Sitting of 9 July 1868

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 7] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class IV.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Inland Revenue * [207]; Registration (Ireland) [213]; New Zealand Assembly's Powers * [216]; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment* [222] Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation * [223]; Tain Provisional Order Confirmation * [224].
Committee—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. [149]—R.P.; Colonial Governors Pensions Act Amendment* [202].
Report—Colonial Governors' Pensions Act Amendment * [202],
Considered as amended—Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies * [201]; Promissory Oaths* [113].
Third Reading—Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies* [201]; Indorsing of Warrants* [208]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit* [184] and passed.

CASE OF STAMPER AND THE OVERSEERS OF SUNDERLAND.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that he had given private Notice to the First Lord of the Treasury of his resolve to call the attention of the House to the important de-

  905
  cision which had been delivered in the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last, relative to the rating clause of the Representation of the People Act. He should—although he was exceedingly unwilling to do so—conclude by moving the adjournment of the House, in order that he might be enabled to enter into a short explanation of the circumstances to which his Question related.
  MR. DISRAELI: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not object to take the more legitimate course of bringing on the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. By this means the necessity for moving the adjournment of the House would be avoided.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he regretted he could not comply with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, as several Questions 'stood for discussion on the Motion forgoing; into Supply: and as there were several lion. Members then present who took an interest in the subject to which he was about to invite the attention of the House, who might not find it convenient to be in, their places at a later hour. The circumstances of the case were these—Stamper was rated for the relief of the poor for the borough of Sundcrland—he being an occupier of a house with five other persons—to the amount of £3 10s. He appealed against being so rated, and the Court of Common Picas on Saturday last sustained that appeal. That decision was based on the construction of the words of the 7th section of the Act of last Session, by which the Court held that with respect to tenements let out in apartments the words "not separately rated" meant not rated at the time of the passing of the Act. The result of that decision went to show that persons similarly situated to Stamper were by the 7th section of the Reform Act debarred from rateability, and ns a consequence from enfranchisement. The extent to which such disfranchisement would be carried was exceedingly serious. It would, he believed, affect upwards of 100,000 persons throughout the country. Such, at all events, was the estimate made by gentlemen well qualified to judge in the matter. He could state confidently that in five boroughs within a radius of twelve miles in the North of England no fewer than 12,000 or 15,000 persons would be disfranchised by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. The extent of the disfranchisement would, for instance, in Newcastle be about 6,000; in the borough which
  906
  he represented (Sunderland) about 4,000; in South and North Shields about 1,000; while it would be of more or less extent throughout the whole country. He begged, under those circumstances, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the decision in the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last, in the case of "Stamper v. The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Sunderland," having the effect of excluding many thousands in that and other boroughs from the franchise whom Parliament, by the Representation of the People Act of last year, intended to enfranchise, he will bring in a Bill this Session to amend the 7th section of that Act, so as to give the franchise to those occupiers of parts of houses whom that decision excludes from its possession?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Candlish).
  MR. DISRAELI: By the Act of last Session, so far as the franchise of boroughs was concerned, the House gave it, and intended to give it, to every householder rated to the poor who paid his rate, and to every lodger who lived in a lodging of the clear annual value of £10 per annum. I do not understand that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas has impugned either of these qualifications, which are the qualifications of the new suffrage. The hon. Gentleman says that a great number of persons have been disfranchised in consequence of a section of the Act which provides that the owner of all tenements let out in several dwellings should be rated. If there is a section, and no doubt there; is, to that effect in the Act of last year, it is not the 7th, which was not at all passed in reference to the suffrage, but merely in regard to rating; nor was it introduced by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot myself say what number of persons may have been deprived of the vote they expected to enjoy in consequence of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. I should myself imagine that the original estimate of the hon. Gentleman must have been greatly exaggerated; but there is no reason whatever why those persons should not claim to be rated under the provisions of the Act of last year, and if their claim is a valid claim it will be allowed. Therefore I do not clearly understand what it is that the hon. Gentleman maintains, and certainly I am not prepared to introduce any measure which would impugn the prin-

  907
  ciple of the provisions of the Act of last year.
  SIRS ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not correct when lie said that those persons could claim to be rated, for, so far as he understood the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, it was to the effect that they could not be rated, lie did not, of course, now propose to impugn the decision of the Court of Common Pleas—it would he extremely inconvenient if the decisions of the Courts of Common Law were to be impugned or canvassed in that House; nor did lie think the Government could fairly be called upon to bring in a Bill for the purpose of settling any doubts which might have been the consequence of that decision, considering the time of the Session at which they were arrived, and that such a Bill would necessarily re-open some questions which might lead to considerable discussions. But he would merely state that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, although, no doubt, it was a correct decision on the wording of the statute, did not appear to express what was the intention of the House when it passed the clause. He could not help thinking that the intention of the House was that the owner of every separate and distinct tenement in a house, where he was not a lodger with a resident landlord, should be entitled to the franchise, and that his hon. Friend was right in saying that a large number of persons who expected to be enfranchised under the Act, and whom the majority of the House expected to be enfranchised, would not be enfranchised. However, it was too late in the Session to expect Government to bring in a measure, and therefore he trusted his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the answer on that part of the case.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), when the Reform Bill was under discussion in Committee last year, applied not to the definition of rating, but to the construction of the word dwelling-house. The hon. Member said that in the borough he represented there were a large number of persons occupying parts of the same house who were separately rated. The question decided by the Court of Common Pleas was, that where the owner was actually rated, and not the occupier, at the time of the passing of the Act, he should so continue under the 7th section. As regarded the number of persons likely to
  908
  be disfranchised, he had received letters from Manchester, Birmingham, and various places in the North of England, stating that they had accepted the interpretation of the Reform Act thus laid down, and had in all those places rated the owners, and not the occupiers. A letter had appeared in the Sunderland Times—a paper which upheld the same opinions as the hon. Member—stating that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas would not affect the register very materially one way or the other, as the class whom it was said the decision would affect in that borough consisted of persons who occupied rooms or tenements for which they did not pay more than 3s. a week, who were constantly moving from place to place, so as never to get the qualification of residence, and who were only a shade removed above vagrants.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he had received an authentic report of Mr. Justice Smith's judgment from Mr. Scott, the official reporter of the Court of Common Pleas, from which it appeared that the house to which it related was built with six rooms for one family, and afterwards let in separate rooms to six persons, there being only one street door and one set of domestic offices for the whole. The owner did not live there, or exercise any supervision. The effect of the decision, as stated by the Judge himself was, that by the operation of the 7th section of the Act occupiers of small houses and separate parts of houses would for the future be liable to be rated, whatever might be the value of their holdings, notwithstanding the Small Tenements Act, and the owners would no longer be rated. Such occupier would be qualified to vote on the occupation franchise; but as regarded the occupiers of lodgings, where the house was separately let out when the Act was passed, the owner and not the occupier would be rated, and the occupants might claim under the lodger franchise. It was well that the real scope of the decision should be known, in order that overseers might not attempt to strain it, and thus exclude from the franchise persons whom the Court did not intend to disfranchise.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

  CATTLE FROM AFRICA.—QUESTION.
  MR. BARNETTsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the

  909
  fact that, on Monday last, three or four hundred head of Cattle, imported from Algeria, were exposed for sale at the Me tropolitan Cattle Market; whether it is true that the greater part of these animals appeared half-starved, in filthy condition, and more or less diseased; and whether there is reason to expect any further importation of a similar character?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that the importation was not from Algiers, but from Tangier. Last May the Government were asked for permission to land cattle from that locality, and they having ascertained that neither the cattle plague nor any other contagious disease existed in that part of Africa, gave the required leave. The cattle were inspected on arrival by Professor Simmons and the Custom House authorities. Only a very few suffered from any disease, and that not a contagious disease; but it was true that they were all starved and had suffered much from the voyage. He did not think that there would be any other such importation, for the importer could obtain no sale for the cattle, and he has suffered great loss from the transaction.

ARMY—MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of Captain Galton's Memorandum on the Draft Regulations of the Control scheme, with the Reply by the Controller in Chief; and of the Draft Regulations for an independent and efficient audit of Military Expenditures, as prepared by the Controller in Chief?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in answer to the Question of his lion, and gallant Friend, he had to state that it was true Captain Gallon, the Assistant Under Secretary in the War Office, had written a Memorandum on the Draft Regulations of the Control scheme, and that Sir Henry Storks, the Controller in Chief, had written an answer to that Memorandum. Both the Memorandum and the answer referred to I the first Copy of the Draft Regulations, which had been superseded by the Regulations on the table; and it would conduce to no good end to lay on the table either the Memorandum or the answer; therefore, as at present advised, he must decline to produce those Papers. With reference to the latter part of the Question
  910
  which referred to Regulations for an independent and efficient audit of Military Expenditures he had laid those Regulations on the table some time since; and they were referred to the Committee on Public Accounts. Whether they had been ordered to be printed he could not say.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, they had been ordered to be printed. The Paper purporting to be an answer to the Memorandum, however, did not appear to be included in the Papers.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not aware that any of the Papers were wanting. He would, however, make inquiry.

ARMY.—ARTILLERY PRACTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Hants Telegraph:"—
  "The steamer Princess of Wales, belonging to the Port of Portsmouth and Ryde Steampacket Company, left Southsea Pier on Thursday morning at half-past nine o'clock, on her passage to Ryde. When opposite Fort Monckton a shot passed between the foremast and jib stay, causing considerable consternation among the passengers, many of whom were so frightened that they laid down upon the deck. This occurrence will serve to show the immense amount of danger resulting from the shot practice at this fort, for if the shots had struck the vessel beneath the water-line, the probability is that she would have sunk, and that many lives would have been sacrificed."
  Similar incautious proceedings had occurred at Dover. He wished to know, whether measures have been taken to prevent the recurrence of a practice so dangerous to the lives of Her Majesty's subjects?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had received several letters relating to this matter. He was afraid there could be no doubt that both at Dover and at Portsmouth there had been considerable want of proper and due care in the practice of the artillery; but as the conduct of Officers was involved the House would sec it would be right he should be in possession of the fullest information before he was called upon to say more on the subject. He must decline to give any final answer to the Question till he was in possession of the whole facts of the case. He had not yet received any information from Dover.

COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF RATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps this Session to give effect to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of Rates, particularly with reference to the payment of Rates by four quarterly collections?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he did not think it desirable at this period of the Session to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee on the subject of Rates; but the overseers had the power of doing voluntarily that which the Committee recommended should be compulsory—that was to say, they might collect by instalments, or they might make quarterly rates.

ARMY—VOLUNTEERS AT WINDSOR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that about ten days ago he asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend to institute any inquiry as to the rumours of insubordination of Volunteers after the Windsor Review, and with the view of taking steps after that inquiry, he wished now to ask, Whether that inquiry has taken place, and whether the Government intend to take any action with regard to the result of it?
  SIB JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in answer to his noble Friend, he had to state that since he answered the Question on a former occasion he had had communication with General Lindsay on the subject, and the result had been he agreed with him that in regard to the conduct of one Regiment a Court of Inquiry should be held. With regard to another, the conduct of the commanding Officer required explanation; and in two instances it had been found necessary to write to the Lords Lieutenant of counties. That was the present state of his information; and, until further information was received, it would be impossible to state what action the Government would take in the matter.

  ASSESSMENT OF RAILWAY PROPERTY IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he proposes
  912
  to take action on the Memorial transmitted to him in April last from the parochial board of the parish of Old Machar, in the county of Aberdeen, respecting the Valuation of Railway Property Act for assessment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that owing to the pressure of the Business of the Session it had not been in his power to bring forward a measure for the settlement of the question between the parochial board and the railway company, and it could not be expected that any would be passed in the present Session.

REPORTS OF THE OFFICERS WITH THE PRUSSIAN AND AUSTRIAN ARMIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he understood that Reports had been made to the War Office by the Officers who had been employed by this Government in the last campaign between Prussia and Austria as to the number of rounds per gun fired during the campaign. He wished to know, Whether these Reports would be laid on the Table?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that the House would see at once that he ought not to produce the Papers.

  IRELAND—REGULATION OF IRISH PRISONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that at an earlier period of the Session he had put a Question respecting the case of a prisoner confined in Mountjoy Prison, near Dublin, who had been put on penal diet and under penal regulation for refusing to state his religion. He now begged to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House what new rule, if any, he has thought it advisable to lay down in respect to the treatment of prisoners in Ireland who are neither Catholics, Anglicans, or Presbyterians?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that he had made careful inquiries into the subject, and had found that it was impossible to frame any general rule that was applicable to all cases. In the case of any prisoner refusing to state what his religion was directions had been given that the Governor of the Gaol should make a Special Report to the Government upon the subject, when full inquiry would be made into the circumstances of the case. It would not do to permit any prisoner, by declining to state what his religion was,

  913
  to escape from all the rules and regulations of the prison.

PRIMARY EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, that the Commissioners for investigating the subject of Primary Education in Ireland have come to the conclusion that Irishmen are not competent to discharge the duties of Assistant Commissioners, and have appointed seven Englishmen and three Scotchmen to discharge those duties?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner did not rest with the Government. He had had a communication with the Chairman of the Commission, who had informed him that, with the unanimous concurrence of his colleagues, he had selected a gentleman who had been lately engaged upon an ecclesiastical inquiry similar to that of the Royal Commission in different parts of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, and they were unanimously of opinion that in selecting that gentleman they were selecting a man who was best able to perform the duties to be intrusted to him.

PRINCESS OF WALES.

  ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty upon the birth of a Princess to the Royal Consort of the Heir Apparent. The Prince and Princess of Wales live so much among the nation that on an occasion like the present it is impossible that such a domestic event should not excite some political feeling. While I am sure that we shall cordially and unanimously assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we hear that by the birth of another member of the Royal Family there is an additional security for the continuance of the dynasty with which are so indissolubly connected the liberties of the country, we can, at the same time, express our feelings of gratification at the restored health of the Princess of Wales—a fact which I am certain must be to the people of this country a source of infinite satisfaction. I move, therefore, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate
  914
  Her Majesty upon the Princess of Wales having happily given birth to a Princess, and to assure Her Majesty of our feelings of devoted loyalty and affection to Her Majesty's person and family.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, to which I am sure that this House will, as on former occasions, accede with unanimity and with the greatest cordiality. The domestic relations of the members of the Royal Family have assumed, to the great satisfaction of the country, a position in recent times which is almost novel with regard to the degree in which the people of the country are permitted to become acquainted with them, and the interest of the people in those domestic relations is proportionately enhanced. All that tends to exhibit the Royal Family, and the various groups of the Royal Family, in the light and attitude before the eyes of the nation of families knit together by mutual affection, and growing and prospering in mutual love, gives cordial satisfaction to the country in all classes and throughout all parts. It is undoubtedly quite true that we derive, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, an additional pleasure from the mercy which has been vouchsafed to the Prince and Princess of Wales upon the present occasion, from observing that no new strain has been imposed upon, no renewed detriment has occurred to the constitution of one whose pure and lofty character, and whose gracious manners have, not less than her high station, caused her to be an object of the greatest interest.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty on the Princess of Wales having happily given birth to a Princess, and to assure Her Majesty of our feelings of devoted loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's Person and Family.—(Mr. Disraeli.)

SIR ROBERT NAPIER.
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—

  VICTORIA R.
  Her. Majesty, taking into consideration the important Services rendered by Sir Robert Napier, a Lieutenant-General in Her Majesty's Army, and Commander in Chief of the Army of Bombay, in the conduct of the recent Expedition into Abyssinia,

  915
  and being desirous to confer some signal mark of Her favour for these and oilier distinguished merits upon the said Sir Robert Napier, recommends it to the House of Commons to enable Her Majesty to make provision for securing to the said Sir Robert Napier and the next surviving Heir Male of his Body, a Pension of Two Thousand Pounds per Annum.
  MR. DISRAELI: I shall move tomorrow that the House take into consideration, in Committee, Her Majesty's most gracious Message.
  Committee thereupon To-morrow.

ELECTION PETITION AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) asked me some short time ago what was the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to take with reference to the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, which stands as the sixth Order upon the Paper for to-day. I then said I thought it would be more convenient to reserve my reply until I had the opportunity of stating to the House what our intentions were generally with regard to this Bill. The important decision at which the Committee upon this Bill arrived the other night virtually brought back the Bill to the scheme originally proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that plan has been the result of very deep deliberation. It was of course the decision of the Committee. Although we did not think ourselves justified in adopting the course which apparently the House had rejected some months previously—or at least the course which it had not sufficiently encouraged Her Majesty's Government to proceed with—we did not think, considering the position of the House generally, and the approaching termination of the Session, that we ought to run the great risk of assenting to that proposition. We thought, on the whole, that it would be more prudent to adhere to the Bill as it was introduced to the notice of the Committee. The Committee, however, having come to a decision, and by an unequivocal majority expressed an opinion upon the subject, it appears to me it would be a matter very deeply to be lamented if we should allow any difficulties to prevent us
  916
  from carrying out the proposed legislation) or from fulfilling our promises on this subject. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government have considered whether, notwithstanding the obstacles that apparently present themselves, it will not be possible to legislate upon the subject this Session, and fully enter in the spirit of the Resolution of the Committee which was the other day agreed upon. And after deliberation and taking such steps as we thought would be conducive to the success of the proposition which I am now about to make, I will very briefly state the proposition I am authorized by my Colleagues to submit to the House; and I will take care in the course of the evening to lay upon the table clauses to carry out this proposition. What we propose is the following:—We propose that at the commencement of every Michaelmas Term each of the Superior Courts of Common Law should form a rota, and by the decision of the majority one of the Judges of each of those Courts should be selected to try these Election Petitions. We propose that each of the Judges so selected should receive an increase of income of £500 per annum, but that sum is not to be taken into consideration in calculating the pension to which he would be entitled after a certain duration of service. We propose also that the chief of each of the Superior Courts shall be exempted from this duly. But considering the very great increase of business in the three-Superior Courts, and the great pressure which is now experienced in getting through it, we propose that three new Judges shall be appointed to those Courts, and we shall make provision that the services of a Judge of each of the Superior Courts shall be at the command of the other Courts—such as the Divorce Court, where occasionally there is a great pressure of business. We propose that if the three Puisne Judges thus selected and forming a rota are not sufficient to transact the business of the Election Committees, which after a General Election is peculiarly heavy, to reserve this power—that if the three Judges on the rota should make a requisition to the Secretary of State or other officer of the Government, that a fourth Puisne Judge of the Court of Exchequer should be associated with them for that purpose. I must say, however, I cannot doubt without this provision there would be ample power to transact this business of Election Petitions. I have now stated one provision we propose. The

  917
  remaining provision is this—After all, this measure must be considered but an experiment; and we therefore propose that if there should be any vacancy in either of the Superior Courts of Common Law it shall not be filled up without the consent of Parliament. These are the principal outlines of the scheme which is embodied in the clauses which I shall lay upon the table of the House in the course of the evening. I think it is a subject which has been well-considered; and, as time is now very pressing, I propose that the House shall meet at two o'clock to-morrow, when it may not be impossible that we may get into Committee, and resume our labours upon this Bill. I therefore propose to take the consideration of these clauses to-morrow.
  MR. AYRTONdesired to know how it was possible that lion. Members could pro pose any Amendments on clauses which they would not receive till to-morrow morning. Hon. Members would, by the course now proposed, be virtually deprived of the opportunity of proposing any Amendments; and he trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would to-morrow proceed with the other portions of the Bill instead of with these clauses.
  MR. DISRAELI: I should have thought that four or five hours devoted uninterruptedly to the Bill would have been sufficient for all purposes.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt that this was an exceptional matter; and though lion. Members had, no doubt, a right to demand at the hands of her Majesty's Government time to enable them to propose Amendments which they desired to bring forward, he could not but acknowledge that the question of time was really a pressing one. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, would no doubt give due weight to any suggestions that might be made. He desired, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and if the right hon. Gentleman could not give an answer at present he might, perhaps, be able to do so to-morrow—what it was proposed to do with regard to a point of considerable importance—limiting the duration of a Bill which, after all, was of an experimental character?

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 215.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 215.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 24, line 32, agreed to.
  Page 24, line 32, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the Lords had made an Amendment in the Definition Clause, which enabled him to move an Amendment thereon, within the rules of this House. He should briefly explain the objects of the Amendment. It was agreed, when the Bill was in the House of Commons, that all the words about rating should be struck out. That was done in all the other clauses; but in the Definition Clause, by an oversight, the alteration was not made. The Definition Clause says a house shall "include any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, which dwelling is separately rated to the relief of the poor," whereas the clauses of the Bill made it sufficient that a householder should be placed on the Valuation Roll, and not in arrear of poor rates, to entitle him to the franchise. In Edinburgh this definition would disfranchise 4,500 persons who occupied premises of a less value than £4—premises which were not rated and which, therefore, could not have paid the rates of the poor; and he believed there were other burghs which were similarly situated. The effect of the Amendment he had to propose, would be to suspend the operation of the rating sentence in the clause during the present year; and all the parties affected could be rated next year. What he now proposed was merely to add the words, "after the expiration of the present year, and," in the place pointed out after the word "levied." In the city he represented there were 4,500 householders who would not enjoy the franchise under the Amendment during the present year, because the Poor Law authorities did not think it worth while to lay on and collect the small rate they might have obtained from those persons; but he apprehended that the House was most anxious that every man who was a householder should be placed on the register.
  Amendment proposed, to add to the said Amendment the words "after the expiration of the present year and."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, one of the main principles of the Bill was that no person should be entitled to be put upon the register who did not pay to the relief of the poor. In the course of the discussion, however, it was agreed that the test of being rated to the relief of the poor should not be insisted on that year; but the Lords have made an alteration in the clause, by which that object was to be effected; and the result was that certain parties were not at present entitled to be put on the register because they had not been put to the test of paying to the relief of the poor. There was no doubt, however, that they would be entitled to be put on the register in future years, after they had been put to the test.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh had done good service in the Amendment he had brought forward, because the clause to which he had drawn attention was inconsistent with the Amendment which he himself proposed, and which was carried during the earlier part of the discussions on the Scotch Reform Bill. He did not think the matter ought to be passed over in quite so light and airy a manner as that in which it had just been dealt with by the Lord Advocate; and, for his own part, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would persevere in the Amendment he had proposed, and that it would meet with the acceptance of the House.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was one to which he trusted he might express a hope that the Lord Advocate would agree.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 104: Majority 20.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Several other Amendments agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the House should disagree with an Amendment made by the
  920
  Lords in the clause relating to the voting at University elections by striking out the words, "who is personally known to me." Those words made the magistrate declare that he was personally acquainted with the voter who came before him, and they would therefore operate as an additional safeguard against personation. As the omission of the words would lessen the security against that species of fraud, he hoped the House would retain them.
  One disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. Secretary GA-THORNE HARDY, Sir JAMES FEROUSSON, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.
  Reason for disagreeing to Lords' Amendment reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to The Lords.

