Sitting of 8 March 1866

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (on Account).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—New Forest Poor Relief*
First Reading—New Forest Poor Relief*[57].
Second Reading— Parliamentary Oaths Amendment [13]; Vaccination*[33].
Committee—Marine Mutiny.
Report—Marine Mutiny.
Considered as amended—Pensions*[40].

COOLIE EMIGRATION.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board
1708
of Trade, Whether any inquiry has been instituted into the terrible loss of life in the Coolie emigration ships in those voyages which are called by seamen the voyages of death; whether he is aware that during the last year 10 per cent of the Coolies who were embarked in those ships were drowned; and, whether, more particularly, any inquiry has been instituted into the loss of the Eagle Speed off Haliday Island in August last under most disastrous circumstances?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, the health of Coolie emigrants on the voyage from India to the Mauritius and the West Indies has been a constant subject of anxiety to the Indian and the Home Governments. From 1856 to 1859 the mortality was very large, and greater precautions were taken by the Indian Government, and the mortality decreased till within the last two years. In those two years the mortality has again increased; the cause of the deaths was a typhoid fever, but what the cause of this fever was has not, in spite of repeated inquiries, been distinctly ascertained. The Indian Government are, however, making further inquiries with the view of taking every precaution. In the wreck of the Eagle Speed, near Calcutta, 262 lives were lost. In the Fusileer, wrecked off Natal, twenty-six lives were lost. In the Sandringham, wrecked at Mauritius, nineteen were drowned. Nothing like 10 per cent of the Coolies embarked have been drowned. An inquiry has been held under the authority of the Indian Government into the loss of the Eagle Speed. The papers have just been received at the Board of Trade and shall be laid upon the table.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that six or seven coolie emigration ships have been lost, and that 1,200 lives were thus sacrificed?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I cannot state the exact number of vessels that were lost, but it is an over-statement to say that 10 per cent of the coolies embarked in the emigrant ships were drowned.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
MR. DYCE NICOLsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether, in the present unsatisfactory state of the Law in respect to the management of the Poor in Scotland, and the heavy and increasing expense of litigation connected therewith,

1709
he intends to take any steps to remedy the evil?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, the Question put by my hon. Friend is very general in its terms; but, if I understand him correctly, he refers to the expense caused by the present Law of Settlement. I have only to say that I am very sensible of the evil complained of, and some years ago I introduced a measure calculated to remedy it. I did not then receive the amount of support I expected, but I shall be very glad to re-consider the matter.

UNION RATING (IRELAND).

  QUESTION,
  COLONEL TOTTENHAMsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to introduce a measure this Session applying the principle of Union Rating to that part of the United Kingdom?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, in reply, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce this Session a measure with reference to Union Rating.

IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny, Whether it is his intention to bring on his Mo-lion relative to the Irish Church Establishment on Tuesday, March 13th; and whether he will state the wording of the Resolution which he has given notice that he would move on that occasion?
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, in reply, that it was his intention to bring forward his Motion on the 13th instant; he would that evening lay on the table the form of the Resolution he intended to move.

THE THAMES NAVIGATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BATHURSTsaid, be wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Thames Navigation, as recommended by the Select Committee; whether he is aware that the Thames and Severn Railway Bill seeks power to convey the water pumped from the Thames Head Springs by a culvert into the watershed of the Severn; and whether it should be left
  1710
  entirely to local proprietors to resist such proposals?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, it is my intention to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Thames Navigation as recommended by the Select Committee. I am aware that the Thames and Severn Canal Navigation Bill contains certain provisions with respect to the use of water from the Thames Head Springs. As it is a disputed question whether the effect of those provisions will be to divert water from the Thames, and as it is also a disputed question whether the Company have or have not a vested right to the water they are proposing to use, I think that the Bill is one which ought to be dealt with by a Select Committee, before whom these questions may be investigated. I also am informed that the Conservators of the Thames have petitioned against and intend to oppose the Bill.

FISHERIES (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he intends moving for leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Special Commissioners for Irish Fisheries, as contained in their Report for 1865?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, in reply, that the question had already been under the consideration of the Government; he hoped that he should be able to introduce a measure giving effect to the recommendation of the Special Commissioners of Fisheries.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.—QUESTIONS.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question respecting a Bill that had gone up to the other House—the Cattle Plague Bill. He understood that the Bill was likely to be returned to the House that night, with certain Amendments; and inasmuch as the Courts of Quarter Session are waiting to see the law before making new orders, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he will undertake that the Lords' Amendments will be considered to-morrow?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, and that many notices of Amendments had been given. It would be quite impossible, there-

1711
fore, to say in what state the Bill would come down from the other House, and it was due both to the House and to the country that hon. Members should have full opportunity of considering the measure in its altered condition.
MR. CHAMBERSsaid, he would beg to ask, whether the attention of the Home Secretary has been called to the serious inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the Metropolis by the refusal of the Magistrates of Middlesex and other neighbouring counties to allow manure to cross the boundaries of their districts?
MR. BARINGsaid, that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had called the attention of his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) to the inconvenience caused by the orders of the magistrates in the counties referred to by the hon. Member. Sir John Thwaites expressed his fear that, on account of the refusal of the magistrates to allow the manure to be sent from the city into the country, the public health might be endangered. He (Mr. Baring) had communicated with some of the magistrates, and trusted that arrangements might be made to obviate the difficulty. The Cattle Plague Bill contained some provisions with reference to the subject, and when the Bill came down from the House of Lords, the House could introduce into it any provisions which might seem desirable. Under these circumstances, the Government did not intend to issue any Order of Council upon the subject.

ARMY—CAVALRY HORSES.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the horses of cavalry regiments lately sent to Ireland have been removed from England to that country; and, if so, whether this was not in violation of the Orders in Council for the prevention of the introduction of the Cattle Plague into the latter country?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that cavalry horses had lately been sent to Ireland. The Order in Council referred to cattle only, and not to horses.

THE EASTER RECESS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask, On what day the adjournment of the House for the Easter Recess will be moved?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is intended to move that the
1712
House adjourn on Friday, the 23rd instant, to the Monday fortnight following.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 13.]
(Sir G. Grey, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 13.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had to present to the House considerably more than 100 petitions from Churchmen and Dissenters—Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England. He had examined the whole of them, and believed them to be genuine. The petitioners objected to the removal of those portions of the present Roman Catholic oath which were proposed to be abrogated by the Oaths Bill now before the House.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to offer a few observations to the House before it comes to a decision on the proposal to read this Bill a second time. I conclude that this Bill has been introduced in consequence of the opinion of the late Parliament, and the vote that was given in favour of the measure of the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). I thought at the time there were very strong objections to that Bill, the purport of which was to abolish and then re-construct what has been called the Roman Catholic oath—the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of this House. I thought, Sir, and I believe it is very generally felt by Members on both sides of the House, that it would have been advantageous that such a question should have been settled by the Government of the day. There were many also who were of opinion that the time at which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was introduced was by no means felicitous; that it was, in fact, inopportune, and liable to a misinterpretation, which, however, I did not myself put upon it. But, irrespective of these objections, there was a very general opinion that the Motion was an impolitic one. There is no doubt that in the Roman Catholic oath there are some things that are obsolete, and some things that are invidious. If we were to construct an oath in this country de novo, I do not suppose that it would be constructed in the precise form in which the Roman Catholic oath taken at present stands. But, at the same time, although there is in the oath

  1713
  something that is obsolete and something that is invidious, no one has pretended for a moment that it constitutes anything like a practical grievance. On the contrary, the presence of numerous Roman Catholic Members in this House—and I am sure I am very glad to see them here, sitting on both sides of the House—I say that the presence of Roman Catholic Gentlemen of high honour sitting in this House shows that there is no practical grievance in the oath as it at present stands; and it is always unwise to disturb oaths of a political and Parliamentary character, unless there is a necessity, and even an urgent necessity, to do so. In an ancient and historic country, it is impossible that public documents, and oaths above all public documents, should not possess some reference to the past, and even some looking forward to the future. If we were a new community establishing itself in the backwoods we could construct an oath, no doubt, of what may be called abstract application. But you cannot act on mere theoretical principles in a complex society, and in an ancient country famous for its history like England; and, therefore, when there is no practical grievance, I myself am of opinion that the great inconvenience and misconception which the alteration of oaths of this character must produce render it a matter to be regretted that the question was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). Besides those portions of the oath which are obsolete and invidious—namely, a declaration that the oath was taken by Members of Parliament without any mental reservation, which an honourable mind would resent, and a further declaration that they would bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, and give up all thought of the restoration to the Throne of the House of Stuart, which no longer exists, there is one portion of the oath which will hardly be placed under either of those heads, a portion allowed by Roman Catholics themselves to have a real and living meaning, because it refers to existing interests, that is the declaration that they will do nothing that shall injuriously affect the Established Church. For my own part, I have ever been of opinion that the Established Church of this country does not depend upon oaths. I think the Church of England in all its branches is too strong, too deeply rooted in the affections of the people and traditions of the country, to depend for its maintenance upon any form of words of that character.
  1714
  I have never raised the cry of "the Church in danger," which has sometimes been imputed to me by Gentlemen opposite without, I think, due reflection. I have often thought that if a severance took place between Church and State, the State would be in danger; but I never thought that the Church would be in danger, I think it is of great importance that the State should be religious. I think it may be doubted whether it is of advantage to the Church that the Church should be political. But I have ever been of opinion that by severing the union between the Church and the State, you would lower the sanctions of public conduct in this country, and would gradually but certainly reduce Government to be a mere affair of police. Therefore, in opposing the omission of that part of the oath which declares that a Member of that religion will do nothing to injure the Established Church, it was not from any fear for the Church, but because it appeared to me that the inevitable consequence of the proposal of the right hon. Member for Limerick would be this:—He came forward with a proposal to abolish the existing Roman Catholic oath, which contained matter that was obsolete and matter that was invidious—respecting the omission of which there were not two opinions in this House, both sides being perfectly ready to omit them, and he said, "Let us abolish the present Roman Catholic oath; let us omit that passage which declares that no Roman Catholic Member will do anything in this House which will at all affect the existence of the Established Church of the country, and which is a provision which leads to a certain perplexity of conscience on the part of Roman Catholic Members; and then let us construct a new Roman Catholic oath." I felt then, and I feel even more strongly now, that there could have been only one conclusion drawn by the great body of the people from such a course—namely, that the present Roman Catholic oath gave, as far as the Established Church is concerned, a certain security, which it was proposed to omit, and that they were then to construct another Roman Catholic oath without such a security. Therefore, I then expressed an opinion by no means unpopular, I believe, on both sides of the House, that the best solution of this vexed question would be the construction of a uniform oath, to be taken by all Members of this House. It must be obvious that the construction of a uniform oath is not a very

  1715
  easy task. In order to construct a uniform oath that would be satisfactory, and that would have any chance of meeting with general acceptance, you must, on the one hand, take care, so far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, that nothing is included which offends their consciences; and, on the other hand, you must take care, so far as the Protestants are concerned, that everything is inserted which they believe to be of essential importance. The Protestant is entitled to that which he thinks essential, and the Roman Catholic is to be protected from that which he deems offensive. Now, what is the solution which Her Majesty's Government has arrived at on the subject? Favourable as I am to the principle of an uniform oath, I confess that to me it is not satisfactory. I think that there are grave objections to the oath which is contained in the Bill. In the first place, this uniform oath as proposed by Her Majesty's Government is a mere oath of allegiance to the personal Sovereign on the Throne. The words are—
  "I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend to the utmost of my power."
  Now, if an oath of allegiance is merely a bald declaration of that character, it becomes the House to consider whether any oath of allegiance is necessary at all. [Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear!] I should be proud of the approval of the hon. Member for Brighton conveyed in that cheer, did I not know that he cheers everybody and everything—opinions the most contrary, and sentiments the most opposed. He will, perhaps, take the opportunity of showing us the reasons why we should have no oath. But I am not of that opinion. I think it highly important that we should have an oath of allegiance, and I want to see an uniform oath of allegiance containing those materials and fundamental characteristics which I think an oath of allegiance ought to possess. Now, Sir, the first objection which I take to the oath of allegiance as proposed by Her Majesty's Government is that it is an oath of allegiance to the Queen alone, and not to her heirs and successors. I maintain, Sir, that an oath of allegiance in all countries should be dynastic. The great object of an oath of allegiance is to preserve from anarchy and to secure order—to take care that in any change of succession there should be no doubt—and, therefore, an oath of allegiance should essentially be dynastic. We ought to re-
  1716
  member that in this country the Sovereign is a constitutional Sovereign—that the succession is a constitutional succession—and, therefore, when we have an oath of allegiance it should be an oath to Her Majesty's heirs and successors as limited and described by that Constitution in which hon. Members of this House and all the subjects of the Queen, whatever may be their religion, completely agree. Therefore, Sir, I think it should be an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and to her heirs and successors, according as that succession is limited by the Act of Settlement. No Roman Catholic gentleman hesitates for a moment to acknowledge the Act of Settlement to be the law of the country. It is one of the most important and fundamental laws of the country, and I never heard a Roman Catholic hesitate in acknowledging that to be so. But can there be any doubt on the point? The right hon. Member for Limerick when he, last year, proposed the re-construction of the Roman Catholic oath—when he omitted all that was invidious, obsolete and unnecessary for the protection of the public interests—when he omitted that which many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House as well as on the other considered neither invidious, obsolete nor unimportant—and re-constructed a new Roman Catholic oath, he, as a Roman Catholic, inserted on the part of the Roman Catholic Members words declaratory of this full allegiance to the Act of Settlement, and to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, as limited by that Act. On this subject, therefore, there cannot be a doubt. I think great public inconvenience might arise from following the policy now recommended by the Government. Let us suppose—it is an improbable supposition—and, for the sake of his Royal Highness, I and the country should deeply deplore such an event; but when we are legislating upon a constitutional question of the highest interest it is our duty to foresee even the most remote and unlikely possibilities—let us suppose for a moment that the heir to the Crown thought fit to change his religion and become a Roman Catholic—in what a situation would it place a subject of Her Majesty who had taken the oath of allegiance in the form containing no reference to the constitution of the country proposed by the Government? He would have taken the oath of allegiance without any reference to the Sovereign being a constitutional Sovereign, and a combination of circumstances might arise

  1717
  in which his oath might place him in collision with the law. Suppose a Prince of Wales—I will not say the Prince of Wales—suddenly professed the Roman Catholic religion, and we had a Protestant Sovereign on the throne, what a scene of intrigue would be presented! what a new, complicated and dreadfully perverted character would it give to English politics. For a series of years a party would exist in the country, the object of which would be to change the Act of Settlement in order to prepare for the accession of the Roman Catholic heir. These are great evils and possible inconveniences against which our predecessors in Parliament have always provided. I cannot understand how Her Majesty's Government could be induced to take this course, because they must acknowledge that if there is any chance of constructing—as I hope and trust we may succeed in doing—an uniform oath, it can only be done by following the principle of including nothing in it that will be obnoxious to Roman Catholics, and including in it everything which Protestant Members think of absolute necessity. I must say that it does not appear to me unreasonable that any Member of this House should agree that in taking the oath of allegiance he should take it to the Queen and her successors as limited by the laws of England. There is another point of great importance with reference to this subject. I admit that it is at first sight not so important as the one I have mentioned. The House will remember, I wish to repeat, before passing to that other point, that the position which I have been endeavouring to enforce upon it is one which has been accepted and adopted by the Roman Catholics of this country—not thirty years ago, in order to obtain political privileges—not by Archbishop Murray, or Mr. O'Connell, or Mr. Shiel—but accepted at the present time, within the last few months, by the right hon. Member for Limerick in his new project of law, in his new form of Roman Catholic oath. Even he has adopted that principle which the Government has omitted, and which I think it imperative on the House to adopt. But the other point is at first sight one of greater difficulty, nor is it strange that in the struggles of centuries and the wonderful events which have occurred in an ancient country like England there should be difficulties in the solution of such questions. But I trust if the House is determined—as I deeply and fervently hope that it is—to bring to the
  1718
  subject a candid spirit, I trust we may succeed in coming to a satisfactory settlement. Sir, the other objection which I have to the oath framed by the Government is that it makes no reference to the supremacy of the Crown, I know that is a subject on which there exist very ambiguous opinions. Different persons associate different meanings with that word, but because some minds have been confused, and have no clear conception of what is at stake, that is no reason why on an occasion like the present we should not endeavour clearly to understand what is meant by the supremacy of the Crown. The original oath of supremacy was at no time, so far as its construction is concerned, a satisfactory oath. It was, unfortunately, of a rhetorical character, which of all epithets is one which ought not to be applied to an oath. It dealt with circumstances which were difficult to deal with, some of which do not now exist. Even after it was adopted by Parliament it never would have been a possible oath for Roman Catholics to take had it not been for the gracious interpretation put upon it by one of the most celebrated, and perhaps one of the wisest Sovereigns that ever existed. It was the interpretation placed upon it personally by Queen Elizabeth, in defiance of the opinions of her councillors, that for some time permitted eminent Roman Catholics to declare their allegiance to the Sovereign. The meaning of the words supremacy of the Crown in this country at present is that the majesty of the law of England should be recognized—that in all the courts established by law the Queen's law shall be supreme. That is a fact. There is no Roman Catholic who denies that in the courts of this country established by law the Queen's authority is supreme, and that no foreign Potentate, Power, or Prelate can for a moment question the majesty of the law. No one denies it. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. I will place before the House an illustration to show how completely that is the fact. We have now fortunately in this country a Roman Catholic Judge, a great ornament to the bench, who formerly sat in this House. I will take the instance of his trying a case of bigamy. Suppose for a moment Mr. Justice Shee to be trying a case where a Roman Catholic has married a second wife by aid of the registrar. Mr. Justice Shee, in foro conscientiœ, knows well that the man is not a bigamist, because, according to his Church, the second marriage is not a good marriage.

