Lords Sitting of 25 July 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) (172).
Committee—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites)* (76–187).
Committee—Report—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.)* (176).
Select Committee—Report—Butter Substitutes [No. 186].

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable John Gellibrand Hubbard, having been created Baron Addington, of Addington in the county of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Scotland, Whether he could give their Lordships any information with reference to what prospect there was of passing the Bill enlarging the powers of his Department?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in reply, said, he proposed to lay the Bill on the Table in the course of the next two or three days; he was sorry he had not been able to introduce the Bill earlier. He hoped that the Bill would be satisfactory to the noble Earl; and although it was late in the Session, he trusted that it would be possible to pass it without delay through both Houses of Parliament.

CENTRAL ASIA (AFGHANISTAN)—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked, Whether the noble Marquess opposite could give the House any information as to the reported settlement of the Afghan Frontier Question?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am happy to say that a settlement has been arrived at upon the points which have been in dispute. The settlement is of so technical a character, and to understand it so much knowledge of localities is required, that I fear I shall only mislead the noble Earl if I were to attempt to explain it. The documents upon the subject will be laid upon the Table at the earliest opportunity.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not expect the noble Marquess to give details. What I venture to ask him is, whether it is true that an arrangement has been made by which the Ameer retains the district of Kham-i-Ab?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that he will.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLrose to call attention to the subject of international arbitration, and to move—
  "That this House, in view of the yearly increasing armaments of European nations, is of opinion that the formation of an interna-

  1831
  tional tribunal for the reference of national disputes in the first instance is highly to be desired."
  The noble Marquess, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that nothing but an imperative sense of public duty would have induced him, who was ordinarily a silent Member of the House, to bring this subject before their Lordships. He was old enough to remember the Great Exhibition of 1851, in which the noble Earl opposite, then Secretary for the Colonies, took so prominent an interest. At that time the most hopeful anticipations of the future prevailed, and it was believed that a new era was opening in which all the nations of Europe would be bound together in a brotherhood of amity and concord. Now nothing was seen or heard in Europe but the preparations and the operations of war. No effort, therefore, ought to be spared to lessen or minimize, and, if possible, to put an end to, the existing state of things. He left this Resolution with confidence in their Lordships' hands. If they could see their way to give him their support and encouragement in the great and glorious cause of peace and goodwill among men, he was sure that support would not be withheld; but if from any cause they should, in their wisdom, conceive that the time had not yet come when it would be opportune for taking any such action as he recommended, he hoped their Lordships would not give the Resolution a direct negative, but would permit him to withdraw it.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House, in view of the yearly increasing armaments of European nations, is of opinion that the formation of an international tribunal for the reference of national disputes in the first instance is highly to be desired."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in supporting the Motion, wished to point out, before any objections were made as to the possibility of carrying out the Motion, that a Court of Arbitration existed already, and that although it had been for many years in abeyance, yet it had been revived very recently with great success. When all Europe was Catholic the Court of Rome was the natural arbitrator when disputes arose between nations, and very recently the German Empire had submitted its dispute with Spain respecting the Caroline Islands to the Pope, who, by accepting the duty of arbitration which had
  1832
  been confided to him, had averted a war which at one time seemed imminent. Men's minds on the Continent had been prepared for a revival of the intervention of the Court of Rome, in order to diminish the evils of unjust wars. During the Vatican Council of 1869–70 a postulatum had been presented, signed by 40 of the leading Bishops from all parts of the world, and formed a part of the acts of that Council, praying the Pope to take measures for the re-establishment of respect for the Law of Nations. In November of last year there was a Congress at Lille, at which the Abbé Defourny and Baron d'Avril presented proposals for the re-establishment of the Law of Nations, and a pamphlet by the Abbé Defourny containing a draft of a Bill for the French Chambers, enjoining the necessity of examination of all international disputes by a duly constituted body, and of its sanction previous to the issue of a declaration of war. These proposals were nearly the same as the provisions of English law with regard to declarations of war, and the functions to be entrusted to the body charged with inquiring into international disputes were those which were vested in our Privy Council previous to the Statute of Queen Anne. He thought that Her Majesty's Government might do well to follow the example of Prince Bismarck, and refer their next difficulty to the arbitration of the Holy See. Those who doubted the impartiality of the Holy See, might be reminded of what was well-known, that the Pope had objected to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and had blamed the Dragonnades of the Cevennes, and had blamed James II. for disregarding the feelings of his Protestant subject; and what was less well-known, that the Pope had objected to the expulsion of the Morisioes from Spain.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is impossible for me to mistake the spirit of earnestness in which my noble Friend (the Marquess of Bristol) has brought this subject before the House; and I know that he does not stand alone in the feeling with which he regards the proposal he has made. There are a certain number of persons very earnest and very excellent who believe that this would be a remedy for

