Sitting of 16 February 1871

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN — George Leeman, esquire, for York City; Sir Henry Knight Storks, for Ripon City.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES; Princess Louise's Marriage Portion.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Vaccination Act (1867), nominated; Public Petitions, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Army Organization* [39]; Adulteration of Food, &c.* [41]; Metropolis Water* [40]; Tribunals of Commerce* [42]; Local Legislation (Ireland)* [43].
Second Reading — Princess Louise's Annuity* [24]; University Tests [6]; Juries Act (1870) Amendment [34]; Provisional Order Bills (Committees)* [12].

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he is aware that the Endowed School Commissioners have, in a Communication addressed by them to one of the Trustees of the Endowed School a Mitcheldean, in the county of Gloucester made the following statement:—
  "The general principle on which Educations Endowments are dealt with by the Commissioner is that they should not be devoted to purely, Elementary Education, which is now fully provided for by law;"
  and whether, acting in pursuance of that statement, it is the intention of the Commissioners generally to devote to education of a higher grade funds which have been distinctly left for the purpose of primary or elementary education?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said that the hon. Baronet would see from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 that no power was given to the Commissioners to devote any sum to any particular purpose, and that the duty of the Commissioners was to prepare schemes to be submitted to the Education Department, and, if approved, to be submitted to the House before taking legal effect. Under these circumstances, it would hardly become the House to interfere with the mode in which the Commissioners prepared the schemes, the Government being responsible for the shape which those recommendations eventually assumed. He could not therefore, give a distinct answer to the Question; but he had been requested by the Commissioners to state that they were extremely anxious that everyone concerned in this movement should be fully apprised of them, and it was only fair to point out that the quotation made by the hon. Baronet presented a different appearance when read with its context.

POST OFFICE—POSTAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE HEBRIDES ANE THE MAINLAND OF SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the want of sufficient postal accommodation between the Hebrides and the mainland of Scotland; whether

  317
  he does not think it expedient to regulate the postal service so that the mails may be conveyed to and from Loch Maddy three times a week, wind and weather permitting, in winter as in summer, and so to alter the present arrangements as to insure letters being delivered in Glasgow or Edinburgh in less than eleven days from the date of their being posted in Loch Maddy; and, whether it is intended that the district of the West Highlands shall participate in the advantages of the Telegraph Act 1868, and the Acts amending and extending the same; and, if so, when telegraphic communication may be expected to be established with the head post offices of Fort Augustus and Fort William?
  MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, the hon. Member was inaccurate in stating that 11 days were occupied in transmitting letters from Glasgow or Edinburgh to Loch Maddy. Letters leaving the latter place on Wednesday morning reached Edinburgh or Glasgow on Saturday; but letters from Loch Maddy, despatched on Friday, did not reach their destination until Tuesday, the mails being delayed on their way during Sunday. The postal revenue from this service was less than half the cost. He admitted the present arrangements were not entirely satisfactory. A full inquiry would be made into the matter, which he hoped would lead to a satisfactory alteration. The Department had had great difficulties to contend with in reference to telegraphic communication; but it had succeeded in doubling the number of stations, and adding from 12,000 to 15,000 miles of wire. He hoped that by the end of May telegraphic communication would be established to Fort Augustus.

RITUAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill early this Session dealing with the Reports of the Ritual Commission?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he had nothing to add to the answer given to a similar Question a few days ago by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Government were in communication with the more eminent members of the Episcopal Bench on the subject, and they were waiting to hear from these right rev. Prelates before
318
arriving at a final decision. He had reason to believe that would not be long.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, When he will lay upon the Table of the House the Revised Code on Education?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he would lay the Revised Code on the Table of the House to-morrow, and at the same time he would also lay on the Table a Minute of the Educational Department with regard to instructions to school Inspectors with reference to the Time Table Conscience Clause, and also with reference to the examination of pupil teachers educated in Training Colleges. He hoped the Paper would be in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday or Monday at the latest.

PROTECTION OF INFANT LIFE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill early this Session for the protection of infant life?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that the subject of the hon. Member's Question had received the anxious attention of the Government; but he was sorry to say they were unable to promise legislation on the subject at an early period. He was aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who were associated with him in this work, had prepared a Bill, and if he would introduce it the measure should receive the attentive consideration of the Government.

TREATY OF PARIS (1856)—DECLARATION OF MR. ODO RUSSELL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the declaration made by Mr. Odo Russell to Count Bismarck on the 21st November (contained in No. 76, page 45, of the Correspondence respecting the Treaty of March 1856)—namely, that
"The question was one which Mr. Odo Russell had frankly proved to Count Bismarck was of a nature in its present state to compel us, with or without Allies, to go to war with Russia,"
was authorized by Her Majesty's Government, and what preparation Her

319
Majesty's Government had made in support of their threat?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said: The argument used by Mr. Odo Russell to Count Bismarck, as reported by him to Her Majesty's Government in the despatch alluded to, was not one which had been directed by Her Majesty's Government. In saying that, I do not imply the slightest blame attached to Mr. Odo Russell, because it is perfectly well known that it is the duty of Her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad to use their best discretion in the mode in which they think they can support the argument or proposition it might be their duty to procure the acceptance of. I do not attach the slightest blame to Mr. Odo Russell in the matter; but such is the fact, that it was not under any specific authority or instruction from Her Majesty's Government that the argument referred to was used by him.

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN GERMANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the establishment of the German Empire, to abolish the Missions at Munich and Stuttgart, and also to take the present opportunity for withdrawing the Secretaries of Legation and Chargés d'Affaires from Coburg, Darmstadt, and Dresden?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, that with respect to the Mission at Stuttgart the vacancy that occurred there a few months since had not been filled up; and in regard to the other places mentioned by the hon. Member, any possible changes that might occur were still under consideration by the Foreign Department.

GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE OFFICE.—QUESTION.
SIR HERBERT CROFTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is Ms intention to establish a Government Life Insurance Office?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he had never concealed his opinion that Government would confer a great benefit upon the country if it were to give absolute security for life insurance. He must, however, hesitate before attempting to
320
undertake it, because his opinion did not appear to be very extensively shared in by the public. Until the people asked for it, he did not think it would, be wise in the Government to adopt it.

FACTORY ACTS—THE WORKSHOPS ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention, during the present Session, to take any steps to enforce the provisions of the Workshops Act, which is in many places altogether a dead letter, by making the present Government Inspectors of Factories responsible for workshops, or by any other means?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he was afraid the inspection of all workshops under the Workshops Act could not be effectually carried out without largely increasing the present number of Factory Inspectors, and he had more than once expressed an opinion that the subject could only be properly dealt with by a modification of the existing Acts. He had given instructions to have the matter inquired into, and hoped before long to lay the result of those inquiries before Parliament.

TRUCK COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is able to state when the Report of the Truck Commission will be laid upon the Table; and, whether he proposes to legislate upon it during the present Session?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Commissioners had finished their sittings, so far as taking evidence was concerned; but he was afraid six weeks at least must expire before the Report would be ready. Until he had had an opportunity of considering the Report, it would be impossible for him to say whether any and what alterations of the present Act might be found to be necessary.

NAVY—COMMITTEE ON DESIGNS OF SHIPS OF WAR.—QUESTION.
MR. CORRYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Committee on Designs of Ships of War has been called on to report on certain modifications which have been proposed by the Admiralty of the designs of Her Majesty's

321
ships "Devastation," "Thunderer," "Fury," and of the four ships of the Cyclops class; if so, whether the building of those ships will be suspended until the Committee shall have reported fully on the subject; and, whether the Committee will be requested to report generally on the designs, and not on proposed modifications only; and, if so, whether the building of the ships will be suspended until the report of the Committee shall have been considered by the Admiralty?
MR. BAXTER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that the Committee on Designs of Ships of War has been called on to report not only on the modifications which have been proposed by the Admiralty on the designs of the ships referred to, but generally on the designs as well. He will find this in the Instructions given to the Committee for which the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) moves to-night; and a fortnight ago a letter was addressed to the Committee begging that the Reports on vessels of the Devastation and Cyclops classes should be considered at the very earliest period, and as soon as the Report is received it shall have the immediate attention of the Admiralty. The four ships of the Cyclops class are being built by contract, and it would, therefore, be impossible to suspend the work, and the Devastation and the Thunderer are so far advanced that it has not been thought desirable to stop the work on them; but the work on the Fury will be suspended in the meantime.

ARMY—RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
MR. DICKINSONasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of men have left the Army, and how many have enlisted since the 1st of August 1870; and, whether the 20,000 men voted at the end of last Session have all been enlisted, or how many, and for what term of service, whether for Army Service, or partly for Army Service and partly for service in the Reserve?
MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the total number of men recruited was 26,155; of whom 22,772 were for long service, and 3,383 for short service. The net increase was 18,351.

REAL ESTATE INTESTACY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKE KINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will name an early day for bringing in the Real Estate Intestacy Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not in a position to name an early day for introducing the Bill; but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I say this not out of any indifference to the subject, but from a desire that we should take the course most likely to secure the passing of the measure. My experience certainly has not shown me that there is any advantage to a measure in laying it on the Table a very long time before you can be certain of bringing it under the consideration of the House. It will be a very great disappointment to me and to the Government if we are not able practically to bring it before the attention of the House, and pass it this Session.

POOR LAW—SMALL POX.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLMSasked the President of the Poor Law Board, If he will state the number of cases of small pox reported among the pauper population of the metropolis, and the extent of the accommodation provided for them, or in immediate preparation?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the last Returns showed that the total number of these small-pox cases under treatment was 1,228. The accommodation for them consisted of 520 beds in the metropolitan hospitals, and the Boards of Guardians had accommodation for some 300 more, making a total of 820 beds. There were, therefore, 400 beds short that day; but to-morrow 70 more would be provided; and during the next fortnight about 500 more. In the whole, the beds provided would then exceed the number of cases at present known. Some of the accommodation furnished by the Guardians was, however, of an insufficient and temporary character, and it might be requisite to have 200 or 300 additional beds. Of the 400 cases un-provided for the majority were at Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and Whitechapel. A report had gone abroad that at Shoreditch there were 420 cases unprovided for; but that number was made up by an erroneous calculation. The real number

323
of cases unprovided for at Shoreditch was about 150—certainly far too many.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—THE DIAMOND DIGGINGS.—QUESTION.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government of the Cape of Good Hope has taken any and what steps for the protection of British Subjects at the Diamond Diggings in that Colony?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, that Mr. John Campbell had been appointed a magistrate for the district referred to, under provisions of the Act passed in the 26th and 27th year of the present reign. That gentleman had been received by the inhabitants with the greatest cordiality, and no disturbance was apprehended.

ROYAL FLINTSHIRE RIFLE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Royal Flintshire Rifle Militia are still without the supply of breechloading rifles promised to be delivered to them at the end of 1870; and, whether it is intended to supply them with all convenient despatch?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, some had been already distributed, and he hoped shortly the corps would receive the remainder. The delay had arisen in consequence of the Department having been so much occupied of late.

PROTECTION OF LIVERPOOL, &c.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SANDONasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made inquiries into the existing means for the protection of Liverpool and other large commercial ports from attack in the event of war; and whether it is their intention to make provision, during the present Session, for the proper security of such ports?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the subject had been under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. No proposal had been made in the present Estimates for the protection of those ports.

THE NEW POST OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the description of the new Post Office published by a member of the council of the Institute of Architects is correct; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to improve the elevation of that building?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, that to make both Question and Answer intelligible, he might explain that a member of the council of the Institute of Architects had described the design of the new Post Office as the ugliest ever conceived, as entirely devoid of all architectural knowledge and treatment, and as the result of the want of skill in the Department of Works consequent upon the arrangements recently made for carrying on the business of that Department. Perhaps the best answer to that was to state exactly what had occurred. The design for the new Post Office was originally prepared by an officer of the Department of Works, under the direction of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), when First Commissioner; but on Mr. Layard taking charge of that Office he had to deal with the design and did not approve it, but in conjunction with Mr. Fergusson, then in the Office of Works, he directed to be prepared what they deemed an improved design, which was sent to the Postmaster General and the Treasury. Being approved by both those Departments, tenders were invited for carrying out the design before he (Mr. Ayrton) became First Commissioner. To show the value of such architectural criticism as the question referred to, he might add that the Council of the Institute of Architects themselves recently recommended that Mr. Fergusson should receive Her Majesty's gold medal for his great knowledge—of which everyone was aware—in matters connected with architecture, and for his instructive writings on the subject, Mr. Fergusson being the gentleman who approved and settled the design for the new Post Office.

ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMISSION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will state to the

  325
  House the nature of the powers delegated by Her Majesty's Government to the Anglo-American Commission; and, if the Commission is empowered to close all claims for and against this Country arising out of the sailing of the "Alabama" and "Shenandoah?"
  MR. W. H. GREGORYasked, Whether the Commission was empowered to abandon, without previous reference to arbitration, the position hitherto maintained by England of non-liability for the ravages of the "Alabama?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I came down to the House, after carefully looking into the matter, prepared to give an answer to the Question of which Notice has been given, and I will give a distinct answer to it; but I should not wish to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Galway without having first taken time for consideration, lest by answering hastily I might produce an unfair impression, neither do I consider it is expedient at the present for the public interest that I should do so. With regard to the first Question, I understand it to refer to two subjects—the first as to the extent of the subject-matter that would be covered by the powers given to the Commissioners, and next to the nature of those powers. As to the first point, the latter part of the hon. Member's Question is answered with perfect clearness, and in a manner that I cannot improve upon, by the passage on the subject in the Speech from the Throne. The latter part of the paragraph in the Speech describes the purposes of the Commission, and the closing words are these—
  "This arrangement will, by common consent, include all claims for compensation which have been, or may be made by each Government, or by its citizens, upon the other."
  Then, as to the powers of the Commissioners, I will simply read two passages from the Instructions to the Commissioners. The first of them is this—the Instructions to the Commissioners commence by stating that—
  "They are appointed for the purpose of discussing in a friendly spirit with Commissioners to be appointed by the Government of the United States the various questions on which differences have arisen between Great Britain and that country, and of treating for an agreement as to the mode of their amicable settlement."
  Another passage in the Instructions is as follows:—
  326
  "Her Majesty's Government request, however, that if the mode of dealing with any particular matter which you may be disposed to agree to should vary materially from the manner of settlement to which I have informed you Her Majesty's Government are prepared at once to assent, or, in case of any disagreement of importance occurring between yourselves and the American High Commissioners, you should at once report by telegraph, and await further instructions."

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—TERMS OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an application has been made during the last few days by France to the English Government to lend their good offices with a view to secure moderate terms of Peace?
MR. GLADSTONE: Since I answered my hon. Friend's Question on a former day, a communication has been made to Her Majesty's Government by the French Government of Defence, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is at the present moment in the same position as a Ministry in this country which has resigned but holds the Seals of Office until their successors are ready to assume them. I am not in possession of a copy of that communication; but I think I can describe its purport, which I do not think entirely to correspond with the Question of my hon. Friend. The purport of it I understand to be, as it was conveyed by M. Tissot to Lord Granville, that the French Government of Defence expressed a hope, in a form more or less general, that Her Majesty's Government would exercise its influence in a way beneficial to France in reference to the negotiations for peace. In fact, what was intended to be conveyed was a hope on the the part of the Government of National Defence that Her Majesty's Government would, in order to facilitate the progress of the negotiations, recognize, with as little delay as possible, the new Government about to be appointed under the authority of the National Assembly. The communication was, as I understand it, the general expression of a wish for the friendly aid of England, and that, generally, the expression pointed specifically to an early recognition of the new Government. In reply to this Lord Granville stated to M. Tissot the satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government had perceived the orderly manner in which the elections had been conducted in France under circumstances

327
of extreme difficulty, adding that though Her Majesty's Government felt it to be a duty to reserve expressions of opinion for the present, they had made preparation to recognize the French Government without the slightest possible delay on its assuming Office.

