Sitting of 27 April 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Dissenters' Marriages; Piers and Harbours (Scotland); Local Acts.
2° Education (Scotland).

ENGLAND AND IRELAND IMPROVED COMMUNICATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CHANDOS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was limited to the passenger and postal service between Holyhead and Dublin. A great many statements had been circulated in opposition to this Bill; but they were chiefly founded on a misapprehension of its objects.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CAIRNSsaid, be did not rise to ask the House to reject the Bill, but he wished that the second reading should be deferred. The Bill went to authorise the London and North-Western Railway Company to build and own steam-boats, in conjunction with the Dublin Steam-Packet Company, to ply between Holyhead and Dublin. But there was not a word in the Bill to show how the communication was

1865
to be improved. In fact, the company had no contract with the Government, and from an answer given to a question he put the other night, it appeared that the Government was about entering into the contract on the old terms. It was the duty of that House not to give the Parliamentary powers asked for, until the company showed that they had a provisional contract with the Government, and had bound themselves to perform the service better than it had been done before. He did not wish to negative the Bill altogether; but would move that the second reading be deferred for a month, in which interval the company might ascertain whether they could obtain a contract with the Government.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he begged to remark that although the Motion was not in accordance with the usages of the House when an intention existed to throw out a Bill, nevertheless the present Motion amounted in substance to the same thing. For years everybody had been complaining of the difficulties of the passage between England and Ireland. A responsible company now came forward prepared to supply competent vessels, which would perform the voyage in between three and four hours—the time at present occupied being frequently upwards of twelve hours—they also undertook to supply passage-boats twice a day, and they were prepared to bind themselves not to raise the fares. He therefore thought he was not demanding too much when he asked the House to assent to the second reading.
MR. KIRKsaid, he should support the Bill. There were at present three most imperfect communications with Dublin daily. This was the first time in the history of the two countries that a feasible means of communication had been proposed. The company undertook that the journey between London and Dublin should be accomplished in twelve hours.
MR. VANCEsaid, he was inclined to give but a comparatively qualified assent to the Motion for the second reading. Indeed, as the Bill was framed, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce had the strongest possible objection to it. However, as, through the instrumentality of that body, certain modifications had been introduced
1866
into it, he was willing that the Bill should go into Committee, hoping to see it further improved during its progress.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he was opposed to the Bill, for he believed that the public interests would not be served by the monopoly which it proposed to confer on the London and North-Western Railway Company. He had no doubt that the public would gain most by competition rather than through the medium of the new and extraordinary powers proposed by this Bill.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought some such measure as the present necessary to improve the present state of communication between the two countries. The House, he thought, would do well to allow the Bill to be read a second time, but it would be necessary to take especial care in the Committee that the public interest should be guarded against injury from the censequences of a monopoly.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he entirely repudiated the notion propounded by the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) that the principle upon which the Bill was founded was a novel one. Already the Chester and Holyhead Company had been granted powers precisely analogous to those now looked for; and this Bill might be said only to transfer these powers from one company to another.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that, in the case of that particular company, such a power had been given upon the recommendation of a Committee presided over by the late Sir Robert Peel, but it was granted under certain limitations, and the effect of the Bill now proposed would be to extend that power to other companies, without extending the limitations which were considered prudent by the Committee to which he had referred.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that having had occasion sometimes to go across to Ireland, he bad often expressed to his friends how glad he was that he was not an Irish Member, for he could never forget the miserable steamboat accommodation existing between the two countries. He had very little doubt that if this were under American rule that such a disgraceful state of things would not be suffered for a moment to endure. The Bill should certainly receive his support, as he believed through its instrumentality, at all events a partial remedy would be introduced.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the hon. Member who had last spoken had overlooked

1867
the fact that the special privilege given to the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company was given on the express condition of their providing proper boats and improving the communication. He dissented from the Motion of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns), and thought that the great question for the House was, whether railway companies should be enabled to become owners of steam boats. The question was, whether the particular case before the House came within the rule of the exception. That rule was, whether the steam-boat comunication was ancillary to the railway traffic. The House would do well to look at the way in which the Bill was drawn; for the House had had great difficulty in dealing with railway companies. He meant to oppose the Bill on principle, as it was originally drawn; but, with the modifications proposed, he thought the best course would be to send the Bill before a select Committee. In his opinion, the power engaged in supporting the steamboat communication round the shores of this country had done far more than all the associated railway companies that ever existed for improving the commercial intercourse of this country.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he regarded the postponement of the Bill for a month as tantamount to its rejection for the present Session. The question of principle had been dealt with before, and was not new to the House. The Chester and Holyhead Company possessed the identical powers which it was now proposed to transfer to the London and North Western Company. The South Eastern and South Western Companies had similar powers for running steam-boats. With these various precedents, it was for the House to decide whether, with the interests of Ireland so deeply involved, they would reverse the principle they had hitherto acted upon. The real point for the Committee and the House to decide was whether the public would be better served in every respect in the manner proposed than they would be by any other scheme.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought that no sufficient reason had been shown for departing from the usual course on this Bill. He should support the second reading.
MR. CAIRNsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

NATIONAL EDUCATION—QUESTION.
MR. MILESsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) whether it was his intention to make an alteration in Committee in his Bill for the better encouragement of education in England and Wales, in the words by which he proposed to raise money for educational purposes, by substituting parochial for union charges?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was quite ready to state to his hon. Friend what he had stated privately to several hon. Members, and which he ought to have stated on the second reading of the Bill. He had reconsidered the reasons which bad induced him to propose a union rather than a parochial rate, and he was of opinion that he could accomplish the object he had in view without adopting an arrangement which, in the case of parishes already sufficiently provided with school accommodation, would involve some hardship, if they were called upon to pay a further charge in order to make up the deficiencies in another place. On this ground he should, in Committee on the Bill, propose that the rating should be parochial, and not union.

SIEGE AMMUNITION—QUESTION.
COLONEL WYNNsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance whether there was any truth in the report that many of the fusees fitted to the shells fired from the mortars in the batteries before Sebastopol were made so long ago as 1798, 1801, 1804, and 1812; whether it was true that the powder employed to fill many of the shells was damaged powder restowed, instead of being fresh and good powder; and whether the new pattern fusees made in 1853, and subsequently, had not frequently been found to be inefficient?
MR. MONSELLsaid, he had submitted the notice of the hon. and gallant Member's question to the Director General of the Ordnance, who had informed him that all the fusees for the 10-inch mortars sent from Woolwich had been made in 1853 and 1854, that all the 13-inch mortar fusees also were of the new period of manufacture, but that those sent from Malta were probably of an earlier date, though he was unable to give the particulars. It was the custom to use restowed powder for filling the shells, on account of its being softer in grain than the other powder. With regard to the third question, he was happy to say that the pattern fusees made

1869
in 1853 and subsequently, had not frequently been found inefficient, but they had been improved upon in 1854, and the fusees of the newest make were those now in use in the Crimea.

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF HORSES— QUESTION.
COLONEL WYNNsaid, he would now beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary at War whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give any compensation to those officers whose horses—provided at their own expense—had been destroyed by the labour they had been subjected to in bringing up from Balaklava to the camp clothing, medical comforts, and provisions for the soldiers; whether any compensation would be given to those officers whose horses were left behind at Varna when the army embarked from thence for the Crimea?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that under the regulations now in force an officer, whose horse was lost whilst in course of being used for public purposes, was entitled to compensation. Whether compensation would be given under the circumstances specified would, of course, depend upon the nature of the case in which the claim was made, and no individual case had been yet brought to his knowledge.

THE CONVICT BARANELLI—QUESTION.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary, and in order that he might be enabled to make a brief statement on the subject to which it referred, he begged to move that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next. The right hon. gentleman and the House were aware that at the present moment there was in one of the prisons of this city an Italian who had been convicted of murder, who was under sentence of death, and whose execution, he understood, was fixed for next Monday. He wished to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that at the trial of this individual, Mr. Shaw, the senior surgeon of the Middlesex Hospital, in which institution the prisoner had been for some time, was subpœnaed by the Crown as a witness. Mr. Shaw attended in Court and expected to be called, but the counsel for the Crown, having ascertained that the evidence of Mr. Shaw would be in favour of the prisoner, refused or neglected to call him and to place his
1870
evidence before the Court. Now, although such a course might be perfectly legitimate in the case of disputes relating to property, he would put it to the right hon. baronet and to the House whether, when the life of an individual was at stake, and when the prosecutor was the Crown, acting on behalf of the justice, and dignity, and impartiality of the law, the conduct of the counsel for the Crown was justifiable? He could not help expressing his strong opinion that the conduct of the counsel for the Crown was entirely unjustifiable in refusing to call a witness whom he had himself summoned to the Court, that witness being better acquainted than any other person could be with the actual state of mind of the prisoner, and the plea set up by the prisoner's counsel on his behalf being a pica of insanity. He believed those facts had been laid before the Home Secretary in a memorial from Mr. Shaw. Evidence had been given on the subject by Mr. Henry, the assistant-surgeon at Middlesex Hospital, a gentleman who, although young, gave promise of eminence in his profession; but it was not likely that so much importance would be attached to the evidence of this gentleman as to that of his senior, Mr. Shaw, who was ready, had he been called upon, to give similar evidence. The evidence of the gentleman who had been called to prove the sanity of the prisoner rested, he believed, entirely upon one interview with him, and was not, therefore, to be placed in the balance against the evidence of medical Gentlemen of high character who had attended him for several weeks. He (Mr. Bright) had in his possession a memorial, signed by Dr. Conolly, of Hanwell, by Dr. Baly, of Milbank prison, by Dr. Forbes Winslow, by Mr. Shaw, and by Mr. Henry, in which they expressed their opinion strongly in favour of the insanity of the prisoner at the time he committed the act. He did not mean for a moment to imply that the Secretary of State had not given his most dispassionate and earnest consideration to this case; but he (Mr. Bright) thought the cause of public justice and the reputation of our Courts would be greatly damaged if importance were not to be attached to the fact that a medical man, who was more competent than any other person in the Kingdom to form an opinion on the sanity of the prisoner, was in Court, having been subpœnaed by the Crown, and that the counsel of the Crown, having, during the trial,

1871
taken means to ascertain that the opinions of this medical gentleman were in favour of the prisoner, neglected or refused to put him into the witness-box, thus excluding evidence which, in all probability, would have had conclusive influence upon the jury, and might have saved the life of the unfortunate prisoner. He understood that Mr. Bodkin, the counsel for the Crown, stated that he did not call Mr. Shaw into the witness-box because his name was not on the back of the brief, but he (Mr. Bright) had been informed that it was a common thing not to place the names of medical witnesses upon briefs. It might be asked why the counsel for the prisoner had not called Mr. Shaw? Their omission to do so, he supposed, must have arisen from some misunderstanding, but that omission could not affect the claim of the unfortunate prisoner—who might have committed, and who probably had committed, this crime while in a state of insanity—to have justice done to him. He might remind the House that not long ago a Mrs. Brough had been charged with the murder of several of her own children, and she escaped capital punishment, he believed, because it was considered that no person in a sane state of mind would have committed so atrocious a crime. In that case, however, he believed no evidence was given of the conduct of the prisoner before the commission of the crime which could lead to the belief that she was insane. Ho rejoiced at her escape, and he was not without hope that, from the laches with respect to the evidence of Mr. Shaw, something might be done to save from the gallows the unfortunate man to whose case he was referring. He wished to ask if the Secretary of State could inform the House whether it was the custom for counsel of the Crown to take such advantages as he had mentioned against prisoners placed in such critical and desperate circumstances, and whether it was not the duty of counsel in a case of this kind to adduce all the evidence, in order that a prisoner might have every chance for his life which the law fairly gave him?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was sure the House would feel the danger and inconvenience of entering into a discussion with reference to a criminal trial which had taken place according to the ordinary law of the land. He could only state that a representation, signed by several medical gentlemen, with reference to the case to which the hon. Member for Manches-
1872
ter had directed attention, was received by him on Monday evening last. He immediately referred that representation to Mr. Justice Erle, before whom the case was tried, and he had since received the report of that learned Judge. He (Sir G. Grey) and the Under Secretary of State had given their most careful consideration to the case, and the decision at which he had arrived was one with regard to the justice of which he did not feel the slightest doubt, considering the obligation which rested upon him to administer the law of the land. With reference to the omission of the witness on the trial to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, he was not himself competent to speak without a full knowledge of the facts of the case; but he might state that Mr. Justice Erle did not think that Mr. Bodkin, who conducted the case for the Crown, had been guilty of any laches. The witness was in court, and might have been called by the counsel for the prisoner, and the statement which he could have made was, he believed, brought under the notice of the Judge.

PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY— MR. LAYARD.
MR. EWARTsaid, he would take that opportunity of doing an act of justice, which he owed to himself and to a gallant relative of his who was now serving with the army in the Crimea. Some days ago the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), at a dinner at Liverpool, openly stated that of the officers who had been promoted to the Staff in the Crimea only one, Major Ewart, of the 93rd Highlanders, a relative of his (Mr. Ewart's), had obtained a first-class certificate at Sandhurst; and the hon. Member added, "I don't know whether he owed it to any Parliamentary influence; I hope not." With regard to the first portion of this statement, that his (Mr. Ewart's) gallant relative was the only officer appointed to the Staff in the Crimea who had earned distinction at Sandhurst, he (Mr. Ewart) felt it to be his imperative duty to state that that was a most inaccurate and incorrect representation, and that he was convinced nothing could be more painful to the feelings of his relative than to be placed in this unjust pre-eminence; for there were many meritorious officers serving on the Staff in the Crimea who had obtained the same distinction as his gallant relative. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had, therefore, though no doubt unintentionally, fallen into an error. The

1873
fact was, that the hon. Member had adverted to one return, and omitted to notice previous ones. This much he (Mr. Ewart) felt was due to those meritorious officers who stood upon an equal footing with his relative, and he knew that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department would do justice to those officers. But the question which he felt bound to ask the hon. Gentleman was this, whether any such influence was used, as affecting his relative, as might be inferred from the observations of the hon. Member for Aylesbury? whether any such influence was directly or indirectly, or in any degree whatever, resorted to? and whether his gallant relative owed his position on the Staff in the Crimea to any other cause than his zealous and ardent endeavours to perform his duty to the State?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he thought that, as notices of other questions bearing upon similar topics had been given, it would be better that they should be put before he made any statement to the House.
MR. H. B. BARINGsaid, he had also a question to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War. He found in a newspaper of the day previous the following statement of the services of officers recently promoted in the Coldstream Guards, made under the sanction of the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury—
C. J. Burdett, nineteen years' service, without purchase; no active service.
J. W. Newdigate, fifteen years' service, without purchase; no active service.
Lord Dunkellin (son of the Marquess of Clanricarde), nine years' service, by purchase; Alma.
W. G. Dawkins, eleven years' service, without purchase; Alma.
C. W. Strong, sixteen years' service, without purchase; Alma, Inkerman.
C. F. Wilson, sixteen years' service, by purchase; West Indies, Alma, Inkerman.
Lord Burghersh (son of Lord Westmoreland), twelve years' service, without purchase; Staff.
Hon. A. Hardinge (son of Lord Hardinge), eleven years' service, without purchase; Staff.
Now, it did so happen that the last two officers were men who had seen more service than any of the officers whose names stood before them. With respect to Lieutenant Colonel Lord Burghersh, he had served through the whole campaign of the Punjaub in 1846, and had also been present at the battle of the Alma, the despatches announcing which victory he was thought worthy to convey home. With regard to Lieutenant Colonel the hon. Arthur thur Hardinge, he had been through the
1874
campaign of the Sutlej, where he was present in three general engagements, and he understood had a horse killed under him; he was moreover present at the battle of the Alma, and was in the charge at Balaklava, where he accompanied the Scots Greys in their successful charge, headed by General Scarlett; and last, though not least, he was at the battle of Inkerman. He would be glad to know why, in the hon. Member's opinion, the ominous and unpalatable word "Staff" was the only one which could be applied to designate the services of those two distinguished officers? He asked whether the hon. Member was aware that the services of those two distinguished officers had been omitted from the usual record, or whether they might attribute it to the high-minded and generous feeling of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, that he had omitted all mention of their services because the one happened to be the son of an Ambassador and the other son to the General Commanding in Chief?
GENERAL PEELsaid, he regretted extremely to be obliged to call the attention of the House to another passage of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Aylesbury at Liverpool, to which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) had already adverted. But he thought the House would agree with him that when an accusation was made against an officer holding the distinguished position of General Commanding in Chief, that he had been guilty of scandalous conduct in reference to promotions in the army, still more especially when his own son was concerned, and when an opportunity had been afforded to the hon. Member of retracting this statement, and he had refused to do so—then that an opportunity should be afforded him in his place in that House, of repeating the accusation, and stating the grounds on which he made it. He had no personal feeling against the hon. Member; and nobody could regret more than he did, that the hon. Member bad not availed himself of the opportunity afforded him to correct his error and apologise for the insinuations he had made by the very temperate and excellent letter of the hon. and gallant officer the Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay). No one could approve more highly than he did the conduct of those who came forward to bring accusations against persons in high station, if they believed the truth of the charges, and were satisfied of the evidence on which they made them; but on the other hand

1875
he could not express strongly enough, in language consistent with Parliamentary usage, his opinion of the conduct of those who, merely to extract a passing cheer, merely to gain a little fleeting notoriety, reiterated an accusation, the truth of which he had at least strong reason to doubt. The portion of the speech to which he referred was as follows:—
"I will give you an instance of a friend of mine, a gentleman who served throughout all those battles, and distinguished himself most signally; he came over to this country sick and almost dead. There were two men above him, officers in one of the guards' regiments, who had never left England; they were members of high families and they were promoted without purchase; but my friend was a poor man, and they made him pay 3,000 l. for his commission; and why? Lord Hardinge's son was next to him, and got his commission without purchase. I say these things are scandalous."
And so he would say too, if true. There could not ho the slightest doubt to what this accusation amounted—that an officer was compelled to purchase his commission in order to enable Lord Hardinge's son to obtain his without purchase. After that statement was made appeared the letter of the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay) on which the hon. Member for Aylesbury changed his ground; and it would be necessary for him, though he was sorry to take up the time of the House, to go through the circumstances of the promotions specified in the letter which the hon. Gentleman had written. When his hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that the two officers immediately preceding Colonel Wilson were both of them engaged in the Crimea, the hon. Gentleman then said, that these were not the cases he meant, and that he alluded to the promotions of Colonel Burdett and Colonel Newdigate without purchase. Now, the first promotion, that of Captain Burdett to be Lieutenant Colonel, took place on August 22, 1854, long before the army went to the Crimea. He did not hesitate to say, that however gallantly Colonel Wilson might have distinguished himself there, and everybody had done so, Colonel Burdett's services were quite equal to his. But, supposing the system of selection by merit to be established, he should like to know who could have been selected in the Coldstream Guards when these promotions took place but Captain Hardinge? He was the only officer who, on the 25th of August, 1854, in his rank in the Coldstream Guards, had seen any service whatever. Colonel New-
1876
digate's promotion took place on the 14th of September, 1854, also before the army went to the Crimea, and, therefore, came strictly under the existing regulations—providing for promotion by rotation, consequent on deaths or accidents. The two next vacancies were to be filled by purchase. The two senior officers, knowing that there was a strong probability of their obtaining promotion without purchase, withdrew their names, and Lord Dunkellin was consequently promoted on the 3rd of November, 1854. The next two steps were got by Colonels Dawkins and Strong, both of whom were promoted on vacancies caused by death. Then came the vacancy which arose on the death of Colonel Mackinnon, which was filled by Colonel Wilson. The hon. Member (Mr. Layard) seemed to think that there was some power at the Horse Guards to decide on the occurrence of a vacancy whether it should be filled by purchase or not. But this was not the case; nor was it true either that Colonel Wilson was compelled to purchase. No doubt, as long as the mixed system of promotion by purchase and seniority was in existence there must be a great deal of chance as to whether vacancies should be filled up by purchase or not; but when the hon. Gentleman said that Colonel Wilson was compelled to purchase, he must have known, or, at least, Colonel Wilson must have known, that there was no compulsion in the case. Colonel Wilson could have withdrawn at the very last moment, and the result would have been that Colonel Hardinge might have purchased over his head; and then Colonel Wilson would have had the first colonelcy afterwards that fell vacant. The question whether, as Colonel Wilson seemed to think, he should have succeeded without purchase was a question with which Colonel Hardinge had nothing to do. It was a question between Colonel Wilson and the family of Colonel Mackinnon; and depended on the rule that when an officer was killed in action, before his promotion was known at head-quarters, the price of that promotion should not be lost to his family. He was sure that the House would be glad to see that rule carried out to the fullest extent possible; and he would show that it had always been the case that when promotions took place by purchase, and any unfortunate event occurred, such as the death of the promoted officer in action, before the promotion was known at head-quarters, the promotion was cancelled, and the friends of the officer re-