  1719
  But does any one suppose that Mr. Justice Shee would lay down that as the law to the jury? He would decide according to the law of England, and declare that a man who had married a second time before the registrar had committed bigamy. There is no perplexity of conscience, and a Roman Catholic Judge himself thus acknowledges the supremacy of the Queen in her courts, and in fulfilment of the duties of his office declares and administers the law according to the common and statute law of England, and not according to the canon law of the Church of Rome. It is impossible there can be any Roman Catholic who denies the Queen's supremacy in her own courts. I therefore think it is a very grave objection that Her Majesty's Government have not declared in this oath of allegiance that the person who takes it acknowledges the supremacy of the Queen. I know it may be said that it is difficult and dangerous to define the supremacy of the Sovereign; and that in declaring that Her Majesty is supreme in her courts you are dangerously limiting Her Majesty's supremacy, because no doubt Her Majesty is supreme in her Courts of Justice. But I hold that to be a misapprehension. I hold that you do not in the least limit the supremacy of the Queen because you acknowledge that in the Courts of Law she is supreme. It is a partial description of her supremacy, but it is not a limited one. It does not exclude a further description of it, and that I consider an answer to that argument. I, therefore, am of opinion that just as it would be quite possible in a uniform oath that the person who pledges his allegiance to the Sovereign should also pledge it to her heirs and successors, as limited by the Act of Settlement, so the person who takes a uniform oath may acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in the courts established by law, and that no foreign Prince or Prelate has any jurisdiction therein. This is a fact which all persons acknowledge. I think, therefore, that these are materials with which a uniform oath may be constructed; which would contain nothing offensive to the conscience of the Roman Catholics, and which would, on the contrary, contain, so far as the Protestant feeling of this country is concerned, the two material points which are considered necessary. But when I look at the oath as framed by the Government, I find the bald assertion of allegiance without any reference to a fundamental, political, and
  1720
  constitutional truth, the omission of which might lead to dangerous consequences. These are the views with which I have considered the question. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I do not speak for myself only, but for those with whom I am acting—I shall not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because I am anxious that a uniform oath should be constructed. I believe, if the House will view the question with candour, we may pass a Bill which will be acceptable to Parliament and become the law of the land. It is for the House to consider whether the views which I have put forth are sound, and whether they are open to no objections except such as prejudice sanctions. In the recognition of the Act of Settlement and of the supremacy of the Queen in her Courts of Law, there appears to me to be nothing which a loyal Roman Catholic may not cheerfully approve. I have reminded the House that the proposition of the right hon. Member for Limerick—the recognized organ of the Roman Catholic Members in the House—contained a recognition of the Act of Settlement and the oath of allegiance. The interpretation which I put on the Queen's supremacy is one which I think no Roman Catholic would refuse; because it is a fact, and because we know that Her Majesty's Judges professing the Roman Catholic religion are every day, by their conduct, and by their administration and interpretation of the law, affording conclusive proof that in the Courts of England they recognize only the law of England, and not the canon law of Rome. Under these circumstances, I cheerfully consent to the second reading of the Bill. I shall take care to place on the table an uniform oath, constructed to meet the two great points which I have endeavoured to impress on the attention of the House—allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, as limited by the Act of Settlement, and the recognition of the supremacy of the Queen in the courts established by law in this country.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish to say a word or two on this subject. The proposition is that there should be a uniform oath which, all the Members of the House can take. Now, there is a small number of Members on whom the Bill as it stands will impose the necessity of making a declaration which hitherto they have not been required to make. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department will look at the affirmation to which I and a few

  1721
  other hon. Gentlemen subscribe he will find that the words are different from those which he proposes. If the word "defend" in the Government proposition means that everybody who subscribes to it will be required to take up arms, then the Members of whom I speak will be called to make an affirmation from which some thirty years ago we were excused. I do not wish now to enter into the question, but I am sure the Government will see the propriety of placing us on the same footing in this respect as that on which we have stood since we entered this House. The necessary change might be made in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I have listened to the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with considerable satisfaction, because it shows the great advance which has taken place in public opinion since the debates which took place towards the close of the last Session. The right hon. Gentleman has said, in reference to the Bill, that it deals with no real grievance. On that point I must express my dissent. It is true there is no real grievance, if real grievance means the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament, because they come here taking the oath imposed on the Members of their faith. But what is now acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman to be the case with regard to that oath? That it does contain passages needlessly offensive and insulting to the Roman Catholics, and they are bound to repeat these words as a condition of their coming here. They are obliged to declare that they abjure doctrines which they repudiate as honestly as any other class of Her Majesty's subjects, and they are also obliged to assert that they take the oath without any equivocation or mental reservation. Now, I think that is a real grievance. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that in a discussion which took place on the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) an opinion was expressed on both sides of the House that it was desirable not only that subject should be dealt with by Government, but that the principle on which we should attempt to legislate should be the establishment of one uniform oath to be taken by all Members. I expressed my concurrence in that opinion, and that Bill came so near to a uniform oath that if it had received the sanction of Parliament the necessary consequence would have been the adoption of a uniform oath. This is the principle on which the Government
  1722
  has proceeded, and I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), speaking in the name of the party of which he is the distinguished and recognized leader, is ready to agree to a uniform oath, because if this principle be conceded, it disposes of a great deal of matter which was the subject of dispute last year. The right hon. Gentleman (if I understood him correctly, and I hope I did) is willing to consent to expunge altogether from the oath those parts which are needlessly offensive to Roman Catholic Members. He is prepared beyond that to expunge the declaration of their intention to do nothing which can weaken or subvert the Established Church—which if retained at all must be as necessary in the case of Protestant Nonconformists as of Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman is, I understand, willing to consent to the omission of those words, and I rejoice that that concession is now made from the opposite side of the House, remembering as I do that the eminent Member who represents Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) in Committee upon the Bill of the right hon. Member for Limerick last year expressly asked the House to retain those words, and argued at considerable length, stating the reasons that induced him to take that course. The House, by a majority, rejected his Amendment. I rejoice to find now that we are to have no further discussion with regard to the retention of those words, and that it is distinctly admitted that they form no security whatever to the Established Church. If they give no security to the Established Church they are unnecessary, and the principle of the Bill which we now submit to Parliament is the omission of all those words in the existing oaths, whether taken by Protestants or Roman Catholics which are unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman says, with regard to the oath of allegiance, that he thinks the Bill is imperfect, inasmuch as it does not require that Members of this House should swear allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs, and successors. But the words we propose are the identical words of the existing oath of allegiance now taken by every Member of this House—those of personal allegiance to the Sovereign. Then the right hon. Gentleman refers to other words in the existing oath which require us to swear that we will maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of our power the succession to the Crown, which succession, by the Act of Settlement, is and stands limited to the

  1723
  Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs to her body, being Protestants, part of which he purposes to retain. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the omission of the words relating to the descendants of the Stuarts, because they refer to a family which has long since been extinct. But with reference to the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to retain, does he believe that the Protestant succession to the Crown depends upon their retention? It depends upon the Act of Settlement, which secures to the Crown the Protestant succession. By virtue of that Act any Sovereign who ceases to be a Protestant and joins the Roman Catholic faith, by that very act would cease to be the Sovereign of this country. This is the real security upon which we have to rely. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact that ought not to be lost sight of—namely, that this part of the oath was not imposed contemporaneously with the Act of Settlement. The great men who passed that Act did not consider it imperfect or not sufficiently binding. The oath was not imposed until a later period, when, on the death of James II., his son assumed the title of King of England, and a real danger was apprehended. The oath was then framed to require every Member of Parliament to abjure allegiance to the preson who claimed the Throne and all the descend ants of that family. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that Roman Catholics have no more objection to take this oath than we have. They are quite ready, I have no doubt, to accept it, and to maintain the succession to the Throne as established by law. The true security to the Protestant succession rests on the Act of Settlement, and we thought it would be better in framing an uniform oath not to require the use of terms which we considered superfluous and unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman asks, in what position will you place the subjects of the Crown if they take an oath of allegiance omitting those words, and if any future Sovereign should become a Roman Catholic? But the ordinary oath of allegiance makes no reference to the Act of Settlement. The ordinary oath of allegiance taken by civil officers and by officers in the army and navy makes no reference to that Act. [An hon. MEMBER: Officers in the army take no oath.] Until recently they did. They may not do so now; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware
  1724
  that that is a recent change. The form of the oath taken by civil officers is still more simple and short than that now proposed. There can be no doubt whatever that the oath is taken subject to the law of the land, and that the Sovereign to whom allegiance is sworn is the Sovereign who is entitled by law to claim the rights of the Sovereign and the allegiance of the subject. The only other part of the existing oath which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain is the declaration that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate has or ought to have any power or jurisdiction within this realm. [Mr. DISRAELI: I do not wish to retain the words, but the principle involved in them.] But the declaration that no foreign Potentate has spiritual authority within this realm must, of course, be omitted in the case of the Roman Catholics, for they cannot be expected to make that declaration, from which they are expressly exempted in the Roman Catholic oath; and would it not be absurd to call on Protestant Members to abjure the temporal authority of a foreign Potentate? At the same time, such a proceeding would imply the admission that spiritual authority is exercised. I recollect that last year it was urged that because the law of the Roman Catholic Church is different from the law of the land it was necessary to retain these words, but it is admitted that the Judges will disregard any Church, the pretension of which is contrary to the law of the land. I think the right hon. Gentleman has himself urged a strong reason against the retention of these words. He says it is a fact, and not an opinion, that the Queen's supremacy is upheld in every court by every Judge, and that justice is administered according to the law of the land and not according to canon law. I understand there is to be no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and I am very glad to find hon. Gentlemen opposite unanimous in agreeing to a uniform oath to be taken by all Members of this House. When the right hon. Gentleman lays his Amendments upon the table I can assure him that they will be dealt with by the Government in the fair and candid spirit in which he (Mr. Disraeli) hoped they would be considered. If the object we have in view shall be accomplished, we shall come here, without ranging ourselves according to differences of creed, as Members of the Legislature and loyal subjects of Her Majesty, dealing with all subjects coming

  1725
  before us in our legislative capacity, free and unfettered by any partial restrictions. With reference to the point alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), I have only to say that it will receive the attention of the Government; but I do not think that the word "defend" necessarily implies defending by arms. In the event of any danger arising to the Crown, I am sure it would have the benefit of those arguments with which the hon. Gentleman is so well able to defend any cause of which he is an advocate.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, I would not have followed the right hon. Gentleman had it not been for a certain degree of inaccuracy in his remarks as to what occurred last summer, and also as to the observations made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli). I will remind the House exactly of what took place last summer. The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) then brought forward a Bill to alter the form of the Roman Catholic oath, not proposing a uniform oath to be taken by all Members of that House. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) then rose in his place and said it would be extremely desirable to have a uniform oath for all Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks—with the concurrence of a large number of Members, if not of the majority—concurred in that opinion. He then said—
  "You do not propose this; you propose an oath which is to be taken by one section of the House, composed of Members professing a particular religion; but I object in principle to tampering with the oath which has been resolved upon two solemn occasions to be most proper to be taken by Members belonging to that section."
  In that state of things I—with the concurrence of a large number of Members on this side—proposed to omit from the Roman Catholic oath all that was obsolete and invidious, and retain that which was not so. That proposition was negatived by the House. Any course now taken in assenting to the second reading of this Bill has no other signification than that of the desirability of having a uniform oath for all Members. This is entirely in harmony with the course taken by us last summer, and the right hon. Baronet might have spared his observation to the effect that a great advance has been exhibited since last Session. The right hon. Baronet proceeded to discuss the question as if we were now talking of what should be expunged from or retained in the existing form of oath.
  1726
  The question is not now one of expunging or retaining; it is a question as to having one form of oath to be taken by all the Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman made some comments on the two points alluded to by my right hon. Friend, and I would beg to say one word as to those comments. First, as to the terms of the oath of allegiance. My right hon. Friend says you do not propose that Members should swear allegiance to the Sovereign with reference to the Act of Succession established by the Constitution of the country, but you simply propose an oath of personal allegiance to the Sovereign for the time being. But the right hon. Baronet says the succession to the Throne does not depend on the oath, but on the Act of Settlement. Now, see what length the argument of the right hon. Baronet will carry him. I agree that the succession to the Throne does not depend on the oath, but on the Act of Settlement; but does allegiance depend on the oath? Is the oath taken the only obligation to render allegiance to the Sovereign? The obligation is high and dry far above, and independent of all oaths. Therefore the right hon. Baronet, to be consistent, ought to propose that there should no longer be any form of oath to be taken. The Act of Succession is of authority without any oath. I do think that if the occasion of a Member taking his seat is considered to be worthy, as I think it is, of a solemn recognition of allegiance to the dynasty of the country as established by law, it is also worthy of this, that you should take notice of what the dynasty is, and how it is established by the fundamental constitution of the country, and refer, as we are in the habit of doing, to the Act of Settlement by which it has been established. The right hon. Baronet is in error when he says that we have not been in the habit of taking notice of "the heirs and successors" of the Sovereign, for he will find in one of the clauses—it is of no matter in which—of the oath a provision obliging us to make known to Her Majesty, "her heirs and successors," all treasons and other attempts to injure her position as the Sovereign. We do, therefore, refer at present to the heirs and successors of the Crown, but in addition to that we promise "to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of our power the succession to the Crown, which succession stands limited to the heirs of the Princess Sophia," &c. If it is worth while

  1727
  having an oath of allegiance at all it is worth while having a true oath, and that is the allegiance we are bound to render. As to the other point—the question of the supremacy—it is not a question at this moment whether we shall omit or modify the words which refer to "any foreign Prince or Potentate." The observations of nay right hon. Friend had this effect only, that just as it is right and proper when a Member takes his seat he should recognize by his solemn expression of obligation his allegiance to the Crown, so it is right and proper that on the same occasion he should take notice of that supremacy which is the highest prerogative and highest ornament of the Crown. The words in which that should be done may be properly considered in Committee. That the Queen is supreme in all her courts in this country cannot be disputed; and I cannot understand how any Member of this House can refuse to take an oath recognizing that supremacy, supposing the words in which it is expressed are fit and proper terms. I therefore trust when the proper time comes we shall be able to devise words, and that the House will support the insertion of them, recognizing the supremacy of the Crown; but this is not the proper occasion for considering what those words should be. For my own part, I shall rejoice to see an uniform oath to be taken by every Member of this House, and the right hon. Baronet is in error when he says that our minds on that point have undergone any change.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid: I watched the contest, which lasted for eleven years, on the subject of the Parliamentary Oaths, with very great anxiety, and I hope that I may be permitted to make a few observations upon the debate, as hitherto continued. I have been anxious to hear the statement of Her Majesty's Government, for I think that with them rests the onus probandi that the present oaths, taken by Members of this House so recently as three or four weeks ago, are inapplicable and offensive. I did not observe, when hon. Members came to the table of this House to be sworn, that there was any disposition to shrink from the oaths administered to them—on the contrary, there was almost an unseemly eagerness to take the oaths. The oath, taken under the Relief Act by Roman Catholic Members of the House, had been proposed forty years prior to the year 1829 by the ecclesiastical authorities of their Church, and was at their instance enacted by Parliament in order to qualify
  1728
  Roman Catholics for the discharge of the duties of Members of that House. But before I proceed any further, I wish to call the attention of the House to the gist of the whole Bill. It is proposed to retain the Oath of the Sovereign distinctively Protestant. It is proposed to retain the Succession to the Throne distinctively Protestant. But it is proposed also, by the adoption of a uniform oath, to deprive Parliament of its distinctively Protestant character, because the vast majority—I think about seven-eighths—of the Members of the House are Protestants, and, as Protestants, take an oath conformable to their opinions and their views. A measure, therefore, was proposed, under the guise of a uniform oath, by which the vast majority of Parliament should be deprived of its distinctively Protestant and Christian character, whilst the Sovereign and her successors would still remain bound by oath to uphold the principles of the Reformation and of the Revolution. I think most hon. Members scarcely appreciate the gravity of this change. We live under a constitutional monarchy, in which the political power of the Crown has been almost entirely transferred to the representatives of the Crown in Parliament. The power of the Crown is not destroyed, it is only transferred; and it is proposed that Parliament shall cease by its oaths to declare itself Protestant by its vast majority. I hope the House will excuse me for bringing this point before them, but it is a subject better understood in the country than it appears to be by the majority of the Members of this House, and I need only refer to the number of petitions I have presented, to show that the intelligence of the country has, on this subject, outstripped the intelligence of the House. I wish to show that the prerogative of the Crown is not lost, but transferred to Parliament. In 1861, upon a very different subject, it was my duty to point out to the House that the prerogative of the Crown had been abused. It had been abused on that occasion—and I cite this only as an illustration—by the appointment of an unauthorized diplomatist to effect a treaty with France. I do not now inquire whether that treaty is beneficial or not to this country, but I do refer to this only as an illustration of the abuse of the prerogative of the Crown. In the very next Session a Bill touching the imposition of taxation was introduced by the Government, which was in effect an exercise of the pre-

  1729
  rogative of the Crown in political affairs, as transferred to the representatives of the Crown in this House, and in this one Bill alterations both in the Customs and in the Inland duties were proposed. I appealed to the House then against that abuse of the prerogative, which involved an infraction of the privileges of the House, and I am happy to say the House responded to that appeal, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to divide the Bill and to abandon the principle of "tacking," as it is called in Parliamentary language, which has recently been found so inconvenient in Australia. Having deprived the Sovereign of the exercise of that which was the prerogative of the Crown, Parliament is about, by an alteration of the oaths, to declare itself no longer distinctively Protestant, so that the prerogative of the Crown would be transferred to a body not distinctively Protestant, whilst Her Majesty, as the Sovereign of these realms, was still to remain bound under all the obligations which had been felt necessary since the Reformation, and which had become still more obligatory, as enacted after the Revolution. It seems to me that this view has not occurred to any of the speakers who have preceded me. The Bill before the House repeals or abrogates all the forms of oath, which bind both Protestant Members and Roman Catholic Members to uphold the succession and the supremacy. The question as to the succession has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member (Sir Hugh Cairns). As to the supremacy, what occurred in 1828? Mr. O'Connell then came to this House prepared to take the whole oath except the declaration as to the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of the Crown. He could not reconcile that to his conscience as a Roman Catholic, and he retired. What did Parliament do? Did it sweep away from the general oaths all that affirms the supremacy of the Crown in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as in matters temporal? Nothing of the kind The statesmen of that day were satisfied that so long as the majority of this House were bound by their oaths to maintain the supremacy of the Crown in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, as well as in matters temporal and civil, the country, without any fear of a disturbance of the fundamental laws of the land, could afford the act of liberality which was then extended to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Now, I ask the House what new circum-
  1730
  stances have occurred? Whether there is anything in the position of the Papacy, whether there is anything in the position of the Roman Catholics, in respect to their liability to the spiritual influence of the Papacy, which should make us sweep away the safeguard of having a majority of this House bound not to disturb the supremacy of the law, that supremacy being essential to the freedom of this Protestant, and, therefore, wholly and really independent country. I wish now, Sir, to touch for a few moments on another point. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says, "What matters it about oaths with reference to the succession, when that is secured by the Act of Settlement?" Then I would ask, if that be so, what does it matter whether we take the oath of allegiance or not? The oath of allegiance is statutory; ever since the Revolution, indeed long before that time, the Crown has been held by law; the Act of Settlement itself is but an Act of Parliament, and stands on the same foundation as the Act of Parliament which establishes the monarchy; and if we are to tamper with the oath which binds us to conform to the Act of Settlement and the succession to the Throne, what reason is there for an oath of allegiance at all? There is none whatever; and I ask hon. Members to consider this. Hitherto there have been five points in the Constitution, which have been considered as covered by the fundamental laws of this country—laws regarded by the Constitution as something more than mere Acts of Parliament, constituting turnpike trusts or railway companies. The first point covered by the oath is allegiance to the Sovereign personally; the second point is the right of succession to the Throne under the Act of Settlement, which in the first four lines recites the Bill of Rights, thereby securing not only the succession to the Throne, but the rights and privileges of the subject—those rights and privileges which every man now enjoys, and which commenced in Roman Catholic times, as far back in our history as the early part of the reign of Henry II., and were more fully developed in Magna Charta. The third point of law covered by our oath is that of the supremacy, which rejects any foreign jurisdiction, whether Papal or any other in this country; the supremacy, therefore, is also asserted by a statute, covered by our oath. The other two points covered by the oath

