Sitting of 31 July 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 28] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Prince Arthur.
First Reading—Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* [277]; Petroleum* [278].
Second Reading—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* [267]; Telegraph (Money)* [274]; County Boundaries (Ireland)* [268]; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2)* [228].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment* [221–276]; Maynooth College [243]; Beerhouses (Ireland)* [259]; Clerk of the Peace (County Palatine of Lancaster)* [265]; Judgments (Ireland)* [167].
Considered as amended — Local Government Board* [230]; Epping Forest [224]; Reductions ex Capite Lecti Abolition* [260].
Third Reading — Sunday Observance Prosecutions* [235], and passed.

THE INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the right Income Tax to deduct in respect of dividends and interest for the half-year ending 30th June; and, why the East India Railway Company and the Bombay, Baroda, and Central Indian Railway Company have deducted 6d. in the pound; on the other hand, the London, Brighton, and South Coast, the Great Eastern, and some other companies have deducted 5d. in the pound?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there are two rules on the subject—one applicable to Government stock, the other to the dividends of joint-stock companies. With regard to joint-stock companies, income tax is deducted from dividends according to the period of the year when they accrue; that is, the old income tax being payable up to the 5th of April, and the new income tax from that time, joint-stock companies ought to deduct in the present year 4d. per pound up to the 5th of April and 6d. per pound from that period, as the dividend covers both periods. But the rule as to Government guaranteed stock is this—the dividends are by the Act declared to belong to the quarter in which they are paid, and holders of stock will pay income tax according to the period of the year in which the payment falls. In the present year the holders of stock on which dividends become due after the 5th of April will pay 6d. in the pound for the whole period.

ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL ANSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that the intended military operations in Berkshire next September have been abandoned in consequence of the expense and great difficulty experienced in providing transports and supplies for so large a body of men in the field for such a length of time; and, if so, whether the responsibility attaches to the Horse Guards or
544
the War Office, to the Officers of the Army, or the Control Department?
CAPTAIN F. STANLEYsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave his answer, he wished to put the Question which stood in his name—Whether it is true that the transport required for the Troops to be engaged in the September manœuvres has been contracted for with a private firm; and, if so, whether such arrangement has occurred from insufficiency either of the materiel or personnel of the Military Train?
MR. CARDWELL: It is doubtless well known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson) that the harvest is unusually late, and it has been reported to me that it is not likely that the troops could be encamped upon the arable lands at the time fixed, or that the farmers will be able to spare their horses for local transport. Under those circumstances, it has been determined that the encampment shall be laid down and the manœuvres executed upon the open country between Woolmer Forest, on the south, and Finchamstead and Easthampstead, on the north. It is suggested in the Question that some one must be much in fault for that decision, and I propose to lay the Reports of the Quartermaster General, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance on the Table, so as to enable hon. Members to form a just opinion on the subject.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War intended to convey to the House the impression that if the harvest had not been unusually late the Control Department would have been able to carry out the proposed arrangements?
SIR HENRY STORKS: In answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson), as it concerns my department alone, I have to state that if the harvest had been gathered in proper time, so as to allow of the assistance being furnished which we had hoped to receive from local transport, I have every reason to think the Control Department would have performed the service required of it. In reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain F. Stanley),

545
I have to state that the Military Train no longer exists. The Control transport is organized at home on a peace footing, and in case of war would have to be expanded by transport supplied in the country where operations were carried on. To meet a portion of the additional transport required for the September manœuvres, we have availed ourselves of the offer of a private firm to the extent of 100 waggons, with horses for supply purposes.
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he must crave the indulgence of the House while he said a few words. ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) that that was the time appointed for asking Questions, not for raising a discussion.
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, with the greatest respect—
MR. MONKsaid, he rose to Order. The Speaker had already called on an hon. Member to put his Question, and he was in possession of the House before the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire rose.
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, that he would, in order to put himself right with the House, move its adjournment. He would trespass on the House as shortly as possible, and on an emergency which had arisen; and he believed the Rules of the House were made elastic for the very purpose of bringing forward, on emergency, matters which might be considered as important. Now, he had to bring before the House a matter of the greatest importance, involving the existence—he used the word advisedly—the very existence of the Army. He hoped hon. Members would allow him to explain what he meant. The proposed camp for manœuvres had been in contemplation, and preparations made for it during the whole of the last four months. Committees had been appointed and arrangements made accordingly. The commanding officer at Aldershot and his two immediate subordinates had visited the neighbourhood of the district in Berkshire where the camps were to be formed. They reported favourably with regard to water supply, open spaces, and roads. Those Reports were sent to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and subsequently
546
to the Control and Engineer departments, to make other Reports. Being Member for the county, he (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) got together a committee representing 36 parishes and villages, where the camps were to be placed. Farmers, occupiers, and owners of land were represented on that committee. They held various meetings, and carried resolutions which found their way to Aldershot, and into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself. They were uniformly favourable to the approaching visit of the troops. He was bound to say reports were made to them from Aldershot that they were deluding themselves if they imagined that the troops were coming. The best advised, and those who knew most of the state of affairs at Aldershot, distinctly told them half-a-dozen times that the camp would never be pitched. These reports were disbelieved. He knew his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) was in earnest; he was quite certain his right hon. Friend wished to carry out the manœuvres; he did not believe the reports from Aldershot, although the purport of them was that they might be able to move 5,000 men, but certainly not more; and, in spite of the repeated warnings, the committee and himself persevered in endeavouring to forward the desired object so as to be most convenient to all concerned. But it was all in vain. The manœuvres had practically been abandoned, if they were to be carried out at a place only eight miles from Aldershot; and, when he heard of the rumoured abandonment, he went to the chairman of the local committee and asked him whether he and the farmers had received any communication on the subject from the Government asking them about the harvest, and whether the harvest was in such a condition as to interfere with the movements of troops. Not one word had been heard by the very men who were able to give the best advice; the question of the condition of the harvest had never been gone into with them; they had not been asked whether it was forward or backward; and the fact was the Control department had collapsed. According to the best information he had been able to obtain, it was in the power of the Control department to move 5,000 men, and at a great stretch, by reducing horses, and with half-appointed arrangements,

547
it could go so far as to move 8,000 or 10,000 men. He would read a resolution passed at a meeting of the representatives of the owners and occupiers of land in Berkshire, which resolution was handed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who was pleased to receive it. The resolution ran—
"That this meeting, entertaining no doubt that the determination of the Government to form a camp of exercise on a large scale is a wise measure, which will really prove of national advantage, readily acquiesces in the propriety of selecting any part of Berkshire which is a suitable locality, and gladly expresses on the part of the farmers of the vicinity a wish to co-operate in carrying out the proposed arrangements."
Would it not have been natural that those who had to report upon the conditions of the crops of Berkshire should have asked the opinion of the committee by whom that resolution was passed? On the contrary, not one word on the subject had been addressed to them, and he was bound to say his constituents felt deeply grieved. When that resolution was carried, he felt very proud of the farmers; for the passing of the resolution evinced great self-denial on their part, seeing that so long ago as April they placed their lands and crops at the disposal of the Government, and said nothing about compensation, believing that the manœuvres were for the benefit of the Army. And now they heard that the manœuvres were to be abandoned. Surely, they might be expected to know as much about the crops as the Inspector General of Fortifications? He had said that the existence of the Army was at stake, and he would stand by those words. No one would deny that the feeding and transport of the Army were all important: as the Duke of Wellington said, the only one who could follow him would be one who could feed his Army. Look at what the condition of things was in the Crimea, where men were starving within seven miles of the base of their operations, because there was neither food nor transport. Again, the French Army had collapsed from similar causes. Those lessons had been taught them one after another, and it was sufficient he thought to make the mildest-tempered Member rise in his place and say that if the Government did not act upon them, the House must. It was a matter virtually affecting the existence of the Army, for
548
if it were not able to move 30 miles from its base of operations, it was useless. Hon. Members opposite, who were guardians of the public purse and advocates of economy, ought to see that if they spent £15,000,000 they got the worth of it. What would a man say who year after year spent large sums on an estate, and then found it all in disorder and all the farm buildings tumbling down? Yet such a description would apply to their Army so far as the Control department was concerned. Lessons had been taught them, and if the House did not apply them it would be their fault. What was the use of spending £15,000,000 a-year, if they had an Army that could not march 30 miles? That was the point they must look at. With four months of preparations; with every advantage of home; with contractors at their backs; in a country pre-eminent for its horses, and where they could be bought, as the French were buying them, in all directions, they could not move their Army 30 miles from its base of operations, but were obliged to restrict their operations to a place at a distance of eight miles. That was no test whatever; it would only be a little march of eight or ten miles, during which it would be simply futile to expect them to be able in any degree to test the efficiency of what it was indispensable they should test—the Control department; and they might have the most perfect regimental system and the best-instructed officers, and yet if the Control department broke down, their Army was worthless. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had told him they looked forward to that camp of instruction as a bright spot in the right hon. Gentleman's Army administration; distinguished persons were coming from the Continent and from America to see the operations; and yet at the last moment they were told they were not to come off. In a ridiculous manner they had collapsed, and said they could not do that which they proposed to do. It was their duty at once to see that the Control department was put in a state of efficiency; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General could do it if he had the money. Let the money be forthcoming then, and let the department be tested, for shortcomings were sure to be found out; and even at that last moment, let them see what could be done as to feeding and