  1833
  the terrible evils of war, and who from time to time urge it on the public mind. He has had some great predecessors. I may mention alone the name of Cobden as one who certainly took the proposal out of the category of merely fanciful suggestions. Yet I confess—and I think it is the general feeling—that deeply as everybody sympathizes with the object my noble Friend has in view, and earnestly as we must desire to see the day when the horrors of war may be prevented by the establishment of some species of international arbitration, it is very far from us now and further apparently than it was some years ago. No one, I think, can watch the progress of affairs on the Continent of Europe and the tendency of various States without seeing that the pacific spirit has not increased, and that the chances of avoiding war are not more favourable than they were. My Lords, the reason why any proposal of this kind has not yet been dealt with by any Government as a practical proposition is that it presupposes in States a condition of mind, which would in itself accomplish all the objects my noble Friend has in view. If nations were once to get to that state of mind that they would submit all their disputes to any tribunal, and would obey that tribunal, the warlike spirit would so far disappear that the very necessity for taking precautions would cease to exist. At pro-sent we can only say we see no prospect of the formation of any such tribunal. I will not be tempted by my noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) to discuss the capacity of the Papal See to fill such a position; but there is no probability of the formation of any tribunal under which all nations would confidently feel that they would have equal law. There is no Legislature to lay down the law by which such a tribunal could be guided, and there is no authority to enforce its decrees when once they have been pronounced, and therefore it would be a mere form and its functions would be reduced to a nullity. My noble Friend proposed to avoid these practical objections by leaving to nations after they had submitted themselves to a tribunal the choice if they thought fit of going to war if they did not like the decision. The only effect of that provision would be to interpose a period of time between the origin of the dispute and the declara-
  1834
  tion of war, which would give an opportunity to the Power least prepared to bring itself to a level with the Power most prepared. It is very unlikely that any Power which felt itself to be the best prepared would submit to an artificial disadvantage such as that. The chief effort of all nations now with regard to its warlike machinery is not merely to make it as potent as it can be made, but also to bring it into such a state of perfection that it can be set in operation at the earliest possible time. I fear, therefore, that the proposal of my noble Friend is contrary to the tendency of all modem nations, and is not likely to meet with acceptance at their hands. I think, my Lords, we are misled in this matter by the facility with which we use the phrase "International Law." International Law has not any existence in the sense in which the term "law" is usually understood. It depends generally upon the prejudices of writers of text-books. It can be enforced by no tribunal, and therefore to apply to it the term "law" is to some extent misleading, and I think has given rise to the somewhat exaggerated hope to which those persons who hold the views of my noble Friend approach this matter. I do not think there would be any advantage in committing this House to a barren statement on the subject. I do not believe that one man in one hundred supposes that such an issue as my noble Friend desires, intensely desirable as it is, will be witnessed by ourselves, by our children, or by our grandchildren; and it is idle to attempt to conceal from our minds the terrible realities of the case. I, therefore, can meet the Motion of my noble Friend in no other way than by recommending him to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in rising to call attention to that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission—
"Appointed to inquire into the system under which patterns of warlike stores are adopted and the stores obtained and passed for Her Majesty's service,"
which deals with the charges made by

