one on capital punishment, and in the same year one on oaths and affirmations, and in 1870 one to inquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts passed so recently as 1866 and 1869. He would now leave the case in their Lordships' hands, feeling perfectly satisfied that by their votes they would grant to the officers of the Army that justice which the humblest man in this country had a right to demand.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the allegations of the officers of Her Majesty's Army contained in the memorials mentioned in the Return made to this
  630
  House (Parliamentary Paper 196.) as to the grievances which they state that they suffer consequent upon the abolition of purchase.—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, it was always a matter of regret to him to differ from the conclusions of the noble Duke opposite, and on the present occasion he regretted it the more because he felt he was differing not only from the conclusions at which the noble Duke had arrived, but also from those of no inconsiderable number of gallant officers whose confidence the Government desired to retain, and whose interests the War Department was always anxious to promote. But the question now brought before their Lordships was of such importance that he thought it was his duty to look beyond the mere approval or disapproval of any class or profession, and to take care that nothing should be done which could impede the future administration of a Department or disparage the authority of Parliament. Their Lordships were confronted upon the present occasion with one fact of great importance, the large numerical signature of the officers' memorials, and from that fact the noble Duke drew two inferences, first, that there existed widespread discontent among the officers of the Army; secondly, that the only legitimate remedy for that discontent was the appointment of a Royal Commission. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would endeavour to ascertain what were the limits and what was the cause of the discontent, and then endeavour to show that the remedy which the noble Duke proposed was not the one which their Lordships should concur in. He thought the House would agree with him when he said that the fact that these memorials had been signed by so many officers was a very important event in the history of the British Army; and he proposed to treat it with that kind of treatment which an historical event generally received. He proposed to make some inquiry as to its antecedent circumstances; then to refer to external evidence in order to see whether the explanation suggested by the antecedents was confirmed by it or not, and thence to pass on to the evidence contained in the body of the memorials themselves. As to the antecedents, he would remind the House that the Government had found, as the result of inquiries by

  631
  a Royal Commission, that an illegal system of Purchase was in existence, and that it was impossible to put an end to the over-regulation payments without putting an end to the regulation payments also. Purchase was accordingly put an end to by Royal Warrant, and a measure was submitted to Parliament providing the terms, on which officers should be compensated for any loss which they might sustain, and he thought it would not be denied that the scale of compensation agreed to by Parliament was not only liberal, but amply liberal. But during the discussions on the subject, a strong opposition to the abolition of Purchase had been offered by a large body of the officers and their friends. He did not say that opposition was an universal one, but there was unquestionably a wide and determined opposition to the general policy of the proposition of the Government, and not to the terms proposed. Now, he ventured to think that if their Lordships looked into the memorials referred to by the noble Duke they would detect in them that old opposition to the policy of the Government rather than dissatisfaction with the terms. In the first place it might have been supposed that if the position of the officers was so unbearable as had been represented, an exodus from the Army would have taken place; but nothing of the kind had occurred, though those gallant officers would have been entitled to the full value of their commissions had they at once taken advantage of the Act. The Estimate voted on this account last year amounted to £2,035,000, and the sum voted on the 31st March this year was £2,056,000. Again, beyond all question the memorials had been signed by a large number of officers who could not pretend that they themselves had suffered anything from the change. He would give their Lordships one or two instances. A colonel of the Household Brigade complained that he was deprived of the power of exchange; that he sustained injury in respect of chances of promotion, and that he suffered in consequence of the amalgamation of the English and Indian Armies. He had inquired into the case of the gallant officer and found that there being no corresponding rank to that held by him in any regiment except the regiments of Guards, he could not have exchanged. He had not suffered in respect
  632
  of promotion; and the amalgamation of the English and Indian Armies was in no way connected with the abolition of the Purchase system. There was no system of Purchase in the Indian regiments, although there were bonuses for which officers would be compensated, and on account of which they would certainly not be losers. Another officer in the Household Cavalry complained generally that he was aggrieved and prayed for an inquiry; but as a matter of fact, that gallant officer had obtained his colonelcy since the abolition of Purchase, and had thereby retained £3,250 which otherwise he would have had to expend in obtaining his promotion. The list of memorialists was closed by one or two sub-lieutenants, who, having joined the Army subsequently to the abolition of Purchase, had had nothing to pay, and must, he should think, have been under the impression that they were signing a vote of want of confidence in the Sandhurst system or a petition against the Civil Service Commissioners. Turning to the contentions contained in the memorials themselves, without going into much of detail in regard to the grievances complained of, he would mention a few in order to prove how groundless many of them were. In the first place, there were grievances to be attributed to alterations in the position and prospects of officers, which alterations were clearly foreseen and contemplated at the time when Purchase was abolished. Certain officers said they entered the Army while the Purchase system was in existence, and that they held the Government bound to continue that system until the end of their career. But the answer to this was that the Purchase system was abolished by Parliament in order to terminate such a right as this, and also the further right which was claimed to purchase higher steps because admission to the lower grade had been paid for by them. Another class of complaints was directed against alterations which had been made with a view to the efficiency of the Service, and with which no guarantee or understanding could possibly be held to interfere. That class of grievance was well described in the Report of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the position of the Indian Colonels, a Commission of which the noble and learned