549
transporting 30,000 men. Why, it was said at the last review that from one regiment alone the medical officer struck off 90 men when it only numbered 500 upon parade, and that upon the plea that the men were entirely unable to march what was only a short distance from Aldershot. At present Ministers rose in their places and made statements as to which they themselves were deceived, just as much as Napoleon III. was deceived when he imagined his Army was in first-rate order, and at last found that it was absolutely rotten. If the right hon. Gentleman did not take warning, he would be made the scapegoat if any catastrophe occurred. It was a mischievous, a bad, and rotten system that they had adopted of placing at the head of the Army civilians who knew nothing about it; and the right hon. Gentleman, without knowing it, stated in that House what was not true. In that way they were led to imagine that all was right when all was not right. There was nothing now to be done but for the House to inquire into the collapse of the Control department; and an order ought to be issued for the troops to move, as had been contemplated, in order that they might see what the department could do. His apology for intruding at this time was that that was a matter of emergency, and, as he had said before, to put himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Loyd Lindsay.)
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was unwilling, even for a few minutes, to continue a discussion which was irregular in point of time and circumstance; and still more unwilling, because he had just stated that he was about to lay upon the Table, as he hoped to do that night, the Reports of the Quartermaster General, of the Inspector General of Fortifications, and of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance, as to the reasons why the contemplated manœuvres had been partially abandoned. He submitted, with great deference, that he was bound to take the opinion of the Quartermaster General upon a subject of that kind—[Colonel LOYD LINDSAY: The crops?]—which was, whether it was proper that troops should be quartered, under the circumstances
550
of the present year, upon arable land in the middle of Berkshire; and if he were to take the opinion of the farmers of Berkshire upon that subject, he should be transgressing his duty. He had been as anxious as his hon. and gallant Friend opposite the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) to promote the operations, the idea of which he (Mr. Cardwell) himself originated, and if the existence of the Army depended upon them, some credit might be due to him; but, without thinking of himself, the question was whether it would be right, under the circumstances of the present year, to encamp their troops on the arable land of Berkshire, or whether they ought rather to encamp them on the open country surrounding Aldershot. Of the expediency of the alteration in the plan pursued, hon. Members could not judge properly until they had the documents which he proposed to lay on the Table that evening. It was said that the Control department had collapsed; but what were the circumstances? The Control department was most wisely established by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he had only been walking in their steps in carrying the system into effect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance had said he believed if he could have availed himself of the ordinary local transport he could have carried out the operations; and what were the circumstances in war? Were there large transport bodies that were paid for in time of peace? Nothing of the kind. The Control department did not exist at the time of the Crimean War, and therefore it could not have failed then; it was established in 1868 by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington), for the purpose, as stated in the Queen's Speech, of introducing economy in military matters; and what economy would there be if they maintained, in time of peace, a large number of transport horses which they would be able to use only in time of war? What they wanted in time of peace was the nucleus of a transport corps, which they could supplement with a local transport corps in the country in which they carried on war. It was designed in the projected operations that such a nucleus only should be employed, and that it should be supplemented by such local transport as Berkshire could afford. They were informed now that

551
they could not rely upon the local transport of Berkshire, and therefore they could not try the proposed experiment. On that point hon. Members would be better able to form an opinion when they saw the Papers. As he was speaking he would here reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) with respect to the men left at Aldershot because they were unequal to the march from their quarters to Wimbledon. He was informed that 77 men of the 1st battalion of the 4th Regiment and 90 of the 2nd battalion of the 15th Regiment were left at Aldershot, being "recruits who have never yet marched with a pack, and are not yet dismissed drill."
LORD ELCHOsaid, it was desirable that the House and the country should understand clearly the reason why those manœuvres were to be given up. It was very difficult to get at the exact reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said it was owing to the peculiar circumstances of the year; and what were those peculiar circumstances? Was it that it had been wet, or was it that the harvest was late? He had been informed that during the last 12 years the harvest had been off the ground by the 20th of September, and the right hon. Gentleman would not say that that was too late for troops to go under canvas. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance said the reason for abandonment was that it would be impossible to obtain the required amount of local transport; but he presumed there would be no difficulty in getting that by the 20th of September. He understood that the controller of the roads had reported that he could obtain 100 three-horse waggons at 18 s. a day, including a driver for each; but the department, instead of looking to the locality, went to Pickford's, who charged so much that the idea of a contract with them was given up. The House ought to know the circumstances, so that they could judge of the matter. If those who were locally interested and who knew the state of things maintained that local transport could be got by the time stipulated—the 20th of September—they ought to have some better reason for giving up the manœuvres than that which had been assigned. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State
552
for War, whether the General in command at Aldershot was of opinion that from the 15th to the 20th of September was too late for a period of these manœuvres, and whether it was with his sanction and approval they had been abandoned?
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was glad to hear that the officers refused to allow the recruits of the 1st and 4th battalions of the two regiments to be marched to Wimbledon, having always protested against mere recruits being subjected to heavy marching. Last year he called attention to a moving column from Aldershot to Windsor being accompanied by depôts of recruits, and that was a practice that retarded the drill of the recruits for a month or six weeks.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, he should move for the production of all the departmental correspondence on the subject of the proposed manœuvres.
LORD ELCHOasked for a reply to the question he had addressed to the Secretary of State.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE HECTOR ROCK.—QUESTION.
MR. C. TURNERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Hector rock now lying in the Channel between the Island of Santa Maria and the mainland of the west coast of South America off Point Lavapic, does not now appear on the Admiralty chart; and, whether the Government has given such public notice of the existence of this dangerous rock as may prevent a repetition of a recent accident of which it has been the cause?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that the rock was searched for by Her Majesty's ship Shearwater in 1864, but in vain, and those who conducted the operation were confident that no impediment to the navigation now existed. The ship was anchored, it was believed, over the spot where the rock was said to have been, and there were 18 fathoms of water, and fine sand at the bottom. The Government had had a Report that a ship had struck upon the rock, but no bearings were given to enable the Admiralty to determine the position where she struck. It was possible that she struck upon another rock; but inquiry would be made into the matter.

ARMY—COLOURS OF THE 68TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the colours of the 68th Regiment, recently ordered by the War Office to be sent from Ireland to London to be inscribed with a record of the New Zealand campaign, have been lost; whether this loss has not been occasioned by the refusal of the War Office to allow the usual escort for colours; and, whether the cost of supplying the 68th Regiment with new colours will not more than balance the saving incurred by refusing to allow a proper escort? The noble Lord stated that he had altered the form of the Question printed by substituting "New Zealand" for "Abyssinia."
SIR HENRY STORKS: I am glad, Sir, my noble Friend has altered the form of his Question, as I was about to say in reply that the 68th Regiment, not having formed part of the expedition to Abyssinia, would not be entitled to bear that distinction. They have, however, served in Now Zealand, and it was to have that scroll affixed that the regimental colour, not colours, was sent from Templemore to the Royal Army Clothing Depôt at Pimlico. Colours are not sent to regiments by escort, but are conveyed by the ordinary means of transit through the contract carriers, by whom the regimental colour in question was lost. The cost of supplying the new colour will not fall upon the public, but upon the carrier with whom responsibility for the loss rests.

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS SCHEME.—QUESTION.
MR. MIALLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, seeing that every scheme of the Endowed Schools Commission for applying educational endowments which has been laid upon the Table of the House provides that the incumbent of the parish shall be an ex-officio governor of the school to which the scheme relates, it is an understood rule with the Commission to make a similar provision a feature of all future schemes; whether such ex-officio appointments of the incumbents of parishes do not contravene the spirit of the Endowed Schools Act, and particularly
554
Clause 17, section 1, of that Act; and, whether, considering that these schemes have been laid upon the Table at a period of the Session when, owing to the pressure of other business it is impossible to find a suitable time for an adequate discussion of them, they cannot be held over or withdrawn till next Session, when the attention of the House may be drawn to the subject?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was not a rule with the Commissioners that the incumbent of a parish should be ex-officio a governor of an endowed school. In several instances, though not in all, it had occurred that an incumbent had formed part of the Governing Body, because it appeared desirable and in accordance with the wish of the community; but there was no rule laid down, and the Commissioners did not think they contravened the spirit or letter of the Act by making such appointments. It would not be advisable to withdraw schemes which had been laid on the Table, with a view to finding more time afterwards for the discussion of them, especially as there was no notice of opposition to them; and in the case of one scheme, in which the constituents of the hon. Member and of himself were interested, he could imagine no greater inconvenience than would result from the suspension or withdrawal of it, particularly as it was one generally approved by all parties.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What protection the Government are prepared to afford to heads of families and the public against the "literature" on an indelicate subject which certain persons, members of a late deputation, threaten to force into their houses, which they say "it is their duty to sow broadcast," the subjects of which they declare "shall be discussed by women and children;" and, whether such persons can be prosecuted for such proceedings under the Act termed "Lord Campbell's Act?"
  MR. BAINESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it will be possible, consistently with the freedom of the press and the rights

  555
  of the subject, to restrain the discussion of a Law of the land, a fundamental provision of which is condemned by the Report of a Royal Commission; whether it will be unlawful to publish in pamphlets, or otherwise, the Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission, which this House is itself in course of publishing in Parliamentary Papers; and, whether the most effectual method of preventing further violations of delicacy will not be to repeal or suspend the principal provision of the Contagious Diseases Acts?
  MR. BRUCE: I rather object, Sir, to be called upon to say what should be done under an exceptional state of things. The subject to which these Questions relate has to a certain extent been forced upon the attention of the country by the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission and of the evidence taken before it. If the comments on these documents are made in a fair spirit, it is impossible to suppose that any law exists to prevent their publication; but if, on the other hand, the subject is handled in a coarse and gross manner, it will be necessary for the Courts of Law to decide whether the offenders do not come under Lord Campbell's Act. Under such circumstances, the Government would be guided by the opinions of the Judges; but I do not think it right to anticipate unfairness in the discussion of the subject. During the course of last Session a large number of publications were forced upon individuals; but the justification then put forward was the alleged unwillingness of the newspapers to admit correspondence on this subject, especially communications which were opposed to the working of the Acts. I believe, however, that objection no longer exists, for I have seen discussions on this subject in journals of great respectability and large circulation, conducted in a spirit altogether unobjectionable. I trust that, for the future, this difficult and painful subject will be dealt with in such a spirit as not to be exposed to the objections which my hon. Friend has referred to. With respect to the latter part of his Question, I must state that this is really a matter for Parliament to decide, and that, in regard to it, other considerations than mere considerations of delicacy—namely, those connected with the principles of morality—ought to be kept in view.

CROWN LANDS IN SOUTH AFRICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the greater part of the 64,000,000 acres in Southern Africa, shown to be un-alienated in the "Return regarding Crown Lands in the Colonies presented to this House in June, 1870," continues, as there represented to be, available for settlement; and, if so, to what extent the Home Government are acting in concert with the Government in Southern Africa with a view to disposal thereof; and whether it is intended, in arranging a federal constitution for the Colonies in Southern Africa, to take measures for the provision and permanent maintenance of facilities for employing to the best advantage the waste lands, with a view to securing the emigration thither of the classes of colonists most fitted to their requirements?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, the Crown Lands referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman remain in the same state as at the date of the Report in June, 1870. No steps have been taken to dispose of them to emigrants, inasmuch as the reply of the Governor of the Cape to Lord Granville's Circular stated that there was no steady demand for the labour of Europeans and no prospect of their obtaining remunerative employment during any large portion of the year. With regard to the second part of the Question, I can only say that the House of Assembly at the Cape has had under its consideration some Resolutions favourable to federation, but that at the present moment it would be quite premature for me to assume or to make any statement relative to the prospects or the conditions of any such federal constitution.