1877
ceived the money again. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had had some correspondence with Lord Hardinge, and he (General Peel) alluded to it in order to show that the hon. Member had had an opportunity offered him of retracting the charges he had made. He would now read the correspondence which had passed between the hon. Gentleman and Lord Hardinge on the subject, to show that the former had had full opportunity to retract his charges.
"15, Great Stanhope Street, April 25, 1855.
"Sir, I have read a speech of yours made at Liverpool in which you charge me with conduct so corrupt in the exercise of military duties, in the case of the promotion of my son, to the injury of Lieutenant Colonel Wilson, of the same regiment, that you have thought proper to characterise the transaction as a most scandalous one. I most distinctly declare your statement to be utterly untrue. My son's correspondence with Lieutenant Colonel Wilson having closed, and the letters being in your friend's possession, I have now to require that you will immediately retract the unfounded charge made in your speech, or be prepared to show upon what authority you have preferred it.—I remain your obedient servant,
"HARDINGE.
"A. H. Layard, Esq., M.P."
The reply to this was as follows:—
"9, Little Ryder Street, April 26, 1855.
"My Lord, In reply to your letter I beg to refer you to Hart's Army List as my authority for alluding to the promotions in the regiment of Coldstream Guards in a speech at Liverpool. It may be impossible to trace the motives which may have led to such promotions, but, as a public man, I believe I am expressing the convictions of a very large portion of the public when I characterise as 'scandalous' the promotion by purchase of a regimental officer who has seen long and arduous service, and the promotion immediately afterwards, without purchase, of the two officers next to him, one of whom is your own son, and both of whom have been serving on the Staff. Similar instances are, unfortunately, too numerous to lead to any other conclusions than those to which I have come. It is asserted that Colonel Wilson's promotion took place in accordance with an invariable rule of the service. In other cases, I have reason to believe such rules have been distinctly violated. Such being my conviction, I have nothing to retract from the statement I made at Liverpool—a statement, I may add, for which Colonel Wilson is in no way responsible.
"I have the honour, &c.
"A. LAYARD.
"The Lord Hardinge."
To that his Lordship replied:— "15, Great Stanhope Street, April 26.
"Sir, I have this evening received your letter of this date.
"I must remind you that I do not complain of your opinion that promotion in the army by purchase is scandalous.
"You accused me in your speech at Liverpool of having promoted my son without purchase, to the injury of Lieutenant Colonel Wilson, who had
1878
been made by me to purchase his promotion, and that my conduct in doing so was most scandalous.
"This charge you decline to retract, although your friend Lieutenant Colonel Wilson admits that he attaches no blame to the Horse Guards authorities.
"Your assertion that the rule applied by me in Lieutenant Colonel Mackinnon's case has been violated in others, is contrary to the truth.
"It is a waste of time to hold any further correspondence with one who makes such unfounded accusations, and who obstinately persists therein."
"Your obedient servant,
"HARDINGE.
"A. Layard, Esq., M.P."
He would now proceed to put the House in possession of the precedents upon which the course taken in Colonel Mackinnon's case was founded.
"In 1847, a majority by purchase having become vacant in the 73rd Foot, stationed at the Cape of Good Hope, Captain Baker, the senior captain of that regiment for purchase, was promoted to the vacancy on the 12th of November, but was killed in action on the 13th of that month; his promotion was accordingly cancelled in the Gazette of the 11th of February, 1848, on the ground that it could not be known at the Cape at the time of Captain Baker's death, and Captain Brown, the next senior captain for purchase, was promoted to the majority thus vacant by purchase. Lord Fitzroy Somerset's letter of the 23rd of September, 1848, to the Lieutenant General commanding at the Cape at the time was as follows:—'The vacancy was filled by purchase in strict accordance with the regulations of the service, the deceased officer not having known of his promotion, and consequently not having been in a position to exercise the functions of the superior commission.'"
There were even still later precedents—
"In August, 1854, the retirement of Captain Saunderson (who was brought in to sell) from the 4th Foot, having created a vacant company by purchase, Lieutenant Skinner, the senior of his rank for purchase in that regiment, was promoted to the vacancy. This officer, however, died on the 14th of August, 1854, and the 4th Regiment being then stationed at Gallipoli, at that date no intimation of his promotion had been in any manner received there; on which ground the appointment was cancelled in The Gazette of the 15th of September, 1854, and Lieutenant Cocks, the next senior lieutenant for purchase, was gazetted to the vacant company by purchase on the September, 1854. In evidence of this promotion being in strict accordance with the rules of the service, the military secretary drew up the following minute, dated the 8th September, 1854; a copy of which was transmitted to the officer commanding 4th Foot:—'On searching for precedents as to such a case, that of Captain Baker, who had been promoted to a majority in the 73rd Foot on the 12th of November, 1847, was discovered. That officer having been promoted on that day, was killed on the 13th of November (the following day) by a party of Kafirs. His promotion was in consequence cancelled, on the ground, that, never having heard of his promotion, he

1879
had consequently never been in a position to exercise the functions of the superior commission. [See the letter from the Military Secretary of the 23rd of September, 1848.] The same course is, therefore, to be taken in the case of the promotion of Captain Skinner, which it is accordingly to be submitted to the Queen shall be cancelled, and the next senior lieutenant for purchase recommended for the succession.'—C. YORKE, Sept. 8, 1848."
"Ensign and Lieutenant Disbrowe was promoted by purchase on the 3rd of November, 1854, in succession to Captain and Lieutenant Colonel Cumming, who retired. It having, however, been reported that Mr. Disbrowe was killed on the 5th November, before he could have known of his promotion, an officer was brought into the regiment from the Rifle Brigade, by purchase, and the money was returned to Mr. Disbrowe's family."
He would now proceed to state what occurred in the case of the promotion of Lord Burghersh—
"Horse-Guards, 25th of April, 1855.
"Colonel Crombie, of the Coldstream Guards, returned to England in October, 1854, on the recommendation of a medical board, having been seized with a serious illness in the camp near Varna in the month of August.
"On the 18th of December he forwarded to Lord Strafford a certificate from Dr. Ferguson to the effect that he was still labouring under the consequences of his former illness, and expressing an opinion that a return to the arduous duties in the East might be considered as certain death to him. Under these circumstances he applied to be placed upon half-pay for a time, stating that he had served thirty years on full pay.
"Lord Strafford, in forwarding this application, expressed a hope that some arrangement might be made for bringing in a lieutenant-colonel from half-pay who would sell out, and that the vacancy might thus be filled by promotion in the regiment. This, however, could not be done, as, in the first place, there was at that time no lieutenant-colonel on half-pay who had applied to be brought on full pay to realise the value of his commission; and, in the next, there was a similar case of the lieutenant-colonel of the 51st Regiment, who was anxious to be placed on half-pay, and the officers of that regiment, from the length of their services, had a prior claim to what is considered an advantage, namely, the step of lieutenant-colonel going by purchase through the regiment, instead of a lieutenant-colonel being brought from the half-pay and no promotion taking place.
"The applications, however, in both cases stood over for a time, that if any lieutenant-colonel on half-pay should offer to sell, advantage might be taken of the opportunity to give promotion in both regiments.
On the 29th of January, however, Colonel Crombie renewed his application, and applied for some leave of absence, in case any further delay was likely to take place.
"Lieutenant-Colonel Blackburn, on half-pay, had by that time applied to sell, but it was not thought fair towards the old officers of the 51st Regiment to allow the promotion to go into the Guards, and put in an officer as lieutenant-colonel of the 51st to remain in it, and Lord Hardinge
1880
would have been especially indisposed to do so, as it would have been for the apparent benefit of his son, there being at the time no knowledge of what might be the intention of Colonel Upton as to remaining till he was a general officer, or going previous to obtaining the rank on half-pay, as many other officers of the Guards similarly circumstanced have repeatedly done. Lieutenant-Colonel Blackburn was therefore placed on full pay in the 51st Regiment on the 13th of February, and immediately sold out, the promotion going through the regiment.
"Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Burghersh, on the staff pay unattached, was brought into the Coldstream Guards, vice Crombie, on the 9th of February, and remains in the regiment.
"It may be added that the date of the submission to the Queen of Lord Burghersh's removal from the staff pay to the Coldstream Guards, vice Crombie, was the 7th of February, 1855.
"At that time the only death of a general officer which had been reported at the Horse Guards was that of General the Hon. T. E. Capel, who died on the 3rd of February.
"Two more were required for the promotion of Colonel the Hon. A. Upton to be a major-general; these occurred, one on the 7th and the other on the 9th of February, namely. Sir Patrick Stuart and Lieutenant-General Sir William Eustace, but there was no idea at the time of the probability of the death of either of these officers, and it so happened that, by Lord Burghersh having been brought in as he was, Lieutenant-Colonel the lion. A. Hardinge lost a step."
That brought him to the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Hardinge. By a rule of the service, when three general offers died the senior colonel was promoted. Now, it so happened that after all these promotions to which he had just referred, three generals died in one week. The senior colonel then on the list was Colonel Upton, of the Coldstream Guards, who was promoted to the major-generalship, and then, in strict course, Lieutenant-Colonel Hardinge obtained his promotion. He would not add a single word to this statement. It was for the House to decide to whom the charge of "scandalous conduct" most properly applied.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he was glad that he had been preceded by his hon. and gallant relative, for after the statement which he had just made, and the correspondence he had read, no one could help coming to the conclusion that there had been hardly a stronger instance in which, what he must call, a disposition to damage and discredit the Government had led an hon. Member to distort the correct view of a question, and to blind himself to its just and true merits. With regard to the first question which had been put to him—namely, as to the appointment of a relative of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. E wart) to the staff—he

1881
would first of all beg leave to call the recollection of the House to the words used by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, at Liverpool, in reference to this point. The hon. Member was arguing that, though we had a special college instituted for the instruction of our officers in their military duties, yet when a Member of that House moved for a Return of the names of the officers who had distinguished themselves at that college, and who had been placed on the staff in the Crimea, that return showed that only one of all who had received certificates of merit at Sandhurst had been so appointed. The hon. Member then, inferring, by what he said after, that that officer had for a relative an hon. Member in that House whose views on public questions generally harmonised with those of Her Majesty's Government, went on to express a hope that he had not been appointed to the staff in consequence of his Parliamentary influence, thus leaving it to be inferred that the gallant officer was appointed through the influence of his hon. Friend behind him. The only answer which, in most cases, it would have been necessary to give to such an insinuation, would have been to disclaim any Parliamentary influence in the matter, and to refer the appointment of the officer in question entirely to the distinction which he had gained at college and his proficiency in the discharge of his military duties. It so happened, however, that there was not the shadow of a foundation for saying that this officer's appointment was owing to the influence of any hon. Member of that House, or to any other Parliamentary influence, for the fact was that he (Major Ewart) was not placed upon the staff by any authority in this country. When the first part of the army was sent out, Lord Hardinge, in conjunction with Lord Raglan, did select the officers to be placed on the staff, but with reference to all the subsequent staff appointments, Lord Hardinge left them all in the hands of Lord Raglan. Captain Ewart was appointed to be a deputy assistant quartermaster in the army in the Crimea, from the 93rd Foot, by Field Marshal Lord Raglan, on the 26th of September, 1854. He was promoted to a regimental majority on the 29th of December, and by a general order of Lord Raglan on the 12th of February, 1855, he was ordered to rejoin his regiment for duty, and he then ceased to belong to the staff. Therefore, the Government at home had nothing whatever to do with Captain Ewart's ap-
1882
pointment. Nor was it true that only one officer who had obtained a certificate of merit at Sandhurst had been placed on the staff of the army in the Crimea. The hon. Member had here been led into an error, which had been occasioned in this way:—An hon. Member having moved for a Return of the officers holding staff appointments in the Crimea, who had obtained certificates of merit at Sandhurst, and the Return being presented, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) had mentioned to him (Mr. Peel) that his relative's name had been omitted from it. Finding, on inquiry, that there had been such an omission, he directed a supplemental Return to be prepared which was presented under the heading "Supplemental Return to the order of the Honourable House of Commons, dated the 9th of February." The only name in that paper was the name of Major Ewart, but the original Return, of course, comprised the names of all the officers holding staff appointments in the army in the Crimea, and he understood there were ton or eleven officers who had obtained certificates of merit at Sandhurst who had been placed on the staff of the army there. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. H. B. Baring), he begged to say he did not appear there as the advocate of Lord Hardinge, whose advocacy had been undertaken and ably performed by his hon. and gallant relative opposite (General Peel), but when he heard it stated that the Commander in Chief, the head of one of the principal departments which regulated the affairs of the army, had acted in the appointment of officers on principles that were scandalous, it was natural that he should desire to give the House some information on the subject. In his speech at Liverpool, the hon. Member for Aylesbury said—Who are the officers in the Crimea who have most distinguished themselves—who have sought reputation at the cannon's mouth? They are your regimental officers. And what is the nature of the reputation which they have acquired? The Government have treated them with indifference, and the only reward they have got is the sympathy of the people of this country. The hon. Member endeavoured to draw a line between the indifference of the Government and the cordiality with which the services of these officers had been recognised by the public. He said—I will give you an illustration of what I mean—I will

1883
take the promotion In the Coldstream Guards. There were, he said, two officers who had never left the country, who were men of high family; and next to them an officer who was a poor man, who had been with the army in the Crimea, and who had returned to this country sick and almost dead. After him came the son of the Commander in Chief. And now see how these five officers have received their promotion. The first two, who had never left the country, received their promotion without purchase, and the man who was poor, and who had seen service in the Crimea, was compelled to purchase his promotion because he was followed by the son of the Commander in Chief. Everybody supposed that the hon. Gentleman referred to the two officers immediately above Colonel Wilson, who were named Dawkins and Strong, who had both been at Alma and Inkerman, and who could not therefore be said, in the invidious sense which he was afraid the hon. Gentleman intended the words to bear, to have seen no service. The hon. Member, however, had since explained his language, and had endeavoured to draw a distinction of rather a nice character:— What I said," explained the hon. Member, "was, officers 'above' Colonel Wilson, not officers 'next above' him." The two officers to whom the hon. Gentleman now said he referred were Colonels Burdett and Newdigate, who had obtained their promotion by the deaths of two captains at Varna. They were in this country, it was true, but not by their own consent. Some officers must remain in this country, and those to whose lot it fell to stay behind, no doubt would consider it a hardship that they were not allowed to accompany their brother-officers; but to lay down that where vacancies occurred abroad they must be filled up by officers upon the spot, so as to, exclude those at home, would certainly be adding injustice to hardship. It was perfectly just, therefore, that these two officers should be appointed to fill these vacancies. Colonel Wilson, it must be remembered, was not originally desirous of purchasing his step; but when he found that Captains Dawkins and Strong had withdrawn their names from the list for purchase, preferring to take their chance of the death vacancies, he wrote to his friends in England, desiring them to purchase the step for him, being anxious to step over the heads of Dawkins and Strong. He acted entirely (and of course no one could
1884
blame him for it) with a view to his own interest. The battle of Inkerman soon after occurred, and Captains Dawkins and Strong got their promotion without purchase, two captains having been killed in that action, and on Lieutenant Colonel Mackinnon dying, the vacant captaincy was purchased by the friends of Lieutenant Colonel Wilson. The gallant Gentleman complained that he thought he had some claim to promotion without purchase, but at the same time, he said that he was not acquainted with the established rule of promotion under the circumstances to which reference had been made. With regard to the established rule of the service in such cases, no doubt could exist with regard to it after what had fallen from his (Mr. Peel's) hon. and gallant relative. He felt bound, however, to say that, when an officer was promoted and died before he was aware of his promotion, or before notification of it had reached head-quarters, if he was killed while serving in a subordinate rank, it was a very humane and proper arrangement to restore to his relations the money which had been paid for promotion from which he had never derived any advantage. In the present instance, the money paid for the promotion of Captain Mackinnon had been restored to his relations, and a commission became vacant, not by death, but by purchase, and the offer of it was first made to Colonel Wilson, who purchased it, and obtained his step. One thing, however, was quite clear, that whether Colonel Wilson had obtained his step gratuitously or not, it could not possibly have benefited Colonel Hardinge. If the vacant commission had not been bought by Colonel Wilson, Colonel Hardinge would have been only too glad to purchase it. The hon. Gentleman said that Colonel Wilson was made to pay for his promotion in consequence of Colonel Hardinge being next, and of his being the son of the Commander in Chief. He (Mr. Peel) had shown that Colonel Hardinge derived no benefit from Colonel Wilson's purchasing his promotion, and as regarded his being the son of Lord Hardinge, he had merits of his own which deserved to be borne in mind. Whatever had been the merits of Colonel Wilson—and he was most unwilling to say one word disparaging the actions and services of that gallant officer, for he believed him to have proved himself a most gallant and meritorious officer—still the services of Colonel Hardinge had not been less conspicuous. Was it, or was it not the case

1885
that Colonel Hardinge had gone through the campaign of the Sutlej, and been present at Sobraon, Moodkee, and Ferozeshah, and also at the Alma, at Balaklava, and at Inkerman? Colonel Hardinge was not necessitated to go to the Crimea at all, but had volunteered his services. He was desirous of not losing the opportunity of seeing service, and, having been appointed to the staff, was present at those three great battles. Then, it appeared to be thought that some favour had been shown to Colonel Hardinge under the circumstances in which he had obtained his commission. Now, was that the case, or was it not? Colonel Hardinge obtained his promotion in consequence of the promotion of Colonel Upton, to be a general officer. Colonel Upton was aware of the certainty of his obtaining that promotion if he lived, and he might have sold his commission in the Guards; and if he had sold it, the commission would have been disposed of by purchase, and Colonel Hardinge would have purchased the step. Colonel Upton, however, took a different course, not certainly at the suggestion of Lord Hardinge; he chose to retain his colonelcy in the Guards, and by the death of three general officers he became a major general, and Colonel Hardinge, in the usual way, succeeded to the vacant commission according to the established rule of the service. Such were the plain and simple facts of the case. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had said that honesty was the best policy. He (Mr. Peel) felt that the Government of this country had been carried on upon principles of honesty and honour. He gave the hon. Gentleman credit for being an honest man, and he thought that it was the part of an honest man, now that it had been shown that the statements made by him at Liverpool were not in accordance with the facts of the case, to come forward manfully and to admit that that he had made statements injurious to public men, who were at honourable in their actions, and as ready at any moment to lay bare their motives as the hon. Member himself, or as any other hon. Member of that House.
MR. LAYARD: Sir, I will address myself first to the question placed on the paper by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart). I beg to assure that hon. Member that in the passage in my speech to which he has referred, I had no intention to make any reflection upon his gallant relative, nor do I think any person who heard me believed that I had any such intention. On the contrary, what I stated
1886
was rather a matter of praise to him, for the very fact of having taken a first-class at Sandhurst was evidence to me that the Government had no hand in his promotion. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat that I intended to cast no reflection upon that officer; and at the time I did not know that he was a relation of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the statement I then made as to the number of persons on the staff who had taken honours at Sandhurst, I fell into an error in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. But I think the Government are a good deal to blame for the error into which I fell. If their returns are so ill drawn up that names are omitted from them, and then, on account of their gross omissions, questions are made and other Returns are then prepared, I say Government is to blame. I did not see the first Return. The second Return alone fell into my hands; and although it is a supplemental Return, it is not so headed on the sheet.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: It is headed "Supplemental Return."
MR. LAYARD: It was not on the face of the Return.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL(showing the Return): Yes; it was on the face of the Return.
MR. LAYARD: Well, I did notice it, but I frankly admit that I fell into the error from not having seen the first Return, and I think, as I have said, that Government are equally responsible with myself for the error. [Loud Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The House may say, "Oh, oh!" but if it possessed the information which I possess, it would know how Returns are cooked up to suit the purposes of Government, and if I have been led into error by the omission of a name in a Return, Government must share the responsibility with me. Now, with regard to the second statement made by the hon. Member opposite (M. H. Baring)—these matters are, no doubt, of a very painful and delicate nature. There are few men in this House who dare get up to speak the truth on this subject. There are very few officers who, when such questions as these are mooted, dare speak the truth with respect to them. If hon. Gentlemen had seen the letters on this subject that I have received during the last few days. [Cries of "Read!"] No, I shall not. [Cries of "Name!"] Nor shall I name them. To name the writers here, would be ruin to those officers, and you know it very well. I stand here prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of

1887
what has occurred. I shrink not from it. I had no knowledge of the various rules that apply to promotions in the army. I stated nothing but facts, forming my own opinion upon them. I may get indirect evidence and information on which I may guide my own judgment; but I am not going here to betray those who have given me that information, and who perhaps would be ruined, if it were known whence my information came. Now, in the first place, with respect to the use of the word "staff," in the letter of mine which has been referred to, I did not mean by it to make any reflection upon Colonel Hardinge or Lord Burghersh. I had a list given me by a military man, and that I have printed. I certainly wish I had added a statement of the services of the officers who have been referred to. With regard to Colonel Hardinge, I have had the honour of a personal acquaintance with him. I believe that there is not a more gallant and meritorious officer in Her Majesty's service. I know that he has distinguished himself on more than one bloody field, and there is no one whose promotion I would more heartily welcome. [Ironical Cheers.] It is all very well to question my feelings on this subject, but I am conscientiously stating them. The question is not one of persons. I do not grudge Colonel Hardinge his promotion; but what I say is, that the promotion extended to Colonel Hardinge might be extended to others who may have distinguished themselves—not so much, perhaps, as Colonel Hardinge, but still who have distinguished themselves in the field. I venture to claim, and I think I have a right to claim, the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to show the grounds upon which I have acted. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Peel) has read three letters, forming part of a correspondence which has taken place between Lord Hardinge and myself, and I will now complete that correspondence by reading the last letter. That letter was as follows—
"9, Little Ryder-street, April 27, 1855.
"My Lord—I cannot permit your letter to remain unanswered. I did not state, although you have thought proper so to assert, that 'the rule applied by you in Lieutenant-Colonel M'Kinnon's case, had been violated in others.' What I did state was, that 'such rules, that is, rules of similar character, had been distinctly violated.' I referred more particularly to the cases of Captain Heneage and Captain Lord E. Cecil, of the same regiment, although I am assured that similar cases are most numerous.
"After the tone of your letter and my convictions, I perfectly agree with you that it is a waste of time to hold any further correspondence,
1888
especially with one who at such a time as this can justify the cases to which I have alluded, and which have created so deep a feeling of indignation in the public mind.
"Your Lordship is quite at liberty to publish this correspondence, and I reseve to myself the right of doing so should I consider it necessary.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord, "Your obedient servant,
"A. LAYARD."
It has been said by the hon. gentleman opposite, that there is a mixture of chance in regard to promotion in the army; but if we saw among a party of gamblers that one of them invariably turned up double sixes, would it not be fair to suspect that the dice had been tampered with? It is true that there are these chances, but I find that the happiest of them generally fall to the lot of those who have the least need of them, namely, those of either high connexion or party influence. That question I shall shortly bring before the House in the most extended form, and I think the country is fully prepared for its discussion. The country, I believe, is in no mood that admits of its feeling on this subject being trifled with—a feeling which extends to every branch of the public service. The public interest is sacrificed in every department of the State to private and party influences. Let me take for example the case of the two gentlemen whom I mentioned in my note. One is a gentleman named Heneage, who has two relatives in this House. He entered the army in December, 1853, and joined his regiment in February, 1854, or two months afterwards. He arrived in the Crimea with the draughts sent out in the autumn, and was present neither at the Alma nor at Inkerman. Yet he got a captaincy, without purchase, within ten months after his appointment, that is, in December, 1855—I mean 1854. (Ironical cheers from Mr. H. BERKELEY.) The hon. Gentleman is evidently eager to catch a cheer from anything, but his cheers are not creditable to the Ministerial benches. It is said to be an inviolable rule that no man shall be promoted to a captaincy until after two years' service. Well, if Captain Heneage had distinguished himself, I would be the last man to complain that an exception had been made to a general rule in his favour; but when I see this rule deviated from in this case and in several others, I say you have no right to talk of your inviolable rules. Again, Lord Eustace Cecil entered the army in November, 1851, and, without undergoing service, was selected in December, 1854, for a captaincy in the Guards. (Cries of "Ques-