  633
  Lord opposite was a member. In the Report occurred this passage,—
  "The guarantee does not in our opinion secure the Indian officers from changes in the rules of the service which may he desirable to be made with a view to the improvement or exigencies of the service. These changes could without any breach of faith, have been made by the East India Company, and can be now made by the Crown."
  These words, read as bearing upon the ease now before their Lordships, seemed to establish beyond dispute that no guarantee could secure an officer against changes which, upon their own merits and for the sake of the efficiency of the Service, the Crown might subsequently determine to make. Such changes had been made repeatedly by different Governments—for example in 1856, Lord Panmure decided that majorities and lieutenant colonelcies in the Guards should be for the future un saleable; and by this arrangement several gallant officers lost the value of the higher commission which they might have sold. One of them was a Member of their Lordships' House, for Lord Abinger lost £3,500, and Colonel Stevenson £700 by this regulation; but he had not heard that any claim was made for compensation in consequence of their loss. Another category of grievances was that in which the position and prospects of officers were prejudiced as compared with those of their brother officers, in consequence of their ill-luck; such cases must always arise whenever large reorganizations were made; but these were losses not previously ascertainable, for which therefore it was impossible to provide compensation. There were some of the grievances mentioned by the noble Duke which he must admit seemed to involve hardship. One of these was that of the officer who had remained for a long time at the top of his rank waiting for an unbought vacancy which would give him a saleable commission which he could turn to account. A further instance was that of officers upon the reduced half-pay list, who might have been placed by the Commander-in-Chief on full pay in order to sell, but who were now, if brought back, unable to sell their commissions. There was a hardship there undoubtedly; but, as far as he could see, this was the misfortune of these officers rather than the fault of anybody else concerned, and any scheme of compensation for them
  634
  would have entirely given up the whole principle of the settlement of 1871. There was another small and unimportant class of grievances which might be described by the phrase "mares' nests." Certain cavalry officers for instance said that the terms of compensation to cavalry should be higher than in the case of any other branch of the Service, because the over-regulation in cavalry regiments was higher than in the other branches; but those who thus contended seemed to forget that the Army Purchase Commissioners in fixing the compensation took this fact into their consideration. The whole of the grievances were, in his opinion, reducible into narrow limits. There was an element of gain and an element of loss; and, on the whole, he thought the element of gain to the officers outweighed the element of loss. The pledges of the Government in regard to the matter were based upon a belief that this would be the case, and he believed that everyone of the pledges had been faithfully redeemed. Now, with respect to the remedy proposed by the noble Duke. The remedy proposed took the form of a Royal Commission; but upon what assumption could the demand for such a Commission proceed? It could only proceed upon the assumption that neither from Parliament nor from the Government was there to be expected any such redress as that for which, said the noble Duke, the situation of the officers called. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne), on the other hand, contended that the War Department had always been prepared to deal with cases which came within the equity, but not within the letter, of the Act of 1871, and that the House of Commons had on several occasions been asked to provide compensation for officers who by a strict interpretation of the Act of Parliament were not entitled to it. Their Lordships were aware that by the Army Regulation Act, a limitation was put on the number of officers who might be allowed to sell out in any one year. When that limitation was found to work to the prejudice of those officers, it was without difficulty withdrawn, a similarly liberal concession had been made to the staff officers of pensioners, and he could give their Lordships other instances of individual officers who had been similarly treated by the Government. It seemed to him that if a case of individual and

  635
  particular hardship were submitted to the responsible Department of the Government a remedy would be afforded. But he wished to ask this question—would it be a right thing to set a Royal Commission in motion to revise a settlement effected by a statute passed so recently as 1871?—because it was a revision of that settlement which the noble Duke's Motion aimed at. It was perfectly conceivable that the noble Duke might have asked for an independent inquiry into the measures taken by the Government to carry out the Act; but he sought to set aside the principle itself of the settlement of 1871. The noble Duke would pardon him for saying that not one of the cases mentioned by him in which a Royal Commission had been issued had the slightest bearing on the subject of his Motion. The noble Duke had mentioned that Royal Commissions had been issued to inquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases Act, into Capital Punishment, into the sale of Excisable Liquors, into the operation of the Marriage Laws. Did the noble Duke seriously moan to contend for a moment that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Marriage Laws was any precedent for issuing a Royal Commission to re-open the great and important settlement made in 1871? Why, in no one of the cases instanced by the noble Duke had there been such a settlement as that which he now desired to disturb—a settlement between parties— between the officers of the Army on the one hand and the public on the other, as recipients and payers of the sums payable under the Act, for something like £2,000,000 had already been expended, or would shortly have been expended, subject to its provisions. Were all these awards to be re-opened and the whole of the financial arrangements consequent upon the abolition of Purchase to be re-cast without a sign of dissatisfaction on the part of the other House of Parliament which had made so liberal a provision in obedience to the Motion of the noble Duke and the request of the memorialists whose cause he supported? Then there was the precedent of Lord Cranworth's Commission. There was no resemblance whatever between that Commission and the Commission which might be appointed in compliance with the noble Duke's Motion. In the case of Lord Cran-
  636
  worth's Commission a statutory guarantee had been given to certain officers, and an inquiry was instituted in order to ascertain whether as was alleged, warrants subsequently issued by the Government were or were not consistent with that guarantee. In the present case it was not the subsequent action of Government which was questioned, the noble Duke himself did not dispute the fairness of the interpretation placed by the Government and by the Army Purchase Commissioners on the provisions of the Act. It was the first principles of the Act itself which the noble Duke attacked, and which the memorialists objected to. Lord Cranworth's Commission told directly against the noble Duke. If he wished for a Commission analogous to that of Lord Cranworth he would not be opposed by the Government. They had no desire for an inquiry which could lead to little good; but if their conduct in carrying out the Act, or that of the Army Purchase Commissioners, or that of the Secretary of State, was impugned, they were prepared to abide the results of an investigation. Therefore he would not object to a Motion limited to this object; but if the noble Duke persisted in his present Motion, involving as it did a reinvestigation of the principles of the Army Regulation Act, then the Government would resist, and would resist to the utmost, a course fatal to the proper administration of the affairs of the Army and perilously subversive of the authority of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I am bound to say something on this settlement, and also to say that nothing would induce me to utter one word on this occasion if it were not that I feel called upon to point out in the strongest manner to every Member of this House that anything more detrimental to the interests of the Army, to the interests of the service, or to the interests of the country, than to have a discontented set of officers it is impossible to conceive. Therefore, I hope, whatever your Lordships may decide—it is not my province to interfere in any political question—your Lordships will decide with the object of putting an end to that discontent which I am grieved to say I believe does exist. I think it is very much to be deplored that anything should engender among

