Lords Sitting of 11 May 1875

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Tredegar, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland) * (100).
Second Reading—Chimney Sweepers (71); Artizans Dwellings (82); Seal Fishery (Greenland) * (80); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (70).
Committee—Report—Regimental Exchanges (44); Sea Fisheries * (86).
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (55), and passed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL. (No. 71.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL. (No. 71.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it had been his sad duty to address their Lordships twice already on this painful subject—once in 1853, again in 1864, and now again in 1875. Although he was compelled, in the interest of his clients, to stand for a time that evening, between them and a larger question, they would not, he was sure, be averted by the apparent meanness of the cause—far from mean, in fact, since it concerned the temporal and eternal welfare of some thousands of children, the most oppressed, degraded, and tortured creatures on the face of the earth. It was through their Lordships' House, and by their aid, that he hoped to appeal finally and effectively to public opinion. This "Chamber of Horrors" had long been open before us. The earliest trace of interest he could find was in the year 1773, when the matter was in the hands of Mr. Jonas Hanway; and in 1788 a Bill was passed by both Houses for the protection of climbing boys. Thus this terrible system had now been before the public for more than 100 years, and for 85 had been the subject of legislation. And yet the evil, wherever it prevailed, was, and was of necessity, as great as ever. He need not trouble them with the several provisions of the successive Acts. It was sufficient to say that all were marked by timidity, though with kind intentions, and all were far short
  438
  of the necessity, proved by the character of the evidence, and the safety of the remedy proposed. Here were the stages of legislation:—The first Act was in 1788—the 28th of George III. It was a good Bill in many respects as passed by the Commons, but it was detrimentally altered in the House of Lords. It passed, however, into a law, and continued so until 1834. But matters had become so bad in 1817 that the House of Commons passed an amending Bill, which, though highly approved by the Select Committee, to which it had been referred, was lost on the third reading in the House of Lords. Then came the Act of 1834. This was repealed by the Act of 1840, brought in by Mr. Fox Maule, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. This Act re-affirmed all the strictest provisions as to the structure of chimneys contained in the Act of 1834; it provided that no apprentices should be taken under 16 years of age, and it was the first that prohibited climbing boys altogether by enacting that none under 21 years of age should be allowed to ascend or descend flues. In 1853 he himself brought in a Bill to meet, if possible, the constant evasions of the Act; but this Bill was lost. In 1864 he brought in another Bill to remove some of those defects. It passed into a law, but, from a variety of reasons, had been inoperative in many parts of the Provinces. He would now call their attention to the evidence of oppression and suffering from 1773 to the present day. He again offered an apology for this drain on their time and patience; but they would see, he was sure, that this question was one of evidence and fact, and not simply one of appeal and argumentation. In 1788 there was no evidence taken before Parliamentary Committees, but the case must have been very clear and strong to move the two Houses to pass a restrictive measure when there was little or no force in public opinion, perhaps scarcely any existence of it, and when the Press had not attained the hundredth part of its present power. In 1817 there was abundant and frightful evidence taken before both Houses. He would give a sample of it, to show that the evil was the same now as then, and without any abatement. First, he would ask their Lordships to observe how great, compared with to-day, was the patronage extended to those children, and yet how

  439
  useless. In 1817 the society for their protection had the Prince of Wales as patron; the Duke of Bedford, Earl Grosvenor, Mr. William Wilberforce, Sir Francis Burdett, and a host of others as vice presidents. The Committee of the House of Commons, obtained by their efforts in that year, reported—
  "Infants of the early age of four, five, and six years have been employed, it being the practice for parents to sell their children to this trade."
  The evidence went on—
  "They are stolen from their parents and inveigled out of workhouses; that in order to conquer the natural repugnance of the infants to ascend the narrow and dangerous chimneys, blows are used; that pins are forced into their feet by the boy who follows up the chimney, in order to compel them to ascend it, and that lighted straw has been applied for that purpose; that the children are subject to sores, and bruises, and burns on their thighs, knees, and elbows; and that it will require many months before the extremities of the elbows and knees become sufficiently hard."
  Then after that statement, followed a long enumeration of the deformities, mutilations, cruelties, and diseases to which they were subjected, with the wretched moral and physical consequences; atrocious cases also of murder, treated as moderate manslaughter—and, to conclude, Richard Wright, a medical witness, stated the horrible character of the disease called "Chimney sweepers' cancer," which was confirmed by the eminent surgeon Mr. Cline, and before the Lords' Committee in the same year by Mr. Vincent and Sir William Blizard. The same witness added a frightful catalogue of diseases and mutilations to which they were subject through ill-treatment. All this was confirmed and intensified by evidence before the Lords in 1818. This year, too, was signalized by a stirring and fearful article in The Edinburgh Review, in which the Rev. Sydney Smith recorded all the horrors of the trade, and left the public without the possibility of a plea of ignorance Evidence was again taken in 1834, and in 1840 the Bill sent up by Mr. Fox Maule was referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. That evidence re-affirmed all the atrocities of the system, and satisfied the House of the necessity and safety of the proposed remedies. In 1853, also, much evidence was taken to show the violations of the Act. In 1864 we had the Report of a Royal
  440
  Commission, which had been issued two years before, to inquire into the employment of children and young persons. To this evidence, as it was so recent, he would now call their Lordships' attention. It must be, he feared, in many respects, a repetition of former statements; nevertheless the public and their Lordships might have forgotten them, and they would, he was sure, pardon the reproduction, for it was necessary, of evidence already given. Let them take first the ages at which they began to train up a child in the way he should go. It appeared from evidence taken in 1863 that the age at which training commenced was from six to eight, generally six—a "nice trainable age," said the masters. There were instances of five, and even of four-and-a-half. The hours of work in the smaller towns were eight to nine; in the larger, from 12 to 16, work beginning at 4 o'clock, 3, and even 2 in the morning. 63 witnesses were examined from all parts of England, 33 of whom were master sweeps. Then followed the mode of doing it. Of the training, Mr. Ruff, of Nottingham, a master sweep, said—
  "No one knows the cruelty which a boy has to undergo in learning. The flesh must be hardened. This must be done by rubbing it, chiefly on the elbows and knees, with the strongest brine, close by a hot fire. You must stand over them with a cane, or coax them by a promise of a halfpenny if they will stand a few more rubs. At first they will come back from their work streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again."
  "The following description," said the Commissioners, "is so painful, that we should hesitate to record it were it not amply confirmed:—'If, as often happens,' says a master sweep, 'a boy is gloomy or sleepy, or anywise "linty," and you have other jobs on at the same time, though I should be as kind as I could, you must ill-treat him somehow, either with the hand or brush, or something. It is remembering the cruelty which I have suffered which makes me so strong against boys being employed. I have the marks of it on my body now, and I believe the biggest part of the sweeps in the town have the same. That (showing a deep scar across the bottom of the calf of the leg) was made by a blow from my master with an ash-plant—i.e., a young ash tree that is supple and will not break—when I was six years old; it was cut to the bone, which had to be scraped to heal the wound. I have marks of nailed boots, &c, on other parts.'"
  Mr. Stransfield, another master sweep, said—
  "In learning a child you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it. I have gone