IRELAND—LABOURERS' COTTAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Session to bring in any measure to promote the improvement of Labourers' Habitations in Ireland?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, an Act passed in 1860, and commonly called Sir William Somerville's Act, provided for the making of loans, under certain conditions, in order to the building of labourers' dwellings. That Act would expire next year, and it would probably be necessary in the course of the present Session to renew it, with certain alterations and improvements which had been suggested by experience. At the same time, he could give no definite pledge on the subject.

LOSS OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP "CAPTAIN."—QUESTION.
Sir James ELPHINSTONEIn reply to Sir James ELPHINSTONE,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Papers relating to the loss of Her Majesty's Ship Captain had that night been laid on the Table of the House.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. CARDWELLsaid: Sir, since we last met in this House to consider questions of military organization and military expenditure events have occurred in Europe of so marvellous a character that I think it no exaggeration to say they have no parallel in the records of history from the pages of Herodotus to those of Sir William Napier. These events have excited in the minds of the English people an anxious interest and a settled purpose to review their own military institutions, for the purpose of placing them on a basis of permanent security. The task which is before the English Parliament is not like that which was before the Prussian
328
Legislature after the battle of Jena. We have no reverses to repair; and we do not begin upon a cleared foundation to build a new superstructure. Our more grateful, but not, perhaps, necessarily easier, task is to combine in one harmonious whole institutions which have great excellences, but which require considerable improvement in order to bring them up to the requirements of the time. There is the standing Army, with its historical associations and glorious memories, recruited by voluntary enlistment, and having a larger amount of foreign service than any other army in the world; there is the Militia, whose theory is conscription, but whose practice is voluntary enlistment; and there are the Volunteers, who have most of the attributes of military life, and all the independence of the most perfect civil freedom. To combine these different institutions in one complete whole is, as I believe, the desire of the House of Commons and of the English nation. Her Majesty's Government have thought the present opportunity favourable for accomplishing this object, because, while we have no dangers to apprehend, we have on the part of the community at large an interest in the subject which, in former years, it has been very difficult to evoke. And, Sir, it is the opinion of the Government that, if we are to deal at all with a question of this magnitude and importance, we ought not to deal with it in a superficial and partial manner, but ought to take a broad and comprehensive review of the subject, and endeavour to lay the deep foundations of a system which may render danger or the apprehension of danger in the future altogether unknown.
In endeavouring to discharge to the best of my ability the task imposed upon me I will first speak of the numbers of men for which the present Estimates provide, and next declare the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the great questions which underlie all the details of military administration, and which must be settled by Parliament before any Department can undertake, in a complete manner, the work of detailed organization. First, I shall speak with regard to the question of compulsory or voluntary service; then on the question of purchase in the Army; and, lastly, of the position of Lords Lieutenant of counties in regard to the auxiliary forces,

329
with a reference to the relations which ought to subsist between the regular and the auxiliary forces of the country. And, perhaps, I may be permitted in the outset to quote some words of Mr. Pitt as being the natural and guiding principle for any Government in dealing with such a question as this. In 1803—at a time of great danger, very different from the present time—Mr. Pitt addressed to the House words which I think appropriate to a case like the present. He said—
"I am still of opinion that to a regular Army alone, however superior, however excellent, even aided by the Militia, we ought not solely to trust; but that in a moment so eventful. …. We ought to superadd to the regular Army some permanent system of national defence, either to a certain degree compulsory, or formed upon the voluntary zeal and patriotism of the country itself. This ought to be resorted to as the grand source of domestic security. The Army must be the rallying point; the Army must furnish example, must afford instruction, must give us the principles on which that national system of defence must be formed, and by which the volunteer forces of this country, though, in a military view, inferior to a regular Army, would, fighting on their own soil for everything dear to individuals and important to a State, be invincible."—[1 Hansard, Dec. 9, 1803.]
The present Estimates are, I am sorry to say, very much larger than those of last year. They amount to £15,851,700, being an increase of £2,886,700, or of £1,486,700 after taking into consideration the Vote of Credit assigned to the War Department, and amounting to £1,400,000. Over the Estimates of the preceding Government in 1868–9, after making an allowance for those Estimates on account of the Survey and some Indian payments — my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) well knows what I refer to—the increase is about £718,000. Now, with regard to fully £1,000,000 of the increase, I shall not occupy the time of the Committee with any details, because I think it will probably be desired that we should not now occupy ourselves with mere details, but proceed to the larger questions which are involved in the subject before us. All I will say is that my right hon. Friend who sits beside me, the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Sir Henry Storks), will be able, when the time comes, to show you that the £1,000,000 to which I have referred is an expenditure of a kind which will never occur in ordinary years. With regard to the increase
330
of 20,000 men made last year, that accounts for an increase in the Estimates of £1,049,000. The increase for the Militia is £412,000; for Volunteers, £81,500; and for the Army Reserve, £61,000.
Before I pass on to other subjects I should like to say, almost in a single sentence, a few words about the increase of men. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) spoke the other evening of disbanded veterans and attenuated regiments. We disbanded no corps of the British establishment proper, but only colonial corps, and I maintain that it is almost a universally accepted principle of English policy that colonial corps shall not be maintained at the expense of the taxpayer at home. The doctrine is that at home the population shall do more in its own defence in comparison with the amount of the standing army, and that it is no longer necessary to maintain, at the expense of the British taxpayer, a standing army to relieve our distant Colonies from the necessity of doing anything to defend themselves. And there is no one who has more clearly or more forcibly expressed that opinion than my right hon. Friend whom I see opposite (Sir Charles Adderley), who represented the Colonial Office under the late Government. I contend, therefore, that when we disbanded the Canadian Rifles, who defended the frontier between the United States and Canada, we did nothing to impair the defensive power of England, nor did we do anything to diminish that power when we disbanded the Cape Rifles, on the report of the Governor of the Colony that the mounted police would do the work better; and the same remark may apply to the West India regiments and to the black troops on the West Coast of Africa, neither of whom afforded any source of strength to England. These disbandings lighten the burden of the British taxpayer, while they in no respect diminish the power or the influence of this country.
Then with regard to attenuated regiments. The first person who introduced attenuated regiments was, I think, General Peel, acting as a member of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That was, in my opinion, a most judicious and wise course, and let me take the liberty of saying that if you are ever to have a combination of efficiency

331
with economy, you must, in a time of peace, have attenuated regiments. Such regiments do not look so well on parade; they are not so agreeable to commanding officers as regiments which are not attenuated, but they are very agreeable to the British taxpayer, and when you have them backed by a reserve they are equally conducive to the strength and power of the country. General Peel did not reduce those regiments below 600; that was at a time when the reserves were not yet formed, the time when he introduced the Reserve Bill. We reduced them to 500; but that was at a time when the reserves were raised and were ready to be put into the battalions. I will for a moment make a comparison in order to show our exact strength when we came into Office with what it was when this subject was dealt with last year. I am taking a comparison certainly not too favourable to myself, for the right hon. Gentleman had at that time at home rather more men than his distribution had provided, while in August last I had fewer than my distribution contemplated. In December, 1868, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) had in this country 89,080 regulars, and 3,494 reserve men liable to service abroad. That left at home 92,574. On the 1st of August, 1870, we had only in this country of regulars 84,376—not because the Estimates did not provide more, but because 5,000 had not yet returned from the Colonies; but there was at that time a reserve of 22,313 men, making a total of 106,689, against 92,574. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Chiefly Militia Reserves.] Yes, they were; that is to say, there were at home liable to serve abroad 14,000 more men after the Estimates had been reduced by two millions and a quarter. I say, therefore, the policy of attenuated regiments is a policy to which I am prepared to adhere when there are reserves prepared to fill those regiments.
Well, now about Militia Reserves. I have never been enthusiastic for Militia Reserves; but I own I cannot understand why special disparagement should be cast on a Militia Reserve from the quarter that carried the Bill for establishing it, and actually created it. If it was not a reliable reserve, why create it? If it is a liable reserve, why disparage it? My own opinion is, that you may
332
have a much better reserve—namely, the Army Reserve. It was for the purpose of securing that object that I introduced and carried through Parliament last Session a Bill for short service, which I hold to be at the very root and foundation of all Army Reform. Having used the reserves which my predecessors had placed in my hands, and having passed a Bill for the purpose of introducing a better reserve, I consider myself entitled to adhere to and sustain the policy of attenuated regiments in a time of peace.
Now I should like to say a few words upon the subject of recruiting, about which I have been asked a Question in the course of the evening, because, to my great surprise, all through the Recess, some patriotic critics appeared to have taken special trouble to prove that our attempts at recruiting were failures. What possible satisfaction that could give to any person who had the strength or glory of his country at heart I could never understand. But let me state a few of the facts of the case. I have laid on the Table the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting. The recruiting began in the middle of the harvest. It began without bounty, and I beg leave to remind the House that until last year it was an almost universally, accepted dogma that recruiting without bounty was impossible. Well, we began recruiting without bounty, and almost immediately the occasion arose which led us to ask, and the House to vote, 20,000 additional men. The result has been that there was a larger number of recruits than during the time of the Crimean War, and even during the time of the Indian Mutiny, which has always been looked upon as the period when the greatest number of recruits were raised; and when a bounty of £2 was given and the medical examination was relaxed, the number did not greatly exceed that which we have now obtained. When you look at the bounty, the standard of height, and the medical examination, you will probably be of opinion, when you read the Inspector General's Report, that the recruiting of last year was really and substantially equal to that of 1857. Before I pass from the subject of bounty, I will observe that the system of bounty carried along with it the supposed necessity for the practice of marking. Bounty having been done away with, I have desired that the practice

333
of marking may also be discontinued. [Murmurs.] I thought everybody in the House knew what marking was. Marking is the practice of imprinting letters upon the person in the way sailors frequently mark themselves. The letter "D." is put upon a deserter; the letters "B. C." upon one who has been guilty of very bad conduct. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Branding.] It is not branding. It is still sometimes said that we entrap and decoy recruits; but when you read the Report you will find that the recruits are sent without escort, a railway ticket being given to them at the places where they are recruited. They are sent by themselves to join their regiments; and a very small decimal represents the percentage of those who absent themselves, and that of these many afterwards join, having only missed a steamer, or a train. On the whole, I am sure you will feel that the recruiting has been extremely satisfactory.
On the question of short service, I wish to say that the numbers recruited under the Bill of last year are small, but that this may be accounted for by the operation of the prejudice which has always favoured the old plan, and because until the ranks of the Army were full we were not able to pass any men into the Reserve. The ranks of the Army are now full, or nearly so, and in a short time we shall begin to pass men into the Reserve. One of the objects of the measure I have to introduce will be that greater elasticity may be given in regard to short service than we were able to obtain by the Bill of last year. The House will remember that we had a great deal of discussion upon the subject. We were almost compelled to apply it only to the infantry, and that only for six years; but the war which has been raging on the Continent has shown abundantly that excellent soldiers can be made in a much shorter period than six years; and therefore I hope the House will permit us to extend the short-service principle to a much greater length, and thus to increase the Army Reserve.
I now wish to speak of the Militia, called, and justly called, by the Royal Commission "the solid and constitutional reserve of the country." We issued a circular to the commanding officers of the Militia regiments, in order to ascertain whether, in their opinion,
334
they would be able to raise additional battalions or additional companies, and the result has been that we have received accounts which I have laid on the Table and which appear to show that we can raise 45,000 additional men in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Therefore, for the present year, there will be, including officers and permanent staff, 139,000 Militiamen. This is more than the statute at present permits us to raise; and one of the clauses of the Bill I shall have the honour to introduce will have for its object to enable the Crown to raise those additional Militiamen by voluntary enlistment within the limits of the Vote that Parliament may sanction.
The Volunteers have in the course of the year shown an increase of efficients to the number of 577, and of extra-efficients to the number of 8,176. The schools of instruction opened in the course of the autumn have been very readily attended, considering that they have been opened for so short a period, and at the present moment out of 460 men, 142 have passed the schools, and 318 have received certificates of competency. In the Estimates I have taken £40,000 for the Volunteers, in anticipation of the certificates to be obtained by officers, commissioned, and non-commissioned, in the present year. This arrangement made last year was not received at first with much favour by those who spoke about it in this House; but I hope those Volunteer officers who are present will agree with me in opinion that they have been received favourably by the Volunteer Force.
I will now pass on to state the numbers for which we propose to provide. The present Estimate provides on the British establishment for 135,047 Regular troops, 139,000 Militia, 14,000 Yeomanry (9,000 whom we hope to get for the First Army Reserve), and 30,000 Second Army Reserve and Pensioners, making in all 327,047 men, and if you add for efficient Volunteers 170,671, the whole will amount to 497,718. Of these there will be in this country 108,108 Regulars, 139,000 Militia, 14,000 Yeomanry, the First Army of Reserve amounting to 9,000, and the Second Army of Reserve and Pensioners to 30,000, making a total of 300,108, besides 170,000 Volunteers. And now I will just state how the 20,000 men added to the Army are disposed of.

335
The artillery has been increased by 5,254 men, the cavalry corps by 1,888, the infantry by 12,257, the engineer train by 333, the army service corps by 319, the army hospital corps by 140, making in all 20,191. Deducting from this 211 men, mainly consisting of two companies of the Ceylon Rifles, which are to be reduced, the number will be 19,980. Now, for this force of 300,108 men, which I said we shall have at home, one of the most important questions is—What is to be the field artillery? We have raised the horse artillery from 10 batteries to 16, having 96 guns; and we have turned 20 garrison batteries into field batteries, making 40 altogether, with 240 guns, making a total of 336 guns. And in reserve we have 12 batteries, with 72 guns, making in all 408 field guns, which would be a sufficient number of guns for a force of 150,000 men. I think it right to state these figures, partly because the subject is one which excites great interest, and partly because it is a necessary introduction to the first question which I wish to lay before the House—that is, the question of voluntary or compulsory service. Until we have clear ideas whether we mean to adhere to our present system of voluntary service, or to adopt some one of the many plans of compulsory service which we see daily presented to us, we cannot proceed, with any detailed arrangements. Now, the question is not whether compulsory service shall be, as it has always been, a portion of the law of the country, not whether it shall be that last resource which the Sovereign and Parliament can apply in the moment of supreme emergency, but the question is, as we see every day recommended, whether compulsory service shall be called into action and become part of the daily administration of our military system. Sir, before enforcing a plan like this we should require indeed conclusive proof—something which should compel us to change our ancient habits and enter upon a course which, to my judgment, would be most distasteful to the country, and extremely objectionable in every point of view. It is sometimes said that compulsory service would be simple and logical, that it would solve all difficulties, and that if you only had recourse to it all the objections which surround it would at once disappear.
336
That argument seems to me to involve that there should be compulsory service for the standing Army, a proposition which nobody ever, I think, was bold enough to support. If it is to be compulsory service for the Militia, on what ground is it to be defended? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) in 1852 brought in the plan, which works extremely well, of voluntary enlistment for the Militia. Why depart from it and establish a compulsory system? I have seen it argued that it would be a great moral advantage if all men of all classes were compelled to serve together in the ranks under pressure of an Act of Parliament. To me it appears that there is not a nobler spectacle than this country presents, where all classes serve together, but serve together in a voluntary service, and have always hitherto in our time maintained a sufficient force. Before the Great War the theory of compulsory service existed, and what was the result? Why that almost all the persons who served were substitutes. And what was the result of that in its bearing, whether upon the individuals selected or upon the country at large? To the rich it was simply unqualified injustice. A rich man who was struck by the Ballot simply paid out of his own purse a large sum when he ought to have contributed only his portion as one of the community. What was it to the poor? From the poor man you took everything he possessed, his capital, his labour, his time, which was his only capital. And what was it for the State? By raising the price of the substitute in the market you enhanced the price of your recruit for the Army; you were bidding against yourself, you defeated your own measure, and you were absolutely obliged to give it up. Well, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to recommend that there shall be compulsory service, whether with substitutes or without them. They agree entirely with the language used the other day by Lord Derby at a meeting in Lancashire, where he said—"You would find it the cheapest in the end to pay for the labour which you want." I have gone into the subject and expressed my views upon it at some length; but so much has been said about it for the last few months that I wished to express clearly and strongly the opinions which