  637
  the officers of the Army a spirit of discontent which up to this moment, so far as I know, never has existed in the Army. So far as I am concerned, I should like to see an independent inquiry; but I must say that, in my opinion, an independent inquiry would at once put on one side the great bulk of the grievances of these officers. I think it would be deplorable if anything were now done to interfere with the Act. The Act was accepted by the country, and it must now be carried out in its integrity. Although I believe the bulk of these complaints would be eliminated by any tribunal which might undertake the task of inquiring into these grievances, there are minor points which, in my opinion, are entitled to an equitable consideration for the purpose of ascertaining whether they might not be brought within the intention with which the Act was passed;—for I do not suppose, nor can anybody suppose, that the Act was brought forward to do injustice to anyone. If injustice has been done in any individual case, I have no doubt a rectification would be most acceptable to the Government. Every endeavour has been made to meet the cases of those officers with regard to whom the Act has been found to work harshly. In one instance, whore a clear ease in equity had been made out in favour of a certain class of officers, the sum necessary to meet their case had been voted by the other House at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, and full justice had been done them. As I understand the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), Her Majesty's Government intend to deal with every case of acknowledged hardship on the same principle, it will become my duty to bring all such cases under their notice—and I can only express an anxious hope that in every instance justice will be done. Since the passing of the Act it has been my anxious endeavour to carry out the intention of the Act in a spirit of fairness, and as far as possible to avoid all friction in its working. All I can say is, that in any case which may come to my knowledge where an officer has equitable claims to consideration I shall not shrink from bringing it under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, or from expressing my opinion as to how it should be dealt with. I must conclude these few obser-
  638
  vations by expressing a hope that the discussion that has taken place in your Lordships' House to-night may tend in a large measure to allay the discontent among certain of the officers, the existence of which I most deeply deplore as being highly injurious to the public service, and which I trust all those who possess influence amongst the officers will do their best to check and alleviate. I trust also that the officers themselves will feel satisfied when they more completely understand that their claims will be dealt with not so much according to the strict letter of the Act as according to justice and equity.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had attempted to excuse the harshness of the Army Regulation Act, on the ground that its provisions had been agreed to by a considerable majority of the other House; but he appeared to forget that in passing the compensation clauses the Government majority had fallen from considerably over 100 to about 15 or 16. The noble Marquess had stated that the present discontent of the officers was merely a remnant of their old opposition to the abolition of the Purchase system; but whether that were the case or not, it was undoubted that the present discontent was bonâ fide and genuine. It was clear that the officers were not satisfied with the provisions of the Act. They felt that they had lost the interest of the money they had paid, as well as all prospect of the advancement and the other advantages they were certain to have obtained under the old system. As the illustrious Duke had remarked, those of the officers who were discontented with the working of the Act had a right to have their cases considered and their alleged grievances inquired into, and he trusted the Government would grant the inquiry. He had been greatly surprised at reading in the reports of what had occurred in the House of Commons the other night that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cardwell, in speaking on this subject, had said that if the officers were really aggrieved they had only to go to Victoria Street and get the money for their commissions. The fact that they did not do this was no proof whatever that they were not discontented with their position. A large number of officers, however discontented they might he, could not afford to sell