  441
  to bed with my knees and elbows scabbed and raw, and the inside of my thighs all scarified."
  Another said—
  "At first they will come back from their work with their arms and knees streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again, and perhaps go off at once to another chimney. In some boys I have heard that the flesh does not harden for years."
  One of the Commissioners stated—
  "I found a boy of about eight, in the market, who had run away from some place. Part of his knee-caps got torn off, the gristle all showed white, and the guilders (tendons) all around were like white string, or an imitation of white cotton. His back was covered with sores all the way up."
  To harden his knees a lotion made of old "netting"—i.e., urine kept long for the purpose—simmered with hot cinders, was put on them. "It was like killing him," said the sweep, "and I had to stand by and see it all." "Why, I myself," says another—
  "Have kept a lad four hours up a chimney, when he was so sore that he could scarcely move; but I would not let him come down till he had finished. It has often made my heart ache to hear them wail, even when I was what you may call a party to it. In learning a child," he goes on, "you can't be soft with him, you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it."
  There, then, their Lordships might see what was the elementary education that a Christian people gave to its children! Here came in another form of suffering and death. In some cases children, said the Report, had been—
  "Seriously burnt in consequence of having been compelled by their masters to ascend flues on fire."
  Mr. Michael Brown, Coroner for the borough of Nottingham, stated that he had held two inquests on climbing-boys; in one the fire was burning, and something was put over the still hot fireplace to enable the boy to rest his feet on at starting. According to Mr. Peacock, of Burslem, Mr. Herries, of Leicester, had collected 23 eases of boys who had been killed in chimnies by being stifled since 1840. Here was another form of suffering in the shape of a fearful disease—exactly as stated in 1817. Here came in some sanitary results. It was well known to surgeons that sweeps were liable to a peculiar disease—a most painful and fatal complaint, consisting of a peculiar form of cancer, arising from the exposure to soot. Among the men it was
  442
  known as the "sooty wart," or "sooty cancer." One master said he had known eight or nine sweeps lose their lives by that disease. All that was confirmative of the evidence before Parliament in 1817 and 1818. And now, for the necessary result in their moral condition, take the language of the Commissioners—
  "The concurrent testimony of all the witnesses proves that the climbing-boys are greatly neglected, and constitute, in fact, one of the most degraded classes of the community. The very nature of the employment itself, independently of bad treatment and neglect, tends to lower the character of those children; it is, in truth, unsuitable to a human being; and with all these painful facts before us we regard the moral debasement inseparable from the use of climbing-boys, as the worst effect of the violation of the law."
  Then, in order to show the safe use of the machine, the Commissioners stated, on a calculation, that nearly two millions and a-half of flues in the metropolis were swept by it; and they concluded by adding—
  "It is important to state, on evidence which cannot be controverted, that since the passing of the Act (1840), so far from fires caused by flues having increased in the metropolitan districts, they have proportionately diminished."
  The Commissioners then quoted from a very instructive "Table," as they termed it, by Captain Shaw of the Fire-engine Establishment; and that had been confirmed by a note he (Lord Shaftesbury) had himself received from that excellent public servant—
  "I consider," he wrote, "the system of climbing-boys most barbarous, and, from my special point of view, wholly unnecessary."
  Now, he had given them but a sample of the atrocities perpetrated under this Satanic system. There were some far worse than those he had recorded; but the statement of them would be long, and he hoped unnecessary. What more could be required to produce conviction? But to show the needless cruelty and oppression of the system, he asked them to take these facts. He quoted the authority of architects and builders, who had in every stage, from 1773 to the present day, shown the safety and superiority of the machine, especially in the evidence of 1834 and 1840. Let them hear now the practical evidence, which was quite unanswerable. On London: Letter from Colonel Henderson to say that the inquiries of the police had not discovered a single climbing-boy in the whole metropolis with its four millions

  443
  of inhabitants. Glasgow: Letter from the Chief Constable to declare the system utterly extinct. Edinburgh: Letter from the Lord Provost to the same effect. From Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Aberdeen, Ayr, Leicester, the evidence before the Commissioners was the same. Prom Paris, Lord Lyons wrote, on an official statement—
  "The modern construction of chimneys admits the passage of a brush or machine. There is no law against the use of climbing-boys; but in consequence of such construction that mode of sweeping is becoming more and more rare, especially in Paris."
  New York: Letter from General Schenck, to whose kindness he was much indebted—
  "Chimney-sweeps, climbing-boys, under twenty-one years of age, were many years ago employed in New York, and perhaps (though I think not) in some of the large American towns, but the practice has gone quite into disuse, and the work is now done altogether by brush or other machinery."
  He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was, indeed, charged, a few years ago, by the American journals, with cruelty and inconsistency, for reviling American slavery, and yet permitting the practice of climbing boys. How then, and why then, it might be asked, was the Act so inoperative? First, said the reporters, the neglect of the sections in the several Acts, regulating the construction of chimneys, and especially the disinclination of householders to incur the expense of introducing "soot holes," as prescribed by the Acts; second, the want of efficient machinery for putting the Acts into operation; third, the disinclination of magistrates to convict. A large proportion, they said, of the public connived at or directly encouraged the employment of climbing-boys. Those feelings, the Commissioners observed, were not confined to the lower ranks of society, but were shared by noblemen, magistrates, and other individuals. Again, the police, as a rule, did not appear to have interfered, the enforcement of the law not having been deemed by them to be part of their duty, and, as Mr. Batten—a barrister engaged for the purpose, who made inquiries in 1873—added, because they knew that it would not be agreeable to the authorities—authorities, such as those in the cities of Liverpool and Bath, where the law was openly and systematically broken. In some instances, they stated,
  444
  proofs of the infringement of the law had been demanded by the magistrates, which it was difficult or impossible for the prosecutor to furnish. Their Lord-ships ought now to hear Mr. Michael Brown. This evidence, by reason of the position of the witness, was of singular importance—
  "I am a solicitor," he stated, "and coroner for the borough of Nottingham. Another cause," said the witness, "which no doubt contributes to encourage the use of boys is that magistrates seem unwilling to convict on such a charge, knowing in some cases that boys are used in their own houses."
  He went on to say—
  "I was present at the hearing of a case a few miles from Nottingham. It was proved that the sweep entered with a boy, and that a brush, not a machine, was seen put out of the top of the chimney. The boy was present, and apparently not more than nine or ten years old, but the Bench required the informant to produce strict proof of his age, refusing to assume that he was under 21."
  Let their Lordships consider that. A lad of 10 years old, and the magistrate demanding legal proof that he was under 21! A plain denial of justice.
  "The sweep," continued the witness, "was acquitted. But the impression left upon my mind, and I believe on that of others in Court, was, that the magistrates were unwilling to convict if they could avoid it, and it was mentioned in the justice-room, as a fact, that the presiding magistrate had in his own house flues which would not admit of the use of the machine, and that boys were used instead."
  "I am convinced," wrote Mr. Lord, one of the sub-commissioners, "that, in very many country districts, and in towns also, the occupiers both of private dwellings and of places of business, wink at the practice of sending boys up their chimneys. Two very estimable gentlemen, magistrates of their county, have said to me very significantly, 'We prefer not to ask how our chimneys are swept.'"
  And that was the example of obedience to the laws set to the poorer sort by wealthy corporations, great Lords, and high magistrates! But here, in contrast to all that, he would quote something of a higher order. The Commissioners said—
  "Can we do better, in conclusion, than to recite the forcible language of the late Lord Cockburn, when passing sentence on a man who had been convicted, in 1840, for employing a child, who lost his life in a chimney at Glasgow:—'It was not only a scandal to the law to allow the sweeping of chimneys by children, but it was a deep disgrace on society to perpetuate the trade, society being, in point of fact, art and part in the commission of the inhumanity.' Lord Cockburn proceeded—'It was, indeed, monstrous to allow any child to be employed in such a way, and if the trade was but once put