  1731
  taken by the Roman Catholic Members of the House are, that the Acts of Settlement of property shall not be disturbed, and that the Established Church shall not be overthrown. What is this Act of Settlement? There are, in fact, two Acts of Settlement of property. The first was passed in the reign of Philip and Mary, which declares the inalienable right of the then possessors to the property formerly held by the monastic orders of the Church of Rome. The other Act was passed in the reign of Charles II., and it declares inalienable the property in Ireland which had been confiscated, whether previously belonging to the monastic orders or to laymen. The Roman Catholic swears that these settlements of property, which have existed so long, he will not contest. The fifth point is the inviolability of the Church of England as by law established; and to that also the Roman Catholic pledges himself by the oath taken at the table of this House. Now, I wish to show the importance of maintaining these oaths. It is strange that it should be contested, because for more than 300 years, commencing with the first year of Elizabeth, the importance of these oaths has been admitted; and never from that period has any oath taken by Members of Parliament failed to include the supremacy of the law and of the Crown. I wish to put this point clearly. When hon. Members have sworn that they will not attempt certain objects—whether those objects may be the subversion of the monarchy, or to change the succession, or to abrogate the supremacy, or to disturb the settlement of property, which I have described, or to overthrow the Established Church—until these oaths be abrogated, no question can be put from the Chair of either House for the purpose of effecting those objects. Hitherto it has been contrary to order in this House for any hon. Member to move that the form of Government shall be changed, say from a monarchy to a republic. It is contrary to the order of Parliament for any Member to propose a change in the Succession. It is contrary to the order of Parliament for any Member to propose an infraction of the supremacy of the Crown. On the first three points this is especially the case, because such proposals would be contrary to the oaths of the majority of this House, and with respect to the two remaining points covered by the Roman Catholic path, it would be unbecoming and contrary to order if any Roman Catholic Member of
  1732
  Parliament were to propose the infraction of the settlement of property or the subversion of the Church Establishment. I think, then, I have shown how futile is the assertion of the Home Secretary when he says, "Never mind the oath as a guard to the succession—that is guarded by the Act of Settlement." Let this Bill pass, and Parliament is at liberty at any moment to deal with the Act of Settlement as with any other statute. The fact is, the abolition of these oaths changes the character of the laws which as yet guard these fundamental points, and would place it in the power of Parliament to treat them as no longer forming the basis of the Constitution. By the Bill of the Government it is proposed to leave one object guarded by our oaths, and that is allegiance to the Sovereign; mind, not allegiance to the Throne of this country as established by the Act of Settlement, but allegiance only to the person of the Sovereign. I hope the House will forgive my earnestness. I have heard these subjects debated repeatedly during the many years I have had a seat in this House, and they are, perhaps, more familiar to me than to most hon. Members, and I do not think anyone will be able to contest any of the points which I have now stated. I have given notice that I shall move the rejection of this Bill, and what do I find? The hon. Members on this side of the House have attended a meeting held, I am told, to-day under the auspices of a noble Earl, and they have agreed not to resist the second reading of this Bill; they appear to have abandoned nearly all the ground on which, as a matter of principle, they resisted a change in the Roman Catholic Oath last Session. ["No, no!"] I remember an expression used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire during the long contest which preceded the adoption of what is called free trade. He was speaking of the House of Lords, and he said, "The House of Lords is drilled into a guard-room. The House of Lords has no will of its own." I should be sorry to think that this is the case also with the great Conservative party. I object to the whole principle of this Bill. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] I know that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield does not object to it. Scarcely any extreme measure has been proposed for which he has not at one time or other voted; I may have the misfortune on this grave constitutional ques-

  1733
  tion to differ with the hon. and learned Gentleman. At all events, he has no right to interrupt the expression of my opinion. I do object to the proposal of any uniform oath. I object for the reasons I have stated, and for another reason. Hitherto every Member returned to this House declares the religion to which he belongs. Hitherto no body of electors could be deceived as to that, or, it they should be, it could not happen twice, for when their representative comes to the table of this House he must declare himself. If he be a Protestant he takes the Protestant oath, which concludes with the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Those words have been declared by the clear decision of the Courts of Law, continued by repeated decisions of this House, to form a substantial part of the oath. Therefore, neither the Courts nor any prior Parliament have ever underrated the importance of these words. The Roman Catholic, when he comes to the table, claims to take the Roman Catholic oath, and in doing so declares himself to be a Christian of the Roman Catholic persuasion; and if any Member not a Roman Catholic imposes upon the officers of the House by taking the Roman Catholic oath, he is liable to a fine of £500 every time he votes. I saw it attempted once; and I saw the Member who attempted it hasten to correct his conduct. When the Quaker comes and claims to make a declaration, he does so as a Christian; for before Quakers were admitted, Mr. Pease, as the representative of their body, before a Committee of this House, distinctly declared them to be Christians. Then came the admission of the Jews; and after a controversy of eleven years' duration a conference was held with the other House of Parliament, and what then was done? In order to preserve the recognition of the general but distinctively Christian character of this House it was resolved and enacted that Jewish Members should be admitted to take their seats by resolution. This may seem a small matter to some hon. Gentlemen. I admit that it is a matter of less importance to this House, because if any Member of the Jewish persuasion were to make himself offensive in this House, he would not be re-elected by the constituency which had returned him. But what will be the effect of repealing this provision on the House of Lords? If this Bill passes, the House of Lords will cease to have any voice in the admission
  1734
  of Jews as its Members, and if the Sovereign should create a Jewish Peer he will not only be admitted for life, but with the right of succession by inheritance, inherent in his family. Therefore the change contemplated by this Bill will be greater by far as it regards the House of Lords than as regards the House of Commons. I do not think it any small change that the Imperial Parliament of this Protestant country should cease to be characterized by the declaration that its vast majority are Christians and Protestants. These are the changes contemplated by this Bill, and they are deprecated by the petitions I presented this evening. There-tore, as I see that a great Constitutional change will be inaugurated by this Bill—us I believe that this measure is intended to facilitate still greater changes, and to render these changes, by making them step by step, insensibly less unpalatable to the country, because not fully under-stood—I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that it was not his intention to take part in the discussion so far as it related to the oath of 1829, because he considered that was a question beyond the jurisdiction of the House. It was now a part of the Constitution as much as the Act of Settlement. The House had no legal power to pass the Bill now before them. Having regard to the circumstances under which it was passed, the modification of the Act of Settlement contained in the measure which it was sought to repeal by the present Bill became a part of the Constitution of the country. The question that there should be one uniform oath or not was a question the House ought to be qualified to discuss, although it seemed to him to re-open the question of oaths quite unnecessarily But, assuming that the House did pass the second reading of this Bill, he intended to move that it be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting under what circumstances the present oath for Roman Catholic Members had been enacted, and what new circumstances now required its repeal The oath of 1829 had been deliberately agreed to by the Roman Catholic Members, and he really could not see what cause of com-

  1735
  plaint they now had. It was said to be offensive to the sentiments of some Roman Catholics, but if that were to be admitted as a reason why it should be repealed there would be no reason why they should not repeal any other enactment which any Roman Catholics might think offensive to their feelings. If they were to alter the Parliamentary oath because it was offensive to the feelings of Roman Catholics, how much more would they be bound to carry out every provision of the Encyclical Letter out of deference to the feelings of the same portion of Her Majesty's subjects? The present time was particularly inopportune for such a change. He believed that we were in great danger from the influence of that Roman Catholic power whose feelings they were then asked to consult. He believed that Fenianism—[A cry of "Sing, sing !"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he heard an expression which was not Parliamentary; he begged it might not be repeated.
  MR. WHALLEY: He thanked the Speaker for calling attention to that interruption of a Member who was endeavouring to do his duty. Let him remind them of the first occasion on which that un-Parliamentary expression was raised, and was continued in a manner which rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard. He begged leave to remind them that the first occasion on which that invocation was used was in the year 1862. He had then denounced the spirit of Fenianism which was taking root, as shown by the proceedings in Dublin, emanating from students of Maynooth, on the occasion of the marriage of the Prince of Wales. He said before the outbreak of the American War that Fenianism was fostered in America by Archbishop Hughes, and that it was instigated and sustained as a portion of their duty by the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. On every occasion of rebellion in 1848, in 1798, and in 1642—the Roman Catholic clergy secretly or openly favoured the rebels. At the present moment there was Fenianism in the army, as might naturally he expected from the character of the books placed in the hands of the soldiers. If he got a Select Committee he would undertake to prove that Fenianism was Romanism, and nothing else; that it had down to a recent period been instigated by the Roman Catholic clergy, that it penetrated to the army, and that none of our institutions were safe from it. If a Select Committee were appointed, it would
  1736
  be easy for him to prove, and he would undertake to prove, that the oath could not be any possible barrier to what a Roman Catholic regarded as his duty to his Church, because it was a permanent principle that no oath was binding on a Roman Catholic which interfered with his duty to the Church. They ought to hesitate before they unsettled the foundations of the Act of 1829, and, under those circumstances, he begged leave to give notice that if the Bill should pass the second reading he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. CHAMBERSsaid, he agreed in everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) upon that subject. He also concurred in many of the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); and if that were a Bill merely for altering the Roman Catholic oath he should go into the lobby with his hon. Friend. But that was not the question then before them. The issue raised at present was whether it was desirable that one form of oath should be taken by all the Members of the House; and if such an oath could he framed a great advantage would, in his opinion, be gained by such a change. He did not approve of the form of oath proposed in the Bill; and he would recommend his hon. Friend to oppose the clauses of the measure in Committee, but not to divide the House on the occasion of the second reading.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 5: Majority 293.

  NOES.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Brooks, R

  TELLERS.

  Kendall, N.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Lefroy, A.

  Williams, Colonel

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had given notice of a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but after what had just taken place, he need not trouble the House to divide again. He would only appeal to Her Majesty's Government, assuring them that since last Session he had come into possession of facts which proved that the disasters our troops sustained in New Zealand, and the disgrace which had befallen

  1737
  our arms in that colony were the direct result of the machinations of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that there was now no living representative of the Roman Catholic descendants of James II., but if a Committee were granted him he (Mr. Whalley) should be in a position to prove that Dr. Cullen, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, had recently produced a work in which he pointed out the true Sovereign on whom the dynasty of England now rested, and whom Roman Catholics, to be consistent, were absolutely bound to use all their efforts to place upon the Throne. He had now relieved himself of the responsibility which the knowledge of these circumstances placed upon him, and had thrown that responsibility entirely upon the Government.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CASE OF MR. FERGUSON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he rose to call attention to this case. He thought further inquiry into it was demanded, not only in the interest of Mr. Ferguson himself, but also in that of the public. He had given notice to call attention to the case on Monday last, but finding that the magistrate at Greenwich had committed the unfortunate gentleman for trial he had postponed his Notice, and had added to it a notice of Motion for certain Returns that would throw light on the matter. The case was one of great hardship. The facts had appeared in the newspapers, and he might be allowed, perhaps, shortly to allude to them. It appeared that this gentleman, Mr. Ferguson, lived in the neighbourhood of Greenwich. He was a professor of music, and was passing quietly to his home, about two o'clock, a few nights ago, after fulfilling a professional engagement which necessitated his being out to a late hour. He had occasion on his way to pass along one of the suburban roads leading from the Crystal Palace, where be was accosted by
  1738
  a very suspicious looking person with "Goodnight." Mr. Ferguson, who had a silk umbrella in one hand, and his music, wrapped in a case, in the other, walked on, but the suspicious looking person—for it seems he was dressed somewhat after the fashion of the highwaymen of past times—whether because he was drunk, or because he felt disposed to practice a little on his own account, followed him. Mr. Ferguson, as the man approached him, naturally took to his heels and ran; the suspicious person ran in pursuit, and, being more fleet of foot than the professor, soon overtook him, endeavoured to take from him his music, and failing in the attempt, knocked him down. Mr. Ferguson contrived to get up, and struggled with his assailant, but he was again knocked down; whereupon he cried out, "What do you want with me? I am a musician. I will shoot you if you do not let me go," though he had no firearms. The suspicious looking person, however, without speaking a word, instead of desisting, continued to assault him while he lay on the ground, and Mr. Ferguson drew a short clasp knife and wounded him. He then managed to get to the other side of the road, and, taking out his watch and chain, said, "Here is my property. Take it; but if you strike me again I will shoot you," The struggle was again renewed, Mr. Ferguson shouting out, "Murder, police!" Having by that means succeeded, as he thought, in summoning to his assistance the guardians of the night, and having charged the man with attacking him on the Queen's highway, he was greatly surprised to find himself dragged by the policeman who appeared upon the scene to the next station-house, where he was thrown into a cell and subjected to great indignity. The next day he was taken before a magistrate, who, without asking him a single question, ordered him to be remanded for eight days without bail. At the end of that time he was again examined before the magistrate, and again remanded, and on Monday last he was committed for trial. Now, under these circumstances a great wrong had, he thought, clearly been inflicted on the gentleman in question. This gentleman, knowing he had done no wrong, must have fancied that he was all at once transported to some land of savages, where only brutal violence reigned. He had last night received the following letter from this gentleman, detailing the particulars of the assault upon him in a manner not hitherto made public:—

  1739
  "26, St. Aubyn's Road, Upper Norwood,
  Surrey, March 6, 1866.
  "Sir,—Seeing by the papers that you have kindly taken an interest in my case, I take the liberty of enclosing you an account of the whole transaction.
  "After playing at Mr. Noake's party, on my way home, and while walking from Sydenham to Upper Norwood, I observed a rough-looking man loitering on the roadside. As I passed I bade him 'Good morning.' I wore a dark grey Inverness cape, black felt hat, and long shining leather knickerbockers, or leggings, up to my knees. I carried in one hand a small silk umbrella, closed; in the other my portfolio of music (not a bag as described in the papers), with a strap round it, hung on my finger and quite visible, as when walking on these occasions I always throw back the outside cape for convenience. When some yards past the man I heard him following me. The road became more lonely as I advanced. I considered he had a design on me, and quickened my pace. Finding he did the same and was gaining on me I felt much alarmed, and concluded he was a garrotter coming on to attack me Hoping to gain the Crystal Palace Police Station, which was quite convenient, I ran for my life, He overtook me, and seized me by the arm. To intimidate him I threatened to blow his brains out, although having no firearms. I was knocked down and struck while on the ground. He afterwards seized me by the neck. I struggled hard to get from him. I told him I would give him my property, and that I was a musician. He continued to beat and drag me about. After a long and desperate struggle, and finding my strength failing, and that he was trying to knock me down again, I considered he was about to murder me. I thought of my dear wife and children and became mad with terror and despair, and shouting 'I shall not be murdered and taken from them,' struck out in defence of my life. After some struggling I got free and ran to the opposite side of the road. Finding him following, and believing my property and life to be his object, I took out my watch and chain, laid them on the pathway and said,' There, take them; take all; but do not touch me.' [All this time I continually shouted 'murder," police.'] In order to get a barrier of defence and in the hope of the inmates of the house assisting me, I sprang over a garden gate. Seeing him approach I presented my knife, threatening to shoot him if he came near me. After some time two constables in uniform came up, when I immediately cried out to them, I charge that man with attacking me on the highway; take him into custody.' I got over the gate, and to my surprise was seized by one of the constables, was roughly handled, and marched bareheaded to Sydenham Police Station. It was not till after the police came up to the gate I discovered he was not a garrotter, but a policeman in disguise. After being locked up in a cell I was from that time treated with every indignity, at times handcuffed, stripped naked, my person minutely examined, even to the inside of my mouth. Locked up at night in a cold cell, with open window and insufficient covering, and this in intensely cold weather; and not allowed to see my friends except through a double wirework, with small apartment between, and an officer present.
  "With grateful thanks for your noble efforts in the cause of justice and humanity, I have the honour to be, Sir, your truly obliged humble servant,
  JOSEPH FERGUSON,"
  1740
  The Returns he wished were—Copies: 1. Of the entry on the charge-sheet of the Greenwich or any other police district under which Mr. Ferguson was locked up in a police-cell on the night he was assaulted. 2. Of the report of the acting sergeant or inspector of the same district to his superior officer, or to the stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction therein, by which he justified the refusal to take the charge preferred by Mr. Ferguson against the person who had assaulted him. 3. Of the evidence on which Mr. Traill, the stipendiary magistrate of the Greenwich district, ordered Mr. Ferguson to be sent to prison for eight days. 4. Of the evidence on which Mr. Traill subsequently committed that gentleman for trial, and of the warrant under which he was committed. And 5. Of the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Police to persons called detective officers, and of the regulations by which those special instructions are modified and controlled. Now, he wished to know by the Returns he asked for why the policemen who arrived at the spot did not take the charge of assault preferred by Mr. Ferguson against the policeman in plain clothes, and why the policeman preferred a charge of assault against him; how it was that the acting officer at the station in his Report to his superiors justified his conduct in not allowing Mr. Ferguson to make any statement, throwing him into a cell, and subjecting him there to indignities; and how it was that he failed to send to the gentleman's house, which was not far distant, but insisted on treating him as a criminal? He also wanted to know under what English law the magistrate ordered this man to be further locked up in solitary confinement for eight days? Mr. Traill had all the facts before him, and therefore he asked why did that magistrate refuse to consider the gentleman's statement and insist on treating him as a criminal? Mr. Traill was in a different position from that in which a policeman stood. It was his business to sift carefully all questions, and there was nothing, as appeared from the report in the newspapers, to justify him in deciding as he did. It appeared in evidence that the policeman admitted that he first assaulted Mr. Ferguson, and that the latter did not know him to be a policeman, as he did not show his uniform or spring a rattle. Mr. Traill, however, though he knew that Mr. Ferguson was no returned convict or offender under surveillance, and that be had been outraged and injured, or-