  639
  their commissions, because they were too old to enter into any other profession, and would have no means of earning their living if they quitted the Army. The discontent among the officers was widespread and deeply-rooted, and after the speech of the illustrious Duke tonight it was impossible that an inquiry into their case could be longer refused. The noble Marquess had said that it would not do to alter the compensation clauses of the Act now, because by doing so the Estimates would be disarranged;—but was justice to the officers to be based solely upon the financial arrangements of the War Office? To show the opinion of eminent authorities on the subject, he would read the following extracts from letters which had been written by officers of high rank:—
  "The officers of the Army feel that they are deprived of what, by every code of honour is theirs. This may be right or may be wrong, but it is the unanimous feeling of the Army. The effect of this continued agitation on the discipline of the Army is, and will be most disastrous, and I sincerely trust this prayer for an impartial tribunal may be successful. Every barrack-room is ringing with this question. I saw with pleasure the abolition of Purchase, and have seen no reason to change my opinion had the substitution been carried out equitably."
  "That the dissatisfaction is widespread and deep-tongued there cannot be the slightest doubt, and the state of affairs is most damaging to the morale of the Army."
  What the officers complained of was, not the abolition of Purchase, but the terms which had been offered to them, which they regarded as not being equitable under the circumstances. When the Bill abolishing Purchase was before the House he stated that, in his opinion, the fairest mode of proceeding would be to pay the regulation money down and to give the over-regulation money on retirement. Another suggestion then made was that the interest of the purchase money should be paid and the money itself when an officer left the Army. Neither of those suggestions had, however, been adopted, and the officers were sufferers in that respect—as well as by the abolition of the system of exchanges, which they looked upon as a great boon. He begged leave to tell the noble Marquess that the officers of our Army did not conjure up imaginary grievances—that they were able, conscientious, and honest, and that they were men who would not put their hands to anything
  640
  which they did not thoroughly believe and understand. He wished merely to add the expression of his satisfaction that after the speech of the illustrious Duke on the cross-benches the House could have little doubt as to the vote which it would give on the present occasion. If we desired to have an efficient Army we must take care that it was a contented one.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid, he felt that he would be wanting in a sense of duty if he failed to bear testimony to the fact that in the district in which he commanded, great discontent prevailed among officers of all ranks. Strict measures were taken to prevent the soldier from making any representations with regard to an increase of pay; and when that was so Parliament ought surely not to refuse to take steps to protect that which was the property of the officer—the value of his commission. He hoped the House would not forget that it had it now in its power to do something which would greatly tend to promote satisfaction in the Army and to remove the existing discontent.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, he could not but regret that the Government had not thought fit to assent to the proposal for the issue of a Commission. He would fully confirm the statement that great discontent prevailed among the officers, and expressed it to be his belief that the Government did not even yet really understand all that was involved in the abolition of Purchase. Considering that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had never been in the Army, he had spoken with great ability on the question; but it was evident that the Government was only now arriving at a due sense of the fact that the Army was a very complicated and delicate piece of machinery, which they had been pulling about for the amusement of the more Radical section of their supporters—extremely to the annoyance of the officers—and which they were beginning heartily to regret they had not let alone. He (the Marquess of Hertford) had always maintained that the abolition of Purchase affected the poor officer even more than the rich; and when the Bill doing away with it was before the House he had produced the letters of 20 or 30 old officers who had been promoted from the ranks, almost everyone of whom was

  641
  opposed to the Government measure, and which letters he had forwarded to Lord Northbrook, but without result. Out of the 2,245 officers who complained that they had been aggrieved, he believed a great number would be found who had not paid a farthing for their commissions, but would never have allowed themselves to be promoted were it not for the prospective advantages which had been held out to them by the Warrant of 1866. He was, he might add, informed that there was at the present moment the greatest difficulty in getting adjutants from the ranks in cavalry regiments. One of the provisions of the Warrant of 1866 was that a captain retiring should receive £1,800, and, if he rose to be a major, and finally a lieutenant colonel, £4,500, and many a captain had allowed himself to be superseded by his juniors in the hope of obtaining promotion by death vacancy or augmentation, and of then selling what he had never bought. But by the new Act, under no circumstances, whether he went now, or 20 years hence, would an officer ever be allowed to receive more than the £1,800, instead of the £4,500, the value of his Commission being no longer cumulative. Further, the poor officer was prevented from exchanging either from full pay to half-pay, or from half-pay to full pay, or from one regiment to another. The sub-lieutenant of infantry who came from the ranks had not the prospective advantages he formerly enjoyed, while his pay was very inadequate—namely, £95 16 s. 3d., his necessary expenses at the most moderate computation amounting to no less than £115 15 s. 1d. He did not see how they could ever again get noncommissioned officers to accept promotion from the ranks under the present rate of pay, or how they could secure the services of the sons of poor clergymen and other professional men—the very classes they wished to obtain for the Army. Now, that the conditions under which poor men entered the service had been so much altered, he was convinced the Government would find that they must increase the pay of officers. The purchase sub-lieutenant who entered before that Act was passed had probably borrowed money to enter into the service, and also on going abroad with his regiment to insure his life. Such an officer, it was evident was even worse off than the poor
  642
  man who was shown to have only £95 a-year, although his expenses amounted to £115. The pay was positively not sufficient to defray their necessary regimental expenses, leaving out uniforms and family expenses. Was it singular, then, that there should be discontent in the Army? The purchase officers, more particularly from the majors downwards, complained that the Government were actually in possession of their money, which money was being kept to keep up a fictitious promotion. In five or six years' time, however, there would and must be a stagnation. Could their Lordships wonder, then, if the officers were without hope? Whether or not the Government, in consequence of their Lordships' vote that evening, granted a Royal Commission, he appealed to them to treat the Army with far more consideration and justice than they had hitherto done. By doing so they might, perhaps, lose the support of their extreme and advanced followers; but, on the other hand, they would earn the gratitude of the Army, and also, he believed, the approval of the country. There was the same chivalry and high sentiment in the Army as was displayed at Waterloo and at Inkerman; but men who entered the service liked to cherish the idea that if they imperilled life and limb, and underwent any hardship in the discharge of their duty, they did it not for the War Office, but for their Queen and country.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the Motion before the House was confined to the grievances of officers consequent on the abolition of Purchase; but the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Hertford) had referred to various matters of complaint which had little or nothing at all to do with that measure. The noble and gallant Lord who commanded the Southern district (Viscount Templetown) said that it was undoubted that great dissatisfaction existed among the officers of the Army, and that it was most desirable that that dissatisfaction should be put an end to; but his noble and gallant Friend neither stated from what that dissatisfaction arose, nor did he state to what extent he believed it to be well founded. With regard to the non-purchase officers of the Line, their case was met by the regulation of the Act of 1871 under which they were to receive £100 for