  445
  down, it would be looked upon with so much horror that it would he difficult to convince the next generation that it had ever existed in a country claiming to be Christian.' "
  But here came another, and a sad contrast. In the present year and in the year 1873 two cases of deaths by climbing were tried at Assizes—only two cases, no doubt, out of many—one of a boy killed at Cambridge, and another at Gateshead. In both cases the jury brought in verdicts of manslaughter. But no such sentiments as those expressed by Lord Cockburn were heard from the English Judges, and the inadequate sentence was inflicted in each case of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It was not for him to talk about the administration of justice; but he had a right to say, and he did say, that he wished they had men like the Scotch Judges on their own judicial Bench. All he had stated had been confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Batten, a barrister, who gave last year his valuable services by travelling from place to place making inquiries and sending reports. He begged their Lord-ships to observe that he proposed no new law, but simply a mode of making the present one effectively. He simply proposed, according to the advice of the Commissioners, that no person should be allowed to carry on the trade of chimney-sweeper until he had received a licence for such from competent authority.
  "Our assistant Commissioner, Mr. Longe," say they, "who has visited Glasgow, attaches great importance to this plan of licensing, and we are of opinion that it should be made a part of the duty of the police to carry the Act into operation."
  The result, moreover, of many years' experience in Glasgow and Edinburgh proved the value of this regulation. It insured the observance of the law, and tended to raise the character of the master sweeps, who wherever the machine was used, were always elevated in the scale of society. Such was the case that he had to lay before their Lordships, and it only remained for him to ask what argument could be assigned, what facts adduced, against the simple proposition he had submitted to their judgment? Might he in a few words recapitulate the grounds of his appeal? He had shown that for more than 100 years that horrible system had been known to the public; that no one could in honesty plead ignorance of it; that it had occu-
  446
  pied the attention of individuals and of Parliament, who had endeavoured at various times and in various ways to restrict and suppress it. But the effect had only been partial. He had shown the long succession of disgusting and unsurpassed physical and moral cruelties which had been inflicted, and which were still being inflicted, on children of the tenderest years. He had shown that the law had been inoperative in many places—nay, had been wilfully and systematically disobeyed through the hostility of the magistrates, both unpaid and stipendiary, through the indifference of the public, and the obstinacy, recklessness, or parsimony of corporations and private gentlemen. He had shown that the humane and wise regulations for the construction of flues, enacted so early as 1834, had been, with very few exceptions, utterly disregarded; while the wretched children were still tormented under the plea of necessity, which necessity would be obviated by obedience to the law. He had shown the superior efficiency and safety of the machine. He had urged, and without possibility of refutation, that there existed not in the whole Kingdom a single flue which might not, with a trouble and cost unworthy of mention, be made sweepable by mechanical appliances. He had pressed on their Lordships' remembrance that among many of the millions of England, Scotland, and America the vile system was unknown, not that it was never known, but that being known it was banished as hateful and unnecessary. He had done what he could, and would their Lordships do the same? Surely they would now—he said it with all respect—they would, as apart of the Imperial Parliament, now emphatically declare that their laws were passed to be obeyed, and not to be systematically broken; that their beneficent statutes should not be set aside by high or low, rich or poor; and that, as all rule and authority came from above, they would exercise them in the spirit in which they had received them, the very least as feeling their care, and the greatest as not exempt from their power.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sure their Lordships had listened with much interest to the very able statement

  447
  of the noble Earl, for nobody was so competent to deal with the subject as the noble Earl. Everybody must admit it to be a disgrace that such a state of things should continue to exist; and, therefore, he was sure their Lordships would gladly give a second reading to the Bill, in order to show their anxiety to co-operate with the noble Earl in his endeavours to do away with the evils which he had so forcibly described. But would the measure, so ably advocated by the noble Earl, produce the good results he anticipated from it? On this, and former occasions, the noble Earl had expressed his opinion that the existing law was fully sufficient if put in force, and that the continuance of those evils was due to magistrates not enforcing the Act of Parliament—the real difficulty was to put the law in motion. Now, he must confess that, if this were so, and he had the noble Earl's word for it, he did not see how that evil was to be remedied by superadding to the existing law further provisions as to registration or licences, which magistrates would refrain from enforcing just as they did the present law. He thought that one effectual means for accomplishing what the noble Earl and all their Lordships desired was, by calling attention to the continued existence of this horrible scandal among us;—and that much would be effected by such speeches as that just delivered by the noble Earl. He believed that a speech which the noble Earl had delivered in their Lordships' House before Easter on the subject had done a great deal of good, and he ventured to anticipate that the speech he had delivered that evening would do still more. Another means was, by sending circulars to the police in various parts of the country, requiring a more stringent enforcement of the existing law—for he certainly did not see how the present Bill could operate to produce greater vigilance on the part of the police, or greater vigour on the part of the magistrates. Their Lordships must have heard with satisfaction the statement of the noble Earl, that in this great metropolis, and in other very large towns, the practice of sweeping chimneys by climbing boys was extinct. He thought that was no mean result to have followed from the exertions of the noble Earl, and those who worked with him, in this
  448
  cause. For the reasons he had already stated, he did not expect much from the Bill—he thought much greater results would flow from the influence of public opinion—but he would vote with the noble Earl, and the Government would support the second reading.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he did not differ very much from the noble Earl who had just spoken for the Government as to the results which might be expected from such appeals to public opinion as that made by the noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill; but, at the same time, the noble Earl had made so strong a case for the Bill, that he thought the House was bound to support him. He was disposed to think, however, that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) rather undervalued the probable effect of the system of licences proposed in the Bill. Licences had been enforced with good results in the case of other callings, and it might be expected that if chimney sweeps held a licence which could be revoked, they would be careful not to put in jeopardy their means of subsistence. He would suggest to the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill, whether the magistrates in Sessions would not be the best persons to issue the licences.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwas understood to suggest that it should be made obligatory on persons employing sweeps to see that the latter held licences under the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that the two great obstacles to the practical enforcement of the law were the indisposition of the magistrates to convict, and, consequently, of the police to act. Now, seeing what a large portion of the cost of the police of the country was paid out of the Imperial funds, the Government might put a pressure on the police to act against offending chimney sweepers, regardless of the feelings of magistrates, in at least bringing the cases before magistrates. He had very little fear but that the pressure of opinion which was sure to result from the harrowing statement made by the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would compel magistrates to act when cases in which they ought to do so were brought before them.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL.