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

ARMY—THE HORSE GUARDS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is willing to produce a Return of a Copy of the censure passed by the Horse Guards upon the members of the Court Martial appointed to try an acting Sergeant Major of the Grenadier Guards, on account of the leniency of the sentence they had passed upon him, such censure having since been virtually abandoned, but without any explanation or justification of the grounds of such censure upon the members of that Court Martial, one of whom is a Member of this House, and to make a Motion. The hon. Member stated that in or about the month of April an acting Sergeant Major of the Grenadier Guards was sent to a Volunteer corps with regard to a quantity of ammunition, on which occasion the Volunteers pressed on him their hospitality, the result of which was the absence of the acting Serjeant Major for six hours and the loss of parade. For this he was tried and sentenced to be reduced to the grade of a simple sergeant, whereby he would lose 10d. a day. The

  921
  colonel demurred to this finding, on the ground that he could have punished the Accused to that extent himself, and that a Court-martial was obliged to inflict a severer penalty than the commanding officer could himself do. The Court, however, adhered to its decision; upon which the colonel appealed to the Horse Guards; and they referred the point to the Judge Advocate, who ruled that the sentence was perfectly legal. On this the military authorities quashed the sentence, re-sentenced the man to exactly the same penalty, and finally sent for the members of the Court to the Horse Guards, where a censure was read to them, of which they were refused a copy. As the President of the Court (Colonel Sturt) was a Member of Parliament, he (Mr. Darby Griffith) maintained that he had a right to bring the subject before the House, and he submitted that the question was one of no little importance, for it was whether Courts-martial were to be independent tribunals, or whether they were to be subject to dictation. He moved for a copy of the censure.

  ARMY—PROMOTIONS IN THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN, in rising to call attention to the late promotions in the Coldstream Regiment of Guards, said, the complaint that he had to make in connection with them was that the well-known Warrant and rules of the service had been completely disregarded by the military authorities. Some two or three months ago vacancies had occurred in the regiment in question on the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Clive, and by the rules of the service no officer could be appointed to a company if he did not happen to have served in it two years, it being also necessary that before being made a captain he should pass an examination. At the time of Lieutenant Colonel Clive's promotion there were six or seven of the senior ensigns who had not complied with those conditions. On a former occasion the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary for War quoted the Warrant of the 3rd of February, 1866, setting forth that the vacancies caused by officers being permitted to retire, should be given to the next senior qualified officers, who were prepared to purchase, unless it should be deemed expedient by the Secretary for War to act otherwise, and in that case officers of the same rank should be brought in from half
  922
  pay, or officers of the same rank in other regiments might be allowed to purchase. These latter words in the Warrant were not read by the right hon. Gentleman, and he therefore supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of them. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I was aware of them.] He wished to know why the Royal "Warrants, which were plain in their language, had not been complied with?

  ARMY—CONTROLLER-IN-CHIEF.— AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.—RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL JERVISrose to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, respecting the proposed position and duties of the Controller-in-Chief, and to move a Resolution thereon. In consequence of the disasters arising out of the defective military organization during the Crimean War inquiries were made into the state of various War Departments. A vast chaos seemed to exist, Departments being without heads, and beads without control. That came out most clearly in the Committee of 1860 on Organization, and Lord Herbert recommended that they should most seriously consider the importance of introducing the French Intendance system. Lord De Grey, when at the head of the War Office, very properly brought forward the question, and recommended that the Administrative Departments of the War Office, which were under a dozen different heads, should be brought under the control of one chief. They could not over-estimate the importance of such a position. In fact, the officer in that position would bonâ fide have the control of four-fifths of the whole army expenditure; and it might well be thought that the Secretary of State would regard him as his right-hand man, his chief adviser. Such certainly was the idea of Lord Strathnairn'sCommittee—such also seemed to be the opinion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) himself when ho wrote his letter in December; but between that date and the 29th of June a very extraordinary change of feeling seemed to have come over the Treasury. It seemed then to have been thought that the Controller-in-Chief was by far too important a personage—that, in fact, they were creating a new and great power in the War Office—a sort of control over the Secretary of State. Having secured one of the greatest men in the country, Sir Henry Storks—who years ago was Under Secre-

  923
  tary for War, and had filled the most important positions—having got him to arrange the whole scheme as perfectly as it could be done, they appeared to turn round upon him and say they did not want him any more ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] The letter from the Treasury of the 29th of June stated that, having re-considered the whole matter, their Lordships were of opinion that the Controller-in-Chief should not have the rank of permanent Secretary of State, that he should have a salary of £1,500 a year, and that he should he either a military man or civilian, as circumstances should determine. Whether the Controller was a military man or not, he would say this, unless he was to be master over the Department it would be bettor not to have him at all. Their Lordships, it appeared, were also of opinion that the functions of the Controller-in-Chief should be kept entirely distinct from those of the Financial Department. If that was the case he said again, better not have such an officer. Then it was added, "all expenditure proposed by him should be referred to the Financial Department." Now, he wanted to know what were the duties of a Controller-in-Chief if they were not financial duties; and whether it was not absurd, after selecting a man like Sir Henry Storks to look after the expenditure of £13,000,000, that they should then appoint another high official to look after him? There could be no question that the action of the Secretary of State was very much cramped by the extreme difficulty of getting the heads of Departments to coalesce, because although each was anxious and willing to give the Secretary of State all the assistance in his power, they entertained considerable jealousy of each other. Lord Strathnairn's Committee was composed of some of the ablest men connected with the service, and they recommended unanimously that the Chief Controller should have the entire control of the finances under the Secretary of State. The Marquess of Hartington had stated that it was the general opinion of the War Office that the only way to economize was to bring the various Departments under one head. Earl de Grey and Ripon was equally strong on the point—namely, that there should only be one head to communicate with the Secretary of State; and Sir Charles Trevelyan was strongly in favour of one system of control. If the Controller had to submit the Estimates in the first instance to the Financial Secretary,
  924
  it was obvious that he must possess some kind of control over them; whereas the only real financial authorities were the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretaries of State, and it was for them, and them only, to sanction what Estimates should be submitted to Parliament. If the Secretary of State for War was to have a financial as well as a military wet-nurse he was not in the position in which he ought to be. Having had twenty years' experience of the War Office, he asserted that it was in the most complete confusion that it had been in for years. After a long and careful inquiry, the War Office had been empowered to seek the assistance of any man they pleased to assist in its re-organization; and that ought to be done. If it were not, he warned the right hon. Baronet that a new Parliament would insist on such a searching inquiry as had never taken place before. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would have strength of mind to carry into effect the well-considered changes which he had determined, after eight months' consideration of the subject, to adopt. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN, in seconding the Motion, said, he agreed with the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) that for the last ten or twelve years the War Department had been remarkable for confusion, extravagance, and blundering. It had been with some feeling of relief that those interested in the subject looked forward to the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Strathnairn, as they saw in it germs of future change, which would alter not only the regulation of this Department, but also those of other important branches of the administration of the army. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, by showing a determination to carry the recommendations contained in that Report into effect, had earned the gratitude and the approbation of all parties. There was a general desire on the part of the country that the army should be more economically and more efficiently administered. While, the present administration of the War Office might appear ludicrous to lookers-on it was death to the army. The spirit of self-immolation upon which the right hon. Gentleman had relied for effecting improvements in the administration of the War Department was not likely to show itself in any marked

  925
  manner, because every clerk in the Department was sure to be willing to admit that changes should be effected in every Department but his own, which, in his opinion, would require to be extended, instead of being reduced. It was on the 1st January that Sir Henry Storks had been appointed Controller-in-Chief, to introduce the proposed reforms. He had been told (hat he was to alter the weak, inefficient administration of the Civil Department of the army, and to try and revise the organization of the War Office itself. Sir Henry Storks had shown the greatest aptitude for the post to which he had been appointed, and, in fact, the only objection that could be urged against his appointment was that he was a soldier, lie thoroughly believed that Sir Henry Storks, Sir Edward Lugard, and other officers of high military rank would perform their duty to the Secretary of State without betraying that duty for their own personal advancement. The theory at the War Office was that they could not serve God and Mammon—that they could not serve the War Office without a breach of allegiance to the Horse Guards. It was true that the interests of the War Office were antagonistic to those of the Horse Guards; the sooner they were reconciled the better it would be for the country. He was certain that a man like Sir Henry Storks would never accept any office under the Secretary of State and neglect that duty for his own advancement. He could not believe that the interest of military men and those of the administration of the army were antagonistic. Sir Henry Storks had been in office for six months, and it was right the House should know what had been done in these Departments, and what the obstacles were which he had to encounter. The right hon. Gentleman had placed on the table of the House a full account of the proposed changes; but, without wearying the House with details, he might describe them as a greater concentration of responsibility, and a better division of labour, as opposed to the present system of a great concentration of labour in one office and a greater division of responsibility among various Departments. The effect of those changes out-of-doors would be to place the various Supply Departments under one responsible chief, who would be answerable to the officer in command as far as discipline was concerned, but who would be answerable to the Secretary of State
  926
  for War through the Controller-in-Chief of his departmental administration. At present there were four departmental officers at Malta and Gibraltar—namely, the Surveyor General, the Purveyor of Stores, the Commissary General, and Barrack Master; but it was proposed to place one officer over these four Departments. The result of such a change would necessarily lead to economy of time and money, and be a material check upon expenditure. To prove that this would be the case he need only point to the fact that at present the correspondence of these four Departments was carried on quite independently of one another. But it was objected by the Treasury that the Control Department would interfere with the present constitutional financial control. For his own part, he did not see how the Controller-in-Chief could appropriate one farthing from one purpose to another. He certainly had no objection to the details of the Estimates being submitted to the Finance Department for the purpose of having their accuracy tested; but he objected, and objected very strongly, to any manipulation. He had no objection to a Financial Secretary arranging the figures and performing similar duties; but if he were once permitted to manipulate the details—to say that too much was being spent in this direction and too much in another, it would be utterly impossible that they could secure the services of any one who could keep these large Departments in a state of efficiency, because this could not be done unless they placed sufficient confidence in the officer they selected, and gave him an uncontrolled command. Without in any way desiring to detract from the merits of Sir Robert Napier, it was to the adoption of this principle that the success of the Abyssinian Expedition was in a great measure attributable. There, perhaps, was some danger in putting two men into the same position at the War Office, and he therefore thought that the Controller-in-Chief should be the superior. If the Financial Secretary was upon the some footing it might lead to dispute and to discussion. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department would persist in a policy to which he was strongly inclined, and that he would seize the opportunity which was now offered, and which might not speedily recur, and carry out that policy undeterred by those who sought to thwart him from motives of obstinacy or self-interest.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Controller in Chief should be an Under Secretary of State; and that the audit of the War Office accounts should be entirely independent of the War Office,"—(Colonel Jervis,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL DUNNEremarked that confusion had not always existed in the War Department; it began in 1852 and 1854, through the proceedings of the then Secretary of State for War and his successors, who pulled the whole system to pieces, and, as children over a puzzle, had pulled the Department to pieces, and had been unable to put it in any sort of shape since. He was glad to find the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had begun to try his hand at putting this Department in order, because, if for no other reason, his action in the matter acknowledged the necessity of speedy reform; and the nearer he approached the system of the old Ordnance Department, which the Duke of Wellington and so many other high authorities had said was the best in the world, the more perfect he would make it. It was said that the framing of the Estimates and the Department to which this responsibility was to be entrusted, was now a subject of discussion, but as to the framing of the Estimates, nothing, it seemed to him, could be more plain. Whatever system was in vogue, the Cabinet must always decide on the amount of money to be spent on the army, and the heads of Departments, whatever their office, would be obliged to keep their expenditure within that limit. But when the sum was decided, the Executive should alone frame the application and be responsible for the expenditure. In his opinion it would be easy to form a Department which should work harmoniously under one or more heads. He approved the proposal to keep the Audit Department entirely separate from others, and trusted special attention would be given to surpluses of Votes and transfers in future. This year many sums had been transferred from one Department to another, but no account of them had been rendered to Parliament. For instance, the House voted a sum for the Training of the Irish Militia; the Government of that country had determined not to call them
  928
  out, and the sum voted for that purpose must have been saved, but neither the amount nor the purpose to which it was transferred had been stated. He hoped this oversight would be remedied before the end of the Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed to frame a system which would relieve the War Office from the complaints of which they heard so frequently. The Committee over which Lord Strathnairn presided had recommended a re-organization of the War Department, and it was understood that a distinguished organizer, Major General Storks, was to be placed at its head; but it was now said some unseen influence had been exerted within the Office to alter this wise determination, and it was to place the new Controller in a position which the Major General could not accept. If he was to be the head of this Department, he should have the application of whatever sums might be allotted by the Cabinet for warlike purposes without control from any subordinate, and be accountable for that application. It was clear something must be done, if we wished to decrease the expense and incompetence of former Secretaries for War.
  COLONEL NORTHcomplimented the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution for the manner in which they had introduced the subject. He was surprised at the delay of the Government. The Secretary of State had promised that the system should be tried on the 1st of April in Ireland, and it could have been tried under most advantageous circumstances under Lord Strathnairn, who was not only Chairman of the Committee, but Commander-in-Chief in Ireland as well; but it seemed as if the authorities had had their nightcaps on ever since. At length, however, we had a scheme produced by two most able men—Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour; but the whole thing seemed to be regarded by the Treasury from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: A very important matter.] He had no doubt of that; but contended that pounds, shillings, and pence should not be allowed to interfere with the efficiency of the army and the proper administration of its Departments. The Crimean War had shown what expense was entailed by niggardliness in time of peace. He was surprised that they should expect the Controller-in-Chief to be subordinate to the Financial Secretary. Now, the Minute proposed

  929
  that the new official who should advise the Secretary of State for War should be either a military man or a civilian; but, excepting Lord Dalhousie and the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), every Secretary for War had been a civilian; and what would happen if future civilian Secretaries should have civilian advisers on military matters? In his opinion, the military adviser of the Secretary of State should under no circumstances be a civilian, Then the Controller-in-Chief was to be without the rank of Under Secretary of State and have £1,500 a year. But was Sir Henry Storks to be set aside in order that somebody else might be put over him? [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear; and "No, no !" from the Treasury Bench.] Did the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose Sir Henry Storks would submit to such treatment? The Government might say there was no desire to get rid of him; but, if the Minute meant anything, it meant, "We will get anyone we can to take the post, and we will treat Sir Henry Storks as an occasional waiter." [Lord ELCHO: Hear.] Sir Robert Napier, as had been said, owed much of his success to the absoluteness of his control. What he wanted he ordered, and what he ordered he got; but the Treasury set out with two Kings of Brentford, and all ho had to say was, Heaven help them from confusion ! He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the scheme of Sir Henry Storks; that Sir Henry Storks would not be set aside in order that some other person might carry out hiss scheme.
  THE MAHQUESS OF HARTINGTON, though under no obligation to defend the recommendations of the Treasury, was bound to say he was much obliged to the Government for the part they had taken in the matter, and consequently disagreed with every hot). Member who had as yet spoken on the subject. If the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) had correctly described the duties of the Controller, his Motion would follow as a necessary consequence. If they gave a man the control of an expenditure of £13,000,000, and decided that he should be really independent and nobody should have a right to call in question his action, in what respect would his powers differ from those of the Secretary of State, except that the latter would be responsible to that House, and the Controller would be
  930
  responsible to nobody? Although he entirely disagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich, both as to the duties and the position of the Controller-in-Chief, he was not sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised the question in that manner, because his Motion raised with tolerable distinctness a question which the House would sooner or later have to consider—namely, whether there was to be a real financial control, independently of all the spending and executive departments of the army, whether those departments were attached to the Horse Guards or to the War Office itself. It seemed to him that the official Correspondence which the Government had laid on the table was not very complete, and he understood it had been admitted earlier that evening that ft Letter containing the Royal Warrant by which that Department had been already constituted had been inadvertently omitted from the Papers presented to the House.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not conscious until that evening of that omission, and he was quite willing to supply it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought it very important to have the Letter, not only as showing the views of the Secretary for War, but also in order that any just criticisms might be passed upon the document. It had been the prevailing opinion out of doors—whether with or without sufficient foundation he did not know—that it had been the intention of the War Office to establish a new Department, with such powers and authority that the financial control of which he had spoken would be, if not altogether destroyed, at least very seriously weakened. If any such proposal as that made by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich were adopted, the financial control would be entirely done away with. But, even short of the re-organization recommended by that hon. and gallant Member, a system might be adopted which, although not entirely doing away with that control, would yet very seriously impair it. Whatever fault might have attached to the War Office—and it had enjoyed the distinction of being about the best abused Office in the king—dom—there had always existed control of a civilian character perfectly independent of the military element. As Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter in The times of that day showed, there had existed a sort of outpost of the Treasury to control the expenditure of the army. The Board of

  931
  Ordnance had officers whose duty it was to keep a watch over that expenditure. Ever since the constitution of the present War Office there had always been some control of that sort, which was at one time more powerful, and at another less so. Every Minister, he believed, who had filled the office of Secretary of State for War had held the opinion that there should be such a financial control as that. It was evident from his correspondence with the Treasury that the late Lord Herbert held that opinion; and it had also been shared by that noble Lord's official successors. In the contemplated re-organization of the army was there anything which made it less necessary than it had heretofore been to maintain a separate financial control over the Executive Departments? In his opinion the answer to that question should be given in the negative. He thought too much fuss—if he might be allowed the phrase—had been made about that contemplated re-organization. It had been written and. talked of as a very large affair indeed. It was, no doubt, an important matter, and, if properly carried out, would be very useful. But he did not think the projected changes were of the magnitude that had been supposed. On what was the necessity for them founded? On inquiry it was found that the supply of food to the army, the supply of hospital stores, of warlike stores, and of stores for barrack accommodation—it was found that the supply of all those articles for the army was the duty of different departments within the War Office itself, and the duly of different departments at every station and with every army. It appealed also that the local head of each of those different departments had to correspond directly with the head of his own department at home, and that although there might be great similarity in the duties of each of those departments; a great deal might be done and a saving effected for the public by a proper correspondence among themselves, and by a knowledge on the part of one department of what was going on in another, they all corresponded separately with their own chiefs at home, and there was a greater subdivision of duties than was at all necessary for the public service. It appeared, moreover, that there was no Department charged with the duty of providing transport for each of those different services. Well, the obvious remedy that occurred to the late Lord Herbert seven or eight years
  932
  ago was that all those departments should be merged into one and combined under one head. That idea was approved by the Treasury, and circumstances only prevented it being carried out before. It was revived by Lord de Grey, and was subsequently matured by the Committee which was presided over by Lord Strathnairn. But although the Supply Department was n great and powerful Department there was no necessity for making it all-powerful or practically supreme in the War Office, which had many other duties to perform. The War Office had also to provide arms for the army, either by contract or through the Government manufacturing establishments. It was necessary there should be distinct Departments for that and for other duties, and although the Supply Department might possibly be the largest und most important, he did not see why it should necessarily be raised to a rank altogether superior to the other departments which likewise performed duties under the War Office, lie had admitted that the Controller-in-Chief should be a person of great power and authority at the War Office; but he saw no good reason why he should be more than the head of any of those other departments which he had mentioned, or why he should be exempted from all criticism. No one proposed that the Director of Works should be authorized to frame what Estimates he pleased, without having his acts called into question by any other authority. Nobody proposed that the Director of Ordnance should he authorized to spend in the manufacturing departments whatever sums ho might think fit for the purpose of adding to the buildings or plant of those establishments without being subject to the control of the Secretary of State. And if such propositions were not made with regard to other departments he could not conceive on what ground another department of an analogous character was to be left entirely without financial control. In the letter to which he had already referred, and which appeared in The Times of that morning, Sir Charles Trevelyan stated that it appeared to be deliberately intended to create a new dualism at the War Office. With the greatest respect, however, for the source from which that statement emanated, he must be allowed to express a doubt as to its correctness. Nothing of the sort was, so far as he could see, intended; and, in his opinion, it was the Secretary of State alone who would be the responsible Minis-

