Sitting of 2 May 1856

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Cheltenham, v. Grenville Charles Lennox Berkeley, esq. Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Court of Exchequer (Scotland); West India Loans; Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland); Drainage (Ireland).
2° Grand Jury Assessments (Ireland).

RUSSIAN FORTS ON THE BLACK SEA— QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I asked a question last night of the noble Lord at the head of the Government with reference to a statement that appeared in the report of the Conferences at Paris upon a point of much importance. In reply, the noble Lord gave the House to understand that

1909
the discussion with respect to the re-erection of the Russian forts on the eastern coast of the Black Sea was never resumed. I then asked if, under the treaty which had heen signed, Russia would have the power of re-erecting those forts or not? To that question the noble Lord gave no answer; but subsequently, in the course of the debate, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) expressed a very strong and decided opinion that, under the terms of the treaty, Russia would not have that right. I therefore wish again to put the question, and to ask whether, under the terms of the treaty, Russia has or has not the right to re-erect those forts on the eastern coast of the Black Sea?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the stipulation of the treaty in regard to the re-erection of works applies to naval arsenals. The treaty distinctly stipulates that there shall be no naval arsenals restored or constructed within the waters of the Black Sea. The forts on the Circassian coasts do not come within that description; and there is also this distinction between them and naval arsenals, that whereas a naval arsenal is a centre of offence, those forts were simply defensive works for the protection of the small garrisons placed there. There is nothing in the treaty which would preclude the Russian Government from exercising its own discretion with regard to the re-erection of those military forts.

OATH OF ABJURATION BILL— QUESTION.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for Manchester if he could fix any day when this Bill, which stood as the 19th order for Committee, would positively be proceeded with?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he must appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give him a day, for, if he did not, it was impossible to say when it would come on.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is very embarrassing, Sir, to the Government, which has much important business of its own to forward, to be called on to make arrangements for measures introduced by individual Members. At the same time, I feel that the measure which my right hon. Friend has undertaken is one which, in some shape or other, has in former Sessions been introduced by the Government.
1910
I will therefore endeavour, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend, to fix some day after Whitsuntide when the measure can be proceeded with.

THE RUSSIAN SHIPS IN THE BLACK SEA—QUESTION.
On the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday,
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the additional and transitory Article attached to the treaty of peace, the Russians would be allowed to raise the ships now sunk in the harbour of Sebastopol and bring them through the Dardanelles to any other part of the Russian dominions? He had received a letter, dated Sebastopol, March 21, 1856, in which it was stated:—
"What you may have read in the newspapers and what I have written to you may lead you to imagine that the ships sunk in this harbour would by this time be rendered worthless by the ravages of the worm. My expectations on that point are disappointed. After a good deal of bungling, we succeeded in blowing up the small brig I told you about. She was built of inferior wood—both oak and deal. I have paid anxious visits to her since she was broken up, and am disappointed to find no trace of worm or decay about her. If we had left her undisturbed she might have been raised uninjured, and I have not the least doubt all the sunken ships in this harbour are in the same state, and, if not destroyed by us, will be raised in triumph by the Russians on our leaving the place. Surely, in the event of peace being concluded, such an occurrence will be properly guarded against."
Now, if those ships were raised and were brought through the British Channel, in sight of this country, the people of the country would not, he believed, consider that as regarded those ships the stipulations in the treaty of peace were satisfactory.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, by the treaty of peace the Russian Government will no longer be permitted to have any fleet of line-of-battle ships in the Black Sea, but there is no restriction upon her naval force in the Baltic. If, therefore, the Russian Government prefer raising those ships, damaged as they necessarily must be by a lengthened immersion, and bringing them round to add them to her naval force in the Baltic, instead of increasing that force by the addition of new and more efficient ships, I do not think the people of this country will object. I may also state that in the course of the negotiations, a question having

1911
arisen as to whether the Russian Government should be allowed to bring round to the Baltic two line-of-battle ships which were at Nicholaieff, Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, in accordance with his instructions, said that, as far as the British Government was concerned, there would be no objection to those ships being brought round to the Baltic.

THE BANDS IN THE PARKS—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he rose to ask, according to notice, the First Lord of the Treasury whether, supposing any members of the band now ordered to play in the parks on Sunday afternoon should object to do so either from conscientious motives or from a desire to enjoy their Sunday holiday, they would be released from that duty. As it had been announced that the system of the military bands playing on a Sunday was to be extended, no doubt some substantive Motion would be brought forward relating to that subject; and he would, therefore, on the present occasion, compress his remarks into a very small compass. He had long ago come to a conclusion that many of our social evils had their origin in the excessive toil which the working classes in this country were compelled to undergo. He had always endeavoured to obtain some limitation of that toil by shortening the time for labour, by opening the parks and other methods, and by preserving to the labouring classes their Sunday as a complete holiday. He was aware that it was the opinion of some persons that it would be advisable to follow the example of continental States with regard to the observance of Sunday, but such was not his opinion, nor did he think that it was the opinion of that House. If the Government, however, were of opinion that it was desirable to provide musical entertainment upon the Sunday, upon the ground that the lower orders would thereby be withdrawn from more questionable proceedings, the proper course for them to adopt would be to come forward in that House and ask for a grant of money to defray the expense of those bands. Whatever might be the opinion of the Government upon that subject, he trusted they would agree with him that no person ought to be compelled to take part in those musical entertainments on a Sunday who felt a conscientious objection to doing so, and to have his religious liberty coerced by the stern power of military discipline.
1912
He believed that to sanction such a course would be repugnant to the feelings of that House and of the country, and wholly inconsistent with the principles of civil and religious liberty. It should be borne in mind that it was impossible to provide amusement for one part of the people on the Sunday without trenching upon the religious liberty of another part, and that it would be much more desirable to establish a half-holiday on Saturday and provide musical entertainments on that day than to sanction such proceedings on the Sabbath. Perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government had taken no part in this movement, and it was only a freak of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works; hut still he trusted that the noble Lord would not treat the question as one of military discipline, but would give the House an assurance that he would communicate with Lord Hardinge upon the subject, and endeavour to obtain from him a promise that the members of the bands should not be forced to perform on Sunday against their will.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he had the highest respect for the motives by which his noble Friend who had just sat down was actuated in putting his question, neither did he yield to his noble Friend in his respect for the principles of religious liberty. He must, however, say, that the remarks of his noble Friend wore little less than an invitation to soldiers to object, upon one pretence or another, to the performance of any military duty whatever upon a Sunday. Surely the noble Lord might have left the subject of his observations to be dealt with at the discretion of the Commander in Chief. He (Sir De Lacy Evans) understood that the Chief Commissioner of Works had obtained the assent of that noble and gallant Lord to the playing of the bands in the parks on Sunday, and considering that such was the case, and that soldiers had many important duties which they must perform upon the Sabbath, he did not think it desirable that a question which tended in any way to interfere with their necessary discipline should be discussed in that House.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he wished to correct a mistake into which the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works had fallen when referring to that subject the other evening. The right hon. Gentleman had given the House to understand that it was with the entire concurrence