  (NO. 82.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that though the practice had begun to prevail of constructing Bills without Preambles, yet the principles of the present measure would be found in the Preamble, the various propositions of which could scarcely be questioned. None of their Lordships would deny that—
  "Various portions of many cities and boroughs were so built, and the buildings thereon were so densely inhabited, as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants;"
  nor would any of their Lordships refuse their sanction to the further proposition that it was—
  "Necessary for the public health that many houses, courts, and alleys should be pulled down and such portions of the said cities and boroughs be reconstructed."
  Having thus glanced at the Preamble, he thought it might be convenient if, in the first place, he went through the enacting portions of the Bill for the purpose of simply stating what it proposed. Clause 1 was merely a provision for giving a short title to the Act. Clause 2 described the districts to which the Act was to apply and the Local Authorities in those districts. It was to apply to the City of London and the Metropolis exclusive of the City of London; urban sanitary districts in England containing a population of 25,000 and upwards; and urban sanitary districts in Ireland containing a similar population. The "local authority" was to be as respecting the City of London the Commissioners of Sewers, as respected the Metropolis outside the City, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in each urban sanitary district the urban sanitary authority of that district. He had the curiosity to ascertain the number of persons to whom the Act would apply exclusive of the inhabitants of the Metropolis and those of the City of London, and he found that it would apply to 5,400,000 souls. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that immense numbers of people would be affected by the provisions of the Bill now before them. Clause 3
  450
  provided that the Local Authority might make a scheme for improvement on being satisfied by an "official representation" of the unhealthiness of the district. Clause 4 provided that the "official representation" might be made by the medical officer of health of his own motion, or on the complaint of two justices of the peace, or of 12 ratepayers. Clause 5 described the requisites in the shape of maps, estimates, and particulars which should accompany the improvement scheme of a Local Authority. The Local Authority was to be invested with discretion as to the locality in which new dwellings were to be provided, and was not to be compelled to provide them within the area of demolition. One part of Clause 5 assumed increased importance when read in connection with Clause 8, which empowered the Local Authority to contract with the limited owner who was under restrictions as to his tenure. Another valuable portion of the Bill was that which diminished the costs of Parliamentary proceedings by employing the machinery of Provisional Orders. As to the execution of the scheme by the Local Authority—the Local Authority was, immediately on the scheme having received the confirmation of Parliament, to take steps for purchasing the land required, and for otherwise carrying out the scheme—they might sell or let any part of the land so purchased upon terms that would carry the scheme into execution; or they might engage with any companies or other bodies, to carry out the scheme upon such terms as they, the Local Authority, might think expedient; but they were not, without the express sanction of the confirming authority, to undertake themselves the execution of any part of the scheme—that was left to commercial or other enterprize. Hitherto it had been found by those who had directed special attention to the subject that the impediment to progress was the difficulty of acquiring sites and not the difficulty of providing funds; for some of the 16 associations or Companies of the Metropolis possessed more money than they had been able to devote to the objects for which they were formed. The Bill would not run counter to the principles of political economy, because interference with the inexorable laws of political economy must ultimately bring about much wider misery than would be temporarily caused by the existence of those

  451
  hard cases which, according to the proverb, produced bad law. The Bill left to private enterprize that which was no part of the business of either the State or the Local Authorities. Where, under the protection of the law, complicated tenures had grown up, it was no interference with the laws of political economy for the State to solve difficulties created by its own artificial action. The Bill was not a compulsory measure, and for the best of all reasons—if a Local Authority was really determined to do nothing, it would be difficult to coerce it by means of a Central Authority. He was unwilling to believe that the great municipal corporations of this country would, when called upon to deal with this subject, show such a want of public spirit as to allow such plague spots to remain within their jurisdiction as were proposed to be removed by this Bill. On this point he would refer their Lordships to what had been done by the Corporation of Liverpool in 1864, by the City of Glasgow in 1866, and by the City of Edinburgh in 1867 under their Improvement and Sanitary Acts. In Glasgow in one single improvement not fewer than 250 families were removed and found ready accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. The information on the Table of the House as to what had been done by the three great municipal bodies of this country to which he had referred, showed that they were not insensible of the duties which were imposed on them, and that a large portion of the remaining municipalities would gladly accept the opportunity of putting into operation the machinery placed at their disposal by this Bill. The real difficulty with which they had to deal was not the density of the population, for while in the most dense part of London the average density was 235 per acre, and the actual density of the densest part of London was 410 human beings per acre, yet the number accommodated in some of the improved areas were not less than 1,100 souls per acre. The real evil was the unsuitability of the tenements. The problem was complex, the remedy simple. By an economic use of the space obtained, and the erection of more suitable dwellings, they might hope a very large area would remain for playgrounds for children, or for squares, or, what was not less impor-
  452
  tant in a sanitary point of view, for wide streets. At all events, there was no reason to fear that a very large space would not be available for housing the dispossessed population. London was not like Paris where the population was not indigenous but continually recruited from the country. In 1871, there were living in London of persons born there 2,055,576, so that their Lordships would see the importance of providing adequate condition of sanitary propriety for the rearing of the large number of children born in London; while for the whole of England and Wales the decennial increase ef the rural population—1861–71—was 668,428, the increase of the urban population was 1,969,456. Parliament had not been forgetful of its duty in this respect, and from time to time various Acts had been passed dealing with the subject. He had before him a list of the Acts which had been passed; but up to the present time no comprehensive scheme of this kind had been initiated. One argument which was often used against the demolition of these houses was that it often drove the population into a worse state of things than before; but the detailed experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh gave a very different result. In fact, the working classes were always ready to avail themselves of the improved dwellings which were placed within their reach. Some valuable information had recently been placed on the Table with reference to the diminution of crime coincident with the improved dwellings of the lower classes. In Glasgow, in 1867, when the Improvement Trust commenced, the number of crimes reported was 10,899; whereas there had been, not a casual or sudden, but a continuous decrease, till in 1873 the number of crimes reported was only 7,869. Then, as to mortality. He had figures before him which showed the difference in this respect between two streets of Liverpool, one of which was properly ventilated and provided with sewers, and the other in a very defective sanitary condition. It appeared that while in the one street out of 100 children under one year only four died, no fewer than 50 died in the other. Again, whereas in the whole metropolitan area the ordinary death rate was 24 per 1,000, the death rate in the houses of the Metropolitan Associations for Providing Dwellings might be taken at 14,