337
I entertain. They are so well put in a Report upon recruiting by the late Mr. John R. Godley, that I cannot do better than quote his words. Mr. Godley wrote—
"Conscription, which is, at first sight and superficially, a cheap mode of recruiting armies, is, in reality, the most expensive that can be adopted. It is a tax by lot, confessedly the very worst kind of tax that a Government can impose. Where substitutes are allowed and provided, the tax is paid in money, and consists of the price paid for the substitute; the only difference between such substitutes and recruits provided as ours are being, that in the former case the bounty is paid by the unfortunate individual on whom the lot has fallen; in the latter case by the public. The case is still harder with those who cannot afford to purchase substitutes; on them the conscription is a tax which takes at one swoop their whole capital—i. e., their labour and their time. It matters not what the value of that capital may be—whether they be skilled or unskilled, educated or ignorant, earning high or low wages, producing largely or producing nothing, down comes the relentless conscription, takes possession of them for the best part of their lives, and gives them in return hardly more than clothing and food. In these cases the pecuniary amount of the tax is represented by the difference between the value of the conscript's labour at his calling and his pay as a soldier. But no pecuniary expression can represent the full amount of individual suffering and public inconvenience which must be the result of so extensive and violent a dislocation of labour. Compulsory service of any kind would be peculiarly injurious to a country inhabited by an enterprizing and colonizing people like the English. Such a people always sits loosely to the soil, and the prospects of a conscription would infallibly lead to a regular and large immigration of our best workmen, a class of whom we already lose too many. Of course, if there is no other way of getting an army, we must have a conscription; but surely everything else ought to be tried before we have recourse to it."
Well, it appears to me also that everything else ought to be tried before we adopt this system. We do not employ conscription even for the Navy, our first line of defence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge based his Militia Bill on the voluntary principle, and I hope that in ordinary times we shall be able to secure a sufficient force without departing from that principle. In cases of emergency the law imposes the obligation of compulsory service; but it is not enforced in a manner which can be said to be either very efficient or simple. We, therefore, propose to insert in the Bill clauses empowering the Sovereign in times of emergency to call Parliament together, and to raise, without delay, the forces which may be deemed to be necessary
338
under such circumstances for the national defence. Well, if we can have a force sufficiently large in all ordinary times by means of voluntary service, and if we supplement that force in cases of emergency by having recourse to the common-law obligation of every man to defend his country, the next question which arises is—How are these forces to be organized? When you come to consider this subject, you will find that there are two great questions which must be decided before you can enter into details. These are the questions of purchase in the Army, and the position of the Lords Lieutenant of counties with reference to the auxiliary forces. I believe it to be the desire of the country and of Parliament to unite and amalgamate all the different forces of the nation into one harmonious and compact body, so that they may be employed with the greatest advantage for the purpose for which they exist. In order to effect that object you must place them under one government, and in order to place them under one government you must apply to them something like the same rules and the same system. You cannot have the purchase officers of the Army amalgamated and interchangeable with the non-purchase officers of the reserve forces. You cannot have all your forces amalgamated and interchangeable so long as you retain a system under which at present the regular forces are under the direct government of the Crown, and the auxiliary forces under the control of the Lords Lieutenant of counties. Therefore it is that you must make up your minds as to whether you will continue or abolish the system of purchase, and whether you will keep your reserve forces in the hands of the Lords Lieutenant or transfer them to the Crown.
Now, with the permission of the Committee, I will take the question of purchase first. Everybody knows that the practice of purchase is co-existent with the existence of our Army. It was prohibited by William III. for a short time; but it was revived in 1701, and in 1711 rules, and in 1719 regulations, with respect to it were made. In 1857 a Royal Commission was appointed, of which the Duke of Somerset was Chairman, and by which many distinguished men were examined with respect to the question of purchase. The Commissioners,

339
in their Report, sum up all that is to be said against and for the system with judicial impartiality. On the one side they say—
"It is contended that it is vicious in principle; repugnant to the public sentiment of the present day, and equally inconsistent with the honour of the military profession and with the policy of the British Empire. The system it is moreover affirmed produces ill effects on the constitution of the Army, and impairs its efficiency by giving an undue pre-eminence to wealth, discouraging exertion, and depressing merit.
"It encourages habits of expense and dissipation, injurious to discipline and embarrassing to the poorer officers.
"It sends an officer into battle with the knowledge that in hazarding his life, he hazards also the future prospects of those who are dearest to him."
This, indeed, has been since the Crimean War modified as regards the regulation, but still remains as regards the over-regulation price. The Report proceeds—
"The regulation price of commissions is a fiction. … Cases of this kind lead to traffic and bargaining among officers, whereby a mercenary feeling, it is alleged, is created in men whose guiding principles should be a nice sense of honour and a disinterested attachment to the public service."
Now it is impossible to conceive anything more alien from the feelings of that noble profession, whose object is not the acquisition of wealth but the discharge of duty and the attainment of honour, than the qualities which are spoken of in that Report of the Duke of Somerset's Commission. They may truly say—
"They are not covetous for gold.…
Such outward things dwell not in their desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
They are the most offending souls alive."
On the other side, the Commission reported that the feeling of the Army was generally in favour of the continuance of the system of purchase, on the ground that it facilitated retirement, and was a security against favour. The Commission pointed out that the command of a battalion was a most important trust, and that no man, unless there was reason to believe he was thoroughly competent, ought to have the lives of his fellow-subjects committed to his charge. They showed that the loss of a battalion, the result of his incapacity, might be the loss of a battle, and the loss of a battle serious disaster to the Empire. They therefore recommended that, at least with regard to the command of a
340
battalion, the system of purchase should be abolished. We are now in the fourteenth year since that recommendation was made. In 1860 it was taken into consideration by the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston, and it was determined to adopt it. We are now in the eleventh year since that decision was arrived at, and nothing has been done, and no wonder: for, in the first place, it was almost equally applicable to the major, and, in the next, the abolition of purchase in the case of the lieutenant-colonel must affect the interests of every officer in the regiment. Again, in 1868, my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), whom I see opposite, submitted to the Queen that it was advisable to do away with the rank of cornet and ensign in the Army. He did not, however, remain in Office long enough to devise and submit to Parliament a scheme on the subject. That task fell to me, and I endeavoured to discharge it to the best of my ability. I took the advice of some of the most experienced soldiers in the Army with respect to it, and I had every reason to believe that the plan which I proposed would be satisfactory until I announced it in this House. A more dismal reception than it then met with—a more universal rejection never in my recollection fell to the lot of any proposal made within these walls. What was the cause? It was that while I was asking Parliament to make a considerable contribution of the public money for a purpose which I believe was admitted to be advantageous to the Army, I had omitted to provide for the case of over-regulation prices, and yet I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not say that he would have proposed a Vote for the over-regulation price. That rendered it necessary to have an inquiry, for, although everybody knew what over-regulation prices were, except those who were responsible, yet everyone who was responsible was obliged to be entirely ignorant. The Royal Commission which was appointed consisted of the most eminent men, many of them being Members of this House, and at the head of it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). They reported unanimously, and I think I may, without fear of contradiction, say that their Report was strongly in favour of over-regulation prices. Now, statutes more stringent than those prohibiting over-regulation prices it is impossible to

341
conceive. We have, therefore, Acts of Parliament prohibiting that in favour of which a Royal Commission has reported. The conclusion I draw from that is, that Earl Grey was not far wrong when he told the Duke of Somerset that the wisest thing we could do was to let purchase alone until we could abolish it altogether. Having those Acts of Parliament to which I have just referred on the statute book, are we to enforce those stringent penalties, notwithstanding the Report? Are we to leave them on the statute book, and fail to enforce them? Are we to repeal them, and declare that we have no control whatsoever over the system of purchase? Are we to say that there is to be no protection for the officers who cannot afford to meet the rise in price, so that, in fact, the obtaining commissions shall be simply a question of the highest bidder? ["No, no!"] But it would be so when you repealed the Act of Parliament. We are, therefore, brought by two classes of considerations to the absolute necessity of considering the subject. You can decide in favour of maintaining the purchase system or in favour of abolishing it. But under the circumstances of the nation at the present time you are compelled by irresistible necessity to come to a fixed and settled determination. You want to introduce a reform which, probably, will involve a complete change in the organization of your Army; you have heard or read of the Prussian system, and are considering, perhaps, whether, in some respects, it might not be advisable to adopt some portions of that system; and you cannot stir without interfering with pecuniary interests in a manner which you would regret, or without creating new pecuniary interests which you have no right to do until Parliament has made up its mind on the subject. I say you are compelled to come to a decision on this subject. Now, what is this decision to be? The arguments on the side of retaining the purchase system are strong, and the first is that you will have to pay a very large price if you wish to abolish it. If you decide in favour of this course, and if you accept the recommendations of my right hon. Friend, as I, for one, think you will be obliged to do, and recognize to the full the customary price of commissions, the amount in the purchase regiments will not be less than £7,500,000, and may run up to nearly
342
£8,500,000, as will be seen from the calculations which I shall lay upon the Table of the House by-and-by. Well, that is a very large sum. But there are other difficulties still greater. What will you do about retirement? It is impossible to determine with accuracy what will be required in the way of retirement. The Duke of Somerset's Commission reported that to do away with the system of purchase you must introduce these two principles — selection and compulsory retirement. I am not able to tell you what retirement will be necessary—no one, indeed, but a prophet could tell you that. It must be tried by experience before you can come to any result. There are those who believe that, if purchase was abolished, many men would send their sons into the Army for the benefit of the training, to leave it after a short interval, and that promotion would, therefore, be as rapid as it is now. They would say, why should I be less willing to send my son into the Army when I have no commission to pay for, and when the Army would be a better school? I confess I do not agree with that opinion, and believe that we should have more retirement to provide. Another possible conclusion might be arrived at, and that is that in the reserve forces we hope to be able in future to find many places for officers of the regular service. How far that would furnish the retirement without putting the country to the expense of providing retirements no person can possibly predict. It is a question which you must look forward to face when it arises, and all you can say is that the charge, if it does arrive, will be a necessary and a legitimate charge, and that Parliament must be prepared to meet it. But there remains another difficulty, and that is, how promotion is to be regulated. The Royal Commission say—and I think with truth—that you would do harm in the Army if, in abolishing purchase, you substituted seniority, pure and simple. I believe the truth is that, if you abolish purchase, you must accept the principle of selection. You must act upon the principle of selecting for promotion those who merit it, and you must not allow inert or inefficient seniority or a system of pecuniary advantage to prevail. Well, then, the question is, are you prepared to meet these three objections?—Are you prepared to sacrifice a very large

343
sum of money? Are you prepared to look forward to dealing with the question of retirement? and are you prepared to adopt the principle of selection? Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered all these questions. They are of opinion that unpaid service is very generally the dearest of services. They are of opinion that this system of trafficking and purchase in this glorious profession ought to cease, and they therefore recommend to the House the abolition of the purchase system. The Bill which I shall have the honour of laying upon the Table of the House will explain the mode by which it is proposed to carry this into effect. After a certain date no pecuniary interest shall be taken by anyone in any new commission, and no man shall be placed in a worse position as to the commission he at present holds in respect to either regulation or customary price. Commissioners will be appointed, who will at once ascertain the over-regulation price in every regiment, and with money from the Votes of Parliament they will stand in the place of purchasers. When, therefore, an officer retires by the sale of his commission, he will receive from the Commissioners both the regulation and the customary price of his commission. I use the phrase "customary price" because it is the most accurate legal definition of the money paid in excess of the regulation value. When an officer retires on full pay or half-pay, and proves that but for the abolition of the purchase system he would have received the over-regulation price of his commission, the amount will be paid him; and when he wants to sell his half-pay commission, and is permitted to commute it, and proves that but for the passing of this Act he would have been eligible to sell, whether by exchange or otherwise, he will receive from the Commissioners the difference between the regulation price and the commutation. An officer, again, having on the appointed day a claim by years of service to a price higher than that of his present commission, and afterwards promoted, will receive the price, if subsequently promoted, out of the regulation price of the higher commission—that is to say, the Bill recognizes the vested interest of a non-purchase officer, as it recognizes the vested interest of the purchase officer. The Act also contains
344
a clause which provides that claims to compensation in the old Indian regiments shall be considered by the Commissioners according to the recognition which has been given to such claims by the Secretary of State for India. At present, of course, only those officers can sell who can find purchasers; and in framing a measure of this kind in a spirit of great liberality it is necessary to fix some limit; or, if you make the Consolidated Fund the universal purchaser, there is no saying how rapidly the process might go on, and after some time you might observe that a very great diminution had been made in your Army, and some considerable diminution in your Consolidated Fund. Therefore the limit we have fixed is this—that no greater number of officers shall retire in any year than the maximum number of that rank and branch of the service in any of the preceding five years, without the sanction of the Treasury. I believe that no case has been omitted from the draft of the Bill. I shall lay the computations upon the Table of the House, and, as hon. Members will see, it will vary from £7,600,000 at the least to £8,400,000 at the most. Of course it will not all occur at once. It will be a considerable charge for the first few years, after which it will rapidly decline, and become comparatively small.
The next important question that arises is as to first commissions. If the House should adopt the scheme of the Government the first commissions will, of course, be given without purchase, and therefore it is necessary to consider what is the proper and legitimate way for the public to bestow that which it is intended to give as a free gift. We propose that the first commissions shall be given in one of several ways. First, that admission to Sandhurst shall be by competitive examination, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Military Education; and that those who have obtained admission to Sandhurst by competitive examination should receive commissions, provided they were found to conduct themselves in such a manner as to entitle them to the position; that a certain number of subalterns of Militia regiments who have served for two years in the Militia regiments and have received favourable testimonials should be granted commissions without purchase in the Line. Non-commissioned

345
officers, of course, as now, should obtain commissions; and considering that one of the consequences of this proposal would be to abolish the rank of cornet and ensign, it is necessary to consider whether it would not be expedient to institute an order of cadets. The Royal Commission on Military Education recommended that there should be garrison instructors and regimental instructors in the regiments. We have carried into effect the proposal as regards garrison instruction to great advantage; and when you have extended it to regimental instructors, it is at least a question whether it would not be of great advantage that young men should enter the regiments as cadets under the regimental instructors before they received their commissions. If this were done the commissions could be withheld in the case of young men who found, upon trial, either that they did not like the service or that the service did not like them. Then, of course, there would be the University men, who now are qualified for commissions, and those commissions to which these several sources did not furnish candidates would be filled from the general public by competitive examination. These are the modes by which it is proposed admission to the Army should be gained on the abolition of purchase.
Then we come to the question of promotion, and if we adopt the opinion of the Royal Commission of 1857 we must decide that promotion be made by selection. But of all the problems of life none is so difficult of solution as to decide in whose hands the power of selection should reside, and by what rule that power should be exercised. One thing, however, is quite certain; we shall all agree that the administration of the patronage of the Army should not be placed in the hands of a political party. That is a point upon which the Committee of which Sir James Graham was Chairman expressed the strongest opinion. At present the responsibility rests upon the Secretary of State for War, and I do not think he should be relieved of that responsibility. If an improper appointment be made, the person who should be responsible to the Crown and the country is the Secretary of State; but the selection of the person destined for promotion should not rest with him, but with a high military
346
officer, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. To secure fairness of promotion, the reports of general officers inspecting will be furnished in greater completeness to the General Commanding-in-Chief, and be tabulated and recorded in the office of the Military Secretary. These will form the basis for selection according to the regulations about to be laid down; but I will not enter into details upon the mode in which security is to be afforded to the Army for the impartiality and fairness of promotion, because the matter is still being carefully considered by some of the most eminent officers in the Army; and I must render my thanks to Sir William Mansfield for the assistance he has been good enough to give me upon this subject, in conjunction with his Royal Highness the Field Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Speaking generally, promotion from subaltern to captain would be regimental, and, speaking generally, promotion from captain to major and from major to lieutenant-colonel would be army promotion. First appointments to the rank of major and lieutenant-colonel would be limited in point of time, so that those whom experience proved to be inefficient, and whom it would not be desirable to re-appoint, at the expiration of some limited, period—say, five years—would not be re-appointed. There should likewise be a limit of age. I believe this is very much the system that prevails in the Prussian Army, where it is attended with this consequence — that when a man finds that he is not selected, he naturally discovers he is not wanted and leaves the service. It is, in fact, a system designed to sift out those failing through defect in character, health, conduct, or intellect to come up to the proper standard of military excellence; it will not prejudicially affect officers of average ability and zeal, nor will it operate to elevate juniors far above their seniors, except in cases of very extraordinary merit. But you will observe that there is one important consideration at the root of this part of the question—namely, that if you do not retain selection at every part of the system, you will immediately find, as soon as you have spent a large sum of money in abolishing one system of purchase, you have laid the foundation of another. The security against the growth of another system of purchase