1889
tion!") The Ministerial benches call "Question!" and, when I am answering your assertion about an inflexible rule, you won't allow me to show you that, where private interest is at stake, you care not a jot about your so called inviolable rule. Well, what happens? On the other hand, Lieutenant Blackett, of the 93rd Regiment, I believe was in all the actions in the Crimea, and recommended for good service to the Government; and what is the result? He is transferred to the Guards, and though he had seen eleven years' service he is placed below this Captain Heneage and Captain Lord Eustace Cecil—one of whom had only served eleven months and the other between two or three years. Now, I hold myself responsible for these accusations, and, as I told Lord Hardinge, am not prepared to retract them. I only wish that we could go fully into this question, and that we had power to examine several officers in the army upon it. I wish I could call Colonel Crombie to give his evidence. That officer, I have been given to understand, was compelled to resign, that two others beneath him might be advanced—Lord Burghersh and Lord Hardinge's son—and, as I am informed, he was not apprised that he had been put upon half-pay until he saw the notice of it in the Gazette. So much for individual cases. A man in my position has a difficult part to play, being obliged to obtain his information as best he may from what he believes to be good sources. He may, therefore, make an occasional mistake, and I dare say I may here be mistaken; but if I have done wrong to any individual I shall be the first in this House to get up and acknowledge it. But such is the present state of things, that there is scarcely an appointment in the army or elsewhere which, if the public looks into it, it does not at once find to be connected with the persons making it. Only three days ago I saw by the Gazette that a colonel of the staff had been named a general officer in the Turkish Contingent with local rank; and, feeling that there must be some cause for this, when I turned to the Army List and other sources, I found that the individual is Colonel Cuninghame, on the staff, who married a daughter of Lord Hardinge. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but, when these things are of daily occurrence, they justify the prevalent suspicion on the part of the public. Moreover, at a moment like the present, when the army is in such a critical
1890
position, and when disgrace—I am obliged to say—disgrace has fallen on the country, I say the people of England are in no temper to tolerate the approximation to what I may call "gross jobs." I may just observe that Colonel Wilson was not aware of the existence of this "inviolable rule" in regard to himself. Such, then, is my statement to this House. I will not retract what I have said, because from the bottom of my soul I believe it to be true. I am convinced that if men dared to get up in this House and declare what they believed, they would admit that there is some truth in what I have stated, for most of us must know that family and party influence has much to do with these promotions. As to Colonel Wilson, he is in no way to be blamed for what I have done. I rest my case upon the Army List, and take upon myself the entire responsibility.
MR. HARDINGE: I wish to say that I cannot add one word to what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), or from my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War. I feel that I should only weaken the able manner in which they have dealt with the case were I to follow them into that part of the question; but with respect to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) as regards a gallant relative of mine, Colonel Cuninghame, Brigadier General of the Turkish Contingent, that hon. Gentleman has ventured to characterise his appointment as neither more nor less than a job. Now, I must remark that Colonel Cuninghame has seen service in the Chinese campaign under Lord Gough, that he was at Alma and Inkerman on the Quartermaster General's staff; and I venture to say that if you were to ask my Lord Raglan or his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, to whose division he was attached, they would tell you that Colonel Cuninghame is a most excellent officer. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Aylesbury throws in my teeth the appointment of Colonel Cuninghame, I reply that my relative has justly and deservedly received his promotion, and defy him to call it in question. The hon. Member for Aylesbury, in his speech at Liverpool, seems to have dealt in inaccuracies of no common order. He said no officer had been appointed to the staff in the Crimea who had taken a first-class certificate at Sandhurst, with one exception—namely, Major Ewart. Now, Major Ewart is a most excellent officer, and owes his

1891
appointment to his merits alone; but it so happens that Major Ewart did not take a first-class certificate, although he got what is called a special certificate for proficiency. There are no less than five gallant officers on the staff in the Crimea now who took first-class certificates at Sandhurst, and I will name them. They are—Colonel Cameron, Colonel Stirling, Major Hacket, Major Morris, and Major Sankey. Sir, I have done with the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I will leave this matter in the hands of the House, who will doubtless form their own opinion as to who is right and who is wrong, and whether or not the transaction alluded to is scandalous.
MR. BYNGsaid, that those who were acquainted with the rules of the army knew that the appointments and promotions in the three regiments of Foot Guards did not rest with the Commander in Chief, but with the colonels of those regiments. He was authorised by Lord Strafford, the colonel of the Coldstream Guards, to say that whatever responsibility attached to the appointments and promotions which had been so much canvassed, rested with him, and him alone; and that he was fully prepared at all times and all seasons to justify them, according to the existing military regulations and the well-known precedents applicable to each individual case.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had been asked either to retract what was alleged by him against Lord Hardinge, or else to explain in what manner in this particular case of promotion his Lordship had been guilty of maladministration. Instead of doing this, however, the hon. Gentleman had carefully avoided addressing himself to the case in point, but had dealt in vague generalities; and though he told the House he would not retract, yet he had never attempted to show how Lord Hardinge had had the slightest influence upon his son's promotion. Having addressed himself to this question in the public journals, he (Colonel Lindsay) would not trouble the House with any further remarks upon this subject, except to reiterate all that he had therein stated. The hon. Member had accused the Horse Guards of giving promotion to Captain Heneage, who, he said, was not at the battle of Inkerman. He (Colonel Lindsay) believed it would be found that, if Captain Heneage was not at the battle of Inkerman, it was because at the time he was serving his country in the trenches or
1892
elsewhere, and that since this period the gallant officer in question had been constantly under the fire of the enemy. The hon. Member alleged that the rule had been broken through in this instance. Now, the facts were these—At the commencement of the war Captain Heneage was the junior ensign. By mortality, brevet, and other causes, the whole of the ensigns were swept off, and Captain Heneage was left at the top of the list, though at the time he had only seen one year's service. As, however, he had been under the fire of the enemy, Lord Strafford obtained sanction for his promotion, which thus took place contrary to what was then established as the rule of the service—namely, two years' service. This promotion, however, would not have taken place if it had not been for the services of Captain Heneage. With regard to Lord Eustace Cecil, the circumstances were these—A gentleman called upon Lord Stratfford and informed him that Lord Eustace Cecil was most anxious to see service. He told him that when the 43rd were engaged at the Cape of Good Hope, Lord Eustace had then exchanged for the purpose of seeing service, but, unfortunately for him, active service had ended when his Lordship arrived there. The 43rd were then sent out to India, and while they were in that country the war broke out. Lord Eustace Cecil, still anxious to see service, endeavoured to exchange into a regiment at the seat of war, and accordingly exchanged into the 88th; and Lord Strafford considered this so meritorious that he gave him a commission in his regiment of the Guards. Now, Lord Eustace Cecil happened to be the son of the Marquess of Salisbury; but he (Colonel Lindsay) had it from Lord Strafford that, though he was undoubtedly acquainted with the noble Marquess as a Member of the House of Peers, he was also politically opposed to the Marquess of Salisbury, who had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and that Lord Strafford gave his son a commission simply because he appeared to be an officer anxious to see service and to distinguish himself. He (Colonel Lindsay) ought to have said previously, that, owing to the extreme rapidity of promotion in the Coldstreams, eleven officers had, in the course of the last year, been brought into that corps from other regiments, to reward them for their conduct at the sent of war. He must say that, to use the mildest terms, he thought it somewhat unfair that an hon. Gentleman should go

1893
down into the country attempting to excite the public sympathies and to justify his opposition to the system of promotions then in force by assertions and accusations every one of which were without the slightest foundation.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he only rose to supply an omission made in enumerating the services of Lord Burghersh—namely, with regard to the conduct of that gallant officer in India. At the battle of Chillianwallah, Lord Burghersh served as aide-de-camp to the Governor General of India. Owing to the great mortality of the officers in the 24th Regiment in that battle, his Lordship immediately gave up his staff appointment for the purpose of joining the 24th until fresh officers were appointed. He joined the 24th in time to serve at the battle of Goojerat, since which he had served with credit in the Crimea. As regarded the general system of appointments, he would refer to the case of Major Addison, who was entirely indebted for his present position upon the staff to his talents, and not to his political influence or family connections. Again, Colonel Cuninghame, before his appointment to the Turkish Contingent, had served as assistant quartermaster general to one of the divisions of our army in the East, and was most highly spoken of by the Duke of Cambridge and by Lord Raglan. Hon. Members were accustomed in that House to speak of one another in rather free language, because they had an opportunity of answering such attacks; but he questioned the good taste and the chivalrous feeling of the man who took advantage of a public dinner to heap the utmost obloquy upon individuals who had no means of reply. He would advise the hon. Member for Aylesbury, if he wished to retain the good opinion of his countrymen, to adopt that love of fair play which was the characteristic of Englishmen, and to institute proper inquiries before making these unfounded assertions.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he was sorry to say that the present was not the first time that the hon. Member for Aylesbury had made unfair attacks upon gallant officers both of the army and navy. Upon a former occasion he thought proper to traduce the character of a gallant admiral, and his object now was to do the same towards the Commander in Chief. These systematic attacks were not without a purpose, and yet nothing could be more derogatory to the respectability of that House than for an hon. Member to pursue such a course
1894
of conduct. He begged to tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that Colonel Cuninghame was a personal friend of his, and that there was not a word of truth in his statement with regard to that gallant officer. Yet the hon. Member had the temerity and the impudence to rise in his place—
MR. HADFIELD: Sir, I rise to order. Surely that is language not suitable to this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has used a word quite unparliamentary.
COLONEL KNOX: I would be sorry to use any expression which may be deemed unparliamentary; but I cannot find language sufficiently strong to reprobate the conduct of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Still, Sir, I am ready to withdraw any expression which you may consider to be improper; but I really do think that the hon. Member should not, without acquainting himself with the circumstances—to put it in the mildest way—venture to asperse the character and conduct of gallant officers both in the army and navy.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he would put it to the House whether the discussion as to military promotions ought not to cease. A notice stood in his name on the paper, to the effect that he intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the opinion of the Government with reference to Lord Dundonald's plan for the destruction of the Russian fortresses, but he had been requested by Lord Dundonald to postpone the question until Monday next, upon which day he would accordingly put it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I cannot but express the deep regret which I feel, and which I am sure is partaken by the majority of this House, at the position in which the hon. Member for Aylesbury has this evening placed himself. Every man is at full liberty—and he does but perform his duty in exercising that liberty—to bring forward against public men any charge in respect to which he feels that he stands on good grounds, and in justification of which he can bring forward proofs which will honestly convince himself and any reasonable man that his charges are founded upon fact. The hon. Member for Aylesbury was, no doubt, perfectly justified in making the charges which he has brought forward against my noble Friend at the head of the army, if his conscientious impressions led him to believe that he had good grounds for the accusations; but, after the proofs and de-

1895
monstrations which have been this evening laid before the House, that there was not a shadow of foundation for those charges—after every reasonable man must have been convinced that those charges were false and calumnious, I cannot but think that the hon. Gentleman would have pursued a course more honourable to himself if he had—
MR. OTWAYsaid, he rose to order. He was a young Member of the House, but he respectfully submitted that the noble Viscount had used words which were altogether unparliamentary, when he charged another Member with stating that which was "false and calumnious." Only that very evening an hon. Member opposite (Colonel Knox) had already been obliged to retract similar expressions—and he (Mr. Otway) hoped that as long as the present Speaker presided over the deliberations of that House, the noble Viscount would not be permitted to indulge in such language. [Cries of "Order," and much excitement.]
MR. SPEAKER: What I understood the noble Viscount to say was, that the charges" made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury were false and calumnious.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I repeat what I was about to say, that when it was proved that the charges which had been made through the hon. Member—if he wishes it to be put in that manner—were utterly false and calumnious, I should have expected that a due regard for himself and for this House would have impelled the hon. Member to acknowledge that he had been misled in this matter, and induced him to bear an honourable testimony to the high character and services of that distinguished individual whom his erroneous statements were intended to disparage. In this expectation I have been disappointed. The hon. Gentleman bas brought charges against a man and against a class. He has brought charges against my noble Friend at the head of the army, which, I repeat, are unfounded and calumnious. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has been made the mouthpiece of others, who wish to undermine and overthrow the character of that distinguished man. Lord Hardinge is not a man who has risen either by favour or by accident to the situation which he so honourably fills. Lord Hardinge is essentially a soldier. He has won his way to the illustrious position which he holds through many a long campaign—through many a hard-
1896
fought battle. He has shed his blood upon the field of action, and there is no man who, by his long experience and his splendid services, was pointed out more preeminently than he for the proud and honourable position in which he has been placed. He was placed in that position, not by the present Government, but by another Government, of whom I will say that they did themselves honour by the selection they made. Was it likely that a man who owes his position, as Lord Hardinge does, to merit and long services—who has passed his life with soldiers—who has seen them in every climate throughout the globe—in every position, of camp, of battle, of march, of fatigue, and of danger, whether from the foe or from disease—was it likely, I ask, that such a man should have his feelings so perverted, by the power he possesses, as to be induced, by some trumpery motive of private favour, personal objection, or political influence, to undermine the character of that army with whose glory his own fame is identified, and upon whose efficiency his own honour must depend? I say, that the charges against my noble and gallant Friend are as unfounded in fact as they are utterly without even a colourable pretext in their favour. But the hon. Member for Aylesbury has also attacked a class. He complains that the army is filled with the sons and relatives of the aristocracy; and he says that it is a shame and a grievance that it should be so. Now, I say quite the contrary. I contend that is to the honour of the aristocracy that they throw themselves into the ranks of the army, and into the lists of the navy; and that when danger is to be incurred, and the safety of the country to be defended, they are foremost in the field of honour, and ever most zealous to uphold the dignity and glory of their country. Depend upon it, that when the day arrives, if it ever shall arrive, when the aristocracy of a great nation shall shrink from partaking in the dangers and honours of her defence, and shall seek amid the pleasures of private life to spend their days in luxury and idleness, instead of enduring the dangers and honours of the battle-field and the fatigues of the campaign—depend upon it, that when you see a country reduced to that situation, you may then predict its fall—then, indeed, you may raise your voice against a class so little deserving of the respect of their native land—you may then say that abuses do indeed exist—and you may then, with some show of reason,

1897
attempt to excite popular odium against the aristocracy. I am proud to say that that reproach cannot be cast upon the upper classes of England; and, so far am I from being of opinion that the acts to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded are acts which imply a censure on the aristocracy, that, for my part, I accept them as so many testimonies of the public spirit and the manly feeling which characterise the gentlemen of this great country.
Subject dropped.

LOAN BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Fitzroy in the Chair.
Clause 1. That an annuity of 14 s. 6d. shall be granted upon a loan of 16,000,000 l. for thirty years.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had committed a great error in proposing to contract a loan upon the terms contained in this Bill. If the information he had received was correct, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had he given the public the opportunity of taking up the loan, might have readily obtained 20,000,000 l. of money upon terminable annuities for the terms of forty-four, forty-eight, fifty-two, and fifty-six years, giving an average of fifty years, at an annual rate of interest not greatly exceeding that which he now proposed to give. He must complain that the Government had not afforded the public an opportunity of competing for the loan, but handed it over, in fact, to four or five great capitalists. He begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment—
"That, instead of the loan of 16,000,000 l. being raised by three per cent perpetual annuities, and 14 s. 6d. per cent annuities, terminable in thirty years, the sum of 20,000,000 l. be raised by terminable annuities."
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it was not competent to the hon. Gentleman to propose such an Amendment.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, in that case, he felt it his duty to move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not, consistently with the forms of the House, propose a Motion in Committee on a money Bill, to extend the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, without having proposed a previous Resolution authorising such an extension. For his own part, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman was
1898
precluded by the forms of the House from moving his Amendment. The only practical difficulty he saw in the way of giving effect to that Amedment was, that lie thought it probable the contractors for the loan would have made some objection to pay the Government 20,000,000 l., when they had only contracted to receive interest for 16,000,000 l.; but, so far as the Government were concerned, they could have no objection if contractors who had engaged to furnish 16,000,000 l. at a certain rate of interest consented for the same amount of interest to give them 20,000,000 l. He hoped, as the hon. Gentleman had recorded his protest against a loan which he considered extravagant, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment, and would allow the Bill to proceed in Committee.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that he was satisfied with having entered his protest against the loan, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, a Chancellor of the Exchequer could often do only what he could do, and not what it would be the most advisable to do. [The hon. Member here read an extract from a speech of Mr. Gladstone, in which the right hon. Gentleman was reported to say that he anticipated it would be necessary, if the war continued, to have recourse again to indirect taxation.] It was important at this particular period that no misunderstanding should exist on such a vital question as free trade, and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give an explanation to the Committee.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the grand and main object of Parliament had been to destroy protective duties, and when this was done it was right to say that the system of free trade had been accomplished and established. He had been understood to say that certain high duties—Customs and Excise—adverse to free trade, ought not to be got rid of. That was correct. But he also said that the gradual and progressive reduction of duties on articles of primary consumption ought to take place. It was not possible to deny that such a reduction had formed an important and a valuable feature of late in Parliamentary legislation. Then the great or total abolition of duties that were unproductive in themselves was aimed at. Duties had in that way lately been taken off of from 1,000 to 1,300 articles. It was quite consistent with free trade to keep on some duties, but nominal duties ought to be got rid of

1899
as soon as possible. He must have been misunderstood if he had been reported to say that he contemplated with satisfaction the possibility of a return to protective duties. But he could not dismiss from his mind, if the war continued, that as the burdens of the war increased, as they must do, though the House of Commons, he was satisfied, would do everything to avoid a return to protective duties, yet such would be the difficulties in the choice of objects of taxation that it might be, not a visionary apprehension, but a political necessity, for Parliament to find itself in the inevitable position, from lack of sources, rightly or wrongly to resort to the reimposition of protective duties. He hoped the day was distant or would never come. He should be sorry to see it; but he could not exclude the impression that such a contingency was not an impossibility.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he feared it was very likely the country would be obliged to return to the imposition of protective duties should war last any length of time.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.
Clause 7,
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he wished for some explanation as to the difference in the payment of interest.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with respect to the Consols part of the loan, it was customary to pay the interest on Consols in January and July, and it had been thought advisable to commence the interest from January, so as not to interfere with the customary forms.
Clause 7 agreed to; as were also Clauses 8 to 21 inclusive.
Clause 22,
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he had great objection to this clause, and would have opposed it earlier had the Bill not been passed through the House with such celerity. He thought the House ought to have an opportunity of considering the question, whether, at the outset of the war, a system ought to be adopted of charging posterity—whatever might be the state of the finances and condition of the country—with the payment of a large sum of interest. When the Report was brought up he should move the rejection of this clause. He would also suggest an addition of certain words in order to make the sense clear.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Member
1900
had indicated an ambiguity in the clause. It would be found that in the Bill in the hands of the Chairman, words had been introduced to prevent misconstruction with reference to the general policy of the clause; it would not be necessary to occupy the attention of the Committee by going into a discussion of its merits; and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had signified his intention of moving the rejection of the clause when the Report was brought up, he would then state fully the grounds that induced him to propose the clause as it stood. The Committee would, therefore, excuse him if he refrained from entering into the question at that moment.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he should not be doing his duty as an independent Member if he did not oppose the proposed increased duties on tea, sugar, and coffee. He believed that there was not a cottage in the United Kingdom in which this increased taxation would not be felt most grievously. Considering the high duties to which these articles were already subjected, he looked with alarm on the consequences of the measure proposed. Had the right hon. Gentleman raised 20,000,000 l. on terminable annuities, and 3,000,000 l. on Exchequer bills, there would have been no necessity for increasing the duties upon articles of daily and universal consumption. The natural decline of the tea duty had not only been suspended, but an additional duty had also been imposed, and the result of the increase of duty, together with the profit always charged on it by retail dealers, would be, that to those who purchased their tea in small quantities the price would be at least one-third more than at present. With regard to sugar, if the House had formerly stopped at a duty of 14 s. per cwt. on Muscovado sugar, he thought that would not have been felt as very oppressive, but the duty having been reduced to a maximum of 10 s. per cwt., all commercial arrangements for the present year had been based on that amount of duty; and the derangement caused to contracts by the present Bill would be most serious. He admitted that there had been an increase in the importation of sugar,

1901
but the profits of those connected with the West Indies had in many instances been scarcely remunerative. With respect to the coffee trade, he knew it to be in a very suffering condition. He should therefore move that the Bill be committed that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he must express his approbation of the financial measures proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had shown great discrimination in apportioning the various items of additional taxation. Although he felt the greatest sympathy for the lower classes, still he thought it was not fair to exempt one class from direct taxation and throw all the burden of that taxation upon another.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Glasgow, who, as he understood, proposed to raise 20,000,000 l. by terminable annuities, how he proposed to pay the interest upon them. Any gentleman who could solve that problem would be justly considered a Financial Minister. He found that the objections in the House to any sort of taxation were so inconsistent that they answered one another; but if they were acted up to, there would be no revenue at all. He wished also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some information with respect to the increase which was made in the malt tax last year. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that by a certain increase of the malt duty there would be an addition to the revenue of 1,600,000 l. He wished to know if that estimate had been realised. He did not like duties on articles of general consumption, but he could not conceive how Government could propose a tax of 150,000 l. on coffee, whilst, at the same time, they were taking off 190,000 l. on newspapers. He did not see the necessity for taking off this amount. No one asked for it. Nobody complained of the impost; and, for his part, he confessed he liked the luxury of a good newspaper, and he thought this was a direct violation of the principles which had prevailed of late. It
1902
was an inconsistent system of taxation, and, in his opinion, a blot upon the financial scheme. He also wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of tea had been taken out of bond, as he had been informed that large quantities of tea and sugar had been taken out of bond lately. The country was anxious for information upon both questions—how much of the 1,600,000 l. anticipated by the increased duty on malt imposed last year had been received, and how much tea had been taken out of bond, in anticipation of the increased duties which the Budget imposed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the three articles upon which die late Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to levy an additional amount of duty were sugar, malt, and spirits. On sugar and spirits there had not been a diminution, but an increase in the consumption, notwithstanding the additional duty imposed. With regard to the malt tax, the result, so far as it could be at present ascertained, was less favourable. The accounts of the malt duty were in such a state that it was not possible at present to ascertain the result with accuracy, but it did appear that the result was less favourable than it was in the case of sugar and spirits. One cause of its being. so was no doubt the high price of barley during the last harvest. The produce of the malt duty had fallen short of the estimate, though the general estimate of his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been exceeded on the year to the extent of 1,000,000 l. As to the remission of the newspaper duty, he thought it had been sufficiently discussed when the Newspaper Stamp Bill was before them. He had argued that the abolition of the compulsory stamp was not a fiscal question, and so regarding it he had not made it part of the Budget. The alteration was proposed on special grounds, and the House had sanctioned his proposal. The hon. Member had likewise asked whether a considerable amount of tea had not been taken out of bond for consumption shortly before the increase in the duty was proposed. A certain quantity had been taken out shortly before the Budget was introduced, but it was insignificant in amount.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, if the people had been well informed on the subject of these changes, he was sure they would have preferred the income tax to indirect