NAVY—THE "AGINCOURT."—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that there are no iron plates in store for repairing the ships of the "Agincourt" class; and if any delay will arise in consequence in re-fitting that ship for sea?
MR. GOSCHENreplied that it was not true that there were no iron plates in store for repairing the ships of the Agincourt class, as such plates were

557
being supplied from Portsmouth. He was informed by one firm that they could be supplied in three days, and by another that they could be supplied in one day.

ARMY—YOUNG RECRUITS OF THE 86TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If it was not the fact that of the draft of the 86th Regiment recently landed at the Cape the greater portion were under nineteen years of ago, while a great many were under eighteen?
SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the draft in question consisted of 39 men over 19 years of age, of 29 men between 18 and 19 years of age, and of two under 18 years of age, on embarkation. I may add that I know no country, whether from the salubrity of the climate or the nature of the service required of the troops, more calculated to develop and improve young soldiers than the Cape of Good Hope.

PERSIA—ALLEGED FAMINE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any official confirmation has reached the Foreign Office with regard to the prevalence of cholera, typhus, and plague in Persia; and, whether if it be true as reported in the newspapers, that at Shiraz the famine is so great that inhabitants are reduced to eating their own children, any offer has been made by the Indian Government to afford such relief as lies in their power towards mitigating the sufferings of the inhabitants of a neighbouring and friendly State?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, official communications have been received at the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and from other sources announcing the existence of cholera at several places in Persia, and also the appearance of a disease somewhat resembling the plague. The Reports on this subject have been sent to the Council Office. There is a story in circulation that at a place called Koom a man was discovered who had stolen and subsequently devoured two children, but the inhabitants had the man apprehended, brought before the local authorities,
  558
  and he was put to death; but it is expressly stated that the inhabitants of that place, though suffering great privations, were far from being reduced to such horrible straits. I am not aware whether the Indian Government have proffered or forwarded any relief to those localities; but recent accounts say that the harvest prospects in Persia for this year were of the most hopeful character.

BONDING PRIVILEGES.—QUESTION.
MR. A. JOHNSTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of the Correspondence between the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Customs as to the granting of bonding privileges to Commercial Wharf, Upper Thames Street, in the City of London, with a view to ascertaining on what principles such privileges are granted or refused?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the correspondence between the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Customs as to the granting of bonding privileges to the Commercial Wharf, Upper Thames Street, in the City of London, consisted of a confidential Report for the use of the Treasury. It was desirable not to produce such Reports, as, if this were done, they would soon cease to be of a confidential character, and would assume a conventional form adapted for the perusal of that House.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Factories and Workshops Acts Amendment Bill will apply to all Government Establishments where young persons and women are employed; and, if not, whether he will introduce a Clause making it applicable?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that every Government Establishment in which manual labour was exercised by way of trade or for the purposes of gain was actually a workshop, and was subject accordingly to the regulations of the Factories and Workshops Acts. With respect to other Government Establishments where young persons and women were employed, they also were regulated by the same rules, although they were

  559
  not under the operation of the Acts, as it was considered essential, in order to meet cases of emergency, that the Government should have the power, when they thought proper, of dispensing with a portion of the regulations.

CASE OF W. E. POOK.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of W. E. Pook, lately tried on a charge of murder and acquitted, Whether the observations reported to have been made by the Lord Chief Justice as to the conduct of certain police officers have received his attention; what, if any, steps will be taken to protect the public and individuals against the recurrence of such conduct; whether any investigation of the conduct of said officers will take place; and, if so, whether they will continue in the discharge of their duties until the same shall have taken place?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had read the transcript of the shorthand notes of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in reference to the conduct of certain police officers in the case of W. E. Pook, recently tried on a charge of murder and acquitted. On the present occasion it was of course impossible for him to enter minutely into the circumstances connected with that trial; but it appeared to him that many of the most important charges brought against the police were charges which, if made at all, ought to be directed against the legal and official Advisers of the Crown, although he expressed no opinion whether they would be sustained or not. When his hon. Friend last put on the Paper Notice of a Question in reference to this subject, he spoke of the suppression of evidence. Particular attention had been given to the suppression of all the circumstances connected with the discovery of a certain locket and a blood-stained duster, which was found near the scene of the murder. These circumstances were suppressed, however, not by the action of the police, but in accordance with the directions of those who advised the Crown, and who, being of opinion that those articles were not in any way connected with the crime, deemed it was not their duty to make them part of the evidence to be adduced on the trial. With respect to other very
560
grave charges against the police, he had also made very careful inquiries; but he found that on every occasion when the Lord Chief Justice reprehended the conduct of the police as far as the exercise of their judgment went, he acquitted them entirely of anything like mala fides in the matter. Both of the officers referred to had been long employed in the public service. Inspector Mulvany was appointed nine years ago a member of the Detective Department, and as a detective he had been engaged in many important investigations and had repeatedly received the thanks of various public bodies. Indeed, this was, he believed, the first occasion on which that officer had incurred any censure. The Chief Commissioner of Police was of opinion that neither of these officers had done anything to justify him in dismissing them from the force. The best security to the public and to individuals against the recurrence of such mistakes as were from time to time committed by the police consisted in the publicity with which criminal trials were conducted. Every policeman intrusted with the conduct of an inquiry knew that his evidence would be submitted to the rigorous cross-examination of counsel, and subjected to the observations of the Judge, and also, in cases of great public interest, to the severe criticisms of the Press.

MILITARY ATTACHES AT ST. PETERSBURG.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will delay the appointment of Military Attachés to St. Petersburg till after the Estimates have been considered in Committee of Supply?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, it was impossible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, as Lord Granville had consulted the Queen on the subject on the 24th instant, and the appointment had already been formally made.

ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT BURYrepeated the Question previously put by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), to whom no answer had been given, on the subject of the Review in Berkshire.
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, a little while ago I stated what had occurred, and now my noble Friend puts the Question again because he was not then present. If my noble Friend will wait for the Reports which I propose to lay on the Table to-night, he will be able to form his own judgment on the subject.
LORD ELCHOinquired whether the postponement of the manœuvres was made with the permission of the General commanding the troops encamped in Berkshire?
MR. CARDWELL: The objection I have to that question is that it is absolutely absurd. It is not for a subordinate officer to discharge the Government from their responsibility.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would, in accordance with the promise given by him on Thursday night last, now inform the House what his intentions were with regard to an autumn or late Sitting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to submit the Motion of which I have given Notice—
  "That To-morrow, and upon every succeeding Tuesday during the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having priority."
  The only fact necessary to be stated in its support is that we have now reached that period of the Session when it is usual to pass a Motion of this kind with a view to facilitate the winding up of business. On the 3rd of August, 1869, being a Tuesday, this privilege was granted, and on the 7th of July, 1868, it was also granted. This is enough, I think, for me to say upon this subject. I will now answer the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) with reference to the proposal or suggestion of an autumn adjournment. The Government have examined the state of the Notice Paper, and also considered the character of the remaining clauses of the Ballot Bill, upon which an answer to this question, as my hon. Friend may expect, principally turns; and what we find is this—According to the best of our judgment,
  562
  there are two, and only two, questions remaining to be dealt with which present a character of some freshness and considerable importance. One of these is the question of polling-places, which has already been partially discussed, and with reference to this subject, although it is important, we are glad to observe that the proposal of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster), which has now been within the knowledge of the House for a considerable period, does not appear to have produced any crop of Amendments. That being so, we are rather sanguine in the interpretation which we put upon that state of facts, that that subject, important as it is, is not likely to cause much expenditure of the time of this House. The other question refers to the payment of certain election expenses, and with regard to that question, which is partially novel and also important, we are glad to observe that a Motion has been put on the Paper which will have the effect of practically bringing forward the principle at issue with great felicity and rapidity. Looking at this state of circumstances, we think we may without presumption anticipate the disposal of this stage of the Ballot Bill in the course of to-morrow. Should that expectation be fulfilled, we hope it will be unnecessary, as far as the transaction of the business of the House of Commons is concerned, any longer to entertain the idea of an adjournment to a period of the autumn. On the other hand, if that expectation be doomed to disappointment, we then think that the time is come when we could not keep the House waiting longer in order to meet the views of the Government upon that subject. If we are not able to finish, or substantially to finish, the Committee on the Ballot Bill in the course of to-morrow, aided, as I trust we shall be, by having at our disposal the Evening Sitting to-morrow, we shall then be compelled, however reluctantly, to look to an adjournment to a period in the month of October, for the purpose of carrying on to completion the business of the House. This answer is as explicit and as definite as the circumstances will allow me to give.
  MR. DISRAELI: I think we ought to place all the time we can at the disposal of the Government, considering the late period of the year. But if this

  563
  House accedes to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, so that he will be able to commence business on Tuesday at the usual hour, it will not be necessary, I should think, to have any more Morning Sittings. It will be probably more effective for the progress of business if the House should meet at 4 o'clock instead of at 2 o'clock.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a point which may remain for future consideration. I should be sorry to change the practice to-morrow, but we will carefully consider the matter before we have any more Morning Sittings. My own impression is in favour of the plan of Morning Sittings, which was the offspring of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I think, as far as my knowledge and experience goes, it has, especially at this period of the Session, conduced to the convenience of the House; but I do not wish to express any foregone conclusion, and we shall have to inform ourselves on the subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that was a Motion which was usually made at the close of the Session; but it seemed to him that, with 40 Orders of the Day upon the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was presuming on the conclusion of the Session at a period which he had scarcely a right to anticipate, unless the threat which he had held out to them, that they should meet again in October if they were not good boys, and complete the task which he had set them within a very limited period, should prove effectual. Really that was a most novel proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a completely new policy with respect to Parliament, which was now to be punished, if the measures he proposed were not carried; and he (Mr. Newdegate) did not hesitate to say that he thought Parliament ought to object to that sort of discipline, because it was really more becoming a public school than a deliberative Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of announcing elsewhere, the other night, that he had adopted the principle that it mattered not what might be the objections made to the measures that he had proposed, for, sooner or later, they must pass, as the majority of that House supported him in his decision; whilst as to the House of Lords they must take care
  564
  of themselves. Now, that appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) to be rather the language of excitement; and although it might commend itself to his partizans—the party who supported him in that House, and whose interests he appeared to have bound up in those measures—it was not a policy that commended itself to thinking men in this country; and of that he believed there was sufficient evidence at the distinguished meeting which the right hon. Gentleman attended on Saturday. Of this he was perfectly certain—that the Legislature would lose credit in the country, and lose position in the country, if it quietly submitted to a policy of that kind; because what did it come to? Let him for a moment call the attention of the House to the state of its own business during the last month of that Session. He had a list of the Orders of the Day for every Monday during the Session up to the present time; and he invited the attention of the House to the singular contrast which that list formed to the list of Orders of the Day on Mondays, which were always Government days in any other Session. They met in February, and he found that the average number of Orders of the Day on Mondays in February, was 9½; in March, the average number was 11¾; in April, 15⅓; in May, 20; in June, it rose to 33; and in July, the average had been 39; whilst that day the number was 40. He asked the House, then, to consider what that meant. He was not alluding to the important measures that had been abandoned, but to this fact—that for the purpose of carrying two measures—the Army Regulation Bill and the Elections Bill, upon which the right hon. Gentleman had set his heart, and with which he had bound up the interests of his party—the really important and pressing business of the country had been postponed from month to month, until they had the announcement that the Session was about to close, if the right hon. Gentleman could force the closure; and yet they had still 40 measures to consider—nay, more than 40, for there were others standing for Thursday next; and they were to consider those measures in a weary House, shorn of numbers; in fact, they were to make over to the Government the entire disposal of that mass of legislation. Now, he held that it was the duty of the House of Commons to protest against that system—against the