347
is first a rigid enforcement of the law. If Parliament consents to make this great contribution towards the abolition of purchase, Parliament will not be satisfied without its enforcement. The next principal consideration will be, that the successor shall never be known until his predecessor has left his place; and the third is that, wherever there is the slightest suspicion that any corrupt pecuniary arrangement has formed the basis of retirement, selection shall be vigorously exercised to put it aside. With regard to the rapidity of promotion after the change is made, it is impossible, at the present moment, to say more than that changes will occur after the passing of the Bill, and those who take positions in the Army must be prepared to accept those positions on that understanding, with the knowledge that a reasonable rapidity of promotion will be secured probably much the same as the average of past years. Then, Sir, in whose hands are these large powers to be vested? The answer is—they will be vested in the officer who is chosen by the Government of the Sovereign to be Commander-in-Chief of the Army, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for War. Hitherto there have been two offices from which military affairs have been administered—that of the Secretary of State for War in Pall Mall, and that of the officer commanding-in-chief at the Horse Guards. It is not easy to exaggerate the inconvenience arising from the separation of these two offices. That inconvenience was commented upon by Sir James Graham's Committee more than 10 years ago, and it is, I believe, universally admitted; but physical obstacles have hitherto prevented our overcoming this inconvenience. It is the desire of everyone, I believe, that, if possible, a new building should be ultimately erected upon the historical site where the Horse Guards now stands; but we have never been able to obtain the means of carrying that into effect, and even if we had the site to-morrow it would probably be something like 10 years before the design could be accomplished. Hitherto there has been no room for the two establishments in either one of these buildings; but last year a very considerable reduction in the establishments of both was made, and now we shall be able to accommodate under the roof of the War
348
Office in Pall Mall the officer commanding-in-chief and all that belongs to the principal establishment of the Horse Guards. The next question is, what is to be the tenure of the officer commanding-in-chief and the Military Secretary? Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in passing, that I have seen with very great regret a good deal of comment made on this subject, which seemed to me to have had a personal character. I shall therefore make no further allusion to this fact, lest, by doing so, I should be myself the unwilling instrument of importing matter of that description into the discussion, matter which I am persuaded it would be the wish and the duty of both sides of the House to avoid. With regard to these two offices, Her Majesty's Government have considered that the position of the officer commanding-in-chief must be looked upon as an exceptional one as compared with that of any other Staff officer, and that, therefore, it cannot be regulated with mere reference to time. It is obvious that he should be in harmony with the Government of the day, and that his continuance in, and removal from, office must depend upon considerations of public policy; and Her Majesty's Government therefore think that it would be a mistake to apply to the person holding that office a condition derived from the mere limit of time. But with regard to the post of Military Secretary, which is now exempt from the five years' rule that applies to other Staff officers, I think there is no reason for the exemption, and that it ought to be rescinded. Our object should be to secure the greatest exactness and the greatest impartiality in regard to every officer in the Army; and the intention is that promotion should rest upon the selection of the officer who may be commanding-in-chief, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for War. I have now, I think, exhausted—I am afraid at too much length—what I have to say on the difficult question of purchase. I do not say that we have devised a theoretically perfect plan; but, after balancing the matter with the best judgment I have been able to bring to bear upon it, I do earnestly recommend our proposal to this House as being the one surrounded with the smallest difficulties; and I do not see how you can achieve any complete organization in this country of an army

349
combining the regular with the auxiliary forces until you have abolished the system of purchase in the Regular Army.
Then, with respect to the auxiliary forces, in 1869 we obtained power from Parliament to place the Militia, when out for training, under the command of the general officer of the district, and in 1870 we divided our military districts into sub-districts, under the command of general officers; and that arrangement, as far as I can understand, works to the satisfaction of the officers of the Militia. I believe they prefer that amount of union with the regular service, and to be placed under the general officer of their district. But we have now in these Estimates included a colonel on the Staff for every one of these sub-districts, who will have under him between 15,000 and 20,000 of the auxiliary forces of the country; and we propose to make him a kind of brigadier, or commander of the whole force, in order that the regular and auxiliary forces may be more closely compacted and united together. The Inspector General of Reserve Forces, after a study of the reports of the inspecting officers, tells me, I am happy to say, that he thinks them satisfactory as regards these auxiliary forces. Yet I think it will be admitted by Gentlemen connected with them who sit in this House, that there has not been a sufficiently close inspection of them, and that if there were a more vigorous one, and it were known where to apply the pruning knife and to remove that which it was desirable to remove, that would greatly add to the efficiency of those forces. We, therefore, propose that there should be a colonel on the Staff of the regular Army for every 15,000 or 20,000 of the auxiliary forces in each district. Then we come to the question from whom should these auxiliary forces hold their commission; and this is a question which, at some periods of our history, was a great political consideration, but I think it has long ceased to be so. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government is, that the commissions now given by the Lords Lieutenant of the counties should in future emanate from the Queen. We propose, therefore, to transfer to, or to re-invest in, the Queen the issuing of these commissions, and to make the auxiliary forces — though of course recruited, enlisted, and embodied, when they are embodied, according to
350
their own separate constitution and character—all hold from the Queen, all be under one command, and all be regarded as members of the general defensive and military system of the country. The promotions will all be made on the same principles as in the Regular Army, the Inspector General of the Reserve Forces being always consulted with respect to every promotion. In reference to first commissions, I should hope that the Lord Lieutenant of the county would give his recommendation, so that that most valuable element of the Militia Force—the county influence—may not be entirely got rid of. In communicating to the Militia a more military character, it is far from the desire of the Government to deprive it of any portion of that local character which we know to be so important.
Then, Sir, we come to the question—How we can give a greater local connection to the Regular Army? I have already said that the detailed organization of the forces cannot be completely undertaken, much less carried into effect, until Parliament has declared its purpose upon these great questions. Do you agree with the Government in thinking that in ordinary times we should look exclusively to voluntary service, and should not entertain the notion of compulsory service except in the case of a great emergency? When Parliament has come to its decision on that point, one important part of the problem will have been solved. The next question is—Do you approve the abolition of purchase in the Army? and the third question is—Do you approve of the transfer from the Lords Lieutenant of counties of the power which they now exercise of granting commissions in the auxiliary forces, that power being re-vested in the Crown? But in the meantime there are some means to which we may resort for establishing a closer connection between the regular and the auxiliary forces. The old principle of depôt battalions was much objected to on several grounds. It was costly; it was inefficient; it removed the officers from direct subordination to their commanding officers, and placed them under the commanding officers of the depôt battalions. Now it is proposed to establish training centres for the regular troops and the Militia upon the local principle. Each colonel on the Staff having from 15,000 to 20,000 of the auxiliary forces under him, would

351
also have under him the whole recruiting service of his district; he would have the command of all the reserves, except the technical instruction of the artillery, which would be conducted under the officers of the Royal Artillery. The infantry regiments which have now a local designation would retain that designation, and be attached to the sub-district in which the county they belong to is included. Regiments not having a local designation will be assigned to a sub-district, regard being had to its population and recruiting power. Regiments will recruit in their own sub-districts. The permanent Staff of the Militia and the Volunteers will be utilized by the colonel on the Staff when the regiment is not out. Recruits for the Militia will be trained, as far as possible, with those for the Regular Army, and it is proposed to train them for a longer period than the period during which they are now trained, the object not being to extend the term of training the Militia—which would, generally speaking, be such a disturbance of the labour of the country that it could not be endured—but sending the recruits to be much better trained at first in order that they may not require a longer training after they have joined their regiments. The adjutants of the reserves should be frequently selected from captains on full pay of a regiment of the same district, and they should be appointed for five years, subject to renewal if specially recommended, being in the meantime supernumerary to their regiments. In that way a close connection would be established between the regular and the Militia regiments of the county. In like manner the permanent Staff of officers of the county regular regiment would frequently be lent to the Militia regiment during the period of training if it desired to receive it. The Militia Reserve of the sub-district would, as a general rule, in the event of war, be draughted to the regiments in the same sub-district, although, from the exigencies of the service, it might not be possible to do so in all cases. That is a sort of general outline of the mode in which it is proposed, under the colonels of the Staff, to unite more closely than ever was done heretofore the regular and the auxiliary forces of the country.
With regard to the Volunteers, the Volunteer Force is one for which I have
352
always felt and expressed the greatest possible respect; and I think it is a noble spectacle to see the sacrifices of time and convenience which has been made by men who have no other desire than to serve their country. At the same time, I believe everybody sees that a much more careful organization of the Volunteer Force is necessary if it is to be made an integral part of our effective military system. Well, I think I may say for myself that we were the first to admit the principle that all necessary expenses for the Volunteers were to be paid by the State. We examined carefully what these necessary expenses were, and they amounted, after the best calculation we could make, to the sum that is now allowed—namely, to the power of earning 35 s. per man per annum. But, inasmuch as one of the greatest deficiencies of the Volunteer Force has been the imperfect fitness of the officers for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them, we have thought the proper way of giving an additional capitation allowance would be not to scatter it broadcast over the whole body, but to give it in large sums to those officers and non-commissioned officers who go to schools of instruction, or who otherwise qualify themselves for the discharge of their duties, and we have taken an additional sum of £40,000 in these Estimates for the officers and non-commissioned officers who have qualified during the year. Further, we do not intend that any commanding officer of Volunteers shall hold at the same time two commissions; or, at least, if he does, one of them shall be a purely honorary commission, and shall not be in any way a substantive one, and we think that after a very limited period, every officer in the Volunteers may be expected to make himself thoroughly competent. Allowances have, for some time, been made to that most valuable force, the Artillery Volunteers, to enable some of their body to proceed to Shoeburyness for the purpose of receiving instructions, and those Members of this House who have read the Reports made by the Royal Artillery officers on the subject must have been struck by the great value which this training has had. We now propose to extend this system to the Rifle Volunteers, and to enable some of them to attend camps of instruction, a proceeding from which we expect much

353
good to result. Speaking generally, we do not wish to lay down for the body of Volunteers any small and vexatious rules; but when there is a colonel of the Staff responsible for every 15,000 or 20,000 of the reserve forces, I am sure that the Volunteers themselves will be satisfied that we ought to strike off from the capitation grant all those corps, and all those Volunteers, of whom the colonel or the Staff is not able to report that they are really and actually efficient as defenders of their country. Some of the rules at present in existence do not appear to be of much benefit to the force. It is an anomaly that a man may be technically "efficient" as a rifleman without ever having been to the targets. It must appear reasonable that a man should be expected to make himself a rifleman before receiving the capitation grant. All that is now required to be done by a Volunteer to entitle him to a certificate granting capitation for extra efficiency is that he should fire 60 rounds, a feat which I have seen performed in little more than two minutes at Wimbledon, and, therefore, I think it would not be calling upon the Volunteers to make any excessive sacrifice if we ask them to submit to terms which will render them efficient for the service they have bound themselves to perform. It is one part of the Government plan to make arrangements for brigading the Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers more largely than has been the case in the past, and that being so, I have put a clause into the Bill, which I shall ask leave to introduce, providing that when Volunteers are out with the Regulars they shall be considered as being on actual military service, the meaning of which is that the Mutiny Act would apply to them. Another great difficulty with which we have had to contend in reference to the Volunteers has been the irregularity with which many of them attend to their duties. It seems to me unreasonable that when a flying column has been sent from Aldershot to Wimbledon to be present at a Volunteer Review, and when His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief or some officer of high rank in the Army has undertaken to go down and review the forces, it shall be a matter of uncertainty how many Volunteers will be present. This is a state of things we ought to take measures to remedy.
354
Again, under the Volunteer Act a Volunteer is exempt from the Ballot for the Militia, although he is allowed to leave the corps to which he belongs after a fortnight's notice. We do not propose to continue that exemption. There is a clause in the Bill which will enable the Volunteer's contract to be made for a longer period, and if the Ballot ever takes place at all those only will be exempted from it who have entered into a longer and more satisfactory engagement. I have, therefore, only to say, in conclusion, that if these arrangements are carried out, all the forces being under one command, and that command being exercised in every division by the general officer commanding, there will be under him colonels and lieutenant-colonels in charge of the auxiliary forces, and lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Artillery, especially for the Militia and Volunteer Artillery; the recruiting and training centres will be 'so managed that the regiments will have local names, and recruit in their own localities; and the Militia recruits will be trained with those of the Regular Army; and the adjutants and permanent Staff of the Militia will be under the control of high military officers.
I may now, perhaps, repeat to the Committee the forces to which we should have to look for the defence of the country if the proposals I have made were carried out, and all the branches of the service raised to a high standard of efficiency. There would be — field and horse artillery, 8,473; garrison artillery, 7,419; depôt brigade and riding establishment, 2,852; Militia artillery, 15,854; and Volunteer artillery, 34,005, making a total of 68,603 artillerymen. There would be 12,952 cavalry and 14,000 yeomanry, amounting in all to 26,952. The engineers would number 3,949, and the Volunteers 6,280—in all, 10,229. Of infantry regulars there would be 69,181; of Militia, 123,146; total, 192,327; and of Volunteers, 130,386, making a total under that head of 322,713, to which must be added departmental corps 3,282, giving a grand total of 431,779; with the First and Second Class Army Reserve, 470,779. This force will be raised by voluntary enlistment, and may, by the Ballot, be still further increased in case of emergency. I have only to say besides that there is a question which I have before brought before

