Sitting of 25 July 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—George Dixon, esquire, for Birmingham.
SELECT COMMITTE — Report — On Malt Tax [No. 470]; on Fire Protection [No. 471].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 22] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Fortifications and Works; Courts of Law (Fees); Customs Revenue.
First Reading—Courts of Law (Salaries and Expenses)* [282].
Second Reading—Army Reserve* [148]; Militia Reserve* [149]; Indemnity* [280]; Bank Post Bills (Ireland)* [281]; Office of Judge in the Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Courts* [203], discharged; Merchant Shipping* [274]; Trusts (Scotland)* [266].
Committee — Poor Law Board, &c. (re-comm.) [271]; Admiralty Courts (Ireland)* [209]; Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* [253]; Weights and Measures (Dublin)* [263]; Dublin Metropolitan Police* [246]; Tancred's Charities* (re-comm.) [207] [R.P.]; Court of Chancery Officers* [235] [R.P.]; Guarantee of Government Officers* [223].
Report—Poor Law Board, &c.* (re-comm.) [271]; Admiralty Courts (Ireland)* [209]; Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* [253]; Weights and Measures (Dublin)* [263]; Dublin Metropolitan Police* [246]; Guarantee of Government Officers* [223 & 283].
Considered as amended—Canongate Annuity Tax (Edinburgh)* [210]; Justices of the Peace Disqualification Removal* [245].
Third Reading—Galashiels Jurisdiction* [234]; Morro Velho Marriages* [265].
Withdrawn—Burials (Ireland)* [109].

EXPIRING LAWS.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any Bills will be brought forward during the present Session to continue the following Acts, which will expire before the end of the year 1867—namely, the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Act, the Dockyard Extensions Act, the Locomotives on Roads Act, the Survey of Great Britain Act, and the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management Act?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Expiring Laws Bill would be introduced in the course of the night, and it would contain all the information which the hon. Member desired to have.

THE OATHS COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any Bill founded on the Report of the Oaths Commissioners, or on the subject of Oaths generally, will be brought forward this year?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Report of the Commissioners was one upon which the Government would not be able to found a Bill. At all events there would be no Bill brought in this Session.

INDIA—THE INDIAN BUDGET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, On what day he will be able to give his Financial Statement on the Indian Revenues &c.?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not answer the Question to-night but he hoped to be able to answer it on Monday.

ARMY—THE SNIDER RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR WALKERasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of rifles have been converted on the Snider principle up to the present date; what number remain to be converted; and, at what daily rate is such conversion now proceeding?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that 216,223 rifles had at present been converted, and 133,777 remained to be converted. 350,000 would be converted by the end of March next, and they were going on at the rate of about 1,100 per day.

CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether, with reference to a serious outbreak of Cattle Plague, which occurred in Essex last week, his attention has been drawn to the fact, as stated in a daily paper, that Cattle from Antwerp were landed at Harwich in the morning and inspected at night before they were sent up to the Metropolitan Market; and, if so, whether Orders have been issued that the inspection of all imported Cattle should for the future take place in the daytime?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the outbreak was not so serious as was generally supposed. The only attacks during the present month in Essex were one beast, on the 12th of July, in East Ham Level, and six, on the 21st of July, in Barking Level. It was true that a great number of cattle were slaughtered by the owners on their own responsibility; only seventeen were slaughtered by order of the local authority. As to the cattle coming from Antwerp to Harwich, two calves and some sheep were brought over by the Ravensbourne; they were
80
examined between eight and nine o'clock, and the certificate was granted twelve hours after landing.
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: By twilight then?
MR. READasked, whether the inspection took place after the twelve hours' quarantine; they were landed at half-past nine o'clock.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the intention of the Order in Council was that the cattle should rest twelve hours before inspection, and that intention was acted on in Harwich, until it was learned that in London the practice was somewhat different, and that there the time of inspection was included within the twelve hours. The inspection began at eight o'clock in the evening and terminated at nine o'clock and the certificate was given at half-past nine o'clock; so that the inspection terminated at the expiration of twelve hours after the landing of the cattle.
MR. BRIGHTwished to know whether any other maladies, to which cattle were subject, were reported to the noble Lord's department? He asked this question on the ground that there was a general supposition, as some hon. Members well knew, that many cases were said to be of cattle plague which were not so, that the price of meat in the country was unnecessarily sustained under this delusion, and in this way practically protection was established under the pretence of keeping out cattle which were diseased.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that cases of other diseases were reported, but not as cattle plague. They had reports of numerous cases of pleuro pneumonia, for instance. Wherever the inspector made an inspection and gave a certificate of cattle plague, whether it was cattle plague or not, they were bound to treat it as such, in accordance with an Act passed by the late Government in 1866, which made the certificate of the local inspector conclusive as to the occurrence of that cattle disease. The hon. Member for Birmingham was mistaken in his notion concerning a rise in the price of meat; during the worst time of the cattle plague the rise in the price of meat was scarcely perceptible, and during a portion of the time it actually fell in price.
MR. LIDDELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether it be true that, under the authority of the Privy Council, liberty has been recently given to the port of Sunder-

81
land to tranship cattle imported thither from abroad, and send them by sea to other ports; whether the cattle transhipment regulations of the port of Sunderland apply to all other ports of import in the United Kingdom; and, if not, why not; and if such cattle transhipment regulations be general throughout the Kingdom; what precautions the Government are prepared to take, by enactment or otherwise, to prevent the spread of cattle diseases imported from abroad?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied, that an Order in Council was passed on 16th July, which permitted the landing of foreign cattle in an island at Sunderland, the only communication between the island and the main land being by means of a bridge, and, of course, no cattle were permitted to pass over it. Under that Order the cattle have to rest for twelve hours on that island, and were then inspected, and might be shipped to other ports, where they must be taken direct to the slaughterhouse. The Order only applied to Sunderland, because various local particulars prevented its application to other towns. Several requisitions had come from other ports, which were under consideration, and would be treated on their own merits. The Government so framed their orders that foreign cattle and home cattle should never meet together, except at the place where they were slaughtered.

DISTRICT PROTHONOTARIES LANCASTER BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. GORSTsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is his intention to propose any Amendments to the District Prothonotaries Lancaster Bill; and, if so, when Notice of such Amendments will be given?
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had no Amendments to propose in this Bill, though he believed the Attorney General, who had charge of the measure, intended to propose some.

BLEACHING, DYEING, AND PRINTWORKS ACTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the Factory Act Extension Bill, that a Royal Commission should issue to inquire into the operation
82
of the Bleaching, Dyeing, and Printworks Acts?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that he had made inquiries, and he was not sure that it would be necessary to issue a Royal Commission, but it would probably be necessary to have some inquiry made by competent authority.

THE CARRIERS ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to introduce a Bill next Session to amend the Carriers Act?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the Royal Commission on Railways had reported that the enumeration of articles in the Carriers Act required revision; representations which had been from time to time made to the Board of Trade fully bore out that conclusion. This point must therefore must be considered in framing any general measure. Whether this would be done next Session was more than he could at present say. Legislation in reference to railway matters was not a very easy or a very hopeful task.

NAVY—THE COASTGUARD.—QUESTION.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANEIn reply to Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE,
MR. CORRYstated, that service in the Coastguard did not count for time in respect of promotion, except in the case of one annual promotion on the special recommendation of the Controller General of the Coastguard, and, consequently, did not qualify Captains on the Reserved List to take the benefit of the recent Order in Council. With this exception, it was necessary that Commanders should serve one entire year in one or more of Her Majesty's ships employed on active service before being entitled to promotion.

NAVY—PUNISHMENT OF CADETS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BASSsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has made further inquiry respecting the mode of punishment of Cadets on board the Britannia? It was alleged from a great many quarters that excessive cruelty was practised on board that ship; and it was stated by gentlemen acquainted with the practice, and who had given their names, that when a Cadet was punished his legs and arms were tied to ringbolts

  83
  so that he could not move, and that he was flogged by a birch broom which had been previously steeped in water to make it more pliant; that fifteen cuts were inflicted with it on the back, and that the doctors invariably attended. He wished to know whether the First Lord had made further inquiries on the matter, and if he retained the opinion he formerly expressed?
  MR. CORRYsaid, in consequence of the statement of the hon. Member he had thought it necessary to make minute inquiry on the subject of the punishments on board the Britannia, and the result was a complete denial of any cruelty whatever. The allegation of a birch-broom instead of a rod being used was denied. It was a birch-rod precisely similar, though rather smaller, than that used at Westminster school. The other charges, also, were denied. [Mr. BASS: The arms are not tied to ringbolts?] Certainly not. But it is hardly necessary that I should go further into the case, as the Admiralty, having taken the whole subject into consideration, have thought it advisable that the punishment of flogging on board the Britannia should be discontinued. An order to that effect was issued by the Board of Admiralty on the 8th of last month.

FRANCE—THE FISHERY CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Fishery Convention with France, the terms of which were agreed to by an International Commission in January last, has been concluded; and, if not, what are the reasons for the delay?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the Convention was signed, he believed, on Thursday last. The ratifications had not yet been exchanged. His hon. Friend who put the Question and who bore so active and prominent a part in these negotiations knew how careful, he might say punctilious, the French Commissioners were in framing the various articles. This caution was exercised to a still greater extent by the legal Advisers of the French Government to whom the text of the Convention was referred. This led to frequent communications between the two Governments, and was almost the sole cause of the delay. There had not been an alteration or a difference of opinion as to any point of the smallest importance. The French in a most liberal spirit allowed us to act in re-
  84
  ference to the most important arrangements as if the Treaty had been ratified. There was therefore less need for haste; and as it was impossible to print the Bill without the text of the Convention as finally agreed upon, and there was some question with the Scotch Fishery Board as to the repeal of certain Acts, it was thought on the whole better at this late period of the Session to postpone legislation to another year.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE GREYasked, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it would be expedient to postpone this Bill till another Session? Very extensive alterations had been made in it, and it certainly required full consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was under the impression when he made the statement to the House the other day as to the probable conduct of public business, that no considerable, or, indeed, any opposition, would be offered to this Bill by right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite. If, however, he was to understand that any very considerable opposition was to be offered to the Bill, that would very much influence him in the decision at which he had arrived in regard to this Bill, as the time of the House was necessarily limited. He would consider the matter and give the right hon. Gentleman an answer to-morrow or Monday.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not mean to imply that he should oppose the Bill; but he thought it would require very full consideration, and the subject was not pressing.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURasked the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Whether, considering the lateness of the Session, and that opposition might be anticipated to this Bill, it was his intention to persevere with it?
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that having undertaken the charge of this Bill, he should be extremely unwilling not to proceed with it this Session unless he found it absolutely impossible to do so. For his own part, if any or all of the Amendments of which notice had been given were carried, he should be disposed readily to acquiesce

  85
  in the decision of the House, and proceed with the Bill. He could not undertake to withdraw the Bill. He desired to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on another subject. He had given notice of his intention to move an Address to Her Majesty, praying for inquiry into several subjects connected with the administration of justice, in order to see whether, by the means mentioned in that notice, or by other means, the better administration of justice might be promoted. He should be glad to hear whether or not it would be consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's views that Her Majesty should be advised to issue a Commission in the sense of his Notice of Motion? If the right hon. Gentleman were not able to give an affirmative answer to that question, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) would be compelled to bring forward his Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that he would give the subject his attention, and return an answer on a future evening to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

CHRISTCHURCH ORDINANCES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  Viscount GALWAYIn reply to Viscount GALWAY,
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that he had no reason to believe that the House of Lords had altered this Bill in any material sense.

MEETINGS IN ROYAL PARKS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to know what course the Government intended to take with regard to the Meetings in the Parks Bill? He hoped it was not intended to proceed with it; but if it was determined to do so, it would be convenient to know on what day it would be taken; and also when the amended Bill would be laid on the table and sent to Members?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the amended Bill ought to have been in the hands of hon. Members that day, but it would certainly be in their possession to-morrow. It was a Bill which the Government intended to proceed with, and hon. Gentlemen would have due notice. He could not say whether it would come on on Monday or not, but it should be at a convenient hour.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. READasked, When it was proposed to take this Bill, and whether there would be a Morning Sitting for it?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the Contagious Diseases Animals Bill, which had come down from the Lords, would be taken probably at a Morning Sitting, of which due notice would be given.

TANCRED'S CHARITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. DENTasked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill, seeing that it had been postponed so often?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he hoped to go on with the Bill; it had been postponed once on account of the illness of the hon. Member for Reading; a second time on account of the absence of the hon. Member for Scarborough who put the Question; a third time, in consequence of the unavoidable absence of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire; and a fourth time, in consequence of the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, pending his re-election.

PRIVATE EXECUTIONS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill? He had had an Amendment on the Paper since the beginning of the Session, and had been here night after night watching the Bill, and he was afraid it might be brought on at one or two o'clock in the morning, when the state of his health would hardly allow him to be present.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that out of consideration to the health of the hon. Member, he would not proceed with the Bill this Session.

INDEMNITY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to introduce an Indemnity Bill this year? The House had been given to understand last year that the Indemnity Bill then introduced would be the last that was required, and he wished to know whether any steps had been taken to pre-

87
vent the recurrence of the necessity for introducing such a Bill during the present Session?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the legal Advisers of the Home Office had told him that it was necessary to have an Indemnity Bill again this Session, with a view to the protection of a limited number of persons holding civil and military offices or in the Queen's household, who might be liable to penalties under the Act Geo. III.

COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked, Whether this Bill was printed; and, if so, when it would be placed in the hands of hon. Members?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the Bill would be in the hands of Members tomorrow morning.

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

ARMY OF RESERVE—MILITIA BALLOT.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he hoped that the House would deem the great importance of any question relating to the military organization of the Army of Reserve a sufficient excuse for the remarks he was about to submit to them upon the subject, and for his taking the liberty of drawing their attention to some points which, in his humble opinion, should not be lost sight of in dealing with this important question. Not very long since the attention of Parliament had been directed to the question of the organization of the army in consequence of some very unfortunate occurrences. After the successful termination of the war in 1815 the nation fell as it were into a state of apathy and self-sufficiency with regard to its military establishments. The result was that in the year 1835 those establishments were reduced to such an extent that, if he were not misinformed, in the whole of Great Britain not more than twelve guns fully horsed and manned could have been got together on an emergency. In 1845, in moving the Address, he had, with the ingenuousness of youth, expressed a hope that, with the existing commercial relations
  88
  between the nations of Europe, the recurrence of the calamity of war would be rare if not impossible. Europe was, however, soon aroused from its state of fancied security. The Exhibition of 1851, instead of inaugurating an era of peace, had been followed by a succession of wars. In the Paris Exhibition of the present year the most successful display on the part of England was in the department devoted to improved weapons for the destruction of human life. In another way the spirit of this country had been exhibited by the formation of a body of 180,000 Volunteers, and the interest that was taken in military organization. They had now under consideration the fruits of the labours of the Commission appointed to inquire into the questions of the Army Reserve and the recruiting of the army. In a work published recently in France, entitled "The French Army in 1867," which, though anonymous, was known to be written by General Trochu, there was a passage to this effect:—
  "That it is peace, properly utilized, which forms good armies, and it is war, especially when prolonged, which disorganizes them."
  And the same writer further says—
  "For a government to be caught by war in a state of making preparations is one of the greatest of—almost crimes—a Government can commit; and it is only equalled by an army when war has broken out, being caught in the act of concentration."
  He was afraid that if we were asked whether our army was prepared for war the answer would be unsatisfactory. The question was, had we unity of action in our departments and that simplicity of organization which was absolutely essential to the proper conduct of operations in the field? With regard to the unity of action in the different departments, he need only refer to the simple fact that in a time of peace a regiment could not be brought to Hounslow—a distance of only one day's journey — and fed satisfactorily by the Commissariat. It was difficult for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War or anybody else to find out who was the party on whom the blame rested. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, when speaking on this subject, that that branch of the service at all events required to be looked into and better organized. Then, again, as to the Medical Department, although there were on an average during; the last fortnight 3,000 military men, composed of all branches of the army, besides

  89
  Volunteers, encamped at Wimbledon; and although a requisition for medical stores had been sent in some fourteen days previously to the meeting, they were left without medical stores for several days. A great step towards our improvement was to be aware of our deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had now before the House two Hills for the purpose of remedying, to a certain extent, those deficiencies, which would effect great improvements in the organization of the various military departments, and which had been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission appointed to take the subject into consideration. In looking at that Report, however, it appeared to him that many of the points upon which suggestions had been made by the Commission were such as should never have come before them at all. Such matters, for instance, as questions relating to barrack damages, the washing of sheets, fatigue dress, teaching the soldiers the use of the spade and mattock, and various trades, and diminishing the amount of drill, should have been dealt with by the military authorities on their own responsibility, or left to regimental discipline. With regard to the questions of the fatigue dress and the use of the mattock and spade, he desired to say a word or two. When fatigue parties had been sent to work at Wimbledon, it was felt that it was so great a hardship upon the men that they should have to pay 12 s. for a fatigue dress in which to perform a part of their ordinary work, that a dress was supplied to them for the purpose. His right hon. Friend had thought it right to recommend an increase of 2d. a day to the pay of the soldiers instead of giving them a fatigue dress, but he would suggest whether it was not possible to sanction the use of a dress less expensive than those at present employed. If that were done officers would be less inclined than they oftentimes now were to relieve the soldiers from a portion of their duty in this respect. He wished also to say a few words with respect to drill. As a civilian he did not presume to offer any dictation upon military matters. In what he was going to say he was only giving expression to the views of many military men. We ought not to have a system by which the soldier who had completed his first period of service was compelled to perform the same amount of drill as a soldier who had been in the service but a
  90
  short time. There was something wrong in the system under which a soldier of ten years' service had to go through precisely the same drill as a soldier of only one year's service. It was further thought that rather than make the drill a punishment they should endeavour to give a soldier an interest in it. Many military men were of opinion that drill should not in any case be used as a punishment. They believed that the time of the soldier might with advantage be more employed than it was at present, in working at some trade and less at drill. Soldiers ought, no doubt, to have as much drill as was necessary to their efficiency; but that efficiency might still be attained if we departed to some extent from our present system. He had heard it asserted that to our system of drill the steadiness of our soldiers in time of battle and while under fire was attributable. He believed that that steadiness was, to a great extent, due to the English temperament. Three Bills—the Enlistment Bill, the Army Reserve Bill, and the Militia Bill—had emanated from this Commission, and had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (General Peel). He desired to speak with the utmost possible deference and respect of anything that came from the right hon. Gentleman. He felt sure he did but express the feeling of Members generally when he said that no man had done more for the administration of the Department over which he had presided than had the right hon. Gentleman. He had shown, during his term of office, no shirking from responsibility and no slavery to red tape. It was to the right hon. Gentleman, too, that we were indebted for our Volunteer force, our rifled cannon, and the speedy arming our forces with breech-loaders. He felt, therefore, great diffidence in criticizing anything which emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. The Enlistment Bill had passed the House almost in silence, the attention of hon. Members being chiefly devoted at the time to the consideration of a measure which had occupied the greater portion of the Session. By the Enlistment Bill the period of enlistment had increased from ten to twelve years. Certainly the evidence given before the Commission was in favour of the change, though Earl de Grey had expressed himself unfavourably towards it. The noble Earl had said that it was a difficult question to determine what constituted an old soldier. The question had been very carefully gone

  91
  into. In the Peninsula, under the Duke of Wellington, it was found that on the average a man who had been in the service for five years was regarded as an old soldier—nay, more, that a man who had been under fire during two years was entitled to claim the same character. There were many experienced men, not only in this country but also abroad, who thought it was a mistake to endeavour to keep the men too long in the ranks, and that it would be better to shorten the period of enlistment, and, at the same time, to hold out every possible inducement to the men by teaching them trades, which would enable them to return to civil life, to form a portion of the reserved force, possibly making service in the Reserve a condition to their retirement. But the Enlistment Bill had passed the House, and he could only express a hope that it would be found to work successfully. The remaining two Bills, the Army Reserve Bill and the Militia Bill, would come on for discussion that evening. The object of one of these Bills was to enable men whose service in the army had not expired to commute the unexpired portion by service in the Reserve, and that of the other was by increased bounties to induce men in entering the Militia to engage to transfer to the Line in the event of a war breaking out. The right hon. Gentleman himself had confessed, with regard to one of those measures, that it would not have a very large or speedy operation. Lord Dalhousie, who had acted as Chairman of the Commission, expressed himself as follows with regard to these Bills—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he felt bound to rise to Order. He wished to know whether it was competent for the noble Lord to enter prematurely on the discussion of Bills, the second reading of which was on the Paper for that evening? As a proof of the inexpediency of the course pursued by his noble Friend, he might remark that his noble Friend had been arguing upon a portion of the scheme, in reference to the Army Reserve, which had not been brought, and would not be brought, before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that by the Rules of the House the noble Lord was precluded from discussing, on a Motion for going into Committee of Supply, Bills which had been placed on the Paper for consideration at a later period of the evening. He would, moreover, remind the noble Lord that he was also precluded from quoting anything
  92
  which had been said in the other House of Parliament during the present Session in reference to these particular measures.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he desired to know whether he was not entitled to refer to these Bills, seeing that it was intended to go into Committee of Supply for the purpose of taking a Vote to give them effect?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right time for discussing the question would be when the Votes, to which the noble Lord referred, came under the consideration of the Committee.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that if he could not refer to the Bills on the Paper, he might refer to what he considered ought to be the sound principle which ought to guide us in our military organization in connection with an Army of Reserve. It should be based on some broad foundation; but he had neither heard nor seen any measure that was likely to be adopted by the Government that would effect that object. His belief was that our present laws were sufficient for that purpose if the Government had only the courage to enforce them with certain modifications. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission that our Militia force was the basis of an Army of Reserve. Their Report said—
  "It is to our Militia we must look for the solid constitutional Reserve of the country, and we would earnestly recommend that more attention should be given to its organization, that its numbers should be maintained up to the full legal quota."
  He was glad to find that the subject was shortly to be brought under the notice of both Houses of Parliament. When he gave notice of his present Motion, it was received with some laughter, but he had not been discouraged in proceeding with it, because he was convinced that it was only by having recourse to the ballot that the Militia could be kept in a proper state as the basis of our home defence. It was notorious that the numbers of Militia were not maintained at their proper quota, and this evil could not be remedied without the introduction of the ballot. It could not be said the ballot was a hardship. It was the duty of the citizen to give personal service to the State when necessity required it of him, and the ballot lessened his liability. It consisted in an act of registration which carried with it a chance of escaping service. The obligation to serve was founded on the ancient institutions of the country, and the ballot, rightly understood, was a