1903
taxation. He protested against a system of taxation which not only deprived the poorer classes of their earnings, but diminished the sources from which their labour was made profitable. He objected to the injustice of this tax as an income tax upon the poorer classes, and as one which bore with tenfold force upon those who had large families.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid that, finding there were so few Members present, and much apathy on their part to prevent a press of taxation, he should, under the circumstances, withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put and agreed to.
House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
Clause 1.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he thought the Budget was as good a one as could have been produced under the circumstances, had it not been for the tax upon chicory. He must complain that the tax was proposed and explained, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Secretary for the Treasury. He considered that the tax was one of protection, but he did not see how it was to be collected. He thought some explanation ought to have been given before the tax was imposed. The tax was not alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement, but it bad been placed on the Resolutions by the Secretary for the Treasury. He was not aware that this was the custom of the House, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw it.
MR. WILSONsaid, if the hon. Member had paid attention to the question he would have found that there was no duty upon raw chicory, and the duty placed upon ground chicory was merely to prevent coffee being imported from abroad under the guise of chicory.
MR. MICHELLsaid, that the chicory must be ground before it could be used, and that there was then a duty upon it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no Customs duty upon raw chicory imported from abroad, still less any Excise duty upon that grown in the country. An objection to the present state of the law, which had been forcibly urged upon him by a most influential deputation, was, that there was not sufficient protection for those interested in coffee against the competition in chicory.
MR. MICHELLwould be satisfied if the words "or ground" were left out.
MR. GREGSONproposed to add to the clause the following words:—
"That the duties be made payable on coffee, sugar, &c., until the 5th day of April inclusive, which shall first happen after the end of twelve months from the date of a definitive treaty of peace with Russia; from which last-mentioned date the same duties shall be paid as were payable previous to the passing of this Act."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it seemed to him that the words proposed by the hon. Member would not have the effect which he intended. If it were the wish of the Committee that the additional sugar duty should be a war duty, it should be done by special enactment. It was better not to press the Amendment then, but to bring it up on the third reading.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYtrusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregson), after the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, would withdraw his Amendment. He considered that the colonial interest should have some hope held out to it, that after the war it would be put on the same footing as before the war.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he thought they should not be anticipating these questions; but if they did, they should take as much care of the interests of the colonies as they did of foreigners.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would suggest that the Government should undertake to introduce a clause on the subject to which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) had referred.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would, as it appeared to be the wish of the Committee, introduce a clause for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, he wished to point out the impolicy of imposing differential duties on sugar, and he must complain also, that this was often conducted so as to be more favourable to the London than the country merchants. Why should discriminating duties be put upon sugar any more than upon tea or coffee, which differed as much in quality? The sugar-producing colonies felt this grievance severely; and these colonists had no one to represent them in that House. Those planters who sent their sugar to market in a slovenly condition escaped with a low rate of duty, while those who produced fine sugars were taxed heavily. The duty, in fact, operated as a tax upon improvement. There was a large class in this country who had an

1905
interest in upholding this state of things, in order to give employment to refiners in London. Some kinds of tea were three times as valuable as others; but the same rate of duty was laid on all. Why was not the same course pursued with regard to sugar? It was said that sugar was taxed in proportion to the saccharine matter it contained, just as spirits were taxed in proportion to the amount of alcohol. But in the latter case there was a good reason for the distinction; otherwise the alcohol might be indefinitely diluted with water; but the saccharine matter in sugar could not be diluted or adulterated.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
In answer to Mr. CAYLEY,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not give any further information as to the produce of the augmented malt duty than had already been given.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he wished to call attention to sonic hardships that existed in the mode of taking securities from maltsters for the amount of duty payable. They were required to give security for double the amount of duty; and their sureties, however responsible, were prevented from selling any portion of their estates while their bonds were in force—on the ground that the Government held a claim over the whole. He hoped the Government would afford some relief on these points.
House resumed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. BLACKBURN, in moving as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would not occupy the time of the House by dwelling upon the advantages of education, or the importance of bringing it within the reach of the children of the poorer classes, a matter on which all were agreed. While, however, the importance, the advantages, and the necessity of rendering education available to those classes were evident, he thought the fact that three Bills had been introduced on the subject by very distinguished Members of that House, each proposing different systems, showed the difficulty of establishing any plan which might not be open to numer-
1906
ous objections. That circumstance, in his opinion, also showed the necessity of caution in dealing with a country which possessed a system of education that had acted well, in the hope of introducing some plan that would work still better. The people of Scotland were fortunate in possessing a system of education which had worked well for three centuries, having been introduced at the time of the Reformation by John Knox, and those who were called "the Fathers of the Church of Scotland." About the year 1600 a very large number of parochial schools had been established in Scotland by the Church, and in 1616 the Privy Council recognised these schools. In the year 1613 an Act was passed by the Parliament of Scotland in their favour, which was subsequently confirmed. In 1646 another Act was passed on the subject, which might be considered to have established the parochial schools as they now existed, and which, although it was repealed at the Restoration, was re-enacted in 1696. The parochial schools of Scotland might be considered to have existed for nearly two centuries, and they were essentially Church schools. There was no law laid down as to what was to be taught in them, but they were given over to the management of the Church, and the education afforded in them was to be a religious education under the charge of the Church of Scotland. He thought an attempt was now being made to overthrow that principle and to substitute a new one in its place. He believed it was universally admitted that the schools established by the Church of Scotland, and which had been adopted by the State, had worked remarkably well, and had done a great deal to raise the character of the Scotch people. In support of his assertion respecting the utility of the system, he would quote the opinions of two persons to whose views he thought hon. Members would be inclined to attach much importance. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) had expressed his opinion that the establishment of parochial schools in Scotland effected such an improvement as the world had never seen in the intellectual and moral character of the people. The Marquess of Lansdowne, the late President of the Committee of Council on Education, also stated in 1850, that though he was far from saying that the schools in Scotland were in a perfect state, or that they were sufficiently developed to meet the wants of the country, still he would

1907
much regret seeing any system of education attempted in that country the basis of which was not founded upon the principle of the parochial schools, which had been the means of giving to Scotland the great national pre-eminence in education that she had so long enjoyed. He (Mr. Blackburn) did not mean to say those schools were perfect, but he thought nothing could be more distinct than Lord Lansdowne's testimony to the principle on which they were established—that of a connection with the Church. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, who brought in this Bill, had also stated that at present the parochial schools in Scotland were more efficient than they had ever been before, and that they were decidedly more efficient than they were twenty years ago. Another testimony in favour of the existing system might be deduced from the preamble of the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill, which said:—
"And whereas instruction in the principles of religious knowledge and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, as heretofore in use in the parochial and other schools in that country, is consonant to the opinions and religious profession of a great body of the people, while at the same time ordinary secular instruction has been, and should be, available to children of all denominations," &c.
What higher testimony could be borne to the principle of the schools than the admission that for 200 years past they had given exactly the religious teaching that was desired by the great body of the people, and had communicated secular instruction to the children of those who dissented from the Established Church? The great feature of the present Bill was, that it severed the existing connection between the Church of Scotland and the parochial schools, and thereby destroyed the principle which had produced such excellent results up to the present time. Why had this Bill been proposed when it was admitted that the schools had worked so well and had effected so much good? He thought, the true reason had been assigned by the Duke of Argyll, who in 1850 stated in his place in the House of Lords, that the agitation which had been raised for the overthrow of the parochial system was founded in the main on those feelings which all Dissenters bore to all Established Churches, especially to those which they had lately left, and from which they differed least. Now, with regard to the Free Church seceders, very exaggerated statistics, he thought, had been published; but that was of no great importance at the present
1908
moment. It was impossible, however, when the presentation of petitions on this subject took place, not to be struck with the frequent repetition of the words "Free Church," the petitions front Free Church presbyteries and synods being so very numerous. He had great respect for the Free Church, and thought the conduct of those 450 ministers, who left their manses and stipends for what they believed to be a great principle, was worthy of all praise; but it did not follow that he thought them right in leaving the Church, and he believed some of themselves were now of the same opinion. Be that as it might, however, the present Bill was directly opposed to their own principles. The protest which they left behind them when they seceded from the Church, and which he believed was drawn up by the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), stated that they held by the doctrine of an Established Church and by the principles of the Church of Scotland; but one of the principles of the Church of Scotland was, that there should be connected with it a system of parochial schools. Then, why should they wish the schools to be disconnected from the Church? It was no argument to say it was not the right Church, for those who formed the secession could not be admitted as the judges in such a case. He thought the best thing they could do was to petition Parliament to give the Established Church such relief as would enable the Free Church to join it again. The Bill before the House proposed to transfer the entire management of the schools in Scotland to a Board. Ho thought the Scotch Members would rather abolish some of the Boards that already existed in Edinburgh than aid in the establishment of a new one. He believed that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) would hardly be in favour of a new Board, though, no doubt, some of his constituents derived considerable advantage from those that already existed. It would be infinitely better that the inspectors should report at once to a Minister in London—say a Minister of Instruction, or, failing a Minister of Instruction, to some one charged with the administration of Scotch business, who would leave the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate time to attend to his important duties, than to have a Board constituted as was proposed by this Bill. The Board was to consist of seventeen persons, of whom eight were to be nominees of the Govern-

1909
ment, the President of the Educational Institute, four provosts from four large towns, and four representatives from the four Universities of Scotland. Now, last year the test was abolished in the Universities with regard to all the chairs except that of Divinity, so that the professors were not necessarily religious men—they were only philosophers. But the next four members of the Board were not philosophers, but provosts. The provosts of Scotland—analogous to mayors in England—were, no doubt, a respectable body, but they were a most extraordinary class from whom to choose those who were to have the control of the whole education of Scotland. The provosts of the four towns who were to be members of the Board were highly respectable gentlemen; but not one of them dreamed, when elected, of being put to superintend the education of the country. The effect would be, that either the provosts would not be fit to direct the education of Scotland, though they might be excellent provosts, or, if they were selected only for their qualities in regard to education, that they would not be good provosts. Taking the Board as a whole, he believed it to be one of the worst ever constructed, while its powers were absolute and perfectly free from control. It would have the control of the religious education that was to be given, and in all cases the schoolmaster would have to obey its orders. If a clergyman took exception to the religious opinions of a schoolmaster, if, for example, Dr. Candlish and Dr. Cunningham—and he should be sorry at present to mention the one and not the other—should object to the religious views of a schoolmaster, they could do nothing in opposition to the Board. Say that the doctrine of original sin, which was a favourite doctrine with the people of Scotland, was in question. The Board would no doubt reflect the Government views upon that subject, and it so happened that we knew what those views were, for the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that all people were born good, and that therefore there was no such thing as original sin in the world. The people of Scotland thought there was nothing so bad as Erastianism. The spirit of Erastianism was subjecting religious questions to the authority of a civil tribunal. Viewed in that light, this Bill savoured of the grossest Erastianism, for it would subject the religious education of Scotland to a Civil Board. The School Commissioners
1910
were to be entirely under the orders of this Board. He did not think that, with such powers vested in the Board, respectable people would consent to become members of the school committees. Some vague reasons might be put forward for the proposed change, and among others it might be said that it repealed the test for schoolmasters. The schoolmaster had to give religious instruction, and it was necessary to see whether he had what he was going to teach. There must therefore be some examination into the religious opinions of the schoolmaster. The preamble of the Bill was, that there was to be religious teaching, but where the provision for such teaching was to be found in the Bill he did not know. It would be a mistake to suppose that the people of Scotland thought of religion as a thing set apart from the rest of life, and this examination of the schoolmaster was a qualification, and not a test. Another general accusation was, that the Church of Scotland wanted to monopolise the teaching of the young. But the friends of the Church offered that if the Government would leave these schools alone, they would join the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in enacting a provision for schools for those places which were destitute at present. The members of the Church of Scotland did not want a monopoly of the whole education of Scotland, but only wished to keep their own schools to themselves. It was equally untrue to say that the parochial schools of Scotland were sectarian. The schools of Scotland never had been sectarian, but they had taught the religion of 95 per cent of the Scottish people, as had been admitted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate himself. The fact was, it was not what was taught in these schools to which people objected, but those by whom it was taught. The late highly respected Mr. Hume bore testimony to the harmonious working of the system in his youth, and to the absence of distinction between religious sects, and the system had gone on in the same manner ever since. The present President of the Council had expressed an opinion on this subject which had led him to doubt whether this could be a Government measure. Perhaps it was an open question, and they might hear the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) object to it when the Bill went to the other House. The noble Duke said that the Dissenters of Scotland found the same religious teaching and the same catechism in these schools which they them-

1911
selves approved of, and that these old institutions of the country should be the last object upon which any experiment should be tried. There was one general argument against interfering with these schools, to which he did not wish to attach undue importance, but by the Act of Union the schools of Scotland were secured to the management of the Presbytery. He did not wish to speak of the Act of Union as it resembled the laws of the Medes and Persians, but what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) said the other night of the Act of Uniformity might be said of the Act of Union, that it must be considered a fundamental law, which, without strong necessity, ought not to be changed. Now, had any strong case of necessity been made out in the present instance? The large towns wanted schools, and it was natural that the borough Members should not like to refuse the right hon. and learned Lord permission to introduce his Bill. They all did so, however, hoping it would he amended. So, to all the petitions presented in favour of the Bill, there was some qualification or other. The petitioners did not like the Bill, but they liked the blow it dealt at the Established Church. Only two public meetings had been held in favour of the Bill, and at one of these—in Edinburgh—they were obliged to cut down the resolutions to nothing at all, and the Lord Provost had to explain that the meeting was one in favour of the Bill, and that those who were opposed to it could not be heard. There had been 117 petitions presented against the Bill, signed by 5,876 persons, while there had only been six petitions and six signatures in favour of the Bill, so that it could hardly be represented that an overwhelming amount of public opinion had been manifested in favour of the Bill. Lord Melgund, in a letter written by him before the Bill was printed, had conjectured that the denominational clause might be excluded from the Bill, although its principle might be continued by a separate system. The denominational clause was apparently excluded from the Bill, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had taken credit for leaving it out, but if hon. Members would turn to the 45th Clause they would find what appeared to him to be the denominational clause in another shape. The 45th Clause was as follows—
"It shall be lawful for the Committee of Council to alter or modify, in so far as they may consider it
1912
to be proper with reference to the provisions of this Act, any existing Minutes of Her Majesty's most hon. Privy Council in regard to education; but such Minutes, unless in so far as altered or modified, shall be in no way affected by the passing of this Act."
It appeared to him that the Committee of Privy Council, under colour of this clause, might continue the grants to denominational schools, and he should like to know whether those little Maynooths were to be supported or not by the Government. Were the Presbyterians of the Free Church and Roman Catholics to receive grants from the Privy Council, and was the Established Church to be excluded? He hoped that the House would consider whether it was advisable to change a system which had acted well for one totally untried, and whether it would not be right, if the Government wished to try a new experiment, to compel them to resort to a new field for the purpose. It appeared by statistical returns that in Glasgow actually 80 per cent of the children between the ages of five and twelve attended school. Could they, then, oblige the remaining 20 per cent to go to school? That was a difficulty which he feared the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill did not touch. In Edinburgh that 20 per cent would not attend places of instruction, notwithstanding the establishment of ragged schools and the temptation of a dinner given to the scholars, and he believed that nothing but a compulsory measure would make them go to school.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that as the hon. Member had mentioned that according to the last Report only six petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, he wished to state that last night he presented nineteen and on that day twenty-three petitions in its favour; and his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had presented fifty. Last year there were presented to the House 872 petitions with 85,689 signatures generally favourable to a Bill such as the one before the House, and the petitions in a contrary sense had only 42,381 signatures. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackburn) said that the Bill had the support of the borough Members only. The fact was, that thirteen county Members voted for the Bill of last year,

1913
and fourteen against it, leaving only a majority of one county Member against the Bill. On the other hand, twenty-three borough Members of Scotland supported it, and not one voted against it, so that of Scotch Members there were thirty-six for and fourteen against the Bill of last year. The Members in favour of the Bill represented 66,531 constituents, and those against it 23,878, or three to one, being much in the same proportion as the Members who voted on either side. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the feeling of the people of Scotland was decidedly in favour of the Bill. As they were now discussing the principle of the Bill, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman into all the details he referred to; but if the hon. Gentleman really believed that it would be so mischievous in its effects, he would scarcely have proposed, as he had done, that the whole town population of Scotland should be subjected to its operation. There were two contending schemes in reference to Scotch education. According to one, the schools would be continued under the control and superintendence of the Church Establishment, and according to the other, which was the scheme of the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill, Scotland would have a national and not a denominational system of education. There were great facilities for establishing a national system in Scotland. Since eight-ninths of the church-going population belonged to Presbyterian bodies, holding the Westminster Confession of Faith, and they with Dissenters agreeing with them absolutely on all questions of religion amounted to nine-tenths of the population. With this general agreement it was desirable to establish a national system of education, instead of maintaining one under the exclusive superintendence of the Established Church. It was a matter of some importance, in discussing the question, whether the Established Church of Scotland should have the exclusive control of the people of that country, to ascertain in what proportion the inhabitants of Scotland adhered to the communion of that Church. Referring to the attendance at Divine worship in Scotland on what was called "Census Sunday," he found that above one-third of that attendance consisted of the members of the Free Church; and less than one-third of the members of the Established Church, while more than one-third was composed of other denominations. Then let them look at the state of
1914
particular counties. Members of the establishment were in a majority in only two counties, and in Ross, Cromarty, and Sutherland they numbered not more than one-twentieth of the population. Yet it was proposed that the education of the people should be placed entirely under the control of the establishment, and to be conducted by teachers who should be members of that body. The honour of founding the parochial schools was due to the people of Scotland, who had, at the Reformation, without legal aid, voluntarily assessed themselves in every parish for that purpose, and now that the greater part of Scotland had been driven from the Established Church, they asked that their schools might be restored to them. He would appeal to the generosity and justice of the English Members to support that demand. The votes of English Members in opposition to the wishes of the people of Scotland, re-establishing Church patronage after the Union, and rejecting the claim of right in 1843, had been the sole cause of the existing divisions among Presbyterians in that country, and he called upon them to make some reparation for the evil they had done, and having deprived Scotland of an united Church, not to deny to her a common school.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to state the reasons which prevented him from supporting this Bill. It contained no clause which gave the slightest security to the people of Scotland that the education to be afforded to their children would be religious education; but, on the contrary, it removed the securities which at present existed. No religious test was to be required from the schoolmaster, who might be a Roman Catholic, or a member of any other religion, or who might have no religion at all; and it was proposed to remove the supervision of the clergy, and to substitute for it a Board of Education, the majority of which was to consist of nominees of the Government. They all knew that the management of such Board would be in the hands of the chairman and secretary, for whose religious opinions they had no guarantee. The present Bill was an attempt to substitute a secular for a religious system of education, and a question arose whether the English Members would force a system, which they were unwilling to apply in their own case, on the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had been accused of bringing forward this measure in order to carry out the views of the

1915
Free Church. This he had denied, and he (Mr. Baillie) believed this denial, and would prove to the House that it was very unlikely this Bill was drawn up with the concurrence of the Free Church, because when they had had time to consider its provisions they were by no means a united body in its favour. The Free Church of Scotland, however, consisted of one-third of the population; they were an earnest and religious body, had made enormous sacrifices in the cause of education, and if they had just cause of complaint it deserved attention. The Free Church complained, in the first place, that a test was required of the schoolmaster, who must be a member of the Established Church; this of course precluded the possibility of the parish schoolmaster being a member of the Free Church. He thought this was a grievance, but did not see the impossibility of removing it. The hon. Member opposite had stated that the creeds of the Free and Established Churches were the same; this was also the case with reference to the United Presbyterians, and, being so, he (Mr. Baillie) saw no reason why a test could not be framed which all could take, or why they should not take the Westminster Confession of Faith. He believed that all parties would be inclined to come to some such a compromise. The second point to which the Free Church objected was to the appointment of the schoolmasters being in the heritors and the kirk session, but he considered no great difficulty would arise on this question. The third point objected to was one of more importance—namely, the supervision of the schools by the presbytery; and considering the benefit conferred on education by the presbytery, and its present efficient state, he thought it would be very hard to take the schools from under its supervision. But on this, as on the other points, he considered that a compromise might be made—as, for instance, the Government might nominate inspectors, who might be members of the Free Church, to act with the presbytery. He had spoken of the Free Church as not being a united body in favour of this Bill, and he did so on the authority of the Free Church itself, for the Synod of the Free Church of Glasgow had come to resolutions objecting to the Bill on several grounds, and among others because, while it abolished the test, it gave no guarantee for the moral qualification of the schoolmaster, or for his belonging to any denomination whatever. The Lord
1916
Advocate had reproduced his Bill at a very favourable time. When the Bill was thrown out on former occasions he found he was met by a Parliament which was active and energetic in the discharge of its duties, but now the right hon. and learned Lord found a Parliament which was passive and apathetic, which had resigned itself to the neglect of all domestic legislation, and which supported the measure of a Government it admitted to be weak and inefficient, rather than put it to the inconvenience of active opposition. These were very great advantages, under which the Lord Advocate might pass the Bill through this House, but he was not on this account to imagine that there was any change in favour of the Bill on the part of the House or of the country, for if there was a change it had been shown rather against than in favour of the Bill. But even if the Bill passed this House, it would have to undergo the ordeal of the other House, and the Lord Advocate must have made a shrewd guess as to what the result of that ordeal would be. He hoped, in conclusion, that if the Lord Advocate was defeated on this Bill he would take into consideration whether a compromise could not be arrived at; and he (Mr. Baillie) should esteem it a privilege if, in any future year, he could, under the right hon. and learned Lord's auspices, give support to a measure for the education of the people of Scotland.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat had said that this was a Free Church measure. Now that was not a correct statement, for he believed that it was much more ardently desired by the Dissenters than the Free Church.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that on the contrary he had said that he did not think the Free Church desired this Bill.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was sorry that he should have unintentionally mistaken the purport of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the fact that the Free Church synod of Glasgow and Ayr had pronounced against this Bill. But he did not tell the House that on the occasion when these resolutions were passed, not more than twenty-three out of 300 members of the synod attended the meeting. Great stress had been laid during the debate upon the benefit conferred upon Scotland by these schools. He was not about to deny this, but it did not follow that because these schools, under the direction of the Church,