  1741
  dered him to prison for eight days without bail. This might be Mr. Traill's law, but it was not English law. If there had been conflicting testimony, if the policeman had said that he exhibited his uniform, even then, in the absence of a warrant, Mr. Ferguson was justified in resisting, and Mr. Traill would have been justified in taking the man's own bail for his appearance. He thought that in this matter a great public principle was involved. By the law of England every man guilty of no offence was entitled to personal liberty, and to be free from vexatious, arbitrary, and tyrannical arrest. There seemed to be no dispute that an Englishman was justified in resisting illegal arrest, even to the extent of slaying the arrester. A high prerogative writer on the English Constitution, De Lolme, stated that the right of opposing violence in whatever shape and form, whatever quarter it might come from, was so generally acknowledged that the courts of law had sometimes grounded their judgments on it. De Lolme proceeded to relate on this head the following fact:—
  "A constable being out of his precinct arrested a woman whose name was Anne Dekins; one Fooley took her part, and in the heat of the fray killed the assistant of the constable. Being prosecuted for murder, he alleged in his defence that the illegality of the imprisonment was a sufficient provocation to make the homicide excusable and entitle him to the benefit of his clergy. The jury, having settled the matter of fact, left the criminality of it to be decided by the Judge by returning a special verdict. The cause was adjourned to the King's Bench, and thence again to Serjeant's Inn for the opinion of the twelve Judges, Here follows the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Holt in giving judgment—If one be imprisoned upon an unlawful authority, it is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion, much more so when it is done under the colour of justice, and when the liberty of the subject is invaded it is a provocation to all the subjects of England."
  It was a remarkable circumstance that Chief Justice Holt left a memorandum in MS. upon this subject of singular interest. He said that it
  "Is not lawful even for a legal constable to take up a woman upon bare suspicion only, having been guilty of no breach of the peace, nor any unlawful act."
  Of late constables had made a practice of taking up women only for walking the streets, but he did not know where they had such authority. Mr. Justice Bayley gave his opinion with regard to night-walkers in these words—
  "Where a private Act authorized watchmen to apprehend nightwalkers, malefactors, and sus-
  1742
  picious persons, and a watchman apprehended a gentleman returning from a party, it was held that apprehension was illegal, for by night-walkers is meant such persons as are in the habit of being out at night for some wicked purpose."
  Mr. Russell, in his Treatise on Crimes, vol. I. p. 809, says—
  "It has been considered that the taking up of a person in the night as a nightwalker and disorderly person, though by a lawful officer, would be illegal if the person so arrested were innocent, and there were no reasonable grounds of suspicion to mislead the officer."
  There was also the law with reference to justifiable homicide. By the Statute of Henry VIII.—
  "If any person attempt to rob or murder another in or near the highway or in a dwelling-house, or attempt to break any dwelling-house in the night time, and be killed in the attempt, the slayers shall be acquitted and discharged."—24 Henry VIII. c. 5."And the same where a man is killed in attempting to burn a house."—1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 488. "Or where a woman kills a man who attempts to ravish her."—Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, c. 28, s. 22. "Or where a man is killed in attempting to break open a house in the day time with intent to rob."—1 Hale, 288. "Or to commit any other forcible and atrocious crime."—Braeton, 273; Kelynge's Report, 128–9;1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 482.
  That seemed to be the law of the case, and if he referred to other authorities, he did not know that he could better establish his case. In this instance there was no policeman in uniform. The gentleman was assailed in an unjustifiable manner; the magistrate who committed him thought it his duty to treat him as a prisoner, and as one who had committed a crime. He might be told that those notions of constitutional and common law to which he referred were all very well, but that the police had strange powers and privileges, with which we were not thoroughly acquainted. If this be so, let them be at once distinctly declared. Such powers were unconstitutional, contrary to Magna Charts, the Bill of Rights, the declarations and decisions of the Courts, and the whole spirit of British law. He knew that after the passing of the New Police Act of Sir Robert Peel, there was an aggregation of subsidiary Acts passed, in explanation or in aid of that Act, which did not fully disclose their powers and intentions, and perhaps the police had obtained their authority under these Acts, although contrary to the fundamental principles of English liberty. If this were so, let there be a Committee to examine the whole of these Acts, and ascertain whether the police had ob-

  1743
  tained powers inconsistent with all the civil rights the people of this country supposed they were entitled to, and if it were then found that a power had grown up by which those civil rights to which we believed we were entitled had been handed over to a sort of police minister, created by these Acts, let every effort be made to remedy it, and bring it in accordance with the spirit of English law. He said nothing in disparagement of the police as a body. He believed it was in the main an excellent body, and had been wisely and ably administered. But it was just possible that the Police Commissioners desired to obtain, and had succeeded in obtaining, powers which encroached directly on the liberty of the subject. It was just because the police was an excellent institution that it should be carefully and jealously watched. If not it would become a system of terrorism and aggression. Had the police power to arrest a person without a warrant? Under what regulations had the detective police been established? What discretion was given to them? and was it of a character dangerous to the liberty of the subject? What was really intended for our protection against civil danger ought not to be permitted to grow up as a system of tyranny and oppression. Unless something were done, the people of this country, who were quiet, orderly, and tractable, would make their feelings and sentiments known in no mistakeable terms. The police were, as a body, respectable men. So far as their duties in the neighbourhood of that House was concerned they were entitled to the respect and praise of hon. Members. But there were black sheep in every force; and it was not long since a person in the guise of a constable at Shrewsbury had stripped a gentleman of everything he had on, and locked him up. Suppose an hon. Member attacked, where was resistance to begin? where was tacit submission to end? If he ventured to resist he might be locked up, stripped, treated as a felon, remanded without bail for ten days, and committed for trial. All garotters in future might say they were policemen. Not long ago there was a great apprehension on this subject. Members of the House were themselves assailed. If an Englishman on the Continent had been exposed to treatment like that, all the embassies in the civilized world would be in commotion. He hoped, then, the Returns would be granted.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave oat from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copies of the entry on the charge sheet of the Greenwich or any other Police District, under which Mr. Ferguson was looked up in a police cell on the night he was assaulted:—Of the Report of the acting Sergeant or Inspector of the same district to his superior officers, or to the Stipendiary Magistrate having jurisdiction therein, by which he justified the refusal to take the charge preferred by Mr. Ferguson against the person who had assaulted him:—Of the Evidence on which Mr. Traill, the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Greenwich District ordered Mr. Ferguson to be sent to prison for eight days:—Of the Evidence on which Mr. Traill subsequently committed that gentleman for trial, and of the Warrant under which he was committed:—And, of the Instructions issued by the Commissioners of Police to persons called detective officers, and of the regulations by which these special instructions are modified and con-troled,"—(Mr. S. B. Sheridan,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to make the statement he had, because the matter was now the subject of a judicial investigation, and he (Sir George Grey) was consequently prevented from making such a reply as he otherwise should have done. He therefore hoped hon. Members would not take the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Dudley, avowedly derived from the newspapers, as a correct version of what took place on the occasion referred to. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he had read Mr. Ferguson's letter to the House.]] The hon. Gentleman had also criticized Mr. Traill's conduct upon the same information; but he should remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Traill had all the facts before him and acted upon evidence given on oath. The policeman was an inmate of Guy's Hospital Buffering from the wounds inflicted upon him by Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Traill went there and took what was then supposed to be the deposition of a dying man, and it was in consequence of that and the statement of the surgeon that the policeman's life was in imminent danger that Mr. Traill considered it to be his duty to remand Mr. Ferguson, the person charged with inflicting the wounds, for a week. At the end of that week, there being every prospect that the policeman would recover, Mr. Ferguson was admitted to bail, and had been out of custody for the last fortnight, and it was now doubtful if he would be committed for trial. The hon. Gentleman said—and it showed how incorrectly

  1745
  he was informed—he had been committed for trial. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: He was on last Monday.] He was not committed for trial, but he was remanded until the 24th of this month, and he is out upon bail. The magistrate, who was fully in possession of all the facts of the case, did what he considered he was, bound in duty to do under the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner of Police wished the police magistrate to take such a course unbiased by the statement of the police, as he thought the end of justice would require. He, however, was bound to say—but with no desire to prejudice Mr. Ferguson's case, as there was to be a further judicial investigation—that it was the duty of the policeman to be where he was in plain clothes, and that when the policeman first accosted Mr. Ferguson he has been informed that he showed him his staff as a symbol of his authority. He had heard much to-night that was new to him, and judging from the facts that had been stated to him there was much in the hon. Member for Dudley's version of the case which was incorrect. A great deal of the hon. (he did not know if he was entitled to call him learned) Gentleman's speech might have been spared the House with regard to the extraordinary powers of the police. No such powers existed as he supposed, and policemen were subjected to the ordinary law of the country, and if a policeman exceeded his duty he was amenable to the laws and was liable to punishment for such excess of duty. No such power was claimed by the police as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. With regard to what he had said with reference to female street-walkers, they could not be apprehended unless they had committed or were suspected of having committed an offence. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: I did not refer to female street-walkers.] Mr. Ferguson was not apprehended as a street-walker, It appeared that during the early part of the winter numerous robberies were committed in the neighbourhood of Sydenham, and in December last an application was made to the Chief Commissioner for further police assistance for a limited time, and one inspector and four policemen in plain clothes were added to the police force of the neighbourhood, in order, if possible, to give protection to those persons on whom these robberies had been committed. With the ordinary police force of the neighbourhood in their uniform it was impossible to apprehend these offenders, for they watched
  1746
  the men on their beats, and committed the robberies complained of before they returned. He, however, would not then further enter into the details, because if the matter was to become the subject of further judicial investigation it would be better that the jury should come to the consideration of the case unbiased by anything he might then state. Mr. Traill, notwithstanding what had been said, had only done his duty. He had taken the evidence of a man who was in a dying state, and he acted as any other magistrate would have done under the circumstances, by remanding the person so charged with inflicting these dangerous wounds until it was seen whether the policeman was likely to recover or not. As soon as it was ascertained that the policeman was likely to recover, Mr. Ferguson was admitted to bail, and he was further remanded until the 24th of this month. The police were ready and willing to leave it to the magistrate to say whether, under all the circumstances, it would be necessary to send Mr. Ferguson for trial. To do Mr. Ferguson justice, there could be no doubt that he acted under great terror at the moment. He was returning home at three o'clock in the morning with a parcel under his arm, and when the policeman went up to him he said he was a policeman, and asked Mr. Ferguson who he was, having a suspicion that he had committed a felony, in consequence of his having a parcel under his arm. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley had alluded to what he called the extraordinary power granted to a policeman of apprehending a person without a warrant. By the Police Act it was the duty of a constable to apprehend any person whom he suspected of having committed a felony, and the question whether he had good grounds for doing so was of course one for future consideration. It was sufficient that he had a reasonable suspicion to justify him in adopting such a course, but it was impossible then to adduce in that House the evidence to show that the policeman had in this case a reasonable suspicion for what he did. The case being sub judice, he thought it would be better not to go into further details. For the same reason he could not consent to produce the papers moved for, as that would invite the House to judge whether the magistrate was right in acting as he had done, but he had no objection to give the charge-sheet which stated the nature of the charge that was made against Mr. Ferguson, and also a copy of the instruc-

  1747
  tions under which policemen in plain clothes were employed. He hoped the House would not constitute itself a judicial tribunal for the consideration of a case that had been avowedly stated on information contained in the newspapers and on the ex parte statement of the person accused. It was but right that he should also state that Mr. Ferguson, after finding what he had done, had expressed his deep sorrow. Every one who was at all acquainted with the high character of Mr. Traill, and the long experience he had had, must know that he was not a gentleman who would do an act that would lay himself open to just animadversion, He hoped the House would suspend its judgment until the matter had undergone further judicial investigation.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee:—ARMY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (on Account).
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £1,134,800, Commissariat Establishment.
COLONEL H. H. FANEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, looking at the great difficulty now experienced in officering the Militia, and the consequent necessity of getting officers from the half-pay of the Line and distant localities, he would be prepared to allow them travelling expenses beyond the boundaries of their several counties and to their bonâ fide residences?
MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, if it would not, in his opinion, facilitate recruiting for the army if appointments in the Civil Service, up to the value of 25 s. per week, were thrown open to those soldiers who, after eighteen years' service with good character, chose to qualify themselves for these appointments? He said, that under the Ten Years' Act Her Majesty lost the services of non-commissioned officers just at the time they were most useful. At present, non-commissioned officers who after leaving the army obtained situations gave the greatest satisfaction, and he was sure that they would be perfectly competent to discharge the duties of messengers and similar offices in the Civil Service. At present the annual sum paid to the mes-
1748
sengers in the Civil Service was £35,000 a year, and he thought that nothing would tend more to facilitate recruiting than the knowledge on the soldier's part that if he behaved himself well in the army he might obtain one of those situations when his period of service was completed. It might be said that by the adoption of the suggestion the Government would lost patronage. He did not at all wish to see the patronage in the hands of the Government diminished, but he thought that when the Government had given up the patronage of the more important offices, they might as well do the same with the smaller ones. He hoped that the matter would receive the attention of the Royal Commission about to be appointed.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the subject had come under the notice of a Commission of which he was the president, and they made a distinct recommendation to the Government. He believed, if the War Office would act upon that recommendation a little more extensively, one of the present difficulties in the way of recruiting would be put an end to.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Fane) had been several times under the consideration of different Secretaries of State, none of whom considered it would be advisable to make any change in the present system, because the militia force was intended to be, and it was hoped, in spite of the difficulty at present experienced in obtaining subaltern officers, would continue to be mainly a local force. He doubted whether the payment of the travelling expenses of the officers to their own residences would remove the difficulty of obtaining subaltern officers. He believed that officers on half-pay in the Line would not join the militia in any rank subordinate to that of captain. The matter had been under consideration, and it did not appear that any good result would be obtained from the payment of larger sums. In reply to the question of the other hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Percy Wyndham), he had no hesitation in saying that it would be a very great advantage to recruiting for the Line if the Civil Service could be thrown open to pensioners to a greater extent than it was at present. The experiment had been tried for a short time of employing soldier clerks in the War Office, and it had proved successful. The heads of the Department spoke highly of them, and of the efficient

1749
manner in which they performed their duties. If the experiment should continue to work satisfactorily in the War Department no doubt it would be an inducement to other Departments to follow the same course.
COLONEL NORTH, said he wished to ask why the amount of the Vote was smaller than last year?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that it was in consequence of the reduction of the force in China.
COLONEL NORTHsaid he did not think the force in China had been reduced.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the number of subordinate officers of Commissariat employed was not stated in the Estimates. He also wished to ask a few questions with reference to the rations, fie wanted to know if the rations were served to 133,000 men, or to a greater or less number, and whether they were served for 365 or 300 days? He also wished to know if a ration cost the same in England as in the colonies, and if this was not the case, how much it cost in India and how much in the colonies?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the forces in China had not yet been reduced, but they would shortly be, as one regiment had been ordered home. In the Appendix to the Estimates a very full statement was given of all the officers in the Commissariat Department, and of the number of subordinates employed at each station. Rations were provided for the whole of the troops on the home establishment for every day in the year; and he saw that they were provided for the troops in several of the colonies in the same manner as was done at home. He could not then speak as to the practice in regard to rations in the rest of the colonies.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to inquire what the "consolidated allowances" alluded to in one of the items consisted of?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, they consisted of colonial allowances which were now given in a consolidated form.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he wished to call attention to the increasing charge for the conveyance of troops by railway. It amounted to upwards of £5,000 more than in the preceding year. The reason that formerly existed for moving the quarters of our troops so frequently no longer operated. Within the last twelve months there had been an unnecessary movement of troops from England to Ireland, and from Ireland to England, before the recent unhappy
1750
occurrences in the sister country. They might now keep their troops in England for two years instead of one year at particular stations, which would save much expense.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £454,400, Clothing Establishments.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought the charge for the clothing of our soldiers was very high, and nearly double the cost of the clothing for the corresponding grades of the French army. Great care was taken in regard to the clothing of the French soldier, particularly as to accuracy in fitting him. He wished to refer to the clothing establishment at Pimlico, and submitted that the tailoring wages should be of less amount than they appeared to be. By means of contracts or by efficient superintendence, an endeavour ought to be made to effect a reduction in that Vote.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that in instituting a comparison between the cost of the clothing of the English and the French army they must not be misled by the French Estimates, which simply included the coatee, the trousers, and the shako. He did not think either that the quality of the material was equal to that used here. The French soldier received an allowance in respect of his other articles of dress. The Government clothing manufactory at Pimlico had been of great service, not only in supplying a better kind of cloth and better fitting clothes for the army than they had before, but also in cheapening its cost. That establishment acted as a check upon the contractors, and kept down their prices. Before it existed the contract price of the soldier's coatee was £1 1s. 10 d., whereas it was now 16 s. 7d. Persons who had lived upon the sale of the smaller articles of soldiers' clothing were now, he might say, "shut up." A balance-sheet for the establishment, made up according to Mr. Cobden's principle, had been prepared, and would be in the hands of Members in a few days. The War Department held that it was necessary that a civilian should manage the contracts for clothes; and when it was considered that a million of money annually passed through his hands, he ought not without very cogent reasons to be supplanted by a military officer. If the hon. and gallant Colonel were to visit the clothing establishment he would neither object to the work done nor the number of people employed at it.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, 297 persons

1751
were employed in the establishment at a total cost of £474,000. The cost of the clothing was extraordinary. Several items showed how high the cost was. In the Imperial Guard the cost was not half so much, though it might be necessary to have such an establishment to test the charges of the contractors. He had always maintained, and he still urged, that it would be far better to put the majority of the work out for public competition.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, the central depot could make clothing at a much cheaper rate than any contractor.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that by means of the Pimlico store system they had obtained an efficient check over their supervisors, and the consequence was that they had a very good class of supervisors now. Every article was stamped, not only with the store stamp, but the number of the supervisor. The consequence was that every article, whether at home or abroad, that did not wear well, could be reported upon, so that the defaulting supervisor could be reached, and good supervisors obtained. The hon. and gallant Colonel advocated retrenchment, but he might say that they had already reduced the price of clothing enormously, and that if anything took them back to the old system, which was only upset by the Crimean War, they would get back to a system as rotten as the clothes it produced.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought the clothing of our soldiers should be well made, well fitting, and of the best materials, but it was important also that those clothes should be worn in the way that would be most conducive to their health. Not unfrequently sentinels might be seen in London in the depth of winter, when the weather was coldest, without their great coats, while in summer, on the hottest days, if there happened to be a little wet, the men were muffled up in their coats. He believed the men put them on and took them off by order, and those orders were not very judiciously given.
MR. WHITEsaid, he could not share in the admiration which had been expressed by hon. Members of the Pimlico establishment. He held it to be a reproach to Great Britain that the Government were compelled to manufacture the tunics and trousers worn by the soldiers. It might be alleged that the contractors did their work badly; but if that were true it was evidence that there was something wrong in the Department specially dealing with those matters.
1752
England exported 160 orl70 million pounds worth of manufactured goods annually; and such was the confidence manifested in the British manufacturer that goods of certain brands were carried thousands of miles away without undergoing inspection. Of course there was a reputable and a disreputable class of manufacturers, and Government officials had always been connected with the latter, the class which provided devil's dust and shoddy; consequently, goods of a worthless description had been supplied. For his own part, he looked upon the consolidation of the War and Ordnance Department which took place some years ago as a financial calamity, inasmuch as it prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer from possessing that proper influence over the expenditure of the War Office which he exercised linden the old system. The appointment of Secretary for War as a Cabinet Minister placed that official—a man of distinguished rank—upon an equality with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he could not now exercise proper and effective control over the War Department. As an evidence that the system indicated the weakness of the Executive they had seen how the military Estimates had swollen. Government could not make manufactured articles as cheaply or as well as private traders who were respectable persons. Government never looked into the value of its plant; never took account of the vast amount of waste; and never derived advantage from all those items, almost invisible to the Government, but which formed the profits of the private trader. He would recommend the new Members of the House instead of entering into the details of each Vote as it arose, with a view to economy, to deal with the principle involved in the system before the Speaker left the Chair, because very little good could be effected in the shape of reduction by discussions in Supply. That the Government should undertake to manufacture the various articles which they required, he regarded as a reproach to us as a manufacturing nation, for he agreed with the late Lord Lansdowne and Sir Henry Parnell, that they must of necessity be the worst agriculturists and the worst manufacturers possible. It seemed marvellous, under those circumstances, that the Government could not depend upon private firms for the supply of tunics and trousers to our soldiers. There were many known firms which could not afford to furnish a bad article because—not to speak of any higher motive—of the