  643
  every year of foreign service, and £50 for every year of home service. The noble Duke who brought forward the present Motion said he would be content to rest his case on the fact that discontent existed in the Army. But what was the nature of the grievances of the officers? His noble Friend the (Marquess of Lansdowne) had been obliged to pick out of the memorials the grounds of complaint which he supposed, if the inquiry were granted, would be urged, but the Motion did not show what causes of complaint existed. As for the precedent relied on by the noble Duke, the Motion proposed by Colonel Lindsay in the House of Commons in 1863 distinctly stated the grounds for the discontent that then existed among certain officers; whereas the noble Duke might content himself with saying that discontent existed, but he did not attempt to say what cause there was for it. Nothing could be more unfortunate than widespread discontent among the officers; but as a matter of fact a great portion of the complaints were, as remarked by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), of a minor and comparatively unimportant character, and it had been shown that many of them did not spring from the abolition of Purchase. One complaint was that the post of commanding officer of a battalion had been made terminable; but such complaints were occasionally preferred before the abolition of Purchase, and indeed formed one of the strongest arguments against its continuance. Lord Dalhousie, whose absence he regretted, and who did not advocate the abolition of Purchase, always laid down that officers had no vested rights of that kind which they could urge against measures required for the improvement of the Service, and it would be dangerous now to admit claims which during the existence of Purchase were uniformly denied by the military authorities and the War Department. He knew too well the character of the officers to doubt that they felt they had distinct complaints; but they had not drawn a distinction between grievances attendant on the abolition of Purchase and those arising from alterations required in the interests of the Service, and from the changes going on everywhere in military systems. The noble Duke had also adduced an argument of another kind—
  644
  he stated that the discontent not only prevailed in the mess room, but had extended to the barrack room. That was a very grave statement; but he ventured to think that it was one in respect of which it would be very difficult to produce any evidence, nor if the Motion were adopted could any grievances but those of the officers be inquired into. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had been represented as saying that the opening of this question would interfere with the financial arrangements of the War Office; but all that he had said was that if compensation were given it would be necessary to re-open the case of the officers, to whom something over £2,000,000 had been already paid. His noble Friend distinctly said that Mr. Cardwell had in several instances gone beyond the law and entered into the equity of the case, and that in no instance had he experienced any difficulty in obtaining the sanction of the Treasury and of the House of Commons to the payment of an increased sum, and it had been distinctly stated by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, and by the noble Marquess who spoke on behalf of the Secretary for War, that Mr. Cardwell would continue to give the most equitable consideration to any such cases which might be brought before him by the illustrious Duke. He had understood the illustrious Duke to express no opinion on the course he should adopt on this occasion, but to express a hope that their Lordships would take the course most calculated to allay any discontent which might exist among the officers, and he (the Marquess of Ripon) concurred most cordially in the expression of that desire. At the same time he asked their Lordships not to agree to this Motion, not only because the Government were quite willing to take every step in their power to allay any discontent arising from reasonable causes, but also because if their Lordships adopted this vague Motion, which did not define or confine the matters to be inquired into, they would give rise to large and unfounded expectations which it would be impossible to gratify, and thus, instead of allaying, they would only increase any discontent that might exist.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND,in reply, said, he was fully justified in pressing

  645
  the Motion by the statement of the illustrious Duke, which nobody acquainted with the Army could dispute, that discontent existed. The person more eminently qualified than any other to describe the feeling of the Army had told their Lordships in unmistakeable terms that discontent existed among the officers. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had taken him to task for not having entered into the details of the grievances alleged by the officers. But he had a perfect answer to this. In the first place, he thought it extremely irregular and inconvenient for the noble Marquess who represented the War Department to have quoted from documents which were not before the House, and to which there was no possibility of his obtaining access. The complaints had been addressed to the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, and he should have thought it the height of impertinence to have knocked at the door of His Royal Highness and asked permission to inspect the documents in order to support the view which he was putting before their Lordships. To have done this would have been to put the Commander-in-Chief in a position in which he ought not to be put by any Member of their Lordships' House. It had been urged that it was out of order to ask for a Royal Commission to inquire into the operation of an Act of Parliament. But in answer to this he would call to their Lordships' recollection the fact that in 1870 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases Act, which had been passed in the previous year. It was not with any view to obtain a decision in favour of the reenactment of Purchase in the Army that he had brought this question forward—he should as soon think of obtaining a re-enactment of the Corn Laws by the issuing of a Royal Commission to inquire into the operation of the Act of Parliament which repealed them—he had brought the question forward because he believed that the officers had a substantial grievance to complain of, and on the grounds which he had stated he asked their Lordships to accede to the Motion for an Address.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsupported the Motion. He believed that the officers of the Army had many and great grievances to complain of, arising out of the
  646
  abolition of Purchase—that they had made out a good case for inquiry, and that the facts and arguments in favour of the issue of a Royal Commission had not been answered.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 129; Not Contents, 46; Majority, 83.
  Resolved in the Affirmative:—Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D

  Westmoreland, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Richmond, D.