1917
had been of great advantage to the country, when that Church embraced the great mass of the people in its fold, they should be attended with equal advantages at a time when the Established Church did not comprise more than one-third of the people. If the Church of England was not to be allowed to monopolise the education of the people of England—and even the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) did not propose to give her such a monopoly—there certainly was no reason why the Established Church of Scotland, which was in a minority of one-third of the whole population of that country, should have that privilege. The whole question now before the House resolved itself into one of religious liberty. He wanted to know why the children of the people in the county of Sutherland, where the population were, almost to a man, members of the Free Church, should be compelled to attend the schools of the establishment. On the one hand was the Established Church, which had been shaken to her foundations by the events of 1843 and by other events, attempting, with praiseworthy zeal, to retain her hold over the education of the people; and on the other hand there was the vast majority of the people of Scotland appealing to that House in support of this Bill, which was a fair and reasonable compromise between the two parties, and which the House of Commons would do well to pass. Considerable stress had been laid on the number of petitions which had been presented against this Bill, but the greater part of them were from presbyteries and synods in different parts of the country; and, with all respect for the opinion of such bodies on questions of this sort, involving ecclesiastical domination, clergymen could not in all respects be said to represent the opinions of their congregations. He was convinced that a large proportion of the lay adherents of the Established Church were not disposed to follow their clergy on this question, and he warned the House that if they rejected this measure no long time would elapse before a stern and uncompromising demand would be made for one more uncompromising in its details, which the opponents of the present Bill would not venture to resist. The house of Commons would scarcely like to see the Scotch Members become as loquacious and even as pugnacious as the Members from the sister island—taking every possible opportunity, because justice had
1918
been denied them again and again, of thrusting their particular grievances before the House. Scotchmen were generally slow to anger and not easily excited; but, once convince them that they were the victims of gross injustice, they would become quite as noisy and a great deal more obstinate than the most eloquent agitators for a Parliament on College Green. No doubt many alterations might be introduced in the details of the Bill, but he heartily approved its general principle, and if the House rejected it, none would be quicker to discover the grievous mistake which they had committed than its opponents.
MR. JOHNSTONEsaid, he objected to the Bill, on the ground that, while it took away the securities now existing for religious teaching in the schools of Scotland, it substituted no other religious securities in their place. The authors of the Bill had, as it appeared to him, setting aside long experience, and entertaining a species of monomania against religious tests, by one short clause done away with those great securities. It was proposed to remove both from the schoolmaster and the inspector all those religious tests which had operated so beneficially since the schools had been in operation, but it did not contain a single provision supplying their place with any other arrangement calculated to secure the same end.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that the Bill was one, not for the partial but for the general education of the people of Scotland, and yet three gentlemen had successively spoken against it. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) insisted that the Bill was a Free Church Bill, while the objections of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) were grounded upon the same principle which had induced the Free Church to oppose the measure, and the hon. Member for Clackmanan (Mr. Johnstone) opposed it, as it seemed, because it was very nearly identical with the Bill brought in last year, and which had the honour of his support. The objections which had been raised to the Bill were, as these rival objections might show, rather on matters of detail than of principle. He would beg to remind the House of the difficulty of legislating upon the subject of education, and would appeal to its good sense to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and then the objections which had been made to it, and which were, as he had just stated, objections to details, could be conveniently considered in Committee. It

1919
was true that Scotland had taken a lead in the education of her people, but he was far from asserting that in that country education was perfect. From the Report of the Sanitary Commissioners it appeared that the condition of persons employed in the collieries was very bad, and in Glasgow, out of a population of 25,000, it appeared that when that Report was made only 2,368 children were at school. Such being the case, he hoped that the House would not hesitate to pass a Bill which would be productive of great benefit. In 1696 an Act was passed for the education of the people of Scotland, and two subsequent Acts had been passed relating to the same subject, but burghs were excluded from the operation of each of these Acts; and would the House be now justified in withholding from those burghs a general system of education to which they were entitled? It was proposed by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that the Established Church, which comprised about one-third of the population of Scotland, should enjoy a monopoly of education, but he questioned the right of any one sect to such a monopoly, and was in favour of the adoption of a general and comprehensive system. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) said that it would be better for the Educational Board to sit in London than in Edinburgh, but if such a proceeding were attempted it assuredly would be viewed with the greatest jealousy by the people of Scotland. All parties now strongly desired to see this question settled on a permanent and comprehensive basis, and when its difficulties were fairly grappled with many of them would doubtless disappear. It was to be hoped, therefore, that this measure would receive the support of a large number of the Scotch Members of that House, by whom alone the English Members would do well to leave it to be dealt with in Committee upstairs; and if the measure were only allowed now to be read a second time it would no doubt soon become popular with the people, for whose benefit it had been framed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that this measure had been discussed with so much ability by Members on both sides who possessed the advantage of local knowledge in relation to it, and especially so by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), who had addressed them that night for the first time, that it would be improper in him to detain the House
1920
at any length on the subject. Still, having been so frequently appealed to in the course of the debate, he wished to explain the grounds of the vote lie was about to give. The measure for promoting education in England and Wales that he had recently introduced had been referred to by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and others as justifying the provisions of this Bill for Scotland. Giving the best attention he could to the measure before the House, he could find nothing in the Bill to justify hon. Members in appealing to him for support on the ground of his own Bill on the subject of education. This Bill was in many of its most important principles in direct opposition to his Bill. Let them compare for a moment the respective contents of the two Bills. One of the most important objects of his Bill was the retention of all existing schools and other educational agencies, whereas the destruction of the present schools was a leading feature of this measure for Scotland. ["No, no!"] This Bill certainly proposed to sweep away the system which had been pursued with so much benefit to Scotland for the last two centuries and upwards. Another of the proposals of his Bill was designed to preserve a distinctive religious character for every school, combined, however, as every national system of education must be, with the completest toleration. Well, but in Scotland there were already schools with a religious character, but the schools which were to supersede them under this Bill were not to possess such an essential characteristic. Again, his measure to maintain the religious character of the schools required the teaching to be of the same denomination as that to which the school belonged. Now, in Scotland they had a test by which they secured the religious qualifications of the teacher; but this Bill sought to repeal that safeguard, and provide no substitute in its place. Here, then, were two broad differences between the measures in question. When, therefore, they were asked to assent to the abolition of the old established system of Scotland, they would naturally inquire whether it had failed or fallen short in the accomplishment of its mission. It was said that the great majority of the people of that country were adverse to the maintenance of the system, but certainly the statistics of the census presented no proof of that assertion. On the contrary, they showed that at present there were no less than 1,039 parochial schools in

1921
existence, supported by general or local taxation, and chiefly by taxes on land. In addition to these there were also connected with the Established Church 537 other schools; and the aggregate number of scholars in the two classes of schools above enumerated was 125,895. The Free Church had striven to do its duty in the work of education, but its influence, however it might appear to be in the majority, was certainly very limited as compared with that of the Established Church. It possessed only 712 schools, with 62,660 scholars; while in connection with the third denomination—the United Presbyterians—there were but sixty-one schools, with 5,807 scholars. Why, then, should those who were in favour of the extension of national education be required to aid in the demolition of a machinery that had worked so beneficially? What were the main points which he had advocated in bringing forward his scheme for England and Wales? Why, first, that they should establish there a national system of education; but in Scotland they now had such a system in operation. Secondly, he had laid it down that education should be supported by local taxation; but in Scotland education was already maintained in that manner. Thirdly, he had contended that their national system should be religious; but in Scotland that was a characteristic of the existing schools. Fourthly, he had held that the system for England ought to be tolerant in its principle; and in Scotland the schools connected with the Established Church fully recognised the independence of Dissenters. He believed there was no country in the world where the feeling of the Protestant inhabitants was more decided against Roman Catholicism than in Scotland. He found, however, that a considerable proportion of Roman Catholics attended the schools, and it was the practice not to press on Roman Catholic children any doctrines against their own religion. This was the very system he was advocating for England. How, then, could he give his support to this measure consistently with the position he had taken with respect to education in England? He wished for full toleration in England, and he found the system in existence in Scotland based on complete toleration. How could he lend himself to the destruction of such a praiseworthy system? It was the presence of such a system in Scotland which had inspired them in England with a feeling of humiliation at the
1922
want of such a system. He was told that the Free Church of Scotland approved of the Bill. But were the people of England likely to adopt a system because the Free Church of Scotland approved of it? They had been lately told that the Free Church clergy had censured those who allowed their children to attend schools not connected with the Free Church. He greatly feared that this Bill would not lead to harmony, and that while it destroyed an efficient system it would substitute nothing equally advantageous in its place. He was reluctant to oppose the Bill as a whole, as there were some parts of which he approved. He really believed that some reasonable change would be agreeable and beneficial to the people of Scotland; but he could not approve of the way in which the Bill was framed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring in a measure to supply appropriate education to rural districts, or to improve existing schools, that measure should have his support; but, as he believed the Bill, as framed, would prove injurious to the people of Scotland, he must give a reluctant vote against it.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he must congratulate Scotland upon the fact that it had acquired an interest in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, while he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not shown a more intimate acquaintance with the facts of the case and with the intention of the Bill than he had displayed. The Bill which he proposed had three objects in view—to reform the parish schools, to ascertain the educational wants of the people, and to supply those wants as they arose. Of those three objects, the last, unquestionably, was the most important. It was a great subject of congratulation and encouragement that on the last two of those objects, which were by far the most important, the Scotch Members of every caste were agreed. He had heard no proposal from the other side to supply those wants. He had heard expressions of strong conviction that something must be done, and he had been told in plain terms that if he would only allow the parish schools to remain as they were, hon. Members on that side would be willing to accept the measure. Now, Government had devised a measure for the supply of the wants of the great towns and populous districts, in which the Scotch representatives on one side of the House acquiesced, and to which those on the other side agreed.

1923
Why, then, were they to be stopped on the threshold, and the Bill to be thrown out on the second reading? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) said that it was his (the Lord Advocate's) own fault, asking him why he did not leave the parish schools as they were, and deal solely with the large towns, as to the remedy for which they were all agreed. But he was asked by another class why he did not apply the same reform to the parish schools as he did to the town schools, and why he did not introduce the popular element there. Were there no parties interested in a parish schoolmaster being a proper person but the landholders, who did not send their children to his school? He was told that he was pulling down the parish schools. These complaints from both sides showed that nothing could be further from his wishes or intentions. On the contrary, it was perfectly clear that the Government had done all that the right hon. Member for Midhurst and others proposed should be done; they had dealt separately with the great towns and the parochial schools. If those impediments were always to arise in the way of education—if they found that no concessions would produce conciliatory results—if the landholders were to be for ever deaf to the voice of public opinion and experience, and blind to the course of events, the time might come when it would be the duty of those who had in their hands measures of educational reform entirely and utterly to remodel the system which seemed to be one only of obstruction. He would now state the three reasons why it seemed to him quite impossible to allow things to remain on their present footing. In the first place, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) that no partial or temporary cure need be tried. Reform must be applied upon a comprehensive system, or not at all. The right hon. Gentleman said the voluntary system had failed, and so it had. He also said that the denominational system had placed schools in the rich districts, and left the poor unprovided, and so it had. Unless things were done on a system, they need not be attempted at all. Now, it was utterly impossible to leave the parish schools in their present condition, the whole educational machinery of the country required remodelling, and the Bill was not calculated for a system of patchwork. If they left out the parish schools from its operation they destroyed the whole system, and they would
1924
have a machinery far too great for the work to be accomplished. The intention of the Bill was that they should know from year to year where schools were required, and that by a uniform machinery those schools should come into existence. But there was a second practical reason that appeared to him to be conclusive. There were between 700 and 800 Free Church schools in Scotland, all receiving denominational aid from the Committee of Council on Education; and if the parochial schools were to remain on their present footing they must in common fairness all receive such aid. The result was, that where one school would be quite sufficient they were keeping up two, incurring a double expense, and squandering the public money. His object in the present Bill was to supersede the denominational by a more comprehensive system; but it was his belief that if the blouse were not prepared to adopt a national system on that basis, then the denominational was the only system which could be taken instead. They could not have both the systems, and, therefore, to make the present scheme operative for the towns, and not for the parishes, was impossible. But there was a third reason, and a convincing one. Should they settle the question by bringing in a Bill solely for the great towns? Should they settle the question by leaving the parish schools in their present state? Did any Scotch Member really believe that the constitution of the parish schools could remain as it was? A fresh agitation would soon be got up in favour of the opening of the parish schools, for their constitution was utterly dissonant to common sense. Let them look at the northern districts, where the Census showed that of the people nineteen-twentieths were Free Church, and but one-twentieth Churchmen. Was there any reason for saying that the parish schoolmaster must be a member of the Established Church when nineteen-twentieths of the children would not be allowed to go to school? Now, if the present measure were rejected, it was not because they refused to deal separately with a pact of the subject; it was because hon. Gentlemen would not accept a measure which they admitted to be beneficial in two particulars, only because the Bill did not square exactly with the objects they had in view. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) and the educational measure he proposed, he (the Lord Advocate) would say this much, that the right hon. Gentleman

1925
frankly admitted the main point. If they were legislating for England, he (the Lord Advocate) would admit that there was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman had said. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot they were legislating for Scotland—a country which would accept of nothing but a religious education. Accordingly the Government had it in their power to do in Scotland what could not be done elsewhere—they could rely to a very great extent upon the religious feeling of the community. Had he not known that the result of the passing of the Bill he proposed would be that the Bible and Catechism would be taught in the schools just as before, he should not have brought forward the measure. But the opposition of certain Scotch Members rested entirely on the ground that the parochial schools should be left entirely in the hands of teachers belonging to the Established Church. That was not at all in consonance with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, who had said that he would respect the feelings of the majority of the people in a district, and support education in accordance with those feelings. Then, if it could be shown that in the parishes of Scotland the religion of a denomination was one way, and the religion of the masses another, the right hon. Gentleman could not refuse to give his assent to the measure. On no ground could hon. Gentlemen opposite vote against the second reading of the Bill excepting this, that they did not wish to see these parochial schools thrown open to all religious classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman said, that these parochial schools were part of the ecclesiastical establishment of Scotland, and ought to be exclusively confined to the members of that establishment. It was hardly with patience that he could hear hon. Gentlemen opposite assuming to themselves the right of representing the whole Church of Scotland, and all that it had done in past days. He found hon. Gentlemen saying that they had a great respect for the Church of Scotland, although they did not belong to it; and as these parochial schools formed part of the ecclesiastical system, they were of opinion that that system would be entirely destroyed if they admitted any schoolmaster who was not inclined to take the test. It was an extraordinary state of things that these Episcopalians were for keeping out the very men whom originally this test was devised to keep in, its object
1926
being to protect all those who held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But what was it that this Bill was intended to do? Its object was, among other things, to render the parochial schools in Scotland more extensively useful; but one argument which was common to all discussions of this kind had been used on this occasion. It was said, "Look at what these schools have done for Scotland—will you touch these?" He admitted that they had done much for Scotland, but not because they were administered in the best way, nor because the masters were well chosen; but all the good that had been done by them was in spite of a defective system. But one thing which the parochial schools in Scotland had done was this; they showed how much might be accomplished, not by trusting to the voluntary efforts of individuals, but by the State setting itself to the discharge of the duty of educating the people. in spite of a great deal of mismanagement, of a pittance to the schoolmasters absolutely contemptible, of supervision at many times most superficial, of discipline at many times most lax, these schools had done much for Scotland, and he now asked the House to proceed on that principle, and to extend its bounds, to have a national system for the towns as well as for the country, to reform the parish schools, and to create new ones where they were required. The first thing proposed to be done in regard to the parochial schools was to increase the salaries of the masters. In the next place, an allowance was to be made to a schoolmaster who was unfit by infirmity for the due discharge of his duties, or who by reason of long service should be allowed to retire. In the third place, the parish schoolmaster was not to be inducted until he had been examined by an inspector. Was that reform not to be tolerated? He might here mention an instance, showing the necessity of this preliminary inspection. A bequest was made to some parish schools in Scotland under certain regulations, one of which was, that the schoolmasters should undergo an examination previously to their being appointed. In one of the Reports of the inspectors of these schools, he found that when they first examined the masters of these schools, only twenty-four out of eighty passed the examination. In the following year thirty more passed, but a large proportion were unable to pass the examination. With respect to the management of these schools, would not any one believe,

1927
from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was proposed to take the management out of the hands of those in whom that management was now vested? But there was nothing of the kind in the Bill. The election of the schoolmaster would remain with the minister and heritors of the parish, and by proposing that it should not be necessary for the schoolmaster to subscribe any test, confession of faith, or formula, it was simply saying that the minister and heritors may elect the best master they could find, whether he belonged to the Established Church or not. He freely admitted that it was proposed to sweep away the test, if they were pleased to call that a qualification. But the best test in his opinion that could be devised, was evidence of the party being a man of intellect, and an honest, able, and competent man for the discharge of the duties confided to him. No doubt, by abolishing the test, it would empower the minister and heritors to appoint a schoolmaster who might or who might not be a member of the Church; and was it not just and right, where the majority of the district held particular religious opinions which prevented them from going to the parish church, that at the parish school their children should have a master who was calculated to give them instruction according to their own opinions? The Established Church in Scotland was still a very influential body, and she might vindicate to herself more influence if she chose; her members, however, did not amount to more than one-third of the population, and nothing was more dangerous to her peace and well-doing than for her to assume the attributes of power without possessing the reality of it. If, however, the members of that Church would listen to advice, though coming from a quarter which they might rather suspect, he did believe that the best thing that could happen for increasing the influence of the Established Church of Scotland was that this Bill should pass. It was impossible to say what heartburnings would arise from the rejection of this measure. He believed that this measure had survived some prejudices, and hoped that it would be attended with more success than that of last year. With regard to the denominational clauses, the effect of passing the Bill would be to do away with denominational grants to Presbyterian congregations. In large towns where there were such large masses of the Catholic population living in igno-
1928
rance it would be a fair matter for the consideration of the Privy Council whether in such localities it might not be right to continue these grants for their education, but that was left for the decision of the Privy Council. What would be the result of the division he could not foresee, but he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill. If it did, it would be a victory, not over any denomination, or in favour of one party and against another—it would be a victory over a common enemy, the worst enemy a State could have—a victory purchased with no blood and watered with no tears, carrying desolation to no happy home, but one which would make the heart of the widow and the fatherless rejoice. They would build up for their country what might be truly called "the cheap defence of nations"—a barrier which would hold back the tide of ignorance and crime for years to come.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the learned Lord had founded his speech on one or two transparent fallacies. His argument seemed intended to show that those who resisted measures like this were enemies to reform, and were constantly raising up impediments to education; but was this a fair inference? Nobody knew better than the learned Lord, that since 1696, the Scotch system of education had introduced into that country, according to the language of the Acts of Council, instruction in godliness, in civility, in learning, and in knowledge; that the people of that country had been enabled, by means of that system, to go from the rural districts to the universities, where many of them had been raised to the highest honours, and that all of them had been trained morally and intellectually to a high standard. One out of every seven and a half of the people of Scotland were at present being educated under that system; and, according to Mr. Kay Shuttleworth, one in seven of the population constituted a fair proportion of the people who ought to be receiving education at any one time. The learned Lord Advocate, however, appeared to say that the people of Scotland had got tired of a system under which all this had been hitherto accomplished, and he now desired to alter it completely. How was it, then, that 1,800 heritors entreated the House to extend but not to suppress the present system? How did it happen that out of thirty-two counties in Scotland, nineteen or twenty had expressed

1929
their disapprobation of this Bill, while only four had given in their adhesion to it? There was, he believed, a decided feeling throughout the country that the existing system ought not to be subverted, though he agreed that it might be extended and improved. He agreed with those who thought that in the Highlands, the islands, and the larger towns of Scotland, education was not supplied to the extent it ought to be—in the one case because the population was so scattered; in the other, because it was so dense. But where you possessed a system which had succeeded to such an immense extent, why not extend, enlarge, and improve instead of subverting it? It was said that you could not have a system of education applicable to the towns where it was now deficient without having this general scheme, which was to apply to the parishes also. Now, he wanted to know why the ratepayers in the towns might not be required to establish schools there in the same way as the heritors had established their schools in the country? The two might, he thought, be kept distinct, and the parochial system retained in its integrity, while a system of education might be introduced into the towns which would meet the only deficiency that could be alleged to exist at present in Scotland. The learned Lord complained that they wished to retain a useless test, but it should be remembered that the arguments used against tests in England did not in the least apply to Scotland, because, though in that country you had an unfortunate difference of opinion in points of discipline, there existed no difference upon points of doctrine. It was easy, therefore, to apply a test in Scotland which did not militate against the opinion of the people of that country. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Lord himself, only two years ago, when he had to consider this question of tests with reference to professors in the Scotch Universities, had substituted for the then existing test one which required the person who took it to say that he would not directly or indirectly teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scripture, or to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That test was not complained of, and if adopted in this case also, it would give a guarantee for religious teaching. He thought the measure of the Lord Advocate amounted to a proposition to reform not only what was bad but what was good in the educational system of Scotland. Institutions
1930
which had succeeded, as well as those which had failed, were all to be brought under the operation of this reforming project, and they were called upon to imitate those unnatural kindred of old who, under the command of the sorceress, cut up their aged parents in order that they might restore them to health and vigour. He (Mr. Walpole), and those who acted with him, did not oppose this Bill because they disapproved the extension of education in Scotland, or because they objected to improvements of the existing system. He considered it a wise provision to increase the salaries of the schoolmasters, so as to render them more independent and respectable, and to secure to them retiring allowances after they had devoted their best energies to the instruction of youth. He also thought they ought to endeavour to extend the educational system to those places where a deficiency of educational means existed, and, above all, that they ought, if possible, to establish reformatory schools in Scotland and elsewhere. In his opinion, however, the cost of maintaining such reformatory schools ought not to be thrown upon the local rates, but ought to be provided for out of the general funds of the State, the object being, undoubtedly, to effect a national good. Acquiescing in many of the objects of this Bill, he (Mr. Walpole) must yet entreat the Lord Advocate to divide it into two parts, in order that those provisions upon which all were agreed might at once be adopted. The differences and animosities which existed in Scotland would not be healed by taking away what of right belonged to one, and giving it to another; but such a course would rather tend to aggravate those differences and increase those animosities. If the Bill had been confined to the object of supplying the deficiency of educational means in Scotland, instead of endeavouring to subvert a system which had been unquestionably successful, he would not have offered any opposition to it; but he could not accept the total subversion of a system which he believed, from all he had heard, from all he had seen, and from all he had read, had done more for the moral and religious instruction of the people of Scotland than any other system ever established in any nation of the world.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that no provision having been made in the Bill for the Roman Catholics, who were one-fifth of the population of Scotland, they were virtually

1931
excluded, and that exclusion he contended was fatal to the measure. He would advise the House to allow the people of Scotland to educate themselves, and they would do it cheaper and better than it would be done under this Bill, which he thought was altogether unnecessary, and which he believed would injure the cause of education in Scotland. He should therefore give it his decided opposition.
Question put; the House divided:—Ayes 210; Noes 171: Majority 39,

List of the AYES.