355
the attention of the House—I mean the question of billeting, which is one of considerable interest. We do not know whether it is likely that in many counties or localities use will be made of such a provision—I have been told that in some cases it is likely, but on that I will offer no opinion; but we propose to give to any locality or localities the power to borrow money from the Treasury, at a reasonable rate of interest, and to take powers for the Secretary of State for War for pledging to the locality during the currency of the loan the annual sum voted by Parliament for the billeting of the regiments. We are on the best possible understanding at present with the railway companies; but I have thought it right to insert a clause which in case of emergency will enable the State to possess itself of the railways in the same way that it used to have power to possess itself of the telegraphs, so that the whole communications of the country might at once, in case of emergency, be made use of for military purposes. These are the principal features of the Bill which I shall have the honour to introduce.
A few words on one or two other points, and I have done. Some time ago I applied to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to authorize me to say that the patronage of the Post Office, which has a great number of out-door employments suitable for pensioners and persons connected with the Army Reserve, might be used for the purpose of giving employment to such persons. I am authorized to say that, so far as is consistent with good service, it is intended to act upon the suggestion I made to my right hon. Friend.
The year just passed has seen many changes both at home and abroad. Her Majesty's Government has introduced the 35-ton gun, which is, I believe, the most powerful weapon known in the world; we have altered the field artillery and introduced the 16-pounder gun, which is of its kind the most powerful weapon known; and by changing the Snider for the Martini-Henri rifle we have prepared to arm our infantry with the best rifle known. One other incident of the year I think it right to mention. Amid so many great events the expedition which was sent to the Red River Settlement, in consequence of an insurrection in the territory, has been
356
almost entirely lost sight of. It' is due to those who took part in that expedition that they should have the credit of it. The expedition consisted of about 420 of the British Army and 750 Canadian Volunteers, acting in harmony together—a very agreeable circumstance. It involved a journey of 600 miles from Lake Superior over forests never hitherto traversed by a military force, and with intervening obstacles of the most serious kind, both by land and water. But all the difficulties were successfully overcome, and the troops, having accomplished their object, returned immediately to Canada, there being a total absence of crime and of sickness, every arrangement having previously been made to meet every difficulty. My hon. Friend the worthy Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), will rejoice to know that one of the reasons of this happy state of affairs was that spirits formed no part of the daily ration, and no intoxicating liquors were obtainable in that inhospitable country. But if the House will allow me, I should like to read one passage from the report from Sir Garnett Wolseley, who commanded the expedition, under the direction of Sir James Lindsay; and the reason why I wish to read it is this—that we are constantly told that the civil administration would be sure to break down whenever it was tried. But it is due to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), who instituted that department, and to myself, and others who took part in promoting it, to state the successful manner in which it overcame the difficulties it had to encounter in this expedition. Colonel Wolseley says—
"As regards the civil administration I have to remark that the amalgamation of the many civil departments into one, that of the Control, was put upon its first practical trial in the field during this expedition, with the happiest results. I found that having all the civil officers available for any sort of duty connected with administration was a great economy of labour, and enabled the duties to be performed by a much smaller number than could have been done formerly, when, under similar circumstances, it would have been necessary to have had an officer of each department present at every post, and perhaps with each detachment of troops. A vast amount of useless correspondence is saved by the new system, and the administrative labour that must always more or less devolve upon an officer commanding a mixed force in the field is greatly reduced, and his work facilitated thereby, giving him much more time to attend to his important military duties."
And he goes on to pay a high compliment

357
to Mr. Irvine, whom the Surveyor General had selected for this duty. That was the object, as I understood, the late Government had in view in instituting the department—that there should be a saving of useless correspondence, a saving of administrative labour, and that an officer commanding a mixed force in the field should have more time to attend to his important military duties. I think it due to all concerned to mention this expedition, and the success which attended it.
Now, Sir, I think I have concluded—I am conscious how very imperfectly—the arduous task I had undertaken. Her Majesty's Government call upon you, if you adopt their measures, for a great sacrifice; but if you make that sacrifice the objects we have in view are these—we ask you for no increase of the standing Army beyond that which you made at the end of last Session; but we propose to raise the Army Reserve as rapidly and largely as we can by the increased introduction of short service in the Army. We desire to pass as many men through the ranks as can be done having regard to the number of recruits and the time required to make a man an efficient soldier. We propose to increase the Militia, and to improve the organization of the Volunteers; to provide for compulsory service in case of emergency; to abolish purchase; to withdraw from Lords Lieutenant the power they have now in regard to the auxiliary forces; to combine the whole under general officers; to appoint colonels on the Staff in sufficient numbers to this Army; to combine recruiting for the Line with that of the Reserves; to fuse together as we can the Regular and Reserve Forces by appointing officers of the Regular Army to positions in the Reserve, and by giving subalterns in the Militia commissions in the Line. We propose to brigade them together, to find field artillery for all arms, to enable counties to get rid of the inconvenience of billets, to gain command of the railway communication of the country in case of emergency—in short, we propose to unite all the voluntary forces of the country into one defensive army, with power to supplement by compulsion in case of emergency—all to be under the command of the general officers commanding in the districts, subordinate to one Commander-in-Chief, who will act with
358
the approval of the Secretary of State; and, therefore, the whole will be under the direction and supreme control of Her Majesty's responsible Ministers. I earnestly commend to your favourable consideration these proposals. You will at any rate agree that we have not attempted to glide over the surface and propose some mere superficial and partial arrangements. We have done our best to deal with the principles that lie at the bottom of the service, to lay, if you should be pleased to approve of the measures, the firm foundation of a defensive force, which may be a perfect security to the country not merely against danger, but against that which is scarcely less intolerable to the spirit and independence of Englishmen—the perpetually recurring apprehension of danger.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 135,047 Men (including an average number of 6,385 to be employed with the Depôts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of Regiments serving in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions), be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 1st day of April 1871 to the 31st day of March 1872, inclusive."—(Mr. Secretary Cardwell.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am not about to follow the right hon. Gentleman through his long and elaborate statement. Indeed, in the present state of my voice it would be impossible to make myself heard. But I hope the House will not be called upon to pronounce prematurely an opinion on the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. I must also notice one point in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman where he rather mistook what fell from me. He spoke with some satisfaction as regards the Reserve at this moment compared with what it would be under his plan. I asked him whether he referred to the Militia Reserve, and he said he did. He seemed to suppose that I referred to the Militia Reserve with the intention of disparaging it; but I really had no such intention. I will not enter into a consideration of the subject at present; but will inquire what course the right hon. Gentleman intends to take with regard to the discussion.
MR. CARDWELLreplied that he would for the present withdraw the Vote. The Bill would be in the hands of Members in a few days, and they would then

359
be in a better position to consider the scheme.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRINCESS LOUISE.

  MARRIAGE PORTION FOR HER ROYAL HIGHNESS.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice—namely, "That the sum of £30,000 be granted to Her Majesty, for the Marriage Portion of Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Caroline Alberta," said, he would not now trouble the Committee with any observations, as this was part of the plan he announced the other evening, on which occasion he stated everything that was relative to the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the sum of £30,000 be granted to Her Majesty, for the Marriage Portion of Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise Caroline Alberta."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he rose with reluctance—a reluctance, however, not proceeding from any doubt as to the propriety of the course he was about to pursue, nor from much fear at being in a minority, but because he felt that the position he took up would, without some explanation, be liable to misconstruction. Those who opposed the Vote did not desire to express disapproval of or to receive ungraciously the special act of the Queen in relation to the question at issue. So far as he had any communication with those large portions of the community out-of-doors who objected to the Grant, he had to say that the opposition did not arise from any want of sympathy with, or respect for, the course which Her Majesty had taken with reference to an alliance between a daughter of the Sovereign and a subject. The opponents of the Grant rather regarded that as a been to the people of this country, and as a tendency towards the views and principles of the day, which were held out-of-doors; but they not the less felt that the been lost all its grace if made the subject of barter and contract; and at a large meeting at Leicester a speech was made by a working man, who said that he was filled with admiration when he reflected on the fact that the Princess Louise had departed from the custom which had prevailed of allying the Royal Princesses to foreign
  360
  Princes. This was not a question of party politics, nor even of principles of government, for the professed admirers of monarchical institutions would admit that it was not wise to overweight them by unnecessary and extravagant expenditure; while others with different views would give their voice in favour of the Chief Magistrate of the country being maintained in a manner and position adequate to the dignity of the country. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government persisted in making this Motion after the manifestations which had been made of the opinions of large masses out-of-doors in disapproval of it. ["Oh, oh!"] There was no use in believing in delusions; there was a very bitter feeling out-of-doors on the subject; and he should have thought that the Government would have seen that the whole grace and decorum of such a proceeding as this depended on the spontaneous action in its favour of all classes of the community. ["Divide!"] It might be that the House would hear him, as the unworthy representative of the feeling of the nation, of some hundreds of thousands out-of-doors. He felt that the House of Commons had a perfect right to discuss the question in all its bearings. It had been hinted that there was a breach of faith in discussing this matter at all, because it was said, at the commencement of the reign the Crown Lands were given up to Parliament, and an equivalent was provided in the shape of the Civil List. He believed that was an inaccurate and unconstitutional statement of the fact; and he maintained there was no compact, contract, or bargain between Parliament and the Crown, except that the former would give to the Crown that which was due to its dignity and to the dignity of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman the other day carried his argument further than it could be carried, when he declared that the Crown had as an irrefragable right over the Crown Lands of the country as any private individual had over his own private property, a statement which would have been more correct if applied to the days of the Stuarts than to our own; but Sir George C. Lewis, on the occasion of the marriage of the Princess Royal, declared that it had ever been deemed a matter of policy to strip the Crown of all hereditary property, and to make it dependent during

  361
  life on Parliament. The House was told, also, of the enormous sum which might be realized by building in Hyde Park and the other Parks; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a former Sovereign, in answer to an inquiry as to how much it would cost to enclose St. James's Park, was told that it would cost two Crowns. A right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) had said that dowries for the Royal family were part of the arrangement under which the Civil List was granted. What was the date of that arrangement, and what were the particulars of it? Why was the Committee discussing this question if such an arrangement existed? The fact was notorious that no arrangement of the kind did exist, and that such dowries had always been the subject of Acts of Parliament. There was a prevalent feeling amongst large classes of the people of this country that the expenses of our monarchical establishments were far too heavy, and they thought that a fair proportion of the Supplementary Grants continually being asked for on behalf of the Crown should come out of the Civil List. In that opinion he coincided. He found that, in 1869, the expenses of the Monarchy, including the Civil List, the Duchy of Lancaster, and other payments amounted to £456,000, and adding various Grants to other Members of the Royal Family, the amount was £637,000, not including the sums paid by way of dowry. It was replied that the sum received by former Monarchs in this country was higher than that received by the Queen. Hon. Members, however, must remember that the money formerly paid to the Crown was not so purely applicable to the personal demands as it now was; Queen Anne having devoted considerable sums towards the support of the war, the building of Blenheim, and other purposes, while George I. gave £100,000 towards the support of his heir. Then it was said that the income of some Continental Sovereigns was larger than our own. He should decline to draw any such comparisons; but if the Queen's income must be compared with that of any other Sovereign, it should be compared with the income of the Ruler of the great nation across the Atlantic, sprung from the same race as ourselves, and then the difference between £600,000 and £5,000 a year was rather striking. Under ordinary circumstances he should
  362
  not think it right suddenly to make a change, without any previous warning, in a practice on the faith of the continuance of which arrangements might possibly have been made. But there were peculiar circumstances in this case. Hereafter the rule could not be pleaded. Any future case must be decided upon its own merits, and the plea that a change of practice was unexpected would no longer be a valid one. He was of opinion that Her Majesty did not derive her Civil List as occupying the Throne by divine right; but by the much higher title of being the popular and respected Queen of a great and free people. In like manner the children of Her Majesty, who were endowed by the State, were not endowed as relations of Her Majesty; but as part of our general monarchical scheme. They had not a free life, and they were, to a certain extent, the servants of the State. The Princess Louise, through her good fortune and the good sense and wisdom of her Royal Mother, declared her intention of breaking through the charmed circle and living her own individual life. She had insisted on her right to act as the humblest woman in her service was entitled to do — namely, to choose her own husband. In so acting the Princess and her Royal Mother had earned additional respect and affection from the people. But such ties were too sacred to be mixed up with considerations of a more sordid character. The Princess had taken off her fetters, and there was nothing now for the nation to gild. Nothing was further from his wish than to hurt the feelings of any of the distinguished persons most immediately interested. In his opinion the time would come, and that not very distantly, when no one would more regret than these distinguished persons themselves that the Ministry of the day had forced this Vote upon a people who, as far as large masses of the poorer ratepayers were concerned, would give the money very reluctantly.
  MR. DISRAELI: I regret that the hon. Gentleman made the speech that he has made, because I think he was arguing the whole time against his own feelings, and his reasonings led him to a conclusion exactly the opposite to that with which he terminated. I am not going to compare the relative position of our own Sovereign with that of the Sovereign of any other

  363
  State; but I cannot help noticing one remark the hon. Gentleman made—he said it was not with Kings or Emperors he wished to compare the position of Her Majesty, but that he would rather cross the Atlantic and make a comparison of Her Majesty's position with that of the Sovereign of the United States. I do not think that we ought really on this question to go into a policy of pounds, shillings, and pence; but if these matters are brought under our consideration, it is hardly possible to leave them quite unnoticed. If we cross the Atlantic we should find that the Sovereign of the United States—the Sovereign people, is paid through its representatives in both Houses of Parliament an annual salary far exceeding that of the solitary Sovereign of this country. I think the hon. Gentleman will find, if he goes into the question more deeply than probably this discussion is an opportunity for, that the expense of government in the United States—taking the word government in its large and real sense—is one of a very different character from that which he conveyed to the House just now. This is really a simple case if we confine ourselves to that which is fairly before us. I thought the right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the Government, the other evening, placed this subject before us in a complete and unanswerable manner. I was a Member of the House when the Civil List was passed. I have more than once expressed my disapproval of the principle on which the Civil List was founded. It was founded upon an old traditional feeling in this country that we ought to guard against the Crown being in possession of property to an amount that might prove dangerous to the liberties of Englishmen. Now, when we all know that the income of the Sovereign may probably be equalled by more than one of her subjects—when one individual died a few weeks ago, not amongst the most elevated class of society, whose fortune, probably, was quite equal to that which the Crown possesses in this country, it is too absurd for us, I think, any longer to legislate upon these old political superstitions. In my opinion, it would have been much better originally if the Government of Lord Melbourne, when this settlement was fixed upon, had proposed that the Crown estates should be entrusted to the Sovereign. They were
  364
  sufficient for the personal comfort and dignity of the Crown, and they might have been enjoyed by the Crown with those powers and conditions which apply to all other estates in the country, and which would have allowed the younger children to be amply supported. And as for that public pageantry of the Crown, in which the nation is more interested than the individual who wears the Crown—certainly as much interested, and which I myself highly and deeply value, and which I wish to see maintained in a manner becoming the nation of a famous people like the people of England—that might have been the subject of a Vote in this House—not of an annual Vote, which might have been inconvenient; but every ten years we might have fixed the supplemental public expenditure of the Crown for those purposes. Ten years would have allowed us to consider any great changes which might have been produced by economical circumstances, such, for example, as the discoveries of gold and their effect upon prices, or other circumstances of that kind; and then appeals like the present need never have been made, and these misrepresentations of the position of the Crown would never have circulated in the country. However, we have to deal with the circumstances before the House; and, certainly, the right hon. Gentleman the other night was perfectly justified in saying that the title of the Sovereign of this country to the Crown estate is just as good as that of the Duke of Buccleuch or the Duke of Bedford to their estates. It is an absolute estate, enjoyed by a family, and there can be no question legally that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sound. But having arrived at the position in which we are placed, what the House has to do is to act according to the spirit of the agreement that was entered into with Her Majesty in 1837, and to support the Crown in its becoming comfort and dignity, and provide, as it was thoroughly understood at the time we ought to provide, in every becoming manner for those members of the family of the Royal House with respect to whom Her Majesty appeals to us. The right hon. Gentleman the other night and the hon. Gentleman to-night have referred to a remarkable feature of the case which is now before us, and I was quite surprised that the hon. Gentleman just now, evidently against his own