  453
  Their Lordships would see in these figures how large a margin was left for improvement. It was useless to suppose that in providing suburban accommodation for the labouring classes they would find an adequate remedy for the evils complained of. It was essential to a large class of artizans that they should reside near their work. It was not only that time was lost if they lived in the suburbs—not only that they were separated all day from their families—but it was in many cases indispensable that the artizans should be always at hand; and therefore it was impossible that suburban dwellings should ever provide accommodation for that description of artizans. He hoped their Lordships would be of opinion that the time was come when a serious effort should be made in this matter. We had not only to make up for the neglect of the past, but to meet the growing demands of the future—for the population was increasing at an enormous rate, and it was estimated that between the years 1870 and 1880 no less than 3,000,000 souls would be added to the subjects of Her Majesty within these islands, of whom three-fourths would be deserters in towns. He had studiously refrained from drawing a sensational picture of the sufferings and horrors undergone in consequence of overcrowding. He appealed to their reason and justice. It must be remembered that we were no longer living under the conditions of a sparse and scattered population as in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and that we must do what we could to retrieve past errors as well as to make provision for the future. He trusted that if this Bill, the second reading of which he now begged to move, were passed, a great deal would be done to regain for the toiling millions whom it would affect their due share of health and happiness and of life.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deserve our praise and gratitude for the Bill they have introduced. I admire the boldness and perseverance with which they have addressed themselves to this difficult question. They have done their best to master the difficulty; but they have not mastered it; nor will they do so, until after wide and pro
  454
  tracted experience. The Bill, on a broad view of it, may be divided into two parts—demolition and re-construction. It may be, though the matter is doubtful, that the part affecting demolition is complete; I will assume, however, that it is so; but the more intricate part remains—and they will find that to cover with houses the large spaces, that shall have been laid bare, houses adapted in number and quality to the wants of the displaced population, will put their scheme very severely to the test. I cannot but think that the Government are over sanguine in their forecast of what will be effected by the Bill. It may ultimately produce great good; but the working of it will demand much thought and patience. It is true that there are very large areas in which great benefit will result to the community from the mere removal of the houses which now encumber them; but when they are removed, what is to be substituted? Now, look to the effects of demolition. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of families will be displaced; some for a time until the tenements shall have been re-built; but many permanently. Such was the case in the Westminster improvements—and for the population so disturbed provision must be made. It is stated, I know, in the Bill, that arrangements of this sort must accompany demolition; but the requirements of a clause and the fulfilment of those requirements are very different things, and oftentimes separated by a long interval. It is vain to rely on the ample notice that is to be given to the inhabitants. They do not, and they really cannot, give heed to it. Occupied, as they are, day by day and hour by hour, they think only of the present; and they cannot afford time or loss of wage to run about in quest of other dwellings. And so when the moment arrives for the levelling of the domiciles in which they reside, they are like persons possessed—perplexity and dismay are everywhere; the district has all the air of a town taken by assault. Then they rush into every hole where they can be received; some near, some very far off; though all struggle to be as close as possible to their former dwellings. Streets and houses, already over-crowded, become doubled in population. Every demand of health and decency is set aside; and people submit, by com

  455
  pulsion, to the greatest moral and physical degradation. I need not multiply instances, though I could well do so. But all that I have stated was seen when New Oxford Street was constructed, and the St. Giles's rookeries destroyed; the masses in Church Lane—a district already seething with life—were, in consequence, increased two-fold. And in Westminster, to make room for Victoria Street and other handsome improvements, a nation of men, women, and children was driven out; many of the old ones went into the workhouse, and never escaped from it; many fled across the water, suffering great privations, until they had formed new connections of work; and many pressed into the swarming rooms of the neighbourhood, the landlord, in numberless instances, where the poor inhabitants had two rooms, taking from them one, and then forcing them to pay for the single as much as they had paid for the double apartment. Now, I would not have spoken on the present occasion had not the subject before us been one on which I have been engaged ever since 1843; one to which I have devoted a great deal of time and attention; and yet I am no nearer the solution of the problem than when I began it. I mention all this to show the necessity of much care and circumspection in your preliminary operations. My noble Friend has said, and very truly, that the labourer must in many cases reside near his work. That is exactly the point I am insisting on. It is so, even with several classes of the skilled artizans. Take, for example, the watchmakers of Clerkenwell. They must live near together, because, as no one of them is rich enough to possess a complete set of tools for his minute and delicate business, they borrow of each other; a mutual service that could not be rendered were they far apart. And I concur again with my noble Friend that suburban dwellings will not give the full remedy we seek—they will furnish but a part of it—nevertheless, if taste and preference lie that way, these tastes should be encouraged. But now, my Lords, let us think of re-construction—we must not, on commencing so vast a work, rely on what is ordinarily called philanthropy. It must be a commercial enterprize; and with that view we must have recourse to the building capitalists. Now such experience as I have leads me
  456
  to believe that few of them would undertake a work like that with less than a fair prospect of 10 per cent on the outlay. But here the promoters and the contractors will be at variance. The promoters will of course desire accommodation for the classes temporarily displaced; but the contractors will seek to erect houses which will bear the highest rent by being adapted to the richer order of skilled artizans. At once, then, will arise the difficulty. The large proportion of the labouring people in the metropolis are not of the skilled class, but of the inferior order of labourers who live by casual and irregular duty, without any definite or constant employment, and, consequently, unable to afford sufficient house-room for themselves and their families. Here is a sample, and a sample only, from the Report of the Charity Organization Society on the dwellings of this class—
  "In St. Giles's, about 3,000 families have only one room, exclusive of about 2,000 persons living in common lodging-houses; and in Holborn, out of a population of 44,809 persons, about 8,000 families are in single rooms."
  I may just, in passing, show the sanitary results of such things.
  "The average mortality," the Report adds, "in the worst streets in St. Giles's varies from about 40 to 60 per 1,000 persons living, and that in the worst parts of Whitechapel averages 40 per 1,000, while that of all London for the year 1872 was only 21·4."
  Now, must we not infer from this statement that if two parishes alone present such a mass, the whole aggregate of London must present something almost intolerable? And yet these are the classes for which you are to provide sufficient and proper abodes. My noble Friend has said that the experiment has already been tried in Glasgow, and with success. He says that some 250 families were removed, and that they found ample accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. Now, in the first place, I remember a saying of Mr. Canning's, that "nothing was so fallacious as figures, except facts;" but I must also observe than an experiment made on 250 families is widely different from one to be made on some thousands; and we must also ask what was the precise class of the parties removed, and we must consider, moreover, the distinctive peculiarities of the Scotch and English character. But when my noble Friend makes his calculations as to the possi-