  933
  ter, not only for efficiency, but also for economy. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear !] But how was it proposed that the Secretary of State alone should be thus responsible to the House of Commons if the means were taken away from him of knowing how economy was to be obtained? The Chief Controller would advise him in reference to everything connected with the supply of stores, &c, for the army, the Director of Ordnance with respect to anything connected with the manufacturing Department and the supply of new arms, and the Director of Works as to works; but how was he to be advised as to the expediency of making reductions unless the financial head of the Department were placed in a position to know what was going on, to make his recommendations, and, if necessary, to secure that they should be acted upon? All that was proposed was that the head of the Financial Department should be made aware constantly of what was going on; that the Estimates should pass through his hands in order that he might know in what particulars it might be desirable to increase or diminish them; and that if he thought he could point out any respects in which retrenchment might easily be effected, his opinion should go before the Secretary of State with adequate power and authority. The Secretary of State would in that way have, on the one hand, the views of the person representing the question of efficiency, while, on the other hand, the economical view would be presented to him by his financial adviser. It was all very well to say that the two things must go together; but everybody was aware that the question often arose as to whether a certain expenditure would conduce to efficiency, or whether the extra efficiency which it would secure was worth the outlay which it was proposed to incur. But then it was suggested that each department might frame its own Estimate, and be responsible to the Secretary of State not only for efficiency, but economy. Now, it was very easy to make the head of a department responsible for efficiency; but how he could be made responsible for the economy of his department if all power of interference were taken away from the Financial Department, he was at a loss to understand. The Secretary of State could not, without assistance, make himself acquainted with all the details of economy, and it was only by such aid as was afforded by inquiry made by the Accountant Gene-
  934
  ral's Department that it was possible to know whether his Department was conducted economically or not. The proposed regulations would, he hoped, be submitted to further revision, and if necessary be further corrected; for, as the Treasury Letter was dated the 29th, and the revised Regulations had been sent back the next day, it was possible that they might not in all respects carry out the principles which the Treasury had laid down. He must express his gratitude to the Treasury for the line they had taken, and he hoped the Secretary of State would concur in the Regulations laid down by the Treasury. In what he had said he hoped not a single word had fallen from him which might be regarded as disrespectful in the slightest degree to the present Controller-in-Chief. He was fully sensible of the high reputation which Sir Henry Storks so deservedly enjoyed, and the re-organization of the Department could not be entrusted to abler hands; but he was at the same time of opinion that it was not desirable that any Department of the War Office should be raised to that pitch of superior power over every other for which some hon. Members contended.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that although many questions of importance had been brought before Parliament in the present Session, the question of the proper control of our Army Department was the most important administrative question of the day, inasmuch as it dealt with an expenditure of £13,000,000. He was, afraid, however, that the good which it was hoped would arise from the appointment of a Chief Controller was in great danger of being obviated, seeing the views which were entertained on the subject by the occupants of the Treasury and the front Opposition Benches. His noble Friend the late Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), for instance, had got up, and, after nearly every previous speaker had expressed himself strongly against the existing as well as against the proposed system, as laid down in the Papers which had been placed on the table, argued in favour of a check being maintained by the Treasury over the Controller—a view in which he was apparently supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Chiklers), who cheered him at the close of his speech. The House, nevertheless, would do well, he thought, to pause before it accepted the I dicta of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen I who were, or who had been in Office, and

  935
  to take the matter, in a great measure, into its own hands. No doubt, to judge by the appearance of its Benches during the discussion, the subject was one in which the House of Commons seemed to take very little interest. The five Benches on the Opposition side below the Gangway, which were usually occupied by hon. Gentlemen who, when they should address their constituents, would be likely to lay the greatest stress upon the necessity of peace, retrenchment, and reform, had been left during the progress of this discussion without a single Member, though within the last half-hour the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had re-appeared; but it was a great mistake to imagine that the question would ho regarded with equal apathy out-of-doors, or that Secretaries of State in esse or in posse would be allowed to have, in dealing with it, entirely their own wav. Knowing the unsatisfactory state of things, he brought the subject before the House a short time ago, thinking that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed, and he expected to be told that a Commission was unnecessary, as the attention of the War Office and two able officers was already engaged on the matter. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), however, did not give that answer, and perhaps he was right in not doing so.; for it did not seem that the organization of the War Department was proceeding with that success and harmony which would justify the hope of a good result, and it was a question whether there was any Controller at the War Office at all. Military organization meant a sufficient supply of men, with means for renewing the supply; a sufficient supply of material with ready means of renewal; and an organization in time of peace so economically conducted that those supplies of men and material could be efficiently brought to bear, in time of war, in any direction and at the shortest notice. Now, as regards men, the state of things was that 40,000 men could not be brought together in line in this country. But his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War stated that in time the country would have n Reserve of 50,000 men. The present Reserve was 15,000 men, and, according to the progress at which matters advanced, it might be thirty or forty years before this Reserve of 50,000 men was formed. Moreover, the officers of the Militia, from which source the Reserve was expected to be derived, were divided in opinion as to whether the men could be obtained from that force. In re-
  936
  spect to material there were, no doubt, abundant supplies and stores. Many people thought that the supplies were over abundant, and that great waste prevailed. Only recently an hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson) brought the whole question of stores before the House, and the result was that the Secretary for War accepted a practical revolution in the mode of conducting the War Department with respect to stores, and an impression had gone forth that a most salutary change was likely to be introduced in the mode of keeping the War Office accounts with regard to stores. On a former occasion he endeavoured to show that there existed no organization for economically and efficiently working up the men and material; and no answer was given to his statement. They had not had a foreign army landing on the shores of this country; but there had been something like an insurrection in Ireland, and in. March, 1867, Lord Strathnairn wrote to the effect that the action of the military Departments under his command during the Fenian insurrection made him sensible of the want of a superior military officer to act as Controller, in order to insure the efficient execution of his orders. When it was understood that the Secretary for Wav had determined to act on the Report of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and to appoint a Controller General, with another distinguished officer as an assistant, it was supposed that order was likely to come out of chaos, and that, instead of the military Departments of this country being the most extravagant and inefficient of any in the world, they would, by the supervision of Sir Henry Storks, assisted by that able officer, General Balfour, be brought under proper control. All these hopes, however, were fated to be dashed. Instead of a Controller, they had something like the two Kings of Brentford, and those two officers j were wholly powerless to carry out the system which they thought absolutely necessary. He could not understand how the Secretary of State, who was responsible for the efficiency of the army, could consent to submit to such a control in the matter of finances as the Treasury proposed to establish. The Treasury ought only to have the power of simply auditing j accounts, and seeing that they were properly kept and checked. The Secretary of State for War, who was responsible for the efficiency of the army, should be subject only to the control of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exche-

  937
  quer, who should hare the power of saying he could not give so much money in a particular year. The Secretary of State for War would, therefore, still be responsible even if this control-in-chief were carried out. When they all hoped that everything was going on smoothly, the Controller-in-Chief was checkmated by the Treasury. The arrangement, as laid down in the last Treasury Minute, had been accepted by the right hon. Baronet; but had it been accepted by Sir Henry Storks? Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour were the very best men that could be selected to bring order out of a chaotic Department; but did they approve that arrangement? He said deliberately they did not. He believed the resignation of Sir Henry Storks was written out, and only held back at the request of the Secretary of State for War; and General Balfour, when he (Lord Elcho) saw him lately, said to him, "I do not think we can stay here, because it is impossible we can assent to the system proposed to be established." His answer to the General was that ho hoped he would resign, as it was only by such a step that they would have any hope of the plan recommended by Lord Strathnairn being adopted. But if they did resign, whatever Secretaries of State in esse or posse might say, the country, the Press, and the House of Commons would insist on a better administration. If Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour had had their will on the 1st of April last a perfect system of control would have been in active operation—nolin this country but in Ireland. To begin with he would give the House an opportunity of testing their opinions on this project in the most practical way. On the next Supply day he should move—
  "That it is the opinion of this House that the system of control and army supply proposed to be introduced into Ireland on the 1st of April last, at set forth in the letter of the 6th of March, 1868, addressed to the Treasury, be forthwith put into operation."
  That would afford a clear test whether the House would stand by the Controller General as regarded the new system which it was proposed to establish, and he hoped the House would back him in bringing the Motion forward.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONagreed with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in regretting that the attendance in the House should be sc thin on an occasion when a question of such great importance to the interest of
  938
  the country was being discussed. He attributed the non-attendance of hon. Members at that period of the evening to the fact that most of them were under the impression that the subject would not come on for discussion until Vote 18 was proposed in Committee of Supply, and he himself was rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) should have brought the matter on unexpectedly. He further expressed his regret that hon. Members should come down to that House and make speeches on subjects of this importance, and then run away without stopping to hear the answer which the Minister had to make to their remarks. He begged the House to consider the position in which he stood at that moment. With the exception of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire, not a single Member who had addressed the House on this subject that evening was present to hear what he had to say in answer to the statements that had been made. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich commenced the discussion by finding fault with Her Majesty's Government for the course they had taken upon this subject, and he now looked round I in vain for that hon. Member. He had listened to the various speeches that had been delivered with an interest proportionate to the question before them, and he had observed with pleasure that the great characteristic of the debate had been an entire absence of party feeling. It was not a party subject, but one affecting their finances and defences, and which every one ought to regard with anxiety as being connected with the best interests of the country. Another characteristic of the debate was the extraordinary amount of misrepresentation that had distinguished the majority of the speeches, and none more remarkably so than the speech of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire; and he (Sir John Pakington) hoped before he concluded his observations that he should be able to show him that his alarms had really no foundation. Another speech singularly remarkable for its misapprehension was the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Harwich who opened the debate. As the subject had been discussed without party feeling, he wished it to be considered without prejudice or misunderstanding; and therefore the best course he could adopt was to take seriatim the remarks that had been made by the various speakers, and to offer such observations in reply as they seemed to

  939
  him to require. In the first place the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich had stated that he (Sir John Pakington) had asked Sir Henry Storks to accept the office of Controller-in-Chief as a financial and not as a military man. Sir Henry Storks was asked to undertake this important office partly because he had discharged with honour to himself his military duties wherever he had been engaged, but also, and to a great extent, no doubt, because of the very great change which it was hoped he would introduce into the expenditure of the country. For his own part he believed that he had been most fortunate in the selection of Sir Henry Storks, and he hoped and fully anticipitated that he would have the good fortune to see him for a long time to come in the office he now held. The next extraordinary misapprehension and mis-statement of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich who, he regretted had not returned to his seat, was that having selected Sir Henry Storks on account of his high character and distinguished abilities, and a confidence that he more than almost any other man was the man to discharge those difficult duties, he had now turned round upon him and declared that the Government did not want him any more. He could not understand how any hon. Gentleman having such long experience of Parliament as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich could use such wild, unfounded, and unjustifiable language. There was not a shadow or pretence of a foundation for it, and he was only sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not now present the he might tell him so to his face. He had not the slightest complaint to make of the calm and dispassionate manner in which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) had spoken, though he leant somewhat heavily upon the War Office, which he imagined to be a mass of confusion, extravagance, and blundering. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) stated with great truth that whatever the merits or demerits of that Department, it was undoubtedly the best abused under Her Majesty's Government. That there had been difficulties since its first establishment everybody must know, and no one better than the noble Lord who had been first Under Secretary and then Secretary of State for War. His own personal experience led him to believe that, on the whole perhaps, it was not the most parsimonious Office he had ever acted in; but great
  940
  alterations and improvements had been effected, and he was simple enough to believe that it would hereafter work much more harmoniously. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro seemed to apprehend that they would not fulfil their promise of reform with reference to that Department; but he must tell his hon. and gallant Friend that his belief was that they would effect the reform which they had held out, and his confident belief was that if the House would only take a fair, dispassionate, and unprejudiced view of "what had been done, they would find in them at least the germ of great reforms for the better working and administration of the army. His hon. and gallant Friend then adverted to Sir Henry Storks being a military man and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) also made some remarks in that direction, and complained of the military element being so strong as it now was at the Board. He was aware that the subject had attracted attention out of doors, and that some very unfair comments had been made upon it. But with regard to Sir Henry Storks being a military man he ventured to remind the House that one of the reasons for his appointment was that he was a military man. His selection was further made in deference to the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, which, rightly or wrongly, laid it down that, whatever course might be taken afterwards, the first Controller-in-Chief ought to be a military man. The Committee thought, and rightly thought, that a military man would be the most competent person to start that great change. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro said the Controller ought to be absolute; but he ventured to think that was a doctrine wholly at variance with constitutional principle. If any one were to be absolute in a Department, it must be the responsible Secretary of State, and to him all the officers in their several stations ought be subordinate. He never could agree that the Secretary of State was not absolute. In their system of government he must work in harmony with the Cabinet, and although he ought to be supreme in his own Department, he must, of course, be subjected to those checks and limits which the Constitution imposed on the whole of their system of government. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) spoke in terms he was sorry to hear him use, and which he hardly expected to hear

  941
  from him, but against which he entirely protested from its utter extravagance, that Sir Henry Storks had been reduced to a subordinate. The noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had approached the subject, he was glad to say,' in a singularly calm and temperate manner, and in the greater part of the speech of the noble Lord lie most thoroughly concurred. With regard to the Letter, the omission of which had been commented upon, the occurrence was purely accidental, and there was no objection whatever to its production. As regarded the dates of the Regulations these almost spoke for themselves; for; evidently they had been the subject of very careful revision long before the day upon which they bore date. The noble Lord the Member for Hadditigtonshire laid great stress upon the improved management of stores, and referred to the adoption by the Government of the greater portion of the plan proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He might add that it was after conference with Sir Henry Storks that lie had accepted this portion of the plan; and, even if the hon. and gallant Member had not brought forward his proposals, they would have been carried out in substance by the authorities. He would ask the House to consider the nature of the objections which had been urged in the course of this debate to the proposals of the Government—chiefly by the lion, and gallant Member for Harwich, whom he was glad now to see in his place. Hon. Members seemed to think that the great objects for which the Controller-in-Chief was appointed had been abandoned; that he had been deprived of all the power which he ought to possess, and that an element of financial control had been introduced into the Administration. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire complained of the extravagance of the present system. But that was precisely one of the reasons why the Government had adopted this great change, in the hope of introducing economy. The noble Lord went on to say that the hopes which had boon entertained and the prospects which had been held out were all dashed to the ground by the Papers which had been laid upon the table, and that instead of the Controller-in-Chief performing the functions for which he was appointed the Controller was himself to be controlled. He challenged his noble Friend, who bad laid down these opinions without the slightest argument or proof in their
  942
  support, to point out to him in what part of these Papers there was anything to show that Sir Henry Storks had been interfered with or subjected to undue control. Now, in answer to what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Harwich and Oxfordshire, he might say that Sir Henry Storks was strongly of opinion that the Controller-in-Chief ought not to be an Under Secretary of State. Sir Henry Storks also fully admitted that constitutionally whoever held the office of Controller-in-Chief must be and ought to be subjected to financial control and check. Now, a great deal had been said about the Estimates, and the hon. and gallant Member for Truro had alluded to the impolicy of taking out of the hands of the Controller-in-Chief the preparation of the Estimates of his Department. But no such proposal had been made. The word employed in these Estimates was not to "prepare" but to "compile" the Estimates, as the following passage would show:—
  "Their Lordships think it should be the duty of the Finance Department to compile the Estimates of all army expenditure, as hitherto."
  The Estimates had always been prepared by the different Departments to which they related, and it was not now intended to alter the present system in that respect. Unless, therefore, it was laid down—a principle that the noble Lord distinctly avoided—that the Controller-in-Chief was to be, as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro said, absolute in the War Office, unless he was to have higher authority than even the Secretary of State himself—["No, no!'']—it was impossible to allow him to prepare Estimates which were to be subject to no financial examination whatever, because it was clearly laid down in these Papers that the financial officer should not upon his own authority be at liberty to veto any proposal. The whole power, beyond preparing the Estimates of his own Department, would be in the hands of the Secretary of State alone, and the financial officer would have no more than the power which the financial officer ought to have of examining the financial results and the financial effects of the plans brought forward in the particular department. In following the speeches of hon. Members he had been struck with their declamatory nature—["No, no !"]—with the sort of general objections urged against these Papers, those objections being unsupported by anything like argument. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel

  943
  North), for instance, had compared the position of Sir Henry Storks to that of a waiter.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had not stated that the position of Sir Henry Storks was like that of a waiter. What he had said was that his position resembled that in which the two kings of Brentford found themselves—that there was another on an equality with himself, and that it was utterly impossible that such distinguished officers as Sir Henry Storks could he induced to submit to such a position.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman maintained that the Controller-in-Chief was in that position, all he could say was that that was not his opinion. His hon. and gallant Friend laboured under a great misapprehension, and he, for one, would not have been a party to those Regulations if he had thought for one moment that they would have affected the high, distinguished, and powerful position which the Controller-in-Chief, whether that Controller-in-Chief were Sir Henry Storks or any one else, did and ought to occupy to enable him to carry out the important duties intrusted to him; but he could not help feeling that the view taken by his hon. Friend behind him was one which tended unduly to exaggerate the position in which the Controller-in-Chief ought constantly to be placed. When, however, ho was asked if Sir Henry Storks had not written out his resignation, and whether that resignation had only been withdrawn at his earnest request, nil he could say was that this was the first he had heard of it, and he did not believe that Sir Henry Storks would at this moment abandon the very important duty which he had undertaken, and which now appeared likely to be soon brought to a successful completion. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had remarked that it had been intended to introduce this system into Ireland on the 1st of April, and that that had not yet been done. That was so, but it arose from the fact that before they could attempt to introduce and bring into actual operation this great and mighty change it was necessary to consult the Treasury. There had been a good deal of correspondence on the subject, and he could not think that it was a matter for great surprise that in so great and important a change as this the Departments of the State interested should have time for con-6ideration. When, however, his noble
  944
  Friend (Lord Elcho) said that on the Army Estimates again coming before the House he should move that this introduction should be made forthwith, he could only tell him that on the previous day Sir Henry Storks had said to him, "I suppose when the debates in the House of Commons are over it will be introduced immediately." It would, he could assure his noble Friend, be introduced as soon as it was constitutionally possible to do so. He would, in conclusion, ask the House calmly to consider whether they ought not rather to look at the great magnitude of the change they were now seeking to introduce, than be too apt, as some of his hon. Friends had been, to find fault with comparatively minute and petty details of the scheme. It had been no easy matter to take five different departments, hitherto under five separate heads, and place them under one person; and though such a change would, he fully believed, tend to greater efficiency and economy, it was impossible to carry out such a scheme without some of the details being exposed, with more or less justice, to the criticisms of these who felt an interest in the subject. The great object, however, was to start the scheme, and if the House would now give it their sanction, as he trusted they would, a great improvement would in his belief have been effected in our system of administration.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was disheartening to one who, like himself, thought the proposed change would be conducive to good administration, to find that speeches on the subject had been delivered to an audience consisting at one time of only thirteen Members, nine of whom were soldiers, two officials, and two independent civilians. But however disheartening this might be, he would venture to offer a few words on the subject. And in doing so he was speaking under considerable disadvantage, because, in one sense, this was essentially a question of detail, and some of the most important Papers were really not placed before the House. The Royal Warrant of the 28th of April was the subject of a long Paper by the Treasury, and that important Letter was by accident omitted to be published. The other Papers did not touch some of the questions raised by the Treasury; and it was very embarrassing not to have the real facts before them, but to have to dig them out from letters which only answered the express proposal and to go back to Lord

  945
  Strathnairn's Committee, and by that process to know what was the real controversy. One part of the omission had been amusingly made up by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), who told the House of a conversation he had had with Members of the Government, in which lie informed them the best thing they could do was to resign. This was like his noble Friend's story in the Reform debates of 1866, when ho described his own proposal to resign with the right hon. Member for Calne on Lord Aberdeen's Reform Bill. His noble Friend appeared very fond of these harmless resigning conspiracies. Having, however, a sincere respect for the two gentlemen, he trusted that they would persevere, in which case they could not fail to render the country very important service. In this case he did not look forward to the disastrous consequences apprehended by the noble Lord. He had a right to take some interest in this subject, because the original appointment of Lord Strathnairn's Committee was made on the recommendation of the Treasury when he was Secretary. A proposal of the War Office of a limited kind came before the Treasury; but, instead of carrying out the inquiry in detail in a particular part of the country, the Treasury, feeling the deep importance of going to the root of the matter, saw that the application of the principle in question must go a great deal further, and bring up the whole question of there-organization of the army. Accordingly, on the 6th of January, 1866, he wrote a letter to the War Office, the result of which was the appointment of Lord Strathnairn's Committee. But the Instructions to that Committee, dated the 29th of June, 1866, distinctly referred only to the arrangements in regard to stores, military train, and transport. The great object of the Committee was to inquire to what extent a combination of the non-combatant Departments in regard to the matters referred to them could be carried out. But the proposal to swallow up, in the new Controller's Department, all the financial check now exercised by an office, subordinate to the Secretary of State for that purpose, was made by the eminent military officers on the Commission, unasked. With regard to the details of the financial control system as now suggested by the Treasury he confessed he could not understand the precise difference between the two parties. Of course he did not treat as party to the
  946
  controversy his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) whose ideas of financial regulation were probably shared by no one, in or out of the House. It was impossible to argue with with anyone who imagined seriously that the Treasury was simply an Office for auditing the Public Accounts. As to the noble Lord's scheme, if they wanted to have financial confusion, extravagance, and bankruptcy, the best way of securing it was to leave everything to the Departments, and say that the Treasury should have no control over the expenditure. No one who had any knowledge of the administration of our finances would deny that it was absolutely necessary that the expenditure of the various Departments should be checked by financial officers independent of administrative officers. The House would entirely throw away its power over its public Departments if it acceded to the views of the noble Lord. As to the control over the military expenditure, and to the confusion being due to the existence of too many checks, he would remind the House that during the Peninsular War there was a greater civilian check over the War Office expenditure than there had been since, and that the Minister who exercised that check, Lord Palmerston, was a civilian, not a Secretary of State, or even a Member of the Cabinet. Whatever faults existed in our army administration at that period, the check on the expenditure was certainly satisfactory, and nobody would then have thought of laying down the doctrine of undivided control of the military expenditure which had been advanced to-night. As to the arrangements of France and India, they pointed in a direction quite opposite to the conclusions of those who resisted a proper check on military expenditure. In France the War Office was divided into several Departments, and the Department of Finance was perfectly distinct from that of Administration, and embraced almost exactly the duties which were proposed to be assigned to the Financial Under Secretary. With regard to India, he had before him the valuable evidence given before Lord Strathnairn's Committee by General Balfour, to whom, with General Jameson, the present efficient organization of the Indian army was so largely owing. At first there was a Military Finance Commission, and this resulted in a Military Financial Department; General Balfour being at the head of it. Its functions were to examine into all