  365
  feelings should have founded his principal argument against the proposition of Her Majesty's Government upon this very circumstance which. I consider both novel and interesting. It must have been clear for a considerable time to anyone who gives any attention to these matters that a great change was inevitable in the domestic relations between the Crown and its subjects. For a considerable period the area out of which consorts for members of the Royal Family could be selected has been artifically diminished. By the Protestant Constitution of the country no Prince of the Latin race could intermarry with one of our Royal House. It was quite clear when the revolution commenced in Germany, and the mediatizing of so many reigning Houses of that country occurred—when many of the reigning Houses of Germany who professed the Protestant faith disappeared—that a considerable change was at hand. To me, under these circumstances, the fact of a Princess of our Royal House marrying one of Her Majesty's subjects is really as wise as it is romantic. That the hon. Gentleman, who professes to be a great propagator of democratic principles, should make such a circumstance the groundwork of an argument against the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, appears to me surprising. I confess I have another reason in support of this proposition, totally irrespective of that feeling of loyalty which I am sure is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even by the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us. I confess I feel some satisfaction—even I will say exultation—that for the first time a Princess of the Royal House of England is to be married to a Member of the House of Commons. I have such affection for this House that I confess I am not insensible to this honour. Our brother Member certainly has not been very long among us; but I believe I may say, without using any words but those of truth, he has gained our sympathies by his intelligence and by his breeding. The House of Commons will, I think, seize a very unfavourable opportunity if this were the first occasion on which it could successfully oppose such a Grant as that which the right hon. Gentleman has offered to our consideration.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I dare say the House is anxious for a Division; but I
  366
  am not one of those who think this question should be treated lightly, because we cannot conceal from ourselves that, rightly or wrongly, this proposed alliance has created a good deal of feeling in the country. Now, I do not agree altogether with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. P. A. Taylor), but neither can I agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), because it is at direct issue with the statement made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says he was in the House of Commons in 1837, when the Civil List was passed, and if he had had his will he would have had the dowries of the Princesses arranged beforehand. But the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said, the other night, that if the sums of money to be allotted to the children of the Sovereign were granted beforehand, it would be impossible for the Sovereign to accept those terms, and he made use of the expression that it would lay the Royal Family open to idle vituperation. I wish to state that in what I am about to say I yield to nobody in this House in the expression of my sentiments of sincere respect and loyal attachment to the person of the Sovereign. I think that the example which the Sovereign has set in all the domestic and private relations of her life has had a reflex upon all classes of the community, and has endeared Her Majesty in the heartfelt and affectionate attachment of all her subjects. But I must say that the principal object that I have in rising is for the purpose of referring to the statement made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the other night was, to my mind, one of the most injudicious that I ever recollect to have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not say he intended to mislead the House. I should not be justified in saying so. But I can say this — I will show to the Committee that there were statements made in that speech which are not justified by the facts of the case. I am sorry to trouble the House; but I think this is an occasion of some importance. The other night the right hon. Gentleman said the Queen, had a large income, but it was predestined for special purposes. He said

  367
  savings were out of the question. What struck me the most in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that the marriage of the Princess with a Member of this House was about to take place—with the son of a Member of the Government, and by the advice of Her Majesty's Government. The statement made by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that if the House of Commons should not grant the dowry it would be like fining one of the children of the Sovereign for marrying a Scotchman, was a most strained interpretation of the matter. The Prime Minister said that no doubt the income of the Sovereign was a very large one, but that it was given to support the dignity and representation of the Crown: I have no objection to that. The Grant that we give to the Sovereign is for the representation of the Crown; and I am one of those who share the opinion very common in this country, that it is to be regretted that the large sum thus given is not devoted to the representation of the Crown, and for many years has not been devoted to that purpose. I do not speak now of the money not being spent for the benefit of the people of this country; but I do say that when Sovereigns, Princes, and foreigners of distinction visit this country, it is painful to Englishmen to find that the enormous income which we grant to the Sovereign for the representation of the State is not devoted in the way contemplated by Parliament. Now, recollect, I by no means wish to stint the Sovereign. I would wish to see an allowance made on the most liberal scale towards the Royal Family. I am one of those who would vote, if necessary, for doubling the income of the Prince of Wales. I think the income of the Prince of Wales, considering all he has to do for the representation of the country, is too small. He lives amongst us and does what he can; but, of course, on a far less sum than £385,000. I state that to show that I am by no means desirous of stinting the means for the representation of the Crown. The Prime Minister said the other night that by the Civil List of 1837 Her Majesty was granted £385,000 a year, and that it was an economical arrangement; and then he added—I will not say wishing to deceive this House, but certainly not in a manner that one would have expected from him—"Look at what was done for William
  368
  IV." Well, I have looked, and seen that the Civil List of William IV. was proposed by Lord Althorp in 1831, and it was this—The whole amount, deducting what was given to the Queen of William IV. was £324,700 as against £385,000 given to Her present Majesty. It is perfectly true that if you add £50,000 a year granted to the Queen of William IV. you do bring up the amount very nearly to the sum stated by the right hon. Gentleman; but he included this grant of £50,000 a year when he said that the Civil List voted to William IV. was £435,000. In reality, so far from there being any economy in what was done in 1837, there was a great increase on what had been granted to William IV., exclusive of the £50,000 a year given to his Queen. More than that, when Lord Althorp stated in the House of Commons in 1831 that, having revised the Civil List of George IV., the Government proposed that the sum of £435,000 a year, including £50,000 for the Queen of William IV. should be granted to the Sovereign, he added that he understood the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster would be given up to the State for their entire management the same as the revenues of the other Crown Lands. Lord Althorp, therefore, and the country fully expected in 1831 that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster would be made over to the State. But that has never been done; and, therefore, in addition to the £385,000 a year granted to the present Sovereign, she has the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster also, and I do not suppose there is in this country such gross mismanagement as is to be found in the case of the revenues of that Duchy. If Lord Althorp's plan had been adopted we should not have had that complaint to make. Will the House believe that, while the revenues of the Duchy amount to £50,000 a year, only about £25,000 is paid to Her Majesty, while the other £25,000 is expended in the grossest mismanagement—I would even say corruption. These are facts. Would it not fee better, then, that the policy of Lord Althorp had been adopted, instead of giving to the Sovereign a Civil List of £385,000, with all the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster? I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House now; but I am bound to say that, looking at the statement of

  369
  Lord Althorp and at the revenues which we give to the Crown—I may stand alone here, but I know there are many in the county in which I reside who think as I do. This very day a gentleman of position from that county told me that there were tens of thousands among the poorer classes in Staffordshire and Lancashire who will disapprove what is now being done. As long as a child or daughter of the Sovereign marries into a Royal or Princely House, I think it is quite right and natural for the House of Commons to give an adequate allowance for the representation and dignity of Royalty. But I hold a very strong opinion that when a child of the Sovereign chooses to lay aside and renounce altogether the Royal position, and elects to marry a subject, the case is wholly different. ["No, no!"] No doubt there is a great difference of opinion on the matter; but, in my judgment, that circumstance entirely changes the point at issue. In that case the Sovereign should be left to make an adequate allowance. But be that as it may, I will conclude by saying I think the marriage an impolitic one. ["No, no!"] As a loyal subject of the Queen, I think the marriage an impolitic one. I do not look at it in the light of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor); but that the Royal position should be maintained distinct and separate as hitherto. Personally, I wish the Royal Princess all happiness in her marriage. I am sure the country will agree with me in that; but I do think the marriage is an impolitic one, and I, for one, would have infinitely preferred to have seen the daughter of our Most Gracious Sovereign marry into either a Royal or a Princely House, rather than accept the hand of a subject, the son of a Member of Her Majesty's Government, upon the advice of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. GOLDNEY, amid cries of "Divide!" said, the objection entertained in the country to the dowry arose from its not being known how the £385,000 was made up, and that Her Majesty had nothing like that sum at her actual disposal. To refuse to vote the proposed sum would be a breach of faith. When Her Majesty ascended the Throne it was distinctly understood that by her accepting the Civil List all these contingencies should be met by Votes of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will endeavour to keep strict faith with the Committee, and not in any way to re-argue the question. A number of references have been made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), to my speech the other evening, and I feel it is absolutely due to the Committee that I should state that I am not able to recognize the arguments they attribute to me as the arguments I used the other evening. I will not, however, go through them in detail; but I will point out one as an example. The right hon. Baronet considers that I stated that the Princess Louise was about to marry the Marquess of Lorne by the advice of Her Majesty's Government. What I stated was, that, upon the important question of the deviation from what had recently been the established rule, Her Majesty had taken the advice of her confidential Advisers, and I may as well state that she did so about 18 months ago, and long anterior to the period when the present arrangement was contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely in error in supposing that I contended that there was a real reduction in the Civil List at the commencement of the present reign as compared with the commencement of the reign of William IV. I pointed to the reduction of the amount in order to found upon it a corroboration of my argument that morally Parliament was always charged with the obligation of providing for any new exigency growing out of the state of the Royal family. I will only say with regard to the present Motion that I cannot but regret the opposition that has been made to it; and, secondly, that it should have been made at what appears to me to be the wrong time. It is at the first stage of a Vote of this kind that, with the greatest propriety—I should say the smallest departure from it—that opposition should be offered; but I think it is for my hon. Friend and those who intend to vote with him to consider in what position this House will find itself on the question of a personal grant of money if, after hearing the proposal on a former night, they came to an unanimous vote in its favour, they should now disregard the force of the pledge in that unanimous vote, and hark back on the first proceeding.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 350; Noe 1: Majority 349.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL.— [BILL 6.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Goschen.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL.— [BILL 6.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid: I wish briefly to state the course I intend to pursue with respect to this Bill, and I do so under very peculiar circumstances. My two right hon. Friends the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. S. Walpole) and the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Mowbray) are absent from the House on account of severe domestic afflictions. This might, perhaps, be considered a sufficient reason for postponing the consideration of the measure; but I do not ask for an adjournment. I am, of course, aware that a Bill identical with the present passed through this House last Session; and after the discussions which then ensued, and in which I expressed my opinions on the subject, I should not think of again urging the arguments I then adduced. At the same time, so insuperable are my objections to the Bill as it stands, without the religious safeguards which I hope will be introduced in "another place," that I shall now move its rejection, if only for the purpose of recording my protest against it. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

JURIES ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
JURIES ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 34.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was the repeal of one section of an Act passed last year to regulate the whole subject of constituting and summoning juries. He must explain that towards the close of last Session he was not aware the Bill was about to be pressed to the third reading, as he believed it was understood that it should be allowed to stand over for reconsideration this year. Indeed, he did not know the Bill had passed till he read it in the statute book. The clause which he now proposed to repeal enacted that juries should be paid, and paid not by the whole body of suitors, but by means of a tax imposed solely on those who entered causes for trial. No machinery was provided by the Act for carrying it into execution, that being left to the Judges, who had accordingly issued the best rules and regulations they could devise. These, however, had been extremely onerous to the suitors. The rules required that every suitor who desired to have his cause tried by a common jury should pay £3 on entering his cause; and that for a special jury £12 12 s. should be paid. Now, it frequently happened that a cause was amicably settled after it had been entered, so that no jury was required at all, but nevertheless the money could not be returned to the suitor. He was told that in the country the Act could not be worked at all. A Judge of considerable eminence had written to him in the following terms:—"I know that the existing Act amounts to a denial of justice to poor suitors. I know that on circuit it is impossible to carry it out. It ought to be repealed in the shortest possible time." Other Judges and eminent practitioners had expressed a similar opinion. For his own part, he was by no means satisfied it was a good thing to pay jurors, as the effect might be to create a professional class of jurors. He would not argue that point now; but, assuming that jurors ought to be paid, he was disposed to think they should be paid, and not by the litigants. At present, however, it was sufficient for him to state that there would be a dead-lock at the

  373
  approaching assizes if the clause he had referred to was not repealed, and, as they had already commenced on the Northern Circuit, there was no time to be lost. By the present Bill, therefore, he proposed to repeal that clause at once; and later in the Session, if the House confirmed the principle involved in the clause, another measure might be devised for carrying it into effect. Considering the urgency of the case, he hoped the House would assent at once to the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. LOPESthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for the prompt attention he had given to the matter, and said that the effect of the Act, combined with the rules of the Judges, was that officers of the Superior Courts found themselves bankrupt. Assuming that at an assizes there were two common jury causes, which were tried on the first day, and one special jury cause, which was tried on the second day, the receipts would be £18 12 s., and the payments authorized by the Act would amount to £49 16 s.; and this proportion of receipts to payments would probably hold good with any number of causes. A learned Judge, who had just gone to the Welsh Circuit, had said he should be obliged to tell the jurors that, although the Act said they were to be paid, there were no funds out of which they could be paid. He hoped that the matter would not rest where it was, but that the Attorney-General would, bring in a comprehensive measure, and that he would not be satisfied with piecemeal legislation, but would introduce a Bill founded on rational and acknowledged principles applicable to the case.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was desirable that the Bill should be passed at once, and he trusted that it would be carried through all the stages as fast as possible. He thought the Law Officers of the Crown were hardly justified in pleading that the Act of last Session was passed without their knowledge. The Select Committee recommended that the whole matter should be remitted to this Session, and the history of the Act of last Session, he believed, was that it was promoted by members of the legal profession in the City of London and Westminster,
  374
  and that, practically, hon. Members, having the bit put in their mouths, ran away with it.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought it was competent for the last speaker, as a member of the Select Committee, to have objected to the passing of the measure of last Session. He was not sure that the public were ungrateful for it, because it had largely diminished the number of causes that went to trial. The principle of the payment of jurors, which he approved, was already affirmed by existing practice, as well as by the recommendation of the Select Committee.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that provision ought to be made for the proper remuneration of summoning officers.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was under the impression that the Act of last Session was considered a good one, for all agreed that it was necessary to pay jurymen. He thought the measure a beneficial one, because it would tend to discourage litigation. He would not, however, oppose this Bill if the Attorney General would promise to consider, during the present Session, the matter with a view to the payment of jurors.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsupported the Bill, but thought something should be done not only for the payment of jurors, but for the consideration of the whole question in a comprehensive form.
  MR. HENLEYbelieved the whole community would be glad that the hon. and learned Attorney General had moved in this matter. As the assizes were close at hand, it was very desirable that the Bill should pass as soon as possible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Bill for the better regulation of the Regular and Auxiliary Land Forces of the Crown, and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Sir HENRY KNIGHT STORKS, Captain VIVIAN, and the JUDGE ADVOCATE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 39.]

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD, &C. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNTZ, Bill to amend the Law for the prevention of Adulteration of Food and Drink and of Drugs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONTZ, Mr. WHITWELL, and Mr. DIXON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to amend "The Metropolis Water Act, 1852," and to make further provision for the due supply of Water to the Metropolis, and certain places in the neighbourhood thereof, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

  TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHITWELL, Bill for establishing Tribunals of Commerce, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, and Mr. CHADWICK.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that such Reports do in all cases set forth the number of signatures to each Petition:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:"—Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Major GAVIN, Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Sir DAVID SALOMONS, Mr. OWEN STANLEY, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. M'LAGAN, Earl PERCY, Mr. DIMSDALE, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBT GORE, Mr. REGINALD TALBOT, Lord GARLIES, and Mr. GOEST:—Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

  LOCAL LEGISLATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'MAHON, Bill to facilitate the obtaining of powers for legislation on Public Local Matters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'MAHON, Mr. MONTAGU CHAMBERS, and Mr. MATTHEWS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Before my noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) rises to propose a Committee of Inquiry into the Board of Admiralty I must make an appeal to him as to the course he is about to pursue, and I trust your Lordships will agree that I have very good grounds for doing so. The noble Duke intends to propose "an inquiry into the present state of the Board with, reference to recent changes in its constitution, and the practical working of the Department." Now, with all respect to the noble Duke, I submit that the present is not a fitting time for such a Motion. I am far indeed from saying that, under ordinary circumstances, such a subject would not very properly engage your Lordships' attention; but at the present moment, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, neither I nor my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Camperdown), who is more conversant with the matter, feel that we possess sufficient knowledge of the opinions and views of the head of the Department to be able properly to discuss the question. It seems to me, too, that it is not an unreasonable request for us to make, that we should not be asked to consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Department of our absent Colleague, seeing that owing to illness he cannot be communicated with. If Mr. Childers had the opportunity of communicating his views to us, he might have furnished us with unanswerable reasons against the proposed inquiry, and during his absence from illness it would hardly be reasonable to ask us to agree to the Committee. Your Lordships
  296
  may have seen, from correspondence which appeared in The Times this morning, that personal differences exist in the Admiralty as to questions of fact. There, again, though we have some information on the subject, the First Lord alone possesses the full and complete knowledge which would enable us, after communicating with him, to state his views or discuss the matter. I hope, therefore, the noble Duke will postpone his Motion. I do not think he will make any very great sacrifice in doing so. We have every reason to hope and expect that Mr. Childers will be at home in the course of next week—so that I do not ask for any long postponement. I may as well take the opportunity of stating exactly how the case stands with regard to Mr. Childers, because it is undeniable—and my Colleagues undoubtedly feel as much as any noble Lords opposite—thatit is most unsatisfactory for the head of one of the great Departments of the State to be absent at the opening of the Session. I hope, however, that when I have stated the circumstances your Lordships will not think this position of affairs so unreasonable as might at first sight appear. Mr. Childers had a very severe illness in the course of last spring, but was able to resume his place in the House before the close of the Session. I believe that during the summer he had entirely recovered. But in the course of the autumn the catastrophe which shocked everybody in the country occurred. Painful as the sudden loss of the Captain was to all of us, it was still more painful to Mr. Childers as the head of the Department which sent the ship to sea, and still more from the personal loss he sustained by the death of his son, who had joined the ship a very short time before. This calamity bore very heavily on him. In the autumn he went through a great deal of work, the pressure of which, added to the depression of mind and body he was labouring under, had such an effect upon him that early in January, thinking he would be unable to be in his place at the opening of Parliament,, he sent in his resignation to Mr. Gladstone. But Mr. Gladstone was unwilling to lose the services of one whom he regarded as a most valuable public servant, and after some communication with his medical advisers it was arranged that Mr. Childers should go away and be entirely relieved from business for about a month;