1913
of the commanding officer of the 2nd Regiment of Life Guards it had been determined that the band of the regiment should play in the park on Sundays, and all the arrangements for carrying out that determination had been adopted. Now, he (Sir J. Trollope) was authorised to state, that although Colonel Williams, the officer in question, had assisted in carrying the resolution into effect, he had had nothing to do with its adoption; and he had, in fact, merely obeyed the orders he had received from the authorities at the Horse Guards in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he felt bound to enter his decided protest against the principle laid down the other evening by the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works, with respect to the Government affording amusement to the public of a Sunday. It was his solemn conviction that if that principle were once admitted, one of the most important rights of this country—the right of every labouring man to have one day of rest in the seven—would be seriously imperilled. It might be said that the soldier was hired to obey implicitly the orders of his officers in every military matter, that in fact was the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), but he should observe that he did not think that performing in the parks on a Sunday was a point in which a question of military discipline was involved. If compensation was to be made to the bandsmen for their time and trouble, in that case it was clear there must be a distinct contract entered into between them and the Government, independently of their contract with the Crown for the performance of military duty. It should be remembered that if the men were under military discipline the colonels of regiments were also under military discipline. But suppose a colonel should object on conscientious grounds to that use of his band, in what position would he be placed? Let him (the Marquess of Blandford) call attention to the strange state of things which might then arise. It was well known that the Government did not pay for all the bandsmen; and if one man was withdrawn from a band the whole body might be broken up. If such an order as that he was then considering was issued to a colonel who had conscientious objections to the performance of military music on Sunday, might he not withdraw a portion of the band, or might
1914
he not send the band out without instruments, for the instruments were provided by the officers and not by the Government? A case had actually occurred in which the commander of a regiment, having been ordered to send a band to some place of which he did not approve, sent them with their swords but without their instruments. The Government might thus, in carrying out that new practice, help very considerably to bring military authority into disrepute. Some colonels would rather cut their right hand off than offend their religious scruples; and thus might often happen instances of disobedience to the orders of the Commander in Chief. Another inconvenience which he thought would arise from that measure was, that it would destroy that quiet in the park which many people wished to enjoy there on Sundays. He was anxious to see as many parks as possible provided for the innocent recreation of the people; but he would ask the Government to consider the inconvenience which must follow from the collection of some 60,000 or 70,000 people in a single park on a Sunday, creating what many persons would consider a nuisance and a subject of great offence. He was aware that it was the practice for the Governments of foreign countries to provide amusements for the people; but in this country the duty of providing public amusements had hitherto been left to private individuals. A new system, however, had just been introduced among them; and he wished to know whether that innovation had been considered by the Government in its collective capacity, and had been made a Cabinet question? It was the introduction of an important principle, which the right hon. Baronet intended, according to his own statement, to carry into far more extensive operation, and in his (the Marquess of Blandford's) opinion such a change ought not to have been made without the most careful consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. What was the reason that the Crystal Palace could not be opened on Sundays? It was because by the terms of the charter they could not be allowed to take money at the doors on Sundays. The House had likewise decided that the British Museum and the National Gallery should not be opened on the Sabbath. But if the Government were to adopt the principle that they might enter into arrangements by which they would pay bandsmen

1915
for playing on the Sunday, why might they not equally pay the Crystal Palace Company for throwing that building open on the same day? Under those circumstances he wished to ask the noble Lord at the Head of the Government whether the steps taken for providing public amusement for the people on the Sundays at the public expense had been considered, or would be considered, by Her Majesty's Ministers sitting in Cabinet Council?
MR. OTWAYsaid he had never heard a more singular argument than that which had just been advanced by the noble Marquess. The noble Lord stood forth as an advocate for popular recreation; and had said that he was most anxious that the parks and other open spaces where they might enjoy pure air should be accessible to the people. And yet, while supporting that argument, he complained that by the parks being opened to the populace, the performance of the bands attracted so many thousands of the inhabitants of this metropolis to the parks that it disturbed the privacy of himself and other gentlemen living in the vicinity. There was another inconsistency also on the part of the noble Lord. The object of the noble Lord, as just stated, was that the parks should be open for the recreation of the people on a Sunday; but that, of course, implied the necessity of many persons, as park-keepers, for instance, being in attendance at the parks. The noble Lord, however, did not extend any portion of that sympathy to those individuals which he had so largely and, as it appeared to him (Mr. Otway), so unreasonably extended towards the regimental bands. The noble Lord had stated that on one public occasion the hand, being partially under the control of the colonel of the regiment and of the officers in their corporate capacity, was sent without their instruments, and with their swords only. He had no reason to doubt that circumstance, as he had the honour of holding a commission in the regiment in which it took place. But that was a matter very easily to be dealt with, according to the rules of common sense. If it were necessary for military purposes to have a band attached to a regiment, the band ought not to be provided at the partial expense of the regiment itself; but the whole expense ought to be provided for by the country. The officers, who already received very small pay for their services, ought not to be mulcted of thirty
1916
days' pay in order that the regiment might have a band. He could not resume his seat without expressing his thanks to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works, and also to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, for the great service and benefit they had conferred on the people of this metropolis by the innocent recreation which had been afforded to them by allowing the military bands to perform in the parks on a Sunday for their amusement and recreation. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would would not be deterred from pursuing his present course by what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), for whose motives he (Mr. Otway) entertained the most profound respect, but who, he believed, was advocating views that were altogether opposed to the wishes of the people. He sincerely hoped that the Government would allow this innocent means of recreation to continue, and that they would soon see the 70,000 persons who now attended the parks turned into 140,000.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, the hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that the object of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) was to keep the parks quiet for his own privacy. It was also quite a mistake to suppose that this was a question whether it was consistent with the due observance of Sunday to visit the parks and listen to music on that day. The question involved was of supreme importance to the working population of the whole empire. In a busy country like England there necessarily existed a great temptation to employ working men on the Sunday. Any one acquainted with the great shipping ports of Southampton and Liverpool must be aware that the labourers and others were compelled to work in the docks during the whole of Sunday, owing to the great zeal and zest with which the making of money was pursued, and that evils arose from the practice of a most lamentable and serious character. One thing which had hitherto suppressed the practice was the prevalence of sound religious opinion as to the observance of Sunday; and the important point in the present question was, whether the Government were, by the force of their example, in employing persons to work for amusement, to establish the principle à fortiori that they might be employed for purposes of profit. He saw no distinction

1917
between the two. He thought it impossible to exaggerate the importance of the matter to the labouring classes. It was useless to talk of military duty. The proposal came from the Woods and Forests, and he could not see what difficulty there could be in the Chief Commissioner informing the House whether he would take care due regard should be had for the conscientious scruples of those soldiers who were asked to play on the Sabbath.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to point out that the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) had put a very grave and legitimate question—not whether it was a point of military duty that the bands should play, when ordered, on Sunday as any other day, but whether the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works could justify contravening a principle laid down by a recent vote of the House of Commons. It was not the Sunday question, but a grave constitutional question. He understood the Vote of the House, taken under the influence of a powerful speech by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer), laid down the principle, that while nothing was more proper than that parks and public grounds should be thrown open to the public on Sunday, yet that anything like concourses of people, or a large organisation of spectacles, theatrical representations, and all that class of public amusements belonged to the customs of other countries, but was dissonant to the habits, customs, and feelings of this country. That principle was affirmed by a large majority of that House, and no one could doubt that the decision was impelled by the very prevalent feeling of the community. That being the case, he was going to say it was "a dodge," but, at all events, it was cheating the House out of the principle they had affirmed, for a Minister of State to take upon himself to institute, organise, and to say he intended more largely to organise these concourses of people in the parks. Having succeeded so well with the attraction of music in one park, this amusement, with the addition of refreshment booths, was to be extended to every other park in the metropolis. However consonant the plan might be with the feelings of the people, he called upon the First Commissioner to state whether he considered that his proceedings were consonant with the constitution of England? No doubt, a band of music would draw a great rabble of people anywhere; but, judging
1918
from the petitions to the House, the better classes were not favourable to such an arrangement. It appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had taken a step which—to use the mildest language—might be considered presumptuous. He was aware that the First Commissioner was connected with high and distinguished families in Prussia, and perhaps, having seen their customs abroad, the right hon. Gentleman thought it far more philosophical to introduce the Prussian mode of keeping Sunday into England. But he felt convinced that the people of England took a different view of that system, and he thought it humiliating to hear the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) thank the Government, as if it were their duty, as in ancient Rome, to afford games for the people. He would suggest that the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) should bring the House to a distinct Vote upon the question, before it became a settled institution, at the mere will and pleasure of the right hon. Baronet, and in opposition to an opinion so recently expressed.
MR. H. DRUMMONDsaid, that so far from thinking it was beneath the dignity of an administration to provide circenses as well as panem for the people, his opinion was that the Government of this country had gone a great deal too far in the opposite direction, and had too much allowed the old amusements of the people to die out without introducing any new amusements in their stead. It appeared to him that some Gentlemen did not properly apprehend the difference between a festival and a fast. But he had risen principally for the purpose of referring to a military question involved in that discussion. Two friends of his, who were officers in the Artillery at Malta, having received an order to fire a salute during the celebration of what some persons would call an idolatrous worship, had disobeyed the order; they had in consequence been censured by their immediate superiors, and the Duke of Wellington, under whose notice the matter had been brought, had thought the matter one of so much importance, that he had directed these officers should be tried by court-martial. The result was, that they had both been broken. He (Mr. Drummond) had entered a good deal into communication at the time with the late Sir George Murray, then Master General of the Ordnance, upon the subject of that court-martial and its verdict. But he had to confess that it appeared to him the