  Falmouth, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Wellington, D.

  Bath, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Bute, M.

  Hood, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Templetown, V.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Aylesford, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Derby, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Devon, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Chelmsford. L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Feversham, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim)

  Fortescue, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Howe, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  De L'Isleand Dudley, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Digby, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Powis, E.

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Rosse, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Gifford, L

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Gormanston, L. (V Gormanston.)

  Verulam, E.

  647

  Hartimere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Hylton, L.

  Keane, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  [Teller.]

  Leconfield, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

  Lovel and Holland, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  (E. Egmont.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Manners, L.

  Monson, L.

  Templemore, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  De Mauley, L.

  Eliot, L.

  Foley, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Gwydir, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hatherley, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Hatherton, L.

  Westminster, M.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Kildare, L. (Mr. Kildare.)

  Chichester, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Cowper, E.

  Essex, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Granville, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Morley, E.

  Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Canterbury, V.

  Eversley, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Sundridge, L. (Dr. Argyll.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Waveney, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carew, L.

AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN BILL. (No. 220–221.)

  COMMONS AMENDMENT CONSIDERED.
  Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  Clause 8 (Power to suspend temporarily restrictive provisions of Act) omitted by the Lords; re-inserted by the Commons.
  LORD HENNIKERproposed to agree to the re-instatement of the clause, but to disagree to the Commons Amendment to the new Clause B, inserted by their Lordships, with one exception—namely, to omit the words "hay-harvest" from the new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the power should comprehend the period of the hay as well as of the corn-harvest. He thought, however, it would be best to adhere to their Lordships' original decisions and omit the clause altogether.
  After a few words from The Earl of KIMBERLEY,
  On Question, whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  The Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on; The Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment; The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Five o'clock.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE—NOTTINGHAM LIBERAL DINNER.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the noble Duke opposite, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, relative to certain language which has been attributed to him, as having been used at a dinner over which he presided during the past week. I have carefully examined the different accounts of what took place on that occasion which appeared in various newspapers, and I scarcely think that the expressions attributed to the noble Duke in those accounts are incorrect. In anticipation that the noble Duke will not be able to contradict those accounts I will venture to protest in the strongest manner against the way in which he is stated to have introduced Her Majesty's name in the course of his speech. I cannot conceive anything more irregular, more unconstitutional, or, happily, more uncommon than the language attributed to

  649
  him. Upon all festive occasions in this country it is the invariable custom for the loyalty of Englishmen to be displayed by drinking the health of Her Majesty the Queen, and that toast is on all occasions and in all societies received with the loyalty and acclamation which the character of Her Majesty demands that it should be received with. But on the occasion to which I refer, of a Liberal dinner held by a Liberal club—possibly in anticipation of a not far distant Dissolution of Parliament— the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) presided over the banquet as President of the club. He was supported by a noble Earl, who spoke on the occasion, but to whose speech I shall not allude further than to remark that it partook too much of a personal character, and gave a detailed statement with regard to various Members of your Lordships' House in no very elegant language. But the noble Duke was also supported by a Cabinet Minister who appears to have gone down specially for the occasion; and it appears also that other Cabinet Ministers were expected, but that various duties detained them in town. The intention of one of these Cabinet Ministers to attend the dinner was defeated by his having to give evidence before a Committee of the other House of Parliament, which was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Department over which he presides, in connection with the Zanzibar Mail contract. Under these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to visit the county which had the honour of giving him birth. The noble Duke, in proposing the health of Her Majesty, said—
  "I may remind you that her earliest impressions on Government were guided by the great Liberal leader of the day—Lord Melbourne—and she is supposed never to have forgotten the principles and party of her teacher."
  Although I do not want to make too much of this matter, I feel bound to say that statement is an insult to the Queen. If there is one point in Her Majesty's character which has been more often alluded to than another, and for which she is more remarkable than any other—and if there is one point in her character which has been referred to by Prime Minister after Prime Minister in both this and the other House of Parliament—it is this, that it does not sig-
  650
  nify what party is in power; whether Liberal or Conservative, the Ministry of the day have the undivided confidence of the Sovereign; and that nothing of any kind ever escapes from Her Majesty which would enable the party in power to know what her political opinions are. From the time she first ascended the Throne until the present moment Her Majesty has always acted in a constitutional manner, and therefore I must most earnestly protest against the assumption that by any act or deed on her part the political opinions of Her Majesty have become known. Under these circumstances, I feel bound to say that the statement of the noble Duke was an insult to the Queen, and that it is most irregular and unconstitutional to couple her name with that of any party, however respectable. I beg to ask the noble Duke the Question which stands in my name—namely, Whether the following is a correct report of expressions attributed to him in proposing the Queen's health at a dinner at Nottingham:—
  "I may remind you, that her earliest impressions on Government were guided by the great Liberal leader of the day, Lord Melbourne, and she is supposed never to have forgotten the principles and party of her teacher."
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS: The noble Duke deprecates Her Majesty's name being brought into political discussions, and to carry out his principle he has brought up in Parliament words spoken by me at a political dinner in a provincial town. Your Lordships can decide on the consistency of the course he has adopted. He has correctly stated my words in giving "The Queen!" on that occasion. They were unnecessary to secure the reception and acceptance of her health with every mark of loyalty and respect; but, as is the usual custom, I sought for appropriate remarks in proposing this toast. I therefore thought, and still think by the facts of the case, I was justified in my allusion to Lord Melbourne. It is a just cause of congratulation to the party to which I belong that an accident of time and circumstances should have given to one of our most eminent leaders the opportunity of being the first adviser of Her Majesty when, in her early youth, she began the long and successful reign which has been attended with so many blessings to this country, and which has marked her place in history as the most