  93
  means for reducing the severity of the obligation. He would not trouble the House with historical references to the train bands and other forces which had been organized from time to time as supplements to the Royal army. He would refer to a pamphlet published by Mr. Mitchell from the pen of Colonel Reilly, of the Artillery, entitled Notes on The Military Forces of the Kingdom. It appeared that the author had found in the library at Aldershot a document which was drawn up by the Minister of War in 1798, for the use of Mr. Pitt's Government which purported to set forth the system that should be adopted in order to put the country in a thorough state of defence. That document, however, was founded upon another drawn up in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and having reference to the expected invasion by the Spanish Armada. This was found in the State Paper Office. It was most minute in its details, and contained an order from the Secretary of State, which said—
  "Her Majesty willeth that all the forces under your charge be ready to march, with all their furniture at an hour's warning."
  So particular was the order given on that occasion that the very number of horse shoes and nails which each company was to carry were specified. This general conclusion might be come to from the record, that out of a population of 3,000,000 a body of 177,000 men was ready to meet the invader had he landed on English soil. Such was the example set the country by their ancestors, and, looking at our present population, he thought, it at least strange that the Militia could not be kept at its legal strength, and that something more comprehensive than was proposed had not been suggested. In favour of the propriety of again having recourse to the ballot, they had the early precedent of Queen Elizabeth; then again that of George III.; and again the proposal in 1852 by Earl Russell to resort to it without allowing a substitute. The principle of personal service was essentially to be considered in reference to the re-organization of the army. It was objected to on various grounds. But what were the objections? It was said that it was harsh and unequal in operation, that it would interfere with trade and industry, that by the system of substitutes the rich escaped service, that to a man of moderate means procuring a substitute was a heavy fine, and that it was un-English. He denied
  94
  that the ballot was un-English, since it had existed from time immemorial; it formed the foundation of our present Militia, and could now be enforced in time of war. With regard to the other objections, even presuming there was no way of modifying the severity of the duty which fell on those unfortunate in the ballot, why should it not be performed as punctually as any other public duty to the State — as the serving on juries or the paying of taxes? But he believed the operation of the ballot might be so ordered as to make the duty fall very lightly on the citizen. At present, the whole population between eighteen and forty-five were liable to bear arms. That term might well in time of peace be reduced from nineteen or twenty to twenty-two or twenty-three, who should serve for two or three years, which would keep the Militia at its present standard. Substitutes might be done away with, and efficiency as a Volunteer should be the only legitimate ground of excuse from liability to serve as a Militiaman. Service in the Militia would interfere much less with trade if they would alter the present system of drill by adopting that which was practised in Canada, and which had been found to work so satisfactorily there—namely, drilling the men in squads and in companies in their respective localities for two-thirds of the period for which they were called out, and the remaining third of the time in regiments in camp, and under canvas, just as the Volunteers were drilled. This arrangement would permit service in regiments under canvas for one-third of the time, and the advantage which would accrue from that was acknowledged by all. The system which he had sketched would have the effect of filling the ranks of the Militia, and of doing away with the competition now going on between the army and Militia. It would have the effect of increasing the Volunteer force likewise, because many persons, to avoid the ballot would go into the Volunteer force which at the present moment, as they all knew, was held together by a rope of sand, and the whole of which might disappear at fourteen days' notice. Another effect would be that the difficulty of obtaining officers would be overcome, especially with regard to the Volunteers, because officers would prefer joining that force to running the chance of being balloted for. He believed that in the long run such a system would be more economical, because by mere money payments they could not compete

  95
  with the labour market. These were the considerations which he thought justified him in calling the attention of the House to the question of the ballot. When he gave notice of that Motion some hon. Members laughed, but he had persevered under the conviction that sooner or later they would have to face the question of the necessity of the ballot as the basis of their Army of Reserve. Another reason which made him persevere was this. He well recollected that when the Volunteer movement was first started those who entered into it were spoken of as amiable, weak-minded enthusiasts. Lord Palmerston himself joked about the rifle fever. But those persons persevered with the Volunteer movement. What was the result? They now had 180,000 men in arms. If they had not that force, the very first thing they would have to do would be to apply the ballot. They persevered with the Volunteer movement. Why? Because they had faith in the spirit of their countrymen; they had not been disappointed. He had the same conviction now. It only wanted courage to deal with the question. The spirit which actuated the Volunteers existed in the whole population. Men would willingly submit to the duty if put before them. It would be a hardship which would be of a very slight character with the modifications to which he had referred. It was their bounden duty, by the ancient usage and practice of this country, to give their personal service to the Sovereign. By that means alone could they hope to have their defences and their reserves in the state in which they ought to be. He only asked that a man should run the chance of being balloted for the Militia or should prove that he served in the Volunteers. He held that that was no hardship. The majority of their 180,000 Volunteers were made up of artizans. If there was any hardship in the case, upon them it must fall heaviest. Yet those artizans willingly served in the Volunteer ranks, and he did not see why other Englishmen ought not to be called upon to do as they had done. He might ask why the Volunteers alone were to undergo — if it were one—that hardship, why they alone were to bear on their shoulders a burden which others would not touch with their finger, why they alone wove to take upon themselves the obligations of citizenship when, according to the ancient law and custom of the realm, those obligations devolved upon all. He relied on the spirit of his
  96
  countrymen. He believed that if his right hon. Friend would meditate on the matter during the Recess, and would have the courage to bring forward such a proposal, he would meet with a proper response on the part of the people of the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "inasmuch as it is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the Crown to require the Military service of its liege subjects, and inasmuch as liability to personal Service, within the limits of the United Kingdom, has always been and still is the principle on which the Militia Force is founded, it is desirable, in framing any scheme or the establishment of an Army of Reserve and for the more complete and economical organization of the Military capabilities and defensive power of the Nation, to consider how far this ancient principle should be practically enforced, and how it can be best applied with least inconvenience to the people:
  "That it is further desirable, with a view to the more full and deliberate consideration of this important subject, that the Army Reserve and Militia Reserve Bills should be withdrawn for the present Session of Parliament,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPEAKER, having read the noble Lord's Motion as far as the words "inconvenience to the people," said, he must stop there, because the next Resolution of the noble Lord called on the House to express an opinion, and, indeed, to arrive at a decision, on Bills before they had been discussed or read the second time in that House.
  Question proposed accordingly.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that at the commencement of his speech his noble Friend alluded to the apathy which existed, and which, perhaps naturally to a great extent, succeeded the great efforts made by this country during the Peninsular War. He likewise referred to what occurred in respect to army organization during and subsequently to the Crimean War, and to the efforts that had been made by successive Governments to dispel it. Himself a severe critic he considered the munitions of war exhibited at Paris to be highly creditable to the efforts of the country, as evincing the great attention and improvements of late devoted to and introduced into that branch of the public service. He also mentioned an unfortunate circumstance which happened the other

  97
  day as a proof that they ought to be better prepared for all the events of war, and as showing—in which he (Sir John Pakington) concurred—that the time had come when some reform should be introduced into certain parts of our military administration. The noble Lord then proceeded to advert to the Report of the Recruiting Commission, and seemed by his remarks to imply a censure upon the Commission.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he must disclaim having implied any censure upon the Commission. He had said he thought it hardly necessary that that subject should have been referred to a Commission.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that whether or not the military authorities ought to have dealt with the points in question without a Commission was another matter. The military authorities had not done so, and he must think the Commissioners did well in reporting as they had done, and in giving the country the benefit of their opinions. The noble Lord would admit that every one of the points to which he referred was immediately and directly connected with the object of the Commission—namely, how to improve recruiting in the army. Every point had a direct bearing on the end they had chiefly in view—namely, how they were to make the army more attractive to the public, and induce men readily to enter the service of the Queen as soldiers. The noble Lord had, in his remarks, naturally fallen into some mistakes, as anyone was likely to do who commented on a supposed statement before it had been made. Having proceeded to what appeared from his notice to be the main object of his Motion, the noble Lord—he confessed, to his no small surprise—conveyed to the House his opinion that the time had arrived when they could not rest content with voluntary enlistment for the Militia, and that the ballot ought once more to be resorted to. He was entirely unable to agree with his noble Friend in that view. He thought the facts of the case were totally against the view of his noble Friend. The Militia, which had fallen very much into neglect, was revived about fifteen years ago. The remarkable difference in that revival, as compared with preceding times, was that from 1852 this country had relied mainly on the voluntary principle for recruiting the ranks of the Militia. Had that system failed? He did not think the noble Lord had shown that it had. The noble Lord referred to the Militia having been short of their num-
  98
  bers. He (Sir John Pakington) did not believe that the Militia were short of their numbers. The Militia establishment at present was only three-fourths of the whole quota which was at present sanctioned by Parliament. He believed that up to the amount of those three-fourths—that was to say, up to the whole amount that they now required for the Militia as they stood—they were full. It appeared to him that the facts connected with the Volunteer force to which his noble Friend had referred, were themselves an answer to his argument as to the necessity of the ballot for the Militia. As soon as it was made known that the military service of the country required aid the nation rose, and we had a new army of 180,000 men raised on the Volunteer principle. That fact furnished in itself an answer to the statement of his noble Friend, that we were unable to keep up our Army of Reserve without resorting to the ballot. He must also remind his noble Friend that the ballot was not altogether done away with, but only suspended. It was at the present moment the law of this country. In 1852, the Government determined to make an attempt—which attempt had been singularly successful—to establish the Militia on the voluntary principle; but the ballot had not in consequence been abandoned. In 1860, an Act of Parliament had been passed placing the ballot on a new footing. At that moment, should any national emergency render it necessary that it should be resorted to for the purpose of enlarging the Militia force, men could be raised, by means of the ballot, in the course of from five to seven weeks. That was, he thought, a complete answer to the suggestion which had been made by his noble Friend. Under the circumstances, looking at the Volunteer force, at the success which had attended the efforts made to establish the Militia on the voluntary principle, and at the fact that if the ballot were required it might be called into action in a few weeks, he trusted the House would be of opinion that his noble Friend had not made out a case for so important a deviation from the principles on which the Army of Reserve was based as that which he proposed.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that if any necessity for it really arose, the ballot could be resorted to by the Executive, and would be cheerfully submitted to by the people. He did not agree with the noble Lord that the Militia was as inefficient as it was

  99
  generally assumed to be, but if it was, its inefficiency could be readily accounted for and easily removed. The present system was nominally established in 1852; but it took a great deal more than an Act of Parliament to perfect a military organization, and the necessary care and trouble had never yet been bestowed upon the Militia. And why? In 1854 the Crimean War broke out, and was followed by the Indian Mutiny. These two occurrences lasted till 1859; and during the interval the interests of the Militia were very properly postponed to those of the regular army. One important fact had, however, been proved by what happened at the restoration of tranquillity; and that was the perfect facility with which the Militia on disembodiment, was re-absorbed into civil occupations. In a few weeks the whole of the force was disbanded without any cost to the country beyond a gratuity of six months' pay to the junior officers. At the close of the Indian Mutiny in 1S59, it might have been hoped that efforts would have been made to establish the force on a permanent peace footing. Some steps were taken in the matter. A Royal Commission was appointed, and two of the suggestions which it made were acted upon. But in 1860 came the Volunteer movement, and from that time up to the present day all public interest in the Militia had ceased to exist. It ceased to be the subject of discussion in that House or in the press, and became buried in neglect and discouragement. He did not seek to impute blame on that account to any Government or party. If the Government were apathetic in the matter, their apathy was shared in by the House and the public. No active steps were taken to foster the Militia system, and so much reduced was the force in consequence of the men volunteering for the Line, that in 1859 the total muster for training was, he believed, under 40,000. Such, however, were the recuperative powers of the force, that in 1864 there were upwards of 100,000 men out for training, and if left to itself, and if it were allowed to recruit to the full legal strength, it would before long number 124,000 men. In 1864 measures were adopted—into the general expediency of which he would not enter—for reducing the strength of the force by a quarter in order to admit of a longer period of training for the remainder. That accounted for its limited number at present. He came next to its efficiency, in which respect it was, he admitted,
  100
  imperfect—though not so much so as had been represented—but why was that the case? The Militia Commission which sat in 1859 recommended that the period of training for a Militia soldier should be a minimum of twenty-eight days every year. That recommendation was not, however, adopted. The period of training determined upon was twenty-one days, and it was only last year that the time was extended to twenty-seven days. The drill, therefore, in the case of the Militia was not so complete as it ought to be, because it had pleased Parliament in its wisdom to curtail the time which competent authorities had declared to be necessary for the purpose. Then again—and the point was a most important one—the Commission recommended that the Militia recruit should go through a course of preliminary drill for twenty-eight days. That recommendation was not adopted in its entirety. The year after the Report the recruit was allowed to train for twenty-one days, the time being reduced the following year to fourteen, and the next to seven days. It was only this year that the time had again been extended to fourteen days. Another defect arose from the difficulty of procuring officers; and that difficulty, instead of diminishing, was steadily increasing; no attempt had been made to remedy it. The abolition of the rank of ensign was no remedy. Another recommendation of the Commission was—and it was one of vital consequence—that the expensive and demoralizing system of keeping the men on billets should as far as possible be done away with. If it were proposed to apply that system to a highly disciplined regular regiment, what a chorus of protests and remonstances it would call forth; yet here were a number of poor lads, who were necessarily subjected to very little control, quartered at the lowest beer-houses and gin-shops in the country. Formerly it might have been said that if the system was nasty, it was at least cheap, for the price paid for lodgings was only three-halfpence per night. It was now, however, 4d. a night, and so was really dear as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. It was a vicious system, and not only vicious, but expensive. The system was besides attended by great waste of time, for the men were frequently quartered at long distances from the place at which they had to muster. He mentioned these points to show that if the Militia force was, as some suppose, inefficient, that

  101
  inefficiency was not inseparable from it, but admitted of easy and simple remedy. What was required for the Militia was not revolution, but reform. Although there might appear to be a certain amount of truth in the statement that recruiting for the Militia was injurious to recruiting for the Line, men of high military authority—including Colonel Paythorne, Inspector General of Militia, did not deem that to be actually the case. It was true that recruits for both services were drawn from the same class, but they no more clashed with each other in that respect, than the officering of the yeomanry interfered with the officering of the cavalry, because the officers of both were derived from a similar source. The result of the reduction in 1864 of the establishment of the Militia was that the recruiting of that force to the extent of 20,000 or 25,000 men per annum was suspended for two years. If the recruiting for the Militia interfered with the recruiting for the army, the consequence would have been that during those two years numbers of the men usually recruited in each year for the Militia would have looked for service in the Line. But during those two years the fact of the deficiency of recruits for the army began to force itself on the attention of the country. If the Government would devote themselves not to revolutionize but to reform the system of reserve, they would find that it was easier than might be generally supposed to make the Militia an economical, efficient, and perfectly sufficient Army of Reserve.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the temptations to which Militiamen were exposed by being billeted in country towns had been well described, but it was not easy to find a remedy for the evil. If it were proposed to build barracks for the Militia in every county to be used only for a single month in the year, it was a question whether the counties would be willing to undertake the expense. He feared the only remedy was to erect barracks. The question then was how far the House would be willing to undertake the expense of doing that. It was marvellous how the Militiamen were brought to any sort of discipline after being subjected to the demoralizing influences of the low beer-houses in which they had been billeted, and he hoped the House would adopt some means of checking the evil. The remedy seemed to be to de-localize the force.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he, on the contrary, traced the inefficiency of the Militia to the want of a still more decidedly local character. It would be easy to obtain any number of men if proper means were taken. The pay of 3s. or 3s. 2d. a day during training was sufficient to tempt any number of men into the force. But the kind of men who joined the Militia were mostly the dregs of the towns and the counties, and had no proper local connection with the officers. If measures were devised to induce agricultural labourers and the more respectable inhabitants of towns to join the Militia, the force would then get more officers. It was the want of connection between the officers and men which rendered the Militia not properly efficient. The comforts of the officers were not studied so much as they ought to be. In the course of the present Session money had been voted to provide billiard-tables for the officers of the Army. But nothing of the kind was done for the officers of the Militia, who could not have a mess-room, unless they built it themselves; and who did not receive an allowance for travelling expenses from their actual residences to the places of training. These and other circumstances prevented gentlemen from joining the Militia as officers. With regard to barracks and billets, he thought that much might be done in these matters to increase the efficiency of the men. It would also be a great boon to them if their rations were raised from three-quarters of a pound to one pound of meat. He trusted that while the Secretary for War considered the question of the pay of the men, he would also take into consideration the case of the officers, and propose some measure next Session to increase their comforts.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he would confirm the observations of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke as to the difficulty of getting, not men, but officers for the Militia. A relative of his—a Militia officer—told him there was no difficulty in getting men, but that it was impossible to obtain officers. It was not likely that gentlemen, would put themselves to great inconvenience to serve in the Militia unless some attention was paid to their comfort and some increase made to their pay.
  MR. BATHURSTsaid, no gentleman whose private means were not very large could afford to be connected with the Militia. He hoped the Government would take into their consideration measures by

  103
  which the convenience of Militia officers would be more effectually consulted.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, he agreed that it would be an absurdity to build barracks for the purpose of housing the Militia during the short period of their drill; but the experiment might be tried of placing one or two regiments under canvas, so as to get rid of the billeting system.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he gave the noble Lord every credit for the great ability, energy, and perseverance he had displayed in connection with the Volunteer movement; but he thought his present Motion was quite inconsistent with voluntary enlistment. A proposal that every citizen should become a soldier was purely a military question, and if the noble Lord's suggestion meant anything it meant that conscription ought to be introduced into this country at the earliest possible day. All would be surprised to hear that that force of 180,000 men might disappear at a fortnight's notice. He could not conceive what the Volunteers would be when men were forced to become Volunteers to avoid the ballot. The price of labour had risen with the price of land and of every other commodity. If the army was not able to be recruited under present arrangements the difficulty would have to be met, not by compelling men to enter the military service but by raising the rate of pay. The difficulties at present experienced by the recruiting Serjeant were difficulties that might be overcome by the exercise of a wise liberality. It was only a question of supply and demand. So long as the Government were outbid by the other employers of labour they must expect to feel the want of men. If stronger inducements were held out there would be no lack of persons willing to enter the Queen's service. The noble Lord recommended the Secretary of State for War to pursue the same course on this subject which had been taken by Lord John Russell; but he forgot that the course then adopted cost the Government their places. A similar result would no doubt follow if the noble Lord's suggestions were pursued.
  Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What portion of the amount received for Licenses for Dogs in that country had been applied to the administration of the Act, and how
  104
  the sum of £8,660 9s. 2d., the difference between the sum received, £35,379 16 s., and £26,719 6s. 10 d. paid over to counties, had been applied. He also wanted to know whether there was any objection to produce a Return of the remuneration assigned to each Petty Session clerk in Ireland?
  LORD NAASsaid, he should be happy to lay the Returns on the table, and to give every information as to the mode in which the sum of £8,660 had been expended. The sum paid to clerks of Petty Sessions was something like £4,500, but this was only, to be considered as an experimental arrangement by which the Government were not pledged for future years. The whole Question would be considered during the Recess.