1919
ground upon which the Duke of Wellington had put the case was unanswerable. The noble Duke said—
"If I were to allow Protestant officers to disobey their orders, because they think that by executing them they would be assisting at what they considered an idolatrous ceremony, what should I have done with the Spanish, or the Portuguese, or even the Irish regiments at Badajoz, if the besieged forces had held out a banner of the Virgin in front of them, and those regiments had refused to fire on it?"
He (Mr. Drummond) believed that a military man ought not to be allowed to disobey orders for conscientious scruples. If a soldier did not wish to conform to the rules of his profession, let him leave the service. It was troublesome enough to have to deal with the consciences of civilians, but let that House, in Heaven's name, have nothing to do with the consciences of military officers.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he was anxious to say a few words in consequence of the attack made upon him by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). The hon. Member stated that, presuming on some power he might have as Minister of the Crown, he had contravened a Vote of the House of Commons given very recently. He denied any such allegation. He was not aware that the question now before the House was brought at all under discussion when that Vote was taken. [Mr. ADDERLEY said, he had stated that the principle of the Vote had been contravened.] He would go back to that, and would call attention to what took place previously to the Vote being considered in the House. He would remind the House that last autumn he took the course which he was now following. No objection was made to it. He believed, on the contrary, that the great mass of the community—and it could not be supposed they were all irreligious—cordially approved of it. The hon. Gentleman had taunted him because he was connected with some Prussians. He was proud to be immediately connected with one of the most distinguished men in Europe, M. Bunsen, who was his brother-in-law. What the hon. Gentleman meant to say, he presumed, was, that in consequence of that connection he had taken the course which since last autumn he had pursued. He also denied that allegation. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Marquess of Blandford) said, that it was the practice and almost the duty of foreign Governments to provide some recreation for the people on Sundays; but
1920
that it was the first time that recreation had been offered to the people of this country on Sundays, and that expenses had been incurred in reference to that object. He denied that allegation also. He remembered when it was first proposed to open Hampton Court Palace and Kew Gardens on Sundays. Precisely the same objections were made to the intentions and acts of the First Commissioner of Works when those public places were opened on Sundays which were taken now to the course he had adopted. Since that period Votes had been granted for the purpose of paying persons to watch and protect property, so that the public might be admitted without damage to those places of public resort. But, although great objections were taken at the time to the opening of Hampton Court Palace and Kew Gardens on Sunday, and although the number of visitors on a Sunday at Hampton Court was frequently 20,000, and to the Gardens 14,000 or 15,000, yet he would undertake to say that from the time they were opened to the present moment, no Member of the House of Commons had got up to complain of the recreation thus afforded to the public by the First Commissioner of Works. And if any hon. Gentleman should get up and propose to shut up those places of resort on Sundays, he ventured to say he would get very little support in that House. The noble Lord also complained that a great nuisance was created by the number of persons assembled in Kensington Gardens on Sundays. Now, he certainly did not think that any such nuisance had been created. To him it was one of the most pleasurable sights to see the great masses of the people thus collected. There was a distinction between a mob and a crowd, and he must express his conviction that the crowd collected to hear the bands had conducted itself in an admirable manner. But had there not been other assemblages in Hyde Park. A great deal had been said depreciatory of the conduct of that assemblage, which amounted, indeed, to a real desecration of the Sabbath. But he did not view the assemblage of persons to hear the music of the military bands in the same light. He could assure the House that he had received communications from every part of the metropolis thanking him for the course he had taken—urging him to continue it, and begging him not to allow himself to be diverted from his intentions, or to suppose that the people who went to the parks to listen to this music

1921
were actuated by irreligious feelings or a desire to desecrate a day set apart for better purposes. He declined to go into the question of military discipline; but there was one point touched upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Lincolnshire (Sir J. Trollope) to which he must refer. What he (Sir B. Hall) stated previously was, that he had communicated with the Commander in Chief, requesting him to allow the bands to play, and leaving it to him to communicate with the commanding officers of regiments. All that he had stated with regard to Colonel Williams was, that those arrangements which were made subsequently to the order received by him from the Commander in Chief had obtained his concurrence. All he hoped was, that we had not come to a time when we were to be deprived of those recreations that had always been regarded as innocent.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the objections to the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works was pursuing were very strong. The House had recently voted, by a large majority, that places of amusement under the control of the Government should not be opened on Sundays. The right hon. Baronet would allow him to remind him, also, that the petitions presented with reference to that question almost all expressed an opinion against allowing the bands to play in the Royal parks on Sundays. He heartily concurred in the hope expressed by the right hon. Baronet that the time was not coming when we were about to be deprived of our most innocent recreations, for he thought that a Puritanical Sunday was one of the last things to be desired, and was a thing which England, he trusted, never would adopt. But there was a broad distinction between interfering with private persons in their innocent recreations, and introducing a new custom which was not palatable to a very large portion of the public of this country. He knew that this opened up the general question as to what the House of Commons ought to do with reference to the observance of the Sabbath, into which he did not purpose to enter. But his notion was that the observance of the Sabbath ought to be left to the private consciences of individuals; but he thought also that the nation, as a nation, and the Government, as a Government, ought never to require from its public officers an abandonment of a day of rest. That was the only ground which the
1922
Government could take, as a Government. That was a plain, broad, and distinct line, and all the rest ought to be left to the conscience of individuals. The hon. and gallant officer (Sir De L. Evans) had deprecated any interference between a Commander in Chief and the soldiers under him. Upon that subject he, as a civilian, had hardly the right to give an opinion; but it seemed to him that it had nothing to do with the question, for the question was not whether the House of Commons should interfere between the soldier and the commanding officer, but whether the civil authority was to put the military authority in motion to operate upon the commanding officer and the soldier in a manner very unpalatable to the public. Reference had been made to the case of two officers who had been broken some twenty years ago for having refused to salute upon the elevation of the host at Malta, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster had for many years endeavoured to have those officers reinstated, because that was a kind of discipline that ought not to be enforced. He did not wish to enter into that particular subject, but the question was whether, before these new customs were introduced, the Government ought not fairly to come down to Parliament and propose the introduction of these practices, and take the sanction of the House if it were disposed to give that sanction; but not to introduce them by the arbitrary power of a Minister of the Crown against the wish of the House and the people.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he hoped that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would not, at the invitation of hon. Members, draw the line and say when the soldier ought to obey the orders of his commander. The band of a regiment was composed of private soldiers, and if they disobeyed the commands of their officers they were liable to be returned to the ranks and do duty as private soldiers. He did not know what would become of the army if they carried this liberty of conscience into the ranks. A colonel of a regiment might be ordered to an attack, and might think he had 500 or 600 soldiers ready to follow him to the death; and then he might find that 500 of them would not pull a trigger, because, in the exercise of their liberty of conscience, they objected to take the lives of their fellow-creatures. People were not obliged to enter the army unless they liked it, but having entered it,