  947
  sources of military expenditure, and control all permanent and contingent military expenses; while at the same time it was not to interfere with the functions of the local governments, of the established military authorities, or the executive heads of the several branches of the service. The Military Finance Commission and Military Finance Department were expressly founded on the principle that they were not to have executive or administrative functions, their sole duty being to examine, check, and control the expenditure and the arrangements made by the responsible military officers. If India, therefore, was an example, and General Balfour an authority, we ought to follow the system which had there succeeded so admirably, und have a control exercised over the expenditure entirely distinct from the executive control. He did not wish to enter into the important question whether the proposal now made by the War Office and the Treasury could be deemed a final one, and whether it would set at rest all the disadvantages under which the War Office laboured. He was inclined to think that the War Office would require further and gradual improvements before it was brought into an efficient stale. He entirely agreed with Sir Charles Trevelyan that the financial duties of the War Office were too great to be entrusted to an Assistant Under Secretary; and that as now proposed the nominal Under Secretaries would soon have nothing to do. All this pointed to questions as to the Horse Guards, which lie should not now touch. As to the question of audit, he would warn hon. Members against supposing that an external audit was a very simple matter. It was quite impossible that everything could be audited by a department outside the Military Department. There must be a certain amount of detailed audit inside as well as an independent audit outside, and our policy ought to be to draw the line between the two at the proper point. He believed it was not so drawn now, for the simple appropriation audit to which the Controller and Auditor General was now confined was not sufficient, and it must be carried much further with respect to voucher and authority. Still he was sure that the entire audit of military accounts could not be carried out efficiently and cheaply by a department outside the War Office, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would pause before adopting such a Resolution. On the whole he would repeat that the
  948
  relations between the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief were of a very delicate nature, and if the present organization1 of the former was too violently interfered with without dealing with the Horse Guards we might bring upon ourselves much greater difficulties than those now confronting us. Many people looked forward to the time when we might have a simple and uniform system, under which all the executive functions of the War Office and the Horse Guards would be concentrated, and, those functions being so concentrated, there would be no difficulty in organizing a simple financial check upon them. The decision come to by the War Office and Treasury was, on the whole, the best that could be come to under the circumstances, having regard to its being beyond doubt only a make-shift, in view of far more important changes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he had heard with surprise that officers returning home from Abyssinia had been deprived of their travelling allowance. He had given Notice to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that officers returning home on account of wounds or diseases contracted in Her Majesty's service shall be deprived of the usual travelling allowance."
  He did not wish to trouble the House with a formal Motion; but he hoped he should have from the Secretary for War an assurance that officers returning home should no longer be deprived of this allowance.

  ARMY—INCREASE OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the Secretary for War replies to the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, I should like to introduce one other subject to the notice of the Committee, as this may be the last appropriate opportunity of doing so this Session. Two months ago the Secretary for War made some observations regarding the expenditure of the present Government, and accompanied them by an attack upon the administration of the late Government. The right hon. Baronet referred principally to the increases in the Votes for Men and for Armaments, and the effect of his observa-

  949
  tions was to give currency to an impression that the increase which the present Government found it necessary to propose had been brought about, at least to some extent, by the negligence and parsimony of the late Government. Respecting the first item the right hon. Baronet said, "Look at the state in which you left the ranks and look at their state now." But I deny the late Government was negligent in this matter. In the first place the House will remember that the two or three years before the late Government left Office were most trying to the recruiting staff. Many of the men who enlisted at the time of the Crimean War were claiming their discharge, so that a great want of troops suddenly arose, and this unfortunately occurred at a time when employment was plentiful, and when men were consequently scarce. The Government considered its position in the light of this extraordinary combination of circumstances, and concluded it would not be wise to take immediate steps to meet the difficulty; they were especially unwilling to resort to offers of increased pay or larger bounty, and thinking the whole subject of sufficient importance, they referred it to a Royal Commission. These being the facts of the case, I do not see that the increased expenditure which has been incurred by the Government on account of the men can fairly be attributed to the negligence or parsimony of the late Government. Now, respecting the armament, the right hon. Baronet has said on one or two occasions—and he has been supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel)—that the late Government did next to nothing in the shape of armaments. I have explained the policy of the late Government on this head already; I have asserted the late Government provided fortifications only for those forts it was absolutely necessary to arm, and I maintain the late Government acted wisely in this respect; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman confesses as much himself in the speech to which I allude. He said he could not give the late Government credit for knowing' what was likely to occur, and he held that the fortunate result was perfectly accidental and could not be put down to prescience. But is it possible that at the time when the controversy between Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth was going on, when the 7-inch gun was being tried against the 9-inch, and when the best method of rifling was as yet un-
  950
  decided—is it possible those who were superintending those inquiries could have been unaware that we were still far from perfection in the construction of heavy armaments? We all knew in those days that while we could make an efficient and expensive gun it was probable that in the next year we should be able to make a better gun at less cost, and that in the following year greater perfection and greater economy would most probably be secured. We have been told it would be necessary to spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 oil that item. I should be very glad to hear what are the details of that Estimate; but, taking the calculations made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is impossible to discover how that estimate has been arrived at. He says it will be necessary to provide 1,000 heavy guns, and about 3,000 guns of lighter construction. Assuming that it would be necessary to arm the forts with 1,000 large guns, I think that estimate was made when guns were made smaller than they are now, and that a fewer number of our present large guns would suffice. I presume the right hon. Gentleman would say that it would not be necessary for those large guns to be on an average of a larger calibre than nine inches. I suppose that some other guns, 7-inch or 8-inch, will be necessary; but I think we shall not be wrong in taking the average as 9-inch. Nine-inch guns could be made for about £800 each, and 1,000 of them would therefore cost £800,000; and doubling that sum for carriages and ammunition the total cost would be £1,600,000. A furthersum of £1,200,000 for the smaller guns would raise that total to £2,800,000, and he was curious to know how the right hon. Gentleman had doubled that already sufficiently large Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has said, "Look at the state in which you left the breech-loaders. The late Government have done nothing with regard to breech-loaders." I think that assertion hardly justified. I will remind the House very briefly what has been done. Two years before the accession of the present Government to Office the late Government appointed a Committee which decided in the first place that breechloaders ought to be introduced into the army. That may not seem much but at that time there was great difference of opinion on the subject among military men. That Committee having decided in favour of breech-loaders, the late Government instituted an inquiry as to the best mode

  951
  of converting muzzle-loaders into breechloaders. The result was that no system was presented to them which was entirely satisfactory. But experiments were conducted under the orders of the late Government which resulted in the adoption of Mr. Snider's method, and in the perfection of the cartridge which bears the name of Colonel Boxer. In moving the Estimates of 1866 I was able to state that 40,000 muzzle-loaders would be converted that year. Now, what is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? He has said, if reported correctly, which I can hardly believe, that we had only converted eighteen or nineteen, but had ordered 40,000 to be converted, whereas my successor undertook to convert 200,000 by machinery, at the cost of a £1 apiece. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that circumstances had made it necessary in his opinion that conversion should go on faster than we had intended, he stated that there was nothing in the conduct of the late Government which he could find fault with. Now, the eighteen or nineteen muzzle-loaders that were converted were only intended as samples; we had resolved to convert 40,000, and all that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon did was to increase the number that was to be converted in the Small Arms Factory and also to be made by the trade. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had shown that it cost £1,300 to test a 9-inch gun but that was a process which was seldom resorted to, and then only to test the endurance of any new gun which might be adopted. The Estimates which I had the honour of moving in 1866 amounted to £14,095,000; the Estimates of this year amount to £15.455,000, showing an increase of £1,360,000. Vote 1, which is the Vote for Pay of the Men, has been increased 'within these two years by £387,000; Votes 12 and 13, which bear the whole expenditure of the Manufacturing Departments have been increased by £98,000; making an increase under these heads of £485,000. Therefore, on a total increase of £1,360,000. only £485,000 are duo to the increase under both these heads; and therefore the total expenditure on the army in two years has been increased at the rate of 9 per cent, while on these two Votes the increase has been only 7 per cent. Now, it is impossible for me, or for any independent Member of Parliament, to go through the Votes and say what Votes
  952
  have been unduly increased. On the contrary, I think that, when there is not one Vote in the Army Estimates which has not been increased, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and show the House what the necessity was for that increase. I say it is impossible for independent Members to criticize the Votes in detail, or to say where reductions might be made, because we have not got the information. There is only one Vote in which I could say that there has been a perfectly unnecessary increase and that is the Militia Vote. There is one thing about which no complaint has been made, and that is as to the number of men in the Militia and Volunteers, and yet there has been a very large increase in the Militia Vote. That increase has been due to these two circumstances—the pay of the Militia has been raised 2d. a day, in my opinion a perfectly unnecessary and wasteful increase; and in the next place the right hon. Gentleman has raised the Militia establishment from two-thirds, at which a great many of the regiments stood for some years, to the full establishment. I think, and a great many Militia officers agree with me, that 1,000 men is a greater number than it is possible to train within a period of eight weeks. If they were in garrison it would be a different thing. It may be said that this increase of the Militia establishment is part of the Reserve plan; but it is no part of the plan of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon. I have reason to believe that whenever an emergency arose it would be easy to get as many men as would be required; and therefore I say that this increase of the Militia establishment is perfectly unnecessary. As I have said before, it is impossible for independent Members to go through every Vote in detail; but I have made these few remarks because the statement of the right hon. Gentlemen has led to the impression that the increase in the expenditure was due to parsimony of the late Government.
  GENTERAL PEEL: I came down here with great curiosity to know how my noble Friend) the Marquess of Hartington) was to justify that address which he has made to his constituents—in which he has said that the present Government have greatly raised the Army Estimates without securing increased efficiency—while ho is prepared to maintain that the Government to which he belonged maintained the army in efficiency with an expenditure much less

  953
  than that which is now incurred. Now, there can be no graver accusation brought against a Government than an increase of Estimates without a corresponding increase of efficiency. As I am responsible for much that has been done, I wish to say a few words. If the Army was in that state of efficiency which my noble Friend wishes us to believe, why was it necessary in 1866, before any of those events occurred on the Continent, which made nations look to their defences, that my noble Friend should appoint a Royal Commission—to do what? Why, to ascertain how it was that they could not get the men they wanted. If the army was in the state of efficiency he describes, why was the late Government called upon to appoint a Commission? Of whom did that Commission consist? There were five politicians upon it. Among the Members were Lord Dalhousie, Viscount Eversley, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and the hon. Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly) sitting on the other side of the House, and the subject of recruiting was not the only point on which they reported. Another question referred to them was how we were to obtain an Army of Reserve. Then, again, will my noble Friend say that the army was in a state of efficiency when it had not enough men, when it had no Army of Reserve, and when it was armed with muzzle-loaders? Does he imagine that he could provide the army with breech-loaders without an increase of expenditure? As to the additional 2d. a day which was given to the troops, I do not believe there is a man in or out of this House who grudges this addition. The House will bear in mind that in 1867, in addition to the ordinary casualties amounting to more than 50,000, there were 22,000 men entitled to their discharge—not, as my noble Friend supposes, on account of the recruiting which went on during the Crimean War, but of the second battalions raised during the Indian Mutiny. I can tell you that these men were waiting to know what you would do for them; and if you had not added then to the pay of the army, every one of them would have taken his discharge. Do not therefore let it go forth, just before a General Election, that the present Government were extravagant in increasing the Estimates, whereas the late Government reduced their Estimates, at the same time maintaining the efficiency of the army. But then my noble Friend says, "Were not your Estimates in-
  954
  creased?" No doubt they were, and why? Because you made wrong calculations from beginning to end. There was a deficiency in the first seven of your Votes to the amount of no less than £300,000. Then, says my noble Friend, "Why increase the number of the Militia?" Because this arose out of the recommendation of your own Royal Commission. Instead of 40,000 breech-loaders, as you proposed, the supply to the troops was raised to 200,000. If this had not been done, not only would you not have been able to send them to Canada, but I doubt whether your troops in Abyssinia would have been supplied with them. If the Government are accused of extravagance on account of this extra expenditure, I question whether the country will find fault with it. I have no personal interest in this matter. It is not my intention to go into Parliament again; but I warn the noble Lord that, so far from finding fault with increased Estimates, if he comes into Office again he will probably have to increase them still further. With regard to the fortifications and their armaments, the noble Lord says that under the late Administration these were proceeding gradually. Yes, they certainly were—very gradually. The Fortification Vote is not one for which the present Government is responsible. You had planned the fortifications, and you did not provide a single gun for them. Surely, my noble Friend does not pretend to say that all this can be done without an increased expenditure? At any rate, when he declares that the late Government were excessively economical, and the present Government excessively extravagant, I agree with him, that the country must judge between us.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am sorry to have to add anything to the not very long, but very effective speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel). But the noble Marquess referred so directly to me, especially in connection with a speech made by me in this House, that I must be allowed a few words in reply. In addressing his constituents the noble Lord says that under the present Administration the Army Estimates have been largely increased, and he is prepared to maintain that, while under their predecessors the military expenditure gradually decreased, the efficiency of the army was in no degree diminished. Now, I do not wish to make any unfair imputations; but it is difficult to read this extract without coming to the conclusion with my right hon. and

  955
  gallant Friend that there seems to be some desire to impress the country with the idea that, while the late Government was extremely careful, the present Government was extremely extravagant, In justice to the present Government I must state distinctly that I do not think the noble Lord has it in his power to justify that address. There has been no extravagance on the part of the present Government, and, moreover, I maintain there has been no increase of Estimates which the noble Lord himself would not have been obliged to adopt if he had remained in Office, and a change of Government had not occurred. He says to his constituents that under the late Government the efficiency of the array was in no degree diminished. Well, but our object was that the efficiency of the army should be increased, and that efficiency could not be increased until, in some way or another, breech-loaders were supplied to the army. That is, in fact, the question of the hour. With regard to the speech which the noble Lord criticized, he was unable to establish anything like inaccuracy in it; and lie admitted the truth of my statement that when he went out of I Office there were only 20,000 or 30,000 breech-loaders, made by hand, at a large expense. I do not mean to say that he was going to provide the whole army with them at that rate of expenditure. But that was the state of things which compelled my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) to increase our expenditure upon that item. The noble Lord says that I accused the late Government of negligence and undue parsimony. I made no such charge. The speech to which he refers was not made as an attack upon the late Government. It was made because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), without any notice, assailed the Estimates of the present Government, using harsh language, and declaring that our conduct respecting the Estimates was a subject of discredit and dispraise. Surely, the House will admit that, although I had no notice whatever of that attack, it was my duty to vindicate the Government as far as I could, and in doing so I referred to the fact which the noble Lord has entirely admitted, that it is to the present Government and the administration of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) that the credit was due of providing the army with those breech-loaders, which were indispensable to their efficiency, and which of course could not be provided
  956
  without an increased charge. But let me deal with the statements of the noble Lord a little more closely; and as the noble Lord gave me private notice of his intention to mention the subject I am able to do so. Let us see the amount of the Army Estimates for the last five years. In 1863–4 they had risen to the large sum of £15,000,000. The noble Lord boasts that the late Government gradually decreased them. Well, in 1864–5 they were decreased by £200,000—I give the round numbers. In 1865–6 there was a further decrease of £500,000. 1866–7 was the last year in which the noble Lord prepared the Estimates, and they were then £14,340,000. In the summer of that year there was a change of Government, and what was the first act of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel)? It was to ask the House to assent to an increased expenditure of £245,000 in order to effect that great object of providing the army with breech-loaders. Including that expenditure, the Estimates stood at £14,340,000. In 1867–8 the Estimates were prepared by my right hon. and gallant Friend; but it devolved upon me early in the year to undertake the administration of this Department. Well, that is the only year in which there was an increase of Estimates. And what was it? It amounted to £912,000, and I can account to within Is. for that increase, so as to show that the present Government are not open to the charge of extravagance. The main cause of the increase was the addition of 2d. to the pay of the Army, wisely proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend. He adopted this plan in deference to the Report of the Royal Commission, which, under the pressure of absolute necessity, from want of men and difficulty in recruiting, was appointed by the noble Lord opposite. The Commission advised certain modes of improving the condition of the soldier. It was thought advisable to improve their rations, to give them certain articles of clothing, and in various ways improve their condition. But my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) said, "If you want to improve the condition of the soldier, and tempt a better class of men into the Army, give more money;" and he decided on giving the soldier an extra 2d. a day. What would have been the financial result if the plan of the Commission had been carried out? Would there have been any economy? No, Sir; I believe that if my right hon. and gallant

  957
  Friend, instead of taking the course he did, had carried-out the recommendations of the Commission, the financial result would have been an expenditure far larger than that occasioned by adding 2d. a day to the pay of the soldier. This addition of 2d. accounts for nearly one-half of the £912,000 increase in the Estimates of that year, and I have a statement of the items which constitute the other half. They are as follows:—Furlough pay, £20,600; increased pay to medical officers under the Medical Warrant, £18,000; unavoidable expenses caused by the extent to which recruiting was resorted to on account of the number of "expired" men which fell within the year, £69,500; increased cost of provisions and forage, £92,700; the taking over of the Straits' Settlements, £76,000; additional charges in connection with Ceylon, £32,000; additional charges for Australia, £20.000; biennial extra issues of clothing, £67,000; and headdresses of Cavalry and Artillery issued quadriennially, £11,300, making a total for clothing of £79,100; leap year, £24,700; miscellaneous charges (including £14,800 for rewards to inventors, £19,600 on account of contagious diseases, and £13,000 for the hospital ship at Hong Kong), £47,400; capitation grant to Volunteers, £15,800; retired full pay of non-effective infantry, artillery, and engineers, £12,040; and out pensions (higher pensions being on an average granted to men on discharge), £9,000; all these items making a grand total of £516,240. These items and the extra 2d. give an inconsiderable amount beyond the difference between the Estimates of the two years. I hope the statement will satisfy the House that the noble Lord has no right, either in Lancashire or here, to accuse the present Government of having indulged in extravagant Estimates, I have shown that the Estimates must have been submitted by himself if he had remained in Office, and that there is really no ground for the charge he has made. Referring to the Estimates of the probable expenditure to which the country sooner or later must be put in order to arm our fortifications with proper guns, the noble Lord alluded to this passage in my speech—
  "According to the calculation of scientific men competent to give an opinion on the subject, it will be necessary, in order to arm the fortifications which are being constructed, to provide 1,044 additional guns of largo calibre—12-inch, 9-inch, and 7-inch guns—and also 2,600 guns of a lighter character. The right hon. Gentleman, says
  958
  that if a change of Government occurs the future Government must effect a large reduction of expenditure. Now any future Government must and ought to endeavour to effect every economy consistent with the efficiency of the public service; but I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will not be prepared to contend that we are to leave the fortifications of this country without guns in them. It is the duty of the Government to arm these fortifications; and this aggregate number of 3,500 guns of large and small calibre, indispensable as they are for the safety and protection of the country, cannot be manufactured under an expenditure of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000."—[3 Hansard, exci. 1753.]
  The noble Lord says this is an exaggerated calculation. In his Estimate the noble Lord brought up the cost of these guns to £3,000,000. I will not enter into the question whether the noble Lord is right or I am; but I made my statement after reference to the most competent authorities. I must remind the noble Lord that not only will a number of guns be required for the new fortifications in progress, but a number of guns will be required on account of the changes in the armament of our fortresses in all parts of the world. With regard to the cost of testing guns, about which my statement was said to be inaccurate, the fact is my figures greatly understated the cost. I believe they were correct as to the 9-inch guns, to which I referred, and the testing of which cost £1,300. With guns of a large calibre the expense is much greater; and since I made my speech I have been informed that in one case the cost was between £2,000 and £3,000; but that applies not to every gun, but to new patterns as they are invented. Therefore, I think that in that speech I did not make any exaggerated statements, and the noble Lord was not justified in casting the imputation ho did on the present Government. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), I must decline to produce a copy of the censure passed by the Horse Guards upon an officer of the Grenadier Guards. We are fortunate in having at the head of the army a most efficient Commander-in-Chief, to whom no one will be inclined to attribute undue severity; and it would be a most dangerous precedent as affecting the discipline of the army to lay on the table such a document as that referred to. In answer to the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien,) who has brought forward a case of promotion in the Coldstream Guards, I have to state that it appears to me that what I have