1835
Colonel Hope against certain officers and other persons who have been or now are in Her Majesty's service, said, that the answer made on this subject in the House of Commons by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, on the 30th of June, 1887, did not appear to him entirely satisfactory. The Secretary of State had made a distinction between the cases of Colonel Hope and Captain Armit. On June 27, 1887, his right hon. Friend addressed a letter to Captain Noble, the head of the Ordnance Department at Sir William Armstrong's works, in answer to a communication from that gentleman, substantially to the following effect:—
"Mr. Stanhope entirely agrees with the finding of the Commissioners that these charges 'were based on pretexts which were not enough to raise in any fair mind even a passing suspicion that there might be corruption;' and as regards the transactions in which you were more immediately concerned that the charges were 'not only wholly unfounded, but there never was any evidence whatever to justify their being made.'"
In making a few remarks on the subject of his Notice, he wished it to be understood that he was not speaking of any errors of system or judgment, but of these charges of corruption. He would remind the House that these charges had been going on for years. Colonel Hope's charges might be summarized thus—
"That between the years 1858 and 1861 Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble made a corrupt conspiracy whereby the country was induced between 1859 and 1862 to give orders for worthless guns to the Elswick Ordnance Company to the amount of £1,087,000. That after both Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble had left the public service, the influence of the Elswick firm continued and was exercised by them through a small clique of corrupt officials for the purpose of procuring a practical monoply in the construction of guns to the Elswick firm. These persons Colonel Hope described as the 'gun ring,' which he said consisted of Sir William Armstrong, Captain A. Noble, General Campbell, and some others, to whose names he could give no clue; and Sir. Lynall Thomas added, as members of this 'gun ring,' Mr. Lewis Engelbach and Mr. Hunter, a clerk in the War Office. The evidence on which Colonel Hope relied for the establishment of the charge relating to what he called the 'initial conspiracy' was, according to his account, to be found in two Blue Books published in 1862 and 1863, containing the evidence and Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in each of those years and made their final Report on the 23rd of July, 1863. The evidence of the second charge, that of corrupt influence, subsequent to the original
1836
conspiracy, was the existence of the following alleged facts:—(1.) The appointment of certain Committees, the partiality of which was said to appear both from their constitution and from their Reports. These Committees were, first, the Committee to inquire into the bursting of the Thunderer gun in 1879. With regard, to this Committee, Colonel Hope said that Captain Noble went out to Malta in order fraudulently to devise some theory with regard to the bursting of the gun in question which would exonerate the Royal Gun Factory in general, and in particular Sir Frederick Campbell, who was at that time Director of Artillery, from the charge of making bad guns; and that Sir Frederick Bramwell gave evidence in the matter professionally, knowing nothing of the subject except what he learnt from Captain Noble and attending before Committees for the purpose of supporting Captain Noble as an expert witness. Secondly, Colonel Hope complained of the constitution of the Committee for inquiry into the bursting of the Collingwood gun in 1886. This, he said, was fraudulently constituted, inasmuch as Captain Noble, as representative of the Elswick firm, and another gentleman, Mr. Whinfield, as representative of Whitworth's firm, were members of it, whereas Colonel Hope himself was excluded, though he had applied to be put upon it. There was, thirdly, the Committee on the bursting of the Active gun, which assembled in 1885, This gun was made by the Elswick firm upon Woolwich plans. (2.) The statement made by Lord Hartington in Parliament in March, 1884. This statement, according to Colonel Hope, was made by Lord Hartington in perfect good faith, hut was in fact 'a wicked and unpatriotic lie,' put into his mouth by members of the Ordnance Department for the purpose of concealing a mistake which had been made by the Department in deferring for an unreasonable time the adoption of steel for the manufacture of large guns."
The Committee in their Report state—
"One or two further observations arise upon Colonel Hope's evidence as to this second Committee. Chairman.—Where is the Report of that Committee?—I have never seen it. You do not know that it has been published?—I do not know. So that your knowledge about that Committee is indistinct?—Entirely. But I suppose if it was a War Office Committee the Reports would be preserved?—Certainly; the Report must be in existence. The Report is contained in full in the Report of the Select Committee on Ordnance, 1862, p. 166. It is abstracted, and the evidence on it is referred to in the Report made by the Select Committee on Ordnance in 1863, p. 4. Great importance was attached to this decision. Colonel Hope told us that he had derived his information principally from these Blue Books, but that he dictated from memory to a shorthand writer the paper in which his accusations were contained, and that he did not take the trouble to refresh his memory, either by going to the British Museum, or by going to the library of the United Service Institution, at either of which places he would have been able to see them. The reports were on sale at the Stationery Office in February, 1887, and we found no difficulty