1923
they must abide by the rules and discipline of the service. Suppose soldiers were to refuse, from conscientious motives, to fight on Sundays, what, then, would have been done at Waterloo or Inkerman? If they once allowed such a system to be introduced into the army it would not end with liberty of conscience in religious matters, but every soldier would be told that it was a violation of the liberty of the subject to oblige him to return to his quarters at a certain hour.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster in thinking that it would be exceedingly inexpedient—to use no stronger word—for this House to take upon itself the administration of the discipline of the army. It would be very inconvenient, and not altogether expedient, excepting in very rare and peculiar cases, for this House to interfere in any act of the military authorities enforcing the regular discipline of the service; and I must say that, if the House please to assume and to discuss hypothetical cases as to when the soldier ought or ought not to obey his superiors, it will strike a very severe blow at the necessary discipline of the army. The question put by my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex is simply a question of military discipline, however he may otherwise consider it; for he asked what course would be pursued by officers commanding regiments, or by the higher authorities at the Horse Guards, if certain members of regimental bands were to decline, on conscientious grounds, to obey an order to play in the parks on Sunday.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but he has not stated the purport of my question quite accurately. What I asked was, whether the noble Lord would communicate with the Commander in Chief and obtain a promise from him that no soldier should be compelled, against his will, to play in the parks on Sunday?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Well, Sir, that is not only inquiring what the Government would do in a certain case, but asking them to pursue a particular course. I must respectfully decline to enter into an explanation upon such a point, the case being altogether hypothetical. But I feel it right to say, after what has taken place, that if any responsibility attaches to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works for the course he has pursued, that responsibility falls equally upon
1924
myself; for my right hon. Friend communicated fully and unreservedly with me before he took any steps in the matter under consideration, and he acted with my entire concurrence. Nor do I, by any means, conceive that the course pursued by my right hon. Friend is at variance with the decision of the House upon the Resolution for opening the British Museum on Sundays; for, if one thing remains in my memory more strongly than another, it is that those who opposed that Resolution, in which I myself concurred, drew a distinction between the opening of the Museum and permitting free and unrestricted access to the parks and other public places on Sunday. It is said that the playing of bands in the parks is a new thing. I deny altogether that assertion. My recollection must greatly mislead me if I do not remember that, in early times, bands used to play in Kensington Gardens on Sunday. A band plays regularly at Windsor on Sunday, a custom which has existed from the time of George III., who was a monarch known to be attached, above all others, to the religious institutions of the country, and therefore there is no novelty in the matter. Again, I must dispute the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) has arrived, that the presence of instrumental bands in the parks is the first step toward the employment of the labouring classes on Sunday. But I maintain, Sir, that the reverse is the fact. Anything that gives to the labouring classes in this great metropolis an additional value to the Sunday—that may induce them to resist any temptation which their wages may offer for the employment of their labour, so far from being a step in the direction stated by the right hon. Gentleman, is a fresh barrier opposed to Sunday labour. Of course, a great deal must depend upon the will of the working classes themselves; and if you give them a new motive for reserving the Sunday free from labour you throw an additional obstacle in the way of those who might be interested in inducing them to give up that day to purposes of toil. I attach as much value as any man to the preservation of that religious distinction which has been established between Sunday and the other days of the week; but I cannot think that affording to the population of this great city the means of some intellectual amusement, combined with the recreation of air and exercise in those open spaces which

1925
Parliament, as the guardian of the public purse, has provided for such purposes, is a thing that deserves the censure and disapprobation of the House of Commons. I think that my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford) was rather unfortunate in the objection he made, that the accumulation of large numbers of people in those open spaces on Sunday was a departure from the purposes for which they were designed. My noble Friend argued that by drawing great masses of people there we prevent the few from enjoying that contemplative solitude which induces them to believe that they are in some remote region of the country, and not in the immediate neighbourhood of a vast metropolis. I would say, on the other hand, that the greater the number of people attracted thither the stronger the proof that the creation of such places has been a wise and proper application of the public money to provide such outlets for those who, during the rest of the week are confined to their workshops, their narrow alleys, their unwholesome rooms, and the insalubrity of their places of hard and habitual exertion. If I think, as I have stated that I do, that it would be inexpedient for the House to consider questions of military discipline, I certainly regard it as of more importance still that we should abstain from discussing questions of religious doctrine. Let the people act, as has been said, according to their consciences. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works does not compel any man to go to Kensington Gardens or the parks to hear the band play. Those who go, do so because they think there is no harm in it. Multitudes do go, and therefore it is manifest that multitudes concur with my right hon. Friend in thinking that there is no desecration of the Sabbath in going for a couple of hours, after the performance of their religious duties, to enjoy an intellectual pleasure, combined with the recreation of air and exercise.
Subject dropped.

EDUCATION—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to inquire whether it was the intention of the Government, on going into Committee on the Education Estimates this year, to cause a statement to be made by a Minister of the Crown of the progress and prospects of education, and of institutions connected therewith, in conformity with the understanding
1926
entered into and partly carried into execution in former years?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Estimates had been made, and would in due course be laid before the House. In the Estimates of the present year there would be a more detailed statement than on previous occasions, and, if any further explanations were found necessary, they should be given when the question next came before the House. As to the latter part of the question, he might say that he could not take that duty upon himself, but if Parliament would sanction the proposal for the new office of a Minister of Education, the subject would be attended to in a comprehensive form. He could not tell when the Estimates would be brought on, but he believed they might be taken the first night the House went into Committee of Supply.

FIELD ALLOWANCES—THE MILITIA— QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether the allowance usually granted to troops in the field had been allowed to a foreign legion in the British service, but refused to regiments of the line?
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, before that question was answered, he should be glad to know whether the militia regiments had been ordered to proceed home on the shortest notice. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to send home to their respective counties the Irish and English regiments of militia, and that orders had been issued to that effect to the commanding officers of regiments. He owned that he should view with considerable apprehension many thousands of men being thrown upon the country all at once without any provision being made for them. Many of those men were labourers, and not only had their places been filled up by others, but just at this time there was a great scarcity of employment, for the spring labour was over and the harvest was yet distant. He wished to know whether the Government intended to disembody these regiments simultaneously or by degrees? These men were well worthy of some consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, as their conduct had been very good during their period of service.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he had to complain that the Irish regiments of militia now in England were under orders to be

1927
conveyed back to their own country; and he also understood that the English regiments had been embodied for four years, while the Irish had been embodied for only one year, and, at this moment, the remuneration of the subaltern officers had not been more than sufficient to provide for their regimental clothing, their mess, and the expense of the band. He hoped those regiments would be kept on foot as long a time as the English were.
MR. FREDERICK PEELwas understood to say, in answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Dunne), that the extraordinary field allowances in the Crimea were granted only for so long a time as those regiments should be in the field before the enemy; but, the war being now over, these allowances had ceased. With regard to the militia, the Irish would be disembodied at the same time as the English regiments. The case referred to of the subaltern officers was now under the consideration of the Government.

MASTERS IN THE NAVY—QUESTION.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why, notwithstanding an Order in Council, only one master had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant in the navy, and not one to the rank of commander, out of 109 masters and second masters mentioned in despatches for special and distinguished services during the late war?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that every master who was mentioned in despatches had necessarily performed very distinguished services. Nine-tenths of those mentioned were the names of persons who had been engaged in some particular service; but it was not to be supposed that anything extraordinary had been performed by themselves. They were not, therefore, entitled to promotion to the rank of commander, which was reserved for those who had performed extraordinary services. He had no doubt the masters performed their duty, and some of them had been rewarded by getting situations in the various dockyards.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that he should not be doing his duty if he did not say a word on behalf of the masters of the Royal Navy. They were a most meritorious and useful class of officers, and he was sure he did not know what he should have done without them in the Baltic. He
1928
trusted that the Government would take their claims into their most favourable consideration.