TIPPERARY AND WATERFORD ELECTIONS.—RESOLUTION.
MAJOR JERVISsaid, he rose to call attention to certain transactions which took place at the recent elections for the counties of Waterford and Tipperary, and to move a Resolution on the subject. At the beginning of the Session, two remarkable Petitions complaining of undue Elections had been brought before the House, but the Members petitioned against were seated. It appeared, therefore, to be recognized that in Ireland there might be any amount of riot, turmoil, and intimidation, and yet that the election would be held perfectly valid. He thought the time had come when in Ireland, as well as in England, men should be enabled to give their votes at an election without subjecting themselves to bad usage, and incurring the danger of being murdered. Every one who knew the country would admit the marvellous improvement that had occurred there within the last sixty years, and he must say that he could see no reason why election times should form so prominent an exception to the order and tranquillity that generally prevailed. In the first place, he desired to draw attention to the conduct of a portion of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy. It appeared that at the election for Tipperary the Roman Catholic clergy took one view and the landlords took another. The Roman Catholic clergy had, like other men, a perfect right at an election to exercise their social and political rights; they might meet together and agree to support a particular candidate. But they certainly ought, like any other body of clergy, to set an example of con-

105
ducting the election in an orderly and peaceable manner. The Archbishop of Cashel had, it appeared, called together a meeting of his clergy to select a candidate at the last election for Tipperary. The meeting took place. A candidate was named. It was unanimously resolved to support him. The Archbishop then addressed his clergy, telling them they were to speak to their congregations both politically and as priests. As priests they were to point out to their congregations that they had a Christian duty to perform, and if they did not perform it there were certain penalties, both in this world and in the next, which they would have to undergo. Politically they were to address their parishioners in the churches and point out why they should vote for a particular candidate. What was the result? It was thus described by a witness, a Roman Catholic gentleman of some influence, to the Committee—
"That last resolution was passed on the 13th of October?—I believe so. On Sunday the 14th of October, did you attend Temple Derry Chapel?—Yes, I did. Were you there at mass?—I was. Was that on Sunday, the 11th?—It was the Sunday previous to the election. Who was the officiating clergyman on this occasion? — The Rev. Hugh Gleeson. Did he on that occasion Say anything about the approaching election; if so, what?—He spoke a good deal about it, and contrasted the qualities of the two candidates, and concluded by saying that any person voting for Mr. Waldron ought to be ducked in the river. Where was this said?—In the chapel. In the presence of the congregation?—Yes. It was part of the service?—Before mass was over. Had he his vestments on?—Yes, he had."
Mr. Robert Pratt heard a priest who had a whip in his hand in addressing his flock at Horsmore say, "A man who has gone to Thurles shall never come back alive." Mr. Thomas Butler, a magistrate in the commission of the peace for the county of Tipperary, and residing in the neighbourhood of Golden, gave the following evidence:—
"You are a Roman Catholic?—Yes. What is the name of the officiating clergyman there; were you at the Golden Chapel on the 14th of October?—I was at the Golden Chapel the Sunday before the last election for Tipperary. Do you know the Rev. Thomas O'Connell?—Yes. Was he the officiating clergyman at mass when you attended that day?—He was. Do you remember after mass the Rev. Mr. O'Connell addressing the congrgation?—Yes. Where was he standing when he addressed the congregation after mass?—On the altar steps in the chapel. How was he dressed at the time?—He was in a black soutane and a cap. Was it the cap worn by the clergymen of that church in the performance of their duty?—Yes, occasionally. Will you be good
106
enough to state to me the substance of what you remember of that address to the congregation after mass?—It was principally in abuse of the neighbouring proprietors and supporters of Mr. Waldron, at the coming election. Will you tell us what he said, the words as well you remember, in reference to the election? He was aware that some parties in the neighbourhood had been canvassing for Mr. Waldron, and that they received promises from some of the electors to support him at the coming election; he then told the people that they were in no way bound to those promises, and that even if they had taken their solemn oaths to support Mr. Waldron they were bound to break them. Do you remember anything further that he said?—He told them that in voting for Mr. Waldron they would be voting against their conscience, their country, and their creed."
Was that the way to teach men to appreciate properly the position they would hold in future with regard to the political concerns of great Britain? He did not wish to say a word against the Roman Catholic clergy; doubtless there were good and bad among them, as there were in every other body of men. Many of them were men of experience and great learning—but what he wished to point out was that the effect of such conduct as that to which he referred was to excite the people of Ireland to act improperly at elections. Such exhortations as those he had quoted bore their fruit, as they were certain to do, in scenes of tumult and disaster. The evidence given before the Committee showed conclusively the extent of the rioting at the time of the election. Mr. Robert Shaw gave the following evidence:—
"You are a constable in the constabulary force in Ireland?—I am head constable. You remember the 20th of October, the polling day at Thurles?—I do. Were you there on duty on that day?—I was. How many men had you with you?—I had about thirty men at the front gate of the Court House. In the discharge of your duty, did you endeavour to make way for the persons to get to the polling-booth?—I did everything I could, as well as the men who were with me; I had only to keep the passage at the gate open. Did you find that an easy duty to perform?—We could not perform it except through the assistance of the dragoons; they rode up and down and dispersed the people. Were any of the men under your charge struck? — There were a good many of them; I was struck myself. In addition to these voters and the police you describe as being struck, do you remember any gentlemen of position?—I saw Mr. Gore Jones struck, a resident magistrate. The stipendiary magistrate?—Yes. You saw him struck?—Yes, I saw an old gentleman struck and knocked down, and I heard him say that he was Mr. Lanigan; they say that he had his eye knocked out. Did you see any person struck?—Yes, several. With what were they struck?—They were struck with stones and mud, and rotten eggs in some cases. Do you remember any of the men under your charge in particular in the

107
Clare police; they are under your charge?—Yes. Do you remember anything in reference to them?—Many of them were badly cut in the head with stones and sticks, and they were obliged to be taken off duty. They were not able to continue their duty?—No."
If this sort of thing had taken place in England the Member returned would have been unseated. Why should there be a different rule for Ireland? Mr. William Spaight, residing at Derry Castle, and possessing considerable property in Tipperary, made the following statement:—
"Do you remember the last election in Tipperary?—I do. About how far is Derry Castle from Nenagh?—About nine-Irish miles. How did you travel from Deny to Nenagh on that day?—I drove in my own carriage. Do you know where the chapel of Portroe is?—Yes. As you were coming towards the chapel of Portroe, passing the quarries along the road, did anything strike you as remarkable?—It struck me that all the people were absent from their work, and all the quarries idle. When you got near Portroe Chapel did anything particularly attract your attention there?—I saw the people going up in twos and threes to the chapel, and collecting there; a great mob of the people were collected there and in the chapel yard. And when you got up there, did you see anything remarkable taking place or going on?—I did not go there; I went away from it; I avoided the village on purpose. Do you remember at any time seeing the curate of the parish of Portroe that morning?—Yes. Whereabouts did you see him; do you know his name?—I heard it was Gleeson; I am not sure. You know he was one of the curates of Portroe parish?—I believe he was. Whereabouts did you see this gentleman?—He was with a crowd of people at Baskerville's public house, half way from my place to Nenagh. What were the crowd of people doing; did you see this gentleman do anything?—I did. Will you describe it? As I came up, I was not looking particularly at him; I was astounded at seeing him lift a great big stick 'wheeling;' he twisted the stick over his head, and commenced jumping in a most extraordinary manner; I thought he was mad; he is a very active fellow; he was jumping the height of the table off the ground; he commenced hallooing for White, and hooting at me; I did not notice him till that began; I thought the man was demented. Did you see anything else going on at Baskerville's publichouse?—Yes, the front rank wheeled upon me; but there were two clergymen with jugs giving out whiskey to two regular lines in the rear, and they never stopped; they continued loading up the rear rank people with the whiskey; they never stopped; they went on giving the whiskey out of the jug; they gave it in glassses."
First the Roman Catholic clergy preached to the mob, and then they gave them whiskey; no doubt greatly to the increase of the subsequent disorder. Mr. Wood, an inspector of constabulary stationed at Dundrum, said that during the election there was a large force of cavalry and in-
108
fantry, but not a large force of constabulary. He stated that Mr. Lowe was cut by the side of the nose by a missile, that Mr. Horne was also cut in the face by a stone, that Mr. Maguire, Mr. Baker, Mr. Arundel, Mr. Leech, and Mr. Smith were also injured by stones, and he himself and some of his men were much cut by stones. Colonel Purefoy was only saved from being murdered by another man being murdered in his stead. He would not weary the House by reading through page after page of similar evidence. The same scenes took place at the Waterford Election, in which case the agents of one of the candidates had to apply to the magistrates for assistance in order to enable the voters to come to the poll. A body of voters who had been collected and were being marched to the booth under the protection of an escort of dragoons were, by a clever strategy, attacked in the mountains, the cars smashed, and the heads of those who rode in them broken. At Dungarvan the military had to force the bridge leading into the town, amidst a perfect "hail of stones," the missiles being not what were called "two-year-olds," but large enough to break a man's skull, while the bludgeons were heavy enough to kill a man at a blow. He had brought these cases forward because he thought it was a serious thing in the present day, when they were about to bring in a Bill to lower the franchise in Ireland, if they had no guarantee that this sort of thing would not be heard of in future. He found no fault with the Roman Catholic clergy for endeavouring to carry oot their own political ideas in the best way in their power; but he found fault with them for having put all order at defiance, I and for having led these riots in the most open manner. It was utterly impossible that an election could be carried on properly under such circumstances. The House had been asked to assent to indignant resolutions against the military, because some loss of life occurred in these frays. He should be glad when the practice of calling out troops in Ireland could be discontinued, and order maintained by the constabulary alone. But he was anxious that, in cases like those to which he had alluded, where the voters were prevented from getting to the poll, the election should be declared null and void. When the Irish Reform Bill came before the House next Session he should move that some steps should be taken to render the Irish people free to exercise their votes

109
without the aid of the military. He should do so because it was natural to the Irish disposition to get up a row if possible, and the fact that a body of men were being escorted by soldiers was sufficient to excite that disposition.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whilst this House regrets that it should be necessary to employ military escorts for ensuring the safety of Voters at Elections in Ireland, it is of opinion that the nature of the intimidation exercised at the recent Elections in the Counties of Waterford and Tipperary not only renders in such cases such a protection essential, but is further of opinion this House should pass a measure which will enable the Voter to freely and fully exercise the franchise in such a manner as he desires, without exposing himself to personal risk,"—(Major Jervis,)
—instead thereof.
MR. ESMONDEsaid, that he disputed the accuracy of the account given of the proceedings at Waterford. The fact was that the Conservative party had used the military as mere election agents to bring in voters against their will to vote for the Conservative candidate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had opened a question of great constitutional importance, although he did not mean to do so. [Major JERVIS: Yes, he did.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to cavalcades of voters coming in, escorted by dragoons. Now, what were the facts? The election took place on the 29th. On the previous day, whilst standing in the streets of Waterford, he (Mr. Esmonde), at three o'clock in the afternoon, heard the clash of arms and the trotting of horses. On looking round to see the cause he found that a body of tenants, who were coerced to support the Conservative candidate, were being escorted by dragoons and the resident magistrates. The men were escorted to an hotel, where they were kept until the next day; in consequence of their arrival not only was the ordinary business of the hotel suspended, but a circular was sent round to the frequenters of the billiard-room to say that it would be closed for that evening—a fact which created no slight sensation. A Liberal friend of his, who kept a china shop at Waterford, told him that 150 mugs had been ordered of him for the purpose of supplying drink. He should probably raise a question on another occasion as to whether those who employed the troops in escorting the voters on the day previous to the elec-
110
tion to the hotel hired by the Conservative candidate, where they were illegally supplied with drink during the night, and on the day of the election itself escorting them from thence to the poll—were not guilty of conduct tending to bring the Prerogative of Her Majesty into collision with the privileges of Parliament. As to the attack made upon the soldiers it was favoured by those who were being escorted to the poll against their will. The voters wished a riot to be got up in order that they might be scattered and not compelled to vote, and amongst the assailants were servants and relatives of the "independent electors," who had recourse to this stratagem to relieve their friends from distress. The sitting Member did not think it at all necessary to call witnesses before the Committee, being of opinion that no case had been made out against him in Ireland. The law was that if an affidavit were made that violence was apprehended at an election so as to prevent a true return the poll could be adjourned until such a day as it was deemed probable the people would cease to be turbulent. If the election referred to was so interfered with as to make it probable the result would be altered through riot, the poll could have been adjourned. The reason it was not so adjourned was because an application should have been made, and an affidavit sworn which could not be sworn. In his own election in 1852, voters who had been collected together under the escort of the military, for the purpose of being brought in to vote for his opponent against their wish, actually sent word to some of his friends to stop them, and, if possible, to do so near a wood, so that they might not be recaptured when they had succeeded in making their escape. The fact was, that these riots as they are called, are stratagems used in self-defence by the voters themselves. As the hon. and gallant Member had intimated his intention of bringing forward the subject at greater length next Session, he would not now go further into the case; but he promised the House that when the time came he would be quite prepared to meet the hon. Member whenever he chose to renew the subject.
MR. ARKWRIGHTsaid, that as one of the Waterford Committee he rose to refute an erroneous impression which appeared to prevail. Without discussing the question as to whether undue influence on one side is excuse for violence on the other, he maintained that if a man voted from mo-

111
tives of gratitude to a good landlord that man had as much right to protection as he who voted from motives of political partizanship. With regard to the allegations made, he desired distinctly to deny that any evidence was given of undue influence on the part of the landlords, of unnecessary action on the part of the military, or of collusion between the mob and the tenants. Hon. Members might have private information; but the case should be decided on sworn evidence before the Committee. If that private information did exist, why was it not produced not the proper time?
MR. BLAKEsaid, he could corroborate everything the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Esmonde) had said from his personal experience of the last election for that county. It afforded a lamentable but striking instance of the tyranny of landlords, and the slavish position of the tenants. He had seen on the day before the polling long lines of cars filled with tenants of noble Lords and others of the landed Conservative gentry in the neigh bourhood of the city of Waterford, escorted by large bodies of dragoons with drawn sabres, looking more like convicts on their way to transportation than men going to exercise the franchise, brought in to register their votes against their conscience, their wishes, and, as they believed, their interests. Numbers of those unfortunate people had expressed to him their bitter regret that they dared not vote for Mr. De la Poer, the popular candidate, instead of the Tory one, Captain Talbot, and he had heard many of them pray to God that the man they were compelled to vote for would be defeated. Now, he characterized that as a melancholy and disgraceful state of things. It was enough to make those hapless victims of landlord coercion disaffected to see the Queen's troops employed to drag them to vote, contrary to what they wished. ["No, no!"] He repeated it, and he challenged contradiction; if the landlords had not the use of the troops to carry out their behests one of two thing would have happened—either that the tenants of the Conservative landlords would have voted as they wished for the Liberal candidate, or refrained from voting against, as they believed, the interests of their country. He did not make these observations on account of attaching much importance to political agitation; it had never done any good for Ireland, and probably never would; neither had he the slightest feeling against the landlords because they were Conserva-
112
tives. He hated tyranny whatever side it came from, and would denounce Whig landlords just as readily if they deserved it. But gross tyranny had in the case they were dealing with been perpetrated by men professing Tory principles, and he therefore condemned their proceedings irrespective altogether of their politics.
LORD NAASsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to imagine that an unusual course was taken with regard to the military upon this occasion. The military were sent to the Waterford Election in consequence of a sworn information having been laid before the Government to the efiect that their presence was necessary for the preservation of the peace. As no Government in Ireland would feel justified in refusing such a demand, the military were sent and placed at the disposal of the local authorities. He believed they were employed with and exorcised the greatest discretion. The statement that they were used to coerce voters was totally without foundation. They conducted voters to the poll, and protected them from assault. When at the poll those electors were left to vote at discretion, without interference on the part of the military or magistrates. All that the military did was to prevent the voters from being maltreated. He regretted that the presence of the military was too often necessary on such occasions. But so long as large mobs, armed with bludgeons were employed to coerce voters in the interest of a candidate, it would be impossible for any Government, in the interests of peace, to refuse to take the course which every Government had hitherto been obliged to take. If the Government refused to interfere there would be riot and bloodshed to an enormous extent. From his own knowledge he could state that it was principally owing to the presence of the military, not only in the South but in the North of Ireland, that scenes of violence did not more frequently occur. If the people of Ireland would conduct their elections in the same manner as the people of this country they would find military interference quite unnecessary. The people of Ireland had the matter in their own hands.
MR. BLAKEsaid, that he had not intended to attach the least blame to the Government. They certainly could not have acted otherwise than they did.
MR. MORRISONsaid, he regretted that other Members of the Tipperary Election Committee besides himself were not

113
present. They had waited for die question to come on so many times in vain that they had tired of continued postponement. If it had been the first time an Election Committee had had to interpret the wording of a now Act of Parliament, he, as a member of the Committee, would have given his decision in favour of rendering the election void. There were five polling-places where the disturbance was so great that the voters could not easily pass to the poll. But that Committee, like other tribunals, was bound by the general practice of courts of co-ordinate authority, and on looking back at the almost invariable practice of preceding Committees, it appeared to him that there was nothing in the late Tipperary election which rendered the disorder that prevailed there of a graver character than that which prevailed at other elections which had not been declared void. In the few extracts from the evidence which had been quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich he had brought forward cases some of which were afterwards satisfactorily disproved. There was one case of a priest who had made use of a whip, and who came before the Committee and explained the circumstances satisfactorily to his mind. A number of cars had been employed to bring up voters to the poll. The boys, who were not voters, having got upon the cars, that gentleman took a switch and used it in a paternal spirit towards them. The boys in question were not over forty years old, which was the age, it seemed, of some "boys" in Ireland. But small matters like these did not affect the general merits of the question. It would have been necessary, before declaring the election void, to have had it satisfactorily proved to the minds of the Committee that there had been a greater state of riot than had prevailed at previous elections. No doubt, many passages might be quoted from the evidence for the Petitioners to show that there had been a riot of a very serious nature; but the general tenour of the evidence from first to last went to substantiate the fact that that was an unusually quiet election for Ireland. There was a special reason why an unusual amount of irritation should have arisen. The Conservative candidate had originally come in by the votes of the Liberal party, and at a subsequent time he announced himself as a supporter of Lord Derby. He therefore thought the Government were justified in making unusual preparations for maintain-
114
ing the peace of the county. Various kinds of witnesses were examined, some of whom were ardent partizans on either side. Without wishing to impugn their veracity, in a question of that sort every tribunal would prefer to take as the measure of what really happened the evidence of those witnesses who were there in an official capacity, and who could not be suspected of any leaning to either candidate. Stipendiary magistrates and inspectors and sub-inspectors of the constabulary were called before the Committee. Those witnesses, though they disagreed as to the amount of disturbance which prevailed, agreed that there had not been at all an unusual amount of disturbance for an Irish election. Some of them seemed to think there had been a much smaller amount than they were accustomed to see at Irish elections. Another fact which left a deep impression on his mind was that, although at each of the five polling-places such a large crowd had assembled as rendered it difficult for persons to pass through the streets, the voters that supported Mr. Waldron who were attacked were those who were brought up under military escort. Other gentlemen, who were known to be supporters of Mr. Waldron, deposed that they had no difficulty in getting to the poll except such as naturally arose from the large crowds in the streets. Among these latter were two clergymen who must therefore have been well known to the people. Moreover, the Petitioners failed to show that any considerable number of electors were unable to record their votes owing to the existence of these riots. Again, the Legislature had provided by a special Act of Parliament for the contingency of riots at Irish elections. In that case, and also at Waterford, no application was made to adjourn the poll. If the aggrieved person did not avail himself of the remedy specially afforded by the law, that fact must be assumed to weigh somewhat in the balance against him. As to the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy, the whole of the evidence had left on his mind the impression that they had interfered with the course of the election in a manner which could not be approved; but there did not seem to have been exercised such an amount of undue spiritual influence as was sufficient to vitiate the election. They abstained from alluding at the altar to the election, though several had addressed their flocks from the chapel yards. Some-

115
times politics were introduced in the pulpit of English Protestant churches. Though he should be glad to see the Roman Catholic clergy adopt a different course on the occasion of elections, there was nothing done in that instance to cause the election to be declared null and void. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich for bringing the matter forward. He thought it hard on our soldiers to employ them in that kind of way. If any force was to be employed on those occasions, it should be the constabulary, not the soldiers. He had listened with indignation to the charges brought against the troops, who appeared to have behaved with the most admirable temper. There was nothing to justify the accusations made, either against them, or the constabulary, or the stipendiary magistrates. Being perfectly impartial between the two sides, the impression left on his mind was that if they could obtain by ballot, or in some other way, a free expression of the opinion of the electors in Tipperary as to whether they would prefer to retain or lose the elective franchise, they would prefer to be disfranchised. It was pitiable to see men vacillating between the persuasion of the priests, on the one hand, and that of the landlords, on the other. The best way of dealing with the question of Irish elections would be to show that riotous proceedings would not pay. How that was to be done he hardly knew; perhaps some Amendment might be made in the Irish election law. As things now stood, the Election Committees of that House were found adopting what, to the eye of common sense, and to those who did not understand how they were bound by precedent, seemed to be a very strange course of proceeding.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, that as a Member of the Tipperary Committee he wished to say that he had felt compelled to differ in opinion from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and also from the other Members of the Committee. He had thought the rioting was of such a character that the election ought to have been declared null and void, and he had therefore felt that the only course open to him was to record his vote singly against that of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said riots were common at Irish elections; but he had not been governed by the precedents set by former Committees. A lawyer got up and told the Committee on which he sat of the precedent of the Waterford Election. But he had deemed
116
himself bound not to look at that, but to be guided by the evidence adduced before him. Speaking from memory—for he had not the necessary documents by him—he believed it had been shown that more than thirty voters had been seriously injured while proceeding to record their votes. There were about twenty more who declared solemnly that they would have voted for Mr. Waldron if they had been allowed to reach the polling-place, but that they were afraid of their lives to record their votes for that gentleman. Many others would, he thought, have given similar evidence had they felt that they could freely speak their minds. His hon. Friend had said that where there were no soldiers no attack was made upon the voters. But two men—one of them, as well as he could recollect, named Givans—had attempted to go up to the polling-place alone. They were attacked by a mob of twenty or thirty people and prevented from voting. In another instance five or six men were seized and shut up in a room, from which they could not get away until the troops came to escort them. Some witnesses stated that in attempting to reach the polling-booth they had only been able to advance three-quarters of a mile in an hour and a-half, there being thirty barricades in the way. He was sorry that both elections had not been declared void, as it would have given respectable electors a chance of going to the poll without having their heads broken. Could an election be regarded as having been fairly conducted under those circumstances? He had no wish to say anything disrespectful of the members of any religious persuasion; but he was strongly impressed with the belief that the Roman Catholic clergy who had selected a candidate—although their interference might not have amounted to what was called undue influence — had sailed very near the wind. Judging from his experience of this, his first Election Committee, he was sorry the House had not thought fit to adopt the system of voting papers, by means of which quiet and respectable men would be enabled to tender their votes without running the risk of injury. On account of the violence which frequently occurred at Irish elections, it was, unfortunately, necessary to employ soldiers; but all could bear testimony that their conduct, under the greatest provocation, was uniformly temperate and forbearing. He had not much experience of Irish elections, but he once happened to be the