1753
loss of reputation which they would in consequence suffer. He had been furnished with minute details which would support his view of the case, but he declined to enter into them on the present occasion, believing it to be better to confine himself to the question of principle. The late Mr. Cobden had stated a short time before he died that £500,000,000 sterling had been voted for the army and navy while he was in that House, without a single item having been struck off. He should therefore not trouble the Committee by asking them to divide on the present Vote, but should content himself with protesting against a system which he regarded as degrading to the national character.
LORD HENRY PERCYsaid, that as general officer, he had had to inspect clothing of different descriptions, and that he felt confident that every captain under his command would tell the House that the clothing furnished by the Government was a hundred times better than that supplied by private contract.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to urge upon the Government the expediency of giving the soldier employment in the way of making articles for his own use.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that having looked into the Vote for many years he found it to be completely under the control of the Government, because there were no means of drawing a comparison between the articles manufactured by them and those supplied by a private contractor. It would be much more satisfactory if instead of giving the cost of the tunics, and boots and shoes in a lump sum, the price of each article was furnished. The cost involved in the wear and tear of their establishment was not, he might add, included in the Vote, while it was always taken into account by private firms. He thought it would be advisable that the Government should not manufacture so much, though he was quite ready to admit that the army was now far better clothed than formerly.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he was afraid the Committee would be somewhat misled by the statement that in the French army the soldiers made all their own clothes except the eagles on their uniforms and their shakos. The fact was that each French regiment consisted of three battalions; and each battalion furnished a certain number of workmen who remained at the depôt, and did, no doubt, make a great proportion of the clothing. Practically, there were three small clothing establishments con-
1754
nected with each regiment. There was a rule that the men should be changed, but when the officer in charge had good workmen he was loth to part with them, and, on the other hand, these sedentary soldiers were never very effective. He was, however, a great advocate for the soldiers in minor matters doing such things themselves. The 60th Rifles were clothed by contract, and were remarkably well clothed. The prices were well known, and, therefore, it was hardly fair to say there was no test of comparison. He did not think it would be advisable to encumber the Estimates with the details of prices every year.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he was greatly surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) that the Government never could make out a balance-sheet. The balance-sheets of these clothing establishments were drawn up on a plan of the late Mr. Cobden, and if he did not know how to make out a balance-sheet, who did? Every item, including wear and tear, would he found inserted. The hon. Member said the Government were so unfortunate that they always fell into the hands of dishonest contractors, but the facts of the case were a sufficient answer to that charge. The contracts were all advertised and open to everybody, and how such startling facts as those which had been mentioned could be possible he was at a loss to know. Since the introduction of these clothing establishments the contracts were 25 per cent lower, and they were useful not only in that way but in testing the cloths sent in by contractors. He visited one of these establishments the other day and was shown two pieces of cloth, one good and the other so bad that it was impossible for it to be applied to any purpose. At the same time it looked so well; and, on being asked to select the better sample of the two, he chose the bad piece. In fact, it was so difficult to tell the one from the other that for aught he knew both the hon. Member for Brighton and himself might be clothed in "shoddy," However, if it were impossible to clothe the army without contractors, there should be an efficient supervision, for it was a well-known fact that the clothing sent out to the Crimea in a great exigency were made in Seven Dials and Whitechapel—in districts afflicted with all sorts of infectious diseases, and some of the sickness which was so fatal to our troops went out in that clothing. ["Oh, oh !"] The fact was well-known. The Trent affair showed

1755
the necessity for having the means at hand of sending out a large supply of clothing upon an emergency. The contractors now supplied 60 battalions out of 148 completely with clothing, and it was well to have the Government factory to prevent the contractors having a monopoly. It was a good thing to have these Government establishments as a nucleus; although he did not advocate everything being in the hands of the departments.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the result of the French system was that a private's jacket in France cost 56 f., or a little more than £2 instead of £3 9s., the price in England.
MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that the system of conscription brought more skilled labourers into the ranks in France than in England; and he did not see how the plan of having all the clothing made in the regiment could be carried into effect in this country. He thought no comparison could be drawn to any purpose between the French Estimates and our own. In our army regimental tailors were always fully employed in making repairs of the men's clothing; but if the clothing were to be made by them he believed it would turn out to be of no great value.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that it was useless to institute a comparison between our Estimates and those of the French, unless the latter were laid on the table. The French Estimates were constructed upon an entirely different principle, and he doubted whether there were more than one or two Members in the House who understood the French principle. The hon. Member for Brighton had not answered, and indeed could not answer, the fact that the contract prices of clothing had greatly decreased since the Government had introduced these clothing factories. He did not understand the hon. Member to say that all the contractors were dishonest men, but that the Government officials had a great aptness at finding out those that were dishonest; but would the hon. Member point out in what way the country would receive greater benefit from competition? At present, although the competition was quite open to everybody, one great contractor had beaten all the others out of the field. If, therefore, the Government had not these factories it would be entirely in the hands of Mr. Tait, and did the hon. Member think that would be an economical arrangement? In these particular articles, too, it should
1756
be remembered that the Government was the only consumer. No one else wanted tunics of these particular patterns, and as to guns of great size it was not to be expected that there would be any other purchasers. It would be easy, therefore, for a number of contractors to combine together and make extravagant profits on those articles; and, therefore, although the principle of competition was right, it might be carried too far. It was not correct to say that no charge on account of buildings of the Government manufactory appeared. The item was under the head "buildings and clerk of the works." If hon. Members would examine the balance-sheet to be laid on the table they would find that the cost of every item Was distinctly stated, every source of expenditure being taken into account.
MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he had understood that certain commanding officers having complained of the clothing wrote to the clothing department on the subject but received no answer. As there were plenty of clerks at the War Office, some might be sent to the clothing establishment to answer the letters of complaint sent there by the commanding officers.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not quite understand the noble Marquess. He should have thought that where one person alone supplied an article, it would be very difficult to secure competition; whereas, he understood the noble Lord to put a case where, with a great many persons supplying an article, it would be difficult to secure competition. If the circumstances had been exactly reversed they would perhaps have brought about the conclusion the noble Lord wished the Committee to adopt.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that what he had stated was that where there was only one consumer of the article it was very easy for a limited number of contractors to combine together and charge what they liked. He had mentioned before that only one contractor, Mr. Tait, of Limerick, supplied clothing to the War Office. This was not because there was any restriction of competition, but because, being a large contractor, he was able to supply clothing cheaper than other persons.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not think the explanation of the noble Marquess threw any light on the matter. Why should the noble Marquess assume that there was only a limited number of persons who could sup-

1757
ply the particular article? Monopoly depended upon the fact of there being only one person who could supply, and not of there being only one who could demand. The suggestion that only a limited number could supply in this case seemed to him quite gratuitous, and where only one person required and an unlimited number could supply, he should have thought the circumstances would lead to a cheap supply. The fallacy of the noble Lord was that only a limited number could supply these articles.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he understood that there was only one contractor. While he was Secretary at War the institution at Pimlico was brought into operation, and there were a great number of contractors. On two occasions of late years there had arisen two emergencies calling suddenly for a large increase of clothing, the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. When the War Department was remodelled it was Lord Panmure's view upon the experience of the Crimea that the army should have always in store a good stock of everything wanted. When he entered upon office £300,000 was spent upon a building to contain all the stores necessary. In the fortification scheme which Lord Palmerston proposed, a great central depot for stores was included, and up to the beginning of last year Lord Palmerston had not abandoned that idea. A moderate store of clothing ought to be kept in readiness for sudden calls, but there was no need to supply a very large reserve.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Stuart Knox) would tell him privately from which regiments complaints of the clothing had been sent in he would inquire into the matter. The clothing kept at Pimlico was clothing which had accumulated in consequence of more having been provided for regiments than was required; but he was not aware that it ever had been intended to keep up a large stock of ordinary regimental clothing. He believed the clothing of the cavalry was made in the regimental workshops.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £603,300, Barrack Establishment Services and Supplies.
LORD NAASsaid, the Committee would recollect that it was discovered that the War Department had resolved to take on lease from the Office of Woods and Forests the whole of the Curragh of Kildare for a
1758
certain number of years. That proposal naturally created considerable alarm, and led to the waiting of a deputation, of which he was one, upon the Secretary of State, who undertook to put off all further proceedings with regard to the Curragh until the parties interested had an opportunity of expressing their opinions, and until inquiry could be made. They expected that an inquiry would be held upon the spot; but nothing of the kind took place. During the recess, in the month of November, notice was given in the local newspapers of a Bill to be brought in by the Woods and Forests, which caused the greatest consternation in the minds of those who took an interest in the subject. The proposal was to divide the Curragh into two parts, to be applied to military purposes, including those of the War Department. He wished to know whether that Department sanctioned or approved the proposed arrangement? The military authorities at the Curragh, almost to a man, were averse to the principle of the scheme, as being useless for military purposes, and as being likely to impose unnecessary trouble and expense. Furthermore, it would cast upon them increased and very onerous duties. In Ireland the project was regarded with great suspicion and dislike; it had excited a great amount of hostile feeling, and very general satisfaction would be afforded if the noble Lord were able to give an assurance that, as far as the War Department were concerned, the scheme had been definitely abandoned. To carry it out would be impossible, without the greatest infringement of public and private rights ever attempted by a public department.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would be his duty in a very few days to introduce the Bill alluded to by the noble Lord, but its provisions would be very different from those which had been described. So far from tending to infringe any vested interests, the Bill aimed at discovering, by a judicial process, what rights actually existed. Commissioners would be appointed to examine all rights existing in connection with the Curragh, and from their decisions an appeal would lie to the highest court in Ireland. When the Bill was brought in the noble Lord would see that it was really an attempt to remove a scandal of the present condition of the Cuaragh, and he hoped that meanwhile the merits of that measure would not be prematurely discussed.
LORD NAASsaid, the object he had in

1759
view was to ascertain, whether in the opinion of the War Department one-half the Curragh should be set apart for public purposes? That was a perfectly legitimate question.
MR. COGANsaid, he could corroborate the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth as to the feeling excited in Ireland by the threatened measure of the Government. He trusted that the noble Marquess the Secretary for War would be able to assure the Committee that the influence of a great public department like the Department of Woods and Forests would not be brought to bear unjustly and harshly against poor commoners, who would be without power of resistance. The common rights of those dwellings on the borders of the Curragh had been seriously encroached upon by the formation of the camp at the Curragh; but, recognizing the importance of the public object involved, they submitted without remonstrance to the sacrifice of some of their private rights. Now, however, it was proposed to extinguish rights which had existed for centuries, and some even that were guaranteed by charter dating from the reign of Charles.
MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why the sum of £320 paid to the ranger of the Curragh was not given to a retired military officer instead of a civilian?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that so far from the condition of the Curragh being in all respects satisfactory, he was lead to believe that in many respects it required amendment.
LORD NAAS: But the military authorities at the Curragh are opposed to this particular form of amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had heard nothing to that effect. The General commanding and the principal officer of engineers were certainly not in favour of the proposal to leave the Curragh as now existing, but he had not heard of any remonstrance from them with regard to the Bill about to be introduced. He was surprised to hear any objection made to the course taken by the authorities in the matter, for he understood that they were merely acting in conformity with the wishes expressed in that House last year. He could state that they did not intend to interfere in any way with the private rights or to confiscate any man's property. The rights of the real commoners—as distinguished from usurpers—would be preserved, and would even perhaps be rendered more valuable than
1760
ever under the proposed arrangement. With regard to the case of the ranger he had to observe that the position of that officer had formerly been a mere sinecure; but since the occupation of the Curragh by troops he had to discharge very onerous duties; and it was therefore thought proper that an addition should be made to his salary.
MR. M. MORRISsaid, he was anxious to direct attention to another point connected with barrack accommodation at Galway. They had already discussed and admitted the right of the military authorities to act as tradesmen; but he could not bring himself to believe that the War Department engaged with propriety in agricultural operations. Yet, what was the fact? Ten or twelve years ago, in the western province of Ireland, they acquired from a fund established for charitable purposes possession of a plot of land, with the object, as was then stated, of erecting barracks upon it. From that day to the present they had never erected any buildings of such a character on the land which they thus obtained under false pretences. On the contrary, they re-let it to an under tenant for agricultural purposes. They had even established a salmon fishery and let it to a tenant, but that was found to be illegal and was suppressed. Perhaps the next thing they did would be to lay down an oyster bed. This land had been, in fact, obtained under false pretences. Their operations had been attended with another very remarkable result. They asked the Midland Great Western Company to make a deviation from their line as originally laid down in order not to interfere with the proposed barrack accommodation; the company opposed that demand, alleging, through their secretary, that they saw no indication of any serious intention to construct a barrack; but Colonel Luard having sworn that that work was to be forthwith commenced, the company, after having appealed in self-defence to the legal tribunals, were defeated. The Board of Ordnance, backed by the public purse, opposed, unless they agreed to widen a road nearly a mile in length from the barracks into the town. The road was made at an expense of several thousand pounds, which ultimately fell on the rate-payers of the district. This had taken place in 1855, but the barracks had not yet been built; and when recently it became necessary to send troops to Galway, where for the last ten or twelve years no soldiers had been seen except on furlough, there

1761
was no fit building for their reception. The Department had no right to take land for barrack purposes and then to let it as middlemen for profit. He hoped the noble Marquess would be able to give some satisfactory explanation why, when ground for the erection of barracks had been taken so many years ago, a building which was so necessary for the safety of that part of the country, the town being filled with soldiers to enforce the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had not yet been proceeded with.
COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to know why this large sum had been lumped together? He observed that £73,000 for musketry-drill, &c, was one of the items mentioned in it. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berks had called attention to the subject of musketry instruction, and pointed out its expense. He should like to ask the noble Marquess to state clearly what was the expense of this musketry instruction. It would be well if all the items connected with it were placed side by side, so that they might see what was expended on it in the army. In page 14 there were charges of £1,065 and £598 for captain-instructors of musketry and assistant-instructors of musketry, in addition to regimental pay. Then, there was this Vote, which included "musketry;" but it was impossible to say how much belonged to musketry and how much did not. On page 32 there was £1,000 charged as
"Allowance to officers and non-commissioned officers while under instruction at Hythe, Fleetwood, and Shoeburyness or in the regiments of the Line."
Again, on page 45, there was a charge of £64,000 for "purchase of land and erecting rifle ranges, huts, &c, for 700 men." On page 68, also, there were two items of £35 under the heads of Hythe and Fleetwood, for schools. It would certainly be convenient for the Committee to have all these items under one head, in order that they might see what instruction in musketry in the army really did cost. The subject was one that ought to be seriously inquired into.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, they had tried to make the Vote as intelligible as they could, but he was not sure that the rule suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would be found at all convenient. Vote 4 contained the charges for barracks and charges paid by barrack masters. To put in that Vote charges which properly came under the Works Vote would be extremely inconvenient, and would entirely frustrate the object in view of making some
1762
one in the Department responsible for the expenditure under it. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Morris), he must say that he could not be responsible for the acts of the Board of Ordnance eleven years ago. The narrative of the hon. Member certainly showed that he was more careful of the interests of his constituents than his predecessors had been; but all that could be said in reply to the question raised was that inquiries should be made into the matter, and if it were found that no present intention existed to erect barracks on the ground referred to, whatever was right under those circumstances should be done. At the same time, he would remark that he had not gathered from the hon. Member's observations what he desired the War Department to do. Was it his wish that the land should be re-sold?
MR. M. MORRISsaid, that he did not complain of the ground having been bought, but that the barracks had not been commenced. He was of opinion that, taking into consideration the number of the people of Galway, and the size of the province of which it was the capital, barracks should be erected there on the land bought for the purpose. As matters stood, the War Department seemed to have fallen asleep over the matter.
GENERAL PEELsaid, the engineer officer had in 1855 reported against the erection of barracks at the spot. No sum of money whatever appeared to have been taken for the barracks referred to.
MR. M. MORRISsaid, that there should have been.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to inquire, respecting the item of £11,682 for deodorizing and emptying cesspools, whether any uniform system had been followed by those who did the work. Would the system practised at Knightsbridge be extended to other barracks?
COLONEL PERCY HERBERTsaid, he wished to call attention to the subject of promotions. The warrant laid down in the tenth paragraph that the primary ground for promotion should be personal merit as exhibited by zeal, ability, and general good conduct, as well as length of service. That, in his opinion, was very vague. It was not desirable that promotion in the whole Department should depend primarily upon the option of the Secretary of State for the time being. He hoped the question would be considered, and that a portion at least of the promotions would be ordered according to seniority, as was the case in other departments.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware that the warrant read by the hon. and gallant Member was different from warrants of the same character in other branches of the service, but he knew that all departments of the War Office possessed the power to bar the promotion of an inefficient official. This was thought right on the principle that a man might be usefully employed in an inferior capacity and be deemed incompetent to fill a more important office. He would cause inquiry to be made respecting the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley)
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £41,100, Divine Service.
(5.) £22,000, Martial Law.
LORD HENRY PERCYasked, whether the Government would consider the advantage to be derived by the army from making the office of Judge Advocate General permanent? Much discussion had arisen of late upon the subject of courts martial; and he was of opinion that a stop should be put to all comment on the proceedings of such courts, for discipline could not be maintained in the army if it were permitted that officers should be loaded with abuse. With respect to the appointment of Judge Advocate General, he would remark that the gentleman appointed was generally a barrister and a political adherent, not cognizant of military law and totally ignorant of military discipline. The moment he took office he had to go to school to learn his duties, and the chances were at the end of six months he would be turned out. Another would then be appointed who in his turn had to go through the same course. It was desirable that his decisions should be uniform. At present the duties were performed by the Deputy Judge Advocate. Judge Advocates should be appointed exactly in the same manner as the Judges of the land; and, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department was the mouthpiece in Parliament for the Judges of the Superior Courts, so the Secretary of State for War should be the mouthpiece of the Judge Advocate.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the question was one of great importance. Very possibly considerable convenience and some material advantage might arise from a change which made the office of Judge Advocate permanent and not temporary. But there were a great many reasons which made it necessary that
1764
the Government should have the assistance of a legal adviser in the House of Commons on military questions. The Judge Advocate was not the only officer in the Department. The Deputy Judge Advocate not being removable with a change of Administration, an uniformity of practice was to a certain extent secured. On the whole, he could not see that sufficient advantage would arise from making the change proposed.
LORD HENRY PERCYsaid, he thought it would be better if the Judge Advocate General were not obliged to attend the House. He would be more profitably employed in the work which was now performed by a subordinate.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down did not appreciate duly the functions of the Judge Advocate, who was the legal adviser of the Government. He might as well propose to make the Attorney and Solicitor Generals permanent officers. It was a question, however, for the Government to determine whether the Judge Advocate should not be relieved from his quasi-judicial functions.
LORD HENRY PERCYsaid, that the Admiralty was not provided with such an officer.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he wished to draw attention to the Report, by Colonel Henderson, on Military Prisons in 1864, in which the erection of a prison at Aldershot was recommended. He could himself speak of the necessity of a new military prison at Aldershot. At the same time, he was very glad that the new prison had not been built. He had been told by a good authority that in the military prisons in France the practice was to utilize the whole of the prison labour. Now, any one who had gone through our military prisons must have been struck with the amount of useless labour performed. One gang of prisoners were made to carry shot and to pile it up at one end of the yard, and another gang were sent to unpile it. The Governor at Aldershot had assured him that if he were permitted to utilize the prison labour the prisoners might earn easily their entire subsistence. Shot-drill produced a kind of sulky acquiescence in an occupation which went, as nearly as possible, to turn a man into a brute. The prisoner came out a weaker, and not a stronger man; and as soon as he returned to the ranks he took the first opportunity of having a drink. The result