Acton, J.

Dunlop, A. M.

Adair, R. A. S.

Ebrington, Visct.

Alcock, T.

Elcho, Lord

Anderson, Sir J.

Ellice, E.

Antrobus, E.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Atherton, W.

Euston, Earl of

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Ewart, W.

Baird, J.

Ewart, J. C.

Ball, J.

Fagan, W.

Bass, M. T.

Feilden, M. J.

Baxter, W. E.

Fenwick, H.

Beamish, F. B.

Fergus, J.

Beaumont, W. B.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Ferguson, J.

Biggs, W.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Brand, hon. H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Bright, J.

Forster, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Forster, J.

Brockman, E. D.

Fortescue, C. S.

Brotherton, J.

Fox, W. J.

Brown, W.

Freestun, Col.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gardner, R.

Buckley, Gen.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Goderich, Vict.

Castlerosse, Visct.

Goodman, Sir G.

Caulfield, Col. J. M.

Gordon, hon. A.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Grace, O. D. J.

Cheetham, J.

Greene, J.

Clifford, H. M.

Gregson, S.

Cobden, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Grey, R. W.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Gurney, J. H.

Collier, R. P.

Hall, Sir B.

Colvile, C. R.

Hankey, T.

Cowan, C.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Harcourt, G. G.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Hastie, Alex.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Hastie, Arch.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Headlam, T. E.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Heard, J. I.

Denison, J. E.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Dent, J. D.

Hervey, Lord A.

De Vere, S. E.

Heywood, J.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Hindley, C.

Duff, G. S.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Duff, J.

Howard, Lord E.

Duncan, Visct.

Hughes, W. B.

Duncan, G.

Hutchins, E. J.

Dundas, F.

Hutt, W.

Dungarvan, Visct.

Ingham, R.

1932

Jackson, W.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Keating, H. S.

Price, W. P.

Keogh, W.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Kershaw, J.

Reed, J. H.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Ricardo, O.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Rice, E. R.

Kirk, W.

Richardson, J. J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Roebuck, J. A.

Laing, S.

Rushout, G.

Langton, H. G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Layard, A. H.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Lee, W.

Scholefield, W.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Scobell, Capt.

Lindsay, W. S.

Scrope, G. P.

Locke, J.

Scully, F.

Lowe, R.

Seymour, Lord

Lushington, C. M.

Seymour, H. D.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Seymour, W. D.

M'Cann, J.

Shafto, R. D.

M'Gregor, John

Shee, W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Mangles, R. D.

Smith, J. A.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Smith, J. B.

Martin, J.

Smith, M. T.

Matheson, A.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Matheson, Sir. J.

Somerville, rt.hn.SirW.

Milnes, R. M.

Steel, J.

Milton, Visct.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Michell, W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Moffatt, O.

Thompson, G.

Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.

Thornely, T.

Monck, Visct.

Thornhill, W. P.

Moncrieff, J.

Traill, G.

Monsell, W.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Morris, D.

Vivian, H. H.

Mostyn, hon. T. E. M. L.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Murrough, J. P.

Walter, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Warner, E.

North, F.

Wells, W.

Osborne, R.

Whatman, J.

Otway, A. J.

Whitbread, S.

Paget, Lord A.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Patten, J. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Paxton, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Peel, Sir R.

Wyvill, M.

Peel, F.

Perry, Sir T. E.

TELLERS.

Phillimore, J. G.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Phinn, T.

Mulgrave, Earl of

List of the NOES.

Annesley, Earl of

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Ball, E.

Cayley, E. S.

Baldock, E. H.

Cecil, Lord R.

Barnes, T.

Child, S.

Barrow, W. H.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Bateson, T.

Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Christy, S.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Bernard, Visct.

Clive, R.

Boldero, Col.

Cobbold, J. C.

Bowyer, G.

Cocks, T. S.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bramston, T. W.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Burroughes, H. N.

Crossley, F.

Burrowes, R.

Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

Butt, G. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

1933

Davies, J. L.

Macartney, G.

Deedes, W.

Mackie, J.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

MacGregor, Jas.

Dod, J. W.

Mandeville, Visct.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

March, Earl of

Duncombe, H. A.

Masterman, J.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dunne, Col.

Meux, Sir H.

East, Sir J. B.

Miles, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Egerton, W. T.

Mowbray, J. R.

Egerton, E. C.

Mullings, J. R.

Elmley, Visct.

Naas, Lord

Emlyn, Visct.

Newark, Visct.

Evelyn, W. J.

Newport, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

North, Col.

Farrer, J.

Northcote, Sir S. H.

Fellowes, E.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Floyer, J.

Pakenham, T. H.

Follett, B. S.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Forster, Sir G.

Palk, L.

Fuller, A. E.

Parker, R. T.

Galway, Visct.

Pellatt, A.

George, J.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Gilpin, Col.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Goddard, A. L.

Pilkington, J.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Portal, M.

Greenall, G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Greene, T.

Robertson, P. F.

Grogan, E.

Rolt, P.

Gwyn, H.

Scott, hon. F.

Hadfield, G.

Seymer, H. K.

Hale, R. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Smijth, Sir W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Smith, W. M.

Hamilton, J. H.

Smollett, A.

Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hayes, Sir E.

Spooner, R.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Stafford, A.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Stanhope, J. B.

Hildyard, R. C.

Stirling, W.

Hill, Lord A. E.

Stuart, W.

Hotham, Lord

Taylor, Col.

Hudson, G.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hume, W. F.

Tollemache, J.

Irton, S.

Tomline, G.

Johnstone, J.

Tyler, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Vance, J.

Jones, Capt.

Vansittart, G. H.

Jones, D.

Verner, Sir W.

Kelly, Sir F.

Vernon, G. H.

Kendall, N.

Vernon, L. V.

Kerrison, Sir E. C.

Vivian, J. E.

King, J. K.

Vyse, Col.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Waddington, H. S.

Knight, F. W.

Walcott, Adm.

Knightley, R.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Knox, Col.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Whiteside, J.

Lacon, Sir E.

Whitmore, H.

Langton, W. G.

Wigram, L. T.

Laslett, W.

Wyndham, H.

Liddell, H. G.

Wynne, Lt. Col.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Lisburne, Earl of

Lockhart, A. E.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, W.

Baillie, H.

Lovaine, Lord

Blackburn, P.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday, 10th May.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Bill recommitted.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDmoved to leave out the last proviso of Clause 39, which was to the following effect—
"Provided also, that no exemption from stamp duty, other than such as is contained in section 8 of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament holden in the 6th and 7th years of the reign of His Majesty King William IV., chap. 32, shall extend to any Benefit Building Society."
MR. WILSONsaid, it was never intended that the exemption from stamp duties should extend to building societies. It was at first represented that these societies were of great use to the poor, but they were now converted into large speculations for builders and capitalists, and the indirect effect of this exemption was, to defraud the revenue of considerable sums from year to year.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he saw no necessity for this proviso, which was an exception foreign to the enactment upon which it was engrafted.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 26: Majority 11.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONproposed a new clause, authorising, in consequence of the increased risk of death in the case of militiamen serving abroad, that friendly societies should be authorised to increase the periodical payments from men so serving abroad.
MR. COWPERsaid, he must oppose the clause. He thought that if the militiamen went to the stations abroad they were likely to live longer than if they stayed at home. At all events, the friendly societies should be left to make their own rules.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he agreed that friendly societies should be left to make their own rules; but Parliament had prevented that, by compelling them to retain as members men who enrolled in the militia, and who formerly, by that very circumstance, lost their right of membership.
MR. SOTHERONsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be postponed, in order that it might be further considered.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his

1935
noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) wanted to protect the societies, but he thought the militiamen were also entitled to protection. When the militia was raised by voluntary enlistment two years ago, the friendly societies had taken advantage of the words of the Act, by which they were then regulated, to strike off the men who enlisted into the militia; and a clause to prevent them so doing was inserted in a subsequent Act. His noble Friend thought the condition of the militiamen was altered by their volunteering for foreign service, but they only volunteered to do garrison duty in the Mediterranean stations, not to do duty at the seat of war or in the West Indies, and, therefore, they ran no greater risk as to life or health than if they remained at home. He hoped his noble Friend would not press the clause.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would suggest the postponement of the clause. He doubted whether the chances of health were as good in the places named by the noble Lord as at home, and he, therefore, hoped some time would be given for considering the proposal contained in this clause.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he was aware of the case of an assurance office, which would not insure the life of a militiaman, who was liable to be called upon to serve in the tropics or at the seat of war, without his paying an additional premium. Why, then, should the same power be refused to a friendly society, which, if properly managed, should be regulated upon the same principles as an assurance office?
Clause postponed.
The House resumed.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTE.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Stanhope, after the Death of his Father.

DISCIPLINE OF THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had a question to put to his noble and gallant Friend the Commander in Chief relative to certain occurrences which were stated by the newspapers to have taken place in the army. Their Lordships no doubt remembered the case of Lieutenant Perry, and he was sure they would be sorry to find that the practices which were then so justly reprehended were still continued. There appeared in the London journals of Wednesday a statement, copied from the provincial papers, giving an account of what was alleged to have occurred in the barracks of Canterbury. He knew nothing whatever of this matter except from what he had read in the journals. There were two cases mentioned. One was between Ensigns Sanders and Neville, of the 30th Regiment, and Ensign Falk-
1832
ner, of the same regiment. In that case his noble and gallant Friend had given judgment, and therefore he would not detain the House by any remark upon it, except to say that he did not think that his noble and gallant Friend had erred on the side of severity. It was impossible to read the paper of instructions to officers on joining their regiments or depôts without being struck with the good sense and propriety which characterised them, and there could be no question that the discipline and conduct of the army would be well maintained if the young men and their commanding officers acted up to the instructions therein contained. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) did not pretend to understand the discipline of the army, but he must say that the persons who appeared to him to be principally in fault in these cases were the commanding officers. He could not think that such a state of things as had been revealed in these instances could exist if the commanding officers did their duty as gentlemen and Christians, with these instructions for their guide. The other case, to which he now wished more particularly to refer, occurred at Canterbury. It appeared that Cornet Baumgarten entered his regiment, the Enniskillens, and was for a long time subjected to the most disgusting, insulting, and provoking tricks. He was in consequence betrayed into the great folly of sending a challenge to one of his tormentors. This step was of course contrary to the civil law of the land, and directly against the articles of war. It appeared that a sergeant of the regiment, who understood his duty both as a civilian and a soldier better than those in command, Sergeant Brodie, interfered to prevent this breach of the peace. And who did their Lordships think was the person who opposed him, and insisted on the duel going on? Their Lordships would scarcely believe that it was the adjutant of the regiment. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was stating the facts as represented by the sergeant. Well, he who, if he did his duty, should show a good example to the regiment, the superior officer, was the man who interfered to prevent the laudable attempt of the sergeant. He wished most sincerely that it was possible to make the sergeant and the adjutant change places; for the one had outstepped all bounds of reason and discipline, while the other had shown himself a good citizen and a good soldier. This adjutant who should have been the first to prevent a duel, actually

1833
ordered his men to knock down this sergeant with the butt-ends of their carbines. That was the statement in the papers. He wished to ask his noble and gallant Friend if he had instituted any inquiry into this transaction; and if so, whether he would make known to the public what his decision was? He had no doubt his noble and gallant Friend's decision would be in accordance with justice, with the requirements of the case, and with due regard to the discipline of the army.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he was not prepared to say that the noble Earl had not stated the case according to the facts. He was sorry to say that a system of practical jokes was carried to a great extent in the army, and had prevailed for a considerable time. He had taken strong measures to put it down. He had tried courts-martial, and he had admonished, and had cashiered; but these measures were not effectual. Without pledging himself to any course in the present case until he should have read the evidence, if he thought that admonitions were not sufficient, he would not hesitate to advise Her Majesty to adopt some speedier and more efficacious modes of dealing with these occurrences than at present existed.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought that the public opinion on the subject of duelling was in the right direction; but there could be no doubt that the result at the same time had been to loosen those bonds which formerly subsisted between gentlemen. He expressed no opinion whatever on the subject of duelling, and he was quite ready to acquiesce in the feeling that prevailed; but it was clear that since the practice had been discontinued, there had not been that stringent determination on the part of the military authorities to suppress ungentlemanly conduct which there ought to have been. In the performance of his duty as the captain of one of Her Majesty's ships, he had never had the slightest difficulty whatever in putting down, by an immediate interference, the least attempt either at bullying or ungentlemanly conduct. He had heard stories with reference to the conduct of officers of regiments in London, and even of those regiments which were employed about the person of the sovereign, which had really astonished him. For his own part, if he were Commander in Chief, he would hold the colonel of every regiment immediately responsible, and he would deal with him,
1834
rather than with the criminal himself, in the most summary manner.
LORD VIVIAN: It is only right to remind the noble Earl that the colonel of the regiment now in question is in the Crimea.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Of course I meant to say the colonel or the officer in command.

CHURCH-RATES—PETITIONS.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in presenting two petitions on the subject of church-rates, said, that the petitioners were the advocates for peace upon this question, provided that the real interests of the Church were not sacrificed or the churches themselves injured. One of those petitions was signed by a number of the most respectable inhabitants of the city of Exeter, and he must say in that petition the question was excellently argued. In pursuance of the notice he had given, he would take the present opportunity of inviting their Lordships' attention to the existing state of the law upon this subject. It was one of no small importance, and at this moment one of no ordinary interest; for in a few days it was likely a step would be taken in another place in relation to this matter of great moment to the Church; and he must say from what had occurred there were some persons required to be enlightened on what the state of the law now was. He considered that the declaration recently made by the First Minister of the Crown upon this subject was one for which all churchmen and the country generally were deeply indebted, for Lord Palmerston was said to have expressed himself, upon the Motion of Sir W. Clay for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of church-rates, in these terms—
"If the law were that a compulsory power existed, requiring every parish to levy a rate, then I agree that that would be the best mode of providing for the fabric of the Church." [3 Hansard, p. 1368].
That was a most gratifying and encouraging declaration, and he sincerely thanked the noble Lord for it, and doubted not that his colleagues were prepared to assist him in carrying it into effect. But the noble Lord added something which was not so encouraging, but which in his (the Bishop of Exeter's) opinion did not affect the force of what he had previously said, for he believed the noble Lord in that portion of his statement spoke under an entire misconception of the law. He stated that

1835
those hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the maintenance of church-rates as part of the law of the land appeared to forget that, by a recent decision—no doubt alluding to the recent decision in the Braintree case—there was no power to enforce that law. He (the Bishop of Exeter) was prepared to prove that that decision left the law respecting church-rates exactly as it found it, and that it only stated that the particular mode adopted in that case of giving effect to the law was wrong, and that the churchwardens were entirely under a misapprehension as to the course it was their duty to pursue. He had ventured, a few days ago, to appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, whether that was not the condition in which that decision left the law, and that noble and learned Lord said it was. The noble and learned Lord, however, did not stop there, but, giving the great weight of his official position to his opinion, he stated that the law respecting church-rates was absolutely effete, that there was no power of enforcing them, and that they must be content to look upon church-rates as a bygone institution. The noble and learned Lord had remarked that—
"The right rev. Prelate was quite correct, and, no doubt, it was still the duty of the vestries to keep the churches in repair, and supply the articles necessary for Divine service; but the difficulty was as to the means of enforcing the duty. In ancient times it was excommunication or interdict; but the very mention of these would be considered trifling, as they had been disused since the Reformation; and although it was one of the matters referred to Archbishop Cranmer, at that era to provide a substitute for the ancient remedy of excommunication, it was not done. Notwithstanding, therefore, that old legal maxim, 'ubi jus ibi remedium,' there really was no remedium for the enforcement of the duty of the vestry to raise a rate for the repair of a church. A rate made by a minority at the vestry was held invalid by the House of Lords. When, therefore, it was said that it was the duty of the vestry to make a rate when necessary, it must be borne it mind that, practically, there was no means of enforcing the duty; still, however, it remained."—[See 3 Hansard, p. 1500].
Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought his noble and learned Friend had not given due consideration to the matter when he uttered that opinion; for it was plain that those persons who were opposed to the exercise of the right of levying a rate for churches considered the existing state of the law to be a very serious one, and Mr. Courtauld, in his evidence, made the following statement—
1836
"I do not mean to say that in the present state of the law it is not competent for a church-rate to be enforced, even in such a parish as Braintree, where the dissentients are a large majority, because I have always felt thoroughly satisfied that there was a power in the ecclesiastical tribunals to punish by unlimited imprisonment—that is to say, by imprisonment until repentance and submission—all parties who, being called upon to join in making a church-rate, refused to attend a vestry meeting, and so to join in it, and we, in Braintree, are seriously apprehensive that such a power will be resorted to. That apprehension rests, in the first place, upon certain very significant passages in the judgment of Mr. Baron Parke."
After that evidence could it be said that the law was a dead letter; and that if it were put in motion it would not prove effectual? In the Exchequer Chamber in Hilary Term, 1850, Mr. Baron Rolfe (the noble and learned Lord now on the woolsack), in the case of "Gosling v. Veley," maintained this doctrine, that under the existing law all parties in the parish might be punished indiscriminately for contumacy in neglecting to make a rate, and that the palliation of a doctrine apparently so unjust was, that the churchwardens should take care that the punishment should fall on the obstinate parishioners only. If excommunication, however, were the punishment to be inflicted, he could not see how a distinction was to be made, for excommunication could not pass against a whole body but an individual, and therefore would pass against every individual of the whole body. Having shown that the parties were subject to excommunication for the non-repair of the church, his next step would be to show that the parties were subject to imprisonment. Chief Justice Tindal, in delivering judgment for himself and seven other Judges, of whom the noble and learned Lord was one, in the case of "Binder v. Veley," said, the repair of the fabric of the church was a duty which the parishioners were compellable to perform, and not one which they might either voluntarily perform, or decline to perform, at their own discretion, but the law was imperative in directing the performance of this work as a compellable duty; when therefore the parishioners assembled in vestry they did not assemble to determine whether they ought to repair the church and maintain the service, for as to that they were concluded by the law, but how the work might most effectually and most conveniently be done, The judgment stated further that the parishioners could no more cast from them the burden

1837
of repairing the church than they could that of maintaining highways and bridges, and also that it left wholly untouched the power which the spiritual court possessed of enforcing church-rates. The learned Chief Justice also said that the spiritual court was empowered to compel the churchwardens to repair the church by spiritual censure, and might punish those parishioners who refused to perform their duty by excommunication; that was (said the learned Judge) since the statute of the 53d of George III., chap. 26, by imprisonment. This power still remained, and the spiritual court could now enforce, by imprisonment, the repairing of the church. But that this was considered to be the case by the Legislature appeared from an Act passed so recently as the statute of the 2nd and 3rd William IV., chap. 93, by which after reciting the inconveniences that had arisen front the process of the Ecclesiastical Courts being inoperative out of the limits of their respective jurisdictions, it was enacted, that any person who, having the privilege of peerage or of Parliament, or others, was ordered by lawful decree of any ecclesiastical court to pay any sum of money, and should not on monition pay the same, on certification thereof, sequestration might issue out of Chancery against the real and personal estate of such person. [Lord CAMPBELL: that refers to the nonpayment of the rates, and not the making of them.] He was speaking altogether as to the effect of the law on church-rates, both as to the making of them and as to the non-payment of them. He therefore said that the Legislature, even in their own time, had given to a sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court enforcing church-rates what was equivalent to an execution at common law and a judgment, and over and above all this sequestration of their lands out of Chancery. Instead, therefore, of the remedy for default in payment being less stringent, church-rates had this advantage over tithes or rates for highways and bridges; that church-rates could be enforced by sequestration, and he was consequently at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be contended that the present law was a dead letter. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack need not feel annoyed at having overlooked this Act. This position reminded him of an incident in the life of Lord Chancellor Thurlow. Lord Thurlow was once called to account for having stated something to be law which was not. Lord Thurlow, in
1838
language which their Lordships could not expect him to repeat, reiterated that his decision was correct, and thereupon the objector showed him an act of Parliament. What was Lord Thurlow's reply? Why, that he should have felt ashamed of himself if he had been ignorant of the law of the land; but with regard to Acts of Parliament, he never pretended to know them, and he believed there was no one that did. He was aware that there had been long a desire to put church-rates on a different footing from any other charges on land. Lord Stanley stated that church-rates and tithes were quite distinct. There was one distinction between church-rates and tithes which certainly did exist, and was a distinction in favour of church-rates. For tithes they did not go to the land for the remedy, but they sued the party for subtracting the tithes. In the same way for highways, they did not go to the land for the remedy, but proceeded by indictment against the person. But in the case of church-rates they could not only go to the land, but to the person. The evidence given before the other House by an eminent lawyer, Dr. Lushington, was very remarkable. He did not know whether it was attributable to any connexion with the Radical constituency which that learned Gentleman had so long represented, but it was marvellous to see an ecclesiastical Judge having a strong bias against church-rates. Dr. Lushington being asked by the Committee if church-rates were at any time regarded as a poll-tax, said they were certainly of that nature. He never was more surprised than when he read that opinion, because church-rates were essentially contradictory to a poll-tax—a poll-tax being an equal tax on all persons, and church-rates being a tax according to property. If anything could surprise him more than the statement, it was the reason given by the learned Gentleman for it—that it was obvious they were of the nature of a poll-tax, because, whenever there had been a charge upon land, as in the case of tithes, there had always been a power of distress and seizing the lands. He had no hesitation in saying, that there was not, and never had been, that power in the case of tithes, and if he were wrong in expressing that opinion he hoped he should be corrected; but that being so, church-rates possessed an advantage over all other charges upon the person in respect of land, inasmuch as they were charges upon the land also. It appeared, therefore, that there