  457
  bility of erecting cheap tenements for the poorer sort, he must remember that the cost of buildings already erected and the rent put upon them do not furnish a proof that similar results may be attained in the present day. The price of material is higher than it was; and the rate of wages in the building trade is so advanced, that, in order to make a remunerative profit, a much heavier weekly payment must be imposed on the occupier of apartments, whether they be constructed on the separate or the block system. Well, what are we to do? Are we to construct a vast number of single rooms in order to meet the means of these poor people, or are we to build houses according to our new sanitary requirements? If we re-construct single rooms we shall maintain a most indecent and most immoral state of things; if, on the other hand, we do not, rents will be raised so high that it will be perfectly impossible for the people to bear the demands that will be made upon them. I am speaking now of labourers who have no regular work of any kind, and not of skilled artizans. These men live from hand to mouth, and have to take work as it comes, just at the moment. At the docks, for instance, men may be seen standing in single file, 40 or 50 deep. There they remain for hours in the hope of getting work; and were they not on the spot they would stand no chance of being employed. The earnings of these men, whose employment is dependent on the wind and the arrival of the ships, are extremely small. When there is plenty of work they make about 17 s. a-week, but taking the average throughout the year their earnings in the aggregate do not exceed 9s. 9d. a-week. Then, as to their abodes; some single rooms are let for 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a-week, but there are some of these people who pay as much as 4s. 6d. a-week for a single apartment. You must remember, too, that although the wages of skilled artizans and those who have fixed labour have risen very considerably, the earnings of the class I have been alluding to have not perceptibly increased, owing partly to the nature of the work and partly to the great influx of people from the country every year. Now I must repeat that, unless we reconstruct dwellings adapted to their means, great injury will be inflicted on the people who are displaced. Yet
  458
  there is one form of remedy well worthy of consideration. We can adapt, drain, and ventilate old tenements, courts, alleys, and culs-de-sac at a far less outlay than is required to construct anything new. The Society with which I am connected—the Labourers' Friend Society—has made, and successfully made, such efforts on a pretty large scale. We began it some years ago; and since that time the plan has been pursued, and with very good results, by an energetic lady, Miss Octavia Hill. Let me show your Lordships some of the happy results. Take, for instance, Tyndall's Buildings, in Gray's Inn Road. We got possession of this court, and renovated it at a cost of £2,699 19 s. 11 d. Well, on an average of seven years, from 1864 to 1870, the return has been 5¼ per cent. It contains 87 rooms for families; and your Lordships will bear in mind that the inhabitants are of the poorest class of labourers, mostly Irish, who cannot afford to pay more than from 1s. up to 2s. for their week's lodging. This court I had long coveted, for it was filthy, miserable, and disorderly beyond all precedent. Fever was never absent; and I can answer, from personal inspection, that I, at least, have not descriptive power enough to say what it was physically and morally. Nevertheless, we had courage for the work, and the issue had better be stated in the words of two authorities of some value in the district. The medical officer reported that fever was now unknown in that locality; and the police-constable, who for a long time had been acquainted with the wretched place, assured me that while formerly the police always went down the court by couples, they had now seldom occasion to go there at all. Similar statements may be made in respect of Wild Court, near Drury Lane. It contains 100 rooms for families, which families are also mostly Irish. It was renovated at an outlay of £3,364 19 s. 11 d., with an average percentage of 4¼. I may add, without going into details, the like results have been obtained in Clarke's Buildings, in St. Giles's-in-the-fields. Now, I venture to suggest this plan—it is, unquestionably, worthy of consideration, as a partial, not as a complete, remedy. Surely, in every area where there is to be a wide demolition, some of the best buildings might be reserved for improvements and adaptation,

  459
  the only mode whereby we shall be able, at least so far as we know at present, to better the domiciliary condition of the great bulk of the labouring classes. But whatever be the determination of higher powers, I will venture to express a hope that all will be done with care, circumspection, and, above all, not in haste. If the clearances be gradual, it will be far more easy to make provision, temporary or permanent, for those who are driven out. I have been much among the people in such circumstances; and I know what they suffer; and I know, too, how they bear it. I have often heard the language of complaint and sorrow, but never of sedition or revenge. The law thus carried into effect may, by God's blessing, do much good; and my noble Friend may take this assurance to his heart—His brevibus principiis via sternitur ad majora.
  LORD ABERDARE, in supporting the Bill, said, the noble Earl had referred to the vigorous way in which Liverpool and Glasgow had grappled with the evils of bad house accommodation, and he (Lord Aberdare) asked why similar improvements should not be effected in London? The Bill, no doubt, placed the responsibility on the Local Authorities of the various districts—but if these were competent to perform these functions, why should not London, which possessed such large powers of self-government, be able to effect as much as Glasgow? He believed that since 1870 upwards of 3,000 miserable dwellings, containing 15,000 more miserable inhabitants, had been pulled down in Glasgow, and within the same time a sufficient number of new houses built to accommodate the working classes, as well as to meet the increase of the general population. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Earl Beauchamp) had touched but slightly on the diminution of the crime in connection with this subject; but the noble Earl did not refer to the improvement in the health and morals which must result from these alterations. He (Lord Aberdare) believed that a very great diminution of crime would result from such improvements as were contemplated by this Bill. Since the improvements made in house accommodation in Glasgow the number of crimes there had decreased from 10,899 to 7,869. That was an answer to the argument that the pulling down
  460
  of miserable dwellings occupied by the poor would propagate evil and spread it over a larger area. He thought that power should be given by the Bill to exchange land occupied by bad dwellings for other land wherever such change would be to the interest of a locality. He cordially supported the principle of the Bill.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, there was no greater obstacle to the health, the purity, the culture, and vigour of the labouring population than the bad condition of the dwellings in which many of that class lived—he believed it would be found that the morality of a population was on a par with the condition of their dwellings. Her Majesty's Government had therefore in every respect done a wise and useful thing in introducing the present measure to Parliament, and they had done so without the impulsion of any agitation; but solely for the object which recommended itself to their consideration—the necessity of improving the dwellings of the working classes and the poor. The necessity for such a Bill had been long advocated by persons who were identified with questions of the kind, but it was a matter which the Government of the day might have allowed to hang over for an indefinite period; and, as it dealt with questions of property, and was therefore a matter of some delicacy, there was a strong temptation to let it drift. And it was certainly a little remarkable that the class which was to be most benefited by the Bill had shown so little interest in it. Having given his opinion as to the value of the measure, he thought he was justified in making some criticism upon its main features—namely, the ground on which it proceeded, the agencies it employed, and the powers it conferred upon them. The ground on which it proceeded was that it was absolutely necessary, not only upon sanitary but upon moral grounds, that some such measure should be passed; but he regretted to say that having just mentioned the word "moral" in the Preamble the Bill made no further mention of it. There were in many of the large cities and towns localities which were the resorts of the vicious and criminal classes, and which ought on that ground to be swept away, but which, being perfectly healthy, could not be touched under the provisions of the Bill.