117
unpopular candidate at an election in that country, and although many of the Roman Catholic party, as well as of the Protestants, were in his favour, he was glad to receive the assistance of a certain number of soldiers to enable those who intended to vote for him to go to the poll.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) had raised a new issue. This was a most important Committee, where great constitutional interests were at stake, and yet the hon. Member for Plymouth, being a young Member, was put upon it. He had avowed the principle that one Committee was to be governed by the decisions, and, it might be, by the errors of another. The speeches delivered by the Roman Catholic priests from the altar during or after mass were at the bottom of the disturbances that had taken place. Voters were coerced to vote against their will, and Members were sent to that House and kept there for the purpose of defending the interests of the Romish priesthood. If the Roman Catholic voters were not free agents, what were their special claims to protection? Coercion was no strange thing in England. But the peculiarity of the Roman Catholic coerced voters was that they were coerced to return Members who voted not for the interests of the Empire, but for the interests of their own Church. Dr. Cullen had issued a missive desiring the Roman Catholics to return only those men who would vote for the interests of their Church; and those interests were known to be antagonistic to the principle of civil and religious liberty in every country in Europe. There was coercion by the priests as well as by the landowners, and it was the duty of the Government to investigate the whole matter. He had frequently brought before the House the way in which priestly influence was exercised, and he had lately called the Attorney General's attention to the fact that a Roman Catholic bishop had challenged the right of Her Majesty to occupy the Throne of this country. His efforts had hitherto been without effect. He had discharged his duty by again endeavouring to force the matter upon the attention of the House. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich for bringing forward the question — and charged the Government with gross neglect of duty, because they had not taken notice of the matter.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £63,250, Increase of Pay to Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the Militia.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have to propose a Vote of £63,250 to defray the charge for the Increase of Pay to Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the Militia. The Resolution I propose comprises the remaining portions of the Supplemental Estimate voted for the increase of the pay of the army at an earlier period of the Session. It embraces four points. First, the addition of 2d. a day to the noncommissioned officers of the permanent Staff of the Militia, which will amount to £14,000. Secondly, the addition of 2d. a day to the pay of the men called up to preliminary drill, amounting to £1,250. Thirdly, an addition of 2d. a day to the men called up for annual training, amounting to £18,000. These items are rendered necessary by the increase of the pay of the army, to which the House has consented, and, considering the increase in the price of provisions and of labour, I trust the Committee will not object to extend the same increase of pay to the militia force. The fourth point embraced by the Resolution relates to the larger and more important subject of the creation of an Army of Reserve for this country. It is now my duty to explain the nature of this very important proposal. But I must, in the first instance, express my very great regret on all grounds that the present statement is not made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). With one exception, the plan I am about to state is entirely that of my right hon. and gallant Friend. The peculiar circumstances of the present Session have prevented this plan from being opened fully to the House and this Vote from being asked for at a much earlier period. Early in the month of March, before my right hon. and gallant Friend left the office in which I became his successor, he brought under the consideration of the House the Army Esti-

119
mates for the year. In the course of the clear and able speech by which he introduced them, he explained the general nature of his plan for forming an Army of Reserve, and laid before the House an outline of the mode in which he proposed to carry out that important object. His statement was so clear and so complete that it would be presumption on my part to go over the same ground, had it not been for the long interval of time since elapsed. I will not dwell upon the causes which have led to a very general opinion that some Army of Reserve in this country has become necessary; that it behoves Parliament to provide the means of national defence, and the power of carrying on war in the event of any emergency arising, with greater rapidity than we have hitherto been able to do. The extraordinary revolution of late years in our naval power is one cause which evidently points to the necessity of taking fresh steps for the increase of our military power. In the event of any emergency arising, it would be difficult, if not impossible, from the limited number of our regular army, and the manner in which that army is dispersed throughout our immense dominions, in all quarters of the globe, to collect more than some 40,000 or 50,000 men in this country. This subject occupied the attention of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the best means of recruiting for the army. In the Report of that Commission I find this passage—
"Recent events, however, have taught us that we must not rely in future on having time for preparation. Wars will be sudden in their commencement and short in their duration, and woe to that country which is unprepared to defend itself against any contingency that may arise, or combination that may be formed against it! The first duty of those who preside over the administration of the army is to look to its constitution."
That is a very striking passage, the force, truth, and justice of which, no one will dispute. What is our position at this moment with regard to anything like a military Reserve? For the general purposes of war we have at this moment no Reserve at all. We have not a battalion of which we can speak as constituting a Reserve for the general purposes of war. For the purpose of home defence, I admit we have a very important Reserve. We have our militia force, now standing at 90,000 men, but the full quota of which, as I shall presently explain, would be one fourth more. That would make the militia Reserve 120,000. Then we have
120
the results of that striking Volunteer movement which has excited so much attention and admiration in the country during the last few years. The Volunteer force amounts to 180,000. We may therefore consider that, for the purposes of home defence, we have in militia and Volunteers a force of 300,000 men. And I do not for myself feel a moment's doubt if any great emergency arose—if the country were threatened with any attempt at invasion—the same spirit which created that force of 180,000 Volunteers would enable us with great rapidity to double or treble that number of men. In support of that opinion I need only refer to the fact that when there was a similar apprehension in 1803, when we had so much smaller a population, the force of Volunteers amounted to between 400,000 and 500,000. In addition to the force of the militia and Volunteers we have, also, what I may call a special Reserve consisting of the enrolled pensioners, and a Reserve force created by Act of Parliament passed at the close of 1859, by Mr. Sydney Herbert, then Secretary of State for War. Our pensioner force was created by a succession of Acts of Parliament about twenty years ago, commencing with power to enrol 10,000 pensioners. Subsequently it was extended to 20,000, and then to 30,000. The law with regard to the enrolment of pensioners as it now stands gives us power to enroll 30,000; but up to this time that power has never been fully exercised. The number at this moment is 14,000, so that after the long period these Acts have been in operation we have not half the amount of force authorized by these Acts of Parliament. With regard to the other portion of the Reserve, that created in 1859, after the retirement of Lord Derby's Government, when Mr. Sydney Herbert succeeded my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon as Secretary of Stale for War, power was taken by the Act of Parliament to enrol men who had served the whole period of ten years for which they had enlisted in a Reserve force not to exceed 20,000 men Therefore, the whole Reserve force authorized by these Acts of Parliament would amount to 50,000. But the Act of 1859 has been very unproductive of results, about 4,000 only having been enrolled under that Act. So that these three sources of military strength, which combined should have given 50,000 have, in fact, only given us 19,000 or 20,000 men. These forces, both the pen-

121
sioners and the Army of Reserve created by Mr. Sidney Herbert, were limited to service at home. In neither case could they be employed for any service out of the country. I would again call attention to an important passage in the Report of the Recruiting Commission. They say—
"Under these circumstances we are not prepared to propose any plan as one that may be relied on to secure a large Army of Reserve; the object sought may, however, be accomplished to a small extent by increasing the enrolled pensioner force, which at present amounts to 14,000 men. To these might be added all men who decline to renew their engagements after their first period of service on such terms as might secure their service for a deferred pension. We would further suggest that all men permitted to purchase their discharge—with special exceptions, to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State for War—should be compelled to serve for five years with the above forces. All these sources of supply combined would, however, form but a small Reserve force, and we are of opinion, that it is to our militia we must look for the solid and constitutional Reserve of the country, and we would earnestly recommend that more attention should be given to its organization, that its numbers should be maintained up to the full legal quota, and that, so far as is possible, the period for drilling the recruits should be more extended."
As to the recommendation that men should purchase their discharge subject to the duty of serving in the Reserve, I am not able to state to the Committee any plan; but I think it is well worthy of consideration, and the War Office is now considering it. It was after due consideration of the Report of the Commission, and after due consideration of the circumstances to which I have called the attention of the Committee, that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon, prepared the plan which he wished to bring forward on this subject. That plan consisted of two portions. The first portion of it, founded upon the recommendations in the Report to which I have referred, relies upon the militia force for providing a considerable portion of the Reserve for the general purposes of war. The militia force now stands at 90,000 men, but by the present plan it is to be raised to its full quota of 120,000 men, of whom 30,000 are to be men enlisted and enrolled as militiamen upon the condition that they shall be ready at any moment in the event of war, or of war being imminent, to take service in the regular army. As an inducement to men to enlist in the militia upon these conditions, they are to receive a Government bounty of £12, or £2 8s. a year in the place of £6, or £1 5s. a year they now re-
122
ceive for five years' service. In connection with that proposal, by the plan of my right hon. and gallant Friend, soldiers who by the New Enlistment Act have enlisted for twelve years are to be permitted, after serving two-thirds of that period, to commute the rest of their service by serving two years in the Army of Reserve for every one year of the term of their original enlistment unexpired. The plan further proposed that these men so commuting the remainder of their term of service in the regular army shall be added to the different regiments of militia in whatever locality they desired to be placed and should serve and drill with those regiments. This is the only point on which the proposal which I now venture to make to the Committee on behalf of the Government differs from that of my right hon. and gallant Friend. After consulting with many military men, I was induced to believe that it would be better that these men should not serve in the militia regiments, that they should be attached to the Army of Reserve, and that they should drill with the pensioners and others of the Reserve force which I have adverted to as being formed under the Act of 1859. I was unwilling to make any alterations in the plan of my right hon. and gallant Friend without first obtaining his consent to such a course. I made this change, having consulted him upon it under the full impression that he had concurred in its propriety, but I am afraid, from what I have since heard, that I was mistaken, and that he does not concur in the proposed alteration; I am, however, induced to support this alteration in the plan in consequence of the general opinion among military men, that considerable practical difficulties exist to those who have commuted their term of service being permitted to serve with the militia. The militia is a county force, whereas the soldiers serve under the Crown; and it would require a very extensive change in our military laws to give the militia officers a proper power over their men. I am not aware whether up to the present time my right hon. and gallant Friend has ever stated how many men he expected to raise by this portion of his plan. The plan I propose to the Committee is this—that the first Reserve shall consist of 30,000 militiamen, who, in consideration of the double bounty, will be ready at any moment during their period of service to join the regular army, and to serve wherever they might be required. The second portion of the first Reserve

123
will consist of the men willing to commute a period of their enlistment, and, following the Act of Mr. Sydney Herbert, these men I propose to limit to 20,000. It is very doubtful whether for a considerable time we shall succeed in getting 20,000 men in this way. The Act of Mr. Sydney Herbert entirely failed, because it contemplated raising 10,000 men, and up to this time we have only 4,000. We must bear in mind, however, that the plan I have now to submit differs from that of Mr. Sydney Herbert in two or three important particulars. In the first place the plan of Mr. Sydney Herbert proposed to enlist men in this Army of Reserve only after the expiration of the whole period of their original enlistment, whereas in the present plan it is proposed to allow the men one-third of the term of their service in the regular army. Secondly, under Mr. Sydney Herbert's plan, the Army of Reserve was not to serve out of the kingdom; whereas that I am laying before the Committee those forming it will be liable to serve in any part of the world. The second portion of the Army of Reserve is to consist of 30,000 men, composed of pensioners and others enrolled under existing Acts, with any soldiers who have served the whole of their first period of enlistment, and who may be willing to enter the Army of Reserve, or who may be willing to commute the third of the period of their second term of enlistment for the sake of the pension for service in the regular army. We shall thus obtain an Army of Reserve numbering 80,000 men, of whom 50,000 will be available for service in any part of the world, and 30,000 for home service. Then, as to the cost of this Army of Reserve. The most costly as well as the most important part of the plan will be the double bounty to the 30,000 men proposed to be added to the militia. The militia bounty will average 24 s. a year for five years; therefore that item will amout to £36,000. As it is contemplated to add those men to the Army of Resolve, it is fair to calculate that the whole amount of bounty due to those men will amount to £72,000. The pay of 30,000 will come to £70,875, so that the two sums together—the bounty and pay—will amount to £142,875. I should propose to pay those who get into the Reserve by commuting their period of service in the army the same double bounty, 48 s. a year, as we propose to give to the Reserve portion of the militia force. I think it necessary to explain this because Mr.
124
Sydney Herbert's Reserve force, under the Act of 1859, was paid at a higher rate. Mr. Sydney Herbert's proposal was to give to militiamen who entered the Army of Reserve £4 per annum as bounty, besides the regular pay given to the pensioners during the time they were serving. It appears to me, however, that £4 bounty for every year is a very large amount. It makes the force a very expensive one, and I am disposed to think that we may find £2 8s. per man quite sufficient to secure the service of these men, especially when we consider the boon held out to them of being released from one-third of the period which they have undertaken to serve in the regular army. Assuming that we find 20,000 willing to enter the Reserve force from the army on these terms the bounty will amount to £48,000, and the pay of these men for twelve days' training to £24,900. This portion of the force will therefore cost £72,900, and the total cost of the two portions of this first Reserve composed of the 30,000 militiamen and the 20,000 commuted men will amount to £215,775. This calculation, however, will not include the cost of their clothing, which I may, I think, fairly and safely assume at £15,000, so that the whole of this Reserve force would in round figures cost us £230,000. I have thus endeavoured to explain the nature of the proposal, and, in case the Committee approve it, the Bills which we have prepared on the subject will be proceeded with. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Vote for £63,250, Increase of Pay to Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the Militia.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish, Sir, to make a few remarks upon the estimate, and upon the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet. I must say, in the first place, that I think the proposal to increase by 2d. a day the pay of the militia ought not to pass without some consideration. Neither I nor any other Member on this side of the House made any objection when it was proposed to make an increase to the pay of the regular army, but I cannot see on what grounds it is proposed to extend that increase to the militia. The two services are differently situated. There is a great difficulty in obtaining recruits for the army, but we have frequently been assured that the same difficulty is not experienced in the case of the militia. The pay of the militia is very much superior to the pay of the Line for the short time during which

125
they are in training. The militiaman not only receives 13 d. a day during that period, but he receives also 24 s. as bounty, as well as a pair of boots and other articles of clothing, which at the close of the training he is allowed to take away with him. An hon. Member has on these grounds estimated the pay of the militiaman during the period of training at no less than 3s. 2d. a day. The same objection does not apply to the permanent Staff, because they are employed all the year round, and are, therefore, fairly entitled to the same benefits as those which are to be conferred on non-commissioned officers in the regular service. With regard to the proposal to create different species of Reserve force I have little to say. I doubt, however, whether it is worth our while to call this an Army of Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking to-night, alluded to the causes which had led the public to turn their attention, during the last year or two, to the subject of a Reserve Army. No doubt the war of last year, and events which have recently occurred, have called I our attention very forcibly to the subject. Still, the force which it is proposed to create cannot be named in the same day with the Reserve force of Prussia and other Continental nations, and the danger is, by bestowing such a name upon this force, the country may be led to believe that we are actually in possession of such an Army of Reserve. I cannot understand, after the explanations we have had, how the first class Army of Reserve can ever approach the estimated number of 20,000 men. As far as I can understand, the Reserve is to be formed from the difference between our foreign or colonial establishments and our peace establishments. We have about 50 regiments serving at home, and the difference would in the case of each regiment amount to 150 men. I do not, therefore, see how the number can exceed 50 times 150, or 7,500 men. This seems to me to be especially the case, considering what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon said — namely, that it was not intended to exact from the men entering the Reserve a double period of service; but only to require them to serve the number of years in the Reserve they would have done in the Line. The number cannot, therefore, as far as I can see, exceed 7,500 men, unless some means, which I confess I am unacquainted with, are taken to induce them to remain in the Army of Reserve after they are entitled
126
to claim their discharge. If my calculation about the first class of the Army of Reserve be at all correct, I cannot see how the numbers of the second class are to exceed those of the first. The proposals with regard to the Reserve of militia are very good as far as they go. But it must be remembered that these 30,000 men which it is proposed to draft into the regular army in time of war can scarcely be called an Army of Reserve, because immediately war breaks out they will be absorbed, and from that time will disappear. Thus, they would not be a Reserve which should, properly speaking, be a last resort, but they would be a first resort, partaking scarcely more of the nature of a Reserve than the regular army itself. Although the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) proposes to raise the Militia to the full quota of 120,000, he should remember that the present strength of 90,000 is only intended to serve for times of peace. The effect of his proposal in time of danger will be to take 30,000 men suddenly from the militia. We shall not only be obliged to employ all our energies in order to keep up the force of the regular army, but shall also have to set new machinery to work in order to recover the 30,000 men draughted from the militia to the Line. I admit that it is by no means a bad proposal, that these 30,000 men should be within reach. They would, no doubt, be very useful. Still, to call them a Reserve is a misnomer. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not before this put us in possession of the figures with regard to cost and numbers which he read to us. I understood that he had promised to do so, and if he laid them on the table we should have been able to discuss them now with more chance of ascertaining their accuracy, and generally with more advantage to the public service. I trust he will lay them on the table now, so that we may examine them before we again discuss the question, because it is impossible rightly to estimate figures as they fall from a speaker's lips. My present impression is, that if the first class of Reserve is really to amount to anything at all, it will be practically a shortening of the term of service in the army. But if the term of service in the army is to be shortened, a greater number of recruits will be required, and recruiting expenses and bounties will be increased in proportion. In this way I think the right hon. Gentleman will be found out in his

127
calculations; but I would suggest that this matter should be postponed. The safety of the country will not be imperilled by postponement. This is a question which may, with great propriety, be left for a Parliament elected by a new constituency, which there is reason for believing will take a different view of military matters from that prevalent among the existing constituency. The reformed Parliament will probably take a much broader view of such questions than the present Parliament docs. There appears to be less reason for pressing the matter forward during this Session when we consider that, as the militia has been already out for training, it is impossible to carry out the really substantial part of the plan before next year.
GENERAL PEEL: The noble Marquess objects to the additional 2d. a day being extended to the militia; I, on the contrary have always endeavoured to make no distinction between the militia and the army in the amount of pay. In fact, if any difference be made between them, it should be in favour of the militia, who during the time of their training do more drill and more hard work than any other troops in the same period. There are no persons who have an opportunity of so readily comparing the difference between the pay of the army and the wages earned by labourers as the militia, who come fresh to the service from their ordinary work and pay; therefore I should say, if there was any necessity of raising the rate of pay in order to keep up the number, that it existed specially in their case. As to the Army of Reserve, I admit that the plan sketched out by the Secretary of State for War, so far as it goes, is mine, and that I am bound by it. It is said that the plan of an Army of Reserve is founded entirely on the Report of the Royal Commissioners on recruiting. It is true that one of the references to that Commission was the formation of an Army of Reserve. I will not read the strong remarks of the Commission on the necessity of an Army of Reserve. But they did not lay down any plan. When that Commission reported, I felt it to be my duty, in conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief, to consider the best means of forming an Army of Reserve. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) has overlooked the fact that, by the plan before the Committee, there are two Armies of Reserve—one for foreign service, and the other for home defence. The
128
noble Lord has complained of the Enlistment Bill, which has already passed this House, requiring twelve years' service. He also complains of the two other Bills which are to come before the House, the objects of which are, if possible, to relieve any hardship that might be inflicted by the first. But I consider the plan now proposed as one of the most beneficial measures for the soldier that has been brought forward for a considerable period. Though apparently small in itself it involves grout principles: first, that a man shall be able to commute a portion of his service in the Line for the Army of Reserve; and, secondly, that when a war takes place the man who so enlists in the first Reserve will only be called on to serve during the time of that war, without being necessarily a soldier all his life. My right hon. Friend is wrong when he supposes that I intended that those who wished to commute the remaining period of their services in the Line for a period in the first Reserve should serve a double portion. The original proposal was that a man who volunteered after serving two-thirds of his first engagement, should only be called on to serve the remainder of his time in the first Reserve, and that the man during the second period of his service should not be called on to serve two years for one with the pensioners to entitle him to his pension. The Royal Commission recommended that when a man had purchased his discharge he should be called upon to serve a certain time in the Army of Reserve: but if a man buys his discharge at the full price, what right have you to ask him to serve in the Army of Reserve? What I suggested was that if a man wished to purchase his discharge he should be permitted to pay a portion of the price only on condition of his serving a certain time in the Reserve. That, I think, would have been a great boon to the army. If the man had five years more to serve, I would tell him he might purchase his discharge at a certain rate. We should have a commuted price for the purchase of discharges—an arrangement which would, I believe, prove very beneficial. It is said that by the proposal of a first Army of Reserve we shall get very few men indeed; but I regarded it as tending to make the army popular, by offering a boon to the soldier, as well as securing an advantage to the State. I should be happy to see our best soldiers remaining in the army; but surely when a man can find other employment, and is willing to commute the re-

129
mainder of his service in the Line for service in the Reserve, if a war broke out he is as available as any man in the service. Suppose we did not allow him to commute his service in the Line, and he had only three or four more years to serve, when those three or four years expired he would take his discharge just at the moment when we wanted him. My argument is intended to show that when a man who has served two-thirds of his period comes home he should have the opportunity of commuting the remainder of it. That would be a much better system than enlisting men compulsorily to serve a certain number of years in the Line, and afterwards to enter the Reserve. I cannot agree with what has fallen from my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) in respect to the difficulty of filling up the militia. If a war broke out we could always call up a portion of the first Reserve, and fill up the Reserve by volunteers from the militia. In case of war we might be called upon to fill up our regiments of the Line. There will be economy in that, because I propose to reduce the regiments of the Line to 600 men each, provided we have an Army of Reserve, by means of which, in the event of war, we could at once bring them up to a war standard. In future wars the hostilities would be over before we could raise our second battalions. My right hon. Friend proposes to attach the first Reserve to the pensioners; but I propose to attach them to the militia. This plan I would wish the militia officers to consider seriously. I am desirous that a closer connection should be formed between the militia and the Line. My impression is that the men commuting the remainder of their first period of service in the Line for service in the first Reserve would be just the kind of men that the militia would be glad to receive. What would be the result of attaching them to the pensioners? You will have the first Reserve divided between the pensioners and the militia. Their duty with the pensioners will give them no right to pensions, while the second Reserve will have to serve two years instead of one in order to obtain pensions. If yon attach the discharged soldiers to the pensioners you must have a great addition to the Staff Officers of the pensioners. We had much better place the pensioners under the Horse Guards at once. To give the money, which these additional Staff Officers would cost, to the militia would, I think, be a far better arrangement. The Army
130
Reserve was not formed without the greatest consideration. The Commander-in-Chief and myself went most deeply into the question. You cannot compare our army organization with that of any other army in the world. In time of peace it has to perform duties which no other army is called on to perform. Other countries raise their troops by conscription, whereas ours are raised by voluntary enlistment. France and other States have in regard to their armies a power of expansion which is unlimited, whereas in our case there is comparatively no power of expansion; and if we went to war to morrow we should be obliged to have recourse to large bounties. It has been said "Look at America, which raised a million of men in a very short time, and why could we not do something similar?" But I should like to know what it has cost America to raise that million of men; it has been stated that she had to pay upwards of £110,000,000 in bounty money. And look at the difference between the old experienced class of soldiers and the raw levies obtained by bounties. I do not say that my proposal will give the best possible Army of Reserve. It is only an experiment and the expense of trying it will be moderate. If we do not pass this Bill, which enables soldiers to commute the remainder of their service in the Line for service in the proposed Army of Reserve, we shall be obliged to discharge them altogether, because the strength of the regiments coming home is to be reduced to 600. I hope the Committee will not adopt the recommendation of the noble Marquess and postpone for another year the creation of what I believe will be the most efficient Army of Reserve which we could establish.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, the adoption of the proposed plan would involve a bounty of £5 per man to such militiamen as chose to accept it, and for that bounty the Government expected to obtain 30,000 trained men ready to march into the ranks at once on an emergency. These men, on accepting the bounty, were to engage to serve for five years, anywhere the Government required, either at home or abroad, and the success of the measure depended on the numbers that would accept the proffered bounty. It was possible that many would do so—perhaps many under the idea that they would never be called out; but it must be remembered that at this moment the militia force was deficient in numbers. According to the last Returns the