  959
  already said on that subject is correct, and that the Commander-in-Chief has exercised a sound discretion with regard to it. With reference to the Question about travelling allowances to officers on sick leave, the House will naturally suppose that there is an individual case in point of an officer who came home on sick leave; and he was not in strictness, under the warrant, entitled to the particular allowances that were refused him.
  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.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,291,400, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £200,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the Charge for Military Store Departments, for the supply and repair of Warlike and other Stores, including Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1868 to the 31st day of March 1869, inclusive."
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he had on a former occasion gone into this question at some length, and therefore he would not trouble the House farther than to say that they had no information whatever how this Vote was to be applied. Much had been said about army control; but the fact was that the House had no control whatever over the Manufacturing Departments. They had no information before them as to what would be the result of this addition to the plant of the Department. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by £43,442, the sum required for new machinery. He would divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONappealed to his lion, and gallant Friend not to press his Motion to a division. It was a mistake to suppose that this sum of £43,442 was required for the purpose of extending the operations of the manufacturing establishments. These operations would not be extended, and, indeed, he shared in the opinion of his hon. and gallant Friend that to a considerable extent, at all events, we ought to obtain our supplies of stores by contract with private firms. The explanation of the increase was that it was caused by such items as these—That in the Gun Carriage Department iron bad been substituted for wood in the manufac-
  960
  ture of the carriages; in the Gun Factory a new forge was wanted, and there were numerous alterations in the Royal Laboratory, in the Small Arms Department, and in the Gunpowder Department. After making this explanation, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion.
  GENERAL DUNNEinquired whether a gun of any heavy calibre had been fixed on for arming the fortifications now in course of construction; and whether any changes in the field gun now in use had been adopted for the army? The late military Government—if it could be termed a Government'—did nothing in regard to this matter; they had left the service practically unarmed, while other European nations were adopting improvements; and he wished to know whether we were still in a state of transition, or whether any definite conclusion had been at length arrived at?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not aware that any change had been made with respect to field guns. Fortification guns were of various sizes, including some very large ones. The question of small arms was still under the consideration of a Committee, which ho hoped would present its Report before the close of the year.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he had always been opposed to the increase of our manufacturing establishments, as he believed that they checked private enterprize, which would supply the country better than these public departments. The question he wished now to press upon his light hon. Friend was this—Had he yet come to a definite conclusion with respect to the guns that were to be adopted? If not, ho thought the hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson) would do right to press his Amendment, because they might soon be called upon to vote money for a different article than that they were now using.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, it was clear that if this sum of £43,000 were granted for improved machinery, the result must be an extension of the manufacturing establishments, unless, indeed, a corresponding quantity of the old machinery were thrown out of use.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONexplained that, although the Government had no intention of extending the operations of the manufacturing establishments, yet they desired to render them as efficient as possible by the introduction of new machinery. In answer to his hon. and gallant friend

  961
  (Colonel Barttelot) he had already explained that they were now manufacturing guns for fortifications of various calibres and sizes.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, the articles manufactured in the public Departments amounted to £200,000, while those furnished by private enterprize amounted only to £10,000. This was not sufficient inducement to the private manufacturers to cause a competition. He was convinced that the only way to stop the Government making such an unaccountable expenditure as that proposed in this Vote was by taking the sense of the House by a vote on the subject.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not persevere in dividing the Committee, because if he did so he would fail in securing the object he had in view. It had been distinctly stated that the money was only required to alter and improve, and not to extend the machinery establishments of the Government. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that if the Government establishments were conducted on the same principles as those on which private workshops were managed, the keeping up of existing machinery would come into the profit and loss of the year. He thought that the present discussion showed how deceptive were all the statements made respecting Government manufactures, and the sooner these establishments were dropped the better.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had read the Report of the Committee which on this question sat two years ago, he would have seen that a very minute investigation was made by that Committee, and that very careful calculations then showed that ordnance was manufactured at Woolwich at considerably less cost than in the works of private manufacturers, for this reason—that private manufacturers would not turn their attention to making breech-loading guns and other articles only used for military purposes without having a reasonable certainty that there would be a continued demand for them. Now, the Government could give no guarantee on the subject, because they could not anticipate what might be required at a future time.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he had studied the Report of the Committee referred to by the right hon. Gentleman; but all he could derive from it was the conclusion
  962
  that it was utterly impossible to make out whether there was a profit or a loss, be badly were the accounts of the Manufacturing Departments kept under the existing system. With regard to what bad been said about the private trade not turning their attention to the manufacture of guns and gun-carriages, he thought that fact was to be attributed to our keeping up those establishments. Why was it that ours was the only Government which did not go to the private trade for such articles? If we went to them they would turn their attention to the manufacture of guns and gun-carriages suited for the artillery. Sir Benjamin Hawes stated, in his evidence, that the private trade of the country had never had a fair chance, in consequence of the large establishments being provided.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,247,958, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £200,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the Charge for Military Store Departments, for the supply and repair of Warlike and other Stores, including Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1868 to the 31st day of March 1869, inclusive."—(Major Anson.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 100: Majority 69.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £119,300, to complete the sum for Military Education.
  (3.) £93,600, to complete the sum for Surveys.
  MR. CHILDERSdoubted the necessity of increasing the sum annually voted for this purpose.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwished to know how long the survey was to continue?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that it was so steadily going on that it would take sixteen years to complete it.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEalso deprecated any increase, remarking that it was a practice on the part of Governments always to increase the Votes, though, when not in power, they were fond of complaining that their opponents were not economical in their proposals.
  GENERAL DUNNEobserved, that the increase was principally for civil assistants, and preparation of maps for civil purposes.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that this Department, though originally established for a temporary purpose, figured year after year in the Estimates for a very large sum, and

  963
  much money had been wasted in this survey, inasmuch as the results it had produced might have been attained at a much smaller outlay. It had already cost something like £2,000,000; on amount enormously exceeding what the French paid for their survey, which was as good or better. It was, perhaps, too late in the Session to propose to dwell at any length on the subject; but a new Parliament would, he trusted, see that the public money was not expended in so ill-considered and extravagant a manner as it was at present. He thought that the Estimate should not form part of the Army Votes, but should be placed to a separate account, and then proper attention would be given to it. In his opinion the increase proposed was unnecessary. The cost of engraving the survey was excessive; and if a Committee were granted to inquire into the whole conduct of the Department—though it was too late in the Session now to hope for such a thing—he believed it would be found that at least half the present cost of the Ordnance Survey could be saved. In fact, the surveying, the engraving, and the commercial parts of the business were all ill-managed, while the Director General also had the most unlimited and uncontrolled power.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONvindicated the Department which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) had impugned, and also the distinguished man at its head, who, he said, was carrying out an important work in a manner which everyone Ought to approve.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was glad if the advanced period of the Session had prevented the hon. Member (Mr. Wyld) from moving for another Committee, because that question of the Ordnance Survey had suffered greatly through the alternate hot and cold fits which that House had exhibited on the subject. In consequence of an objection taken some years ago to the scale of the survey by the late Mr. Ellice, a full inquiry was instituted, and the Committee came to the deliberate conclusion that the survey was both based on sound principles and was being admirably conducted. The survey was executed not only most accurately, but economically; and he was told that at the present moment a Prussian officer, a good authority on such a subject, who had come to this country, was surprised to find that so perfect a survey had been carried out so cheaply.
  MR. KNIGHTcomplained that the maps
  964
  of certain counties were fallacious and untrustworthy. They ought to have a correct map which, if they wanted to lay out a road, would be of some use to them, which was not the case at present. He hoped there would be no stinginess or any undue delay in supplying that desideratum.
  GENERAL DUNNEbore testimony to the general accuracy of the maps of Ireland produced by the Ordnance Department. He himself did not see the great advantage of the very large survey, except for the towns. It was maps on this large scale that would answer for plans for railways projected, and ordinary maps for the purposes of owners of property; but it must be recollected that for the former more accurate levels than those given on the largest Ordnance maps were requisite, and in the latter that changes of boundary and other objects were so frequent that even on the Irish maps, not many years published, great changes in the face of the country would be seen; but of course, if one part of the country was surveyed upon the large scale, they could hardly avoid executing the remainder of the work in the same uniform manner. The delay, however, had arisen very much from the adoption of the large scale.
  LORD ELCHOtestified to the great accuracy of the Ordnance maps of Scotland; and pointed out that the length of time occupied in completing the survey of the whole kingdom depended on the amount of money which Parliament was ready to vote for the purpose. The calculation, he believed, had been that the entire work in England and Scotland would be executed in fifteen years with a grant of £100,000 a year.
  MR. BOUVERIEthought that if by an additional outlay the result would be attained of having the work thoroughly done it would be a great advantage to the country. He had himself known large estates to be transferred by means of those maps, the map of the district being attached to the transfer.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he hoped that no false economy would stand in the way of the extensive circulation of these maps. They would become a source of national wealth.
  COLONEL W. STUARTasked for some explanation as to the medical Bills mentioned in the Vote.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he never heard of a man denying that an Ordnance Survey was a good thing. It appeared to him

  965
  that there was no question before the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, with respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel W. Stuart), that it was scarcely matter for surprise, considering how the officers and men engaged in the survey were dispersed over the country, that they should sometimes want a doctor.
  MR. WYLDcomplained that at the present moment it was impossible to obtain a complete set of these maps in London, and he suggested that the publication of the maps should be transferred to the Stationery Office instead of their having to be got from Southampton.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £102,700, to complete the Bum for Miscellaneous Services.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, it had been the practice of the War Department to reward officers for meritorious inventions. In 1856 Colonel Boxer received £5,000 for some inventions of his, and lately Mr. Fraser had received £5,000. Since 1856 Colonel Boxer had distinguished himself by seven or eight other inventions, and several of them, including the invention of a lubricator for the Armstrong gun, had been found of great service. Pie wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to take his case into consideration, with the view of conferring on him some additional reward?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied that it was not his intention to give any further money reward to Colonel Boxer. He doubted the policy of conferring large money rewards on men in the Government employment for discoveries made in their own particular line, and thought they should rather look to some honorary distinction, or increased emolument in their office. When the Government selected an officer on account of his peculiar personal fitness to discharge the duties of the situation to which he was appointed, they were, he thought, entitled to the full exercise of his professional talents, although he would not go the length of saying that in no case should a grant of money be made. He thought he had taken the last course when he lately offered Colonel Boxer a greatly increased salary.
  GENERAL DUNNEexpressed his concurrence with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend as to the impolicy of giving large money rewards in these cases as a
  966
  general rule, and he felt sure that he also spoke the feelings of the corps of Artillery and Engineers in saying so. They felt that when an officer of a scientific corps was employed in the arsenal or laboratory his talents and inventions were due to the service; the latter ho tried and perfected at the public expense—what could not be done by a private inventor—and the credit he was sure to receive, and such professional advancement as would follow, were the rewards a soldier should look to. The inventions of private manufacturers came under the knowledge of the Government officers, and of rival inventions they had the opportunity for pirating from the inventions they were called on to examine, and as a fact such accusations had been made, but as it was desirable that the latter should be above suspicion he thought that the Secretary for War had wisely determined to give them promotion and encouragement in the way of their profession rather than money rewards.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had heard with regret the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War with reference to rewarding the inventors. The principle had never before been laid down that officers of the Government were not to be rewarded for inventions, and it was not fair that this new principle should be applied in the case of Colonel Boxer without warning. Mr. Fraser had been rewarded with the sum of £5,000. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had offered Colonel Boxer an increase of salary to the amount of £200 or £300; but as Colonel Boxer's appointment would only last two years longer, he would receive no more than £600 from his additional pay if he had accepted the offer. He thought Colonel Boxer had done right in refusing it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he had lately refused an application for another reward made by Mr. Fraser.
  COLONEL JERVIScongratulated the right hon. Baronet on his sudden conversion, foe last year he was not able to convince the right hon. Baronet it was not right to allow officers to take out patents for inventions of a similar character to those on the merits of which they might have to decide.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £154,600, to complete the sum for Administration of the Army.
  LOKD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War to postpone the Vote, in.

  967
  order that he might submit a Motion to the Committee upon the subject.
  MAJOK JERVIScomplained that the salaries of the Controller General and the General in charge of the Reserve Army were not included in this Vote.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire would throw no obstacle in the way of proceeding with the Vote. The subject alluded to by his noble Friend had been very fully and ably discussed, and although the House was not very full at the time, still those who were present were the Gentlemen who were most competent to deal with the matter. He was most anxious not only that the Vote should be taken, but acted upon, in the first instance in Ireland. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) that the salary of the Commander of the Reserve Army was not included in the Vote, he said it was because it would give rise to a good deal of discussion, and it was thought better to take it separately.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, he would like to know whether the Controller General was to rank as an Under Secretary of State?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied in the affirmative.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he could not understand why the system of control should be tried first in Ireland—a subordinate branch—and not at once in the Head Department in Pall Mall. The organization of the Irish Department would not serve as any test of the success of the system proposed, and if anything effectual was to be done there must be a complete and radical change in the present system, which rendered every military Department inefficient.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £13,700, to complete the sum for Rewards for Distinguished Service.
  (7.) £36,000, to complete the sum for Pay of General Officers.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £389,800, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £81,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the Charge for Full Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers, and Half Pay, which will come in course of payment from the first day of April 1868 to the 31st day of March 1869, inclusive."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (8.) £98,000, to complete the sum for "Widows' Pensions, &c
  (9.) £11,800, to complete the sum for Pensions for Wounds.
  (10.) £15.600, to complete the sum for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
  (11.) £839,600, to complete the sum for Out Pensions.
  (12.) £97,200, to complete the sum for Superannuation Allowances.
  (13.) £8,700, to complete the sum for Militia, Yeomanry, Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.
  On Motion for reporting the Resolutions to the House.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he hoped the next Parliament would take up the question of the constitution of the War Department of the country, because if such were done it would be found to be the worst administered and the most expensive part of the public service. The question, moreover, of the relationship between the Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief also required serious consideration.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that at an early period of the Session the question was raised as to whether the Capitation Grant was or was not sufficient. An impression then prevailed that before the close of this Session a Commission would be appointed to decide the question. He had asked the Secretary of State whether he would appoint a Special Commission to ascertain who was right on the question.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not intend to refer the question of increasing the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers to a Commission; but the question would be considered by the Government from time to time with reference to its varying circumstances.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL— [BILL 149.]
(Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Secretary G. Hardy.)
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL— [BILL 149.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, that if any trust which was in debt was not allowed to be renewed for more than one or two years, he was convinced there would be a

  969
  more satisfactory state of things than at present. As long as the present system was continued they would never get rid of the Turnpike Act. He suggested that the Bill should he referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of allowing certain persons to he heard with regard to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Colonel William Stuart,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEdoubted whether any benefit would arise from referring the Bill to a Select Committee at this period of the year; otherwise, he thought it might be advisable to do so. The practice into which the House had gradually fallen upon this subject was very objectionable. Persons had lent money for making turnpike roads, and obtained a lien over the tolls for a certain number of years. He could not conceive anything more clear in principle than that those persons were bound by their bargain for a term of years, and that that bargain affected no other persons whatever. If they had had to deal with individuals, did anyone think that an individual standing in the place of the trust who had entered into a covenant of that kind would have allowed the term to be renewed and the tolls to be continued for the benefit of the other party to the contract who had entered into a wrong bargain? But here the bargain was between an individual, on the one side, and that patient animal the public, on the other. When individual claims came into contact with public rights, they obtained a sanction to which they were not entitled, and the public went to the wall. They had thus got into a difficulty with respect to a series of facts for which the right hon. Gentleman was no more responsible than others who had gone before him; but abuses so gross derived a certain amount of authority from the long lapse of time and the repetition of the oftence. Any proceeding adopted on the impulse of the moment would probably substitute a practical injustice for what was a gross injustice in principle; but he hoped the House would be prepared, when there was time for consideration of the subject, to take some serious proceeding for the settlement
  970
  of the whole question. He knew that the tolls in Lancashire, for instance, were not maintained for the benefit of the public, but simply for the purpose of reimbursing creditors who had advanced their money upon a security which had expired. If there was a case which deserved the application of such epithets as monstrous, it was a case like this. He hoped, therefore, that there would be a consensus amongst official men for the practical examination of these matters, and to consider what, on the whole, was the course that ought to be adopted; and that thus the practice into which the House had probably slidden imperceptibly would be brought to a conclusion, as soon as any fair and legitimate plan for the purpose could be devised.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that all who, like himself, took an interest in the state of turnpike trusts would be happy to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the explanation he had given of his views on the subject. The Turnpike Continuance Act had grown to be considered a matter of course; and at present no less a sum than £400,000 was paid annually under it. A certain indefinite time might be fixed for its termination, and a Schedule of particulars annexed, so that parties connected with the trusts would know at what time they would expire; and he hoped that a measure for this purpose would be introduced next Session.
  MR. NEATEthought that the statement of the case by the light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire a very unjust one. He contended that a limit was fixed in the first instance, not with a view to the discontinuance of the tolls at the end of the period, but in order to give Parliament a power of revision where that might be necessary.
  MR. LOCKEremarked that the invariable plea urged by turnpikes for an extension of the period allowed them was that they were in debt. In all cases where this was alleged strict inquiry ought to be made, because in several instances an investigation had shown that turnpikes which pleaded indebtedness were perfectly solvent.
  MR. KNIGHTreminded the House that 620,000 per annum, which was formerly expended in Private Bills for renewing turnpike trusts, was saved by the present procedure. He hoped that if a Select Committee was appointed all the trusts in the kingdom would be referred to it, and that some solution of the question other

  971
  than that of throwing the roads on the parishes would be arrived at.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that his object in framing the present measure had been to facilitate a settlement of this controversy. He admitted the force of the objection to what was called the secret examination into the trusts at the Home Office, and he had added the Schedules to the Bill with the view of referring them next Session to a Committee, so that the real condition of the trusts might be ascertained, and inquiry might be made as to what ought to be done. There would be great hardship in throwing the maintenance of the roads on small parishes, some of which had comparatively little interest in them. He hoped the House would go into Committee, and he should then consent to reporting Progress.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—New Forest Deer Removal, &c. Act, 1851.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Petit Juries (Ireland)* (231); Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* (229); Metropolitan Police Funds* (230); Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland)* (233); Court of Justiciary (Scotland)* (232); District Church Tithes Act Amendment* (236).
Second Reading—Bankruptcy Act Amendment (208); Uniformity of Public Worship (173), negatived; Entail Amendment (Scotland)* (183); Consular Marriages *(198); Railway Companies* (226); Curragh of Kildare* (195); Land Writs Registration (Scotland)* (213).
Committee—Petroleum Act Amendment* (178); Lee River Conservancy* (140); Artizans'and Labourers' Dwellings* (93); Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment* (202); New Zealand (Legislative Council)* (197); Admiralty Suits* (182); Registration* (218).
Report—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (211); Petroleum Act Amendment* (178); Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment * (202); New Zealand (Legislative Council)* (197); Admiralty Suits* (182); Registration* (218).
Third Reading—Fairs * (228); Representation of the People (Ireland)* (170); County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction * (108); Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (199); Bank of Bombay* (196); County General Assessment (Scotland)* (190); Courts of Law Fees, &c. (Scotland) * (189), and passed.

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OF WALES.

  ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to the Business on the Paper, I beg to move that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, congratulating Her Majesty on the Princess of Wales having given birth to a Princess, and assuring Her Majesty of the deep interest which is felt by the House of Lords in all that concerns the domestic happiness of Her Majesty and her family. I am sure this Address will be cordially adopted by your Lordships, interested as we all are in the domestic happiness of Her Majesty, and grateful as we are to Providence for having preserved the Princess of Wales through this period of trial. I believe, indeed, there is not a person in the country who does not share the same sentiments, for it is impossible that anyone in her high position could have more endeared herself to the nation than Her Royal Highness has done.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty on The Princess of Wales having happily given birth to a Princess, and to assure Her Majesty of the deep Interest felt by the House of Lords in all that concerns the domestic Happiness of Her Majesty and Her Family.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  EARL RUSSELL: I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion; and I am sure all Her Majesty's subjects participate in the congratulation and loyalty expressed in the Address which the noble Earl has asked your Lordships to adopt.
  Agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente: And the said Address Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SIR ROBERT NAPIER.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
  Delivered by The LORD PRIVY SEAL; and read by The LORD CHANCELLOR, as follows:
  VICTORIA R.
  Her Majesty, taking into consideration the important Services rendered by Sir Robert Napier' a Lieutenant-General in Her Majesty's Army, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army of Bombay, in the Conduct of the recent Expedition into Abyssinia, and being desirous to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour for these and other
  866
  distinguished Merits upon the said Sir Robert Napier, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make Provision for securing to the said Sir Robert Napier and the next surviving Heir Male of his Body a Pension of Two thousand Pounds per Annnm.
  Ordered, That the said Message be taken into consideration To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Cranworth.)
BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 208.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading rend.
  LORD CRANWORTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that it had been introduced into the other House in consequence of the impossibility of passing a comprehensive measure during the present Session, and that its object was to check the abuses attendant upon the power given to three-fourths of a bankrupt's creditors to withdraw the case from the Court of Bankruptcy and distribute his assets. In order to prevent such arrangements being improperly made by pretended or partial creditors, the Bill required a debtor, within a week of the execution of any composition deed, to file a schedule, verified by oath, giving every particular of his assets and liabilities, and it also required creditors to prove their affidavits in the same way as if the matter was before the Court of Bankruptcy.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Cranworth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the Government felt constrained, by the pressure of business, to withdraw the Bankruptcy Bill which they had introduced, and which had made considerable progress in their Lordships' House, one of the causes of his regret was that the public would be deprived of the benefit of the alterations with respect to composition deeds which the Bill provided. He felt much rejoiced, therefore, that the other House of Parliament had taken this branch of the subject into consideration, and that the present measure had been introduced by one of its Members (Mr. Moffatt) in order to obviate the inconveniences arising from the present state of the law. The Bill which was now proposed for second reading in reality embodied the clauses upon the subject which were contained in the Government

  867
  measure. He thought the passing of this Bill would effect a great improvement in the law; and, although it was a pity that a larger and more comprehensive reform could not be carried out, he thought it would be well to at least go the length here proposed. He could not at first sight understand the petition which had been presented against the Bill by certain traders. No doubt it was natural that those persons should feel some anxiety regarding a Bill which had only been before Parliament two or three weeks but no apprehension need really be felt, for the clauses embodied in the measure had for a long time been before Parliament and the country. He hoped therefore that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he should be glad to see this measure passed; but he thought some consideration ought to be given to the petition referred to.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, that he would not oppose the Bill, because he thought that if it were thrown out much disappointment would ensue. At the same time he thought, if it were necessary he could demonstrate that everything proposed to be done by the present Bill might have been done under the Bill of 1861. If the law had been properly understood and properly carried out by the machinery originally provided for the purpose, this Bill would have been wholly unnecessary, and no failure would have occurred. He had no objection to offer to the provisions of a Bill for the purpose of applying in a more effectual manner that remedy which might have been provided, and ought to have been provided by the Bill of 1861.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, this Bill proposed a very important change in the law, which no one of their Lordships he believed, had had the opportunity of considering for more than half-an-hour. The Bill, in fact, was not delivered at his house until after he had left home that morning. He was informed that it contained exactly the same set of clauses as those contained in the Bill which had been introduced by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, but which had been withdrawn. However this might be, it was a matter of great importance that time should be given for consideration, and he hoped his noble and learned Friend would postpone the Committee for at least a fortnight in order to give their Lordships an opportunity of mastering the details.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2as accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

UNIFORMITY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP BILL—(No. 173.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
UNIFORMITY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP BILL—(No. 173.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships for more than a very short time on this occasion. The discussion of last year and the Reports of the Commission have very much simplified the question, and, moreover, it is not my intention to ask your Lordships to go further than to give a second reading to the Bill, that its principle may be affirmed; that the Bill may be circulated through the country, and that it may come on for discussion in the next Session of Parliament. A few days ago certain noble Lords, Members of the Commission, and the right rev. Prelate who presides over the See of London, declared this question ripe for legislation. There can be no necessity to wait for the Commissioners' third Report, which is on totally distinct matters from that before us. It cannot directly or indirectly affect this question. Now, my Lords, a year has elapsed since this Commission was appointed, and very nearly a year since it made its first Report, and certainly now another year will elapse before an end can be put to those practices of which the country so strongly complains. Now, I think it would be far more satisfactory, and at the same time much more respectful to the Commissioners, if we did not treat, or apparently treat, their Report as a dead letter, but rather treated it as a document having life and importance, and one which may form the foundation of our Church ceremonial for many years to come. It has also been said that legislation of this nature should be undertaken by Her Majesty's Government. I entirely agree in that proposition; but your Lordships will bear in mind that I submitted this question to Her Majesty's Government, and asked whether they were disposed to legislate on the subject. They declined so to do, and your Lordships will I hardly think that because they gave that answer I, as an individual Member of this House, should be bound not to take any course that I might deem necessary in the

  869
  exigencies of the case, and that their answer should be considered as a final bar to any Peer who wished to take up the matter. Moreover, I must observe that the Commissioners were pretty nearly or entirely unanimous in their first Report on this question. They all declared that some restraint must be employed for the prevention of the practices complained of, and it is in that spirit that I now bring forward this measure. The Bill of last year dealt only with vestments; the Bill of the present year goes further, and includes lights and incense. This Bill has undergone considerable modifications, which I believe will recommend themselves to your Lordships. I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to keep close to the recommendations of the Commissioners; and if, in any instance, I have diverged from those recommendations, I think I shall be able to give good reasons for it. I find in the first Report of the Commissioners this statement—
  "We find that while these vestments are regarded by some witnesses as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a distinctive vesture, whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian worship, they are by none regarded as essential and they give offence to many."
  They continue—
  "We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain, in the public service of the United Church of England and Ireland, all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage of the said United Church, and we think that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress."
  This is the first Report, which was signed by the whole body of the Commissioners. In the second Report, which was signed by only twenty-three out of the whole body, they state—
  "The use of lighted candles at the celebration of the Holy Communion has been introduced into certain churches within a period of about the last twenty-five years. It is true that there have been candlesticks with candles on the Lord's Table during a long period in many Cathedral and Collegiate churches and chapels, and also in the chapels of some Colleges, and of some Royal and Episcopal residences, but the instances that have been adduced to prove that candles have been lighted, as accessories to the Holy Communion, are few and much contested. With regard to parish churches, whatever evidence there may be as to candlesticks with candles being on the Lord's Table, no sufficient evidence has been adduced before us to prove that at any time during the last three centuries lighted candles have been used in any of those churches as accessories to the celebration of the Holy Communion
  870
  until within about the last twenty-five years. The use of incense in the public services of the Church during the present century is very recent, and the instances of its introduction are very rare; and, so far as we have any evidence before us, it is at variance with the Church's usage for 300 years."
  They conclude by saying—
  "Under these circumstances, and in conformity with the principles which guided us in our first Report, we are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the Church all variations from established usage in respect of lighted candles and of incense."
  My Lords, the Bill which I have introduced is an attempt as far as possible to embody these opinions, and perhaps I may be allowed to call your attention to the main clauses. The Preamble recites as closely as possible the opinions of the Commissioners, merely adding that the remedy should be a public and local one. The main provisions in the Bill are contained in the 4th and 5th sections. First, it provides for sundry exceptions in respect of the apparel or vesture of any minister in any Cathedral or Collegiate church, and in other cases, and then it goes on (Clause 5)—
  ''No minister shall in any church, at any time, during the saying the public prayers, use, or allow any other person to use, lighted candles when they are not needed for the purpose of giving light, or use or allow any other person to use incense."
  By these provisions all such practices will henceforward be interdicted as illegal. It is a question of no importance at the present moment whether they are legal or illegal now; the object of the Bill is to declare them positively illegal, and I believe that will be a proposition accepted by your Lordships generally and by the country at large. Recollect how these practices are spoken of by the Commissioners, who say that they have no material value, that they are by none regarded as essential, yet they give much offence. Down to this point, then, I do not expect much opposition; but, when we come to discuss the machinery, no doubt there will be differences of opinion. In their second Report the Commissioners make a suggestion as to the mode in which aggrieved parishioners shall have a remedy, and they state, and very properly state, that they think a speedy and inexpensive remedy should be provided for that purpose. But the remedy they suggest is directly the reverse of either speedy or inexpensive. Their proposal is that parishioners when

  871
  aggrieved "may make a formal application to the Bishop in camerô—
  "And the Bishop on such application shall be bound to inquire into the matter of the complaint, and if it shall thereby appear that there has been a variation from established usage, by the introduction of vestments, lights, or incense in the public services of the Church, he shall take order forthwith for the discontinuance of such variation, and be enabled to enforce the same summarily."
  The Commissioners think that the decision of the Bishop should be subject to appeal to the Archbishop in camerô, "whose decision thereon shall he final;" but in case the decision of the Bishop or Archbishop is questioned on legal grounds, a case may be stated for decision by the Court of the Archbishop, with a right of appeal to the Queen in Council. The Commissioners add that precautions should be taken against frivolous objections, and these precautions I have adopted in the Bill. The Commissioners recommend for that purpose—
  "That the application should be made either by one or more of the church or chapel wardens, or by at least five resident parishioners, who shall be householders, and declare themselves to be members of the United Church, in places where the population exceeds 1,000, and by at least three such persons where the population is less than that number."
  This is an excellent provision; but in what possible aspect can the remedy which the Commissioners provide be regarded as speedy or inexpensive? Remember what the process is to be. The aggrieved parishioners must appeal to the Bishop, who may live at a considerable distance from them, who may be incapacitated by age, ill health, or infirmity, who may be absent on the duties of his diocese, or may be discharging his duties in London. Here may be a great source of delay. Supposing that the Bishop gave his attention on the instant to the complaint of the aggrieved parishioners, a long time might elapse before they obtained a remedy. Take the case of Exeter. The aggrieved parishioners might live at the Land's End, and in that case must go to Bishopstowe and take all their witnesses. In the case of an appeal they must go up to London with their witnesses, the result being an intolerable expense and great delay. I say upon very high ecclesiastical authority that even when there was no intention to delay great loss of time must ensue; and if there was any desire to protract the proceedings three or four years might elapse before they came to an end. The aggrieved parishioners might be small farmers or shopkeepers, or
  872
  persons of small means, and how would it be possible for men in that position to obtain redress in the mode suggested by the Commissioners? The thing is manifestly impossible, unless the five parishioners were men of wealth and leisure. This Bill, on the other hand, proposed a far more efficient and speedy and a far cheaper remedy. We propose, in the first place, that a petition should be addressed to the Bishop, who, if he pleases, may hear the case in person, or may issue a commission to the chancellor of his diocese, or to any two beneficed clergymen in his diocese, to hear the case. The Bill provides that the inquiry should be local; and this will not only insure better evidence, but at the same time will save great expense and trouble to the aggrieved parishioners. I think your Lordships will see the great advantage of enabling the Bishop to act by deputy and on the spot, thus securing both cheapness and promptitude. Above all, the Bill insists upon publicity, which is, I believe, the best guarantee we can have that these proceedings shall be properly conducted. I am sure that without publicity there will be little hope of bringing about peace and tranquillity in a parish, and I believe it would be far better for the Bishop himself, because it would exonerate him from any charge of incompetency and partizanship in the matter. With a view to give weight and sanction to the evidence the Bill proposes that it shall be given vivô voce, and on oath, and the Bishop and Commissioners are authorized to administer the same. Clauses 27 and 28 are of considerable importance, for they provide that questions may be raised by consent of the parties, and the judgment of the Bishop may be required thereon without further proceeding; and, again, by consent of the parties, on appeal from the Bishop, the Archbishop may, without hearing the appeal, send it to the Queen in Council. But I must call especial attention to the 29th clause; it is as follows:—
  "If any minister shall, in any church, during the saying the public prayers, offend against this Act, or aid, or assist in, or allow the commission of such offence, the Bishop of the diocese wherein such offence has been committed shall, upon the conviction of such minister, for every such offence I inhibit him from saying the public prayers for the space of three months."
  In the former Bill an offence might be visited by a process in the Civil Courts; in this case the Civil Courts were excluded. In case of any offence you have an ecclesiastical person to judge, you have an

  873
  ecclesiastical sentence, and you have an ecclesiastical penalty—in fact, everything is entirely ecclesiastical; and therefore on that ground no objection can be raised. This is a great concession as compared with the first Bill, and shows our desire to come to an amicable conclusion. These are pretty nearly the provisions of the Bill which it has been designed to make as simple as possible consistently with giving effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. I will call your Lordships' attention to two or three other points. All the protests appended to the Report are worthy of consideration from the character of the persons by whom they are written; but there are only two upon which I will comment. The first is signed by the Bishop of Oxford and the Very Rev. H. Goodwin, Dean of Ely, who say—
  "We are of opinion that continued usage in; ordinary circumstances ought in matters ceremonial to be so far the rule us to protect unwilling parishioners from arbitrary change, even though the change may seem to be within the letter of the law; but we cannot approve any attempt to stereotype by legislation for perpetual observance any use not actually enjoined. Such legislation, even thirty years ago, would have prohibited much which is now generally adopted and all but universally approved."
  I should lie as much indisposed as the right rev. Prelate to pass any law which should be irrevocable, and which should stereotype by legislation for perpetual observance any use not actually enjoined; but I think it must be manifest that, if at any time, a majority in our Church is determined upon a change in that or any other respect, there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent them making it. Should the mass of Churchmen change their views, and desire to introduce what they thick a higher ceremonial, it would be in the power of the majority so to do. It is not possible you can stereotype by legislation, nor is it desirable you should do it to such an extent as the protest implies. The next protest is signed by Sir John Duke Coleridge and the Very Rev. A. P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, and they say—
  "The Church of England has always contained within it two parties, one caring much for outward observance and ceremonial, the other careless about, or even hostile to, them; and these two historical parties represent two classes of minds which always have, and probably always will, exist, and proclaim their existence in a free country. If, therefore, the Church of England is to remain the National Establishment of a free country, room for both must be found in it, as far as is consistent with general uniformity in such matters as may be deemed essential."
  874
  I perfectly admit the statement made in the first sentence; and if any large proportion of the members of the Church wish to have a more lofty ceremonial, I can understand an arrangement by which parties strongly animated by the feeling should subscribe among themselves to erect a chapel or chapels in which they might be allowed to enjoy their ceremonial. I do not see any objection to that, provided the persons kept within certain limits, and that they did not give to their places of worship anything of a parochial or district character; but in expressing that opinion I am speaking for myself only, and as I have communicated with no one on the subject, no one can be implicated by what I say. No one can be more ready than I am to admit that many of the Ritualistic party are sincere and conscientious in their convictions that the system which they adopt is the only one that can cope with the exigencies of the time. I must say I think a more grievous error never entered into the minds of men. As far as my experience goes, I find the case to be quite the reverse. If you go to that famous church, St. Albans, you see there the highest ceremonial and the most ornate worship you can well conceive. You will see there a most decent and orderly congregation, consisting manifestly of persons of a superior class in life, many from all parts of London, who attend to gratify their curiosity and see what is going on. You will not see there a great number of poor working people. Go at what hour you like you will never see there more than two or three of that class; and I know this from personal inquiry. If you go 150 yards from that church, to the upper room of the Field Lane School, you will see there on a Sunday morning from 800 to 1,000, and sometimes more, of persons in the most destitute, abject, and miserable condition, who positively enjoy a very humble and simple ministration. Your Lordships may have heard of what are called the Special Theatre Services. Several theatres are thrown open on the Sunday evening, and persons are invited to listen to various preachers. These special services arc attended by from 20,000 to 25,000 persons of the poorest condition in life. While 2,000 or 3,000 attend the simple services in a theatre, the poor are not attracted to the Ritualistic churches by incense, lights, coloured vestments, and everything which can delight the eye and ear. They will not go to them, and in-

  875
  deed the mass of the poorer working people seem to have an objection to these Ritualistic ceremonies. I do not deny that to many persons of elevated taste there is something very attractive in them; but I soy they do not draw the classes to whom all the energies of the Church must be directed, not only to save the Church, but to save the people. I say it is of no use attempting to attract the people by such modes as these; a few may go to a church where they are attracted from motives of curiosity; but the bulk of them must and will remain outside, preferring to go to no church at all than to be found within the precincts of ft church where these things are carried on. No doubt we have a common enemy whose strength lies in our disunion, and who in the midst of our divisions, will destroy us both. Can your Lordships be astonished at the alarm which prevails on this subject? I will read your Lordships extracts from documents which have been widely circulated, and which have produced serious effects upon the minds of men. Here is a letter by Dr. Littledale, evidently an able and learned man, which appeared in the Guardian of May 20. He had delivered a lecture, in which he drew a parallel between the Reformation and the French Revolution; he published it, and he was rebuked by Dr. Gatty for the comparison he instituted. In replying to Dr. Gatty, Dr. Littledale says—
  "His words convince me that he is not familiar with either 1550 or 1793. It is quite possible for men to take very widely-differing views as to the Reformation itself in its character and results. Some may look on it as a Pentecost. I look on it as a Flood—an act of Divine vengeance, not of Divine grace; a merited chastisement, not a fresh revelation."
  This is pretty well, but further on Dr. Littledale says—
  "Dr. Gatty cannot know the facts, or he would say as I have done. But I admit my parallel with the Jacobin leaders was somewhat harsh and unjust—to them. Robespierre (who, by-the-by, is counted as a martyr, and celebrated on the 9th Thermidor as a true apostle of Liberty here in London still, as I know), Danton, Marat, &c, betrayed no trust, were not sharers in the particular iniquity they overthrew, crouched to no tyrant, perjured themselves to no man. So far they stand on a higher moral level than the base traitors who were, and deservedly, executed—blunder and folly as that execution was—by Mary I. I should have compared them with Egalité Orleans and St. Huruge, the basest of that bad eighteenth century. These are no hasty sentiments. They have been slowly built up by years of careful reading."
  876
  Here comes another passage even more pungent—
  "I gravely assert it to be absolutely impossible for any just, educated, and religious men, who have read the history of the time in genuine sources, to hold two opinions about the Reformers. They were such utterly unredeemed villains for the most part, that the only parallel I know for the way in which half-educated people speak of them among us is the appearance of Pontius Pilate among the saints of the Abyssinian calendar."
  I ask your attention, my Lords, to an extract from a paper of authority among the Ritualists—the Church Times—
  "The Reformers were dunces and liars. The active agents of the Reformation were bad men, and the worst among them was Thomas Cranmer."
  But listen to this which follows; mark the expression used in reference to that innocent and blessed Prince, Edward VI., that gentle and beloved youth for whom, after the interval of 300 years, the people of England feel almost a personal affection—
  "The evil reign of that wretched tiger-cub," [remark the word, that tiger-cub," Edward VI., was ruinous to the Universities; and learning was as actively discouraged by the blessed Reformers as honesty, morality, and almsgiving."
  Can we wonder that when writings of this kind are diffused and circulated throughout the country disastrous consequences should ensue? Is it a matter of astonishment that such writings have produced a deep and permanent effect on the masses of the people? The enemies of the Church are active enough in diffusing such proofs of our Rome-ward tendency; and will it be wise on the eve of a General Election to reject a measure like the present, which is introduced to repress these practices, and discourage such doctrines? Disaffection is spreading among classes of persons who formerly were really attached to the Church, and who, though not belonging to the Church, had no desire whatever to disturb it. The existence of the present state of things is alienating the general body of Nonconformists. I am speaking now not of the members of the Liberation Society. Many of these are able and earnest men, but they have very decided opinions; and I do not think anything would cause them to deviate from the great object they have in view—the severance of Church and State. But disaffection is spreading among the great body of Wesleyans, who have hitherto been true and earnest friends of the Church of England, which they desire to uphold with

  877
  the view of securing both civil and religious liberty. They differ in discipline, hut not in feeling, from the Church of England. Now, you are gradually driving away all these men. Many of them, indeed, have lately said that they do not know how they can support a Church which allows in its bosom such practices and such sayings as these, which have a tendency to bring back the people of this country to all the abominations of Popery. Their feelings are such that although they do not take any actual part against the Church—and it will, I believe, be a long time before they do so—yet they exhibit comparative indifference, and will not lend a helping hand to the Church in the hour of her necessity. Then it is impossible not to perceive that you are alienating from the Church many of its members who occupy a good position in life. In all parts of London I hear one and the same thing from members of the Church of England. Vast numbers are being alienated to this extent—that they will not go over to Popery nor to Dissent, but remain within the Church in a state of utter indifference. They have come to the conclusion that the Church of England and the Church of Rome are so nearly identical that it is of little importance to them which gets the upper hand. Now, I cannot conceive anything more threatening than the present state of affairs. It may, perhaps, be said that I have been exaggerating, and I sincerely trust it may prove that I have done so, but I firmly believe that I have been guilty of no exaggeration whatever. When I addressed your Lordships last year on a subject analogous to this my feelings were very strong, but I am bound to say that those feelings have been confirmed and not weakened by what I have learnt and experienced since that time. In pressing this Bill to a second reading I think I may fairly count upon the votes of all those who last year voted for the adjournment of the debate in order that they might have the advantage of seeing the Report of the Royal Commissioners. That Report has now been made, and I cannot understand on what ground they could now oppose themselves to the recommendations which it contains. At all events I may claim the support of all those who voted with me last Session, because they then voted in favour of a much more stringent Bill than the one before us. But, my Lords, whatever may be the result of the vote, and whoever the men who give it, I
  878
  say that it is the earnest prayer of many a faithful and loving member of our communion that God, who is the author of peace and lover of concord, will restore union and harmony to this trembling and distracted Church.
  Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to state the difficulty in which I am placed with reference to the Bill of the noble Earl. And, in the first place, I am very desirous of assuring the House that I am equally anxious with the noble Earl himself to restrain the practices which have given rise to so much complaint. I think my conduct as a Member of the Commission is a sufficient proof of my earnestness in desiring to restrain these practices; but at the same time I feel that, as a Member of the Commission, I am placed in great difficulty on this occasion. The Preamble of the Bill sets forth what the Commissioners have recommended, and then the 4th and 5th sections proceed to lay down a rule which was never sanctioned by the Commissioners. We never went so far as to say that we advised immediate legislation in order to restrain these practices. What we did say in the 10th clause of our Report was this—
  "Our intention in making this recommendation is simply to provide for parishioners aggrieved by the introduction of variations from established usage in respect of vestments, lights, and incense, a special faculty for restraining such variations, without interfering in other respects with the general law of the Church as to ornaments, or the ordinary remedies then in force."
  Now, my Lords, if the Government of the day were to introduce a Bill, in the framing of which the voice of the Church were heard as well as the voice of the Parliament, 1 should be ready to concur in such a measure. But my great objection to this Bill is that, if passed, it would be simply an act of the Legislature without any reference to the feelings, views, or opinions of the Church—an act which might, perhaps, completely over-ride the action of the clergy. For my own part, I have always been desirous to put effectual restraints on these Ritualistic practices; but I have always laid it down as a principle that we ought to do so in such a way as to avoid producing a convulsion in the Church. Now I firmly believe that if a private individual were to bring in a Bill, and if that Bill were carried without any reference to the wishes and opinions of the