  461
  With regard to the agencies which were to be employed in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, he found that the proposals were various. In the case of the metropolis, Petitions for the confirmation of schemes were to be presented to a Secretary of State, but the Petitions of urban sanitary authorities were to be dealt with by the Local Government Board. On the whole, he thought it would be better if the Local Government Board had been chosen as the confirming authority in London as well as in the provinces. Before this Bill was introduced, local authorities possessed power to demolish insanitary property, but not to make a useful appropriation of the site, and the exercise of that power in some cases would have intensified the evil it was intended to mitigate. This Bill gave all the necessary supplementary powers with which a public body could properly be intrusted. But what he objected to was that after a scheme had been made by the Local Authority, and after that scheme had been confirmed by the confirming Authority named in the Bill, it was quite optional on the part of the Local Authority to take proceedings or not towards removing buildings. This could not be for fear of investing the confirming Authority with arbitrary power, because at present if a Local Authority neglected its duty, the Local Government Board could coerce or do what was necessary and raise the money by rating the locality. Why, then, should the superior Authority be left so impotent in this case? It ought to submit a report to the Local Authority for its remarks, and if the Local Authority failed to satisfy the confirming Authority, that ought to be invested with power to order a scheme to be carried out. The hardship would be far less in this case than in reference to water supply and drainage, because in those cases it was an administrative Authority that overrode an elective authority, while in this case nothing could be done without the sanction of Parliament. The Bill also provided that there should be a distinction made with regard to London and the country; and that while in London the Home Secretary was to be the confirming Authority, with respect to provincial towns it was to be the Local Government Board. He did not see any reason for putting the metropolis into a dif
  462
  ferent position from that of any other town, and he thought the distinction was an invidious one. Nothing could exceed the extent of the powers now given to Local Authorities, either under application for private Bills or for public works. Unfortunately, while they had these extensive powers, they were inert and refused to act. He thought that it would be wise in the Government to amend the Bill in one respect. At present the Local Authority would only have power to make a report, which might be acted upon or not; but, in his opinion, they ought to be required, in the event of the confirmation of their report, to carry it into execution. He did not think the apprehensions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as to capital always requiring the incentive of 10 or 15 per cent were at all well founded, for experience had shown that companies and associations had no difficulty in attracting capital, the owners of which were satisfied with 4 or 5 per cent. The three principal building companies in London paid 4½, 3, and 5 per cent respectively. The Peabody Trust did not pay more than 3¾, but it was conducted on charitable rather than commercial principles; and, if the property were to be sold by auction, it would probably sell to realize 4 or 5 per cent. In a country in which capital accumulated so rapidly, it would be better that it should be employed in these undertakings than that it should be squandered, as it lately had been, upon foreign loans.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 3rd of June next.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.
(The Lord President.)
REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  (NO. 44.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD SANDHUREST: My Lords, in consequence of what I have heard since I made some remarks in this House on Friday evening, I find that a misapprehension exists in the public mind in regard to the intention of those remarks, and I am anxious to make a short explanation. In the first place, it is said that I was making an attack on the administration of the Army; and, in

  463
  the second place, it is said that I had reflected on the honour of some of the officers of the Army. I am happy that these circumstances have been brought to my notice, because I am able to refute in the most direct manner both imputations. In the first place, with regard to the administration of the Army, what I said was this—that it appeared to me to be inconsistent with security that the execution of a very important measure should rest on the responsibility of one individual, and that it should be declared that solely according to the opinion of that individual we should be guided in estimating what might be the state of the Army hereafter. I illustrated my point by referring to the administration of the Army when it was conducted by the Duke of Wellington, and it appeared to me that if abuses arose under the administration of such authority as that—for the practice of the Army under that administration was analogous to the practice introduced by the Bill about to become law—I do say that the illustration I used was sufficient for my point, while at the same time it shows how very far it was from my mind to attack the administration of the Army. What was the illustration? It was this—When I was a young man, in 1844, my regiment was ordered to India. Under these circumstances, exchanges were very freely permitted under the orders of the Duke of Wellington. The other night I spoke from memory; but I have since exactly verified the facts, and I find that on that occasion four new captains joined the regiment under the process of exchange, and five subaltern officers. I think there was a sixth, but owing to the promotions in the regiment, I do not exactly remember. That appears to me to be a great number of exchanges, and the effect on the regiment, as I stated, was very serious. What were the circumstances of the country and of the Army at that period? In July and August, 1844, it was deemed necessary by the Government of this country, at the requisition of the Government of India, to send three battalions of Infantry to re-inforce the Army of India. In those days three battalions, numbering upwards of 3,000 men, was a very large re-inforcement of the British Army in India. What was the reason? The reason was, that Maharajah Runjeet Singh had lately died, there was a mu
  464
  tiny in his army, our frontier was threatened, and there was danger of war. Therefore, the Army was re-in-forced. But the circumstances were not known to the public—and I beg your Lordships' attention to this. Although, of course, present to the minds of the authorities, they were not known to the regimental officers, who embarked completely according to the rights and privileges offered them and consistently with the rules of the Army as understood in those days—a system bearing a very close analogy to what will be introduced by this Bill. When I stated these facts, I beg your Lordships to understand that there was no reflection, direct or indirect—no insinuation against the honour of those gentlemen with whom it was my great privilege to be associated in early life, and the survivors of whom are among my dearest friends. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of asking the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) not to consider that he has a monopoly of regard for the honour of the officers of the British Army. Let me beg of him to recollect that there are others who feel as keenly as he does in this matter, and old officer as I am—having served, with a very brief interval of time passed in diplomatic employment, during 40 years—I venture to think that the honour of the Army, the honour of its officers, and the discipline of its regiments, are at least as dear to me as to the noble Duke opposite. We on this side have sought to introduce improvements into the system of the Army; I do not wish to exaggerate their importance, but I am confident we have appealed to a higher motive—we have sought to inculcate the principle of duty, while perhaps we have disregarded that of private interest; but at least it cannot be said that we have been regardless of the honour and interests of the Army.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, as the noble Lord has alluded so directly to me, your Lordships will, I am sure, allow me to make a very few remarks after what has fallen from him. The noble Lord takes me to task in a manner which would lead your Lordships to believe that I assumed the monopoly of regard for the honour of the Army. My Lords, I have never attempted to monopolize such a feeling or to say that I had a right to do so; but in common