  565
  Government taking up two measures, occupying the whole available portion of the Session with those two measures, and thus by wearying out the House monopolizing the control of, and the decision upon, other important measures at the conclusion of the Session. What was that but virtually to set aside the functions of both Houses of the Legislature, by keeping them in suspense until they were so wearied out that they could not deal satisfactorily with measures necessary for the welfare of the country? The right hon. Gentleman was incurring a grave responsibility in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, a right to plead that the reorganization of the Army was, to a certain extent, a question of urgency; but he could not plead that the Elections Bill was a question of urgency, unless he had determined on a Dissolution, and feared a dissolution under the present law regulating elections; or else he designed to starve out Mr. Bradlaugh, to distance every other agitator, and to render that House a centre of agitation for revolutionary change. Those were the aspects in which he viewed the conduct of the Government during the present Session. He had no wish to oppose Her Majesty's Government factiously. He had no party purpose to serve. The right hon. Gentleman, on Saturday night, expressed his acquiescence in, and approval of, the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition; they must suppose, therefore, that the two right hon. Gentlemen had come to an understanding in order to pursue the course which he had described; but he held that that House did not fulfil its functions, and disappointed, nay deceived the country, if it suffered legislation to be postponed in masses until from sheer weariness the House was precluded from the possibility of giving due attention to those important questions. That was the view which he took of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that that House, if not now, yet in another Session would enter an effectual protest against being thus superseded by the Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he was anxious to say a few words upon the conduct of Irish Business during the present Session. With the exception of one measure—the Coercion Bill—no proposal of the Government relating to Ireland had ever come on for discussion till 1, 2, or
  566
  3 o'clock in the morning. Irish measures were then brought on pell-mell, at a time when it was impossible that they could receive adequate consideration. In fact, under the present system, an Irish Member, if he wished to do his duty in the House of Commons, must be prepared to sacrifice his health. That very evening there were ten Irish Bills standing upon the Notice Paper, although three-fourths of the Irish Members were absent—many of them attending the Assizes. He did not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland or the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland for that state of things; for, owing to the position into which other Government Business had fallen, he believed it was practically impossible to bring on Irish Bills at a reasonable hour. Still, that did not alter the hardship of the case, as far as hon. Members and as far as Ireland itself were concerned. When he ventured occasionally to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland what he considered a reasonable hour to bring on a particular Bill, his reply was, "A quarter to 2"—a time when it was plainly impossible that any Bill could be considered upon its merits; but that evening Irish Members were in the unfortunate position of being unable to get a pledge from any Member of the Government as to the time when any one of those Irish Bills might be expected to come on.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, as an English Member, he wished to remark that the two last Sessions had been given up to Ireland. If, therefore, the remaining time of the House this Session was to be taken up with ten more Irish Bills, that certainly would not be treating English and Scotch Members fairly.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, it was perfectly well known that many of the 30 or 40 Orders nightly appearing upon the Paper were put down merely to fix a future day upon which they might be taken into consideration. The Government perfectly well knew which of these they did not even intend to discuss, and if they would only let the fact be known it would save inconvenience to many hon. Members, who were detained till a late hour watching Bills which the Government knew were not to come on.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: There is one point in the present discussion which has been treated somewhat jocularly, but which seems to me a very serious one. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has risen in his place and told us what his arrangements are for conducting the Business of the House to a termination. He finds in making those arrangements that, with the exception of two points in the Ballot Bill, one of which is to be under discussion to-night—all the rest will be easy to settle. We have now got to the 18th clause of the Bill, which is one of 57 clauses, and, omitting those which the right hon. Gentleman says are not to be pressed, there are still some 25 clauses to be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman says there are very few Amendments; but I hold in my hand from 28 to 30 pages of Amendments, some of them of the utmost importance, given as well by hon. Gentlemen upon the other side as by hon. Members upon this side of the House. There is, for instance, the question of polling-places, and not merely in England, for I observe that with regard to Ireland two sets of Amendments are proposed—one by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and one by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron). And what I complain of is that the right hon. Gentleman says—if we do not pass this Bill to-morrow night—if we do not pass those 25 clauses and dispose of all those Amendments by tomorrow night, then the House is to meet again next October.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Pardon me; I never said any such thing. What I did say was, that if they were not passed by that time, we should make the proposal to the House.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Well, I can only say that if that proposal is made to the House, I trust the House will vote by ballot upon the question. But I must follow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman further. Night after night Bills of the greatest importance are brought forward after 2 o'clock in the morning, and if any serious discussion arises upon them what is the answer? Why, that if the Bill is discussed and amended, so as to become a good Bill, the time of the Session will not suffice, and we are accordingly urged to pass Bills which we feel and know to be
  568
  incomplete, and to shut ourselves out from the opportunity of amending them, because of the way in which the business is crowded upon the Paper through the action of the Government. There is a Bill with respect to local government which stands third upon the Paper for to-night, and I am very anxious that that Bill, or some such Bill, should be passed; but if ever there was a Bill which ought to be carefully considered it is that, to make sure that we have got a really good head to the sanitary department of this country. And yet that Bill is brought on again and again at hours when it is impossible that a jaded House can give to the subject the attention it requires. To show the importance of that Bill, I asked a question of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) the other night, and he told us he knew nothing whatever of the approach of the cholera—that it was still at a great distance. But, I see by the papers that that very evening the cholera was in the town of Hull. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] Well, a vessel arrived at Hull from Cronstadt, and on board the vessel were passengers who were suffering from cholera. And so serious was the matter considered that an Order in Council was issued upon the subject. I refer to that as showing that if we are now engaged in organizing a system upon which dependence is to be placed in an hour of trial, it is of the first importance that there should be a full and proper opportunity of discussing its provisions; but, as matters are conducted, that Bill invariably comes on at an hour when most hon. Members have left the House, and the remainder are utterly fagged with the exertions they have undergone. The other night, again, we were told that the Navy Estimates did not come on because of an unforeseen circumstance—which was that the pockets of my right hon. Friend who presides over the Education Department were so empty that they could not go on paying any longer unless he obtained a Vote. And so matters go on—measures are introduced, but everything is kept back, not from any fault of the House, but from the fault of the Government in not properly arranging its business. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, will not admit the fault is in any sense theirs; but they have admitted it nevertheless. For what have

  569
  they done? They have put down Amendments to Bills, and at the request of the Government they have afterwards given up those Amendments. They have sacrificed everything to procure the passing of measures, not because they believe those measures in themselves to be good—for their own Amendments show that they can see their defects and know how those ought to be remedied—but because their desire is, not for the best, but for the best party legislation.
  Resolved, That To-morrow, and upon every succeeding Tuesday during the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having priority.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. VANCEsaid, he begged to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland after what hour the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill will not be proceeded with?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): It is very difficult to answer a question of that kind. If the hon. Member for Armagh will induce his Friends not to be as communicative to the House as they generally are, I may take it at 1 o'clock.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN: And the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): It will not come on to-night.
  MR. WHALLEYasked what arrangement, if any, would be made as to the Turnpike Bill?
  MR. BRUCE: Well, it is impossible for me to make any arrangements just now.
  LORD ELCHO: I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has returned to his place. I beg therefore to ask him whether he intends to proceed with the Mines Regulation Bill to-night, or at any other period during this Session?
  MR. BRUCE: I was in hope that by forming a very large select representative Committee of this House it would be possible to put the Bill into such a shape that it might pass substantially unopposed; but representations were made to me from every single Member of the Committee that the questions raised by the Bill were such as could only be satisfactorily discussed in this House, and that the labours of the Select Committee
  570
  would not facilitate the passing of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I felt that it would be needless cruelty to inflict upon hon. Gentlemen the duty of attending the Committee. That was the last chance, and, as it would be manifestly impossible to carry through the House at this period of the Session measures of which the leading principles are so warmly contested, I shall move this evening that the Order for those two Bills be discharged.
  MR. A. EGERTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when he would take the Turnpike Bill?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that the Turnpike Trusts Bill would be taken next Thursday.
  MR. WHALLEYwished to know in what order. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department studiously paid no attention to appeals of this kind. He wished to know of the Under Secretary of State whether he would place it on the Paper, so that it might be brought on at an early hour, so as to secure its being properly discussed.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he had fixed Thursday at the request of certain hon. Members who were interested in the subject, but he had no power to compel its being brought on at any particular time. He was quite prepared to sit in his place till any hour of the morning in order to bring the matter on.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ARTHUR.

  MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in pursuance of the Notice that has been given, and of the Orders of the House, I rise to move a Resolution which is the precise counterpart of one which was unanimously adopted some years past in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh; and the purport of that Resolution will be—
  "That the annual sum of £15,000 be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness."