THE BUDGET—QUESTION.
MR. GLYNsaid, he would beg to ask upon what day the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make his financial statement?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I should have preferred making it before Easter, but it was impossible to calculate the amount of Ways and Means necessary for the service of the year until the Estimates had been laid before the House in a complete form, and the amendment of the Estimates, since the peace was signed, has occupied more time than I had anticipated. The amended Estimate for the War Department has now been sent to the Treasury, and will immediately be laid upon the table; the Estimate for the Naval Department is also ready, with the exception of one portion, and will be presented in a few days. Every day before the Whitsuntide recess is, however, already occupied, and as, probably, it would not be convenient to fix Friday, the day upon which the House will meet again, for making the financial statement, I will fix it for Monday, the 19th inst.
The Motion for the adjournment of the House was then agreed to.

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 3 (The Secretary of State, upon representations from Boroughs, to arrange terms of consolidation with counties).
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he was very much disposed to move that this clause be omitted, but would wait until the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated its precise object. The opposition which the Bill had encountered arose principally from the power of interference which it would give to the Secretary of State. In this clause he was empowered to interfere when a county refused to amalgamate with a borough at its request. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet ever heard of a case in which a borough had desired to be amalgamated with a county for police purposes, and the county had declined? He believed the facts were quite in the opposite direction, and that in almost all cases counties desired amalgamation with boroughs, but that it was the boroughs which declined.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, by the present law consolidation could only take place by mutual agreement, and might be dissolved either by the county or the borough at any time. Great objections had been raised to a compulsory consolidation, while at the same time the Government were of opinion, strengthened by remarks from various quarters, that an efficient police system could not be maintained in a borough with a small population. Where the population did not amount to 5,000, boroughs were excluded from the benefit of the Government grant; most of them were below that number, and in a great many there were not more than two to four policemen. Such boroughs might desire to amalgamate with counties, and although he could not name an instance in which a county had declined to amalgamate, hitherto boroughs had shown a great disinclination to do so, and such a case might happen. The present clause gave the Secretary of State power, in case an application made by a borough to amalgamate with a county were refused, to settle the terms of such consolidation. The clause was entirely in the interest of the boroughs.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he thought the clause would be inoperative, but as the power it conferred upon the Secretary of State might prove to be useful, he should support it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the borough he represented had amalgamated their police with the county, but the 13th clause of the Bill, which must be taken in connexion with the present clause, and which enacted that agreements for consolidation should not be determined without the sanction of the Secretary of State, had so excited the alarm of his constituents that they had given notice to put an end to the amalgamation. He would, therefore, recommend the right hon. Baronet to withdraw both clauses. Many boroughs were willing to amalgamate with the counties, but they would decline to do so if the arrangements were made to partake of the indissoluble character of a matrimonial union.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that the 13th clause should not be taken in connexion with the present. If the Committee should determine that the 13th clause should not stand part of the Bill, he would then consent to the omission of the 3rd clause.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 4.
Clause 5 (Constables to perform duties connected with the Police, as directed by the Justices or Watch Committee).
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he objected to the unlimited power given by the clause, and would move the insertion of words to define the duties to be undertaken by the police, namely:—
"The duties of inspectors of weights and measures, the duties of inspectors of lodging houses, that they shall serve summonses, precepts, and notices, and undertake the conveyance of prisoners."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he considered that the Amendment was unnecessary, as it was already provided in the clause that all duties to be undertaken by the police, in addition to their ordinary duties, should be such as were connected with the police.
MR. RICEsaid, his objection to the clause was, that it limited the magistrates too strictly.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the objection would be obviated by substituting the words, "such duties as justices of the peace may lawfully require them to perform."
MR. MILESsaid, he hoped that the words would be retained. It was well known that if any great latitude were given, some duties would be thrown upon the police which would prevent them from performing their legitimate duties. The great mission of the police was to repress crime, which it was impossible for them to accomplish if they were to be turned into letter-carriers.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he thought the words might be very safely omitted, as their retention would in all probability lead to a great deal of dispute.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think it very important whether the words were rejected or not, but he would rather have them retained; for he was much more apprehensive of the tendency to throw on the police duties unconnected with their office, than of the inconvenience likely to result from their not performing certain duties which it might be convenient for them to undertake.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be better, on the whole, to retain the words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the clause enacted that the constables should, in addition

1931
to their ordinary duties, perform all such duties "connected with the police" as the justices in quarter sessions should require. He thought the words "connected with the police" were unnecessary, and should therefore move that they be omitted.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 73: Majority 4.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Constables shall not receive Fees).
MR. PRICEsaid, he desired to move the addition of the following words to the clause:—"Or which may be payable to, or be applied in aid of, any police super-annuation fund established or to be established in any borough under the provisions of the Act 11 & 12 Vict., chap. 14."
MR. HARDYsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had stated on a former occasion that the superintendent of police at Leominster was paid by fees for the performance of what were essentially police duties, and that the police sergeants and other constables were not allowed to serve warrants or perform duties which would interfere with the perquisites of the chief officer of police. The right hon. Baronet must have made that statement upon misinformation, for the police of Leominster were paid by fixed salaries, the superintendent receiving £1 14 s. a week, with a house and garden; the patrol sergeant 16 s. a week, and the constables 15 s. a week each; and in the absence of the superintendent the sergeants and other policemen were empowered to serve warrants and summonses, and to discharge similar duties.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had made the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred upon the authority of a printed copy of the police regulations for the borough of Leominster, which had been transmitted, under the Act of Parliament, to the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and under those regulations it appeared that the superintendent of police was entitled to receive certain perquisites.
In reply to Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY,
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be competent, under this measure, for justices of the peace in counties, and for watch committees in boroughs, to reward constables for extraordinary exertions.
Motion agreed to; Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Borough Constables disqualified from voting at certain Elections.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he did not expect such a proposition would come from a Liberal Government, and as he saw no good reason for disfranchising borough constables, he would move the omission of the words "Or within six calendar months after he has ceased to be such constable be capable of giving his vote for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for such borough, or any county, in or to which such borough is situate, either wholly or in part, or adjoins, or for any borough within any such county, nor shall any such constable."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must explain that the words "within six months" were intended to prevent an evasion of the disqualification by a man ceasing to he constable one day, voting the next, and again becoming constable the day following.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he did not apprehend that any undue influence would be brought to bear upon the votes of the police constables. He thought that the police constable had as much right to their votes as any Cabinet Minister, or other person holding paid offices under the Government.
MR. PACKEsaid, he should support the clause, because he could not but think that if the police were under any political bias great difficulties and disturbances might arise at those times when it was most necessary that they should be in a position to discharge their duties as guardians of the peace, free from any influence of political feelings.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he must deny that it was the practice of borough corporations to appoint their police from political considerations. Any allegation of that kind could only originate in ignorance. Education, character, and physical strength were the only qualifications required for borough constables.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to show from the evidence printed that the public-houses belonging to members of the Liverpool Watch Committee were rarely reported by the police for their irregularities, and that the inspection to which such places were subjected was inferior in stringency to that extended to other houses of entertainment.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at least showed that in one case, other than legitimate considerations had to do with the appointment