1765
was, that as much liquor as would have done him no harm the week before he went into prison, made him drunk, and he soon found himself in confinement again. There was a great difference in the offences committed by military prisoners as compared with civil offences, and they required a different treatment. The principal offences were drunkenness and insubordination. They ought to make an effort to carry out to a greater extent that which the military inspectors had certified to be beneficial. Suppose a military prison were to be built, he ventured to suggest that it should be capable of containing not 400 but 1,000 men, as that would comprehend nearly all their military prisoners, the average number being 1,005. At Aldershot the sewage had been applied to eighty acres, and had rendered them very fertile. He suggested that the rest of the 1,000 acres belonging to the Crown there should be similarly treated. The prisoners, besides reclaiming the land might be employed in forming gardens for the soldiers. It appeared that only eighty out of 340 prison labourers at Aldershot were usefully employed. A very high authority had objected to his suggestions on the ground that they would make prison labour an indulgence, that forced labour was never useful, and that the expense of the diet would counterbalance its advantages. He had made inquiries as to the diet, and had found that it would only be the addition of eight ounces of bread a week per man when outside the prison. It was a great reflection on this country that we should treat military prisoners with so much severity as we did.
MR. THOMAS CAVEsaid, he had visited in 1859 the convict establishment at Kingston, in Canada, where at least 1,000 convicts were confined, and was informed that the prisoners were hired out annually by auction to the highest bidder to be employed in various kinds of labour. By this system, in addition to the whole cost of the establishment, including their maintenance, being defrayed, the Government cleared a profit of £40 a day, being 10 d. a day on each prisoner. That was a proof that it was possible to employ the convicts in outdoor labour without loss to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the subject was one that deserved attention. The prison regulations for the military prisons had been recently drawn up by a committee of gentlemen who had a large practical acquaintance with the dis-
1766
cipline of prisons. The chief objection that could be offered to the scheme of the hon. Baronet was that it would render prison labour too agreeable, so that it might prove rather an indulgence than a punishment, and so lose its deterrent effect. It had been found that unproductive labour, such as shot-drill, was regarded by the convicts as far more severe and tedious than useful labour, and it was, therefore, looked upon as being a more effectual punishment. Still, he saw no reason why there should not be further inquiry into the subject, since it was difficult to understand why the punishment of military should be more severe than that of civil prisoners.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £246,500, Hospital Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
(7.) £842,600, Disembodied Militia,
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the case of a very deserving class of militia officers—namely, the militia quartermasters. The War Office must be fully aware of the great advantages that had resulted from the changes which had already been introduced into this branch of the service, as while there was considerable difficulty in recruiting for the army, recruits were easily obtained for the militia, and the men were always anxious to be re-en rolled, and it was therefore a pity to permit a grievance that might easily be remedied to remain. The quartermasters of the military were chosen from among the old non-commissioned officers of the regular army, and on their appointment to a militia regiment they received altogether, including their pension of 2s. a day, the sum of 7s. a day, while they ranked with junior lieutenants. But when the regiment to which they were attached was disembodied, their pay, unless they had been embodied for ten years, was suddenly cut down to the 2s. a day they derived from their pensions as non-commissioned officers. That was a great hardship upon men who had been accustomed for years to means which enabled them to live in comparative comfort, and who had occupied a gentlemanly position. It was not creditable to the country that a man who was incapacitated at sixty years of age should be sent adrift with such an allowance as could not support him. One quartermaster was subject to epileptic fits, and on retiring was only given the allowance of a non-commissioned officer. He did not desire an immediate

1767
answer from the noble Lord, but he put it to him whether it would not be possible at a small cost to provide the militia quartermasters with a retiring allowance?
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he begged to supplement the statement of the hon. Baronet by observing that the only pension a militia quartermaster could get was 3s. a day, and that he could only obtain after ten years' uninterrupted service in an embodied regiment. The cost to the country would be but small if a retiring pension were given them on easier terms. There were also two petty economies practised with regard to these men which were unworthy of the country, while they involved great hardship to the men. In the first place, though all quartermasters in the army were entitled to 6s. 6d. a day, the militia quartermasters when—on their regiments being disembodied—they were retained in the service for other duties, were mulcted of 1s. 6d. a day, while their work was harder. There was another petty and worthless economy which was practised towards them. The lodging allowance, or, as it was now called, the commuted lodging allowance—for lodging, fuel, and lights—was 14 s. a week when the regiment was embodied and barrack accommodation for them was not to be had. When the regiment was disembodied this allowance was cut down to 8s. a week, a proceeding injurious to the quartermasters and not worthy of the country. It might be said that 5s. a day was quite sufficient when the regiment was disembodied, because then they had less work; but the fact was, they had far more work, for they had to keep the whole of the stores in order, and also the stores of the Volunteers, without the assistance which they would have when the regiment was embodied. The matter was inquired into before the Royal Commission on the Militia but not redressed, though General Doyle had stated before it that the case required consideration.
MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he hoped that if militia, whether English or Irish, were to be quartered in Ireland, they would not be billeted, but placed in barracks, as in the former case they would be exposed to great temptation from the Fenians and others.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he thought 5s. a day was fair remuneration for quartermasters when the regiment was disembodied, for he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that they had then more to do. But he thought after a
1768
certain period of service, when they had got too old to be useful as quartermasters, it was rather hard that they should have to fall back on the small pensions they had earned when non-commissioned officers of the Line. They were a deserving body of men, and a small addition to their pension, of say 2s. 6d. a week, would be very acceptable.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that where there were barracks the authorities invariably took care the militia should be quartered in them, and where soldiers were in possession that the barracks should be vacant at a convenient time when the militia were in training. But there were some places where there were no barracks. With regard to the quartermasters, it was quite possible that the terms upon which they obtained a retiring allowance might be taken into consideration. But the Royal Commission on Militia, which had made inquiries into the case, had issued no recommendations in their favour. He could not agree with the hon. and gallant Officer who thought that 5s. a day was not an adequate remuneration when the regiment was disembodied. The quartermasters were invariably drawn, as they ought to be, from the non-commissioned officers.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation for the increase of the Vote for the clothing of the Militia from £115,000 last year to £175,514 this year, though the number of men was about the same in both years.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the clothes of the Militia regiments lasted generally five years; several regiments were embodied five years ago, which rendered it necessary now that they should be supplied with fresh clothing.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £85,200, Yeomanry Cavalry.
MR. BARNETTsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was contemplated to supply the Yeomanry Cavalry generally with an improved modern pattern of carbines. He understood that several regiments were so supplied while others were not. He was aware that to a great extent the cavalry soldier was chiefly dependent on his sword, and that there was not time when the Yeomanry Cavalry were called out to do much more than practice that weapon. Inasmuch, however, as they were often employed for skirmishing duty, it might be worth while to give them a more efficient weapon

1769
than the old carbine. He reminded the noble Marquess that as there were now butts almost all over the country, supplying the cavalry with improved carbines might induce the Yeomanry Cavalry to enter into frendly competition with their fellow volunteers, and thus while it would promote cordiality of feeling it would at the same time familiarize them with the use of their weapons.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that some Yeomanry regiments were already armed with rifle carbines; but he was not aware that the stock was sufficient to arm the whole force. He rather thought it was not; but as the cavalry were by degrees armed with breech-loaders there would be a sufficient number of rifle carbines available for arming the Yeomanry Cavalry.
Vote ayreed to.
(9.) £348,100, Volunteer Corps.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, that he was requested by the officers of the several corps of Volunteer Engineers to call the attention of the House to the fact that while the Volunteer Engineers only received the same capitation grant as the members of the other branches of the Volunteer service, their expenses were far heavier. This he considered a real grievance. They had to pay for land hired for the purposes of engineering drill, for the material required for gabions and bastions, for the transport of materials for engineering works, and for additional store accommodation. In addition to these items, when any stores supplied by Government were lost the Engineer officers had to defray the expense; and, they were compelled to wear a scarlet uniform, which was very expensive. They asked from the Government an additional grant of £1 a head per annum, and as the entire number of Volunteer Engineers was 2,500 the increase would entail an additional expense to the country of only £2,500 a year. It might be said that the present was not the time to in crease the amount of the Estimates. In answer to that objection, he would call the attention of the House to the fact that several Yeomanry corps to which grants would be voted would not be called out for active service during the present year. He thought that a portion of the surplus fund thus obtained ought to be given to that most deserving branch of the Volunteer body, the Engineers.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the House the
1770
case of the inspectors of Volunteers, whom he thought were inadequately paid. The pay of the adjutant of a Volunteer regiment was 10 s. a day; while the inspector, who held the rank of captain, only got 9s. 6d. a day. The adjutant might have more continuous work, but the inspector, besides being of higher rank, had far more responsibility, and had to see that the adjutant and the other officers did their duty properly. The assistant-quartermaster-general, who was only the equal in rank of the inspector, received 14 s. 3d. a day, and he hoped the Government would take into consideration the propriety of increasing the salary of the inspectors.
COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Maldon, that as £6,000 could be dispensed with in the Vote for the Yeomanry for this year, in consequence of the prevalence of the rinderpest in many counties, that sum could not be better disposed of than upon the Engineer Volunteers, whose expenses were necessarily much heavier than other Volunteer corps. He could bear testimony to the efficient services that the Artillery Volunteers were prepared to render, in the event of their being called out, in defence of their Queen and country.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he did not mean to say that the adjutants were overpaid, but there could be no doubt that the inspectors were underpaid. They ranked as field-officers and received only 9s. 6d. a day, and the travelling expenses allowed to them were notoriously inadequate. The Volunteer inspector was compelled to attend at Volunteer drill meetings, and in the towns where these were held, during their duration, it being considered a gala time, lodgings were exceedingly expensive, sometimes as much as a couple of guineas having to be paid for a bed.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought it unusual, when the House was in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to have Gentlemen propose that the pay of a certain class of officers should be increased. Complaints had been made of the Army Estimates not being lower than they now were, and the present was not the time to increase the salaries of any class of officers. The post of inspector of Volunteers was an excellent staff appointment. The inspectors of Volunteers were, no doubt, a very valuable body of men, but it was an appointment that officers in the army were glad to obtain. The pay was of very little importance in comparison

1771
with the comfortable appointments they obtained.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that with reference to the question of the increased pay of the inspectors there could be no doubt that they were posts which were very much sought after by the officers of the army. It was satisfactory to know that although there was an increase this year in this Vote it was not in the staff, but in the effective of the force. The increase of £1,200 in the capitation grant represented that so many more men had this year joined the force, or that the men in the force had earned the extra 10 s. grant, and by that amount the corps was consequently increased in numbers and efficiency. This showed the force to be in a healthy state. There was a part of the force which cost the country nothing, and did not appear in the Estimates, and to which his noble Friend did not allude when moving the Estimates, but of which some mention ought to be made, and that was the Volunteer Railway Staff Corps, which Colonel M'Murdo (the late Inspector General of Volunteers) had established, and which had been attended with admirable results. Hon. Members might have seen gentlemen wearing a sort of staff uniform attending levees. They were volunteer colonels by title and rank, but occupied the position of traffic managers of the different railways throughout the country. When it was known that they were colonels without regiments, having no men to command, there would be, no doubt, an inclination to smile, and he confessed that he had had on former occasions that tendency. But it had come to his knowledge through Colonel M'Murdo, that they were a very useful body of men, and that they had organized the means of transit in case of invasion or war of a large body of men and material from one part of the kingdom to another in a very short space of time. He understood that by their organization they would be able to place within thirty hours on any given point within a certain distance of the metropolis 150,000 men, 60,000 horse, and upwards of 100 guns, and that within twenty-four hours they could collect 80,000 navvies for the purpose of throwing up entrenchments. It was satisfactory to know that that could be done, and that we could feel that a great strength was added to the force of the country by the organization of such a corps.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, this Vote represented the cheapest and most efficient
1772
army in the world. We had an army of 150,000 men, for which we paid £348,100 only. The army for which we paid this trifling amount was nearly as large and as efficient as that which cost £15,000,000 annually. They had been spoken of in high terms by commanding officers at reviews, and the late Lord Clyde had said that he would as soon take 50,000 Volunteers into the field as any troops he had ever fought with in the world—the only difficulty he could have with them would be in restraining them. It was highly satisfactory to hear the statement that had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) with reference to the Volunteer Railway Staff Corps. He hoped what was asked for would be given to the Volunteer Engineers.
COLONEL H. H. FANEsaid, it was a curious fact, with reference to the capitation grant, that the more successful it had been the more anomalous had been its effect upon the regiments. Before the capitation grant was established the regiments were very much supported by honorary members, but when the capitation grant came into operation the effect was that nearly all the honorary members ceased subscribing, and a falling off in the revenue of the regiments had consequently taken place. The pressure that had been put on the entrance fee in various regiments had also had to be dropped, and in many the annual subscriptions had had to be reduced, and the consequence was that they had very little private income whatever. The items on which the capitation grant was expended were restricted to very few, and they were rather embarrassing to commanding officers when they had other expenses of great importance to meet. A very important item was that for the regimental bands. It was said that they were merely a source of amusement; but if the bands were reduced the men would neither come to drill nor march out. The Volunteers felt that at the end of the year, when they had earned their capitation grant, they ought to be at liberty to spend it as they liked. The grant could be credited to the funds of the regiment, the commanding officer would then spend it through his finance committee, and thus a great deal of disagreeable red tape would be done away with, and the advantage of the various corps at the same time promoted.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it might seem perfectly reasonable that these corps having earned the capitation grant should be permitted to spend it

1773
in the way they thought most conducive to their interests; but the restrictions imposed upon its expenditure were founded on the recommendation of a Royal Commission. It was true that the grant would have been earned, and that the country would not have to pay it again. At the same time, it was quite conceivable that if the grant were wasted the corps might suffer prejudice. With regard to the Inspectors of Volunteers, there was no difficulty experienced in obtaining fit officers of that class for the present scale of pay and allowances; and those officers were perfectly aware of what their emoluments would be when they accepted their appointments. He admitted that the deputation of Engineer Volunteers who went to the War Office the other day made out a tolerably good case for an increase in the amount of the capitation grant paid to their corps; but he was not sure that they had heard the case of all the other corps in that matter. He did not understand that the capitation grant covered the actual expense of any Volunteer corps; and under the existing regulations the claim put forward on behalf of the Volunteer Engineers could not be acceded to.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £45,000, Enrolled Pensioners.
(11.) £965,800, Manufacturing Establishments.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished for information as to the amount of £232,476 for gun factories, and as to the number and size of guns that were to be turned out of the Royal Factory this year. In the French Estimates the quantities of metal, &c, were given, and the number of guns that were to be made from those quantities. Such information as that was very desirable. At present they had not the means of knowing what the guns to be manufactured would cost.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask, how the sum of £172,974 taken for the Royal small arms factory was to be spent—whether in the manufacture of new arms or in the conversion of the Enfield rifles into breech-loaders?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that only a lump sum had been taken for the small arms factory, for the very reason that they did not yet know how that sum would be expended. If they should be so fortunate as to be able to decide on the matter of the new breechloader before the conclusion of the next
1774
financial year, they would expend as much as they could in the manufacture of that arm; but at present he thought the greater part of the Vote would be expended in the conversion of the Enfield rifle to the Snider pattern. It would probably be necessary to manufacture a certain number of small arms of some kind, and possibly they would be breech-loaders. With regard to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), there would not really be much use in placing in the Estimate the information he desired. It was all given in the balance-sheet, which would be laid on the table in a few days, and which would show in what way the money voted in previous years had been expended. They could tell the hon. and gallant Member what guns they proposed to make in the ensuing year, but he would not be able to check the sums from that, because a large portion of the money taken for the gun factory was spent upon the repairs of guns and gun-carriages.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to inquire how much of that Vote would be spent for the navy?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not know. He could not recollect that in any of the Estimates which he had seen any distinction was made as to the portion of the sum that was taken for the navy. If the right hon. Gentleman had given him notice he would have supplied him with the information.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the country would not be satisfied with the information given as to the manufacture of small arms. He took a very great interest in the small arms factory, and was most anxious to know with what weapon our soldiers were to be armed. The Government had lately tried one pattern, the Enfield, that had signally failed, and now they were about to try another, the Snider, but what guarantee had they that it would answer any better than those that went before? A breech-loading rifle had been adopted by the army of a powerful nation on the Continent. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: What army?] The Prussian. Such rifles were used in the late war by the soldiers of Prussia, and he believed they had them before that period, while England, the richest nation in the world, in the 19th century, was without a breech-loading rifle for her troops. It might be true that the best kind of rifle had not yet been found out, but one had been invented which was much better than