1837
in obtaining a number of copies. Colonel Hope explained his conduct by saying that the paper was written in a hurry in order to be ready for the September number of The Fortnightly Review. It shows great rashness of assertion that statements so made should be declared to be true by a statutory declaration before the person who made them had taken the most obvious steps for testing their truth."
The Committee went on to state—
"Colonel Hope's statement about his having quoted 'textually' from General Peel's letter to The Times of the 1st of September, 1868, is wholly incorrect. The Commission examined that letter, and finding that it did not mention the subject at all, applied to Colonel Hope for information as to the source from which he had got his alleged quotation. Colonel Hope, upon his second examination, admitted that he had been mistaken about General Peel's letter, and being asked for his authority, said:—'I cannot find it- The words I quoted out of something, and I wrote them on a slip of paper, which I tore up when I dictated them to the shorthand writer. Then you cannot give any authority for that?—"I cannot find it, and I have hunted everywhere. They are not my words; I quote it out of something." It is clear to us that Colonel Hope has entirely mistaken the object and purpose of this third Committee, and that he has ascribed to it a degree of importance which it did not deserve. The result is that with reference to each of these three Committees Colonel Hope has made mistakes which entirely destroy the value of his evidence, and that the gross imputations which he throws, on the strength of them, first upon those who appointed the second Committee, and secondly upon Sir William Armstrong in connection with, the third Committee, which he says Sir William Armstrong 'squared,' are unfounded and fall to the ground."
And they added—
"Colonel Hope's contention that Sir William Armstrong contrived by fraudulent conspiracy with Captain Noble to give to himself enormous contracts for worthless guns thus appears to us to have been based upon a series of misstatements. We do not suppose that they were intentionally false. Colonel Hope admitted his mistakes with honourable candour, but we think that he was culpably reckless in making those statements. A full account of the circumstances under which these contracts were given is contained in the Blue Books already referred to, from which it appears not only that Colonel Hope's assertions are ill-founded, but that he ought to have had in his hands the very documents which, with the most common attention, would have shown that the matters out of which he has drawn these charges were fully considered by a Special Committee of the House of Commons 24 years ago, and that they, though differing in opinion as to the wisdom of the course adopted, abstained from condemning it, and described it in such a manner to leave no doubt whatever that whether that course was wise or foolish, it was taken in good faith, at the request and on the suggestion of the late Lord Derby, General Peel, and other persons, whom it would be absurd to defend from a charge of corruption."
1838
The Committee summed up the case as follows:—
"This is the whole account of these transactions, and it appears to us not only that the charges made against these gentlemen in this matter are wholly unfounded, but there never was any evidence whatever to justify their being made, whereas there was evidence which ought to have been consulted by Colonel Hope, which he had actually referred to in support of his charges, and which he might have examined at his leisure, with no other trouble than that of going to the British Museum, or by laying out a few shillings at the Stationery Office. We regard this as discreditable to Colonel Hope, although he may be considered as having more or less atoned for his conduct in making these charges by the frankness with which he admitted his mistakes when they were pointed out to him."
With regard to the Thunderer Gun Committee, Colonel Hope in his evidence gave the following answers to questions that were put to him:—
"The first point referred to by Colonel Hope is the evidence as to the Thunderer Gun Committee. On this Colonel Hope originally gave the following evidence:—Chairman.—You suggest that two persons—namely, Captain Noble and Sir Frederick Bramwell—I can only read it thus, but you must be good enough to say whether this is or is not your meaning—went out to Malta, and that there, in order to conceal the facts, they invented a theory that the Thunderer gun had been double loaded?—Yes. You mean that they fraudulently invented that theory?—Captain Noble did. You think that Captain Noble's object was, to put it quite plainly, the fraudulent object of inventing a story which would tranquillize the public and avoid a recognition of the real facts with regard to the Thunderer's guns?—Yes, I have no doubt of it."
The Committee went on to state—
"Under these circumstances it appears to us ridiculous to allege that there was any kind of corruption or fraud in the matter. It is, of course, open to Colonel Hope or to any one else to differ from the opinions entertained by the Committee, by Sir Frederick Bramwell, and by Captain Noble, but to infer fraud from the fact that they arrived at the conclusion at which they did arrive seems altogether extravagant."
They further state—
"The next matter alleged in proof of corruption is the 'wicked and unpatriotic lie' stated by Colonel Hope to have been put into the mouth of Lord Hartington by the Ordnance Department, and to have been repeated by Colonel Maitland at a lecture given by him at the United Service Institution in 1884. We exceedingly regret the course and offensive language used by Colonel Hope upon this occasion. It is language which admits neither of justification nor excuse; but as Colonel Hope in the latter part of his evidence considerably modified what he said on the first occasion, it is unnecessary to discuss the bearing of this