  297
  at the expiration of which time it was hoped that he would be able to resume his duties, and, at all events, able to decide with more satisfaction to himself and his Colleagues whether it was possible for him to go on or not. That is exactly the state of the case. I do not believe the public service has suffered in the slightest degree from the temporary absence of Mr. Childers—an absence not altogether unprecedented on the part of the head of a Department, for there was one of longer duration a very few years ago. Before Mr. Childers left he prepared the Estimates, and gave directions for their completion. They were submitted to the Cabinet and approved early in December, and my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) and his Colleagues had no difficulty in working them out, and making such alterations as the latest information rendered necessary. The Estimates, I may add, will be laid on the Table of the House of Commons earlier in the Session than was ever the case in the noble Duke's time or in mine. If when Mr. Childers comes home he thinks it impossible to resume his official duties, I am convinced that no man in the country would be more unwilling to trench on the indulgence of Parliament and the public than he would. He would in that case insist on his resignation being accepted. I hope your Lordships will agree with me, after this explanation, that the delay I ask for is not unreasonable. Whatever political differences may exist as to the value of Mr. Childers's labours, everyone will admit that he has been a hardworking public servant, and it is no extraordinary act of grace to give him a month's absence and rest, in the hope that it may lead to the recovery of his health. The noble Duke, I trust, will not refuse me the short respite, so to speak, that I ask for, until either Mr. Childers is personally in his place again, or we have at least been able to obtain from him that full and accurate information, without which discussion on this subject can hardly be satisfactory either to your Lordships or to the country.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I entirely sympathize with the noble Viscount in his regret at the illness of Mr. Childers; but when my noble Friend goes on to say we are to put off the discussion of this subject until either he or the noble Earl near him (the Earl of
  298
  Camperdown) can understand it—that is, until Mr. Childers comes home—I cannot agree with him. Why am I to wait till Mr. Childers comes home? When the First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place again, my noble Friend may say that the House of Commons is the proper place for the discussion; so that the appeal of the noble Viscount really means that this House is not to discuss the state of the Admiralty at all. I therefore feel it my duty to disregard his appeal, and to proceed with my Motion. If it is urged that personal questions should be avoided—which is one of the reasons my noble Friend has offered for the delay—I ask, Who first raised these questions? Who first attacked a Colleague, and sent the attack to the newspapers without that Colleague having the opportunity of seeing it? I ask any public man—I appeal to noble Lords on both sides who have been at the heads of Departments—whether the confidence that is so necessary to the proper working of the public Departments can be maintained if the head of a Department is to go behind a Colleague's back, write a report condemning him, and send it to the newspapers without so much as letting him see it? I am urged not to proceed with my Motion on the ground that it would be so hard on Mr. Childers; but other people have feelings as well as he. I have old Friends and Colleagues at the Admiralty, and if they are attacked unfairly, let nobody suppose that I shall not stand by them. I will now say, first of all, what I consider of the first importance. For six months the defences of the country have been the general theme of discussion. Now, the first line of these defences is the Navy, and I think I can show you that the administration of the Navy is at present in a very unsatisfactory condition. On the first night of the Session the noble Earl (Earl Granville) stated, in answer to a noble Lord opposite, that the Admiralty would go on under the Board as usual. Now, my noble Friend has been engaged all over the world; his mind has been expatiating from China to Washington; and, finding troubles cropping up in every direction, he cannot be expected to know what is going on at the Admiralty. The fact is, the whole system is so altered that the Board does not exist. I will show you how this has come about. An arrangement was made

  299
  in 1869 by an Order in Council dividing the Board into departments. Now, I do not object to departmental divisions—I agree with having departments—I think it is a good arrangement. There always have been such divisions of business at the Admiralty. I said, when I was in the House of Commons—
  "I do not care whether you call it a Board or not, but a civilian must have naval men round him. If he tries to go without their advice, he will get into continual difficulties, the public interest will suffer, and the profession of the Navy will be discontented with its management."
  Whether it is called a Board or heads of departments, so long as they meet to discuss together with the First Lord all important questions, I do not care. It is no matter by what name you call them, or whether they discuss in a Board-room or in the room of the First Lord; but it is essential that the heads of such departments as those for the building of ships and the fitting-out of vessels should meet with the First Lord, and discuss with him naval questions, for otherwise, as great misfortunes have already arisen, so they will again arise from keeping the heads of departments entirely separate. If the First Lord chooses to treat all the naval men around him as mere clerks, if he gives them their directions and sends them away, this must create not only great discontent but also great inefficiency. I should like to know what is the Navy for? It is for use in time of war, I suppose. Now, suppose a war should break out, and the First Lord should say—"I am responsible for everything," I think the country would look with no little surprise upon any gentleman who, with no knowledge of naval affairs, should undertake to direct great naval operations. It would not do, unless he had a Naval Council and listened to their requests. Yet that is the course which Mr. Childers seems to have taken—he has declared in the House of Commons over and over again that he was responsible for everything, everybody else being responsible to him; he insisted that the responsibility to Parliament and the country rested entirely on himself. When, however, that catastrophe—the loss of the Captain—happened, he wrote, as soon as he had recovered from the dreadful shock of that terrible calamity, an elaborate Report to show that he was not responsible at
  300
  all. He laid the responsibility on the Controller of the Navy. Now, the Controller of the Navy had always objected to the building of the Captain. As long ago as when I was at the Admiralty, both he and the Constructor of the Navy strongly objected to vessels of that kind for sea-going purposes. The Controller said, they might do for coasting purposes; but "do not," he said, "go and put masts and sails in them with a low freeboard, or you will have some catastrophe." So much impressed was I with this that in 1869, before the other vessels were going to be built, I called attention in this House to the matter, and reminded you that the Monitor went down head foremost. I was told, in reply, that these vessels sat the water like a duck; but I remarked that they might also go down to the bottom like a diver: and I urged that before any more of such vessels were built we should have a little experience from trials of the Captain at sea. I was told, in reply, we do not want any lesson from the Captain; we know all about it, and the Captain can teach us nothing. Can the Captain teach them nothing now? The vessel went down, and people all asked how it came about, and whether there was any Report from the Controller? It turns out there had been a Report by the Controller condemnatory of the Captain as early as May, 1870. The First Lord laid on the Table of the House of Commons a laudatory Report from Sir Thomas Symonds in July, 1870; but he did not produce the condemnatory Report. Stranger still, he seems to have been of opinion, with many persons in the House of Commons, that this was the best style of vessel that could be built. Although the Controller pointed out when it was built that it was two feet deeper than it ought to have been—a very serious fault—yet, nevertheless, when Mr. Reed left, it is said that Mr. Childers offered the situation of Chief Constructor to the builder of the Captain. What sort of management was this? I say this was the management of a civilian, and that if he had had consultations with naval men this would not have happened. They do not seem to have been allowed to give their opinion. They come into the room, I suppose, and are sent out again. I undertake to say that there has hardly been a meeting of the Board

  301
  for weeks and weeks. My noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) said the other night that the Naval Estimates had been settled by Mr. Childers. I deny that they were settled by Mr. Childers. As far as I can ascertain he settled the first two Votes, but not some of the most important ones, and the Memorandum he left was altogether set aside when he was gone. The fact is nobody is responsible for these Estimates: and this is what the House of Commons calls perfect responsibility, having one man entirely responsible. A vessel goes down and nobody is responsible. The Estimates are brought forward and nobody is responsible. Is this, I ask, the way things are to go on, and are we to wait till Mr. Childers comes home and can explain it all in the House of Commons? Why has the Controller left the Admiralty? The correspondence on the subject published in The Times this morning is the most extraordinary and curious Lever saw. I wondered when I read it where in the world Mr. Kinnaird was. He should have been at hand to explain what Mr. Gladstone should have written. The real position of affairs at the Admiralty at the present moment is that there is now nobody there who has the whole grasp of the Department in his hands. The absence of the First Lord is like the removal of the spring from the works of a watch; the other members know their several departments, but not the Admiralty as a whole. There is the Secretary, who is very good for his own work—the buying and selling stores. I have heard accusations against him; but I believe he has been doing the duties of his department remarkably well, and has brought about economy. Look at the Order in Council of 1870. It was most mischievous. It said that if a man remains at the Admiralty a certain time without active service he is to retire. And what is the effect of that? Lord John Hay is at this moment obliged to run away in the course of the next fortnight, or he would lose his position in the Navy under that Order. The effect of that same Order would have been to prevent the employment of Lord Lyons and Sir Alexander Milne. Why should such men be excluded? Why should the Government thus restrict its own power of selection? I could never see any good that could arise from it; but I can see that great mischief has arisen from it. Men will not enter the Admiralty
  302
  for fear of being put on the shelf, or, if they enter it, they are always on the look-out for some occupation to avoid being shelved. Can anything be worse than this? An officer who looks after the details of management at one of the dockyards can keep his flag flying and have his time counted as active service; but if he comes to the Admiralty, where he has to look to the interest of the Navy from Japan to the River Plate, to consider the available force at each station all round the world, and decide where the naval stores and supplies of coal are to be kept — a serious question in time of war—he is told—"You are not in active employment and must therefore be put on the shelf." No statesman would have made such a monstrous system. Another most injurious Order is that limiting the number of lieutenants to 600. I showed last year that during five or six years of peace more than 600 had been fully employed, and that in war they were the strength of the Navy. I have since had many letters from naval men of all ranks, telling me I was quite right, that the lieutenants are the backbone of the Navy, and that cutting down their numbers in this manner would be detrimental to the honour and safety of the country. Is this, again, no subject for inquiry? The present state of the Admiralty, without a First Lord, without a Controller, without a Chief Constructor, without a Storekeeper, without a Controller of Victualling, without a Chief Engineer, is clearly a ground for inquiry. I wish to restrict it to a few points. As to administration by the heads of departments, I do not think the country and Parliament understand how the present system works. When I was at the Admiralty the Board met for an hour and a half every day. All the Lords heard the transactions, and anyone of them could state objections to anything that was done. When more difficult questions arose, I asked them to come into my room at a later hour, where these questions could be more fully discussed; but all the routine work was transacted in the Board-room, as I say, where everybody was together, and then the Secretary heard and knew all about everything, whereas now he can only answer for his own department. This state of things could not work if the services

  303
  of the Navy were required for active operations. In the event of war, the first thing that would be done would be to alter the system, for the country would not be satisfied with a civilian First Lord solely responsible for the operations of the Navy. They would say—"Give us a Naval Lord who knows something about the matter." While I was at the Admiralty the difficulty about the Trent happened. One of the Lords asked me what would be done if there were war. I replied—"I can tell you one thing I shall do. You will have to sleep on the Admiralty Board table, for I will not let you go away from the office. I will not be responsible without having three or four of my Colleagues at hand, and if you have to sleep in the Board-room you must make up your mind to it." Any civilian ought to feel the same, for there would occur innumerable questions to be decided, and orders to be given which he could not undertake without professional advice. If Mr. Childers does not come back to the Admiralty—I hope it will not be so—the Prime Minister will have to look round the Benches behind him to catch a new First Lord—for he must be a Member of the House of Commons, though the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) has been sitting in the Admiralty nest, just keeping the eggs warm till Mr. Childers comes back. But if he should not come back the Prime Minister will have to find on the Benches behind him somebody who can speak fluently, and somebody secure of reelection—and this is not always an easy matter; what with the Permissive Bill, and what with the Contagious Diseases Act, and one thing and another, I am afraid he would be in great difficulties. These are some of the difficulties in selecting a First Lord: but when he has been obtained, what is he to do? He will not have the advantage of a Board. Where there is a Board discussing the various matters of Admiralty business, a man with a little common sense can pick up the merits of the case and form a decision, if he hears competent people state their opinions; but if he goes into a room by himself and is asked to settle difficult questions off-hand, or if anyone were to put a question to him in the House, he will be in a disadvantageous position, not having heard the matter previously discussed.
  304
  As I have said, I think departmental divisions good; but I want to add to departmental division some means of joining frequent meetings, in which naval opinions can be properly considered. I think I have shown good, grounds for an inquiry; and when Mr. Childers comes back he will be a most useful witness on many points.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the Board of Admiralty with reference to the recent changes in the constitution of the Board and the practical working of the Department."—(The Duke of Somerset.)
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he was very glad that the noble Duke had brought forward this Motion, for never was there a Department in greater confusion than the Admiralty was at that moment—it was worse even than prevailed at the War Office. He understood that the Board of Admiralty did not exist, as it used or ought to do, by virtue of the patent which authorized, its members to exercise the duties of Lord High Admiral. The name of the Secretary did not appear in the patent, as he was nominally appointed by the Board, though really by the Government, and he was, in truth, the servant of the Board and not its master. Now, however, he was informed that the Secretary was placed over the various Lords of the Admiralty, and they took orders from him instead of giving them to him. He (Viscount Melville) could not understand how the Naval Lords could submit to such an indignity being placed upon them. In the absence of Mr. Childers the First Sea Lord should be the person to carry on the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Whether this were so he did not know. What the noble Duke had now stated he had previously heard was perfectly true—that the Lords of the Admiralty now never sat as a Board, and never consulted together upon naval matters or the supply of stores, or other things which a Board should discuss. Each acted in his own department, and one Lord did not know what the other did. Instead of this they should act with unanimity. With regard to the Order in Council, he was at a loss to see how such an Order could supersede the patent issued by the Queen, commanding certain gentlemen to execute the office of Lord High Admiral. He was perfectly certain, from all he heard out-of-doors,