1839
was a remedy in the case of church-rates, that the remedy was imprisonment; that there was no legal difficulty in having recourse to it, and that it was totally without foundation to say, that the law of church-rates could not be enforced. Those who advocated an alteration of the law urged as a reason, that such was the disposition of the people that it was impossible to carry it into effect. In that House, the very sanctuary of justice, they ought not to be told that justice was not to be performed because it was unpopular in any quarter. The extent of that popularity was, however, greatly exaggerated. A right rev. Friend, after careful investigation, found that 4 per cent of the whole parishes in the kingdom was the whole extent of the resistance to church-rates. Then it was said, the number of cases did not show the amount of agitation. That might be very true; but if the Legislature attended to agitation, he believed they could not stop with the abolition of church-rates, they would have to go much further and to abolish —he would not say higher institutions, for he did not believe there could be higher than the Church—but institutions in a worldly point of view more important. And in what had this antichurch-rate agitation originated? He did not scruple to say, that this agitation had originated, not in a real popular movement but in a conspiracy, and that the conspiracy was recorded unblushingly in the evidence of Mr. Courtauld, who said,
"It had been previously determined as a very available mode of practically opposing a rate, that a Dissenter (and I was to have been the individual) should be the churchwarden."
He did not recognize Mr. Courtauld as a Dissenter; Mr. Courtauld was something more than a Dissenter, being a Unitarian; and he protested against his calling himself a Dissenter. He put it to their Lordships whether a number of persons combining for the purpose of preventing not merely a lawful act, but what it was the duty of the parties to do, was not a conspiracy?—whether, in law, it did not amount to a very grave misdemeanour, for which the parties, if prosecuted, would be liable to very heavy punishment? But he had not done full justice to the origin of his agitation in merely terming it a conspiracy—it was a conspiracy carried on by premeditated wilful perjury and subornation of perjury. He said that, because Mr. Courtauld was elected churchwarden in order to prevent the performance of the proper
1840
duties of the office. The duty of a churchwarden was stated upon high authority, that of Dr. Lushington in his evidence before the Committee, as follows:—
"The proper duty of a churchwarden is, as soon as ever he comes into office, to see what is requisite and necessary for the sustentation of the church, that is, the repair of the fabric, and the finding of things requisite for the decent performance of Divine Service; those are, strictly speaking, the expenses that ought to fall upon the church-rate. It is his duty to make an estimate in the first instance; to call a vestry immediately; to lay before the vestry that estimate, and to ask from them a rate; if they refuse him the rate, he has done his duty."
He wrote to the learned Judge who gave this opinion (Dr. Lushington), asking him whether there was not here an important omission—whether it was not the further duty of the churchwarden to present to the ordinary "the want of repair, that he had caused an estimate to be laid before the vestry, and that a rate had been refused." The learned Judge answered him, that "Such was the further duty of the churchwarden, and he authorised him to state that such was his judgment." The churchwarden's solemn declaration, in lieu of oath, was as follows—
"That I will well and truly perform the office of church warden within the parish of—, for the ensuing year, to the best of my skill and ability; and that I will present all such persons and things as by the laws ecclesiastical of this realm are presentable."
Their Lordships would now be enabled to judge of the morality of the gentlemen who conspired to procure Dissenters to be elected churchwardens, with a view to defeat the raising of church rates, which it was their duty to cause to be raised, and of which duty they were once solemnly sworn and now were solemnly "affirmed" to the performance. An indictment for perjury would not lie for the breach of a promise attested by oath; but it was morally perjury, and so in the case of a promise by way of solemn affirmation—which, by statute, was substituted for oath—to discharge a duty, such affirmation being made with the deliberate object of preventing it from being performed. Morally such conduct was justly accusable of perjury, and subornation of perjury and conspiracy to commit such crimes and violate the law. Yet the wealthy person who had set on foot this odious conspiracy had not scrupled to profess before the Committee scruples of "conscience," forsooth, as to payment of church-rates. This reminded one irresistibly of "straining at a gnat and swallow-

1841
ing a camel," But when they came to be examined into, these "conscientious scruples" turned out to be extremely curious. It appeared that Mr. Courtauld, although he refused to be rated either in the parish of Bocking or Braintree, in each of which he had property, yet in the neighbouring parish of Gosfield he was rated and paid the rate. Mr. Courtauld was asked this question by the Committee—"You have stated that you have yourself individually, and those with whom you act, unconquerable objections in point of conscience to the payment of church-rates imposed upon the parish of Braintree?" Mr. Courtauld replied, "I have." Whercon one of the Committee naturally asked how he could consistently and conscientiously pay a church-rate in the parish of Gosfield, whilst he refused to pay them in the parishes of Bocking and Braintree? The answer was remarkable, and he coidd well understand the curiosity evinced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), but he would defy his noble and learned Friend to guess what it was. Mr. Courtauld replied, "In the parish of Gosfield I have been permitted to construct a family vault and erect—[What?]—a family mausoleum." So that the gentleman who agitated against church-rates in one parish was a hyper-churchman in another, where he had aspired to the distinction of a family mausoleum. This was the right royal style! Few of their Lordships had mausoleums. "Mausoleum" was an Asiatic term of dignity and splendour, and here was the arch-agitator of Bocking and Braintree desirous of becoming the satrap of Gosfield. But when a magnificent estate, lent by an ancestor of the Duke of Buckingham to Louis XVIII., when an exile in this country, came into the possession of a wealthy person, ambitious of a "mausoleum," although the originator of the agitation against church-rates, it was very remarkable that he should select for its site the church or churchyard, and place it under the protection of church-rates. Mr. Courtauld added—"I am, consequently, in the habit of resorting to the parish church of Gosfield"—not on Sundays; let him not be suspected of anything so wrong, but—"on the death of any member of our family, and am thereby a partaker of the advantages resulting from the church of Gosfield." He wished Mr. Courtauld had had more consideration for the poor of those parishes in which he had acquired the enormous wealth that permitted him to
1842
extend his possessions into Gosfield, and to indulge his aspirations for a mausoleum. Would it not have been more decent if this wealthy person had taken some slight care that the hundreds of poor people, members of the Church of England, should have had the means of worshipping God in their own parish church? All that this wealthy agitator, however, cared for, it appeared, so far as parish churches were concerned, was that he should have a "mausoleum" in one of them, and the opportunity of interring therein any of the members of his distinguished family. Mr. Courtauld added—
"I should, however, explain that I, individually, do not partake of what is called the conscientious objection which is taken by many of my brother Dissenters."
He again, in the name of the Dissenters, objected to Mr. Courtauld calling himself a Dissenter. Mr. Courtauld also said that the question of the church-rate struggle, taken per se, was gone comparatively into insignificance, but was interesting to Dissenters, as bearing upon the important question of the separation of Church and State. This statement startled the Committee—one of whom said, "that is a large question, will you explain what you mean by separation of Church and State?" To which the witness answered, "I do not know how I can explain it better than by the words themselves—'separation of Church and State.'" The witness was a person of shrewdness. The words were significant enough, and amply described what the authors of this anti-church-rate agitation aimed at. It was well for their Lordships, then, to bear in mind that the concealed and ultimate object of any legislation for the abolition of church-rates was the separation of Church and State. If it was asked whether the present state of things was desirable, he (the Bishop of Exeter) answered that he deplored, regretted, and deprecated it; but he deplored it most deeply on account of the unscrupulous means by which the agitation was carried on, and the weak concessions made to it; so that there was no security that, ere long, their Lordships' House might not be polluted by the proposition of some measure for the abolition of churchrates—that is, for the separation of Church and State, which was the real and ultimate object of the promoters of such a measure. He would gladly see some measure by which the interests of religion might be secured with less opening for the

1843
dissension and acrimony which the present system tended to produce. But that it was not easy to devise such a system was shown by the successive failures of all that had been proposed; and he believed that no system could be projected less liable to evil than that which now existed. He had no special love for church-rates, but he agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury, who had said—
"If the law were that a compulsory power existed, requiring every parish to levy a rate, then that would be the best mode of providing for the fabric of the church."
Assuming—what he could not but assume—that some compulsory system was necessary, he did not believe that any better system than the present one could be invented. With regard to the voluntary system, he admitted that in many populous parishes, particularly in great cities, the church people might themselves do what was necessary for the keeping the churches in repair, and the country ought to be grateful to them for so doing; but he must caution them that all such voluntary measures had a fearful tendency to rob the poor of their rights and privileges. The Peers of England never would desert the poor of England; and, whatever measures they adopted, they must remember that the poor man has as good a right to a seat in church as the highest, the richest, and the proudest had to his rank, wealth, and station. The danger of voluntary measures was that those who contributed money would claim peculiar rights with regard to pews and sittings, and he was sorry that he was able to illustrate that danger by referring to the state of things in the city in which their Lordships were assembled. The parish of St. James, Westminster, contained a population of 36,400, of whom 20,000 were poor. The parish church contained 1,300 sittings let and appropriated, while there were only 400 free sittings for adults—of which not more than 200 were tolerably good—and 100 for children. In St. James's Chapel, York Street, there were 550 sittings let and appropriated, and not a single free sitting had been provided. St. Phillip's Chapel, Regent Street, contained 850 sittings let and appropriated, while the number of free sittings for adults was only fifty, and for children forty. In this chapel there were also 376 sittings in the roof, but they were out of sight and never occupied. He now came to a case of a better description—that of Archbishop Tenison's Chapel, in
1844
Regent Street, in which there were 550 sittings let and appropriated, and 400 free sittings for adults and seventy for children, all of which sittings were excellent. Then, again, in St. Luke's Church, Berwick Street, there were 400 sittings let and appropriated, and 380 free sittings for adults, of which 240 were good, and 600 for children. The population of these parishes amounted to 36,400, and their Lordships would perceive how inadequate the church accommodation was; but such results, he believed, they must expect from the voluntary system in towns. They had been told that one-fourth of the parishes in the country resisted church-rates; but, even if they left things as they at present were, he entreated their Lordships not to be induced, by apprehensions of dangers which it was said would arise if agitation on this question were allowed to spread, to desist from earnestly and strenuously resisting any attempt which might be made for the abolition of church-rates.
THE LORD CHANCELLORfelt it necessary to make some remarks, although it was a great disadvantage to have to follow the right rev. Prelate in debate, because the House, whether they concurred with the right rev. Prelate or not, always found him very entertaining. On the present occasion, too, the right rev. Prelate had very greatly amused their Lordships; but in the latter part of his speech, he had entirely lost sight of the subject of the petitions lie had presented and of the subject he had brought before the House; for however much it might be lamented that, in the large London parishes, where the churches were originally built for a population of one or two thousand, the accommodation was inadequate for either rich or poor, when it was multiplied to 30,000 or 40,000, it was not, surely, any fault of the church-rates that such deficiencies existed. No law had ever recognised the obligation of levying church-rates to build new churches as population advanced;—that had been done under special Acts of Parliament, from time to time passed; and if the Church Building Acts did not make adequate provision, that was quite a different question. The right rev. Prelate had, in a very entertaining way, described to their Lordships the aspiring ambition of what he called the House of Courtauld, and had amused their Lordships with his remarks upon the evidence of a gentleman of that name; but really, whether Mr. Courtauld

1845
was, or not, a Dissenter, as he described himself to be, that, with other private and personal matters, to which the right rev. Prelate had referred, were matters with which their Lordships had no concern at all. But to the former part of the address, he (the Lord Chancellor) felt himself bound to make some observations, inasmuch as the right rev. Prelate had insinuated that he (the Lord Chancellor) had, not intentionally, but through ignorance, misled their Lordships on a former occasion, and inadequately represented the state of the law as regards church-rates. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) would not shelter himself behind the example of Lord Thurlow, who replied to a similar remark (although in language far less courtly than that of the right rev. Prelate), "I don't consider myself bound to know all Acts of Parliament." He (the Lord Chancellor) admitted that if he had ever, unintentionally and in ignorance, misled their Lordships, he should ask their forgiveness, but he would say now exactly what he said the other night, because it happened to be a subject which, from accidental causes, had been present to his mind judicially, ever since he had occupied a seat on the bench; and therefore if he now forgot the result of that consideration he had formerly bestowed upon it, he should be quite unpardonable. It was about fifteen years ago that this question arose at Braintree, as to whether, when the parish would not make a church-rate, the churchwardens could not do it in invitos. That came to be considered, first in the Court of Queen's Bench, and was then carried into the Exchequer Chamber, and elaborately discussed, he (the Lord Chancellor) being one of the Judges of the Exchequer at that time, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) being then, as he believed, Attorney General, was one of the counsel by whom the question was argued. It was very deeply considered, and certainly there was no disposition on the part of the Judges to warp the law; they looked into it most laboriously, endeavouring rather, if they could, to find that there was authority for saying that the churchwardens could impose that rate; and they would have been glad to come to that conclusion; but they found that there was no such authority, and consequently they declared against the rate. But, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Judges to that effect, Chief Justice Tindal did throw out a suggestion which he (the
1846
Lord Chancellor) was sorry for, and which he did not conceive to possess any weight; but, although the Chief Justice was delegated to declare the opinion of the Judges together, he (the Lord Chancellor) should protest against its being considered, that every opinion expressed by him, and not material to the discussion, should be taken as what the other Judges who were present concurred in. He thought at the time that the suggestion of Lord Chief Justice Tindal would involve parties in expense, without any beneficial result. That suggestion was, whether, as it was the duty of the parish, by the ancient immemorial law of the land, to keep the church in repair, there might not be some doubt whether, when the parishioners were met to see how that should be done, those who chose to say, "We will not vote anything," did not put themselves in the same position as voters who, in the election of a Member of Parliament, chose to throw away their votes on something quite beside the purpose of the election; and whether the remaining parishioners might not then, although the minority, proceed to make the rate. The course thus suggested by Chief Justice Tindal was taken, and the question came before the Court of Exchequer again; and in the beginning of 1850 the Judges delivered their opinion. He, himself, thought the minority had no such power; and he gave his reasons. Mr. Baron Parke and Lord Truro took this same view; but the majority of the Judges decided in favour of the rate. It was brought, by appeal, before the House of Lords, but he (the Lord Chancellor) took no part in their Lordships' decision, though he thought it was a perfectly correct one. This being the state of the law, the churchwardens could not make a rate; the minority could not make it; then who could make it? The right rev. Prelate had asked, whether the parish was not liable? Undoubtedly, the repair of the church was part of the trina necessitas, so called by the old Saxon law, to keep the churches, the roads, and the bridges in repair. But it was an obvious maxim, that where there was no legal remedium, there was no jus; and such an obligation could not be enforced. The remedy, such as it was, was absolutely impracticable, and one it was quite ridiculous to speak of. In ancient times the predecessors of the right rev. Prelate, when the Church of England was Roman Catholic, knew how to enforce anything of this sort. It was doubtful whe-

1847
ther they ever imposed an interdict upon a whole parish, but they could excommunicate all the parishioners individually. But, to talk of that being a remedy in these days was absurd. The right rev. Prelate said, there was practically a substitute for it; and he referred to an Act by which, in case of a person under sentence of an ecclesiastical court, the Court of Chancery could formerly issue a writ de excommunicato capiendo, under which the person might be imprisoned. It is not quite so now; but if the person refused to submit to the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, that being certified to the Court of Chancery, a decree might be made requiring him to do so; and if he still refused, that would be taken as a contempt of Chancery, and a writ de contumace capiendo might be issued, and the defendant be put in prison—it was to be presumed, in such a case as the right rev. Prelate contemplated, until the church was repaired. But practically, there was no remedy; for nobody was bound to lay a rate: that was only the method adopted, by way of a bye-law, to keep the church in repair; and all the Ecclesiastical Court could do was, to lay hold of any parishioner, whether he was one who had voted for a church-rate or not, and to proceed against him, because his parish had not got its church in repair. But it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that, in the nineteenth century, this could be tolerated for a moment. Such was the state of the law; and if the right rev. Prelate thought the case would be remedied by retaining the law in that state, others would not be so sanguine of it; because no sane man would ever institute any such proceeding. The right rev. Prelate had referred to some modern Acts of Parliament, giving the power of sequestration. But for what? Not for not having the church repaired, or for not snaking a rate, but for not paying a rate which had been lawfully imposed. No question if a rate was lawfully made, there were plenty of means of enforcing the payment of it; but the difficulty was to get the rate properly made. This subject had engaged the attention of the Government and of preceding Governments, and the real desideratum was to find out some mode of keeping all these valuable buildings in repair without causing that irritation of the minds of persons dissenting from the Church which they not unnaturally felt at being called upon to maintain a church to which they did not belong.
1848
He agreed with the right rev. Prelate that to talk of not paying the rate from conscientious scruples was in most cases a mockery; but the fact was that persons objected to pay church-rates, because they did not like the expense of having to keep up their own places of worship, and being bound at the same time to contribute to those of churchmen. It might not be a very highminded feeling, but it was not very unnatural. Any person who should propose a plan which should offer a reasonable security for keeping the churches in repair without irritating the feelings of those who differed from the Church, would confer a great boon upon the community, and would deserve well of the country. It would be wrong now for him (the Lord Chancellor) to say what the Government contemplated. An hon. Gentleman in the other House had obtained leave to introduce a Bill upon this subject; but he could not yet say how far that measure might be adopted or improved upon, or whether, later in the Session, or next Session, the Government might not feel it expedient to undertake the question.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he entirely concurred with the right reverend Prelate, that the abolition of church-rates would, through the Church, strike at the cause of religion, and at the rights especially of the poorer members of the Church of England. He very much doubted whether the means for enforcing the levying of a church-rate could be applied: but, at the same time, he was confident that their Lordships would not agree to the Bill which was likely to come up from the other House, and the object of which was, he understood, simply to abolish church-rates. He was by no means without hope that eventually a measure would be devised which would secure the rights of the poor, and provide efficiently for the maintenance of the fabric and for the necessaries requisite for the performance of divine service, and yet should not be encumbered with the many difficulties which at present rendered the enforcement of church-rates almost nugatory.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that the House and the public were very much indebted to the right rev. Prelate who had initiated the present discussion. The subject was one of the highest importance and would not brook delay. The Bill, as their Lordships knew, was pending in the House of Commons, which would probably

1849
be shortly laid before their Lordships, for the total abolition of church-rates, without providing any substitute. To that Bill he never would give his assent, for he believed it was absolutely necessary to maintain the establishment and to provide for the efficient performance of religious worship. He confessed that the proposal for the total abolition of church-rates deeply shocked him, and he was surprised that it had met with support from some quarters in which he thought a strong opposition would have been manifested; for he looked upon such a measure as neither more nor less than one of spoliation. While, however, he thought the right rev. Prelate had done good service in bringing the matter before the attention of the House, he was of opinion that the right rev. Bishop had made use of a false argument in opposition to the Bill; for he could confirm the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that at present there was no means whatever of enforcing the making of a church-rate, although, when the church-rate had been made by the majority of the district, there was no difficulty in enforcing its payment. In the Roman Catholic times of this country there was no such difficulty, for the effect of the ecclesiastical censure was then tremendous, and those who refused to make the rate were cursed with bell, book, and candle, and cut off from the benefit of the sacraments. Since the Reformation there had been no instance of a successful personal proceeding against persons who refused to make a church-rate. The first attempt was made in the time of Lord Kenyon, when an application was made for a mandamus to compel the making of the rate; but that learned Lord had decided that he had no power to interfere, and referred the parties to the ecclesiastical tribunal, and that decision had been followed to the present time. He (Lord Campbell) believed that if stringent measures were adopted, such as imprisoning parties who refused to make the rate, the effect would be most injurious upon the interests of the Church. He should rejoice if some measure could be suggested which, like the measure in substitution for the church-cess in Ireland, would provide for the support of the fabric and the maintenance of Divine worship in churches, while at the same time it would relieve Dissenters from the payment of a rate to which they conscientiously objected.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERbriefly re-
1850
plied, reiterating his statement, that by the statute of 1833 it was distinctly provided that every order made by an ecclesiastical court should be obeyed, under the penalty of writ de contumace copiendo. Whether it were for the enforcement of a rate already made, or for the making of a rate, it was the same thing; and he was able to say, as he had said before, that it had been proved by experience to be effectual, for in several cases it had been put in force; and as soon as the threat of putting it in force was made known, the rate was made. By the very confession of the agitators at Braintree, they dreaded the exercise of that power.
Petition to lie on the Table.