  571
  Having had an opportunity not many months ago of dealing with the general considerations that bear upon this question, I should not have thought it necessary to say more than a very few sentences to the Committee, had I not been given to understand that it was the intention of some hon. Members of this House to question the grant which is about to be made. I therefore wish to remind the House briefly of the nature of the arrangement that subsists between Parliament and the Crown for making provision for certain Members of the Royal Family—an arrangement by which we waive all attempts to make a general provision at the commencement of each reign for the possible issue of the Sovereign, and we leave it to Parliament to deal with each particular case, as it arises, and according to what it may consider that the circumstances of the case demand. That arrangement has two obvious disadvantages. One of these is, that it requires some attention to the history of this class of cases, and to the deeper considerations of policy involved in them, to appreciate its character. And, consequently, by those who take what I may call a more rapid view of the subject—all that we can expect from a large number of persons out-of-doors—it is liable to be misunderstood. Another disadvantage is, that the arrangement being misunderstood, it is apt to cause unjust remarks to be made upon the Royal Family and the Sovereign. For those reasons, many have desired that a different arrangement should be adopted—nor will I now say whether the necessity for such a change may or may not arise; but I beg the Committee to consider whether there are not recommendations of a high order attaching to the plan as it at present subsists. What is that plan? In the first place, I will venture to say that of all the methods by which you can proceed to secure a provision for Members of the Royal Family, it is the one by far the most agreeable to the spirit of a free Constitution; for its effect is to establish a considerable degree of moral control which Parliament would probably lose if any other method were adopted. If we are to say that the Sovereign is to be responsible for realizing out of his, or as the case may be, her annual income funds sufficient to endow a family, however numerous, in a manner becoming their station, the first effect of that would
  572
  be that it would become necessary to enlarge the allowance bestowed upon the Sovereign at the commencement of the reign; and, in the second place, you would also lose all the elasticity of your arrangement, because whether the Sovereign had issue or not, the sum at the disposal of the Sovereign would remain the same. But there is a third defect still more important, and still more disadvantageous, and it is this—Under the present system this method of provision, while it indicates and presupposes an entire confidence on the part of the Sovereign in the Parliament, and an entirely loyal readiness on the part of the Parliament to acknowledge and reciprocate that confidence, and while it indicates harmony subsisting between the great powers of the State, also tends greatly to confirm that harmony. It places the conduct of the Sovereign and the con-duet of the Royal Family, especially of the junior Members for whom a provision may be asked, in view of the public and of both Houses of the Legislature, and while it preserves a salutary general control in the hands of Parliament, it likewise preserves in the hands of the Sovereign an important control over the younger branches of the Royal Family. I adverted just now to the difficulties that would attend an attempt to provide for the Royal issue by making at the commencement of a reign additions to the annuity granted by the Civil List; but suppose that you adopted another, and in some respects a more practical method of proceeding—namely, that you granted for the Sovereign that which would be necessary for annual expenditure, but inscribed upon the Statute Book the provision that every Prince the issue of the Sovereign on arriving at full age, and every Princess the issue of the Sovereign on arriving at full age or at the period of marriage, should receive a fixed annuity—who does not see that to adopt that method, which would probably be the simplest and most easily worked method of dealing with such cases, would involve the relaxation or the destruction of a very salutary moral and general control over those Princes and Princesses? Having said thus much with regard to the general character of this arrangement, which presupposes, as I have said, a disposition on the part of Parliament to reciprocate the confidence of the Sovereign, and to appreciate that sort of

  573
  feeling on the part of the Sovereign which is indicated by a willingness to submit to the representatives of the people, on every occasion as it arises, the nature of the provision to be made for the Members of the Royal Family, I must add that it is an arrangement which I think is excellent as long as it is worked in a spirit of liberality, of prudence, and of attachment to the Sovereign. It is an arrangement which undoubtedly would be grievously marred, and might become hardly practicable or hardly secure were it, unfortunately, to be dealt with in a different spirit. But upon all occasions when these proposals have been made to it this House has entered with the fullest development of loyal affection into the intentions and spirit of the plan, and as long as this House continues to act in that manner, I am confident that no better plan can be devised, and under no circumstances can any plan be devised so favourable to the privileges and influence of this House and to the liberties of the people. I would now, in a very few words, remind the House of what I meant when I spoke of the arrangement between the Crown and Parliament. I may be asked—if this matter is, unhappily, to become a subject of controversy even with a limited portion of those who hear me—"What is the nature of this arrangement? If there is a covenant, where is it written?" ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad I have anticipated that point, and I will at once admit that there is no written covenant, nor am I aware in what form of words it would be possible to frame such an engagement without very greatly fettering the liberty of the people and that constitutional control to which I have referred. But there are, however, other descriptions of engagement besides written forms of words, and it is on the evidence of facts which I find recorded beyond the possibility of doubt that I place the moral liability of Parliament to deal with these cases when they arise. In the first place, I refer to the terms of the Civil List Act. Let hon. Members read the Report of the Committee of 1837. Let them look at the mode in which the annual income is bestowed upon the Sovereign. It is not bestowed upon the Sovereign in the gross, but is bestowed after a careful investigation of details, and an exact appreciation of what, in the judgment of Parliament, each of the
  574
  burdens to which the attention of Parliament is directed will require in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign, with which the dignity of the nation is intimately associated. As one instance, I need only give one, I ask, what are we to say of an income in respect of which more than one-third of the whole amount—namely, the sum of £131,000 out of £385,000—is by Act of Parliament allotted for the purposes of salaries and superannuations? There is no analogy between an income of that kind and an ordinary private and personal income. It is not possible, except to the most limited extent — and to a very limited extent it may be possible—to make an impression upon those hard and massive figures. Were the Sovereign to attempt to make a great reduction on those salaries and superannuations universal outcry would be the result. There is not that freedom of judgment in dealing with those incomes with which every private possessor of an income is endowed, and that is a circumstance which it is absolutely necessary for Parliament to bear in mind when it proceeds to appreciate its duties on an occasion of this kind. But I have been diverted somewhat from my purpose, which was to show what I conceive to be—to use a phrase which I hope will not be misunderstood—the moral liability of Parliament to recognize its duty of providing, to an adequate extent, for the junior branches of the Royal Family as they come to mature age. My first argument is the negative evidence that neither in the Report of the Committee on this subject nor in any debates of Parliament will there be found expressed the slightest claim or the faintest expectation that out of that income savings could be made adequate to a due provision for the junior branches of the Royal Family. But that negative evidence is supported by direct and positive evidence of the most substantial kind, and that positive evidence is to this effect—that upon every occasion, within the limits of those relationships which history recognizes as defining the bounds of fair claim upon the public, Parliament has without question almost invariably by a unanimous vote, and never except by an overwhelming vote, admitted the virtual bond of honourable obligation and made this provision, laying the gift freely and voluntarily at the feet of the Sovereign.

  575
  The uncle and aunt of George II. had large Parliamentary incomes. The brother of George III. had a large Parliamentary income. The sons and daughters of George III. were all provided with Parliamentary statutory incomes. The nephews and nieces of George III. were provided with statutory incomes, and the grandson of George III., in the person of the Duke of Cambridge, has been provided with a statutory income. [Mr. WHITE: That was very wrong.] That is an assumption of my hon. Friend. He is entitled to entertain that opinion; but I am sure that he, as a man of candour and intelligence, will not question the assertion which I make, and to which I am anxious to call his attention—that a long and an unbroken series of practical acknowledgments by Parliament not only through years, but through generations, and embracing every possible case to which the principle could apply, does constitute a state of just expectation on the part of the Sovereign from which it is impossible for us to recede, and which I do not hesitate to say it would be utterly unworthy of the British Parliament to disregard. With respect to this supposed liability of Her Majesty to provide for cases of this kind, I have already pointed out that the nature and structure of Her Majesty's income, which does not, excepting only within very narrow limits, remain to be disposed of by herself, but of which Parliament has substantially disposed of beforehand by the very terms of a statute, subject only to a certain margin of difference between prudence and imprudence, do not admit of the same discretion as to economies and savings which is in the possession of every private person. But I think it is only just to Her Majesty to point out one or two circumstances in her condition as compared with that of former Sovereigns. In the case of former Sovereigns you have had claims made, which I grant were totally illegitimate, for the payment of the debts of the Civil List. You have not heard of such claims as these in the present reign. Has that been because the Queen has had means placed at her command which were not at the command of former Sovereigns? Quite the reverse. I believe that for several centuries every Sovereign, except Her Majesty, when there has been a Prince of Wales, has had the entire revenues
  576
  of the Duchy of Cornwall until the Prince of Wales came of age. Her Majesty never touched these revenues from the day of the birth of the Prince of Wales until his coming of age, when they became his of right, except to the very limited amount which was required for the positive expenditure connected with his nurture and education. And do not let it be supposed that Her Majesty has not been at charges on account of the Royal Family. It is not for me to make minute investigations into these matters; but I can see what were the sums paid to George III. from the Civil List for the education of his children while they were under age, and they amount to some hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do not let it be supposed, for instance, that, in the cases of the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Arthur, Her Majesty's real substantial charge for them only began on the day when they came of age. The manhood of Royal Princes for all purposes of expense begins much earlier than the manhood of persons in a less exalted station. I cannot pretend to speak from information; but I have not a doubt that several hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended by Her Majesty out of her own annual income for the purpose of rearing her children in a manner which was liberal and becoming. Such being the case, I do not think there is any other question to which I need refer except that of the amount of this proposed annuity. We propose that in the case of Prince Arthur the same amount should be given as was given in the case of his elder brother (the Duke of Edinburgh), who was also one of the junior branches of the Royal Family—namely, £15,000 a-year. That is undoubtedly a large amount to grant; but is it a large amount relatively to the force of former precedents, relatively to the justice of the case, and relatively to the standard of income in this country? There are in this country numbers of persons possessed not only of that but also of a much larger income, among whom Royal Princes are to move, but above whom they ought somewhat to tower. Let it be recollected here again that just as the Queen's income is much less her own than a corresponding or any given amount in the hands of a private person, so the incomes of Royal Princes are much less their own. Not inconsiderable portions