  651
  constitutional Sovereign who has ruled dote I quoted should apply personally in England. The manner in which Lord and in an offensive manner to the noble Melbourne performed the task, his devotion to her honour, and the care which he bestowed on her political education in constitutional doctrines are matters of history. They were acknowledged at the time by no one with more warmth and cordiality than by the late Duke of Wellington, who, in the course of the debate on the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech in 1841, said—
  "I am willing to admit that the noble Viscount has rendered the greatest possible service to Her Majesty. I happen to know that it is Her Majesty's opinion that the noble Viscount has rendered Her Majesty the greatest possible service in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the Government of this country, initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution, independently of the performance of his duty as the servant of Her Majesty's Crown—teaching her, in short, to preside over the destinies of this great country." [3 Hansard, lix. 77.]
  I do not mean anything personal to the noble Duke in saying I thought it well to have this high authority before using these words—on the principle of the American carpenter who was called as a witness in a ease of' assault and battery. He was asked how far was the defendant off when he advanced to strike the blow—"4ft. 11½in., Sir." "Why, you seem to be very accurate. How is it possible you can be so exact?" "Why, Sir, in case some fool might ask me the question, I went and measured the distance."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, the noble Duke says, in effect, that he has prepared this extract in case any fool should ask him a Question such as I have done. I do not suppose that the noble Duke in interposing this American anecdote intended to be personal—I am, of course, in the hands of your Lordships in such a matter as this—but I should wish to know whether that is a proper mode of replying to a Question put by a Member of your Lordships' House. In my remarks I carefully avoided everything calculated to give offence; but the noble Duke, by the terms in which he answers my Question, leads it to be believed that he has been asked the Question by a fool. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether I am one or not.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I did not intend that the anec-
  652
  dote I quoted should apply personally and in an offensive manner to the Duke. It appears to me a matter of praise that Her Majesty has "never forgotten" nor departed from the constitutional principles which it was Lord Melbourne's endeavour to instil into her youthful mind. I do not see that my words can be fairly taken to mean that Her Majesty is a partizan. It may have been an error on my part to have made use of the word "party." On referring to a very usual book of reference called Maunder's Biographical Treasury, under the head "Melbourne, Viscount," I find the following statement—
  "In 1837 Lord Melbourne's Government, which had become gradually weakened by the attacks of a powerful majority in the Upper House and the hostility of a growing and powerful minority in the Lower, gained new strength from the accession of Queen Victoria, whose personal sympathies, it was alleged, were enlisted in favour of the party then in power."
  I hope, however, your Lordships will consider it a venial fault to mention that, unlike some of her predecessors, Her Majesty has remembered and acted up to the popular views of her youth, while she has behaved with admirable impartiality and fairness to men of all parties in the State whose services Her Majesty has required. I have to thank the noble Duke for the opportunity he has afforded me of explaining any misconception my words may have conveyed, and for kindly attracting so public a notice to the late Liberal meeting in Nottingham, over which I had the honour to preside.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Duke (the Duke of St. Alban's) instead of exculpating himself from the charge which was brought against him, appears to me to have repeated the offence by calling his adversary a fool. I do not know to what extent the Ministers of the Crown consider they are responsible for what their subordinates may say—but when I heard that quotation from Maunder—a very suggestive word—brought up by the noble Duke, I fully expected some Cabinet Minister would have risen in his place to call him to Order, and that we should not be blamed for objecting to language in which Her Majesty is described as a partizan. The rule, my Lords, which almost invariably prevents the use of such language, is one which is just not