  305
  and from the dissatisfaction that existed in the Navy, that the noble Duke had done the greatest service in moving for this Committee, and he should heartily support the Motion.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The House will not be surprised if I have some difficulty in determining at which point I am to begin, where so many have teen dealt with; for the noble Duke has touched upon everything connected with the Navy, as well as the administration of the Admiralty, down to the latest Order in Council, and the unfortunate loss of the Captain. I think your Lordships will excuse me if I do not again open the debate upon the Order in Council, when it is recollected that it was so fully discussed in this House last year. I shall, therefore, pass it over with the simple remark that the noble Duke was not correct in saying that officers cannot now serve at the Admiralty if they wish to avoid being placed upon the retired list, for no officer of flag rank can be placed upon the retired list until he has been for 10 years not upon full pay. The noble Duke may be right in his opinion; but still it has been maintained that a flag officer to be of service at a crisis, and to be fit to take the command of a fleet at sea, ought to have been in command within the previous 10 years. There have, it is true, been a few notable exceptions; but I would ask your Lordships whether you think it would be well, as a general rule, to count an officer who had spent 15 or 20 years in the civil departments of the Admiralty as available for service at sea? I will pass briefly over what has been said with regard to the Captain, because I have already laid upon the Table the Minute of the First Lord, and I have given Notice that I shall move to-morrow for the reply of Sir Spencer Robinson; and when your Lordships are in possession of the facts, it is possible that your Lordships may have a debate upon the subject. With reference to Sir Spencer Robinson, I am sure your Lordships will excuse me from undertaking the unpleasant and almost impossible task of discussing matters which turn on questions of fact as to what passed between the First Lord and the Controller, and of which they alone are cognizant. Adverting, then, to the real subject of the debate—the constitution of the present Board of Admiralty—I may remind your
  306
  Lordships that the Board was constituted under the Order in Council of 1869, and that the main principles on which it was founded were three in number. They were—first, that the First Lord should be supreme, and have entire control over the Board; second, that each of the other Lords should be individually responsible to him for their respective departments; and third, that there should be complete control over all expenditure of money by officers responsible to Parliament. I am glad to hear from the noble Duke that he is in favour of the departmental system, for that is one great point gained in favour of the present system. At present, all transactions involving expenditure of money must be approved by at least two members of the Board. I suppose the noble Duke, when speaking of the old Board, did not intend to imply that every single transaction in his time was considered by the full Board before being finally settled. I can assure the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Melville) that it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Board of Admiralty never meet. Until the illness of the First Lord it met twice in each week; and there is nothing to prevent any member of the Board from bringing any matter he wishes to have discussed before the Board. I can also assure the noble Duke that it is an error to think that the First Lord treats his naval Colleagues simply as clerks. He considers them as his equals, with whom he is only too delighted and anxious to consult. I will venture to say that on no occasion has any one of his Colleagues who has gone to see the First Lord, or expressed a desire to discuss any question with him, ever met with anything but the most courteous attention; and that no proposal has been rejected without careful consideration. The noble Duke says that the place of the Naval Lords during a crisis was at the Admiralty, and that in the case of the Trent affair he expected them to find their beds in the Board-room. I am happy to say that during the present Board's tenure of office no such crisis has arisen; but, in the event of such a contingency, I hope Sir Sydney Dacres, and the other Naval Lord, will find the table of the sitting-room of the First Lord a not more inconvenient resting place than the Board-room table in the noble Duke's days. The noble Viscount

  307
  (Viscount Melville) has just said that no one at the Admiralty knows what his Colleagues are doing. Such a thing may be possible; but, if so, it is the fault of the person who is in ignorance, because they all receive a daily Minute of all transactions of any importance in every department. The noble Duke also stated that nobody is responsible for the Estimates, and he said that he was in a position to prove that the First Lord had nothing, or very little to do with them.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Only the first two Votes.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: How did the noble Duke obtain that information?
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Grant the Committee, and I will tell you.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Duke need not ask for a Committee, for he already knows everything he proposes the Committee shall find out. He knows more about these matters than I do myself. I may say, however, that the number of men in the Navy and dockyards were settled, and the whole skeleton of the Estimates made out by the First Lord himself, and the figures were discussed and settled in the Cabinet; therefore, it is hardly fair to say that he had nothing to do with the Estimates. The noble Duke referred to the position of the Secretary to the Admiralty. I have heard all sorts of complaints about him. It has been said over and over again that he is not able to purchase stores, and that he has no stores; the Leader of the Opposition in "another place" has said that there is an extreme lack of stores and provisions, and that we are living on what was left by the Conservative Government. So far is this from being the case, that when it was considered advisable that assistance should be sent to Paris to relieve its distress, my hon. Friend the Secretary was able to send no less a quantity of provisions than 2,500 tons at one day's notice, and I think your Lordships are bound to admit that that is one point in his favour. I have heard it said to-night that the Secretary is at present practically the First Lord. The simple fact is, that no expenditure of large amount can be made without his sanction. The arrangement is a simple and intelligible one. The principle was laid down in the Order of 1869 that no money should
  308
  be spent without the authority of those who are responsible to Parliament: it therefore follows that, during the First Lord's absence, that officer who is responsible to Parliament should, for the time, take upon himself the responsibility of financial control. I believe I have now answered all the questions addressed to me; but, if I have omitted anything, I shall be glad to be reminded of it. Without presuming to dictate to the noble Duke, I cannot help saying that I think he has shown no special reason for granting a Committee of Inquiry into the position of the Admiralty at the present time. There is this one great objection to an inquiry, that it would greatly interfere with the working of the Department the operations of which the noble Duke is so anxious to facilitate. If he has any grievance to allege against the Admiralty, I would ask him to give us, in some specific terms, the Instructions which he proposes to give to this Committee.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I did not distinctly understand from the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to resist the Motion. If it is not intended to refuse this Committee, I will not say another word about it; but if the Government do intend to resist the Motion, then I shall offer a very few words, confining myself to the simple question—Ought we to grant this Committee or ought we not? It is admitted by Her Majesty's Government that there has been a very important change in the working of the Board of Admiralty. Until two years ago a system was maintained which, practically as well as theoretically, was, in my opinion, a wise one. It maintained the complete control of the Executive Government over this great Department of the State, by placing at its head a person who generally and properly was a civilian; but, in order that he might not be left without proper professional advice and assistance, the First Lord of the Admiralty was required to carry on the business of the Department with the assistance of other Lords, some of whom were necessarily naval officers, practically acquainted with naval matters. This arrangement in no way detracted from the complete authority of the First Lord, for if differences of opinion unfortunately arose between him and one of his Colleagues no division

  309
  of the Board took place on the subject, but the authority of the First Lord was invariably acknowledged, and any Naval Lord who, upon a grave question, was unable to concur with him in opinion felt it his duty to resign. Several well-known cases of this kind have occurred. The proper and legitimate authority and responsibility of the First Lord as the head of the Department and a Minister of the Grown were thus kept unimpaired, but at the same time the Sea Lords of the Admiralty had a responsibility to the profession and the country, and if any measures which they thought unfair to the profession or injurious to the country were proposed, though they could not control the action of the First Lord, yet by their resignation they had it in their power very plainly to convey to the profession and the country their sense of these proposals. If, on the other hand, those Naval Lords continued to hold their offices, they were in the same position as an Under Secretary would be who waived his own opinion and accepted his share of responsibility for the course taken by the Government. This was the theory of the Board of Admiralty as formerly constituted; and effect was given to the system by periodical and frequent meetings of the Board, at which all important matters were brought forward and discussed, being first prepared for consideration in the several departments. The noble Earl who has just spoken took great credit to the present First Lord for the departmental system; but this is by no means a new thing at the Admiralty. In consequence of the Notice given by my noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) I referred to the speech of Sir James Graham, in which he described the alterations that were made in 1832, when the minor Boards—the Navy Board and Victualling Board—were abolished and the whole business was concentrated at the Admiralty, and I find that he then distinctly explained his proposal to be that each Lord of the Admiralty should, in his own department, be specially charged with the conduct of the business, and should have the assistance of a permanent officer who would not give up his place upon any changes of the Administration. To the success of this system periodical meetings of the Board were absolutely essential; for unless
  310
  those meetings were held, and an opportunity were afforded of discussing the various questions as they arose, and thus bringing more than one opinion to bear for the information of the First Lord, there was a very great chance of mistakes being made. Such was the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and for many years it worked well. Two years ago, however, when the Navy Estimates were brought forward, we learnt that Mr. Childers described very considerable alterations which were contemplated. I believe that in the form of the patent no change occurred — appointments and Orders were still issued nominally by the authority of the Board of Admiralty. But if I rightly recollect the speech made by Mr. Childers in moving the Estimates in 1869, he distinctly said that the consultations of the Board were practically to be discontinued, and that in future the responsibility would fall upon him exclusively, after he had communicated with each individual member of the Board as to his own special department. That is my understanding of the speech as we find it recorded, and it is in accordance with the common report of what actually occurred in the Department. Now that, I say, was a most important change; and after the new system has been some two years in operation, is it not right that we should proceed to make inquiry how it works? Is it not especially incumbent upon us to do so when circumstances have arisen leading, if not forcing, the public to believe that the results of this absence of consultation have been most serious? Take one case. The catastrophe of which we all heard with such surprise and such grief and horror, would that have occurred if the old system of conducting business at the Admiralty had been adhered to? If the Naval Lords had discussed, in the presence of the First Lord, the propriety of sending such a ship as the Captain to sea with masts and sails at a stormy season of the year, would that ship have been allowed to incur the risk to which she was exposed? My Lords, I must confess my belief that she would not. At all events, if there had been such a discussion, and if the question whether at such a time she ought to have been employed on such a service had been fairly considered, there would have been no question then as to who was responsible. The whole subject would have

  311
  been before the Board, a Minute would have been made, and every member who acquiesced in that Minute would have shared the responsibility. This one single circumstance — for I will not trouble your Lordships by going into others which occur to me — establishes to my mind a primâ facie case, showing that the important change made in the working of the Board of Admiralty two years ago was an injudicious change, and one which is not working satisfactorily. I do not say more; it is possible that upon inquiry it maybe shown that no one was to blame with respect to the catastrophe I have referred to, and that the new mode of transacting business may be better than the old one. But I do assert that a primâ facie case exists for believing that the change at the Admiralty was a change for the worse, and that inquiry by Parliament is imperatively demanded. At this moment, in the agitated state of the world, I do not think it would be becoming of your Lordships to go into minute details—to inquire into a mistake here or a mistake there; the less interference in that way with a Department the better—but there is, I think, strong ground for inquiring whether the general system of management introduced two years ago at the Admiralty in substitution for the system which formerly prevailed is or is not a wise one. That is my reason for supporting the Motion; and I do trust Her Majesty's Government will not put us to the pain of going to a division. Can they, I ask, in the face of the country and with the strong grounds which exist for investigation, refuse an inquiry which will let us ascertain for ourselves the working of the system? I earnestly trust they will grant the Committee; and I equally trust that the noble Duke, in conducting the inquiry, will abstain from the discussion of details which have nothing to do with the functions of Parliament and can only be dealt with properly by an Executive Department, and will confine himself to the broad and leading question of the constitution of the Board, which, in my opinion, forms a most legitimate subject for inquiry.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I think this House cannot refuse to grant the Committee asked for by the noble Duke. A state of things has been reached in the world in which men's minds are turned to war, and when public
  312
  feeling generally is growing anxious on the subject of our defences. I look upon the Admiralty as a mysterious office. The public know nothing of its deliberations, and can only judge by the results. It is the custom, I know, to boast of the strength of our Navy, and of the number and condition of our ships. To my mind, they are nothing but experimental ships, every one of them. It may prove, in the end, that they are neither fitted to act together as a squadron of defence, nor to keep the sea as individual cruisers. And then we are confronted with the difficulty of not knowing what to do with it, or how to keep the fleet in order. If our ships were brought into battle and were shattered — and the chances are that they would be very seriously injured—it would be found that no arrangements had been made in our dockyards and arsenals for repairing them. Every ship in the present Navy differs from all the rest in the dimensions of her masts, sails, and engines, and consequently a different fitting is required for every ship. Such a system, it is obvious, is very expensive and must lead to a great loss of time. In former days there was a complete understanding with regard to classes. We had then four classes of ships, four kinds of masts, four kinds of sails, and so on. The result was that in the event of a vessel being shattered, she could be soon repaired. If the Committee were appointed, it would be able to expose the defects in the present system; and the result would be that the Admiralty, instead of taking into their councils iron-ship builders, steam-engine makers, and men of that kind, would look to old and practised seamen, who had some idea as to what the equipment of a ship ought to be. For although we now employ steamships, it is most important that their sailing qualities should not be over-looked. The first point was that our ships of war should be made safe and sea-worthy; the second is speed; and the third is to equip them with efficiency. I am afraid that the first point—safety—has of late years been overlooked, and that our ships are dangerous. The result of the late catastrophe will, I trust, be that the ships of our Navy will be made safe; and another consequence will be that experimental ships will be at an end. We have made sufficient experiments to show what we wanted; and if

  313
  those experiments were united they will bring about the production of a good fleet. I maintain that we still require what we had in olden times. What we require are sea cruisers, an equipment suited to the narrow seas around this island, and a complete system of conveying troops with facility and despatch to all parts of the world. Above all, we require complete means of defending our whole Empire. All these points being of the utmost importance require careful consideration. In the Speech from the Throne, Parliament was not requested to examine into the state of the Navy; for I suppose Her Majesty was told by her responsible Advisers that the Navy was perfect. I assert, on the contrary, that the Navy—looking at the difficult circumstances in which the country is placed — was never in so useless a condition as at present. I thoroughly believe that the proposed inquiry will be of immense value, as it will bring to light, first of all, the secrets of the Admiralty, and, next, the secrets with regard to the construction of the Navy.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, the noble Earl on the cross Benches (Earl Grey) had very correctly described the constitution of the Board of Admiralty as it was modified by Sir James Graham, in 1832. He himself had had the honour of holding, at one time, the position of Secretary to the Admiralty, and afterwards that of First Lord, and he had never thought there was much room for improvement in the mode of working and management of the Department. Formerly, the Senior Sea Lord was charged with superintending the department which had the building of ships of war, and the second Lord with superintending that which had the responsibility of providing stores; and it struck him there was a great deal to be said in favour of uniting these two departments, which must work together, under one head. The noble Duke had said it was quite immaterial whether the members of the Board met in the Board-room or in the First Lord's room, provided that the First Lord did actually consult his naval advisers. There were three naval officers at the Admiralty, and there was no reason why the First Lord should not consult them. The Board meetings were held twice a week, and any member had only to bring forward any proposition for it to be taken into consideration, and
  314
  the opportunity was afforded for the statement of individual opinion. He denied the correctness of the assertion that the loss of the Captain was due to the Board not having met more frequently. His noble Friend said that a warning would have been given if the Board had met. From whom would the warning have come? The most likely person to have given such a warning was Sir Spencer Robinson, who disapproved of the construction of the Captain in some respects, but entertained no fears for her safety. In a Paper prepared by Sir Spencer Robinson after her loss, dated some day in November, and printed in the Appendix to the Minute of Mr. Childers, this sentence occurred—
  "I am still of opinion that the ship was safe, if properly handled, so far as relates to her stability at her loadline, and the means existing to restore it as she became lighter."
  There would be laid on the Table of their Lordships' House a Paper, which was the answer of Sir Spencer Robinson to the Minute of Mr. Childers, and in this Sir Spencer Robinson said—
  "Neither did I nor Mr. Reed consider that the Captain was unsafe to be tried at sea, if properly handled."
  That might be said of any ship in the world; and any ship, if improperly handled, might be upset. When the designer and the builder of the Captain, when the Chief Constructor and Controller of the Navy, stated their opinion that there was no risk in sending the Captain to sea, and when it was obvious from all the Papers, whatever might have been the qualities of the ship in other respects, that no one considered she was unsafe, it was out of the question to maintain that there could have been any warning of her being unsafe. If a Committee was to be appointed, he hoped the scope of its inquiry would be restricted, as suggested by the words of the noble Duke's Motion, that it would be confined to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty and the practical working of the Department, and that it would not extend to the Order in Council of last summer and other matters, as the noble Duke seemed to suggest that it should. The noble Duke fell into one or two curious mistakes; and one was as to the effect of the Order of 1870, which applied to admirals a rule, as to service in the Admiralty, that had been applied to captains from time

  315
  immemorial. The noble Duke said that the Order in Council of 1870 would have deprived the country of the services of Lord Lyons. Now, it so happened that the Order in Council which would have had that effect, was an Order in Council passed by the noble Duke himself in 1866, fixing for the first time the age at which admirals must be removed from the active list. Unless his memory failed him Lord Lyons, at the time when he was performing such distinguished service in the Black Sea, was above the limit of age named in the Order of 1866. It was the Order in Council of the noble Duke himself, and not that of Mr. Childers, which would have deprived the country of the services of Lord Lyons. Although the Committee would be inconvenient, he offered no opposition to its appointment, if it were clearly understood that its inquiry was to be limited by the words of the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  And, on Thursday, February 23, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Privy Seal

  E. Camperdown

  D. Somerset

  L. Eliot

  E. Derby

  L. Auckland

  E. Malmesbury

  L. Belper

  E. Grey

  L. Lyveden

  E. Beauchamp

  L. Houghton

  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.