1933
of constables—that Parliament had disqualified the metropolitan police from taking a part in elections, it being held necessary to remove from the arena of politics a body on whose firmness, forbearance, and impartiality in times of popular excitement the public peace so greatly depended. The same considerations were equally applicable to other constabulary. If the hon. Member for Liverpool objected to the entire clause, it would be useless then to discuss an Amendment on its mere wording.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he did not oppose the whole clause. He considered that the police should be debarred from influencing elections, but not from the exercise of their franchise. Moreover, in times of disturbance the special constables were called out, and yet they often consisted of voters.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought it desirable to prevent the possibility of police constables being mixed up in party politics. The question was whether the police should remain all blue as at present, or be divided into blue and yellow. He should like to see the clause extended to municipal as well as Parliamentary elections.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he was glad to find Her Majesty's Government were about to extend the franchise, for it was impossible that police constables receiving 16 s. and 18 s. a week could live in houses of £10 a year. He should support the clause, for he thought it better that the police should not have a vote at elections.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he should be satisfied with disfranchising a police constable while in the force, but not to take away his vote for six months after he had ceased to be a constable.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, they might deprive policemen of their votes, but they could not prevent them taking an interest in political contests. They had opinions like other people, and the best way he thought was to give them a legitimate mode of expressing those opinions. They were a class of men eminently qualified to exercise the suffrage, and in answer to the suggestion that if they had votes they would be under sinister influence, he would observe that he hoped, before many years, to see adopted the practice of secret voting.
MR. BENTINCKthought the hon. Member for Liverpool ought to show why
1934
the regulations in force in the county police were not also applicable to boroughs.
MR. WISEthought it would be sufficient to disfranchise the police for two months after they had been in the force. He considered six months too long a period.
SIR SAMUEL BIGNOLDsaid, that he had been requested, on behalf of the borough of Norwich, to support the clause, as being in accordance with the feelings of the police force. The Watch Committee of that borough selected the police without regard to political considerations, but when an election occurred they had not that free action which was desirable. It was the desire of the police themselves that they should have no votes at elections.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he thought the clause was the best one of the Bill, for he believed that the policemen themselves would be most thankful to the House for taking from them a privilege, the exercise of which would be in many cases most inconvenient to them.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, as he did not want to force the privilege upon the police if they did not wish to possess it.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be desirable that the borough police should be left on the same footing as the county police in this respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to move to add, in Clause 7, line 19, after "election." the words, "of any person to any municipal office in or." The object of the addition was to disqualify the voter from taking part in municipal as well as Parliamentary elections.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that though he was hostile to the practice of disfranchising classes, he must admit that the case of the police was exceptional, and as constables had been already rendered incapable of voting at Parliamentary elections, he could see no reason why the disqualification should not be extended to municipal elections also.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished to move the omission from the clause of the words by which it was sought to impose a fine of £20 on any constable who "by word, message, writing, or in any other manner should endeavour to persuade any elector to give, or dissuade any elector from giving, his vote for the choice of any person to be a member to

1935
serve in Parliament for any such borough or county."
MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE, said, he was in favour of the Amendment, for he thought the clause as originally worded would by its undue severity defeat its own object.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, that, unless they put muzzles on the mouths and blinkers on the eyes of constables, it would be impossible to prevent those officers from giving utterance to what they thought, felt, and wished at elections.
MR. DEEDESsaid, the words referred to were in the Act which constituted the county police. They were then well considered, and he saw no reason why they should be withdrawn with regard to the borough police.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was in favour of the retention of the words, for the police ought not to be encouraged to mix themselves up in elections.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDsaid, he thought those words were very severe, and carried our legislation further than it had ever yet gone. Surely, every man was entitled to think and discuss, as it pleased him, on any subject, and on any occasion. It was that freedom of judgment which had never yet been interfered with in this country.
MR. WATSONsaid, he thought that it was of great importance to retain the words. They were intended to discourage partisan electioneering in the police, which might otherwise become a great abuse. He would recommend, however, a reduction of the penalty, from £20 to £5, because it would be found that magistrates would not convict of the offence if it were to involve such penalties. The Act would thereby become a dead letter.
MR. PACKEsaid, he also concurred in the propriety of reducing the penalty.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from the word "County" to the end of the Clause.
Question put, "That the words 'nor shall any such Constable' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 139, Noes 18: Majority 121.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he would then move that the penalty should be reduced from £20 to "a sum not exceeding £5."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the words "not exceeding" would not apply to this penalty, because, as it was recoverable
1936
by an action for debt, the sum must be absolutely fixed. He proposed to reduce the amount of the penalty to £10.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8: Justices of Counties may grant superannuation allowances to Chief Constables.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, it had been suggested to him by a superintendent that the chief constables would greatly prefer receiving their retiring allowances from a superannuation fund, in the same way as the other constables, to being made dependent upon the magistrates in the manner proposed by this clause.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that there ought to be some limit as to the number of years a chief constable should serve before receiving a superannuation allowance. He considered that ten years' service should be required to entitle to superannuation.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that by the operation of an existing Act fifteen years' service was the minimum entitling to a superannuation allowance in ordinary cases, but there might be peculiar circumstances entitling an officer to superannuation before that period of service. If a chief constable in the discharge of his duty met with an accident, he thought it might be safely left to the magistrates to decide whether he should have a superannuation allowance before the ordinary period.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9. Statement of Accounts shall be sent in annually to the Secretary of State.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would propose that as the borough accounts were to be sent in through the Watch Committee, so the county accounts should be sent in through the justices of the peace in quarter sessions assembled, instead of through the chief constable, as the clause at present provided. He would also suggest that Michaelmas would be a better time than January for making up the accounts.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would agree to both suggestions.
VISCOUNT DUNGARVANsaid, he wished to propose the insertion of words requiring the chief constable of every county and the Watch Committee of every borough to include in their annual Reports to the Home Secretary the names of the places to which information of the offences committed within their respective districts was sent. His object was to secure the

1937
establishment of an organized system of communication between the different police forces throughout the country.
MR. MASSEYsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be to encumber the Reports with a great variety of minute and wholly unnecessary details.
MR. MILESsaid, he wished to inquire whether a printed form had been prepared at the Home Office for the entry of charges at the different police offices?
MR. MASSEYreplied, that a charge sheet had been drawn up at the Home Office and sent to the police authorities in boroughs; but he was sorry to say that little use had been made of it. A similar form would be supplied to counties.
Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT DUNGARYANsaid, he would now move the insertion of words compelling the police authorities in counties and boroughs to state in their annual Reports to the Home Office the name, age, and description of every superintendent or other constable appointed or discharged during the year. The object of the Amendment was the formation of a register to which chief constables and watch committees might refer when they wanted to fill up vacancies.
MR. MASSEYsaid, that there were regulations in existence at the present moment which secured the object contemplated by the noble Lord.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he would suggest, in pursuance of a recommendation made to him by a chief constable, that the annual Reports should also include a list of the resignations, and the causes thereof.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clause10 (Her Majesty may appoint Inspectors for inquiring into efficiency of Police, &c.)
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that no money should be granted for borough police, except on special application.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that where public money was paid and received, it was only fair and right to have security from the Government that it was properly expended. There could be no objection to a system of inspection, but it was desirable that an explanation should be given as to how the inspection was to be exercised and how far it was to be carried. An occasional inspection would, he thought, be quite sufficient, and being of that opinion he did not see that there would be anything
1938
like work enough to occupy the time and attention of three permanent inspectors.
MR. C. FORSTERsaid, he objected to the police force being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He also objected to the inspection system, and should divide against the clause.
MR. RICEsaid, he thought that many boroughs would be very glad to receive some assistance from the Municipal Fund. The Home Secretary was responsible for the peace of the kingdom, and it was only right that he should receive Reports from inspectors as to the efficiency or non-efficiency of the police throughout the country.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he considered that it was hardly possible to argue the Amendment without going into the whole question of the payment of inspectors, and it was not so much a question of inspection as of payment. He believed that the real principle of the Bill was to get the money with the view of getting the inspection; and he objected to any such mode of carrying a Bill through that House. It was wrong to use the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of tempting the Members for counties to adopt a measure which, but for that temptation, he did not believe they would ever agree to. The whole principle of the Bill depended upon the payment of the money out of the Consolidated Fund, and he hesitated not to say that in the matter of inspection he would have no mercy upon them who took the money, for if they took it they did so with the condition that those who declined to take the money ought to be exempt from inspection. He doubted very much the advisability of drawing upon the Consolidated Fund for local purposes merely. Those who required more police should pay for them without distributing the cost over the whole country. If local burdens were fairly imposed there ought not to be any demand on the Consolidated Fund; but an impression prevailed that those burdens were not fairly imposed, and that being the case, it might be necessary that the whole question of local taxation should be revised. The fact was, he feared the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was by this Bill opening up a very difficult question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer hereafter. The boroughs wished neither money nor inspection, and he believed that Portsmouth and Southampton were amongst the places which repudialed