  653
  only to Parliament but to the Queen, because she cannot answer these accusations. It may be true or false—we believe it to be thoroughly true—that the Queen has the most perfect appreciation in the performance of her duties of that which becomes her as a Constitutional Sovereign. But when one of those who hold a place in her Government accuses her of the contrary conduct, her mouth is closed and she cannot repudiate the charge. I feel the danger of a practice which if it extended to the higher ranks of the Government would assume a much more serious character than it does in the present instance. If this sort of thing is done in the case of one Sovereign it will be done in the case of another; and are we, I would ask, to take it as a rule for our future guidance that it will be fair at any future time to charge any future Sovereign with having adopted all the opinions of any statesman or party whom he might have honoured with his friendship or acquaintance in his youth? If any such course is pursued it may be a great libel on that Sovereign. I feel it, my Lords, very dif-cult to comment on this extraordinary dinner at which the noble Duke presided, because all the guests there appear to have dwelt in an enchanted land, and to have been entirely confused by something that I will not attempt to define. My noble Friend opposite, who represents the Board of Trade in this House (Earl Cowper)—than whom there could scarcely be a more calm and sagacious representative of the Government—felt himself tempted to indulge in some very remarkable phraseology with respect to Members of your Lordships' House, whether belonging to the Liberal or the Conservative party; but the word which he used was somewhat more elegant than that which has just now been applied by the noble Duke to my noble Friend behind me. But the noble Duke at this dinner made some other startling observations. He told the country that the House of Lords was divided into two classes—those who attended the debates and voted according to their convictions, and those who were brought down to the House from time to time and voted as they were told. I did not at first see who it was that used this language. I thought it must be the utterance of some unruly guest who was referring to the subordinate Members of the Govern-
  654
  ment in the House of Lords. I believe they are the only Members of the House whose convictions by some miraculous intervention invariably coincide with the decisions of others in which they have themselves no concern. I found, however, on looking more attentively at the Report, that the remarks of the noble Duke were intended to be applied principally to those who sit on the Conservative side of the House. It is a favourite topic with noble Lords opposite that the Conservative party have a large majority within these walls, and that the decisions of your Lordships are come to by a blind majority at the back of my noble Friend the leader of the Opposition. I would however, remind the House, in the case of a critical division, 10 years ago, on the subject of the Danish War, the Conservative majority turned out to be nine, and that since that time the present Prime Minister has added 28 Members to this House; so that if you deduct 28 from nine you have the Conservative majority. The truth, I suppose, is, after the exhibition of this evening, that the Conservative party generally do carry out those Constitutional principles which Lord Melbourne recommended to Her Majesty, while those who were brought up under him do not continue to support them. I wish also to call attention to another point in the speech of the noble Duke—but he so seldom indulges in this refined epigrammatical style of speaking that I fear he may not have followed the proceedings in this House with great attention. I am afraid that I may be looked upon as one of those who are brought down here to vote as they are told; because he complained to the Nottingham dinner party that the Conservative party had not resisted a Bill brought forward by noble Lords opposite on its second and third readings in this House. Now, the noble Duke could not have been acquainted with the facts, or he would not have made the assertion. It is perfectly true that we found it hopeless to resist the second reading of the Bill in question. But we fought hard against its provisions in Committee for a whole night, and the irresistible Conservative majority was beaten. Though, therefore, it is literally true that we did not resist the second or third reading, the noble Duke has, nevertheless, been guilty of a suggestio falsi, because we re-

  655
  sisted the Bill in Committee, not because it was hostile to the licensed victuallers, but because we objected to it on principle. I now hope that when any portion of the Body Guard of the Government is in future retained to storm the provinces—and it is a remarkable fact that not a single independent Peer attended on the present occasion—they will abstain from representing the proceedings of this House and those who are opposed to them in politics in a way which will not bear criticism. Some of us may be fools and others may be bores, but that fact need not be openly proclaimed in every borough which Her Majesty's Government may desire to conciliate. Another observation which was made at the dinner was that the irresistible majority of which the noble Duke was speaking put forward inferior men in debate, and that the leaders did not take the trouble to explain their own policy. All this is really very hard on us who sit on this bench. My noble Friend near me is called a fool, and he is besides designated as an "inferior man," because he generally supports his own policy, and I, who in a humble way pursue the same system, must take my rank by his side in the list which has been assigned us. I am sure, however, there is no more mistaken charge which can be brought against my noble Friend and those who sit near him than that they shrink from supporting, on all possible occasions, the measures they approve. I sincerely hope that the next time the House of Lords is toasted there will be no Member of the Government present to respond for it, because otherwise I do not see how the character of this House is to be maintained.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he had perhaps, used an unfortunate expression on the occasion to which the noble Marquess referred, and he would not repeat it. He would remind the noble Marquess, however, that when the Petition signed by a certain number—450 he believed—of clergymen in favour of confession was under discussion a few days ago, he himself had spoken of the number of fools among the clergy as probably not being greater than were to be found in either House of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that he had said that these were only 2½ per cent of the clergy, and that 2½ per cent of folly was not greater
  656
  than might be found in Parliament; but he had left it in doubt whether there was the greater amount of folly in that or in the other House of Parliament.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he did not wish to retract what he had said, but wanted the House to know fairly what it was he had said. He stated that their Lordships' House might be viewed in two aspects—first, there were the ordinary nights when certain noble Lords who devoted themselves to politics came down to attend to the public business, and next there were the great occasions when noble Lords appeared whose faces were not so familiar and were not seen there at other times, but who then gave their votes, and it so happened that a large majority of them were Conservatives. That statement of his rested on evidence which was open to the whole world—the published records of their Lordships' Votes and Proceedings. If, therefore, it was erroneous, the whole country could judge of its error; but he believed that it was correct.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, 'till to morrow, Eleven o'clock.