1839
matter on the question of corruption. It is obvious that the statement made was a statement upon matters keenly discussed between professional men upon which great difference of opinion may and does exist. Colonel Maitland maintained that the statement by Lord Hartington on the authority of the Ordnance Department was strictly true, and he obviously understood that statement in a somewhat different sense from that which was attached to it by Colonel Hope. Mr. Vickers, the eminent steel manufacturer of Sheffield, said that if Colonel Maitland's statement had excepted his firm it would have been strictly true. This matter, therefore, may be thrown out of consideration in connection with the present charge."
With regard to Colonel Hope's charge that the Ordnance Department was a "seething mass of corruption," inasmuch as two members of that Department were large shareholders in the Elswick Company, the Committee reported—
"Upon this Colonel Hope avowedly stated that he had merely suspicions and admitted that he had no knowledge except what he gained from the inspection of the Register of Joint Stock Companies."
With regard to the alleged corruption in the purchase by the English Government of the guns which were being constructed by the Elswick firm for the Italian Government, the Committee reported that to say that the purchase was corrupt appeared to them to be an utterly groundless assertion. With regard to the charge against Sir Frederick Abel the Committee reported—
"Colonel Hope further observed that Sir Frederick Abel, the chemist to the War Department, had £1,500 worth of shares in the Elswick Company, and Major Armit makes the same statement. This is true. There is no evidence to show any sort of corruption on Sir Frederick Abel's part, and nothing to his discredit has been suggested by any one. We think it undesirable that officials in the War Department should hold shares in a firm of any kind which enters into contracts with the Department, but in the absence of such a rule we cannot think that any blame ought to attach to Sir Frederick Abel. This is the one point on which Colonel Hope has been rightly informed in the whole of his allegations of corruption, and it is a point to which he himself attaches no importance."
The Committee also reported that the charge against Sir Frederick Campbell was utterly groundless. The result of this charge having been brought against this distinguished officer year after year had been to seriously injure his health. The Committee wound up their Report by stating—
"This completes the whole of the evidence adduced by Colonel Hope to prove his asser-
1840
tion of corruption in the Ordnance Department. It appears to us that when the matter is properly stated it is not enough to raise in any fair mind even a passing suspicion that there might be corruption. Of all the assertions made one only is true, and that one is worthless. It is the assertion that Sir Frederick Abel holds shares in the Elswick Company. We may observe that most of his charges have been formally withdrawn by Colonel Hope. He said that he had been mistaken about all the three Committees, that he had been mistaken about the transaction between Sir William Armstrong and the Government in 1859, that he had been mistaken in imputing a conspiracy to Captain Nolan and Sir William Armstrong in 1860, and that when he said the Ordnance Department was a seething mass of corruption he had made use of a foolish expression. The expression appears to us correct as far as it goes, but it is also inadequate. It is something worse than foolish to bring accusations of this grievous nature against gentlemen and men of honour upon pretexts which, when examined, come to nothing."
But that was not all. It might be expected that Colonel Hope would have made some apology to the Commission at least for the trouble to which he had put them in investigating unfounded charges. Not at all, Colonel Hope wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission, after the Report was published, in which, if he did not repeat the charges, he did in the most offensive manner insinuate them. Speaking of the dealing with Sir William Armstrong, he said, at page 17—
"I called this 'continuous corrupt favouritism.' That it was continuous favouritism is a fact. I rejoice to learn that you have been satisfied that it was not also corrupt."
Speaking at page 27 of a Return made to the Royal Commission, he said—
"But it is, to my personal knowledge, a false return, intended to mislead, you, and through you the public."
He did not think it necessary to say anything more. When their Lordships found that men who had borne the highest character in private life were, when placed in a public position, subjected to such unjust accusations as had been brought against them by Colonel Hope, Captain Armit, and others, they were bound to protect them, not only because it was right, but because it was politic. Did their Lordships think we should get men to act with loyalty if, when they were subjected to these repeated attacks and accusations of corruption and bribery in its worst form, and when these attacks had been dis-