1939
both. It was said that the Home Secretary was responsible for the public peace, and in that opinion he quite agreed; but he could not therefore understand why this general system of inspection was required. In conclusion, he begged to say that he objected altogether to a grant of money from the Consolidated Fund, and upon that ground should oppose the clause.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the £300,000 offered by the Bill to the counties was a bribe for its passing. Since the passing of the Corporation Bill, the boroughs had established a police of their own, and twenty-four out of fifty-two counties had established a rural police, and yet it had been proved that where this police existed there was no greater security to life and property. The House ought to set its face against the system of passing Bills by offering an apparent reduction in local taxation. This was the first step towards establishing a system of gensdarmerie throughout all England. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the system was already established in Ireland, and it would, in the end, be extended to England and Scotland. He should take the sense of the Committee on the next clause, which defined the amount of the grant.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the sole object of the Bill was to increase the efficiency of the police in boroughs and counties. He hoped, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his opposition to the clause, he would extend the principle he advocated, and apply it to the borough of Lambeth. There at present existed in many boroughs and counties an inefficient police; and he believed that the great obstacle to a more efficient system was the expense which it would impose upon the ratepayers. The change of the law, by which transportation had been abolished and imprisonment substituted, had entailed great expense on the counties, from which they had desired some relief. If the apprehension of offenders was a local affair, then the punishment of offenders was a local affair, which had long been paid out of the public revenue. The principle of the Bill was not a new one; it was involved in several Acts relating to the administration of justice. With regard to inspectors, he did not wish to appoint more inspectors than were necessary; and he should be happy to appoint two inspectors instead of three, but at the outset, there would be many inquiries to institute, which would require much time and trouble. It would be
1940
necessary to have a number sufficient to insure efficiency. The inspection, above all things, should not be a partial, but a general one.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he begged to express his concurrence in the view which had been taken of this part of the measure by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). If inspectors were appointed, they would feel themselves obliged to do something for the money they received, and the consequence would be that the Government would have all sorts of conflicting Reports made to them. He, as a county Member, would reject every offer made by the Government for an advance of money by the public.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he was opposed to the clause. Why should there be inspectors when there was nothing that required to be inspected? Those gentlemen would always be finding fault with somebody, whether they had any cause or no cause. Why should the inhabitants of boroughs, who thoroughly understood their own business, be incumbered with inspectors? There must be some object which did not appear on the surface, otherwise the Government would not be so anxious to have inspectors.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it was a just and fair principle that districts which did not receive assistance from the public funds should be exempted from inspection; and that those districts which chose to receive grants from the Consolidated Fund should be subjected to inspection. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said he disapproved of inspection; and at that avowal he (Mr. Henley) was not surprised. It was well known that within the last few years proceedings had taken place in the Birmingham gaol which had attracted a great deal of public attention, and who had been the means of exposing the malpractices which existed in that establishment? Not Her Majesty's Inspectors of Prisons, but some of the inhabitants of Birmingham. He feared that a system of inspection would lead the people to relax their own vigilance with regard to matters of this kind, and to trust too implicitly to Government Inspectors, who sometimes required good spectacles. He approved the Amendment, which would leave boroughs at liberty to receive or refuse aid from the public funds.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he thought that the 11th clause was the

1941
one of the greatest importance, as it would inflict a great injustice upon the country, by compelling contributions from the Consolidated Fund. He would also press upon the attention of the Committee the immense amount of valuable property in the country which paid no taxes.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would like to know what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the policy of adding continually to the charges upon the Consolidated Fund? He did not see why, when persons did not solicit aid from the public taxes, such assistance should be forced upon them. The population of Manchester had never asked for assistance from the public funds to defray their own local expenditure; but if the principle of affording such aid was established, he did not mean to say that they would wish to constitute an exception to the general rule. He believed, however, that they would prefer that counties and boroughs should be left to meet from their own resources the legitimate local expenditure of their respective districts. He should oppose the clause, because he thought it quite unnecessary to interfere with the police in boroughs. He asked for neither money nor inspection.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he thought that the Government ought to contribute most liberally to the expense of the police, as they were now relieved from the expense of transportation; and that if they granted money they were assuredly entitled to have inspection. Boroughs wanted inspection quite as much as counties, and he saw no reason why boroughs should be exempted.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he could not see the fairness of taxing the boroughs for the payment of police in rural districts, which would be the effect of paying them out of the Consolidated Fund. The boroughs objected to receive the public money, and preferred going without it. The borough police were responsible to the Watch Committee, and the Watch Committee were responsible to the ratepayers who elected them.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he not only condemned the clause, but he must also express, at the same time, his strong disapproval of the entire Bill.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 22, to leave out the word "every," and insert the word "any."
Question put, "That the word 'every' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 116: Majority, 59.
Question put, "That Clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 100: Majority 99.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 (One-fourth of the charge of the Police Establishment in Counties and Boroughs shall be defrayed by the Treasury).
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he objected to the provision which makes the payment in question contingent on a certificate from the Home Secretary attesting the efficiency of the force. The power proposed to be conferred on the Home Secretary was as arbitrary as unprecedented, and there was the less excuse for it, as it was not necessary for the better discipline of the police. He held that inspections and publicity would tend to make the police a most valuable and efficient body; but, at the same time, he believed that the value of that body would be seriously interfered with if the control of the charge was to be dependent upon the will of the Secretary of State. He believed that this was the first time it was ever proposed that the Secretary of State should step in between a Government grant and those who were to be benefited by it. Inspection and publicity acted beneficially with regard to prisons, and why should not the same principle be applied to the police. The certificate was only to be given in the event of the police being efficient; but it would be very hard because magistrates, or even Secretaries of State, neglected their duty in making the force efficient, that ratepayers should be called upon to pay one-fourth more than their neighbours. He should never consent to ratepayers suffering for what they were in no way responsible; and he should certainly divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, under the clause no assistance was to be given, unless on the assurance that the money would only be expended in rendering the police more efficient. The hon. Member's proposal was, that one-fourth of the expenditure should be paid by the Treasury in all cases irrespective of efficiency; but that would defeat the object of the clause, which was to induce the different boroughs

1943
and counties to put their police in a proper condition.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed that the ratepayers of the metropolis were quite ready to support their own police without any aid from the Consolidated Fund, provided the entire management of that force were placed in their hands.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, the ratepayers, who had no power to prevent maladministration in the police, would yet be obliged to bear the whole expense when the Secretary of State withdrew the State allowance of one-fourth of the amount in consequence of an unfavourable Report being made concerning the police of the borough in question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must beg to explain that the object of the clause was to enable Parliament to exercise a proper supervision over the application of its grants.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he did not think that this object would be best attained by the provision as it stood. He would agree that it was so as the right hon. Gentleman had described it; but upon looking at the authority under which the money was issued or withdrawn, he considered it too much to make the issue or non-issue of money dependent on the Report of a single inspector sent down to examine into the administration of the police of any borough. Ought not such a Report to be laid on the table of the House, and an opportunity given to the parties affected by it to answer the charges made in it before that Report was acted on? Surely some other means might be devised as a check upon the proper application of the money.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the clause was too important to be discussed at that late hour (ten minutes past twelve o'clock), and he would therefore, move that the Chairman should report progress.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would not press the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the clause that evening; but he could not consent to report progress without saying that he thought the laying upon the table of the House the Reports of the inspectors would be a sufficient check upon the Secretary of State, who would never refuse or withdraw a grant without previous communication with the persons interested. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe) could suggest the insertion in the clause of any words which
1944
would impose a more efficient check he should be happy to consider them.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