  577
  of their incomes are absolutely pre-appropriated and anticipated, not I admit in every case by the letter of a statute, but by the usages of their station. The attendants they require, the offices which must be established about them—offices which do not perhaps contribute in every case greatly to their comfort and enjoyment, but which the country expects and requires, and an attempt to drop which causes dissatisfaction in every class of society—make no inconsiderable invasion on the amounts that you may be asked to grant. I have said that £15,000 a-year sounds a large sum. But it is not to be considered as extravagant, or as more than a very fairly liberal sum. What are the incomes of this country? If you accede to this Motion—as I have confidence you will—I believe you are going to give to Prince Arthur an income less than the average income of the House of Lords. Is it only ill the House of Lords that incomes of £15,000 a-year are to be found? I look at Schedule D, which does not at all overstate the incomes of those whose case it represents; on the contrary, we well know that it does not represent their whole income, but only that portion which is the result of the capital which they hold engaged in business. Even in Schedule D, partial as is the representation made by it, I find that 800 persons are receiving from £10,000 to £15,000 a-year from the profits of trade, and a very considerable number are receiving over £50,000. Under these circumstances, I say that to ask for a child of the Sovereign an income of £15,000 is not unreasonable. It is an amount that could not bear reduction, and as to its diminution it would be totally impossible for the Government to listen for a moment to any such proposal. Am I to suppose that the House will begin by granting freely and ungrudgingly to one of the junior Royal Princes an income of £15,000 a-year, and then when another comes on under exactly the same circumstances, a youth of not less promise and intelligence, who is not less beloved by all those among whom he has moved, is this House going to refuse to him either the whole provision or even any portion of the provision that was freely and cheerfully made for his brother? With regard to precedent, I will quote two that I think more than justify the proposal that we make. They might even
  578
  perhaps be urged if a larger grant had been proposed; but this House gave to the Duke of Gloucester £14,000 a-year, or within £1,000 of the sum that is now asked, he being not a son, but a grandson of a Sovereign. It is true that the Duke of Gloucester married, and when he married the Princess Mary he received another £14,000 a-year. The Duke of Cambridge is unmarried, and he being also the grandson of a Sovereign, receives from this House and by the liberality of the Legislature the sum of £12,000 a-year. In 1850, a year when undoubtedly far stricter notions of public economy governed the general proceedings of Parliament than those which now prevail, it was thought that £12,000 a-year was a proper and becoming provision to make for the grandson of a Sovereign, and we now for the son of a Sovereign ask for a Vote of £15,000. As I cannot believe that a different course will be taken now, than was taken then, I will not trouble the Committee further on the subject. I am persuaded that even if, unhappily, there should be a few who think otherwise, the mass of Parliament and the mass of the nation will recognize the fairness of the proposal which we make, and that the sum which we ask will not only be voted, but will be cheerfully voted by an overwhelming majority.
  MR. DISRAELIseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the annual sum of £15,000 be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness."
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Sir, I rise to oppose the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Her Majesty's Government have not, I think, been very fortunate this Session in regard to the number and the excellence of the measures which they have proposed for the adoption of Parliament; and in my opinion, and in the estimation of the country, they have been still more unfortunate in having called upon the House of Commons, twice in the same Session, to make additional grants to Royalty which in the opinion of a large portion of the people of this country, are already excessive and extravagant.

  579
  I am sure that the people of this country are anything but satisfied at the course of legislation, for that legislation represents nothing but confusion, and Her Majesty's Government seem determined to render the Executive unpopular by the continued cry of—"Give, give." There are masses of persons, and I think they are right, who feel that the expenses of Royalty are altogether too great, and that these expenses, as was said of the power of Royalty in the last century, "have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished." They think that £750,000 or £1,000,000 is an excessive sum to pay annually in making provision for Members of the Royal Family; and I do not hesitate to say that this feeling is spreading, and that any Liberal Government, so-called, however popular, hazard their popularity by defying that feeling on the part of the people. There are two special grounds on which I oppose this grant. The first is, that the people ought not to be taxed for services not rendered, nor to be rendered; and the second ground is, that if it be essential such provision should be made, the people have already made sufficient provision. It is hardly necessary that I should call witnesses or use arguments in support of a principle so self-evident as that on which I base my first objection. I think it may even be questioned whether we do not exceed the moral functions of the House of Commons when we raise a tax upon the community for that which is non-essential—for that which is rather a matter of sentiment than of necessity for the conduct of the business of the country. If, however, I am obliged to call witnesses in support of my argument, I will call upon the Prime Minister himself, who, when speaking of the aided emigration of the poor last year, said—
  "Now, we are about one of the gravest, of all subjects, and that is a proposal to support individuals at the expense of the community—individuals who are to be supported at the expense of the community, but not for duties done to the community."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1066.]
  The right hon. Gentleman applied that language to the humble and the poor, and did the right hon. Gentleman forget it when he was dealing with an individual who was at the opposite end of the social scale? I hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will
  580
  not forget the noble sentiments contained in those words, and will apply it to the subject now under consideration. If this provision is really necessary for Prince Arthur, the people have already voted money sufficient for the purpose; and the whole question is, whether for the performance of duties of Royalty the people are not already sufficiently taxed without imposing upon them additional burdens? I do not esteem myself fortunate in fulfilling what I consider the duty of opposing these grants; but, according to rumour—and in this case, as I believe, a well-founded rumour—it is an alleviating element in a painful position, that the individual on whose behalf this grant is proposed, is one whose past conduct has been creditable and honourable. It is a compliment of the most sinister description to make a proposal of this kind to the House of Commons in favour of such an individual as this young Prince; and it would be a terrible condemnation of the principle of monarchical government, for that man is no friend to Royalty who would affirm that a son of the Sovereign could find no useful place for his energy and capacity. That would be too palpable a condemnation of the principle of monarchical government, and therefore it is a most sinister compliment to say to a young Prince with every arena of useful and honourable exertion open to him—"Nothing is expected from you; and we make you a burden upon the State, and a pensioner upon the people." We are told, that the Civil List is a matter settled at the commencement of the reign, and a thing which we have no business to deal with at all; that there is a moral obligation to find grants and pensions for the children of the Crown; and that the nation has made a good bargain by the exchange of the Civil List for the Crown lands. With regard to the last of these arguments, I believe it to be an unconstitutional view, and one which could never be acted upon. Crown land is only another name for national property, and it matters not whether the revenues of the Crown are sufficient or insufficient to pay the Civil List; because, if insufficient, it is the duty of the nation to provide a Civil List which shall be in harmony with its position and with the dignity of the Sovereign, while if there is a surplus, it should be applied towards

  581
  reducing the people's burdens. Sir George Lewis said, in 1857, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that—
  "It has been deemed a matter of policy in this country wholly to strip and denude the Sovereign of all hereditary property, and to render him during his life entirely dependent on the bounty of Parliament."—[3 Hansard, cxlv. 724.]
  It is questionable whether when the Civil List was settled it was wise that it should be fixed absolutely. It only gave additional force to the words of Lord Brougham when, in 1837, he argued that the Civil List ought not to be fixed for so long a time. It has been urged in the newspapers, and has been mentioned in the lobbies, that Royalty has not of late years fulfilled all those duties which form part of the understanding upon which the Civil List was founded; but I attach no importance to the argument, being one of those who did not value highly the social and ceremonial, as compared with the political, influence of the Sovereign. We are told that these allowances to Princes are part of a moral understanding; but there had never been one of these grants proposed which had not been discussed, both as to the ground of the proposal and the amount of the grant. Sir Robert Peel, in 1843, spoke of it as a recognized thing that the daughters of Royalty, until they married, should be maintained at the expense of the parent; and Lord Brougham acknowledged, in 1850, that the grants made to them on marriage were strict justice so long as the infamous, immoral, impolitic, and un-Christian Act — the Royal Marriage Act — restrained the freedom of choice. I most strenuously affirm that ever hon. Member who supports this grant on this occasion will by that act declare that he maintains, approves, and endorses that most iniquitous and cruel statute. If the Civil List is sufficient, it is unnecessary for, and improper to, ask the House for more. On the occasion of its establishment, Mr. Hume proposed to diminish the amount by £50,000, besides objecting to the Crown retaining the revenues of the two Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. Mr. Grote appealed, but in vain, to a Reformed Parliament with the same view, and it will, no doubt, be in vain to appeal now to a Reformed Parliament, for we find the present House more prone to extravagance than ever. If asked how that is, I have no answer to give; but
  582
  the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) the other day said, with that quaint and pleasant cynicism which so often amuses the House, the main object of Gentlemen coming to the House was to obtain an introduction to Court and the entrée to society. Upwards of 40 men, including Charles Buller and Sir William Molesworth—and not one of them revolutionary Radicals—voted for a reduction of the Civil List, and it would appear that in those unreformed days there were Radicals who had courage to declare their opinions, and Conservatives who were not ashamed to be economists. The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible for the Crown to save out of the money voted by the people; but I remarked that he did not assert that it had not been done—nor is it the opinion of the community generally, and the best advice the Prime Minister could give to his Royal Mistress will be that the £50,000 which, according to the opinion of the best men of the House of Commons, ought never to have been voted, should go to provide the establishment for Prince Arthur, or any similar claim that might arise. One word as to the characteristic extravagance of the amount that was asked for. £15,000 a-year for the establishment of a young man who is just about entering on his majority! When it was proposed to give the Duke of Cambridge £12,000 a-year, and a Motion was made to reduce the amount to £5,000, Mr. Bright opposed the larger grant especially, on the ground that the time would come when the direct descendants of Her Majesty would have to be provided for by the State, and ventured to express an opinion that no Minister would venture to propose such a sum as £12,000 a-year in that case. Had the right hon. Gentleman said that no Tory Minister would venture to make such a proposition, he would have been nearer the mark; but he did not know the daring extravagance of a Liberal Minister. A Liberal Government which took its stand upon economy, if upon anything, dared to propose a grant of £15,000, and to take credit for moderation! Upon these grounds I call upon the House to reject this grant, which, I flatter myself I have shown to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind, is uncalled for and unnecessary; and in such case I do not

  583
  think I put the case too strongly when I term the proposition one of wanton, wasteful, and wicked extravagance.
  MR. DIXON: Sir, I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion before the House; and in doing so, I must express my regret that there is not a working man present among us to state the views of his class upon the subject. That being so, I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to allude to some of those feelings which I know to actuate, if not the whole of the working classes, at any rate a portion of those whom I have the honour to represent. The Amendment which I have the honour to lay before you is to the effect—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness."
  Now in treating of the grant as proposed by Her Majesty's Government, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said the present system tended to confirm harmony between the Crown and Parliament. But, in my opinion, the expression of that sentiment evinces a want of knowledge on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of the feelings of the people. I think the present system is one which tends to disturb that harmony which I wish to see existing between the Crown and the people, because it brings periodically before the House and before the nation those questions of increased grants which the people on every occasion will wish to see reduced by their Representatives; and I would venture to say that this feeling on their part, which at this moment finds an expression in this House, will grow till it is utterly and entirely irresistible. The right hon. Gentleman said there was one advantage in the system, and that was that it would not fetter the control of Parliament, and therefore when any proposition was made for a grant to a Member of the Royal Family, it follows that it must be open to any Member of Parliament to move an Amendment reducing the amount of the grant. Therefore, I feel that I am only doing that which the present system admits; and that I am doing it, in some sort, with the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman also
  584
  defended the grant on the ground that the amount did not exceed the income of the House of Peers, and that there were hundreds and thousands of others who enjoyed incomes similar in amount. That may be true; but if there is one danger in this country greater than another, it is the existence, side by side, of these enormous incomes and that poverty which we are all so much in the habit of deploring, and seeking to remove. It has been supposed that if the pomp, the pageantry, and the hospitality of the Crown, which have been materially diminished since the death of the Prince Consort, could be removed, the expression of dissatisfaction, which has not been confined to the working classes, but which, in reference to the whole question, has been expressed by hon. Members of this House, by the leading organs of the Press, and by the middle classes, would be materially diminished, if it did not entirely cease. I do not believe that such would be the case as regards the working classes. I believe that the impression on them is that, politically speaking, no disadvantage has resulted, to the country from the retirement of the Queen—but that the cessation of the discharge of what may be called Her Majesty's duties, while resulting in no disadvantage to the country politically, ought to have led to a corresponding saving which might have been effected for the maintenance of other Members of the Royal Family. I will not deny that there is among the working people a large amount of Republicanism; I know that such a feeling does exist, and that it is increasing. But I think that that Republican feeling is of the vaguest possible kind. I do not believe that, with the exception of a small number, it would be capable of definition on the part of those of the working classes who call themselves Republicans. But there is one feature which is uppermost in their mind; and it is that, rightly or wrongly, they consider that Republican institutions would be less costly than Monarchy. And I have reason also to believe that if we could convince the people that Monarchy was less costly; if we could remove from our own Monarchy all unnecessary expenditure—all those excrescences which are apt to rise up and flourish round a Throne — we should do more than anything else we can devise to check, and it may be entirely