1841
proved, the Government took no steps to protect them? He hoped his noble Friend would give some assurance that some steps would be taken beyond what had been indicated by the Secretary of State for War. He would ask whether a gentleman who, in the words of the Secretary of State, was capable of making false, calumnious, and disgraceful charges, and whose conduct had been characterized by the Commission as "culpably reckless," was a fit person to hold a high commission in Her Majesty's Forces as head of a Volunteer regiment?
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that, as an old friend and a relative of the gallant officer whose conduct had been so severely impugned, he wished to say a few words. He had long been intimate with the gallant officer, and cognizant of his many high qualities which were not known to the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley). Colonel Hope belonged to a family more than usually distinguished in the Public Service, a family which was honourably represented in their Lordships' House, and which had been conspicuous characters to the Navy, the Bar, and the Bench, as well as to other departments of Her Majesty's Service. He ventured to say that Colonel Hope in no respect derogated from the high reputation which his family bore. Colonel Hope entered the Army in the beginning of the Crimean War, and, although in a very humble professional position, such was his energetic character and the remarkable qualities with which he was endowed, he very soon made a name even in a scene where so many were distinguished. Before the end of that war he had acquired a claim to the highest distinction which a young officer could obtain—the Victoria Cross—by humane and romantic courage which, though it might have been equalled, has never been excelled in Her Majesty's Service. He would ask their Lordships to think of this young officer as carrying his wounded comrades from the field in the face of the fire of the Russian batteries, or as standing on the roof of a burning magazine and extinguishing the fire which must have caused terrible destruction of life, while not a few shrank from the appalling work of the moment and others stood around, to use a phrase which had now become classics in an
1842
attitude of "animated expectancy." It might be said that the distinguished actions of his gallant friend in his younger days were no justification of the errors of which he had been guilty in later years. He did not say that they were; but they might lead their Lordships to the conclusion that the aberrations of which his gallant friend had been guilty were the aberrations of a generous and exalted mind, that they could be traced to no personal motives, but were caused by a disordered or distempered view of public duty. After the end of the Crimean War, Colonel Hope, believing that all chances of fighting were over, forsook the Military Service and passed at once to the opposite extreme. Ceasing to be a subaltern, he became an attache, and accompanied him when he had the honour of being Minister to the United States. There Colonel Hope remained for two years, during which he devoted himself with the greatest assiduity to the performance of his duties, and in connection with them to inquiries into the military organization and equipment of that country, and especially to inventions having reference to military armaments and equipments in which the citizens of the United States were so expert. Colonel Hope was the author of Reports to Her Majesty's Government on these topics, and the Reports were allowed to be of great use. Colonel Hope served also in Holland at The Hague, and in that peaceful and oven what might be called stagnant scene managed to attract the approval of Her Majesty's Government by the services which he rendered. Colonel Hope not finding the Diplomatic Service offering a sufficient field forsook it and entered into the pursuits of engineering and mechanical contrivance, for which he had a natural genius. That was a career which sometimes led to great triumphs and gains, but was also sometimes attended with great trials and misfortunes. In the course of his struggles as an inventor and projector Colonel Hope was brought into contact with the Department of Ordnance. During his connection with that Department Colonel Hope came to think that injustice was sometimes done by it, that it was not invariably competent in all its branches, and that it was governed by a spirit of exclusiveness. If he had restricted his