FIRE INSURANCES BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT).
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [21st April], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
Debate resumed,
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, the Bill was a clumsy expedient for the attainment of the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should support the Amendment for reading it a second time on that day six months.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he also thought that the Bill would not effect the object for which it was intended, and that it was entirely worthless.
MR. GLYNsaid, he could not avoid expressing his surprise at the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill. For his part he should support it, on the ground that it was necessary for the protection both of the Inland Revenue and of the trade of English Insurance Companies, in reference to foreign competition. It had nothing whatever to do with the question of a reduction of duty. A reduction ought to be pressed upon the Government, not now, but at a proper time. No doubt the primary cause of the small proportion of insurances effected in England in comparison with France and Holland was the high rate of duty. But they must also remember that in France and Holland what was called "the average clause" was part of the law of the land. The meaning of that clause was, that when an insurance of £3,000 was effected upon property worth £9,000, and £3,000 worth of that property was destroyed, the office was bound to pay only the proportion of the loss that the amount of insurance bore to the total value of the property; whereas in England, without "the average clause," the office was bound to pay the whole amount of the loss. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reduce the duty and the offices would, at the same time, reduce their premium,

1945
he believed the system of insurance would be so much extended that neither the Revenue nor the companies would suffer any loss. But that measure was quite unconnected with the question of the amount of duty.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was of opinion that it was quite competent for the House to introduce a clause into the Bill to reduce the duty. He believed that the Bill, as at present framed, would be mere waste paper, and he should vote against it; but if the second reading should be carried he would in Committee propose to reduce the duty from 3s. per cent to Is. per cent.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he trusted the Motion for the adjournment would be withdrawn. He did not understand what possible objection there could be to the Bill, the object of which was to prevent the revenue from being defrauded, and also to protect the English Insurance Companies from the unfair competition of foreign agencies, which were carrying on a contraband trade in this country. If the Bill should not be found sufficient for its purpose, it would be competent for hon. Gentlemen on another occasion to propose a reduction of the duty.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he thought the Bill, as it could not make the matter worse than it was, should be allowed to undergo consideration in Committee, and then a proposition could be made for the reduction of the duty.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, if the Bill were passed, which he believed would be useless, great obstacles would be opposed to the consideration of the reduction of the duty.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would propose that the Bill should be deferred till after the budget, otherwise he should divide the House.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he thought the duty should be reduced, for he believed that a shilling duty would be found quite as profitable to the revenue in a very short time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 31: Majority, 102.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

NATIONAL GALLERY BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 1.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that the affairs of this institution had been so much mismanaged that he was not willing to put its management out of the hands of Parliament, or to allow the trustees and directors the uncontrolled power of selling pictures. The constitution as established by the Bill was most anomalous, and he could not conceive how it would work. He should move as an Amendment that no pictures should be sold without the authority of Parliament.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he would suggest that there should be a power, not only of sale, but of giving the pictures not wanted for the gallery to provincial galleries.
MR. WILSONsaid, that that power already existed, and was often exercised. The object of the Clause was to enable the directors to part with pictures which might form part of galleries purchased as a whole. It would be a most anomalous proceeding for Parliament to take on itself the responsibility of selling pictures.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would suggest that no pictures which had ever formed part of a gallery should be sold until a list and description of such pictures had been laid before Parliament. He did not mean such pictures as had been purchased as part of other galleries purchased for the gallery, but such as had formed part of the gallery, and had been exhibited.
MR. WILSONsaid, that he would adopt the suggestion, and consider what means would be fit for carrying it out.
After some further discussion, Amendment withdrawn.
Bill passed through Committee.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Procedure before Justices (Scotland); Metropolitan Smoke Act Amendment; Bankers' Compositions.

COUNTY COURTS—THE OPTIONAL CLAUSE—PETITION.
LORD BROUGHAM presented a petition from members of the Yorkshire branch of the Society for the Protection of Trade, in favour of the Bill before their Lordships relating to the jurisdiction of the County Courts, but praying that the provision of the present law enabling the parties to a suit, by common consent, to go before those tribunals with actions involving sums to an unlimited amount should be amended, so as to give the option in question to the plaintiff singly, leaving it to the defendant, if he object to that procedure, to insist on carrying the case to a superior court. The optional clause in the existing County Court Act, if not rendered wholly inoperative, was at least greatly clogged by the condition requiring both the parties to be previously agreed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORstated that the point referred to in the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend had received his anxious attention. It was perfectly true that the present system was open to objection; and since his Bill had been introduced he had been in consultation on the subject with Mr. Pitt Taylor, with whose valuable assistance certain alterations had been prepared in the measure calculated to obviate much of the evil complained of.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the said Report be now received, said, the first clause of the Bill related to what lawyers know by the designation of the

1907
17th clause of the Statute of Frauds. The main drift of the clause was to require that no contract relating to the sale of land, to guarantees, or to sales of goods of the value of above £10 should be valid unless it was in writing. Inasmuch, however, as the latter proviso would have interfered with the ordinary transactions of business, it became necessary to introduce exceptions, and then questions arose, and the law books were full of reports of cases, as to whether the particular case before the Court came within these exceptions. The Mercantile Law Commissioners proposed that this clause, so far as regarded contracts for the sale of goods, should be repealed, and he concurred with them. He was told that great apprehension prevailed on the subject in the City of London, the merchants thinking that this alteration would enable their brokers to bind them to contracts not reduced to writing. That was an entire mistake. A broker could not bind his principal, except so far as the principal gave him authority to bind him; and no merchant had anything more to do than to tell his broker, in writing or by word of mouth, that he did not authorise him to enter into contracts on his account except in writing. If, then, the merchants of London preferred to transact their business by means of contracts in writing, they need not alter their system; but the Commissioners stated, that neither in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, nor Dublin, was it the practice to reduce contracts in the ordinary operations of trade to writing, and yet they all knew that commerce was carried on in those towns in a flourishing manner.
LORD CAMPBELLobserved, that the doubts occasioned by that clause of the Statute of Frauds, which it was proposed now to repeal, had filled many volumes of Reports, and he believed that it would be a great improvement to do away with that clause, and assimilate the law in this respect to the law of Scotland; he, therefore, hoped that the mercantile class in London would withdraw their opposition to the Bill; for they were mistaken in supposing that the clause was one which absolutely required a written contract. The exceptions in the clause led to much litigation, but the repeal of this clause would not affect written contracts, and he should recommend the merchants of London to adhere to the practice of having such contracts; but if they followed his advice they would withdraw their opposition to an
1908
amendment of the law which would merely require that a contract need not be in writing to be obligatory on the parties.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that the petition lately presented against the repeal of that clause bore the signature of almost every respectable merchant in the City of London, and every Director of the Bank of England, and he understood the apprehension which they felt was, that if this Bill passed, they would be exposed to the danger of finding themselves bound by contracts to which they had never consented to be parties. How far that would be its effect he (Lord Overstone) was incapable of judging, but he felt sure that the explanation given by the Lord Chief Justice would be carefully weighed by the mercantile body in the City of London, and he should rejoice to find that it would prove sufficient to remove their objections, and give them confidence in the effect of the Bill.
LORD HARROWBYremarked that there was a respectable minority of the merchants of London who did not agree with the petitioners, and in the great mercantile transactions of Glasgow that clause of the Statute of Frauds was not required.
Motion agreed to. Amendment reported accordingly; and Bill to be read a third time on Thursday next.
House adjourned to Sunday next at a quarter before Ten o'clock, for the purpose of attending Divine Service at the Abbey Church, Westminster, being the Day appointed by Her Majesty's Royal Proclamation for a general Thanksgiving for the Restoration of Peace.