131
number of men wanted to complete the regiments in England and Scotland was 27,000. In Ireland they could not tell the numbers wanting, because at the outbreak of Fenianism it was thought proper to stop recruiting there. As to the other part of the plan—that of commuting the service of men who had not served their first period—he would be very unwilling to abridge the term of twelve years to any great extent. They all knew that in the Peninsular war, after being six or seven years in the field, our soldiers were so good that the Duke of Wellington said he could do anything with them. Therefore he did not concur in the theory that mere boys enlisted at eighteen, or seventeen, or sixteen years of age, were the best soldiers after merely two years' service. We could have no troops so good as those who had been eight or ten years in the service. As to attaching the men, who were allowed to commute their service, to the pensioners, he could not conceive anything more objectionable. The pensioners might be of value in a fort or in the defence of towns; but they were generally men discharged for being incapable of active service, and many of them could not march three miles. But the intended force for a Reserve, consisting of men from the Line who had commuted their service, might, however, do a great deal of good to the militia if they joined them together. They were men probably not much older than the militiamen themselves, but they were more fully instructed. He trusted the project of attaching these men to the pensioners would be re-considered.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, that with every respect for the versatile attainments of the present Secretary for War, he must express his regret at the retirement from that office of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, whose plan was simple, and involved no addition to the Staff and no increase of officers. The Secretary for War said he had adopted the proposals of his predecessor, adding, as if it were a matter of no importance, that he had made one slight change by attach the new Army of Reserve to the first Army of Reserve instead of the militia, That, however, was a very shadowy proposal. When inquiry was on one occasion made of the late Lord Herbert as to the numbers of our Army Reserve, and a Return on the subject was produced, it was found that they only amounted to 1,500, and that they never had been drilled. That
132
another Army of Reserve should be added to that Army of Reserve for the purposes of drill appeared to him to be a somewhat visionary scheme. What was really meant was that a separate organization with a separate Staff and officers for the new Army of Reserve was to be established. This was proved by the fact that in the Bill was a proviso for the creation of whatever officers might be deemed desirable. That was a serious objection to the change. But there was another of still greater weight, which was that it would tend to widen rather than to diminish the connection between the militia and the Line — a connection which was recommended by Lord Strathnairn and other witnesses of the highest authority before the Commission, and which the plan of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was calculated to promote. He thought that the proposals of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon were fully authorized by the evidence given before the Committee, and that one of their principal advantages was that there would have been established a connection between the Line and the militia. Now, however, it was proposed not to engraft this Army of Reserve on one of the old organizations, but to establish another organization, and for what purpose he could not conceive, unless it was for the purpose of making more Staff officers. He expressed his approval of the proposals of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon when they were first explained, and he saw no reason to change his opinion after consideration; but he considered that they had been so entirely perverted from their original purpose by the alterations introduced by the present Secretary of War and by the changes contemplated by the Bill, that he deemed them no longer deserving of support. He therefore concurred in the suggestion of the noble Lord that the consideration of the matter should be deferred to another year. The point evidently aimed at by those who framed the Bill was to set up a separate and distinct organization, not only for those who retired from the army, but for those who retired from the militia, and to a considerable extent to remove the militia Reserve from the militia. He wished to know whether the statement of the right hon. Baronet was correct that the present Army of Reserve amounted to 4,000. He rather thought, according to a Return made last Session, it was only 1,500. The

133
Secretary at War had stated that in the event of invasion it would be impossible to collect more than 40,000 men; but on referring to the effective state of the Army, it would be found that on the 1st of May last year there were no fewer than 85,000 troops of all arms in the United Kingdom.
MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he had likened to the statement of the right hon. Baronet with feelings of the greatest possible disappointment. His proposal would not give an Army of Reserve that would at all benefit the country. It was absolutely necessary to have an Army of Reserve strong in numbers, in efficiency, in discipline, and, above all, with a perfect system, of regimental discipline. Instead of this a scheme was proposed surrounded with difficulties and complications. It multiplied organizations, and he could not, therefore, go so far as the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, when he said that it would do no harm, but would do no good. He was afraid the scheme of the Government would only stand in the way of an efficient system. There would be 50,000 men of the militia and pensioners liable to general service, but he could see no reason why the Government should not at once propose to turn the militia into an Army of Reserve. Thus the unnecessary multiplying of organizations would be avoided, and they would have an Army of Reserve which would be well fitted to co-operate with the regular army, or replace it at need. He hoped the Government would withdraw the proposal with the view of preparing some scheme which would, in the event of an European war, enable us to maintain our national dignity.
MAJOR WALKERsaid, he wished to remove a misapprehension which seemed to prevail with reference to the pay of the private militia soldier. It had been calculated, including bounty and clothing, to amount to 3s. 2d. a day. That statement was founded on the evidence of Colonel Pipon; but he believed it was inaccurate. It proceeded on the supposition that the militiaman served only twenty-one instead of forty-two days the first year, and twenty-seven days in every other year. He received, in fact, only 1s. 1d. for his daily duty; but when he was discharged did his liabilities end there? Far from it; he returned to his home, liable to be called out at a month's notice—to have to leave his family and his civil employment, and to be subject to all the rigour of the Mutiny Act. It was for this that he re-
134
ceived his annual bounty, and he did not think that 24 s. was an excessive retaining fee.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he considered the authority of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) a very sufficient authority for the statement he had made with reference to the pay of the militia. The principal point was whether the Army of Reserve should be attached to the pensioners or to the militia. If the pensioners were dissolved and added to the militia they would be a very valuable auxiliary in teaching to that force the good habits of the soldier; it would also be a great saving to the public. The Report of the Recruiting Commission disapproved of the practice of giving bounties, and recommended that they should not be increased. He had seen sufficient of the way in which bounties were dispensed to induce him to object to the system. If they were to be given, they should be given in a way to benefit the soldier himself and his family, not to be spent in drink. Another item in the Vote, the proposed addition of 2d. per day to the Staff Serjeants, had reference to the pay of the permanent Staff of the militia. No body of men in the service did more work for the money they received, or were more thoroughly deserving of any encouragement the House could afford them. But, while he gladly welcomed this addition to their pay, he would also like to see their duties increased. He wished to see the recruiting done to a great extent by the Staff of the militia during the ten months of the year when they remained idle. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite that the addition of 2d. a day to the pay of the militia was unnecessary, unless the service of the militia regiments was assimilated to that of the Line, when, of course, the pay should be the same as that of the Line. He hoped that the case of militia quartermasters would be taken into consideration. Their retiring pensions were most inadequate, and they received no lodging-money when their regiments were disembodied.
LORD EDWARD CLINTONsaid, that the more the question was discussed, the more he was convinced that it should be postponed for another year. The militia had never been able to keep up the Line, even when it numbered 250,000 men. In this year 15,000 men would leave the ranks, next year 23,000, and in 1869, 19,000 men. They should look for their

135
Reserve to the men who had served twelve years, and by adding them to the existing Reserve force they would soon obtain a Reserve force of 100,000 men, if proper inducements were offered. He would give as much as 6d. a day, and though that, no doubt, was a large sun), the country might recoup itself by reducing the regular army to the extent of 5, or at most 10 per cent. He did not think that short terms of service would answer for our army in consequence of the great distances our men had to be sent.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he supported the suggestion that the measure should be postponed for a year. He was one of those old-fashioned politicians who regarded a standing army as a standing injury. Mature itself pointed out that a standing army was unsuited to our case for we had not the faculty of organizing one. It seemed to him that sufficient prominence had not been given to the Volunteer force, which he thought generally did not receive from the Government the encouragement it deserved.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not feel at all disposed to enter upon a discussion as to whether or not a standing army was a standing injury. He might, however, as a humble member of the Volunteer force, say that he differed very greatly from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), and that he felt grateful for the encouragement extended to that body both by the country and by the House. He had risen because, at an earlier period of the evening, he had been debarred from discussing the question raised by this Vote and by the two Bills on the Paper—a discussion on which he had entered because he had been under the impression that the whole subject was to be debated on going into Committee of Supply. Had he then been allowed to proceed, he had intended to suggest, as his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) had done, that the subject should be postponed for another year. With his noble Friend, he believed that the scheme was not calculated to obtain for us an efficient Army of Reserve, while the country and the House might be betrayed into a delusive reliance upon a force which would in reality not be deserving the name bestowed upon it. The Commission on Recruiting stated in their Report that we could not at the present moment bring together more than 40,000 of our regular army. Our militia, which
136
might perhaps be 120,000 strong, and which if the Act were enforced might be stronger by 60,000 men, would only give us 90,000, and our pensioners, who might be 30,000 strong, only half that number. In addition to that, our Army of Reserve, which had been a "standing" joke, would produce 2,500 men. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Queen's County (General Dunne) had said moreover that we must eliminate the body of pensioners altogether from our calculations. Now, what was the state in which we were to be placed according to the Army Reserve scheme as proposed by the Government? We were to have a first Army of Reserve, which it was hoped would number 20,000 men. His noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, however had made a calculation showing that we could not rely upon more than fifty times 150, or 7,500 men. By the Reserve system we were to have 30,000 of the militia ready to be transferred at any moment into the Line. But he could not help thinking that, like the Irishman's blanket, we were cutting off the bottom what we added to the top, because by so doing we should at once reduce the strength of the militia by the 30,000 men who were to join the army. How was the plan to be carried out? It was proposed to get men to enlist on those terms by giving them double bounties, spreading over their pay what was equal to £12. During the Crimean war we had a system of feeding the army from the militia. In one year 10,000 men enlisted for the militia, and in another 8,000, and these men each received a bounty of £6 on enlistment. Did any man doubt that in case of war breaking out we should be able by offering a bounty of £12 to get the 30,000 men whom it was now proposed to place at disposal for service in the army? He did not think that this Army Reserve scheme as it at present stood deserved the consideration of the House. His right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) the father of the original scheme had found it so disfigured since it had passed into the hands of the right hon. Baronet that he now disowned it. He had felt in proposing the Motion which had come under discussion at an earlier period of the evening that he was leading a forlorn hope; but he believed that the only permanent basis upon which we could rely was a modified form of conscription. Lord Dalhousie had expressed a similar opinion on more than one occasion, and had, moreover,

137
said, that if any Government were bold enough to put the compulsory system into operation, they would, in his belief, find themselves supported by the voice of the country. He could not help feeling that the scheme proposed was one which was utterly inefficient for the purpose for which it was intended, and he would, therefore, join his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) in expressing a hope that it would not be pressed this Session.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) would give his best attention to the whole subject, so as to put the country in a state of security against any emergency. He had always objected to the reduction of the Indian Army, which was one of the best in the world. He thought it would be well, considering the great Empire we had on the other side of the world, to maintain a separate army there, thus obviating the necessity of keeping up so large an army at home, and saving the great expense of sending regiments across the sea. With regard to providing for discharged soldiers, nothing was more painful than to see soldiers who had served for many years discharged with a small pension. It would be much better to instruct them in some trade and so save them from penury. He did not know whether there were any arrears of prize money yet undistributed, but the delay and mismanagement that had taken place in this department were much to be regretted. A system of military apprenticeship would be very advantageous, there being no reason why boys should not be trained for the army as well as for the navy. The increase of pay would give give general satisfaction, and everything should be done to bring a superior class of men into the army. Soldiers should not be mere machines, but should be taught so as to understand the object of every manœuvre. The way foreign armies were rendered so efficient was by giving instruction to the men. He trusted that by next year the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with a scheme which would meet with the general support of the House, and would provide against any emergency that might arise on the continent.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he hoped this matter would not be postponed, for his principle had always been to take the best he could get. There was nothing to prevent the plan he had proposed from being adopted when the Bill got into Committee,
138
and he earnestly trusted that the Government would not consent to a postponement for another year.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not accede to the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) and other Members to abandon the Bills which he had introduced with the view of carrying out this plan. Some hon. Members seemed to look on the plan as insufficient; but this was a strange reason for folding our hands and doing nothing. The prevalent opinion seemed to be that by securing the services of one-fourth of our whole militia force, and making them available for the general purposes of war, we should to, that extent, secure a very efficient Reserve. With regard to the proposal that a certain proportion of the army should be permitted to commute a portion of their service for service in the Reserve, and the question whether the drilling and training was to be in one way or another, these were matters of detail which could be settled in Committee. In common with his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) he had little doubt it would then be easy to come to an agreement. He thought his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had considerably under-rated the force that might be derived from commuted men, for he believed a considerable force might be thus obtained. The deficiency of our present resources being acknowledged, it could not be advisable to defer the matter. The regulations in which the important details of the scheme were to be arranged would be laid on the table. He hoped, therefore, the Vote would be passed.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £20,000, Additional Pay to the Army Reserve Force.
(3.) £50,000, Increase of Pay to Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates, Royal Marine Corps.
MR. CORRYsaid, that he would have to trouble the Committee with only a few words in proposing this Vote, which was rendered necessary by the increase in the pay of the army, which had been sanctioned by the House. It had always been the practice to assimilate the pay of the Marines to that of the army, and he had only to explain that it was impossible to provide for the cost of their increased pay in the original Estimates, because it was dependent upon the sanction of the House to the increased pay of the army, which had only recently been obtained.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the increased pay of the army was granted in consequence of the recommendation of the Recruiting Committee to that effect. He did not offer the smallest objection to that increase, as it was proposed on the responsibility of the Government, and he doubted whether they could have done otherwise, with the recommendation of the Recruiting Commission before them. He wished, however, to know whether an increase of pay to the Royal Marines was required on account of any difficulty in recruiting, or whether it was only proposed because a similar Vote had been agreed to for the army?
MR. OTWAYsaid he thought that the Vote now proposed was the natural consequence of the Vote just agreed to for increasing the pay of the army. The men who served with the Marines were the seamen of the navy, who might think they also had a claim. He wished to know whether it was proposed to make any augmentation to the pay of the seamen of the fleet? He presumed that the Marines would receive arrears from the day on which the proposal was originally made. There were very few Members of the Government better acquainted with the working of their office than the right hon Gentleman (Mr. Corry), and be wished to know whether it was proposed to pay the arrears in, a lump sum, or spread over different periods of time? The increase was not a bit more than the Marines were entitled to.
MR. CORRYsaid, that the Marines were a very popular force, and, speaking generally, there was no difficulty in keeping up the force to the number voted. If, however, they did not receive an augmentation corresponding to that given to the army it would not only lose its popularity, but great offence would be given, and a difficulty in obtaining recruits would be the probable consequence. The Marines were a branch of the army, and it would not be possible to withhold from them the advantage given to the rest of the army. There was, however, no reason why, because the House increased the pay of the Marines, they should also increase the pay of the seamen of the fleet. The wages of seamen had been increased at various times of late years, and they were content with their pay. The increase would date from the 1st of April. He thought it would be advisable to pay the arrears, not in a lump sum, but by instalments, but
140
that would depend on what had been done in the case of the army.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONmoved—
"That towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Mover and Portland, a sum not exceeding £800,000 be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for a term not exceeding thirty years, and that such Annuities shall be charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund; that the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct the payment to the Governor and Company of the bank of England, out of the said Consolidated Fund, of the sum of £800, for the Management of the Contributions to be received by the said Governor and Company in respect of the said Annuities."
He said, that £150,000 of the £800,000 would be devoted to the placing of iron shields on fortifications, a work which would be completed by the expenditure from time to time of £450,000. The balance of £650,000 to be devoted to general works, was similar to the amount which had been devoted annually for some time past.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he entirely approved of the object for which this Vote was asked. He did not know whether it was the intention of the late Government to have proposed this increase for the iron shields, but both himself and his predecessor at the War Office had been of opinion that this expenditure should be incurred.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he had heard that the iron shields or sheathing proposed to be used at Portsmouth were to be applied on a worse principle than the iron which was used for the same purpose at Cronstadt.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the schields in this country would be applied in a different way, but it did not follow that they would prove inferior.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought that £450,000 was a large sum to expend for such a purpose, more espe-

141
cially as they were not likely to prove stable, it being well known that salt water would corrode and cat away iron. He had some doubt as to whether the proper course to pursue was to pay for these fortifications by means of a loan, which involved the necessity of borrowing for works of a temporary character, while at the same time we were paying off a loan. He thought it would be better to pay the cost if possible, out of the revenue of the country. They might just as well pay for the sheathing of the ironclads by means of a loan.
MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that he had placed on the Paper a Motion for next Tuesday which would open up the whole question of our fortifications. He attached no blame with respect to the plans of fortification — which seemed to him to be altogether faulty in principle and utterly useless—to the Government, because they were the plans of the late Government. He had had great experience in the matter of fortification plates. Many good judges considered the plates used as quite inferior and erroneous in principle. He thought the best principle had not been adopted with regard to the subject of fortifications It was his intention next Tuesday to move a Resolution to suspend the further proceeding with the fortifications until some competent authority had fully considered the whole subject.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that though it was too late to discuss the general question of fortifications he believed that the greater part of them would turn out useless. Round forts with lines had been constructed which it was impossible for the defensive force of this country to man. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information of the sinking of the foundations of two forts, one at Spithead and the other in the Medway?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhad no reason to doubt the efficiency of our system of fortifications, on which the best talent in the country had been engaged. He had received no information as to the sinking of the foundations of a fort in the Medway, but one of the five forts which it had been intended to erect at Spithead had been abandoned owing to that cause. A second fort had been commenced on Ryde Sand; and he was informed a few days ago that the foundation was defective and that it would be wise to abandon it. Three other forts were being erected on the White Horse Sand, No Man's Land, and the Spit,
142
and there was no reason to doubt their stability. The iron shield was likely to be permanent.

1. Resolved, That, towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover and Portland, a sum not exceeding £800,000, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for a term not exceeding thirty years, and that such Annuities shall be charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund.

2. Resolved, That the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the payment to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, out of the said Consolidated Fund, of the sum of £800, for the Management of the Contributions to be received by the said Governor and Company in respect of the said Annuities.