1843
incrimination to the charge of incompetency and error his action would not have been blameworthy, for it was right that the imperfections and miscarriages of a Public Department should be brought to light. He was no advocate of strong or unjust language; but no one who had taken a prominent part in bringing before the public in recent years the errors, imperfections, and miscarriages in that and other departments of military administration would say that their exertions had been useless. The best proof of this might be found in the Report of the Commission itself, to which reference had been made, which, while it exonerated the gallant officers referred to by Colonel Hope from the charge of corruption, certainly did not exonerate the department from the imputation of incompetency and inefficiency. Unfortunately his gallant relative had not confined his criticism to the conduct of the department, but had attacked also the morality of individuals holding conspicuous positions within it. That was undoubtedly the weak part of his gallant relative's case. He rejoiced to know that the Commission had thoroughly exonerated all the officers whose morality had been impugned, and deeply regretted that Colonel Hope should have occasioned pain to any honourable officers in Her Majesty's Service. His gallant relative owed an apology to the officers whom he had attacked. He might almost be considered to have apologized already, for in a letter to the Commissioners he had acknowledged the justice of their decision. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) did not complain that the subject had been brought forward, but he asked their Lordships to deliberate upon it with caution and reserve. Colonel Hope was at present liable to be prosecuted before the Court by the officers whom he had offended, and if their Lordships were collectively to express an opinion averse to him his case, should a prosecution be undertaken, would go into Court prejudged. In conclusion, he asked that a lenient view might be taken of the conduct of his gallant relative, and appealed to their Lorships to refrain from pronouncing any hasty decision which might imperil Colonel Hope's connection with the Volunteer Force, to which he had so long given zealous and gratuitous service, and that might sever
1844
the last link that connected him with the glorious profession of which he was once a distinguished ornament.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he was glad that the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had brought the subject before the House, and had stated, as the Report showed, that the charges made by Colonel Hope had been most clearly and conclusively disproved. A discussion which had already been held upon this subject had given their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their indignation that such charges should have been made against officers of high character. That discussion, he thought, must have convinced the public that those officers still deserved its entire confidence. He had refrained from saying anything when this subject was last before their Lordships, because he preferred that others who had longer and greater experience should express their confidence in the Public Services. There was a danger, however, that the public might forget that the charges had been disproved, that it might remember only the statements of the Commission, that the system of carrying on affairs at the War Office was capable of amendment. This, he hoped, would not occur. Notwithstanding what has been said by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick), the public ought not to forget that men of probity and distinction had lain for months under the gravest and most hateful charges, with the result that the health of one of them was seriously affected, and that the working powers of the remainder were for a time greatly impaired. The noble Earl deserved thanks for having stated as clearly as he had that the charges had fallen absolutely to the ground. The noble and gallant Lord opposite, whose feelings of kinmanship he honoured, had appealed to their Lordships to extend sympathy to Colonel Hope on the ground of his distinguished services in the Crimea and elsewhere. He thought that equal sympathy ought at least to be extended to the men who had been compelled to live under the charges brought by Colonel Hope. The noble and gallant Lord had used the expression "if" the Commission exonerates these officers. There was no doubt that the Commission did exonerate them from all charges of corrupt practices.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he did not mean to cast the slightest doubt upon the fact.
LORD HARRIS: The result of the Inquiry was that there was no evidence warranting a suspicion of corruption on the part of any of the superior officers of the Ordnance Department. He was glad to hear the noble and gallant Lord say that Colonel Hope owed an apology to the officers and to the Department. The noble and gallant Lord quoted some sentences in a pamphlet which Colonel Hope had issued. He had read the pamphlet, and could discover no word of apology in it for his conduct to the men whom he had so grossly wronged. He could hold out no hope that the Secretary of State would give any further consideration to the question. As to Colonel Hope's retention of his commission in the Volunteer Forces, he would ask the House to look at the question from the point of view of the Secretary of State. The Commissioner had stated that Colonel Hope had atoned, more or less, for the charges which he had made, and had, with great frankness and honourable candour, admitted the mistakes which he had made. He could not be surprised at the noble Earl's statement, that he had been unable to discover any grounds for this statement of the Commission. But it should be remembered that the Secretary of State was not upon the Commission, and he had to accept the evidence and the Report of the Commission as they stood, and was bound by them. He could only say, further, as the Secretary of State had said, that it was open to any person aggrieved by Colonel Hope's statement, to take proceedings against him in a Court of Law.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 157.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 157.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, apologized for the non-appearance of the evidence taken before the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he must object to the House going into Commitiee on the Bill, as there was a
  1846
  distinct understanding that the Committee would not be taken until this evidence was forthcoming.
  Order discharged, and the House to be put in Committee on Thursday next.