WAR WITH RUSSIA—CONDUCT OF THE WAR—PETITION.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he had to present a petition from merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and inhabitants of Bristol, praying that their Lordships would be pleased to take such steps as were in their power to induce Her Majesty's present Ministers to establish a strict blockade of the enemy's ports, and to make such representations to the Prussian Government as should compel that Power to close the overland trade with Russia. At the same time he wished to move for certain returns relating to the various products of Russia, in order to show that there had been more than the usual quantity imported from that country recently, and to prove the inefficiency of the blockade of last year. He also wished to ask in what manner the Government proposed to allow the trade with the enemy to be conducted in future? It appeared to him that this subject was the most important that could by any possibility occupy their Lordships' attention. The disposal of everything rested with a higher Power; but, humanly speaking, he considered that the Government were responsible either for peace or war. He believed it to be in their power, by an energetic and vigorous policy, to bring the war to a speedy termination; or, failing in that energy, to make the siege of Sebastopol another siege of Troy. He trusted that their Lordships would excuse him if he borrowed a phrase used in another place, to the effect that "it was the policy of Government to inflict the maximum of injury upon the enemy, and the minimum of injury upon ourselves." Now, with regard to inflicting the maximum of injury on the enemy, the question

1851
naturally arose, in the first place, had we done so? and next, was there any reasonable prospect that we should do so in the next campaign? War was declared upon the 28th of March, 1854; and, as the law stood at that time, it was felony, if not treason, for any subject of these realms to trade with the enemy. That wholesome law was departed from, unfortunately for this country, for it was his sincere conviction that, had we adhered to it, instead of attending Vienna Conferences with "bated breath and whispering humbleness," instead of appearing as suppliants suing for peace, and submitting to the humiliation of a refusal, we should have Russia at our feet, begging for peace upon any terms, and imploring us to save her from the fury of a nobility whom our measures had driven to beggary and despair. The Government, last year, declared their intention to establish a strict and vigorous blockade. The blockade of the Baltic was tolerably effective; the blockade of the Black Sea was partial, and unfortunately, the partiality was in favour of the enemy; for while we blockaded the mouths of the Danube, and shut in from the markets 2,000,000 quarters of corn belonging to our friends, we left all the ports of the enemy open, and let out millions of quarters of linseed belonging to the enemy. The British merchants, relying on the repeated assurances of the Government, regarded the Black Sea as tabooed, and, looking upon it as treasonable to trade with the Black Sea, went to Africa, to India, and elsewhere, and brought a large supply of linseed into this country. But the enemy was beforehand with them, and they were obliged to sell their produce at a depreciation of 15 per cent. In this case, therefore, the maximum of injury was inflicted upon British merchants, while the maximum of profit was enjoyed by the enemy producers. It appeared, from the best authentic accounts, that more than 10,000,000 l. of gold and silver went into Russia from this country in the first year of the war for goods received. It was to be presumed that the Government would not renew the blunders of last year, but that both in the Baltic and the Black Sea there would be a strict and vigorous blockade, as far as ships could effect it; but ships alone were abortive to make that blockade effectual. The petition he now presented was conclusive on this point. The land transit trade from Russia to Prussia must be diminished. By the mode
1852
in which it was conducted the goods were not, as heretofore, transmitted to St. Petersburg, but were brought through the departments of Smolensko, Tver, and Novogorod, to the frontier town of Taurogen, and were shipped thence to Memel, the distance of only a few miles. He thought that the Government were bound to do one of two things—either to raise the blockade, to diminish their naval armaments, to send out more land forces, which of course involved the shedding of more blood, or to take the alternative—enforce the blockade vigorously by sea and land. In the petition which had been entrusted to him the House was called upon to "take such steps as to compel the Prussian Government to close the overland trade with Russia." Now, upon the nature of these he would not enter: he left them to the responsibility of Ministers. His wish at the present moment was only to ventilate the subject, and he would first go to the question of prohibition. That was no new subject to the Government, past or present. That prohibition was urged upon the Government, and was recommended by the persons of all others who were most competent to advise them—namely, the merchants trading with Russia. Ever since he had a seat in either House of Parliament he had been an enemy of class interests; but he could not but advocate the views of these merchants, for he believed that their interests and those of the public were inseparably connected. Their advice was certainly preferable to sending 10,000,000 l. to recruit the resources of the enemy. It had been asserted that such a prohibition would not succeed, and that it would inflict no injury upon Russia, and great injury upon ourselves. He was ready to take the converse of that proposition, and to prove that this step of entirely stopping the trade of Russia would inflict the maximum of injury upon Russia, and the minimum of injury upon ourselves. He argued this from the peculiar nature of the trade. Their Lordships were perfectly aware of what the export trade of Russia consisted. It consisted of a few articles of raw produce, raised by serf labourers, who were the property of the nobles of that country. The Russian landlord nobles were a military caste; they not only held all the principal commands in that country, but the whole army was raised by them. All the ranks were filled with them, from the field-marshal down to the private sol-

1853
dier. Every landlord was a soldier, and landlords were not a very patient order of beings in any country; but a soldierlandlord, with a sword at his side, was a man who, in a military country, was likely to make himself heard. Well, these exports were the property of the soldier-landlords of Russia. The exports formed the rent of the Russian nobility; any injury to the rent must be an injury to the nobility. Now, the policy of this country last year, and their policy this year, as it had hitherto gone on, was the very opposite of all the principles which they had been talking about, as to inflicting a maximum of injury upon Russia, and a minimum of injury upon themselves. One effect of these imperfect blockades had been to make the war popular with the people of Prussia. It in some degree reconciled them to the disgrace which the vacillation of their sovereign had brought upon them, and made the gain to their interest act as a counterbalance to their loss of honour. But a far more serious consequence of our policy was, that it made the war popular with Russia, and its soldierlandlords; and as long as that feeling existed, let our successes be as brilliant as they might in the Crimea, peace was utterly impossible. There could be no peace until they made those exponents of public opinion in Russia, those military landlords feel more severely the pressure of the war. But so far from that having been the case, the land transit of last year had produced the most beneficial effect to them. They netted, it was true, a little less profit on their exports; but their horses and carts for carriage were an immense source of profit to them—so remunerative, indeed, was it found to be that they brought carts and horses from the confines of Siberia. A good system of policy on the part of this country would not have brought about such a state of things. The object of this country ought to be to make the war unpalatable to the Russian nobility, to make their exports unsaleable, to make their serfs unprofitable. On this export trade the Russian noble entirely depended, and his habit being always to live up to his means, and generally far in advance of them, he had no money to fall back upon as a resource whenever that export trade should fail him. There was no middle class in Russia. No man in Russia could supply himself with a conveyance of his goods to the marts; that was wholly in the hands of a small but a highly-respectable body of British mer-
1854
chants; the Russian landlords could not convey their goods to the port of shipment; that was, again, supplied by British merchants. Now, this body of Englishmen, as respectable a body as any in that country, had been in existence before the present capital of Russia was known, and when its site was a desolate spot amid the marshes of the Neva; even before the name of Peter the Great was known they were carrying on trade at Archangel between Russia and England. He dwelt upon this, because these merchants had repeatedly declared to the Government, that if the orders in Council permitting the trade were repealed, and that the Statute law were to be enforced as it was before those orders were made, they would entirely discontinue the Russian trade. They ought to be believed in that assertion, for it was obvious that men of their high character were not disposed to risk their honour as British merchants, and to incur disgrace and banishment by evading the law. He therefore wished their Lordships to bear in mind the inevitable consequences that would arise from their not carrying into effect the statute law which made it treason to trade with an enemy. That, independently of any measure to prevent the ingress of Russian products, would destroy at once two thirds of her exports, and three-fourths of the capital by which it was carried on—for three-fourths of her money transactions were conducted in London. It was said, that if these merchants did abandon the trade, another class of persons would come forward; but who were they, he should like to ask? Who could succeed those merchants? Let us see what would be their requirements. First, they must be men of capital and of credit from the very nature of the trade. It should be specially borne in mind that the trade was one of advances, and unlike the usual system of trading. Everything was to be paid in advance, and who were the persons to do it? Were they merchants of any other country? They did not exist in Russia; they did not exist in Prussia. There were none. He did not wish to speak of any particular country or place, but he understood that there was nobody so low in purse or in credit as the Prussian merchant. If they took the test of solvency—namely, the rate of discount, he believed that the Prussian merchants paid 20 per cent discount, and were those the persons to take up a trade involving an enormous capital? The idea was utterly preposterous. But

1855
capital was not all that was required. They might have capital and credit too, but something more was still wanted. Great local knowledge and a personal acquaintance with the native agents were equally necessary, for without these all the capital and credit they could command would not enable persons to understand the way in which this trade was carried on. The British merchaut made repeated advances from the beginning of Autumn to the beginning of March in the following year to a set of native agents. Those agents had to travel from 500 to 1,000 miles into the interior, visiting the various fairs and marts of commerce, for the purpose of bringing back the commodities which they were commissioned to purchase. They were often delayed, and had to wait the melting of the snow to enable them to float their river boats, by which they were conducted to the port of shipment. The question would naturally suggest itself, what security had the merchants that these men would not run away with the property? There was none whatever —practically speaking, there was no redress at law for such a contingency. But, notwithstanding, it was known perfectly well that the trade was carried on profitably—and why? Because from its being an old-established trade there had sprung up a degree of confidence on the one hand, and a principle of good faith on the other, which prevented those parties from dealing unjustly. How, he would ask, was it possible that such a class of men should suddenly spring up in Russia? They might, no doubt, in the course of years, but, in the meanwhile, what would become of Russia—what would be the condition of Russia? That was the point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships—it was the most important question of all. By adopting the course these merchants demanded, her exports would be destroyed; the rouble would be of the value of a French assignat; in two years her finances would be in the most inextricable confusion; and the soldier landlord, the man upon whose courage and fidelity the Sovereign must depend in the day of battle, would be rendered desponding, despairing, and disaffected, when your prohibitive policy had taught him that not merely had the war stripped him of his serfs—not merely had it burdened him with taxes, but that it had brought him to beggary and ruin by having entirely deprived him of his trade. Could the war
1856
be carried on for a single year by Russia under these circumstances? He was not speaking entirely in ignorance of the country or of its people, for he had travelled from one end of Russia to the other. He was there in 1824, and saw a little of the temper of the nobility at that time, and they talked just as freely of the insurrection which took place there the year after as the clubs of London now talked of the efficiency of Her Majesty's Government. There appeared to be an undefined notion abroad in this country that if a stop were put to our trade with Russia we should be ruined for ever; but what foundation was there for such a notion? There was none whatever. Their Lordships must bear in mind that the raw products of which the Russian exports consisted were not of so rare a kind that one country only could produce them, but were to be had all over the world. The Russian hemp, for instance, was by no means the best that came into the market, and he found by the prices current of last Saturday that 16 per cent more was obtained for the Manilla hemp than for the hemp produced by Russia. It could also be obtained from the North of France and Lombardy, and from the latter country the Government had procured several thousand tons. Passing from Europe to India, they would be lost in wonder at the superabundance in that country of the materials which were now obtained from Russia; all the vegetable creation seemed to resolve itself into the three products of hemp, flax, and if not into animal tallow, at least into a substitute for that article. From the Himalaya Mountains to ten degrees of south latitude there were whole tribes of trees which furnished a substitute for hemp. The nettle also produced rope superior to the best Russian rope, for a Russian fibre had broken with a weight of 160lb. while a fibre of nettle had held 400lb. without breaking. The Philippine Islands, again, produced the Manilla root, which, after clothing 4,000,000 of people, came into the market as the best rope in the world. Iron was also a great competitor with hemp. When the iron cable had first superseded the vegetable cord cable, down had gone the price of hemp, and it had again gone down since the patent for iron wire had expired; the iron cable was now used by all the great companies and shipmasters, being as efficient for the standing rigging of the smallest yacht as for that of the largest vessel. It was stated by Messrs. Noble, the great hemp brokers, that if Her

1857
Majesty's Ministers would declare that it was unlawful to trade with Russia for one year, such an impetus would be given to the growth of these textile fabrics that they would be able to compete with the products of Russia in price, quality, and quantity. Russian flax was beaten by that of Belgium, the latter having a superiority of 12 per cent in the market. Here, again, they might depend upon a supply from India, as the immense population of that country, and their great industry and mechanical skill, rendered those products the most profitable which partook of a vegetable and a manufacturing character, such as hemp and flax. Last year, as president of the Agricultural Association in his own county, he had urged the cultivation of flax upon the agriculturists of Norfolk, but he was glad they had not taken his advice, as he had given it in reliance upon the assurance of the Government that an effective blockade would be maintained. Ireland, too, was peculiarly fitted for the production of this fibre, from the comparative cheapness of its labour, the humidity of its climate and the fertility of its soil. Several of the northern provinces had already cultivated it. The celebrated engineer, Sir J. M'Neill, had, on the faith that the blockade of the Russian ports was to be strictly enforced, laid 600 acres under flax, but the market was glutted by Russian produce, and he could now only sell at a loss. Ho now came to the question of tallow. Before war was declared Russian animal tallow had been losing its price in the market, having been superseded by vegetable oils, and the taking the duty off soap had had a great effect in extending the number of substitutes for animal tallow. Messrs. Price and Co., the largest candle manufacturers in the world, who employed no less than 2,000 workmen, had not a cask of animal tallow upon their establishment, its place being supplied by palm and other vegetable oils. The palm, from which this oil was obtained, grew along the coast where the slave trade prevailed, and it had been found that in proportion as the slave trade diminished, an increase took place in the quantity of oil produced, so that by rescinding the order in Council of April 15, 1854, they would contribute to diminish the slave trade. France, again, which was a great exporter of candles and soap, abstained almost entirely from the use of animal tallow, substituting for it what was commonly called the African ground or pig-nut, which they obtained from Al-
1858
geria—it, however, was not a nut, but of the pulse kind, and grew in almost every part of Africa; it was easily cultivated and very remunerative. In order to show how unexpectedly and the facility with which substitutes were found for tallow, he would cite the instance of the Irish Peat Company, started for the purpose of extracting from peat a naphtha oil, which was worth about 1s. per gallon; but it was soon found that this oil possessed the high lubricating quality necessary for machinery, and in a few months the price rose from 1s. to 5s. a gallon. Peat was not a very scarce thing in Ireland, and he therefore hoped that the Peat Company would contribute their quota towards substitutes for Russian tallow. The Government had, thanks to the blockade, inundated this country with Russian goods—hemp, which was at 70 l., had fallen to 50 l.; flax, which was at 52 l. per ton, had fallen to 37 l.; and tallow had declined from 70 l. to 48 l. An argument used against the rescinding of the order in Council was, that it would tend to encourage trade among neutral Powers, and that in Prussia flax mills would spring up on every side. But what was the mighty competition which was feared? In Prussia there were but nine flax mills; they might erect others, but in order to do so they would require time, capital, skilled labour, and machinery, which latter must all come from England. No manufactory could be erected under 50,000 l., and while these preparations were being made it was supposed that Prussia would be allowed to continue in her quasi state of hostility, breaking the law of this country by breaking the blockade, and allowing goods to come through her territory, supplying at the same time our enemies with arms and munition of war. But Prussia might be found either employed in stopping the ingress of Russian goods, or might find an allied fleet blockading her ports in the Baltic, and a Russian army on the right bank of the Rhine; or there might, perhaps, be an appeal to the nationalities, which had been expressed by more than one of Her Majesty's Government without any great disfavour being shown, he believed, by the Chief Minister. But if matters came to the worst this competition on the part of Prussia would but end in a few million more yards of Silesian linen. They were also told that in Italy and Holland this neutral trade would be carried on; but the question again arose, where would they find capitalists and men? He

1859
had dwelt thus much on the importance of putting an end to the war by stopping the funds by which the trade was carried on, but he did not attach much importance to the machinery by which the progress of Russian products into this country was to be prevented. The plan proposed by the petitioners was, that the importer of Russian products should make an oath before the consul that such goods were the products of another country. Now, he admitted that these certificates might occasionally be evaded, that an importer might be found to swear to anything; and a blundering consul—though he hoped the Government would only appoint efficient men—might not be able to discriminate between Riga, St. Petersburg, or Lombardy hemp. But he derived his belief of the efficiency of certificates of origin from the nature of the men who would be employed; for they must be men of capital and credit. He thought he had already shown that the sacrifices which this country would be called upon to make would not be so serious as might be supposed; but if we were not prepared for sacrifices, why did we go to war? No nation with a great external trade could enter upon war without making sacrifices. War entailed two burdens—the heavy expenses of naval and military establishments, and the interruption of the trade of the country with which it was at war, this latter loss being in proportion to the extent of trade with the enemy. How did this country stand with regard to Russia? This country could, in a commercial point of view, better go to war with Russia than with any other country, as Russia had, during peace, inflicted more evils on this country than any other by its hostile tariffs. In fair and open trade between two countries, in the exchanges of products for products, the balance of gold and silver was sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. How did this country stand with regard to Russia in this respect? From the return of exports and imports last laid on their Lordships' table, he found that British exports to Russia amounted to 1,228,404 l., while this country received from Russia imports to the amount of 9,200,841 l., so that this country had to pay a balance of gold and silver to Russia of 7,792,437 l. The object of this country ought to be to make Russia suffer more than it did; but, as our trade was of more consequence to her than her trade was to us, it was as evident as a demonstration
1860
in Euclid that, under the present state of things, this country had been inflicting the maximum of loss upon itself, and the minimum on Russia. We took two-thirds of the whole of the exports of Russia, while Russia took scarcely one-eightieth part of the products of this country. The account, therefore, stood thus:—By losing our custom, Russia lost two-thirds of her export trade, and nearly all the capital by which it was carried on; while we lost a very trifling portion of our trade, and the capital was our own. But even if so favourable a balance could not have been shown, was this a question which ought to be treated in a miserable huckstering style? Were Russian hides and tallow to be weighed against English blood and sinew? Viewing the question even in this, the narrowest point of view, it would be found that we had the means of greatly crippling the commerce and enterprise of Russia, without proportionate sacrifices on the part of this country; for it would cost us only one-eightieth part of our exports to reduce the imports of gold and silver into Russia by something like 7,792,000 l. He thought the bargain would be a good one. Well, now, that would be precisely the effect of the step he was urging upon Government; although it might be opposed to the principles of political economy. No doubt it is very much opposed to political economy, but so is war in every shape and form. In truth, war and political economy, as every one must see, are incompatible with each other. War implies a negative of all trade; hence no principles of political economy, or any other principle connected with peaceable relations, are involved.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLYsaid, that there could be no objection to the production of the papers for which the noble Earl bad moved, although he was afraid that they would not give much information, as they afforded a very imperfect test of the amount of commerce carried on. The noble Earl complained that the blockade had been imperfectly exercised, and that there had been little injury inflicted upon the Russian trade while a great deal had been done to our own. He would beg to direct their Lordships' attention, however, to the circumstances under which the blockade had been first instituted. We were engaged in a war with Russia in concert with an ally who entertained a different opinion to ourselves with regard to questions of maritime law and the rights of bellige-

1861
rents. They recognised the right of neutrals to carry property of the enemy without being subject to the right of search, and that was one reason which rendered it necessary to deal tenderly with any interference with the commercial proceedings of the enemy. But there was another circumstance which rendered that necessary. It was the practice for merchants in this country to pay in advance for Russian produce, and the consequence of that system was, that at the time when the blockade was instituted, nearly all the Russian produce which was lying in the ports of the Baltic and the White Sea was, in point of fact, the property of English and French merchants, and not of Russians. If a blockade, therefore, had been immediately instituted upon the breaking out of the war we should have injured our own subjects, and not those of Russia. For this reason it was thought desirable that the period for commencing the blockade should be extended, and that time should be given to allow of the exportation of all such produce from Russian ports; but that order in Council had only reference to British merchants and in no way altered the law. The noble Earl, stated that the blockade had not been enforced. Upon this point he must join issue with the noble Earl, for he believed that since the blockade had been enforced in the White Sea and the Baltic not one single cargo of Russian produce had been exported from any Russian port upon those seas. With regard to the Black Sea, he admitted that the circumstances were different, and he regretted that they were so. We had not had ships available for the purpose of enforcing a blockade in the Black Sea; and the consequence was that a large amount of produce was imported thence into this country, to the benefit chiefly of the Greek merchants. A blockade had, however, now been imposed (from the 1st of February) of every Russian port, and there was no single port of the Black Sea, the Baltic, or of the Gulf of Finland, which would be in future unblockaded. The geographical position of Russia was such that a marine blockade could without much difficulty be established, because, although there was a large extent of territory, the maritime outlets were few. He would now call their Lordships' attention to the actual result of the blockade which had actually had a great effect in crippling the Russian trade. The total importation of hemp for the year ending March,
1862
1854, was 1,208,371 cwt., of which there was from Russia 802,706 cwts., or 66 per cent., while from other countries there were 405,665, or 34 per cent; while in the year ending March, 1855, the total imports were 1,281,076 cwts., of which there were from Russia 422,439, or 33 per cent., and from other countries 858,637 cwts., or 67 per cent.; so that the proportions were actually reversed. It must be also remembered, that all excess of Prussian trade in this article over the importation of the previous year had been considered Russian produce. The total importation of tallow for the year ending March, 1854, was, 1,210, 151 cwts., of which there were from Russia 840,137, or 69 per cent., and from other countries 370,314, or 31 per cent. In the year ending March, 1855, the total imports of that article were 797,090, of which from Russia there were 424,064, or 53 per cent., and from other countries, 373,026, or 47 per cent., showing a decrease in the total imports of 34 per cent., and a decrease in Russian imports of 49 per cent., but an increase from other ports of 1 per cent. With regard to flax, the imports for the year ending March, 1854, were 974,864, quarters, of which from Russia there were 749,908, or 77 per cent., and from other places 224,956, or 23 per cent. In the year ending March, 1855, the total imports were 854,771 cwts., of which 403,663, or 74 per cent. were Russian, and 451,108 quarters, or 53 per cent., exports from other countries, showing a decrease in the total imports of 12 per cent., and of 46 per cent. in the Russian imports, but an increase in the imports from other countries of 100 per cent. There were some other details with regard to tar, bristles and raw cotton, with which he need not trouble the House at that late hour. He had referred to these returns to show the very considerable effect produced even by the partial blockade for a portion of the last year, and the more rigorous one in the present. What then, might be expected next year, when there would be a continuous and effective blockade?—And it was only reasonable to suppose that the trade of Russia with other countries had been reduced in a corresponding degree. There could be no doubt that the trade of Russia would be most materially crippled. He now came to the main proposition of the noble Earl—that referring to the absolute prohibition of all Russian produce, whether exported from

1863
Prussian or from other German ports and the entire cessation of their own commerce with Russia. Now, he would ask the noble Earl how it was possible to arrive at a knowledge as to whether the produce imported from neutral ports was Russian or not? Were the English consuls at every Prussian or other German port to give their certificates that the produce exported was the production of the country from which it was exported? It was notorious that certificates of origin were most falacious in their operation; and, if merchants were unscrupulous enough to engage in trade with an enemy, they would not prove an effective means of putting a stop to such trade. Even if it were possible to arrive at the knowledge that the articles so exported were Russian produce, and not that of the country from which they were exported, they would not be able to get rid of the difficulty, for when produce had been submitted to any process of manufacture, however slight, it became a "manufactured article" and was considered the produce of the country from which it was exported, and not of that from which it originally came. Now, with regard to tallow, a very slight operation was sufficient, in law, to convert it into a manufactured article. So with regard to hemp and flax. Under those circumstances, it would be very difficult to certify what was really Russian and what the produce of other countries, and he need hardly point out to their Lordships how extremely cautious they should be in interfering with the genuine trade of neutral countries. He trusted that the noble Earl would be satisfied with what had been already done, and with what was likely to be done in the present year, when the blockade would be efficiently and immediately enforced, more especially when he considered that half of the Russian trade had been destroyed, her mercantile marine swept away, and her men of war were ignominiously shut up within her arsenals or sunk in the entrance of her ports, whilst the British flag floated triumphantly unquestioned on every sea; when the noble Earl considered all these things, he would find that he was hardly justified in saying that the blockade had been emtirely ineffectual.
LORD BERNERSwas glad that this question had been brought before the House, and expressed his gratification at hearing that the blockade was to be rigorously carried out. He should be still
1864
further gratified if the policy, which he believed to be the true national policy, were further pursued, by the destruction of private property in Sebastopol, which had, as he understood, hitherto been spared.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE, in reply observed that the returns from which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had quoted were incomplete, and therefore no inference could be drawn from them. If he found the assertion of his noble Friend, that this blockade would be made effectual, established by the fact, he should be perfectly satisfied; but should that not be the case, he certainly would at some future period put his views in the form of a Resolution, and take the sense of the House upon it.
Petition ordered to lie on the table; also, Return ordered of the quantity of Hemp, Flax, Tallow received into this country from Russia and Prussia between the 1st of January and the 27th of April in the years 1853, 1854, and 1855 respectively.
House adjourned to Monday next.