1775
that now supplied to the soldiers. This was a matter of great importance, and the Vote ought not to be agreed to without more information from the noble Marquess.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he wished to ask what were the duties of the superintendent of the machinery?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the item of machinery, although it appeared for the first time in the Estimates for the present year, was not a new item. Mr. Anderson, who was formerly assistant-superintendent of the gun manufactory, combined with that appointment the superintendence of the machinery, but now he had nothing to do with the guns, and devoted the whole of his attention to the machinery. He was a professional engineer and well qualified to enter into the details of machinery. The Prussian was the only nation he had ever heard of using a breech-loading rifle. This was well known to the War Department; but they would rather preserve the arms they had than have such a clumsy, awkward heavy weapon as the Prussian breech-loading rifle was deemed to be. The French and English Governments began to consider the subject at the same time, but the French had made no more progress than we had. It was a very difficult question; but he thought the experiments which had been going on during the last year would turn out not to have been altogether in vain.
MR. CORRYsaid, he should like to know what were the intentions of the War Office respecting those ships built on the broadside and those on the turret principle, which were to be furnished with 600-pounder guns?
LORD ELCHOsaid, that he had on a former occasion called the attention of the House to the subject of the manufacture of small arms. A Committee was appointed to decide between the several systems of rifling, and two years ago they recommended the adoption of a particular principle; but instead of attending to that recommendation, the War Office had gone on for the last two years steadily ignoring the recommendations of their own Select Committee. A Vote was passed annually for the manufacture of arms which had been condemned by that Committee. He protested against the argument of the noble Lord, that because other nations had not got a breech-loading rifle we were justified in remaining in our present position. Prussia had for the last twenty years been armed with breech-loaders, and
1776
how could we expect to get a good one when the inducement to our gunmakers was only £70, whilst a small country like Switzerland offered £800. So long as the present system was in force it was not surprising that the gunmakers did not come forward with improvements in the manufacture of breech-loaders. He wished to give notice that to-morrow he should ask whether the noble Lord had any objection to lay on the table any correspondence which had taken place between the War Office and the gunmakers, assigning their reasons for not having accepted the competition into which they were asked to enter by the Government.
COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, that during the last fifty years the weapon employed by the Prussian army was the needle-gun, which at one time was highly estimated by the military authorities. Latterly, however, it had become unsuitable for the requirements of the field. He believed, that if Her Majesty's Government would offer a sufficient reward for the best breechloader, the gunmakers of England would produce a weapon quite superior to anything yet accomplished.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) was not quite correct in his remarks concerning small arms. The War Office had obtained a good pattern, and the money that had been expended upon it, he thought, had not been thrown away. The sum of £70 which had been offered to the gunmakers was not tendered as a reward, but for defraying the expense of preparing rifles for competition. The Government were prepared either to give a reward to any person who invented a satisfactory weapon, or else to employ him to a considerable extent in manufacturing rifles for the army. No doubt the sum of £70 was not sufficient to cover the expense to which a maker was put in preparing a specimen, and a larger sum would, therefore, be offered in the next competition. Every one knew that the Woolwich gun combined the system of Sir William Armstrong with a modification of the French system of rifling, to which Colonel Palliser had contributed more than any one else, and that officer had not made any complaint, nor expressed any dissatisfaction. He really did not know who were the inventors whose brains had been picked and whose inventions had been stolen. There were six 600-pounder guns included in the Estimate. One gun had been used in many experiments at Shoebury-

1777
ness, and it had received some damage, but improvements had been introduced since it was made.
LORD ELCHOsaid, his point with reference to the manufacture of these small arms was, that since the Committee reported some years ago the War Office had manufactured over 100 stands of an arm which was inferior to that recommended, although the requisite alteration in the machinery could have been made at the expense of a few shillings.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £428,000, Military Store Establishments and Warlike Stores.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the item of £5,500 for "Hire of horses, Woolwich, for the Removal of Stores," He thought it very large.
MR. OLIPHANTdesired to call attention to grievances complained of by the officers of the Military Store Department, in which there was a stagnation without parallel—indeed it seemed to proceed on an inversion of the ordinary principle, so that the longer men had been in the service the lower seemed to be their rank, There was no one among the colonels who had served so long as the lieutenant-colonels, nor of the lieutenant-colonels so long as the majors, nor they so long as the captains, while the lieutenants had served longest of all. There was one officer who, at the average rate of promotion, would have to serve actively seventy-three years and reach the age of 110 before he could attain a higher rank. There were anomalies in pay as well as in promotion, and a man who once had £500 a year had steadily risen until his income now was £300 a year. Under such an extraordinary state of things, there could be no wonder that there were great complaints in all the ranks of that service with the exception of the upper rank. The Department contrasted most unfavourably in these respects with the Commissariat Department, and he was sure that an improvement would promote a better feeling than now existed, and would be attended with advantageous results. He gave notice that he should move for the following Returns:—Of the names of the officers of the Military Store Department; departmental grade; relative rank; length of service, distinguishing the periods served in each grade, including the time passed
1778
in a clerical capacity; nature of duties at present assigned; pay; amount of charge pay in those cases where an officer was in charge of a station; approximate value of stores under the officer's charge; the period which had elapsed since last promotion; rate of amount of retiring pay.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not give to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Matthew Ridley) a detailed explanation of the item for the removal of stores, but it did not strike him as being excessive, for stores were being constantly landed and shipped at Woolwich, and, in fact, there was a movement going on amongst them during the whole day long. With regard to the Military Store Department, which was a most important one, and the officers of which were most meritorious and hard-working men, he supposed the remedy for the grievances complained of would be the assimilation of the Store Department and Commissariat Department; but such a proposition would involve, not a reduction of the Estimates, but a very considerable increase of them. The Commissariat Department was organized with higher grades of officers simply because the duties were considered by those who organized the Departments to be more responsible. If there bad been any considerable stagnation of promotion in the Store Department, it was owing to the fact that the re-organization in 1859 and 1861 placed a great many young men at the top of the service, and a number of old men at the bottom of it. The hardships resulting from these arrangements would be gradually remedied, but it was impossible to obviate them, In former times when a gentleman was appointed storekeeper he had little prospect of promotion; but now, although promotion was not rapid, the prospect of it was supplemented by other substantial advantages. He could not understand the case of a gentleman whose income had fallen from £500 to £300 a year, unless he had at some time received extra pay for the performance of extra duty.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, the answer to his question was not quite satisfactory. He had come to the conclusion that the item of £5,500 for the conveyance of guns was an unreasonable one, considering the really admirable way in which the surface of the road over which the guns were conveyed was kept, and its great hardness. The noble Lord suggested that it was possible he might not have been at Wool-

1779
wich, but although a civilian he had been to the arsenal there, and had come to the conclusion that the item of £5,500 for horse hire for the removal of stores was unreasonable in amount. He thought the military horses might be used and thus the country be saved expense. He did not wish to divide the Committee on the subject—it was not his habit to do so—but he desired to have a more satisfactory answer. He had no desire to obstruct the Government in getting the necessary supplies for the service of the country, but he did think the Government authorities should give the Committee some further explanation upon that point. If he did not receive a satisfactory answer he should be obliged to divide the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he must express his regret that he could not give the hon. Baronet a more satisfactory answer, but he did not know in what way he could do it. He really did not know what horses were employed.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he would be satisfied if the noble Lord would reserve the Vote for a future occasion or give the information on the bringing up of the Report.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if he could get the necessary information for the hon. Baronet in time he would give it with the Report. He did not propose to take any other Vote on the Army Estimates that night.
Vote agreed to.
MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty, what was the latest hour at which he proposed to proceed with the Navy Estimates to-morrow night.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not exactly say. The only Vote which was likely to lead to discussion he proposed to defer to the next occasion.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
MR. CHILDERS MR. CHILDERS moved a Resolution that a sum not exceeding £1,828,000 be granted to Her Majesty on account of Civil Service Estimates. In doing so he explained that it was necessary to take such a Vote in advance for the current quarter to meet the expenditure of the first quarter of the financial year. The Committee on Public Monies some years
1780
ago recommended the adoption of that system, inasmuch as it was impossible to take the Civil Service Estimates at the commencement of the year, but then it was understood that the Vote on Account should involve no new principle but should be only in conformity with the Votes taken for the Civil Service during the previous year. The rule had been never to take more than a fourth part of the Vote for the year, except in the case of the site for the public offices, the Patent, and Record Offices, and, in the present instance, the Vote for Civil Contingencies, of which rather more than a fourth required to be taken because of the heavy expenses consequent on the cattle plague. The Committee, in agreeing to the Resolution, would not in any degree be pledging themselves to the Estimates for 1866–7, with regard to which the Committee would have occasion to vote in detail as soon as they were introduced.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,828,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charge of the following Civil Services to the 31st day of March, 1867:—

Class I.

Royal palaces

£8,000

Public Buildings

20,000

Furniture of Public Offices

3,000

Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

20,000

New Houses of Parliament

12,000

British Embassy Houses, Paris and Madrid

1,000

British Consulate and Embassy Houses, Constantinople

1,000

Westminster Bridge

2,000

New Foreign Office

15,000

Public Offices, Site (Re-vote)

20,000

Probate Court and Registries

3,000

Public Record Repository (Re-vote)

10,000

Nelson Column

2,000

Patent Office

5,000

National Gallery Enlargement

5,000

Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

5,000

Rates for Government Property

7,000

Harbours of Refuge

19,000

Holyhead and Portpatrick Harbours, &c.

11,000

Public Buildings, Ireland

22,000

National Gallery, Dublin

New Record Buildings, Dublin

1,000

Lighthouses Abroad

5,000

Class II.

Two Houses of Parliament, Offices

18,000

Treasury

14,000

Home Office

7,000

Foreign Office

16,000

Colonial Office

9,000

Privy Council Office

6,000

Board of Trade, &c

17,000

Privy Seal Office

1,000

Civil Service Commission

3,000

Paymaster General's Office

6,000

Exchequer London

2,000

1781

Office of Works and Public Buildings

£8,000

Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

8,000

Public Record Office

6,000

Poor Law Commissions

20,000

Mint, including Coinage

13,000

Inspectors of Factories, Fisheries, &c.

10,000

Exchequer and other Offices in Scotland

2,000

Household of Lord Lieutenant, Ireland

2,000

Chief Secretary, Ireland, Offices

4,000

Office of Public Works, Ireland

6,000

Audit Office

10,000

Copyhold, Tithe, and Inclosure Commission

6,000

Inclosure and Drainage Acts; Imprest Expenses

4,000

General Register Offices, England, Ireland, and Scotland

17,000

National Debt Office

4,000

Public Works Loan Commission and West India Relief Commission

1,000

Lunacy Commissions and Inspection, &c., of Lunatic Asylums

4,000

Superintendent of Roads, South Wales

1,000

Registrars of Friendly Societies

1,000

Charity Commission

5,000

Local Government Act Office, and Inspection of Burial Grounds

2,000

Landed Estates Record Offices

1,000

Quarantine Expenses

1,000

Secret Service

8,000

Printing and Stationery

90,000

Postage of Public Departments

38,000

Class III.

Law Charges, England

9,000

Criminal Prosecutions, &c. England

47,000

Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain

66,000

Crown Office, Queen's Bench

1,000

Admiralty Court Registry

4,000

Late Insolvent Debtors' Court

1,000

Probate Court, England

22,000

County Courts

40,000

Land Registry Office

2,000

Police Courts, Metropolis

6,000

Metropolitan Police

40,000

Criminal Proceedings, Scotland

18,000

Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland

11,000

Exchequer, Scotland, Legal Branch

1,000

Register House, Edinburgh, Salaries and Expenses of Sundry Departments

5,000

Accountant in Bankruptcy, Scotland

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

17,000

Court of Chancery, Ireland

2,000

Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, Ireland

4,000

Officers of the Judges on Circuit, Ireland

2,000

Manor Courts Compensations

1,000

Registry of Judgments

1,000

Registry of Deeds

4,000

Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Ireland

2,000

Court of Probate, Ireland

3,000

Landed Estates Court

3,000

Dublin Metropolitan Police and Police

14,000

1782

Constabulary of Ireland

£186,000

Four Courts Marshalsea Prison

1,000

Inspection and General Superintendence of Prisons

5,000

Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home

85,000

Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, &c., and Removal of Convicts

72,000

Transportation of Convicts

6,000

Convict Establishments in the Colonies

10,000

Class IV.

Public Education, Great Britain

174,000

Science and Art Department

40,000

Public Education, Ireland

82,000

University of London

3,000

Universities, &c. in Scotland.,

5,000

Queen's University in Ireland

1,000

Queen's Colleges, Ireland

2,000

National Gallery of Ireland

1,000

Belfast Theological Professors, &c.

1,000

British Museum

25,000

National Gallery

4,000

British Historical Portrait Gallery

1,000

Scientific Works and Experiments

2,000

Universal Exhibition at Paris.

2,000

Class V.

Bermudas

1,000

Clergy, North America

1,000

Governors and others, West Indies, &c.

6,000

Justices, West Indies.

1,000

Western Coast of Africa

3,000

St. Helena

1,000

Falkland Islands

2,000

Labuan

1,000

Emigration

3,000

Captured Negroes, Bounties on Slaves, &c.

10,000

Commissions for Suppression of Slave Trade

3,000

Consuls Abroad

42,000

Services in China, Japan, and Siam

5,000

Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses

9,000

Special Missions, Outfits, &c.

5,000

Third Secretaries to Embassies

1,000

Class VI.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances, &c.

45,000

Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards

1,000

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions

14,000

Relief of Distressed British Seamen

8,000

Miscellaneous Charges, formerly on Civil List

1,000

Public Infirmaries, Ireland

1,000

Hospitals in Dublin and Board of Superintendence

4,000

Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland

2,000

Non-conforming and other Ministers, Ireland

11,000

Class VII.

Temporary Commissions

7,000

Patent Law Expenses

8,000

Fishery Board, Scotland

4,000

1783

Local Dues on Shipping under Treaties of Reciprocity

£14,000

Miscellaneous Expenses from Civil Contingencies

12,000

Total

£1,828,000

MR.SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to make a general statement in explanation of the Civil Service Estimates when bringing them before the House?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was not usual to do so, and he therefore would not pledge himself to act upon the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Civil Service Estimates comprised so many different subjects that it would be impossible to deal with them in a single statement. Those Estimates would show an increase of between £100,000 and £200,000 only, which would be found to be connected with Public Buildings.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Dodson, Lord Clarence Paget, Mr. Childers.)
Order for Committee read. Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 28 (Infliction of corporal punishment in certain cases).
MR. P. A. TAYLOR MR. P. A. TAYLOR moved the omission of the clause. He said, he would appeal to the Committee to remove from the number of our punishments that which was the most severe, the most brutal, and he thought he might say, the most barbarous of them all. We thought in this country, and not altogether without justice, that we were in the advance of civilization, and, amongst other evidences of that, we pointed to the mildness of our criminal code; but, nevertheless, we were a long time throwing over some of the slough of the old regimé It was not ninety years since the abolition of the pillory, and not eighty years had passed since the law was abolished which condemned women to be burnt alive for treason. We had gone on amending the severity of our criminal law, and only the other day it was proposed that capital punishment should no longer be inflicted in the presence of a mob. He trusted the time might soon come when capital punishments should be abolished altogether; but
1784
flogging had a prior claim to be removed, for the taking away of human life was as nothing compared with the torture inflicted by the lash. The victims of corporal punishment were as a matter of course removed at once to a hospital to be treated for the injury they had received, and he therefore thought he was justified in saying that such punishment was, in fact, an application of torture. From the last Return it appeared that in the great majority of cases flogging was inflicted for insubordination—an offence the nature of which would greatly depend upon the character and temper of the commanding officer. A Return relating to the infliction of corporal punishment in the navy in 1863 showed that the number of cases in the year was 752, and in 73 cases only was the punishment awarded by a court martial. He presumed, therefore, that in 90 out of every 100 instances it was inflicted at the mere will of the commanding officer. The same Return stated that in 84 of Her Majesty's ships not a single lash had been laid on during the year. Now, if in so large a number of vessels discipline could be maintained without the use of the cat, it was not Quixotic to imagine that such a mode of punishment might be dispensed with altogether. It was said that so brutal were the class from which the army and navy were recruited that flogging was indispensable as the most economical method of maintaining subordination. His answer to that was, if it were necessary, as a means of abolishing this brutal punishment, let them employ a better class of men. He was sure the country would not grudge the expense; and then let it be a sufficient punishment for any breach of discipline to dismiss the culprit from the service. He hoped the Committee would agree to the abolition of a punishment which was barbarous and disgraceful to our navy.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under some misapprehension respecting the Bill before the Committee. It had, in reality, nothing whatever to do either with the navy or with the Marines afloat. A certain number of Marines was voted annually for shore service, and they were under the same discipline as the army. The navy proper and the Marines afloat were under the Naval Discipline Act. The hon. Gentleman had quoted figures to show that the number of cases of flogging was very high. He might, however, inform the hon. Gentleman that, according to the last Returns, out of 8,566

1785
Marines on shore, only eighteen had been corporally punished. The men were now getting to be of a very superior class, owing to the advantages they obtained in regard both to pay and education, and corporal punishment was diminishing annually, and would no doubt continue to do so if left to itself, but he thought the House would agree that it would not be advisable to put it down by Act of Parliament.
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 22: Majority 49.
Clauses 29 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 39 ("Branding").
MR. P. A. TAYLOR MR. P. A. TAYLOR moved its omission.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member whether he really thought the officers of the army and navy took a pleasure in flogging. They resorted to it only for the purpose of maintaining discipline, but Gentlemen opposite had a monopoly of humanity. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friends would move and carry an increase of the pay of soldiers and sailors, he would render it possible to procure a better class of men.
MR. NEATEsaid, he would be glad to support a Motion for better pay. The only way to compel the Government to bring forward a proposition to that effect was to force them by the abolition of such punishments not to rely on the low class of men who needed them.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had hoped that the discussion would be continued, not in reference to a question of money, but on the high moral principle in which it commenced. If it were merely a question between flogging and branding soldiers or sailors and increasing their pay, the former would undoubtedly be the more economical alternative. He thought the British army was not organized on a principle that recommended itself for good administration, and was by no means satisfactory. The object of flogging and branding was, perhaps, to supplement the incapacity of officers to perform the duties which devolved on them, and withdrawing the power of the lash would have the effect of securing more capable commanding officers. To listen to the remarks of the gallant Colonel opposite and other officers in that House one would fancy that the country existed for the army, and not the army for
1786
the country. He did not admit that the lash was necessary to the maintenance of discipline in time of peace. As to a time of war he would say nothing, for in a period of that kind there was violence on all sides, and when men took pay to be killed it did not seem necessary to be so particular about flogging.
MR. HUNTsaid, he had thought that the platform of the Radicals was "peace, retrenchment, and reform," but after the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) it was quite evident that "retrenchment" was excised from his platform; for he now proposed that there should be a greater expenditure, and as this increased expenditure was for the purpose of having a much better military force the hon. Member could not be in favour of "peace." The question of "Reform" was to come before the House on Monday, and it would not be surprising if not the slightest portion of the Radical platform were left after that day.
MR. NEATEsaid, he strenuously objected to be classed as a Radical.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, that when the question of humanity was raised, hon. Members who sat on the ultra-Liberal Benches would not allow retrenchment to interfere. Flogging was a disgrace to the country. The son of the postmaster of the town he had the honour of representing died under the lash at Hounslow some years ago. But branding was even worse. He had been informed by experienced officers that men after being flogged were never worth anything again as a soldier.
MR. REARDENsaid, he opposed the system of branding and flogging, as being repugnant to humanity, and because he thought more effectual remedies might be applied. He considered that soldiers could be much better governed by kindness than severity.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that corporal punishment was never inflicted by officers without the effects of kindness having been previously tried. No colonel had the power of inflicting corporal punishment on his own account. It must have been ordered by a court martial. He would ask, had nothing ever been heard about flogging in our gaols? Curious Returns on this point had been presented two or three years ago, from which it appeared that three boys had received forty-eight lashes of the cat-o'-nine tails for having torn the leaves out of their Prayer Book; but in the service, corporal punishment was now exceedingly rare.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that the punishment of flogging was now generally regarded as barbarous and out of date. No flogging was allowed in the Indian army. It had been abolished by Lord William Bentinck. As it would be scarcely alleged that the British soldier was inferior to the Sepoy, it would be difficult to maintain that English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers could not be managed without that punishment.
MR. NEATEsaid, that in reference to an observation of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), he would ask that hon. Gentleman what became of the Conservative "platform" to-day?
COLONEL PERCY HERBERTsaid, that in these days when the maximum of corporal punishment which officers had power to inflict had been reduced from 150 lashes to fifty, the Hounslow case was no longer in point.
MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that the arguments now used to keep up the fifty lashes were exactly similar to those which had been formerly used in support of 500, 800, and 1,000.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 21: Majority 31.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NEW FOREST POOR RELIEF BILL.
On Motion of Viscount ENFIELD, Bill to provide for the relief of the poor in the New Forest, ordered to be brought in by Viscount ENFIELD and Mr. VILLIERS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 57.]
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Several Lords took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772)*; Princess Helena's Annuity* (39); Prince Alfred's Annuity* (40); Qualification for Offices Abolition* (41); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)*[H.L.] (42).
Committee—Cattle Plague (33).
Report—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes*(17); Cattle Plague*(43).
Third Reading—Cattle Plague*(43); Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks*(31).