House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

POOR LAW BOARD, &c., (re-committed) BILL. [BILL 271.]
(Mr. Sclater Booth, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Statute 10 & 11 Vict. c. 169, s. 28 repealed. The Poor Law Board made permanent.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had to move an Amendment with the view of renewing the Poor Law Board for five years only. He had on a previous occasion stated his objections to the Board being made permanent, and hoped that, to avoid a long discussion, the Amendment would be agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out the words "from and after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, there was great objection in the metropolis to the Board being made permanent, and it was impossible to discuss the proposal properly at this period of the Session.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid he was sorry he could not agree to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. The Poor Law Board had existed for a period of twenty years upon its present footing. It had been continued by various Acts of Parliament, and the time had come when the House was in a position to decide whether

143
it should not be placed on a permanent footing. The Bill of 1846 placed the establishment on the footing which it held at present, and the clause which limited the duration of the Board to a period of five years was evidently added with the intention of being repealed if the experiment succeeded. There had been only two or three Petitions presented against the proposal to make the Board permanent. Considering the great powers which the House had intrusted to the Poor Law Board at the beginning of this Session, it would be rather inconsistent if they were now to say that it ought not to have a longer existence than five years. That period would not afford sufficient time for testing the operation of the Act. This department should be placed on the same footing as the rest.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he trusted that the Secretary to the Poor Law Board would re-consider his decision. He spoke the views of a great many Members who had the strongest objection to make the Board perpetual; there was no other department in the country which exercised such powers as the Poor Law Board. He hoped the Government would confine their demands this year to a Continuance Bill with a view to some measure of consolidation next year. There were no fewer than sixteen or eighteen Acts of Parliament, one after the other, enlarging, contracting, and altering in various ways, the powers of the Board. It was exceedingly difficulty to say what the powers of the Board really were.
MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, that the fact that Parliament had in the beginning of the Session intrusted the Board with new powers was no reason whatever for making it permanent; rather the contrary. As those powers were new, extensive, and invidious, and as there was likely to be great difference of opinion as to their exercise, it was only proper that a limited existence should be given to the Board. No possible inconvenience could arise from a course which Parliament for twenty years had thought right to adopt.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member seemed to forget what the Poor Law Board had been constantly doing in the country. If the Board was at one time unpopular, it was because it was not represented in the House, and had not the same opportunity of defending its acts which it afterwards obtained. A Committee over which the
144
right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) presided, sat for three years on the subject, and they came to a unanimous resolution that the continuance of the central authority was essential, and that it would increase its efficiency if placed on a permanent footing. As for the statement that no notice had been given of what was to be done, in the beginning of this Session due notice had been given that the Poor Law Board would be made perpetual. The Board had great powers before; but when the House had so much confidence in it as to give it further powers this Session it seemed to him very extraordinary that it should be placed on a different footing from any other department in the State, and should be held in suspense for a period sometimes of three years, sometimes of five. Was the Board to suppose that it was distrusted by the House? If so it would be prevented from acting with the firmness and decision to be desired. He was perfectly convinced that the time had come when the House might fairly trust the Board. The Poor Law Board was placed in a most invidious position by being treated differently from other departments of the State.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, that whenever he found metropolitan Members rising to oppose a measure, as they did upon that occasion, he could not help entertaining a strong suspicion that it was one which would promote the welfare of the country at large. He believed that the time had come when the central machine which regulated the whole administration of the Poor Law of the country should possess the prestige of permanence. A Board which was continued from year to year at the will of Parliament could not command that respect which it ought to possess. If the House were unwilling to make it absolutely perpetual, at least something approaching to permanence ought to be conferred on the central authority.
MR. COWENsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had just spoken. He presented the other day a Petition from the Poor Law Guardians of the borough which he represented, complaining bitterly of the law and of the manner in which they were treated, and especially directing the attention of the House to the propriety of discontinuing the power of the Board rather than giving it permanence. Every Act of Parliament had had for its object to increase the power of the Board and diminish that of the Guardians, so that he apprehended that by-and-by it would be

145
found impossible to get persons of respectability to undertake that office. He trusted there would be no prolongation of the Board beyond the term of five years.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought five years a species of permanency which many people would be delighted to obtain, and a term quite sufficiently long to fix. Unfortunately, the metropolitan Members did not always act together; if they did, no doubt this country would be very much better governed than it was. The country districts, he believed, were in favour of a permanent Board, but the metropolitan ratepayers felt they could take care of their own interests, and did not want this perpetual direction. He should give his support to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he thought the House and the country were greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board for the improvements that had been made in the administration. So far from feeling that it lowered the position of the Guardians to have the advice and assistance of the members of the Poor Law Board, he had always, as a Guardian, felt it a great advantage. He should give his most cordial support to the permanent continuance of the Board. He should be very sorry if, by imposing the limit of five years, the notion should be encouraged that its powers were still to be of a temporary nature.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSwas astonished that this proposal should have come from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. AYRTON), and should have been supported by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Locke). Both his hon. Friends were Members of the Select Committee, and if this subject had not been discussed at length there, it was because there seemed at once to be something like unanimity in favour of the Board being made permanent. It was certainly the effect of the evidence—that for the due and uniform administration of the law for the relief of the poor a Central Board was necessary, and that with a view to its greater efficiency it should be made permanent. The Committee had been impartially chosen, it had made a patient inquiry, and he did not know that there was any ground for doubting its judgment. The objections that had been urged to the Poor Law Board applied equally to it when subject to periodical renewal, as they would, when rendered permanent. These arose from certain powers with which it was vested, and es-
146
pecially those of issuing General Orders, of which the Committee had approved, though some people thought them unconstitutional. The House really never had any thought of abolishing the Board. The apprehension of being put an end to on the expiration of two, three, and five years, if it did not demoralize, alarmed, and intimidated, and had a very prejudicial effect upon those connected with the department. As the time for renewal approached, they were threatened with attack by local boards—not by those that were best managed, but by those that were irregular in their proceedings, and least careful in their attention to the poor. The best regulated unions, and those, generally, that treated the poor with the most real humanity, were those that acted most in harmony with the Board. It was evident it would be inconvenient to any department to be liable to be threatened with this kind of hostility if it would not make concessions that they believed to be unwise, or, waive its regulations; and so long as a department was responsible to the House of Commons there was no use in subjecting it to this kind of terrorism, which could only be prejudicial in its effect. It must cripple its usefulness if, under such circumstances, the Minister at its head was always to be advised in the department to keep quiet, and to abstain from initiating needed reforms. When he first entered the House there was a strong prejudice against the Board of Trade, and nearly as great with some people then as there is now against the Poor Law Board; and if it had been renewed periodically its usefulness would have been comparatively limited, and its importance under-rated. If the Poor Law Board required to be reformed, there was no reason why its constitution should not be amended when it had been made permanent; on the contrary, it would be an additional reason for its revision; but it was inconsistent to be constantly renewing the Board without the least intention to abolish it ultimately.
Remaining clauses considered:—some amended.
After long time, House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

POOR LAW BOARD, &c., (re-committed) BILL. [BILL 271.]
  COURTS OF LAW, &c. (SALARIES AND EXPENSES) BILL.
  Bill "to remove certain Charges from the Consolidated Fund," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 282.]

OFFICES AND OATHS BILL— [BILL 272.]
LORDS' AMENDMENT considered.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Church Rates Abolition* (256); Dundee Provisional Orders Confirmation* (257); Wexford Grand Jury* (258).
Second Reading—Banns of Matrimony (216); Tests Abolition (Oxford and Cambridge) (235), negatived; Naval Knights of Windsor* (252).
Committee—Railways (Scotland)* (162); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* (221).
Report—Vaccination* (239).
Third Reading—Naval Stores (No. 2)* (234); Sir John Port's Charity* (206), and passed.
Royal Assent—Real Estate Charges Act Amendment [30 & 31 Vict. c. 69]; Chatham and Sheer-ness Stipendiary Magistrate [30 & 31 Vict c. 63]; Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition [30 & 31 Vict. c. 62]; Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) [30 & 31 Vict. c. 64]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements [30 & 31 Vict. c. 66]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [30 & 31 Vict. c. 65]; Judges, Chambers (Despatch of Business) [30 & 31. Vict. c. 68]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) [30 & 31 Vict. c. 67].

BANNS OF MATRIMONY BILL—(No. 216.)
(Lord Houghton.)
BANNS OF MATRIMONY BILL—(No. 216.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HOUGHTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it related to a matter which was of ecclesiastical and antiquarian interest, and at the same time of practical importance; its object being to remove the doubts which appeared to exist, respecting the proper

  41
  time of publishing banns of marriage in church. People had been so accustomed, to hear the banns of matrimony read after the Second Lesson that it might appear almost superfluous to raise any doubt on the subject; in point of fact, however, grave doubts had arisen, and legislation was necessary. A case which came before Baron Alderson led to a judgment which showed that the law on the subject was not settled, and it was well that all doubts should be set at rest. He found in the Report of the proceedings of the Lower House of Convocation that some of the clergy were in favour of having the publication of banns take place after the Nicene Creed; but the almost universal custom was to have the publication after the Second Lesson, and this Bill would confirm that practice. The main object of the publication of banns was to give them publicity, and that publicity could be much better secured by publishing the banns at the Morning Service than would be the case if they were published at the Evening Service. The present Bill would indemnify any clergyman who had hitherto published banns at a wrong period, and establish the legality of all such marriages. He believed that in the other House of Parliament there had been no serious opposition to the Bill; and he hoped that their Lordships would now give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Houghton.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had no objection to the second reading, though he thought there was some doubt as to whether the first clause should be adopted before a decision was come to by the Commission, which was considering this among other subjects.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdid not object to the Bill being read a second time, because it would remedy an evil; but he did not think Parliament ought to settle in a hurried manner any absolute time at which the banns should be published. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) was mistaken in supposing that it was the almost universal custom to publish the banns after the Second Lesson. In many churches the custom was to publish them after the Nicene Creed. There should, however, be no question as to the legality of the marriages which had already been solemnized at whatever time the banns had been published, and it was most desirable that the indemnification clause should be passed.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that while the question remained in uncertainty, banns would continue to be published at two different times in different churches. The object of the publication of banns was, that any person who objected to any particular marriage should be present and have an opportunity of making his objection; and if the time were not fixed the person who wished to object might suppose that the banns were not to be published on that day, and the very object for which banns were published would be lost through the uncertainty which existed as to the time. He therefore thought it would be infinitely preferable to pass this Bill than to allow that uncertainty to remain.
  LORD LYVEDENinquired as to the time at which the Report of the Commission was likely to be drawn up.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as the Commissioners were very widely separated as regarded residence there was a difficulty in getting them together to consider the Report. The matter was of great importance. They had had a great deal of evidence on the subject of the publication of banns, and the impression which that evidence had made upon his mind was that the publication of banns was perfectly illusory. The object of publishing the banns was to give a notification to those persons who might be interested that a marriage was about to take place; but for that purpose the publication was of no use whatever. They all knew from their own experience that in the great London parishes when banns were published no one attended to them at all. In the country persons in general had a great objection, when they were about to be married, to having the banns published in their own parish, and the consequence was that they procured a fictitious residence in another parish and got the publication performed elsewhere. He should be glad to see banns swept away altogether, and some other method devised for giving notice to those interested. But it appeared that there were in many cases most distressing doubts as to whether marriages which had taken place were legal in consequence of the time when the banns were published, and those doubts he thought Parliament ought instantly to set at rest. The publication of banns was not a religious matter, and it did not signify one farthing whether banns were published after the Second Lesson or after the Nicene Creed. He hoped most earnestly that there would be

  43
  no postponement of this Bill, which would set at rest the uncertainty at present existing.
  LORD DE ROSobserved that in some of the country churches in Ireland there was no publication of banns at all.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 2nd of August.

TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE) BILL—(No. 235.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE) BILL—(No. 235.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to enable persons to share in the government of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge without any test as to their religious persuasion. In bringing forward such a measure he felt a very deep sense of responsibility. Having been himself educated at Oxford, and having a deep respect and regard for his University, he could assure their Lordships that he should not make such a proposition had he not come to the conclusion, after serious reflection, that it was calculated to improve and benefit both that and the sister University. He would first state to their Lordships the progress this measure had made in the other House. A Bill, not precisely the same as the present, and applying only to the University of Oxford, was introduced into the House of Commons in 1864, and passed a second reading by a small majority; but it went no further that Session. In 1865 it was introduced again with a similar result. In 1866 a Bill almost the same as the present was introduced, and passed its second reading by a majority of 114; but it was driven off to so late a period of the Session that it was unable to pass through its remaining stages. It was again introduced during the present Session, and so great was the progress which it had made in the opinion of Members of the House of Commons, that the second reading was agreed to without a division. In Committee a proposal was made which materially altered the character of the Bill, applying its provisions to the University of Cambridge as
  44
  well as to the University of Oxford, and that alteration was carried, in a House of more than 400 Members, by a majority of 83. The Bill came up to their Lordships, therefore, recommended by a very strong expression of opinion in the other House, and he was sure it would receive, under these circumstances, the fullest consideration from their Lordships. Now, at present, the state of the law on this subject was different at the two Universities. At Oxford, until 1854, all persons were obliged on matriculation to declare their unfeigned assent to the Thirty-nine Articles—clearly a most unwise requirement—but under the Act of that year that provision was abolished, and no religious test was imposed at matriculation or on taking the degree of B.A. On proceeding, however, to the higher degree of M.A., all persona were obliged to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles and to the tests imposed on clergymen, one of the oaths pledging them to use only the Book of Common Prayer in public service and in the administration of the Sacraments. They had also to subscribe to the Ratifications of the Thirty-nine Articles, one of which stated that Queen Elizabeth was Queen of France—a rather singular proposition. These tests were obviously intended for persons in Holy Orders only, and it could not be reasonable to require laymen to promise to use the Prayer Book in public service and in the administration of the Sacraments; and if, moreover, it was preposterous to require young men to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles before taking their B.A. degree, it was equally preposterous to require them to do so on taking their M.A. degree. He maintained that absurd as it was to require young men to subscribe ex animo to the Thirty-nine Articles, which contained according to some 500, and according to others 900 distinct propositions on the most abstruse theological questions, it was not much less unwise to require such a test from laymen at any age. He believed there were many men who were attached members of the Church of England, but who were yet unable conscientiously to subscribe to everything contained in the Articles. At Cambridge the circumstances were rather different. Under the Cambridge University Reform Act of 1856, persons not belonging to the Church of England might proceed to the M.A. degree without any test; but before becoming Members of the Senate at Cambridge or of the governing body of the University,

  45
  they must subscribe tests which could only be taken by members of the Church of England; so that in effect no person could become a member of the governing body of either University without taking the test. Before discussing the objections to Dissenters being members of the governing body it was well to understand the nature of that body. At Oxford the principal governing body was the Hebdomadal Council, consisting of the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Proctors, six Heads of Houses, six Professors, and six elected members of Convocation; and it was a singular fact that several of the Professors were not required to take any test, so that, without being members of the Established Church, they might be elected to the Hebdomadal Council. The governing body of Cambridge only differed from that of Oxford in certain details. He might rest the defence of this Bill on the ground that it was not probable that any large number of persons not belonging to the Church of England would become members of Convocation, and that the infusion of so small a body of Nonconformists would not produce any material change. But he should not be dealing candidly with their Lordships if he did not say that the Bill rested upon a broader ground. The principle of the measure was that the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were, in fact, national institutions, and that they ought to be open without distinction of religious opinion to every subject of the Queen. To say that Nonconformists were dangerous persons and not fit to be entrusted with the education of youth at the Universities was an argument only intelligible of bygone times and not of the present day, when they had already broken down the system of exclusion, and Nonconformists and members of the Church had a right to be placed on an equality up to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. If they excluded Dissenters, it must be on the ground that the Universities were exclusively Church corporations. He, however, maintained that the Universities were essentially lay corporations. He would not assume, as some asserted, that the Nonconformists amounted to one-half of the population, for that was probably an overestimate; but they were a very important body in the State, comprehending many men of wealth and intelligence, and he believed it to be of great importance that they should have access to the Universities and be admitted to a share in their government. What were the dangers to be ap-
  46
  prehended? It was said that the Bill would interfere with the religious teaching of the Universities; but it did not interfere with the theological degrees or teaching of the Universities. The Bill was confined to the Universities properly so called, and did not interfere with the Colleges; and the government of the Universities still remained with Convocation, which consisted wholly of members of the Church of England. It was not essential that Examiners at Cambridge should be Masters of Arts; they might be Bachelors of Civil Law, and an Examiner might be a Jew or a heretic. He maintained that this Bill would be an advantage not merely to Nonconformists, but also to the Church itself. It would be a great advantage to the Nonconformists to be subject to the influences of the Universities. They would be brought into contact with bodies of a venerable character, and nothing would be more likely to remove that narrowness of opinion with which they were sometimes charged. The Bill would be an advantage, on the other hand, to the Church, because the contact with persons not of her communion would be sure to engender a more comprehensive spirit. He was afraid that the Bill was likely to be severely opposed; for, to his great regret, he found that the noble Duke the President of the Council, the Minister of Education of the present Government, gave notice the other night of his intention to propose the rejection of the Bill. He did not expect such a Motion from a Member of the Government, because the Government had offered no opposition to this Bill in the Commons; but now the President of the Council, specially charged with the education of the country, came forward and said on behalf of the Government that it was not fitting that the Universities should be opened to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, but that they ought to be maintained as narrow Church corporations on ancient Conservative principles. He believed that these narrow views were as much out of date in Church matters as in political legislation. He asked their Lordships to pause before they rejected this Bill. If they passed this Bill, and if there should come a time of danger to the institutions of the country, the Universities would be the rallying point of all that was good and wise; if, however, they rejected it now, he ventured to prophecy they would have to pass it in a short time, and then, instead of being regarded as a graceful concession, it would be held as inflicting a

  47
  humiliating defeat on the Church of England.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that the noble Earl had truly reminded their Lordships that the Bill proposed to re-open a question that had been very recently under their consideration. In 1854 an Act had been passed, after very mature deliberation, regulating the future government of the University of Oxford: in 1856 a similar Act was passed regulating the University of Cambridge; and both those Acts were based on the Report of a Royal Commission which had carefully inquired into all the changes that were necessary. Now, his first objection to this Bill was, that, after so short an interval as thirteen years in one case and eleven in the other, it re-opened questions which were then maturely considered, and asked Parliament to revoke its deliberate decision, and, to some extent, to stultify its previous legislation. The noble Earl had not brought forward a single argument for now propounding this measure. If it had been shown that circumstances had changed, and that a large number of Dissenters had entered, or were anxious to enter, the Universities, or if it had been shown that opinion had long been divided on the matter, their might be some justification for asking their Lordships to review their legislation on this subject. But the noble Earl had not been able to adduce any such reasons, or to show why any new system should be adopted, except that many Dissenters were anxious to obtain greater influence in the Universities, and chose to describe themselves as "branded" by being excluded from them. He wished to draw their Lordships' attention to what the noble Earl had said with regard to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The noble Earl had correctly stated the present position of the law. At Oxford no religious tests were required at matriculation, or on taking the Bachelor's degree in Arts, Law, or Medicine; but a test was required before taking the Master's degree, which conferred a seat in Convocation. At Cambridge the law differed in this respect—that the minor degree and the degree of M.A. might be taken without any test, and persons not members of the Church of England might even vote in the election of Members of Parliament for the University, but no one could be a Member of the
  48
  Senate without declaring himself a bonâ fide member of the Church of England. When this Bill was first introduced it was consequently confined to the University of Oxford, but it had since been extended to include Cambridge. It could not be pretended, therefore, that any stigma or brand was imposed on Nonconformists at Cambridge, and the existing system had worked perfectly well, for a large number of Dissenters were graduates, and Roman Catholics and Jews might also take degrees. Indeed, the debates in the other House in 1864, 1865, and 1866 turned wholly upon Oxford, and this was the first occasion on which, not content with making an important change in that University, the promoters of the Bill had extended its application to Cambridge, notwithstanding the opposition of a large majority of the members of that University. The Bill, as drawn, somewhat concealed its real purpose. It drew a distinction between offices tenable by laymen and those for which degrees in divinity were required, and it seemed unreasonable, primâ facie, to impose on laymen the same declarations as those imposed on clergymen. The real issue, however, which it raised, was not whether some of the tests related to events long past and required amendments in their terms, but whether persons not members of the Church of England, and, indeed, directly opposed to it, should be admitted into the governing body. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had told them that the Colleges were not included in the Bill: now the fact of excepting the Colleges was a strong argument against the Bill, for why should the Universities be dealt with in a way different from that of the Colleges? According to Clause 3, if a Fellowship were attached to a Professorship in the University, a person admitted to the governing body might not be a member of the Church of England. When they came to consider what the effect of this would be upon the Convocation at Oxford, it was important to bear in mind what were the duties of Convocation, which was entrusted peculiarly with the whole government of the University. The object of this Bill was to introduce an alien body into Convocation, and to give them the rights and powers of interference with the government of the University. It was quite fair that the principle of the Bill should be raised; but it was also fair that the issue should be put clearly before their Lordships, and that upon that issue their Lordships'

  49
  decision should be based. In order to show the drift of the measure, he would read a few sentences from the speech of the very able Gentleman who introduced the Bill and had charge of it in the House of Commons. It would then be seen that the ground taken up by the promoters of the measure was not merely the admission of persons not connected with the Church of England to the benefits, powers, and privileges of the governing body, but also the abolition of all religious tests and teaching of whatever kind. The words of Mr. Coleridge were—
  "It must be plain, I think, to any one who studios the signs of the times, and who lives at all amongst educated men, that the Church will be obliged greatly to widen her gates and largely to liberalize her tests if she is in any way to retain within her communion the substantial majority of men of religious feeling and religious thought. … Can any fair man doubt that already the Thirty-nine Articles are costing us dear?"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1221–2.]
  Now, that was a fair position to take up, and the line of argument a fair one; but let it not be thought that the argument could be one-sided. It was the fashion of certain highly cultivated and intellectual people to object to religious tests, and to maintain that in these days, when thought ought to have a large amount of expansion, anything which should circumscribe religious opinion should be put an end to. But their Lordships should remember that if that were done in one direction it should be done in another. Their Lordships had been lately engaged in some warm debates on a subject which was now creating a great deal of interest throughout the country, and had heard language of a very fervid character from a noble Earl who was accustomed to urge the House with great eloquence to pass measures which should stay the influx of Popery into the Church of England, and prevent religious ceremonies gaining ground within her which were contrary to her doctrines and principles; but were their Lordships prepared to adopt the line of argument laid down by Mr. Coleridge, and to say that they would widen the gates of the Church of England, do away with the Thirty-nine Articles, and abolish religious tests—that they would do all this in one direction and not do it in another? He maintained that unless they upheld the essential features of the Church of England in the case of the Universities, any legislation on the subject of Ritualism
  50
  which might take place in consequence of the Report of the Commission would be at variance with the principles of justice. What would be the effect of admitting to the governing body of the Universities persons of different religious opinions? Was there anything more likely to excite religious discord and increase religious animosities? Could there be anything more detrimental, more poisonous to the state of society, than to have the governing body of the Universities composed of men of every variety of creed which was known to exist? There could be but one solution to the difficulty—the Universities would become purely secular institutions — if peace and harmony were to be secured they could be secured only on such a basis. But were their Lordships prepared to place those great institutions, which guided the minds of the youth of this country, on a purely secular foundation? He would put a case in point — they knew how great the influence of Dr. Newman was at Oxford in former years, and there had been a pet scheme in certain quarters to establish a Roman Catholic College in Oxford; the idea had been frequently mooted, and if facilities had been granted it might have been founded there. Let their Lordships conceive what would be the effect of this measure if Roman Catholics were admitted to the governing body:—for with respect to Dissenters he acknowledged that the case was different, because on the main principles of Christianity Protestants of all denominations were united—but let their Lordships contemplate the harmony which would be likely to exist when the principles of the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome were brought into antagonism in the governing body. He must further oppose the Bill because it was totally at variance with a principle which had always been upheld by the legislation of this country. Not very long ago the Act was passed relating to endowed schools and a great deal of debate arose on the subject. It was asserted with a certain amount of justice that, as these endowments were given in the first instance for the benefit of the Church of England, they should be appropriated to that purpose; but, on the other hand, it was not deemed fair to exclude children or other denominations from the advantages of the schools, and therefore in 1860 an Act was passed providing that persons not belonging to the Church of England might be ad-