  585
  remove, that tendency to Republicanism which exists amongst our people. It has been said—and I must admit that I greatly share the feeling—that it is after all but a paltry saving; and I have heard it said that to adopt the reduction is essentially mean. Now I give the answer to that remark which the working classes have made to me. They say—"Do not think that it is with us a question of £15,000 a-year, more or less; it is this—we have arrived at the conclusion that there is in high places, and on the part of the Government of this country, great, unnecessary, and wasteful expenditure; and we wish, now that we have the suffrage, now that we can dictate to our Members of Parliament, to impress upon them the necessity that exists that all this wasteful extravagance shall be discontinued." And not only so, but they have also this conviction—that there is a great deal of extravagance in the way of unnecessary salaries to people who give no return for them which they see, and they desire that Government should attack every one of these unnecessary offices. Could any hon. Member deny the justice of those feelings, when they brought home to themselves how hard it was to reduce any particular Estimate. It was that feeling that made the people more determined in their attack, when they knew they had a good case. Under these circumstances, I have no alternative but to attempt to bring before this House the views of no inconsiderable portion of my constituents. To show the feeling of the working classes, I will give some extracts from resolutions passed, and speeches made at meetings in Birmingham. One of the resolutions passed contained the following words—"While yielding to no class or order of the community in loyalty to the head of the State." This fully expresses the feeling of the people towards Her Majesty. One speaker objected to giving a large sum of money to people who did no work; another justified their opposition to any particular grant by saying that they could not break the bundle of sticks all at once, but might do so if they attacked them singly; a third, that the workmen were overweighted in their work by the competition of Germany and Belgium, consequent upon the heavy burden of their taxation; a fourth reminded his hearers of the dignity of
  586
  labour, which was far greater than that of sloth and luxury—that the working classes were not children in the art of government, and would not long continue to support pomp and luxury at one end of society, while at the other there were millions of hard-working men engaged in a desperate hand-to-hand struggle with pauperism. From those we can judge the impolicy of letting such opinions rest unanswered. It remains but for me to say that I should have been prepared both from conviction of the propriety of the measure, and also on behalf of a large portion of my constituents in this matter, who have gone in with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in opposing entirely this grant, to have supported his Amendment, but that I am prevented from that course by the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has given with reference to what he called, in answer to my Question, an "honourable understanding." But if the principle is to be accepted that we are to be prepared to grant annuities not only to the immediate children of the Queen, but also to all her grandchildren, then I say it is time that the Representatives of the working classes should make their voices heard in this House, and should represent to Her Majesty's Government that they are sanctioning a career of expenditure which will not be sanctioned by the working classes of this country. And let me remind the Committee that although the voice of the working classes is not now heard here, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has given them a power which they are beginning to be conscious of, and that it will no longer be within the power of their Representatives in Parliament to assent to these grants to Members of the Royal Family, especially when they are so far removed from Her Majesty. But I feel it is the duty of all in Parliament, above all things, to tell their constituents that if there is one thing more sacred than another it is to hold to their engagements; and it is because I am convinced from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that there is an honourable understanding on this question, that I am not prepared to support the Amendment of

  587
  my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. Yet we are bound to take into consideration whether this grant be of the proper amount. It will, therefore, be wise in the Government to accept the Amendment which I shall propose; for I believe that if the people perceive a disposition on their part to practise economy in high places as well as in low places, we shall be more likely to see a return of that loyalty among the working classes of this country which every hon. Member desires should exist. I beg to move that, instead of £15,000, there shall be substituted £10,000. Before I sit down I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will in the ensuing Session institute an inquiry into the propriety of abolishing or diminishing charges on the Civil List. There is a strong feeling that many of the offices are entirely unnecessary, and I am quite certain that Her Majesty would willingly accede to any request which this House might make on that subject, her personal comfort and dignity in no wise depending upon them. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness,"—(Mr. Dixon.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there are two questions now before the Committee in Amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) proposes altogether to reject the Motion, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) proposes, on the contrary, to reduce the amount. I confess myself that if I were not about to support the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), which it is my intention to do, I would prefer the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester. It is an intelligible and definite proposition. But I cannot sympathize with the hon. Member for Birmingham, who admits the claim and then offers a composition. I cannot, however, agree with the hon. Member for Leicester in the view which he took
  588
  of the Crown estate, nor do I think that the House generally agrees with that view. I cannot suppose that any but a very small number will agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, that we are to shut out from consideration the fact that Her Majesty on acceding to the Throne of her ancestors had relinquished the possession of a large estate, and that the Civil List was a settlement—a settlement, I think, not made to Her Majesty's personal advantage. I do not wish to enter into that discussion now; but I think it is of the utmost importance in all questions of this kind that the Committee should accurately reflect on the main circumstance under which the settlement was made, and that Her Majesty positively relinquished the large real estate which Her Majesty possessed by the laws of this land with as clear a title and as complete possession, as any of the Peers hold their estates to whom reference has been made. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to one financial consideration connected with this arrangement of the Civil List, by which Her Majesty surrendered all her hereditary estate. The net revenue of the Crown estate on the accession of Her Majesty was not more than £150,000 per annum. Now, if Her Majesty, when that settlement of the Civil List was made, had reserved to herself the right which, the late Lord Bessborough, who was then at the head of the Department, informed me he suggested himself—namely, that Her Majesty should have the power of charging her real estate, under the same conditions and liabilities which apply to almost all possessors of real estates, in favour of her younger children, and if Her Majesty had exercised that power at the rate which has been proposed on a former and in the present instance for all her younger children, the total charge upon the Crown estates could never have exceeded £69,000 per annum, and that upon an estate which, since that settlement was made, has increased £150,000, the income of the Crown estate per annum being now just double in amount. And, therefore, I think that is a consideration which should not be absent from those hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote upon the principle of public economy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham talks of the working classes,

  589
  and talks of them as if they were paupers. Now, I must say on the part of the working classes, on whom he says I have had the honour of conferring the franchise, that I protest against that description. The working classes are not paupers; on the contrary, they are a very wealthy class—they are the wealthiest in the country. Their aggregate income is certainly greater than any other class; their accumulations are to be counted by millions; and I am not speaking merely of the deposits in savings banks, but of funds of which I am aware they are in possession, and which are accumulated to meet their trade necessities and to defend their labour and rights, which can also be counted by millions; and therefore I protest against that language, which would hold out to foreign countries who would listen to the eloquence that evening of the hon. Member, that the great body of the working classes in this country are in a state of pauperism. The hon. Gentleman tells us that a Republican feeling is beginning to arise among them, and that they are calculating the comparative cost of Republican and Monarchical institutions. Well, Sir, I hope they will be well informed on that subject before they come to an ultimate decision. So far as I can form an opinion upon it, the cost of Republican government is much more considerable than that of our Monarchical government. Though you generally pay the principal personage in the Republic only a few thousands a-year, yet if you pay all the members of Congress, all the counsellors who add the weight of their advice, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, not exactly at the same rate, but at a relative rate, I think you will find the aggregate much more considerable than the cost of Monarchy to this country, even if you forget that we have taken from Her Majesty the possession and enjoyment of her real estate. This question has been often argued before this evening, but I have never found that the general feeling of the House has changed. Mr. Grote, after the Reform Bill, complained to Lord Grey that the Members returned by the now constituencies took the same wise and generous view of the circumstances which they had before that Reform Bill was passed. Well, the present House of Commons has been elected by larger constituencies than the constituency
  590
  which returned Mr. Grote, and so far as I can form an opinion, hon. Members, still fresh from their constituents, will not hesitate to take a course which I think policy and wisdom and justice alike authorize and require. I think the country will remember the circumstances under which the necessity of an appeal like this takes place—that if Her Majesty had possessed that right of charging her life estate which is possessed by all her subjects, and if she had thereby provided for all her children, the amount would not have been half the amount of the increased revenue which is now derived from the estate she relinquished. I feel that everyone must come to the conclusion that in acceding to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman we are not only generous, but just.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 51; Noes 289: Majority 238.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 276; Noes 11: Majority 265.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Expenses of Parliamentary Election.
  Clause 18 (Payment of expenses of parliamentary election).
  MR. JAMES, on rising to move in page 13, line 36, to leave out "all," and insert "no," observed, that there were many reasons why the Committee should not accept the legislation proposed by that clause with undue haste. They were asked to shift the pecuniary burden of those elections from themselves and place it on the ratepayers at a time when, they were told that the state of local taxation had reached its utmost limit, and when the Government itself acknowledged that a final adjustment of that taxation was necessary. Let them look into the history of that subject, and see how the legislation upon it had adapted itself to the various circumstances of the times. For many years hon. Members of that House received payment for their