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.
(The Lord President.)
CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.

  (Nos. 27, 33, 33*). COMMITTEE.
  [The Amendments made by the Select Committee, by the omission, alteration, and insertion of clauses, were so numerous, that it is difficult to follow the exact course of the discussion in the Committee.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should ask the House to consent to the re-arrangement of the clauses of the Bill, because
  1696
  it had been so altered in the Committee of the House of Commons and in the Select Committee, that the clauses relating to the primary object of the Bill were inconveniently scattered.
  Several clauses, the omission of which was proposed by the Select Committee, were struck out; several new clauses proposed to be inserted by the Select Committee, were agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—Clauses struck out.
  Clause 14 (Penalty for moving contrary to Act).
  EARL GREYinstanced a case of peculiar hardship, in which a boy charged with infringing the law in reference to the cattle plague was fined, the master, although the boy had acted by his directions, refusing to pay the penalty. He therefore proposed the insertion of words giving the magistrates power under such circumstances to summon the master, and impose the penalty upon the person by whose orders the law was infringed, instead of on the person actually committing the offence.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause E (Continuation of Part I. of Cattle Diseases Act).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, their Lordships had recently passed an Act by which the slaughter of infected cattle was rendered compulsory until the 15th of April. The effect of the clause now before the House was to repeal the powers of the Privy Council given under the 12th section of the previous Act. He therefore proposed to amend the clause by giving power to the Privy Council to continue the compulsory slaughter clause of the previous Act after the 15th of April, in case they should think fit to do so, with certain qualifications; so that instead of giving the Privy Council a discretionary power at once to discontinue compulsory slaughter, in the terms of the clause, his Amendment would defer that discretionary power until after the 15th of April.
  Amendment proposed.
  In Clause E., added by the Select Committee, moved to leave out ("Notwithstanding anything in The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866, it shall be lawful for the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council from Time to Time by Order to") and insert ("Her Majesty may in continuing from Time to Time, or renewing if expired, the Provisions of Part I. of The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866, relating to the Slaughter of diseased Animals.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was anxious that there should be as little alteration as possible in the Bill, which hail passed the Select Committee after much care had been bestowed upon it; but the clause proposed to be amended was in direct opposition to a decision to which the House came by a very large majority a few days ago. The clause as it stood would place the Privy Council in a most invidious position, for they could scarcely exercise the power proposed to be given to them in the face of what had passed. The slaughtering clause had been adopted by a vary large majority in both Houses, and yet it was sought to give the Privy Council for the next four or five weeks a discretion to relax that power of slaughter, though it was almost impossible that within those few weeks any new facts could arise to make that relaxation necessary. It was quite reasonable that the executive Government should have some discretion in order to give elasticity to the working of the Bill as new circumstances became known; but it would be useless to give such a power for a few weeks only.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the effect of the Amendment would really be to reverse the decision of the Select Committee, and to bring the clause back to the form in which it originally stood. He was responsible for the present clause, which was to the effect that the Privy Council should act at once, without waiting until after the 15th of April, when the indiscriminate slaughter might cease. The question of indiscriminate slaughter had been very carefully considered by the Committee, and this clause, after an hour's deliberation, was adopted by nine votes to seven. There was scarcely an instance in which a Bill referred to a Select Committee bad undergone more important and extensive alterations. The whole construction had been altered, and a totally new principle adopted. The noble Duke who proposed to amend the clause said that the 12th clause of the former Act, giving a power of indiscriminate slaughter, had been approved by both Houses of Parliament; but it should not be forgotten that the Bill by which that was enacted was passed so rapidly that there was no time for its consideration by Members, or to ascertain the opinion of the country upon the subject; and as it now appeared that there were quite as many against as in favour of indiscriminate slaughter, he thought he was justified in the Amendment which the Com-
  1698
  mittee had adopted. When the Government Bill was proposed Parliament was called upon to legislate in a panic, and, as a last resource, this remedy was seized to arrest the progress of the disease. At that time the disease was spreading rapidly and no cure for it was known, but since then the circumstances had greatly altered. Of late letter after letter had appeared in the newspapers deprecating indiscriminate slaughter. It was stated, in the first place, that in foreign countries, where the disease was thoroughly known and where the mode of treating it was properly understood, it was the practice to distinguish between animals that should be slaughtered and those that should be saved. It was important that the Committee should understand the ground upon which they were going to decide, since upon their decision would depend the lives of a great number of very valuable cattle in different parts of the country. What were the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners upon this subject, as contained in their first Report? They said, in reference to the power of slaughter—
  "This power is right and useful when the disease has appeared only at isolated spots, and attacked a few animals; the public benefit is then very great, and the private sacrifice small; but in proportion as it extends the hope of thus arresting its march diminishes, the inevitable waste increases, and the sense of hardship tends to become insupportable."
  Truer remarks were never made. The compensation provided by the other House in no case met the requirements of the case. As the disease spread and animals were carried off the value of the living animal became greater, and he knew that animals in Cheshire formerly worth £10 or £15, would now fetch £50. The Commissioners also said—
  "When the disease has widely diffused itself, and disappears atone point only to appear at another, the difficulties of isolation become greater, and the chances of its being efficacious less."
  Isolation was, therefore, the concomitant of a system of slaughter. There could be no more accurate description than that the disease disappeared at one point only to appear at another. It had reappeared where slaughter had been adopted especially in Scotland, where the system of slaughter had been greatly relied on and many counties which had not resorted to slaughtering had not suffered more than those that had relied open it. He did not ask the Committee to stop the system of slaughtering, as there might be cases in which slaughtering was necessary; but he

  1699
  asked the Committee to give a discretion to local authorities. The whole structure of the Bill was based upon the principle that discretion was to be allowed to local authorities; and it was highly important that the slaughtering of animals and the rating of owners for compensation should be left with those authorities. It was apparently lame legislation to pass without sufficient evidence a stringent measure, applying generally to the whole country, to kill at one fell swoop the most valuable animals in price and for breeding purposes. Most valuable cows belonging to a tenant of his which might never have taken the disease had been destroyed, simply because the local authorities had felt impelled by the stringent nature of the Act to strain its clauses to the utmost, if not to exceed the power the Legislature intended them to exercise. He therefore asked their Lordships, in the first place, to maintain the decision of their Committee; and, next, to maintain the principle on which it was founded by giving discretion to local authorities. Nothing could be more unadvisable than to have a statute which local authorities might consider they were not bound to carry out because of its stringency; and he was told that some magistrates in the north of England had determined to invest their officers with discretion, because it would require a regiment of soldiers to enforce the law. He had prepared a clause which he would move, if it was the opinion of the Committee that such discretion should be allowed. Instead of leaving it to the Privy Council to grant discretion, he would propose that the local authorities should exercise the power of sparing animals likely to recover, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Cattle Diseases Act. If their Lordships would rescind the clause in the Bill be would propose a clause to the effect stated.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought the form of discretion proposed by the clause as it stood was more objectionable than either of the propositions of the two noble Dukes, and he should be prepared, if the clause were withdrawn, to vote for a clause giving discretion to the local authorities. The experiment which it was desired to try by the 15th of April was not being tried, and would not be tried. In Cheshire, in Forfarshire, and in another county, magistrates had formally resolved that they would not instruct the inspectors to slaughter convalescent cattle. An experiment of the kind could not be tried without the co-
  1700
  operation of the local authorities; and, whatever the Legislature might decide by an Act, they were at the mercy of the local authorities even more than they were under Orders in Council, because under Orders a part of the payment came from the Government, whereas under an Act inspectors and others were absolutely servants of the local authorities. How could it be expected that they would do that which they considered unjust and injurious? He had heard of farmers who would not allow their cattle to be slaughtered except by compulsion. As it would be injurious to impose penalties upon a great number of poor persons for violating the law, and as it would bring legislation into contempt to have boards of magistrates declaring they could not put the law in force, he should vote for giving discretion to local authorities.
  LORD LYVEDENhoped the noble Duke would see the advantage of adhering to the decision come to by the Select Committee, and would not propose what they had negatived.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment—
  "That the Committee of the Lords of the Privy Council shall have power to authorize the suspension or relaxation of any of the Provisions of this Act, or of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, on the application of the local authority in any of the counties in Scotland; the same to be published in the Gazette and in the local newspapers of the County,"
  because he felt there had been a change in public feeling. The resolution in favour of slaughter was carried at the Perth meeting by a small majority, an amendment which he proposed being negatived, and when the Highland Society adopted the petition which had been presented, it was taken by surprise, and many who were in favour of it were now earnestly entreating Parliament not to give effect to what had been their wish. The principal promoter of it now wrote—
  "In despair at the apparent apathy of the many, I became a convert to the kill and compensate theory. I now have gone back to the idea that with breeding stock it will only add to the calamity, and the cry immediately must be 'Stop the slaughter.'"
  He had a still stronger letter from another member of the Highland Society, who said—
  "The interest your Lordship is well known to take in the cattle plague will, I hope, excuse my addressing you on the subject. Though I have, from the first, supported the 'stamping-out' system, if carried out under certain conditions

  1701
  not embodied in the new Bill, and consequently have been an opponent to the system of which your Lordship has been the consistent advocate, I have now, from experience, been obliged to change my views. I have, by following the treatment recommended by your Lordship, been so fortunate as to see a good proportion of my stock recover, and this has also been the same case among my neighbours who have pursued the same course. A large percentage has recovered and is recovering in this district, and the disease appears to be assuming an increasingly mild type. Under these circumstances, it is natural that we live in constant fear of the new Act coining into operation. Its provisions will, if rigidly enforced, sweep off the remnant of our stock, of which, speaking from my own experience, from one-half to two-thirds might otherwise be saved. Were the sacrifice likely to conduce to the benefit of others, it might be patiently borne, but it is difficult to see how the slaughter of only the animals actually seized can extinguish the disease, which must continue to linger in our herds until they are sent to grass, when all control over them will cease. The almost universal feeling in this district is hostility to the Bill, and a determination to resist its provisions by every means. It will confer a great benefit on us if your Lordship would be pleased to exert your influence to get the slaughtering clause of the Act modified or its action postponed, which would be the means of saving a great deal of valuable stock."
  Now, that letter was written by a tenant-farmer, who belonged to the class of persons of whom the local authority would be composed. How, then, could it be expected that the law would be carried out? Numerous instances had occurred in which herds had been saved by proper treatment, and it ought to be borne in mind that the power of slaughtering animals was placed in the hands of inspectors who were quite ignorant of the nature of the disease. Many animals which were supposed to be attacked by the cattle plague had been, in reality, suffering from other complaints. There certainly ought to be some discretion vested either in the Privy Council or some other body, because some counties were placed in a very different position from others. In Forfarshire, for instance, it would be very hard if the farmers, who were also, for the most part, cattle dealers, were obliged to make a clean sweep of all their stock.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he was very sorry this subject had been again brought before their Lordships, for he thought the clause which had been carried on a previous evening by a very large majority was a most important one. He regretted to hear that the farmers in some parts of the country had changed their opinions on this subject. That change, however, had taken place be-
  1702
  cause a mild form of the disease had broken out in those districts. Now, if animals were slaughtered in one county and allowed to remain alive in another, those who carried out the provisions of the Act would have all their efforts rendered null by their neighbours. That, he thought, would not be only unjust but impolitic. He might express his belief that if Baron Rothschild had adopted the "stamping out" system instead of Mr. Worms' method of treatment, he would not have lost so many animals as he had. In conclusion, he most strongly urged their Lordships to maintain the decision which they had arrived at the other night.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 57: Majority 33:—Resolved in the Negative.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  York, Archp.

  Romney, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Buckingham and Chan-dos, D. [Teller.]

  Marlborough, D. [Teller]

  Eversley, V.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Airlie, E.

  Belmore, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Londesborough, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Northwick, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Rossie, L.(L. Kinnaird)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Harewood, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Granville, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Grey, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lichfield, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Bath, M.

  Minto, E.

  Camden, M.

  Powis, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Sommers, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Chichester, E.

  Hill, V.

  Clarendon, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Cowper, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Abinger, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Belper, L.

  1703

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Egerton, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Houghton, L.

  Keane, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  The DUKE of MARLBOROUGHproposed a clause to follow Clause E—
  (Power for Local Authority to exempt from Slaughter Animals Recovering.)
  "Notwithstanding anything in 'The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866,' it shall not be obligatory on any Local Authority to cause any Animal affected with the Cattle Plague within their District to be slaughtered in any Case where it is made to appear to the Satisfaction of the Local Authority, or of any Officer authorized in that behalf by them, that the Animal is likely to recover from the Attack of the Cattle Plague, subject, nevertheless, in every such Case to the Observance by the Person in whose Possession or Keeping the Animal affected is of all such Conditions as the Local Authority from Time to Time think fit to prescribe for the Purpose of securing the Isolation of the Animal affected."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  THE EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsupported the clause. What was the use of talking of Mr. Worms' medicine or any other medicine if Parliament declared that all cattle when once attacked by the disease must be slaughtered? He did not think we were justified in throwing up all hope and getting into a state of despair because it had pleased Providence to allow this plague to attack our cattle. It was our duty to endeavour to cure it and overcome the calamity. There was a letter from the Consul at Warsaw, which distinctly declared that the disease had been cured; and only the other day we heard of this remarkable occurrence:—Three-fourths of a herd were slaughtered because they had the disease, and, as well as he remembered, seven more were condemned. For some time these seven would not drink, but having been turned to water in which lime had been slaked, they did drink readily and were well in a few days. With such facts before us were we to say the disease was incurable? We should be guided by experience and not by learned disquisitions which required that a man must have read extensively before he could understand them. We never should get rid of this cattle plague till we had got rid of the plague of trusting to professors rather than to common sense.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, the question their Lordships had to decide at the moment was not whether the disease was curable, but whether, in the present state of our information on the subject, a destruction of the infected animals was not the more prudent course?
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, a recent return from Scotland stated that of 1,300 animals attacked 653, or nearly one-third, recovered.
  After a short discussion, which was not audible,
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 50: Majority 26:—Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  York, Archp.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Buckingham and Chan-dos, D.

  Eversley, V.

  Marlborough, D. [Teller]

  De Tabley, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Feversham, L.

  Londesborough, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird)

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Romney, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Devonshire, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Hill, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Abinger L.

  Bath, M.

  Belper, L.

  Camden, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Exeter, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Cowper, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Egerton, L.

  De la Warr, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Keane, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Grey, E.

  Monson, L,

  Hardwicke, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Powis, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Clauses 28 to 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 struck out:—Clauses 33 to 35 amended, and agreed to:—Clauses 36 to 38 struck out:—Clauses 39 and 40 amended, and agreed to:—Clause 41 struck out:—Clause 42 amended, and agreed to.
  EARL GREYproposed the insertion of a clause, authorizing the justice to cause Employer to be summoned in certain cases instead of the person who has acted under bis orders.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved to insert the following Clause before Clause 43:—
  From and after the End of Seven Days next after the Day of the passing of this Act, no Market, Fair, Public Auction, Exhibition, or Public Sale of Cattle shall be held; subject, nevertheless, to the following Provisions:—
  1. At any Time after the First Day of July One thousand eight hundred and sixty-six the Privy Council may, by Order, on the Application of any Local Authority, suspend the Prohibition contained in the present Section within the District of that Local Authority, or any Part thereof; and the Privy Council may at any Time vary or revoke, and may from Time to Time renew, any such Order of Suspension:
  2. The Prohibition contained in the present Section shall not prevent the Holding in Liverpool or Glasgow of any Market, Fair, Auction, Exhibition, or public Sale of Cattle imported there directly from Ireland; but if at any Time the Cattle Plague exists in Ireland, the Privy Council may, by Order, extend the Prohibition contained in the present Section to Liverpool and Glasgow, or either of them, temporarily or otherwise, and the Privy Council may at any Time vary or revoke, and may from Time to Time renew, any such Order of Extension.—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted that the noble Earl had been unable to be a member of the Select Committee, by whom this question of the prohibition of fairs and markets had been fully discussed, and rejected by a majority of nine to six. He trusted that their Lordships would support the decision of the Committee. It would be impossible to carry out one uniform system throughout the country unless the local authorities were with them, and it appeared to him not to be desirable to fetter the action of the Privy Council in the manner proposed by the noble Earl.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he had framed clauses to nearly the same effect, and therefore concurred in the clause proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Lichfield),
  1706
  because he believed that great danger would be incurred by purchasing cattle, and especially store stock, during the summer months in fairs and markets. The experiment of permitting a fair for the purpose of selling store cattle had been tried at Barnet, but the regulations adopted on the occasion had entirely broken down, notwithstanding the presence of a large body of mounted inspectors; and the result was that the disease had been extended by means of that fair. He thought that after the experience we had lately gained we need be under no fear as to the practicability of large towns being supplied through dead-meat markets; and, in his opinion, it would be advisable to adopt that system generally, as, besides the danger of extending the disease incurred in bringing the cattle up to the metropolitan market, the flesh of animals that had been put to torture in railway trucks, or which had been overdriven, was not nearly so fit for human food as was that of healthy cattle which had been killed in pure country air. For instance, he had been informed that meat killed in Aberdeenshire and sent up to the metropolitan markets would keep longer even in the summer months than meat which had been killed in London; and in these days of telegraphs and of railways not the slightest difficulty would be experienced in supplying London entirely with meat which had been killed in the country. He attributed the slight rise in price of the best descriptions of beef during the last two days to be owing to the system not yet having got into working order.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 22: Majority 2:—Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Lichfield, E. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Romney, E.

  Spencer, E. [Teller.]

  Bath, M.

  Normanby, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hill, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Belper, L.

  Derby, E.

  Monson, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Walsingham, L.

  1707

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lucan, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Airlie, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De La Warr, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Clauses 43 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause H (Power for Privy Council to require Statistical Returns of Cattle).
  On the Motion of The Earl of POWIS Amendment made relieving the Local Authorities from the cost of making the Statistical Returns required by the Privy Council,
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Amendments reported; further Amendments made: Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 43.)

  SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in Scotland—Was presented by The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY; read la. (No. 42.)
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.