  51
  mitted to the schools, but that none should become Governors unless they were of the religion of those for whom the schools were originally intended. That principle was also carried out with regard to the national schools. Where, in thinly peopled localities, there were not means for supporting two schools it had been thought fit to enable persons not belonging to the Church of England to benefit by the education of the Church of England schools, and to introduce the "conscience clause" for their protection. But had the question been seriously raised that persons not belonging to the Church of England should have any part in the direction of those schools which were mainly supported by the contributions of the members of the national Church? The same principle was applicable to the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that this subject had not been well or happily brought forward. The state of things at Cambridge was a perfectly fair one; and there was no difficulty in acceding to the proposal that Oxford should be placed in the same position, so that persons should be able to take their M.A. degree without subscribing a religious test—subject, of course, to the condition that to enable any person to form part of a governing body of the University he must be a member of the Church of England. But the promoters of the Bill were not satisfied to accept this as a fair compromise, and showed their animus by including Cambridge in the Bill, though the system there was as fair as it could be consistently with the rights of the Church. He would only read in conclusion the statement made by the learned Gentleman who introduced this Bill into the House of Commons—a Gentleman of the highest honour and candour, who scorned not to make the House fully aware of its true objects and purposes. Mr. Coleridge said of the Bill on that occasion—
  "But, on the other hand, I should not be dealing candidly with the House if I disguised from it that the Bill put forward a very important principle. It will establish the nationality of the University as against the Church of England; it will destroy its Exclusive character, and change its constitution.".—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1425–6.]
  It was because he was not prepared to advise their Lordships to change the constitution of our ancient Universities that he begged to move them to read this Bill a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now")
  52
  and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, that among those of their Lordships who were connected by office with the Universities, it was not improbable that he should be the only supporter of this Bill. It was with sincere regret that he found his opinion at variance with those which he had no doubt preponderated in the University of Cambridge, for it would be much more gratifying to him to support by his vote in that House the opinions entertained in the University upon any matters which were thought to affect its interest. With respect to the state of opinion in the University of Cambridge, one of the Petitions he had just now presented was from the University in its corporate capacity. That Petition met with no opposition, and must be considered as representing the sense of the authorities of the University. The other Petition was signed by 170 resident members of the University, and by twelve out of the seventeen Heads of houses. The whole number of resident members was about 280; that was the number on what was known as the electoral roll of the University. Thus, upwards of 100 resident members of the University had not signed the Petition. He did not mean to say that all those who had not signed it were in favour of the Bill. No doubt some might have been prevented by absence, and others might have formed no decided opinion upon the subject; but he believed he might say on good authority that two-sevenths of the resident members approved the Bill. Now, considering in how great a degree the resident members consisted of clergymen, and how easily, as all experience showed, the apprehensions of the clergy were excited upon any measure which in their view might possibly affect the privileges of the Church, he did not think that such a minority as he had described was either unimportant or insignificant. Now, what were the objections taken to this Bill? One had been alluded to by the noble Duke, and was put prominently forward in the Petition of the University. They complained that Parliament should think itself free to deal with this question at all. They urged that it was only a few years since the affairs of the University passed under the yoke, and an Act received the Royal assent, effecting considerable alterations in the constitution, the government, and the educational con-

  53
  cerns of the University generally; and they said they had a right to expect that Parliament would not again interfere in the affairs of the University. Now, to a certain extent, he was willing to admit the force of this objection. Upon this, as upon every other question, he thought that it was most undesirable to disturb, without very strong reasons, arrangements which were considered at the time to be a settlement of any question, and which were accepted as such at the time by the parties concerned. He thought it would be very unreasonable and impolitic to introduce measures effecting alterations in the principal provisions of the Bills passed upon the subject of the University unless it could be shown distinctly that the intentions of Parliament at the passing of those Bills were evaded. But the question of the relations of Dissenters to the University appeared to him to stand upon a different footing. It was not originally intended to include that subject at all in the Oxford and Cambridge Bill. When my noble Friend below me introduced the Bill, he said he was in favour of the admission, but thought it unadvisable then to deal with that subject. It was only by an Amendment introduced in the House of Commons that the subject was in any respect included in the Bill. The case of the University of Cambridge no doubt differed considerably from that of the other University. Larger concessions were made at Cambridge than at Oxford; but anyone who would read the debates at that time in the House of Commons would see that the arrangements made with respect to Dissenters were treated by all those who advocated their admission as altogether unsatisfactory, incomplete, and such as could not be regarded as a settlement of the question. It appeard to him, therefore, that so far as the admission of Dissenters to the University was concerned, Parliament was not precluded from again entertaining that question. But the principal objection made to the Bill, one which lay at the root of all the opposition to it, was that which had reference to the connection between the University and the Church. He was of opinion that that connection, as far as regarded the purposes for which it was valuable, would not be in danger of sacrifice by this Bill. What were the aspects in which the Church of England character of the University was particularly manifested? They appeared to him to be these:—The course of religious
  54
  services in the chapels of the several Colleges was, as far as he was aware, at Cambridge, at least, the only form of religious instruction required by the Heads of Colleges, and these were exclusively the Services of the Church of England. Again, there was the fact—a most valuable and important one in its influence on the whole nation—that a large proportion of the clergy of the Church were educated at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. With respect to the first point, the Bill would not have the slightest effect upon the Colleges; at least that was true in regard to the University of Cambridge, and he did not think it would have more operation in the Colleges of Oxford. So far as the provisions of the Bill extended, the Heads and Fellows of every College at Cambridge would still remain members of the Church of England. He did not wish to be misunderstood upon this question. He was not opposed to another Bill in the House of Commons, which had passed the House of Commons, and which, to a certain degree, repealed the Act of Uniformity, and it was quite true that if that Bill became law, the Colleges would be at liberty to propose Nonconformists to their Fellowships. It would be a wild and extravagant idea to suppose that the Church of England character of those Colleges would be appreciably diminished. The Colleges would be unaffected by this Bill, and there was not the slightest reason to suppose that the religious services of the Colleges would be in the slightest degree interfered with. This remark applied also to the question of young men designed for Holy Orders resorting to the Universities. Fortunately for the Church of England, their general education was the same as that of other young men; and it appeared to him impossible to conceive in what respect this Bill would operate so as to prevent their joining the Colleges. It was quite true there was a certain theological examination, but that was purely voluntary. It was said that the Bill struck a blow at the connection between the Church and University by admitting Dissenters to the governing body, and there seemed to be a mysterious notion of the mischievous influences which would be exerted by the presence of Dissenters in what was called the governing body. It was quite true that if the Bill passed Nonconformists would be admitted to the Senate of the University of Cambridge; he was not sufficiently acquainted with the University

  55
  of Oxford to say whether it would be the case there or not. No doubt, the Senate was the legislative body of the University, but it could only decide questions submitted to it by the Council of the Senate, and it therefore became important to consider how the Council was constituted. It was elected of Heads of houses and other members by what was called the electoral body, and this consisted almost exclusively of Fellows and Heads of houses. This Bill made no alteration with respect to the electoral body, which would consist, as at present, exclusively, or almost exclusively, of members of the Church of England. This was pretty good security that no Dissenting influence was likely to be felt strongly in the Council, and no measure would be entertained by the Senate which had not received the sanction of the Council. It was well known that non-resident members of the Senate did not take a prominent part in the affairs of the University, and that all practical questions affecting the regulation of the University were virtually decided by the resident members. Even if Dissenters were to become more numerous than there was any reason to suppose they would in the Senate, there was really no change in the religious character of the University which they could be desirous of affecting. The only subjects of a religious character which entered into the examination were the Acts of the Apostles and Paley's Evidences of Christianity; the examination in these subjects was very simple; a certain number of Dissenters passed it every year; and he was not aware that in a single instance any objection had been raised by a Dissenter. There was therefore really no great grievance to Dissenters in the character of the examination. The facts, then, were that Dissenters would not be able to exercise any great power in the Senate; and, if they could, there was not any object for which they would desire to exert it. Perhaps it might be urged as an objection against this Bill that it would remedy a merely sentimental grievance; but, if no mischief would follow from the admission of Dissenters, why were they to be placed in a position of inferiority? Unless mischievous consequences were likely to ensue from their admission, we had no right to expose them to inequality. In one of the Petitions from the University, reference was made to the Report of a Commission of Inquiry of the University of Cambridge, and a passage from that Report was quoted
  56
  in such a manner as to suggest that the Commissioners opposed their authority to this Bill. The Commissioners were very eminent persons, intimately acquainted with, and equally attached to, the University, and the passage of their Report referred to would hardly bear the construction put upon it. They said that the question of the relation of Dissenters to the University was not one upon which they were expressly called on to report, and they therefore confined themselves to indicating the principles on which the question ought to be considered. As this part of the Report possessed considerable importance, he would ask their Lordships' attention to this extract from it—
  "Beyond this line there lies another and a larger question, on which we do not enter—namely, the expediency of admitting persons to degrees in arts, and law, and physic, who are not members of the Church of England. The subject would present comparatively few difficulties if it involved only the conferring of a certificate and title of academical proficiency. But the real difficulty lies in another point, whether the internal system of collegiate discipline and the course of academical administration could be so adjusted as to comprehend persons of different religious opinions, without the neglect of religious ordinances, the compromise of religious consistency, or the disturbance of religious peace. Not seeking to disguise our impression of the greatness of the difficulty, we yet desire to express our sense of the importance of the question itself. The University is a great national institution invested with important privileges by the favour of the Crown or the authority of the Legislature. It exercises a most extensive influence on the education of the higher and middle classes of the community, and, consequently, on the intellectual, moral, and social character of the nation. But its capacity of exercising this high prerogative fully and completely must depend on its keeping pace with the progress of enlightened opinion, and moving in sympathy and unison with the spirit of the age. It is one of the noblest characteristics of our times that the barriers which so long excluded so many of our fellow-subjects from the equal enjoyment of civil rights on account of differences in religious opinion have happily been removed by the prevalence of a generous and wise policy. The University will be placed more or less in a false position if it estranges itself from this great movement of liberal progress. There is a manifest and intelligible challenge to it to throw open the advantages of its system of education, under proper securities, as widely as the State has thrown open the avenues to civil rights and honours. Undoubtedly, many of the endowments of its Colleges are connected with the Church by links which it would be an injustice to sever. Its school of theology is identified with the Church and incapable of a separate existence. But as a great school of liberal education for the lay professions, for the pursuits of general literature and science, for the business and offices of active and public life, it should seem to be capable of a

  57
  freer range and a more extended usefulness without any compromise of duty or apostacy of principle. Were it to enter on this more open course in a spirit of generous magnanimity, it might draw to itself a yet larger measure of public sympathy and even find increased safety in thus identifying itself with the liberal policy of the age."
  Now, it certainly appears to me that that would be entirely in agreement with the objects of the present Bill. When they state that certain endowments were connected with the Church, it might not unfairly be inferred that there were other endowments which might, without injustice, be conferred upon Dissenters. There were various Professorships in regard to which it was impossible to assign any reason why they should not be open to Dissenters. Then, again, a member of the Senate had no endowment at all; and he did not believe that any of the persons who signed that Report would object to the admission of Dissenters to the Senate of the University. He might mention that two of the Commissioners were non-resident members of the University—namely, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and Sir John Herschel; and he wished particularly to point out that the other Commissioners were men who had passed the greater portion of their lives in the University, and were therefore practically conversant with the details of the University system. The Chairman was the late Bishop of Chester, who had been tutor and subsequently Master of Christ's College. Dr. Peacock, the late Dean of Ely, also sat upon the Commission, as did also a gentleman still living—Professor Sedgwick, whose fame was sufficiently well known to their Lordships. He had been informed that the Professor cordially approved the present measure. It was important to recollect that the three Commissioners whom he had just referred to were gentlemen whose sincere attachment to the University was beyond all suspicion. He might likewise refer to the name of the Secretary to the Commission, and although, of course, it did not necessarily follow that the Secretary approved the Report in all respects, still it might be assumed that he agreed with it generally. The Secretary was Dr. Bateson, at that time Public Orator of the University, and now Master of St. John's College. He had no authority to state what opinion Dr. Bateson entertained in regard to this measure; but, at all events, his name was not appended to the Petition which had been presented against it. Now, it was alleged
  58
  by the Petitioners that the attempts to legislate on this subject had already produced mischievous consequences in the University; but could any one suppose that if the present measure were rejected by their Lordships the subject to which it related would be allowed to drop? No one who had paid careful attention to the history of the gradual removal of religious disabilities in this country could doubt that this question would be continually brought forward in the other House of Parliament, and few could entertain any doubt as to the ultimate result. The agitation said to have been already produced by this question would be increased rather than diminished by the rejection of this Bill. For his own part, he was convinced that the sooner this question was settled the sooner would the University relieve itself from the reproach of retaining a system of exclusiveness. For that reason he should give his vote most cordially in support of the second reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that, as no Member of the House had spoken from that Bench, he would venture, as one, the greater part of whose life—neither a short nor an inactive one—had been devoted to endeavours to implant the University more deeply in the affections of the people and to extend its influence, to claim a right to address their Lordships for a very few moments. Of the results of the endeavours in which he had co-operated he had no cause to be ashamed. The charge, in a great measure, of the character of the academical studies, the reform of the University itself, and the establishment of the middle class examinations, which showed how the University had won the confidence of the country, were matters in which he had been permitted to take a share. It was with regret, therefore, that he felt compelled to support the Motion of the noble Duke which tended to the rejection of the Bill. He had availed himself with satisfaction of the aid of Parliament on a former occasion; but the aid of Parliament was then given to remove shackles which the law had itself imposed. He desired that the University should have fair play, and that free scope should be given to the deep public spirit which he knew animated those who were regarded in some quarters as narrow-minded and bigoted. This he would have done, but the law had placed on the University and Colleges shackles which could not be removed without the

  59
  aid of Parliament. At one point, however, he was forced to stop. The Preamble of the present Bill resembled in some respects the Preamble of the Bill of 1854, but there were two words which had been rightly, honestly, but, he was grieved to say, necessarily omitted. The Bill which was introduced by the noble Earl opposite, the late Prime Minister, began with the same words as the measure now under discussion, "Whereas it is expedient," but it went on to say, "for the advancement of religion and learning." No one, however, could pretend to say that the present measure was intended to advance religion; indeed, the utmost that could be said of it was that it might, perhaps, not impede the progress of religion and learning. At that point, he was bound to stay his hand, and the hands of others if he were able to do so. Gladly would he admit more and more to the benefits of that University to which he owed all, and in particular the honour of addressing their Lordships; gladly would he extend to others what he valued so much himself, were he not restrained by the highest considerations for the interests of the University and of the Church of the country. The whole of the argument which had been adduced in favour of the Bill was based on a fallacy. It had been said that the Universities were national. Now, there certainly was a high and a great sense in which he, for one, would never disclaim their nationality, but the word "national" was very vague, and according to the maxim, Dolus latet in generalibus, perhaps it might be said that the Universities were national, because the nation was their parent, but he denied that they were national in that sense. Centuries and centuries ago, before the House of Commons was even thought of, and when their Lordships were only imperfectly sharers of the Government, voluntary associations of men repaired to the banks of the Isis and of the Cam, attracted bands of scholars around them, and admitted them, when sufficiently instructed, to the ranks and duties of teachers. Such was the origin of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; such was the origin of degrees. The Universities of London and Durham, and other new creations, might owe their degrees to the favour of the Sovereign or of Parliament, but that was not the case with respect to Oxford and Cambridge. Then, were the Universities national in another sense? Were the Universities supported by the State? They
  60
  were not. Of themselves they were not wealthy. The wealth they possessed was owing to their own frugality, to their own skill, to the way in which they had administered their affairs, and in a great degree to the endowments of the Professors, which he himself had joined in establishing. The Universities could not, therefore, in that sense be considered national. But did he disclaim their nationality in another sense? They overshadowed the nation, they tended to form the national character, and so far they affected the history of the world. They had devised a system of education which inquiry after inquiry had proved to be in the main the best and soundest yet devised. In that sense they were national, because they conferred benefits on the nation. If the Universities were great, they were great not because they were national, but they were national because they were great. Was he to question the right of Parliament to interfere with the Universities? He would do nothing of the kind. Their Lordships had heard that evening that the Legislature might do what it pleased. But the pleasure of Parliament was not caprice; its pleasure was to be limited by reason. Parliament might interfere with the Universities, as it had done before; but in doing so it ought to be guided by justice, prudence, expediency, and even delicacy. They had been interfered with advantageously; but let their Lordships call to mind the manner in which the noble Lord who had brought about the measures to which he was referring had acted in the matter. He wrote a letter to the Duke of Wellington, couched in the most courteous language, and acknowledging the great advantages which the Universities conferred upon the country. Further still, the Commissioners were appointed in a spirit of fairness, the University of Oxford having been requested to nominate one of them. Under the Government of Lord Aberdeen negotiations were carried on with the Universities, and when legislation had taken place the measures consequent on it were carried out in a spirit of fairness. The subject before their Lordships was not one which ought to be left to this or that individual Member of the Legislature. Any measure dealing with the Universities ought to be brought forward with the full sanction of Her Majesty's Government. Many of the flaws pointed out during the debate could be—and be believed, if the

  61
  Bill were rejected, would be—dealt with by the Universities themselves; and he, for one, would recommend them to take the matter into their serious consideration, and make such changes as might be thought desirable spontaneously, and with all the liberality that was consistent with their duty to God and the Church. He had, he thought, disposed of the argument that the Universities were national. Parliament had not founded them, nor had it given them their wealth. It could, however, interfere with them; but there was strong reason why it should not interfere with them in the manner proposed. It was said that the Bill would make but a very slight concession. If it would admit only a small number, as was contended, was it worth while—was it wise for that end to wound and irritate the feelings of the many? But would the result be small? Was the question at issue really that which had been brought forward? It was said that the effect of the measure would be the admission of certain Christian Nonconformists to the government of the University. But how stood the case? The scholarships, the prizes, the honours, and the first degrees, which were the only test of merit, were open to all men without distinction of creed, or nation, or colour. But they were told that not to throw open Convocation was to put a brand upon the Nonconformist. That view he considered could not be sustained. Was a brand put upon him (the Bishop of Peterborough) because he was not allowed to interfere in the government of Maynooth College? Surely the term was too strong for the occasion. It was no hardship for a man to be excluded from the management of a body whose creed was entirely different from his own. But in fact the test did not exclude the great body of Wesleyan Methodists, the Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland, and many other Dissenters. It did, however, exclude those who rejected Christianity altogether in its essence. The abolition of the test would, in point of fact, be the removal of every obligation to profess any creed whatsoever. If it were abolished, a Professor might stand forward and avow any of the forms of unbelief which were included in the materialistic philosophy which prevailed in many of the Universities of Germany. Would they like their sons to be educated in a University where one Professor could as freely deny the existence of a God as another could denounce the Episcopal government
  62
  of the Church? They were told that Democracy and Conservatism were now synonymous terms,—and he was willing to admit the new political nomenclature. It should be remembered, however, that there could be a good and a bad democracy; it might be a wise form of government, respecting institutions and over-rating that which was venerable. On the other hand, it might be a malignant and destructive form of government, but sure he was that if the new form of government were to prosper it would respect bodies like those on whose behalf he pleaded. It would be tender, and even indulgent towards them, and venerate those great truths which were the glory of the nation.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had heard with surprise and regret the speech of the noble Duke the President of the Council. The Bill under consideration having passed its second and third reading in the House of Commons unopposed by the Government, he had, until he heard the remarks of the noble Duke, been under the impression that the Government agreed with its principle. He hoped they would hear from some Member of the Government whether the Cabinet were united in their opposition to the Bill, or whether the noble Duke had merely expressed his own individual opinion. If the Government were opposed to the measure they ought to have come forward in the House of Commons and stated their objections to it. They did not, however, think fit to do so. They did not divide against the Bill, but allowed it to pass; and it was therefore a not unnatural conclusion that the Cabinet approved of its provisions. He had also listened to the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) with deep regret. He alluded to the progress of Democracy, but the conclusion which he (the Duke of Somerset) would draw from the increase of Democracy was, that if, after the new franchise came into operation and large masses of the working classes were admitted, the same Liberal ideas prevailed in the country that prevailed now, they would not long be able to resist the measure which was now proposed. The political power which they were now about to give so largely to the working classes would vastly increase the power of Dissenters in England. These were a body that were peculiarly apt to act together on political questions, and the result would be that they would not rest satisfied till this question, on which they felt so strongly