  879
  clergy, it would effectually lead to disruption. In taking that view of the matter, I am anxious to show your Lordships that I am acting in conformity with an authority which most of you will greatly respect. Dr. Birch, in his Life of Tillotson, relates that—
  "While the Bill of Union (comprehension) was depending in Parliament, Dean Tillotson, as we are informed by Dr. Nicliolls (Apparatus ad Defensionem Eccles. Angl., p. 93) persuaded the King to pursue another method for accomplishing the design of it. He reminded His Majesty of the reproach often cast upon the Reformation by the Papists, that it was founded chiefly upon Parliamentary authority; and that no handle ought for the future to be given for such an objection that the affairs of the Church chiefly belonged to synodical authority; and, if they were passed by the members of the Convocation, they would not only be more acceptable to the body of the clergy, but would be more religiously observed by the laity. He added that lost affairs of this nature, consisting of such a multitude of particulars, might proceed too slowly in so numerous a body, it would be best, as had formerly been done, for His Majesty to authorize by his letters patent several of the most eminent of the clergy to consider of some methods of healing the wounds of the Church, and establishing a durable peace; that so what they should agree upon being laid before a Convocation might first have their sanction and then that of Parliamentary authority. In pursuance of this advice the King summoned a Convocation, and issued out likewise … a Commission to prepare matters to be considered by the Convocation."
  I think that if the Government of the day, whoever they might be, should hereafter, after very careful consideration, bring in a Bill on the subject, peace might through God's blessings arise from it; but I have no expectation that such a result would follow from precipitate legislation, like that which is now proposed; and, therefore, I could not feel justified in supporting the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Earl who has moved the second reading of this Bill has referred to the answer I gave some weeks ago on behalf of the Government, your Lordships will perhaps allow me, at this early period of the discussion, to make a few observations on the Bill. My Lords, I desire, in the first place, to remind the House what have been the course taken and the suggestions made by the Royal Commission. That Commission, which was appointed in the month of June last year, was composed of twenty-nine members, fourteen of whom were ecclesiastics and fifteen laymen. The names of the Commissioners are sufficiently well-known to your Lordships to make you aware that the Commission was composed
  880
  of members of the greatest learning, eminence, experience, and ability, who could possibly have been selected to deal with a question of this kind. In their first Report the Commissioners were, as the noble Earl said, unanimous. The whole of the Commissioners signed the Report, though three of them appended a certain amount of qualification to the absolute recommendations of the Report. That Report was made last year, and in regard of vestments it states—
  "We, your Majesty's Commissioners, have, in accordance with the terms of your Majesty's Commission, directed our first attention to the question of the vestments worn by the Ministers of the said United Church at the time of their ministration, and especially to those the use of which has been lately introduced into certain churches. We find that while these vestments are regarded by some witnesses as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a distinctive vesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian worship, they are by none regarded as essential, and they give grave offence to many. we are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the United Church of England and Ireland all variations in respect of vesture from, that which has long been the established usage of the said United Church; and we think that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress. We are not yet prepared to recommend to your Majesty the best mode of giving effect to these conclusions, with a view at once to secure the objects proposed and to promote the peace of the Church; but we have thought it our duty, in a matter to which great interest is attached, not to delay the communication to your Majesty of the results at which we have already arrived."
  A second Report was made in April last, and published in May. It deals with the question of what are called "lights and incense." In this Report the Commissioners were by no means unanimous. Twenty-three out of twenty-nine Commissioners signed it two Commissioners declined to sign any part of it; and of the twenty-three who did sign the Report, eight made certain qualifications or statements dissenting from its recommendations. In the Report to which I am now referring there are these statements—
  "The use of Lighted Candles at the celebration of the Holy Communion has been introduced into certain Churches within a period of about the last twenty-five years. It is true that there have been Candlesticks with Candles on the Lord's Table during a long period in many Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chapels, and also in the Chapels of some Colleges, and of some Royal and Episcopal Residences; but the instances that have been adduced to prove that Candles have been lighted as accessories to the Holy Communion are few and much contested. With regard to Parish,

  881
  Churches, whatever evidence there may be as to Candlesticks with Candles being on the Lord's Table, no sufficient evidence has been adduced before us to prove that at any time during the last three centuries Lighted Candles have been used in any of these Churches as accessories to the celebration of the Holy Communion until within about the last twenty-five years. The use of Incense in the public services of the Church during the present century is very recent, and the instances of I its introduction arc very rare, and so far as we have any evidence before us it is at variance with the Church's usage for 300 years. Under these circumstances, and in conformity with the principles which guided us in our first Report, we are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the Church all variations from established usage in respect of Lighted Candles and of Incense."
  After those Reports were made I took the liberty on a former occasion to say—and I think that at the time your Lordships were inclined to agree with me—that it would be not only inexpedient, but highly censurable of the Government to propose legislation on this subject until the question how far legislation should go and what shape it should assume had been anxiously and earnestly considered by the Government, and until the Government were able to come to Parliament with some proposal which they might reasonably expect to see either rejected altogether or made the law of the land. Now, that being the pure principle on which the Government have acted, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury)—as was competent to him to do as an independent Member of your Lordships' House—has introduced the Bill which now comes before your Lordships for a second reading. My Lords, I speak with great submission and deference to the noble Earl; but I do venture to express a doubt whether the course taken by him is an expedient course. The noble Earl, as I understand him, said he had no expectation this Session of carrying the Bill beyond a second reading; but that his object was that it should be printed and should go before the country between this and the next Session of Parliament. Now, my Lords, surely that object would have been fully obtained by the step which the noble Earl naturally and properly pursued in laying the Bill on the table of your Lordships' House. But as the noble Earl proposes that the Bill should now be read a second time, it becomes necessary for your Lordships to consider the course you will take with respect to the Motion for the second reading. I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill; but if I understand the Report of the Royal Com-
  882
  mission—though the Preamble of the Bill recites the Reports of that Commission the noble Earl has failed to apprehend the spirit of the recommendations made by the Commissioners; and I think that if we had now to consider the provisions of the Bill in detail there would be very serious objections to it. But, of course, if the Bill went into Committee your Lordships would have the power of introducing modifications with the view of removing those objections. My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl will go to a division on the second reading; but, inasmuch as the Bill recites in its Preamble the Report of the Commission, I feel that, however grave the reasons against some of the provisions, and however inexpedient it might be to pass such a Bill now, yet if I were to vote against the second reading my doing so might be construed into a proposition which I am not prepared to assume—namely, that at no time and under no circumstances ought legislation to follow the Reports of the Royal Commission, Having said that, I claim for myself, and I. think I am entitled to claim for many of your Lordships who may not be disposed to vote against the second reading, that we hold ourselves free and unfettered as to our action on this question in the next or any subsequent Session of Parliament, My Lords, deploring, as I do, the practices to which the noble Earl has referred—feeling, as I do, entirely adverse to those practices—I have always thought that it devolves upon those who do entertain such strong feelings on the subject to be particularly cautious and forbearing in respect of any propositions for restrictive legislation. The noble Earl read to your Lordships two or three extracts which I was much pained to hear, and 1 think those extracts must have been painful to many of your Lordships; but, with every respect for the noble Earl, I am at a loss to know what the object was for which he read them. Is the Church answerable for those extracts, or any section of the Church? I have no right to speak for the Church; but as one of her Members I do protest against the supposition that the opinions to which expression is given in the extracts read by the noble Earl are opinions entertained by any section of the Church of England. If the noble Earl wanted us to legislate against the publication of such opinions, I could understand his reading them to your Lordships; and legislation on the subject of lights and incense is,

  883
  after all, only legislation against an outward expression of opinions which we are utterly unable to control. It appears to mo, my Lords, that much benefit would follow from our postponing legislation till next year. The noble Earl proposes, contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, to enact that practices to which the Bill refers shall be declared illegal. The Royal Commissioners carefully abstained from any recommendations of the kind, merely proposing that restraints should be applied to any departures from the established practice or usage. Three questions are involved in this Bill, of which two have already become the subject of legal proceedings—namely, the questions of lights and incense. I have been informed, and I believe accurately, that within the last few days the litigation upon these points has been transferred into the Court of highest Appeal in the kingdom; and, according to the natural order of business, in that tribunal the appeal would be tried in November or December this year. Your Lordships, therefore before next Session, will have the benefit of a decision by the final Court of Appeal of this Kingdom with regard to the legality of two of these practices. I own I very much regret that it has not been thought desirable, when a judicial decision was being invoked upon two of these practices, to endeavour to obtain a legal decision also with regard to the question of vestments. I say this, not because I think that the opinion of Parliament ought to be fettered in any way by the decisions of the legal tribunals: it may well be that after a decision declaring one or more of these practices to be perfectly legal, Parliament might, in its wisdom, consider that, for the future, the law ought to be altered, and observances declared to be illegal for the future which had been legal hitherto. But Parliament would in any case have this advantage—that it would know from what point to start. What the law is at this moment upon these different subjects rests, of course, in a state of uncertainty; but there is every reason to believe that before next year an authoritative decision will have been given upon two, at least, of the matters in dispute. I therefore trust the noble Earl will not press this Bill to a division; and I say so with the more freedom because I have already declared that it is a Bill against the second reading of which I should not be disposed to vote. A
  884
  legal decision will, I hope, be obtained before next year, and your Lordships, in case it should then be necessary, will be in a position to legislate with much better effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not often—indeed, it is the only time—that I have heard my noble and learned Friend and have been unable to follow the course of reasoning which has gone on in his mind during the course of his speech. He told us that he strongly disapproved this Bill being pressed to a second reading; he pointed out the defects which lay, not only in the machinery of the Bill, but in its utter disregard of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and of the reasons upon which their Report was founded, and he spoke of the advantages of delay; and then, having told us all this, he said he meant to vote for the second reading of the Bill, merely because its Preamble recites that the Bill proposes to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I will ask my noble Friend whether that is a principle which he proposes to extend and apply to the legislation generally of your Lordships' House—that if in the Preamble of a Bill a proposition is laid down of which you happen to approve, no matter how entirely the clauses may fail to carry out that proposition, you are yet to vote for the second reading of the Bill? If so, we certainly should have passed the second reading of a great many Bills which we are in the habit of throwing out. I believe it is true of almost all Preambles that they are innocent and plausible in their language, and few persons upon that ground merely would desire to oppose them; but I say that to commit your Lordships to support the second reading of measures merely because of the moderation or plausibility of the Preamble would be to introduce an entirely novel principle into our legislation. Nobody will deny that in dealing with questions of the kind upon which the House now is asked to legislate every effort should be made to avoid exciting unnecessary irritation. The subjects are those upon which men's passions are bitterly excited, leading them to misstate the real meaning of words used; and, therefore, the first duty of a prudent Legislature is to avoid all that can increase that irritation. But what are you now going to do? For the first time for 200 years you are going to break the truce which has existed between the two parties in the Church. During those 200 years many very different

  885
  views have been entertained; various schools have flourished and decayed, all kinds of extravagant opinions have been advanced—but Parliament has never during that time interfered between the conflicting schools in the Church to strike one combatant to the ground. I do not deny that such legislation may be necessary; I do not wish to prejudge the question, which we must consider very carefully next year. But it is very important that your Lordships should pronounce no judgment beforehand which is certain to add to the irritation your legislation is certain to excite. What will be the effect of this proposal? There is not, I believe, any very considerable party in the country attached to the unfortunate practices that have created so much ill-feeling; but you are going to add to that party all the members that will be driven to it by the invigorating process of penal legislation. All those who naturally sympathize with anyone against whom Parliament legislates—all those who naturally take the weaker side, and all who hate the particular school from which this legislation proceeds will be inclined to abandon the former moderation of their opinions, and to lean towards the very extravagant views and practices which it is your object to discourage. You will be adding force, moreover, to the violence of the irritation by passing the second reading of this Bill without any of the precautions habitually taken in matters of such great importance; you will be passing it merely as a matter of form at the fag-end of the Session, without even soliciting the opinion of the Government upon the measure. My feeling with regard to the Bill is that if you wish to make more men like Dr. Littledale you could adopt no more certain method. Dr. Littledale is a gentleman of very extravagant opinions, and probably expresses his own opinions merely; but this Bill, even if it passed, is not the way to discourage those opinions. It certainly would not prevent him from holding or urging them with as much force as before; all that it would do would be to create sympathizers with him who did not exist before. It seems to me that it is of the greatest importance to treat gently the feelings and prejudices of the considerable number of persons who have been very much excited upon this subject, and, with that end in view, that legislation upon these matters should only be undertaken upon the responsibility of the Government, and with a reasonable certainty that a de-
  886
  cision one way or other would be obtained within a very short period. First of all, Isgislation should not be undertaken in such a manner as to give to those whose dearest feelings and prejudices you are touching the impression that your Lordships regard those as matters of very trivial importance, which may be sacrificed to the feeling or to the convenience of a noble Earl—who is deserving of the highest respect. I am very anxious to guard myself against being supposed to view with anything like sympathy the action which has brought this controversy into its present stage. I think that blame attaches to those who selected for their operations the precise points upon which they knew the feelings of their countrymen to be most irritable, in order, apparently, to make disturbance in the Church. But I ask your Lordships not to allow yourselves to be infected with the imprudence which you are yourselves the first to condemn. Do not allow your own feelings to lead you to depart from that gravity and moderation which you ordinarily exercise upon matters of such importance. I ask you to deal with this matter as one of the first moment, and not to be drawn into a decision opposed in any way to the recommendations of the Commissioners. It is for these reasons that I beg you not to give a second reading to the Bill proposed by the noble Earl.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that the two noble Lords who had last spoken were neither of them Members of their Lordships' House when the noble Earl originally introduced a measure similar to that which was now upon their Lordships' table. The overwhelming amount of evidence and argument then brought forward by the noble Earl showed the imperative necessity for legislation upon this question. And how was his Bill defeated upon that occasion? By a promise given by the Government of the day, speaking through their mouth piece the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl of Derby), that a Royal Commission should issue for the purpose of investigating the subject. There was, therefore, an honourable obligation resting upon the Government to do something, because the noble Earl who was then at the head of the Government refused to allow the Bill to be read a second time, upon the ground that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) promised on that occasion that that Commission should attend

  887
  to the subject of vestments, and cognate matters, first, and report thereon with a view to legislation, The Commission did at length make their first Report, and recommend that something should be done to restrain the use of vestments. In a second Report they had pronounced against lights and incense also, and advised that the use of them should be "restrained." It then became the imperative duty of Her Majesty's Government to take up the subject, for there was a vital necessity that something should be done if the Church of England was to be saved. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) having in vain waited for the Government to do something, having in fact been informed by the Lord Privy Seal that the Government were not prepared to move until a third Report was sent in—a Report which had nothing to do with the special subjects under discussion—must be exonerated from all blame in now bringing the subject again before their Lordships. He would not enter into the question whether the Bill might not be improved in Committee. In respect to the legal remedy proposed in the Bill, he thought it better than the recommendation of the Commissioners. But, be this as it might, it would be in his opinion a disastrous thing if this Bill should be pressed to a division, and if a majority of their Lordships should decide against legislation on this subject. He lamented the course taken by the Government, because it would lead to the impression out-of-doors that they were not alive to the greatness of the emergency in which the Church of England was placed. The extracts read by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) were useful as straws which showed the way of the wind. They certainly showed that, with the party now attracting so much attention, the Protestant Reformation found but little favour. And yet the only standing ground of the Church of England before God and man was as a Protestant Reformed Church. But all this the compact, organized, energetic body of Ritualists wished to undo. The questions of vestments, lights, and incense were of very little importance, except as connected with doctrine. Now, if there were two things more emphatically repudiated by the Church of England at the Reformation than any others, it was the sacrifice of the Mass and the practice of Auricular Confession. The speaking of the Lord's Table as the altar, the lights, the incense, and other Ritualistic practices, were all connected
  888
  with the revival of the sacrifice of the mass. Concurrently with this was the revival of the claim of the priesthood to exercise judicial functions in the tribunal of the confessional. That he was correct in these assertions, noble Lords might satisfy themselves by perusing the evidence taken before the Ritual Commission, and appended to their first Report. Mr. Bennett of Frome, for example, before the Ritual Commission, acknowledged that he sacrificed and adored the elements, and Mr. Wagner admitted that he practised auricular confession. And these gentlemen were but representatives, in these respects, of the opinions, and too often of the practices, of the clergy known as Ritualistic. Various arguments, however, were urged against any amendment of the law which should put a check upon this process of un-Protestantizing the national Church. It was said, in the first place, that the Church of England was a comprehensive Church. It was comprehensive, no doubt; but it was, to borrow technical words from the science of logic, a comprehension of "contraries" and not of "contradictories." "Contraries" might stand together, but "contradictories" could not. The Church of England contained what was called High-Church and what was called Low-Church. Some members of that Church might call themselves Arminians and others Calvinists. But while all these four parties might be "Contraries" between themselves, Rome was "contradictory" to all. The toleration of Romanism within the Church of England would be fatal to its existence. The noble Marquess said they were going by this Bill to destroy a truce within the Church that had existed for 200 years. He (the Bishop of Carlisle) must assure the noble Marquess that he was mistaken. The truce, as he was pleased to call it, between High-Church and Low-Church was not threatened by this Bill. Were he a High-Churchman he should indignantly repudiate all identification with the innovating party. The object of the Bill was to repel the invasion of a third, a Romanizing party, who, masked as High-Churchmen, were introducing doctrines and practices, of essentially Popish character, and utterly inconsistent with the continuance and healthy existence of that Church. A second argument which had been used on various occasions, though it had not been broached to-day was, that the persons against whom the noble Earl wished to

  889
  legislate, were the greatest obstacles to perversion to the Church of Rome. So said their predecessors the Tractarians thirty years ago. They claimed to be the greatest opponents of Rome. But their Lordships had not forgotten the hundreds of the laity and the scores of the clergy who had gone over to Rome since that movement began—Archbishop Manning, in a volume of Essays on Religion and Literature (Second Series), edited by him, conclusively disposed of this allegation. In an "inaugural address," prefaced to that volume, the Archbishop said—
  "I do not include in this, as I have already said, these few in number, I believe, who use these things as a stumbling-block to keep back souls from the truth, and imitate the Catholic Church with a formal servility, that they may pass themselves off as Catholics, even to our Catholic poor. For such men we can have no sympathy, and little hope. Every parish priest happily knows how empty and foolish is the boast they make of keeping souls from conversion. The public facts of every day refute it. They may keep back the handful who surround them, and hide the truth from their own hearts; but the steady current of return to the Catholic and Roman Church throughout the whole of England is no more to be affected by them than the rising of the tide by the palms of their hands. Against their will, certainly, and, perhaps, without their knowledge, they are sending on numberless souls into the truth which they probably will never enter. But the number of those whose good faith is doubtful is not great. The multitude of those who arc drawn by a natural and simple reverence to clothe what they sincerely believe with a becoming ritual, and who worship piously and humbly in churches which might almost be mistaken for ours—if it were not for the one great blank, the absence of life, which is like a beautiful countenance without-sight—is very great, and is perhaps continually increasing. They are coming up to the very threshold of the Church. They have learned to lean upon it as the centre of Christendom, from which they sprang, and upon which their own Church is supposed to rest. They use our devotions, our books, our pictures of piety; they are taught to believe the whole Catholic doctrine, and to receive the whole Council of Trent, not indeed in its true meaning, but in a meaning invented by their teachers. This cannot last long. Such teachers are, as Fuller quaintly and truly says, like unskilful horsemen; they so open gates as to shut themselves out, but let others through."
  So much for the argument that Ritualism was deterrent from Rome. But, in the third place, the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate argued that if Parliament legislated hastily—"hastily," indeed, when four years had now elapsed since first the subject was broached at Lambeth by the Bishop of Lincoln—there might be a fearful disruption in the Church of England, such as led the Free Church
  890
  of Scotland to go forth from the Establishment, and such as led the Wesleyans, 100 years ago, to leave the Church of England. But the comparison would not bear examination. These Churches were identical in doctrine with the Churches they left, both of them holding Protestant truth, and agreeing in their abhorrence—he used a word most properly employed by a noble Duke, not now in his place, (the Duke of Argyll) in the late debate—of Popery. But the Ritualists rejected the Thirty-nine Articles, or as they are said to call them—the "forty stripes save one"—and yearned for Rome. The comparison of the Ritualists to the Free Church and the Wesleyans was untenable, moreover, in other respects, for the latter had the people with them, whereas the sympathy of the middle and lower classes was not at all with the innovators in the present case. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was quite right when he said that how much soever such churches as St. Albans might be crowded, the middle and lower classes viewed all that was carried on within their walls with suspicion and dislike. The truth was, that these practices were a check upon Church extension; subscriptions having been withheld on account of the present state of uncertainty as to whether the Church of England would be Protestant and Reformed some years hence. He admitted that, had greater discretion been shown with regard to the Free Church and the Wesleyans, each of the Churches which they quitted would probably have been a gainer, for they would have added life and vigour to its ranks, for the reasons lie had given. But for the very absence, the negation, of the some reasons, if Ritualism were allowed to go on, it would result in the breaking up of the Church of England. The true parallel was between the Ritualists and the Roman Catholic clergy who refused to conform in the reign of Elizabeth, and likewise the Non-jurors who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance in the reign of William and Mary—though here again Archbishop Sancroft, loyal Protestant as he was, would hardly, if alive, endure the comparison. The secession in the former case consisted of 189 clergymen of all ranks, and in the latter of one Archbishop, four Bishops, and 400 clergy. Any secession which might now take place of Ritualistic clergy could not exceed—he did not believe it would come up to half these numbers. The Ritualistic party was forward and loud, and compensated for their