  465
  with your Lordships, I have a right to feel very keenly for everything connected with the Army. I have every right to have a strong feeling of regard for the Army, for my own father fought and bled with the Duke of Wellington: my grandfather, also, was engaged in the Battle of Waterloo, and I have many relatives and intimate friends in various ranks and grades of the Army. Therefore, I say I have a perfect right to feel keenly everything that is said about the Army; and because the other evening the noble Lord made remarks in connection with the Army, and the officers of the Army, which I did not think altogether well-founded, I took the liberty of asking him the question which I am extremely glad I put to him, because it has enabled him to give your Lordships the version he has now offered of the meaning of the remarks which he made on that occasion. I will venture to remind him of what he said; and I think your Lordships will see that, at all events, the mode in which he addressed the House on that occasion was such as might give rise to the impression among those who heard him that he spoke in no very respectful terms of the particular regiment in which he was a captain. I accept his explanation to-night, that he did not intend to say anything disrespectful of his own regiment; but, with your Lordships' permission, I will read the very few words which fell from him the other night. He stated that on the occasion to which he referred very great inconvenience arose from the system of exchanges. He said—
  "When he was a young man, a captain in a Line regiment, what happened? It was a time when the saying was 'That officers must either sell or sail.' … At the very time they were about to sail, 10 young officers walked into the harbour in the place of 10 officers who exchanged—four captains and six subalterns."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 252.]
  He said—
  "Their Lordships might judge of the disorganization which existed in that regiment for many months afterwards. That occurred under the great Duke of Wellington. He was talking of the year 1844, when war was threatening in India. The regiment to which he belonged, within a few months after its landing, found itself in the presence of the enemy—those 10 officers had actually exchanged from a regiment which, in a brief period, was engaged on the frontiers of India."—[Ibid.]
  What the noble Lord has said now is that these officers profited by the system
  466
  of exchanges which was permitted, and that none of them had any notion they would be brought very shortly after their arrival in India in face of the enemy. He says it was well known that this system of exchanges had demoralized the regiment. But if those officers in England could not know anything that was likely to happen in India, then the system of exchanges could not be complained of; and if it had demoralized the regiment, I think the noble Lord will admit the demoralization lasted but a very short period, and that by the time they got to India there was very little demoralization left, if we may judge from what occurred in that regiment at that time. The noble Lord talked as if we were then in a state of warfare in India. It was not so. In the beginning of 1844 Lord Ellenborough was recalled; and the father of my noble Friend the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) behind me went out in June. It was not for 19 months afterwards that there was anything like an engagement with the enemy.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: In the summer of 1845 the first battle was fought.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: That was in consequence of an aggression from the Sikhs. The noble Lord may contradict me if he is able; but I do not think there is anything in the history of that time which would indicate that we were then under the impression that we were likely to be engaged in warfare. What, then, do the noble Lord's remarks come to? To this—that in 1844, when there was no war imminent in India—when, in point of fact, war did not break out until 19 months afterwards, when there is nothing in history to show that the authorities of this country had the smallest idea that they were to be engaged in war—10 officers exchanged out of the regiment in a legitimate manner—for the noble Lord says so to-night—their places were filled by others, and the regiment went to India. And the noble Lord has not adduced an instance of another regiment going to India in which the same thing occurred. It can, therefore, be only a very exceptional case in which such, a number of officers did exchange at that period. Now, what would have happened if the arrangements of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell) had then been in existence? Exactly

  467
  the same thing might have happened. Supposing the arrangements of the noble Viscount to have been in operationin 1844, what was there to prevent the officers from exchanging? No doubt, the number was exceptional. I think such a thing is not likely to happen under the present system and the present régime, and therefore I hold that the noble Lord laid a great foundation for the view which was taken of his remarks—not only in this House, but by persons out-of-doors, who, probably, spoke to him on the subject. But after having dealt with this particular case—and I may be permitted to say that in doing so he spoke in very disparaging terms of military men in general—the noble Lord went on to say—
  "He was only too well able to confirm what had been stated so emphatically by Lord Clyde when he deplored the facilities given to officers to exchange when they were in dangerous foreign climates. If there was one thing which destroyed discipline more than another, it was when a regiment was on a distant frontier, when perhaps every third man was down, and when officers left their men to sicken while they sought healthier or more comfortable quarters. Were not such officers open to the same imputation as though they were actually guilty of misconduct?"—[Ibid.]
  I say that is a libel on the officers of the Army. And what did the noble Lord go on to say? That "he did not mean to say that such things occurred." Well, then, if he did not, he had much better not have mentioned them; because, if they do not occur, his words mean nothing; and, if they do occur, I maintain that the noble Lord is bound to prove what I call a libel on the British Army. My Lords, I am sorry I have been obliged to trouble you on this subject; but having been so pointedly alluded to—the noble Lord having spoken of my claiming the monopoly of supporting the honour of the Army—I felt called upon to make these observations. I shall say no more at present except this—that I do not think the noble Lord's remarks on that occasion were such as I should have expected from a General Officer on full pay and holding a very high command.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise for the purpose of expressing a hope that it may not be necessary to prolong this discussion. If the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) found that the impression had got abroad that he had attacked the
  468
  honour of the officers and the present administration of the Army under the illustrious Duke, he had a right to take the first opportunity of clearing himself of that imputation, and, as a gallant and distinguished Officer, of disclaiming any intention of that character. I do not deny that the noble Duke had a right to reply to the imputation which he supposed had been made of claiming a monopoly of defending the honour of the British Army. But what I believe to be the case is this—we are all equally alive to the honour of the British Army, and that it is perfectly possible, while discussing those passing changes which relate to the discipline and future of the Army, to use arguments to show that one change is more beneficial than another for that discipline and that future, without exposing oneself to the slightest imputation of implying that feelings of dishonour influence the British Army, and without casting upon it one word of censure.
  Bill reported, without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Twelve o'clock.