  63
  was settled. Was it wise, then, to unite the poorer class of Dissenters against them in a matter of this kind? It would, he contended, be wise to allow Dissenters the privileges which this Bill proposed to give them, and thus encourage them rather to support than to seek to destroy the institutions of the country.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, his chief object in rising was to call the attention of the House to certain remarks that had been made on a former occasion in reference to the Act of 1854. It was truly observed by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Devonshire) that when that Bill was originally introduced to Parliament by the noble Earl opposite it did not contain any provisions for the admission of Dissenters, and it was also correctly remarked by the noble Duke that the admission of Dissenters was provided for by a clause moved by Mr. Heywood in the House of Commons, and inserted in the measure. The noble Duke went on to say that the admission provided for in that Act was not at the time regarded as satisfactory. Now, it so happened that that Bill was one of the first measures which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) took some share in debating in Parliament, and he could say that both the supporters and the introducers of that Act disclaimed in the most distinct manner any intention of interfering with the government of the Universities, which was in the hands of the members of the Church of England. He had been looking into the debates that took place at that time, and he had marked some passages in three speeches which he desired to bring under the notice of their Lordships. The first was contained in a speech of Mr. Gladstone, who introduced a Bill into the House of Commons. That right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I hold that the discipline and government of the University of Oxford is, and should be, in conformity with the principles of religion held and taught by the Church of England."
  The second was to be found in a speech delivered by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) who said—
  "The governing body of the University and the Colleges should be composed of those who belong to the Church of England."
  The third was in the speech of a noble Duke not now present, and whom he could consequently mention—the Duke of Argyll—who said—
  "It appeared to him that in this clause the entire governing and teaching powers of the University of Oxford were carefully preserved; and,
  64
  so long as that was the case he had the most thorough and sincere conviction that these extensions would tend to strengthen the bonds of the Church of England." — [3 Hansard, cxxxiv. 1364–5.]
  He read these extracts to show what opinion was held on this matter by those who were responsible for the Act of 1854. He thought the University of Oxford had cause to complain that after that Act was passed she was not to be allowed sufficient time to work out the constitution then given to her. It was given to her, and she accepted it in perfectly good faith, and she had since acted with the bonâ fide intention of giving effect to it. The introduction, therefore, of these small Bills was to be deprecated; for after all they only touched a small portion of a large question, which nearly every one admitted should be dealt with not piecemeal but as a whole. Instead, however, of such a policy as that being pursued, they had Bills introduced year after year touching this point and that point separately, and it was impossible to say what would be the result if such a course were insisted upon. It was not fair to deal with the Universities in this way; any institution would have a right to complain of the constant recurrence of these small Bills, à fortiori, a great seat of learning, whose whole course of study and discipline ought to be as little disturbed as possible. Paradoxical as it might seem, the Bill was open to objection, both as being too small and too large. The Bill had been described as raising a great principle—the nationality of the Universities against the exclusiveness of the Church of England. He thought that a great question of this kind ought not to be raised upon such a measure. There were two or three Bills before the House of Commons dealing with some other part of the University question, and it was only right and reasonable that their Lordships should have these Bills before them, so as to deal with them altogether. If, on the other hand, this was the small question it had been represented by some to be, then he maintained that the course of academical studies ought not be disturbed except on some case of urgent importance. Under these circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would pause before they gave the Bill a second reading. A noble Lord had told their Lordships that the prospects of Reform made it desirable to settle this question. If the passing of this Bill would effect the settlement of this question, it would be a strong reason in its favour;

  65
  but the Bill only touched one point in the University question, and could not be expected to lead to its settlement. Their Lordships had now before them a Bill which, whether for good or for evil, effected an enormous and gigantic change in the Constitution of the country. The present measure, however, belonged to a large class of questions which would have to be considered by the new lights and the new conditions of a new Parliament. He strongly deprecated their coming, then, to any decision upon the subject at what he might call the close of one Parliamentary dispensation and the commencement of another.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the present Bill affected the University of Oxford, and, as he was one of their Lordships who had been most lately a resident of that University, he wished to say a few words. When a measure was brought forward, on the acceptance or rejection of which depended the extension or contraction of the University, he thought that all who loved and reverenced her were bound to come forward and raise their voices, however feeble they might be, in her behalf. The Bill was in harmony with the legislation of the last thirty years, which had all tended to the abolition of penal laws, and the removal of religious disqualifications. Echoing the sentiments which had been expressed on the other side of the House, he appealed to their Lordships not to stultify themselves, but by passing this measure to adhere to the course which they had hitherto pursued with so much honour and so much success. He denied that the Universities could be in any sense of the term regarded as national institutions so long as they confined their benefits to members of the Anglican Church. The resident members of Convocation might have petitioned against the Bill, but all the members of that body were not ecclesiastics, and every Master of Arts had a right to express his opinion upon the subject. It had been said that the existing test did not exclude Presbyterians from the benefits of the University; but he was acquainted with the case of a Presbyterian who was excluded because he could not conscientiously sign the Thirty-nine Articles. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) told their Lordships that Parliament had legislated on this subject in 1856, but had not public opinion changed since 1856? Had it not changed since last year? Had it not even changed during the present
  66
  Session, during a period of ten minutes? Then it was said that the Bill would interfere with the religious education of the Universities. But did the members of the University ever receive any religious education from the University as such, beyond attending two or three University sermons and being examined two or three times in the schools? Then, too, an attempt was made to frighten them with the old cry that the Church was in danger, and the wedge — the thin end of which it was said, they desired to insert—was burnished up and brought forth shining and glistening as if it had never been used before. Was it to be believed that the very strongest Establishment that this world had ever known, and which had been in existence for 300 years, was to be afraid of a few Dissenters? It could not seriously be argued that by admission of a few Dissenters to the governing body, or even to Fellowships, the existence of the Church of England would be imperilled. It seemed to be assumed that there was some necessary connection between the Church of England and the Universities, but the testimony of lawyers was against the theory that the latter were ecclesiastical foundations. No doubt it was desirable that the clergy should be educated there; but unfortunately the word "literate" now very frequently occurred in the list of persons admitted to Holy Orders. To object to the admission of Dissenters argued either fear or exclusion for exclusion's sake. On the former hypothesis there must be some intellectual inferiority in members of the Church of England, which he entirely denied: the latter involved the principle of protection, which had been abandoned in every other department. He asked who had petitioned in favour of the Bill? Were there not among them some of the greatest and most learned men the University of Oxford had ever known? Had their Lordships put before themselves the injustice which now existed? A Churchman and a Nonconformist entered College together, competed together for College and University prizes, entered the schools together, took their B.A. degree together, and it was only when the crowning of their academic career came—in virtue of no merit or examination, but merely of the lapse of a certain number of terms—that the University made a difference, receiving the conforming Anglican lamb within the fold, and leaving the Dissenting goat to wander in the wilderness. Let them take

  67
  care that by refusing to deal with this question now they did not hand it over to those who would force upon them a stronger measure, in which the Colleges as well as the Universities might be concerned. Let them not by their vote to-night prevent the University of Oxford from becoming truly national. She asked them to take away that restriction which alone prevented her from being so; she asked them to open her doors, and to allow them to remain open to the admission of all. He disclaimed all party feeling on this question, and indeed he believed that neither side of the House regarded it in that spirit. If this Bill were rejected those who supported it must proceed to attack the citadel itself, confident that success would attend them in the end, and that they would one day find the doors opened and the flag pulled down. In conclusion he implored them not to reject this Bill, which he looked upon as one of the most important of the Session.
  LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, as holding the principle of a State-Church, felt bound to adhere to that principle alike when it operated for and when it operated against him. The Bill might benefit a perhaps increasing number of Catholics, but he should never ask for any concession which he should be unprepared to make in his turn to others. On the broad question his principles were substantially identical with those of noble Lords on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. It was only fair to noble Lords on the other side to say that if the case were reversed he could not vote with them.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSsaid, that he could speak for this cruel instrument of moral torture from his own knowledge of its working at the University of Cambridge. He could remember there one instance of a student who took high honour in mathematics, another who gained the first degree in the same science—the Senior Wrangler of the year. These gentlemen should have received the final rewards as students, rewards in which their Colleges as well as themselves were interested. But one held the tenets of the Baptists; the other was a member of that other communion which was acknowledged by the Crown and Parliament as that of the State across the Northern border. The tests stood before them to debar their further advance, with the bribe of worldly advantages and its threat of worldly degradation, to tempt them to lie to their God and themselves. He could
  68
  well remember, on account of the painful impression it made on the minds of their fellow-students, for further advancement to them was impossible, how they went away with the slur of Nonconformity and eccentricity, and took from the scenes of their early triumphs that excellence which would have had its scope there so usefully. Were they likely to be better friends of the Church of England? Mr. Goldwin Smith said—
  "By tyrannizing over conscience you can hardly fail to arouse a rebellion against your tyranny, which will probably be carried by the sense of wrong far beyond the bounds of rational resistance."
  The Halls and Colleges of the two Universities, like other establishments of the kind, owed their existence to the piety of impiety of persons of former times. The clergy, then the only educated class, became their natural heads, and these great centres of national education, if not originally granted, lapsed to the Church. But at the present day the laity, as a body, were in advance of the priesthood, even on their own subjects. He would remind those who claimed the Universities for the Church of England, on account of the gift and intention of the founders, that if this were to hold good the Church of home should have more than half the Colleges. The question really which this Bill involved was—did the Universities belong to the Church or the nation? If they were to be national, Anglican tests should be abolished, and their duty be national. If they were to be looked upon as a means for propagating Anglican opinions, they should impose their tests at the commencement and not at the end of the academic career. Goldwin Smith asked—
  "Is it to secure unanimity of opinion on religious subjects in the Universities you impose these tests?
  In truth, the greatest diversity existed in Cambridge and Oxford, and it existed also in the Church of England, in spite of all these tests. He would go further, and ask if the right rev. Bench itself was marked by such unity? But if the danger was said to be the opening of the Senate, the governing body of the University, to Dissenters, he frankly confessed he did not consider an entire clerica Government a wholesome one. At Trinity College, Cambridge, the pensioner who was lowest in the social grade of under-graduate life redeemed his presence at the College chapel by a fine of money. The

  69
  soul of the fellow-commoner was priced more highly; while the nobleman's salvation was commuted at the highest price. It would surprise their Lordships to learn that the great College of Trinity, with all her lands and all her wealth, stooped to increase her stores by a fine for non-attendance at the holy Communion, which was levied on all—Christian, Jew, or infidel. All that was proposed by this Bill was to remove tests imposed by political power on candidates for literary and scientific degrees, This Bill had received very careful attention in "another place," and without presuming, as one of the younger Members of their Lordship's House, to seem to impugn their right of discussion, he should be sorry if the country were led to the belief that those Bills which had in view the removal of religious intolerance had no chance in that House.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that in the interesting speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), which they had heard with much pleasure, he was surprised to hear him ask what Petitions had been presented against the Bill. The noble Puke the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (the Duke of Devonshire) might have supplied him with an answer, for it might be remembered that he had presented a Petition, not merely from individuals, but from the University of Cambridge as a corporate body, against the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the question he had asked was not who had petitioned against the Bill, but who had petitioned in its favour—whether eminent men, both at Oxford and Cambridge, had not done so?
  EARL STANHOPEwas sorry to have heard the noble Earl imperfectly. As regards the Petition which he had last mentioned, and which had been presented by the noble Duke, he was far from saying that the wishes of the Universities were to be held as absolutely conclusive on the question; but he would say that when the wishes of the Universities had been publicly and deliberately expressed to both Houses of Parliament it behoved their Lordships to see that, without grave cause, those wishes were not set at nought. In his early days when they were discussing a Reform Bill he remembered that great objection was taken to those who wished to proceed slowly, and they were called "bit-by-bit Reformers." Now he objected to the system of bit-by-bit Reform with
  70
  respect to the two Universities. Like a noble Friend who had spoken before him (the Earl of Carnarvon), he maintained that if they wished to deal with the question of religious disabilities in the Universities they ought to deal with it as a whole, and not from year to year and bit-by-bit. He would not deny that a change in the tests might be made with great advantage. He would admit that with certain guards and limitations to be carefully defined, various academical degrees might be fairly open to those who had not subscribed the religious tests. But this Bill made no distinction, and was liable to the charge of opening the government of the Universities to those who were not Members of the Church of England. The noble Duke who had spoken last (the Duke of St. Albans) asked to whom should the Universities belong—to the nation or to the Church? He answered—to both. To the Church as well as to the nation, because it was the national Church. He maintained that, as long as they recognized an Established Church the government of the two Universities should not be dissociated from the principles of that Church. The noble Earl, to whose speech he had before referred, pointed out how strong the Church of England was; but if the noble Earl only considered the divisions with which it was threatened from within and the many enemies that assailed it from without, he might perhaps come to the conclusion that he had over-rated its strength. In his opinion, all reforms obtained from the body itself which was the subject of reform were more stable and satisfactory than any which were forced upon it from without. Now there was no reason to suppose that the two Universities would not even willingly and gladly relax their rules, so far as they could do so, short of surrendering the control of the governing party. It must be remembered that a new constitution was given to each of these Universities no very long time since, and it was unjust to assume, so shortly after their new constitution, that they were indisposed to accept any practical improvements that could be suggested. He had some little experience in these matters, since during a short period he had the honour to act as an Examining Tutor in one of the public schools at Oxford. He had always found on the part of the University authorities an anxious desire to adopt measures of a liberal and progressive character, short of surrendering the

  71
  University to the sway of those who dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England. Was this unreasonable? Could their Lordships wish that the Universities should be dis-associated from the Church of England? While admitting that there were points which he was willing to concede, and relaxations which might properly be made, he believed that the Bill required much more deliberate attention than it had hitherto received. He regretted that the proposal to assimilate, in the first instance, the system of the two Universities, which was a just and politic proposal, had been so coldly received. Without denying, therefore, that improvements might be safely made, he trusted that their Lordships would not sanction the second reading of this Bill, and he should be prepared, without any hesitation, to vote in opposition to it.
  EARL RUSSELL: I wish to state as shortly as I can the reasons upon which I shall vote in favour of this Bill. I agree in thinking that there is considerable difficulty in dealing with a question of this kind, which is brought before the House fragment by fragment, and when we do not know the extent to which the House of Commons proposes to go. This Bill has passed the House of Commons with the general assent of a large majority of the House, and with the tacit consent of the Government, though it is met here with a decided negative from the noble Duke the President of the Council. Every noble Lord, therefore, must consider to what principles he will adhere with respect, not only to this Bill, but to other Bills of this kind. In former days, at the beginning of last century, a most able book was published by Dean Stanhope as to the principles on which the Legislature should act; and he used able arguments to show that men should not be admitted to seats in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, or to offices under the Crown, unless they belonged to the Church of England; because, if they did not, there could be no reliance on their support of existing institutions. But, my Lords, able as that argument was, and much as it prevailed for some time, it has been broken down—first, by the admission of Protestant Dissenters into the House of Commons; next, by the declaration of Parliament that Protestant Dissenters should be admitted to office; next, by the measure which admitted Roman Catholics to office and to Parliament; and lastly, by the admission
  72
  of the Jews and the relaxation of the oaths which placed certain very offensive restrictions upon the Roman Catholics. Having proceeded thus far, I think it is necessary for us to consider, having entirely abandoned these principles of the last century, upon what principles we are to stand at present; and, in considering this, it seems to me that you cannot stop short of this principle—with regard to everything that is properly and strictly ecclesiastical, you must leave the Church of England untouched and unaffected, in order that it may be maintained and preserved; but with regard to those institutions which are not properly ecclesiastical, which are more of a lay character, and which ought to be for the general benefit, in that case you should give the nation the advantage of those institutions, and should not confine them to any class. Looking, then, at the Universities from this point of view, I cannot adopt the principles laid down by the right rev. Prelate. I find that in former times the Universities followed the rule I have mentioned. In the reign of Edward VI. they were Protestant. When Queen Mary came to the Throne the Heads of Houses were immediately changed, and Roman Catholics were appointed. When Queen Elizabeth succeeded, those in turn were ejected, and Protestants were put in their places. So again under the Commonwealth, not a member of the Church of England but Dr. Owen, an eminent Presbyterian theologian, governed the University. I should say that the spirit of the age, and the principles upon which Parliament has acted in the present day, require that, in case of all civil institutions, persons of different religions should have perfect religious liberty, and should enjoy all the benefits which can be conferred by these institutions. In the case of such an office as that of Dean of Arches, who may be called on to decide questions relating to the Church of England, it may be quite right that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) should choose the person whom he thinks most fit to be intrusted with those duties, it is certainly a part of the University system that theological instruction should be given, but it is not the main feature of the Universities even as they stand. While the religious instruction is strictly confined to the Church of England, very little of such instruction has been given. For my own part, I do not think that it is well to prevent Roman Catholics and Dissenters from

  73
  attaining all the honours due in the University to industry and learning; it is invidious—it is grating, and most objectionable in point of feeling, to say that they shall not enjoy all the honours and all the privileges, exclusive of ecclesiastical honours or trusts, which the University can confer. It is in that way, and in that way only, that these Universities can become national I admit that the principle goes further than the present Bill, but not further than the intentions of Mr. Coleridge. The noble Duke the President of the Council, who moved the Amendment, read a declaration of Mr. Coleridge, and ended by saying, "From that declaration I entirely dissent;" I, on the other hand, to that declaration of Mr. Coleridge give my full and entire assent. If a Dissenter attains to classical eminence, he ought to be allowed to become a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and I do not see that in doing so it is incompatible with the interests of that institution, or even with its high reputation in England find the world. I should wish to see, either on the suggestion of Mr. Coleridge, or by the assistance of the Government, something like a system framed and passed by the House of Commons, so that we could say "Aye" or "No" to it. I can find nothing in the way of obstacle to Bills of this kind in what the right rev. Prelate said when he affirmed that the endowments of these institutions had not come from the State. There may be some truth in the allegation that these endowments were left for purposes to which they are not now applied. Taking it as a question of the wills of founders, I am reminded of a remarkable discussion which took place in the House of Commons between two Friends of mine, Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Sheil—"You surely would not depart from the wills of the founders?" said Sir Robert Inglis. Mr. Sheil thereupon went into the Library and returned with a large volume from which he read the directions in the will of William of Wykeham respecting New College at Oxford. One of these directions was that four or six of the brethren on certain days were to pray for the soul of the founder. Mr. Sheil said—
  "You must attend to the wills of the founders, or what becomes of the will of William of Wykeham?"
  Sir Robert Inglis had an answer to that, and that answer is, I think, applicable to the present time. He said—
  74
  "There was a great change of opinion in England, and a Reformation took place, and so made it necessary and made it right to act in a way different from that indicated in the will of founders."
  I believe that was a good defence, and I say, in a similar spirit, that the times are changed; that now there is a wish that these institutions, which can be properly lay institutions, should be no longer the monopoly of the Established Church, but should be thrown open to the laity of England. If I am right in that—if that change has taken place, the House of Commons will be right in sending up Bills of this nature, and we shall be right in supporting them. It would be more convenient to have them altogether, and I should wish to have them together; but, together or separately, I must maintain the principles of civil and religious liberty which, I think, are involved in this Bill, and I should go contrary to my principles and convictions if I voted against it.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he could not give a silent vote. While as a Dissenter he felt grateful for the relief which the Bill proposed to afford, he would warn their Lordships, lest in attempting to deal liberally they sacrificed a great principle. The second clause of the Bill provided that no person, on taking a public Professorship, should be required to subscribe to any article of faith, or to make any declaration on oath respecting his religious profession. For one, he would never cease to urge the necessity of maintaining some public recognition of religion in education. He was most hostile to a godless system, and was convinced that, if we did away with the test of religious belief, there was no knowing what mischief we should come to. Their Lordships would not expect him to be the apologist of the Church of England; but he thought they were bound, in the interests of the community at large, to see that there was a definite recognition of religion on the part of all who undertook to teach the youth of the country. There was no subject — except, perhaps, pure mathematics—in the teaching of which the mind of youth might not be more or less operated upon by a Professor. It was obvious that in history, geology, and many other studies, religious faith or the want of it in the Professor, might operate most mischievously upon students; and on this ground alone he must vote against the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Earl

  75
  opposite (Earl Russell) had asked on what principle measures like the present would in future be opposed? He would reply, the principle was, that Dissenters should not belong to the governing body of the University. If, by the adoption of safeguards, Dissenters could be admitted to Fellowships, let them be admitted; but do not let every safeguard be abandoned. He looked upon principle as that which induced a man to suffer for his opinions. He much preferred to the noble Earl's family's original title to Woburn, the case of his own ancestor, of whom in a verse (with a fearful false quantity) it was written—
  "Rectorem Ordsalia Maria regnante remotum,
  Restituit Princeps Elizabetha Gregi."
  He believed if Dissenters were to govern Universities and Schools, that such a scene as he had witnessed that morning (it being St. James's day), of the boys of the school where the noble Earl was educated attending Divine service, could not have taken place.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not-Contents 74: Majority 28.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

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

  Grafton, D.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Camden, M.

  Cranworth, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  De Grey, E. [Teller.]

  Monson, L.

  Granville, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Minto, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Morley, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Russell, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Stratheden, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Suffield, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Chester, Bp.

  Wentworth, L.

  London, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Beaufort, D.

  76

  Abercorn, M.

  Boston, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Amherst, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Denman, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  De Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Home, E.

  Digby, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Manvers, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Rosse, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Raglan, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Saltoun, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Three Months.

HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
LORD EBURYinquired, upon whose responsibility the structures now in process of erection at Stanhope Street Gate were being built; and whether the further progress of the works could be stayed until an expression of some competent opinion could be obtained in regard to them? He wished to express his earnest hope that those very unsightly buildings would be altered in some manner, for otherwise they would become a permanent eyesore in one of the finest promenades of the metropolis.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMreplied, that in consequence of the proposed widening of Park Lane, it had been deemed advisable to add another story to the structures referred to. As to the architecture reliance had been placed on the well-known skill of Mr. Pennethorne. The contracts had been completed, and the

77
works were so far advanced that it was impossible now to stay them.
LORD EBURYasked, whether instructions had been given for erecting hoardings round the buildings?
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he was unable to answer that question.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, he did not rise to complain of the structures at Stanhope Gate, but there was another point to which he desired to direct the noble Duke's attention. The noble Lord the first Commissioner of Works was reported to have stated in "another place" that a portion of the iron railing in Hyde Park would be completed in October next, but that the remainder of the work would not be finished till July, 1868. It appeared to him that such a long delay was quite unnecessary. He begged to ask the noble Duke when the railings would be completed?
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he could not agree with the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) that the structures to which he had alluded were not to be complained of. In his opinion they were hideous, and he only wondered that an architect of such skill as Mr. Pennethorne had erected them.
EARL STANHOPEobserved that he had expressed no approbation of the structure.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that as Lord John Manners was such an admirer of the Gothic style, and had such an antipathy to the Italian, perhaps he had selected the worst specimen possible of the latter in order to bring it in disrepute.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that as the work referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) was not in his department, he could not answer his question just then.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'Clock till To-morrow, Eleven o'Clock.