  891
  numerical paucity and personal insignificance by their organization and the noise they made in every direction. The House should not, therefore, be deterred from legislating—he would not say this—but early next Session, by any fear of committing grievous injury to the Church. They should rather be deterred from further delay by the grievous injury that would accrue if these practices were not checked. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) spoke on a former occasion of a Puritan faction hammering at the doors of Parliament; but prompt legislation was called for, in order that such a contingency might not arise. Delay was giving force and power to a Puritan faction outside the Church, which was making use of the present condition of affairs to assail the ramparts and overthrow the citadel of the Church. And herein he detected a power at work behind the scenes which desired to compass the overthrow of the Church of England as the one stronghold of Protestantism and the Reformation in the world. He did not say that the bulk of the Ritualistic clergy were conscious of the fact. But as a small cog-wheel kept up the connection between the steam power of a vast! manufactory and all the shuttles at work in every direction, so a single point of contact between the Church of Rome and the Ritualists was quite enough to account for all that was going on. If then the House believed that to the blessed Reformation we owed the temporal as well as the spiritual liberties of England—if they believed that the Church of England, in her articles, homilies, and other formularies represented that Reformation—they would permit no temporizing policy, no fears, no threats, to deter them from doing their duty at this solemn crisis. By giving the Bill a second reading, if the noble Earl pressed it, they would emphatically declare their determination at the first convenient opportunity to take effectual measures for staying the plague that was at work among us.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the noble Earl who introduced the Bill (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said, that it was intended to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. Now he (Earl Stanhope) was one-of those Commissioners, and had concurred with the large majority in signing the two Reports reprobating vestments, lights, and incense. He earnestly concurred in the recommendations of the Commissioners on those subjects, for he looked
  892
  upon those practices as innovations, and as calculated to bring evil upon the Church of England; and he was desirous by moderate and temperate means to restrain them. But he could not admit that the noble Earl in this Bill carried out the intentions of the Royal Commissioners. In one material respect the Bill went much beyond those recommendations. They had been told by the most rev. Primate who spoke early in the debate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that this Bill declared practices to be illegal which the Commissioners, though disapproving of them, had carefully abstained from declaring to be illegal. Therefore, whatever might be the merits of the proposition of the noble Earl, one thing was perfectly clear—that his proposition was not the proposition of the Commissioners—his Bill was not theirs. What object was to be gained by a second reading? Suppose it was assented to, no further step could be taken this Session, nor even in this Parliament. He must, however, express his regret that his noble Friend had introduced this Bill at all without giving the Government time to produce a measure of their own. It was desirable to legislate in a manner that would cause the least offence and irritation. Now, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was a distinguished member of one of the two parties into which the Church was divided, and it was impossible to expect such ready acquiescence by the other party in a Bill introduced by him as in one proceeding from a more neutral and less partizan quarter. He entertained a decided opinion that it was most desirable, whatever Government might be in power, it should next Session introduce a Bill on the subject; but, if the Government, whatever it might be, should be unwilling, or unable, after proper deliberation, to bring in a Bill, then would be the time for the noble Earl to do so. Much as he respected the high authority of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he could not but think that all the arguments of his speech were decidedly antagonistic to the Bill, while his conclusion was in favour of it. For his own part, while yielding to no man in his desire to restore to the Church the peace which had been disturbed by the practices so justly complained of, he wished to avoid unnecessary irritation, and, since the present Bill would not advance the question an inch, but would certainly produce irritation, he felt bound to vote against it.
  EARL RUSSELL: I must confess I have been rather perplexed by the speeches of the most rev. Primate, the most eminent representative of the Church in this House, and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, our greatest legal authority, for there was something so uncertain about them that I could not make out whether they intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill or against it.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I distinctly said I did not intend to vote for the second reading.
  EARL RUSSELL: I am much obliged to the most rev. Primate for his explanation. I think it is desirable that legislation should be postponed to the latest possible period. We have seen very critical and agitating questions debated on the Church; we have seen those questions resolved by the highest tribunal—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and those decisions, though adverse to the opinion of a considerable party in the Church, have been received with respect, and have decided the legal view of those questions. Now, the nobleand learned Lord on the Woolsack tells us that about November next two important points which are still in agitation will come by appeal before the Judicial Committee. That, it appears to me, is sufficient reason why this House should pause with respect to legislation, and should wait till we at least know upon the highest authority what the present state of the law is upon I these important points. It also appears to me desirable that whenever we do legislate the Government of the day should propose the measure, and that they should introduce it with the assent of the Prelates who represent the Church in this House; for it is only in that way that I can suppose an Act will pass which will receive the general assent of the country. I see no reason to doubt that, whether by judicial decision or legislative action, if there be a general assent of parties, those at least who think certain practices desirable, though not essential, will bow respectfully to whatever decision shall be come to. On the other hand, if there be a division—I will not say of political parties, but of Church parties—on the subject, I should be very much afraid that there would be further agitation, which would be very mischievous. I do not object to this Bill or to anything contained in it, if we are obliged to come to legislation as a last resort. It is not, therefore, on account of the Bill itself, but on account of the time
  894
  at which it has been brought forward, that I object to the Motion, and that I shall certainly not go into the Lobby with my noble Friend should he proceed to a division.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have no intention of entering into the very difficult questions involved in the consideration of this Bill, and I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Earl who has just sat down, because I am happy to think that—as is not always the case—I entirely concur in the view he has taken as to the course that should be pursued with respect to this question. What I feel is this—and it is a point which has been stated by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—that if you come to any decision upon this subject now you will do that which will be liable to be misunderstood. If you vote in favour of this Bill you will hold yourselves tied down to act on the course recommended by the noble Earl, irrespective of the future recommendations which may proceed from the Royal Commission, and irrespective of the information, as to the existing state of the law, which may be derived from the legal proceedings which are likely to occur in November. If, on the other hand, we vote against the Bill, as my noble and learned Friend pointed out, we shall be held up as assenting to those practices of the Ritualists to which I, for one, am entirely opposed, and shall be giving them countenance, which I should be sorry to give by voting apparently in their favour. If, as was supposed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle), it be a great object to avoid delay there might be something to say for coming to a decision one way or the other on the question; but the right rev. Prelate knows well, and the noble Earl the Mover of the second reading has himself stated, that he has rib intention to press the Bill to legislation this Session. The question of delay, therefore, does not enter into the consideration of the subject at all. I share very much the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess behind me(the Marquess of Salisbury) and the noble Earl near me (Earl Stanhope) of the great inconvenience of coming to a hasty decision with regard to the Bill before us. I think if we decide one way or the other it will give one party a great and unreasonable amount of encouragement, and will create in the other party a proportionate degree or irritation, which will be constantly working up to the time when

  895
  legislation will be possible. I also think that a question of this kind ought to be brought forward with all the authority of Government, and of Government informed by all the views of the Royal Commission. I am very unwilling to oppose my noble Friend, for I have the highest respect for his sincerity, and for his zeal in the advocacy of the opinions which he entertains. I do not say that I go along with his opinions; but if I were disposed to go to one extreme or the other I should be inclined to support the views of my noble Friend rather than those of the Ritualists, who are responsible for the agitation which has been excited. But the noble Earl has had the opportunity which he sought of stating his views and calling the attention of the country to this important question. I would suggest, therefore, that it would be the better course to avoid the inconvenience of a division, and to enable that to be done I am disposed to move "the previous Question." ["Hear, hear !"] I beg to move "the previous Question."
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I hope your Lordships will allow me one or two words in reply to what has fallen from noble Lords in the course of the debate. The object which I have had in view in moving the second reading of this Bill was to obtain the affirmation of its principle, not of its details, so that it might go to the country as a Bill that had been considered and had obtained the assent of your Lordships' House. I understand the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) to object to the Bill as not having been brought forward with the assent of Convocation. I should like to obtain the approval of Convocation; but I do not think that I am bound, or that any Member of Parliament is bound to wait for the consent of Convocation in any course we may think it our duty to take. Then the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he did not see how I connected the extracts which I read with the legislation I propose; but I read the extracts because I saw that the statements had been made with great skill, and circulated through the great mass of the people and had caused great irritation, and I should be sorry if the great mass of the people, knowing and feeling these things, saw that the House of Lords did not reject those practices, which were so repugnant to them. I confess I am greatly astonished at what has fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Russell), for I can assure the House, and my noble
  896
  Friend himself will recollect, that there was no one who last year urged me more than he did to go on with the Vestment Bill, which was more deficient in ecclesiastical authority and other authority than the Bill now before your Lordships. All I can say is that the noble Earl may be quite right to judge as he pleases, but never as long as I live will I repose any confidence in him again. Nothing puts me to so much pain as to appear to be wanting in respect to the noble Earl opposite, but I fear there is no other course open to me than to put your Lordships to the trouble of a division.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that if the Question went to a division (as the noble Earl opposite had decided on attempting to carry the Bill no farther than a second reading) it could amount to nothing more than an abstract Resolution, and he thought it very objectionable to send abroad a decision that would carry no authority with it.
  Then a Question being stated, the Question was put, Whether the said Question shall be now put?
  Resolved in the Negative.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.-(No 211.)
(The Earl Russell.)
COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.-(No 211.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I propose at the end of Clause 7 to re-insert a clause which was in the Bill when it came up from the other House of Parliament. The Bill as it now stands will, as I think, be productive of this inconvenience, that the churchwardens may incur expense upon the faith of persons undertaking to pay their church rates, who may afterwards make default, and there is no power provided in the Bill by which those persons may be compelled to perform the agreement they have made. Now the office of churchwarden is not a voluntary office—it is an office in which a man is liable to I serve even against his will, and from which; he cannot withdraw—and you may put a conscientious man, who is endeavouring to carry out the duties he has unwillingly undertaken, in a very unpleasant position if he has incurred expense on the faith that he will be repaid by persons who have promised to pay but have afterwards re-

  897
  fused. I beg to move, therefore, at the end of Clause 7, to insert as follows:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any Agreement to make any such Payment, on the Faith of which any Expenditure shall have been made, or any Liability incurred, from being enforced in the same Manner as other Contracts of a like nature might be enforced in any Court of Law or Equity: Provided that in any Suit or Proceeding to enforce such Agreement as last aforesaid, it shall not be necessary to join as Parties any other Person or Persons than the Party to be made Defendant, and the Churchwardens, Chapel-wardens, or Treasurer hereinafter mentioned."—(The Lard Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the Select Committee I stated the objections which I felt to this clause, and I will now shortly repeat those objections. It is not ft question upon which either side will wish to gain any triumph, for I apprehend we are all anxious to arrive at the conclusion which will be the soundest and safest. In the first place, I think that practically this clause will be of very little use, and for this reason—The various sums contributed or promised by individuals will be so small that I cannot believe that any churchwarden would bring an action at law, or file a bill in Equity for the purpose of recovering them. Moreover, the difficulty of showing any agreement to pay would be so great, and the presumption of such agreement arising from presence at a meeting would be so small, and so difficult to bring homo, that I think the action or suit would be certain to fail. My next objection is, that I do not think the clause is necessary. It is said that the churchwarden may undertake expenditure on the faith of promises to pay the rate; that when the work is done he will not have the money to pay for it; and that then he will be personally liable. The simple answer is that, under the new state of things which this Bill will produce, the churchwarden must get in his money before he undertakes expenditure, and then he will be exposed to no risk. My third objection is that, while the clause would be of little use and is unnecessary, it might on the other hand have a seriously deterring effect upon those who might otherwise be willing to contribute. If you ask a man for a subscription which he knows is to be purely voluntary, you may hope to receive it; but if you keep a rod in pickle for him behind your back—if you have something in reserve in the shape of an action at law or suit in Equity—he will think twice before he makes any promise. I know that
  898
  many persons for whose opinion I have great respect attach a value to this clause, but I cannot subscribe to their opinion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I can-not hope to add anything to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord; but, as a Member of the Select Committee upon this Bill, I feel bound to support his view. Looking simply and solely at the interests of the Church, I can scarcely conceive that any person should desire that this clause should pass. No doubt the right rev. Prelate sincerely believes that it would result in larger support to the Church; but I think, with the noble and learned Lord, that it would be likely to have just a contrary effect. If it were passed, a large number of poisons—even attached members of the Church—would never consent to make themselves liable to this voluntary rate. They might give subscriptions, but they would not promise to pay the rate; and I hope, therefore, that on the grounds stated by the noble and learned Lord, your Lordships will reject this clause.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that if a man wrote down his name as promising to pay a church rate, he might easily be sued in a County Court, and the money recovered at a very trifling expense.
  Clause negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I have another Amendment, to leave out Clause 8 as inserted by the Select Committee, and re-insert the clause which was in the Bill when it came up to us from the Commons. It is quite contrary to all the principles of English law to commit the administration of funds and the general power of deciding on expenditure to parties who by the legislation of Parliament have had given to them the power of withdrawing altogether from contributing to that expenditure, and who have exercised that power. When parties in the parish say, "We will give nothing towards the maintenance of the Church," I do not see why you should allow those persons to attend the particular vestry which is to manage the funds contributed for that purpose. The Bill, as it stands, will introduce a troublesome element into many parishes. It is said that we ought to be generous and to trust these people. My Lords, this principle seems to have not the slightest relation to generosity. It is simply a matter of business. Those who contribute should surely have the management of their contributions. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any ex-

  899
  clusion; for those who, after declining to pay, renew their contributions return to the list of managers of the church funds by the act of contributing. Then it is said that we ought to keep the old machinery going, and that there will be a break if this clause is re-inserted. But in the country parishes there will be no break. The farmers and ratepayers who are willing that the church rate should be continued as a voluntary impost will vote for it and pay. The now vestry will there be the old vestry, because the old vestry will be repeated through the voluntary ratepayers. In the towns, where the rate has ceased to be enforced, subscriptions must always fail, because there are always those who wish to be on the list of contributors upon the cheapest possible terms and who give an insignificant amount, others will not give more, and thus the subscriptions will be brought down to nothing. I think that the management of the voluntary rate should be committed to those who give towards the voluntary rate; and while freely admitting that men may honestly take different views on the subject, I must ask your Lordships to decide the question by a vote.
  Moved, to strike out Clause 8 and insert—
  (No one to vote who has not paid.)
  "No Person shall have any Right to vote upon any Question as to making any such voluntary Rate, or to vote or act, as Churchwarden or Churchwarden or otherwise, in or as to the Disposal of Funds raised by any such voluntary Rate or by such voluntary Contributions as aforesaid (the Rector, Vicar, Perpetual Curate, or other Incumbent of a Parish or Ecclesiastical District excepted), who shall not have paid up his voluntary Kale for the last preceding Occasion on which such a voluntary Rate as aforesaid shall have been made, or paid a voluntary Contribution in aid of the same Fund which in Amount is not less than that of his voluntary Rate."—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: As the Bill came up to us from the other House, the vestry was to make the voluntary rate. In the Select Committee it was shown that such a clause was unworkable, and the Committee therefore reverted to the old vestries. That is a point which mainly influenced my own opinion; and, as I am authorized to say, the opinion of my most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of London). To insert therefore the clause now proposed would be to destroy the old vestry, which in a former clause we have established. There are a number of peo-
  900
  ple in almost every parish who are rather indifferent to their connection with the Church. You would say to them in the second year, when they had ceased to contribute to the voluntary rate, "You must not come into the vestry.' Is it the policy of the national Church, which says, "We are the ministers of all for godly things, and if you separate yourselves from us that is your fault, not ours; we would have you if we could,"—I say is it the policy of the Church, when a man is doubtful and wavering in his allegiance, and from some motive or other, perhaps from sheer inability, has contributed nothing towards the maintenance of the Church, to say to him, "You are a defaulter, and yon shall not come in?" I have no doubt that the clause sent up to us by the House of Commons was prepared in a spirit friendly to the Church; but we must not let our judgment be biassed by that fact. I think we ought not rashly to change the existing machinery of the Church, and as no one has demanded a new vestry it will be best to give up the compulsory church rate, and adhere to the old vestry.
  EARL RUSSELL: I quite concur in the statement of the most rev. Prelate. I believe that, instead of disagreeable consequences following from the plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord, very disagreeable consequences would follow to the Church from the clause adopted by the House of Commons. There are many Dissenters who will be quite willing to subscribe if you do not make any invidious distinctions, such as, I think, are made by the plan proposed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford.)
  On Question, That the Words proposed to be left out stand Part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not-contents 13: Majority 33.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Graham, E. (D. Mont-rose.)

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Granville, E.

  York, Archp.

  Kimberley, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Russell, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Melville, V.

  Campordown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Cowper, E.

  London, Bp.

  De Grey, E.

  Effingham, E

  Bagot, L.

  901

  Belper, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Monson, L.

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

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Romilly, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Silchester, L. (E.Longford.)

  Cranworth, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller]

  Templemore, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Truro, L.

  Vernon, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Oxford, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Delamere, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed to amend Clause 8, at line 20, by inserting these words:—
  "If any churchwarden makes default in paying a church rate for which he is rated, a treasurer who shall not have made such default may be elected in his stead, and shall possess all the powers appertaining to such churchwarden in respect of the church rate."
  He said, as the clause stood, a man who conscientiously dissented from the payment of the church rate, might be called upon to collect and administer it, because the office of churchwarden was not a voluntary one, but one that was imposed compulsorily. The Amendment did not substitute a treasurer for him unless it was found expedient to do so. On nil principles of liberty we ought to allow the possibility of a treasurer being appointed by the parish when a man who conscientiously objected to acting in this matter had been appointed to the office of churchwarden.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Amendment did not discriminate between a churchwarden who conscientiously objected to pay the rate and one who did not pay it for any other reason. In either case the parish was to appoint a treasurer, but there was no machinery provided by which the parish could meet in vestry and do this; and, supposing that difficulty got over, there was a chance that the treasurer so elected might be a Dissenter; and so Dissenter after Dissenter might be appointed until the vestry got a treasurer who was qualified and would act.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid the office of churchwarden was one of observation and report, but not of original power; but for the first time it was proposed to give the churchwardens absolute power to settle matters as if they had direct authority; which was an entire evasion of the ecclesiastical law of England. The church wardens might be Dissenters, and yet it was proposed to give them a wholly new power in. regard to the appropriation of a fund to which they might refuse to contribute. He therefore proposed an Amendment, the effect of which was to make the clause provide that money might be applied to such purposes as might be agreed upon by the churchwardens and the trustees.
  THB LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had been suggested that the church trustees, having funds in their hands, might require the churchwardens to spend them upon ecclesiastical purposes whether they wished it or not, and that it was therefore necessary' to insert a provision requiring the churchwardens to be consenting parties to any expenditure which might be made upon the church. He believed the words in the clause already attained that object. The effect of the Amendment would be that the trustees, having funds in their hands, and desiring them to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes, would propose that the churchwardens should hand a certain portion of their funds to be applied in that way and it was not at all likely that the churchwardens would refuse the application. Supposing, however, that they did so, he was not aware of any machinery which could be devised to force them to make such expenditure; and it would, in his opinion, be wrong to allow the church trustees to interfere with the fabric. On the whole, he was at a loss to suggest any other machinery than that provided by the Bill.
  After some remarks from several noble Lords and right rev. Prelates which were not heard,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was not desirable to make any alteration in the clause with undue haste, and he would therefore re-consider the whole matter before the Bill came on for the third reading.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD then moved an Amendment that the Bill should not come into operation till a fortnight after Easter, 1869.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the proposed change would be productive of practical inconvenience.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OP MALMESBURY: My Lords, to prevent such misunderstandings as I am sorry to say occurred lust week, I think it right to interrupt the Business of the evening for the purpose of stating to your Lordships that it has come to my knowledge that a very important Amendment in the Scotch Reform Bill has been carried in the House of Commons against the Government. I will in a few words explain the effect of the Amendment. Your Lordships are aware that in Scotland occupiers of houses rated at a yearly value of less than £4 do not pay poor rates. As the Bill stood when it left your Lordships' House such persons would not have a vote; but, as I understand it, the effect of the Amendment carried this evening in the House of Commons will be that all persons who are Otherwise qualified will be allowed to claim the right of voting as if they had been assessed for rates and had paid their rates. The effect of this would be to add a very large number of voters to the lists. My Lords, it appears to me that, after our discussions here last week, both sides came to the decision that the Bill should be regarded as settled, and, accordingly, we refrained from making any Amendments in it, and we had no reason to expect that further Amendments would be made in it when it went back to the Commons. Under that impression, Her Majesty's Government will resist in this House the Amendment of the Commons, and I cannot help appealing to noble Lords opposite to support us in doing so. I shall move the Scotch Reform Bill as the first Order to-morrow, because I believe it is very important that the Bill should be back in the Commons by nine o'clock, and if we take it up at five o'clock I think there will be no difficulty in that.
  EARL RUSSELL: Of course I entirely concur with the noble Earl that it is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill should come back to this House with an Amendment, as they have supported the Bill in the shape it left this
  904
  House. I think the noble Earl is quite right in fixing the Bill for the first Order tomorrow. I do not know what the particular Amendment is, but I shall endeavour to support Her Majesty's Government.
  Afterwards—
  Bill returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to; certain Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and One Amendment disagreed to, for which they assign a Reason: The said Reason, and Bill, with the Amendments, to be printed; and to be taken into Consideration To-morrow. (No. 235.)

  DISTRICT CHURCH TITHES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the District Church Tithes Act, 1865, and to secure Uniformity of Designation amongst Incumbents in certain Cases—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of OXFORD; read 1a. (No. 236.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.