TEINDS, &c (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House Returns of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland, and of the value of the teinds appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such payments, and which still remain available for the future augmentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that after the discussion which took place the other day he made inquiries, and, though he could not undertake that the return would be a complete one, he thought he might be able to give it in a form that would be satisfactory to the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENTE.
  "1. Because exceptional criminal legislation weakens the ordinary administration of justice by inducing reliance on arbitrary methods, and is at the beat only temporary in its effect, while it causes lasting irritation and intense hatred and mistrust of the law.
  "2. Because, while it is the fact that in some parts of Ireland the people do not support the administration of the law, we do not, after nearly two years free from exceptional legislation, see evidence of such an amount of crime and lawlessness at the present time as has been held to justify Parliament in enacting measures of special severity.
  "3. Because this Bill gives the Irish Executive power on its own responsibility to deprive the whole or any part of the Irish people of those constitutional safeguards and individual rights which are so ju3tly prized in Great Britain.
  "4. Because, even if some change in the law of criminal procedure in Ireland be expedient, it is not right to submit for judicial determination questions most difficult of solution, such as charges of conspiracy, to subordinate tribunals dependent upon the will of the Executive.
  "5. Because this Bill is not only directed against crime and outrage, but against associations lawful in their objects and methods which are placed at the mercy of the Executive whenever such associations, in the opinion of the Executive, disturb the maintenance of law and order.
  "6. Because such legislation is likely to create and stimulate the action of secret societies which will be more dangerous than open associations.
  "7. Because the experience of a long series of repressive Acts conclusively shows that exceptional legislation of this kind has failed to secure any permanent respect for law and order, while it tends to render the present system of government in Ireland odious to the Irish people.
  "8. Because the only true remedy for the evils which this Bill is intended to meet is to be found in legislation which will bring the people of Ireland into harmony and sympathy with the law and its administration."

  "GRANVILLE

  KENSINGTON

  SPENCER

  LEIGH

  RIPON

  HOTHFIELD

  KIMBERLEY

  BURTON

  WOLVERTON

  CAMOYS

  BRAYE

  HOBHOUSE

  ROSEBERY

  MONKSWELL

  SANDHURST

  SYDNEY

  HERSCHELL

  THRING

  OXENBRIDGE

  CHESTERFIELD

  HAMILTON of DALZELL

  GREVILLE

  HOUGHTON

  ACTON

  NORTHBOURNE

  ABERDARE"

  HAMPDEN

  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.