  591
  services, and even after the Restoration they received the expense they incurred in going to and coming from the House, and in sitting therein. But times had changed, and now instead of the constituencies seeking Members, Members sought constituencies. When party spirit reached its climax in the reign of George II. the expenses of elections for counties were cast upon the Members instead of being borne by the constituencies. In the boroughs the burden continued to be borne by the constituencies, until at length, after nearly a hundred years of trial of these two systems, it was finally determined in the Reform Bill of Earl Grey that the expense of elections in both boroughs and counties should fall upon the candidates—a change which was the result of experience, although there were men like Mr. Hunt and Mr. Hume who expressed democratic views at that time. Those who supported the clause were prone to say that it was necessary to make a seat in that House obtainable without a large expenditure of money, and that the doors should be open not only to the powerful and the wealthy, but to the poor and the weak. It was his belief that if that proposition should be accepted, it would have an exactly contrary effect to the views entertained by its supporters, and that the result would he that only two classes of men would be able to secure seats in that House—namely, those who represented either great wealth or exhibited great daring and, as some would term it, impudence. So long as they freed the candidates from the expense of elections, they would be found to come forward in great numbers. The question, however, of a contested election would not rest with the candidates exclusively, or with persons seized with the laudable idea of representing their native borough or county, but lawyers, innkeepers, printers, house agents, and the host of other classes who profited by contests of the kind would unite their utmost endeavours to induce men to seek the favour of constituencies. The result would be that some men from mere ambition, others almost from amusement, others, again, prompted by direct gain, would all come to the common centre, resolved that a contest should take place whatever might be its consequence. He argued against frequent changes in the representation, on the ground that it
  592
  was impossible to study legislation with advantage in a short period of time, or to gain the experience necessary to make an efficient and useful Member of Parliament. Under the present system no class of men were kept out of Parliament—not even the working men, who the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had said were the richest classes, and who were assisted by a combination of wealth. But he held it was a mockery to tell a real working man that he should have a seat in that House. They did not pay their Members, and if a man were dependent upon the wages he received for a fair day's work, he could not earn them and at the same time occupy a seat in that House. By the change proposed they were seeking to drive peaceable men, men of moderate means, away from the House, leaving their seats to be filled by the wealthy and those who, as he had said, possessed great daring or impudence. Again, the change, if carried out, would cause frequent contests on account of there being a frequency of change amongst the Members, and the result could never be beneficial to the Constitution. There would indeed be greater commotion without and frequency of change within the walls of the House; one portion of the representation would be placed in the hands of the wealthy, whilst the other would be secured by the reckless and the daring, to the exclusion of men of talent, of studious habits, but of moderate means, who would be unwilling to undergo a contest, but who yet would be able, if elected, to give the benefit of their great experience, their wisdom, and strength to the Constitution. It had been said that the proposal would alter the arrangement between Members and their constituencies; but he maintained the constituencies ought to select the best men they could, and not expect candidates to undergo degradation in obtaining their seat. The proposal, no doubt, would lead to this—that there would be more men seeking for constituencies, because there would be nothing to pay. It had been said that if the ratepayers had to pay the expenses, good care would be taken on their behalf that unworthy men did not present themselves. He could not see how that could be achieved. It might be, if they could secure the absence of all party feeling and get the constituency to act as one body, determined

  593
  to elect the best Member; but, so long as political excitement existed and party spirit of different kinds pervaded the constituencies there would be no concurrence of feeling, and it would be only at the polling-booth that the final selection of a candidate could be made. Many thinking men had come to the conclusion that a safeguard against all this would be found in the candidate making a deposit to a certain amount—and he believed that view was entertained by the Government in their proposed Amendment to be added to the end of the clause. Even if that were carried out, sham candidates would still present themselves, and there would be this narrow admission after all—that if a man could only secure £99, he would be treated as not seriously canvassing the constituency, whilst he who could raise £100, probably by the means of his friends, would be treated as a bonâ fide candidate, and as one who ought to be selected by the people. He maintained that the proposed deposit of £100 would, instead of being a benefit, produce a greater amount of evil than if no such qualification was enforced. Then it had been laid down that if he did not obtain a certain number of votes the £100 would be forfeited. In the case of a poor man, whose money had been raised by his friends—by the coterie at the public house, as it were—it would be the object of all who were concerned with him, and for their personal benefit, to poll as many votes as they could, so as to secure one-sixth of the number gained by the lowest successful candidate, and thus save their money. If their candidate happened to be a worthless man, the votes thus obtained would be votes taken from him who ought by his talent to be the representative of the people; whilst it would open a wide door for bribery, and which no Ballot Bill could ever stay. In concluding his objections to the clause and the proposed Amendments, he must say he entirely disagreed with the one proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), which, in effect, said that the expenses ought to come out of the Consolidated Fund. That, he conceived, would have all the evils suggested by the Government proposal, and none of its benefits. If the money came out of the Consolidated Fund, the ratepayers would not be able to check
  594
  the expense, and no motive would exist for discountenancing improper candidates for the representation. The fund, indeed, would become a prey for all, and there would be a greater inducement to men to come forward, because they would know that from the Imperial Exchequer all their expenses would be paid. He would ask the House to ponder before they accepted the clause. Let them not suppose they were going to make elections cheaper, and render the House more accessible to men who, it was urged, ought to be there. They would be doing nothing of the kind; but, on the contrary, they would increase the number of elections, intensify them, and place them in the hands of men who had no real pretensions for legislative power. He was prepared to meet such unpopularity as would result from the vote he was going to give. Some would regret to oppose the Government; but they must look at that proposal as an independent and separate measure, and as if it came from a quarter which they did not view with favour, and he believed that if hon. Members would consider well the possible result of the legislation proposed, he should carry his Amendment by a large majority. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 36, to leave out the word "all," and insert the word "no."—(Mr. James.)
  MR. ASSHETON, in supporting the Amendment, said, the clause was one to encourage sham candidates, by relieving candidates from those expenses the fear of which kept men from troubling constituencies. He divided expenses into three classes—first, legal, or official expenses, which were incurred by the returning officer; second, permissive expenses, such as those incurred for agents, meetings, and the conveyance of voters to the poll; and third, prohibited expenses, incurred in bribery and corruption; and, passing over the third class, he concluded that the second would be kept down to a minimum by a sham candidate, so that the first alone would exercise a deterrent influence. The result of paying them out of the public funds would be to increase the expenses of bonâ fide candidates, by compelling them to prepare for threatened contests;

  595
  and no man of tolerable confidence in himself would ever think he could fail to poll the number of votes necessary to save the deposit, so that the supposed safeguard would prove to be a sham safeguard. Those reasons justified the description he had given of the clause, as well as the vote he should give against it.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), able and exhaustive as it was, failed to remove the grounds upon which he supported the clause. He could not see why a man, who in other respects was fitted for the post, should be disqualified from sitting in that House because he could not put his hand on £100 or £150, a sum which often represented the whole savings of a working man's life. There was no reason why a working man should be prevented from getting into Parliament except by the charity of other persons. In the present state of society the House of Commons was far more likely to be inundated by rich than by poor men; but he thought it would be a good thing to have two or three working men representatives in the House, as the grievances of the class they belonged to would then be got at first-hand instead of second-hand, as at present; and, for his own part, he should prefer having those grievances discussed on the floor of that House rather than from the turf in Hyde Park or the pavement in Trafalgar Square. Moreover, he had great faith in the educating power of the House, and believed the presence of a few working men in it would have a tendency to remove the prejudices of the operative classes. The returned and admitted expenditure at the last General Election amounted to the enormous sum of £1,380,000, or an average of £1,700 per Member, and if that went on increasing, as it was almost sure to do, there would only be two classes of men in the House—namely, millionaires and adventurers. He heartily supported the clause, because he regarded it as a protest against the doors of the House being opened with a golden key.
  SIR HERBERT CROFTsaid, he objected to the clause, which he asserted would inflict a peculiar hardship on the constituency that he had the honour to represent; and to show it, he asked to refer briefly to the effect of the two
  596
  previous Reform Acts on his county (Herefordshire). Prior to 1832, they had ten Members, but by that Act they lost three seats, and were in future to return seven, although, as a compensation, each county elector was to have a vote for each of his three county Members instead of only two votes. By the minority clause of the Reform Act of 1867 this compensation was taken away, and again they had only two votes a-piece, and they were deprived of one of their Members for Leominster without having a fourth county Member, to which they were fairly entitled. While by this third Reform Bill—for, in point of fact, this was a third—although they were still only to have two votes a-piece, yet by this clause each county elector in Herefordshire, and similar counties, is to pay his share of the election expenses in the event of a contest of all three county Members, and also of the rejected candidates, and this proposition he considered a manifestly unfair one. If the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill wished to give a "sop" to Members of Parliament—and he quite understood that, as there were so many recent converts to the Ballot on the other side of the House, a "sop" was required; but he thought he could point out how he could do so without imposing any additional burden on the rates. For instance, in lieu of that clause, one might have been introduced for the abolition of the system of retainers to legal practitioners. One solicitor had told him that prior to an election he always received a retainer from one of the candidates, but as he regarded it as a bribe he invariably returned it. He knew of a case where a retainer was sent to a firm of solicitors in a southern county, who insisted upon having one for each member of the firm. He did not think the Government had treated the farmers of England fairly. Early in the Session they came to the Government with a statement as to the pressure of local taxation; the Government heard their case, and to a certain extent admitted the grievance, but now they were going to send Members back to their constituents with a ballot-box, and inside it a rate for election expenses. The substance of Clause 18, when embodied in a distinct Bill in 1869, was negatived by the House of Commons; and he trusted that on that occasion the majority

  597
  would be so much increased as to stop all future attempts to throw husting expenses—which ought legitimately to be borne by candidates — upon the shoulders of ratepayers already overburdened.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought the clause should not prevent the passing of the Bill; but at the same time he thought the clause highly objectionable. He knew something of the feeling of Irish ratepayers, and he certainly did not believe the clause would recommend itself to them. As to working men being unable to return candidates of their own choice, were they loss wealthy or powerful than Irish peasants, who had not hesitated to send their representatives to Parliament? The clause, instead of diminishing, would invite contests; and as to the security against vexatious contests, it was illusory. In the country with which he was best acquainted a man might poll only 1/36th of the constituency, and still get back his £100. If analogy to the French system were good for anything, it ought to be good to the extent of requiring the candidate to poll one-third of the entire constituency, or else entail the necessity of a fresh election. The complement of this clause in the Bill would be the payment of Members of Parliament; for if the taxpayers were taxed to enable the working classes to send representatives into Parliament, it was plain that the ratepayers must be taxed to support them when they got there. The ratepayers had not been consulted about the clause, and if they had been consulted 99 out of every 100 would have been against it.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must oppose the clause on the ground that it imposed a new, gratuitous, and uncalled-for charge on the already over-burdened ratepayers of the country. It was a very easy and cheap liberality for the House of Commons to make a present to Members of their election expenses at the cost of the ratepayers; but what would be thought of a proposal to provide for these expenses out of a Parliamentary grant? They had gone on long enough from Session to Session imposing on the ratepayers charges which the House was not called upon to provide, but which it insisted on throwing upon the ratepayers. He considered that the clause sprang from some confusion of ideas, based upon a supposed identification of
  598
  ratepayers and electors, which did not exist in fact or in theory, and which had no foundation whatever. If it was thought expedient that the ratepayers should provide the necessary expenses of the election for the town or county—a proceeding which he held to be absurd and unjust, the only rational thing would be to make them pay for the expenses of a mere uncontested election. The average ratepayer cared very little about politics, and hon. Members would find that the cry for the Ballot proceeded from a disinclination to party politics, and from small tradespeople who did not want to offend those on one side or the other by the vote they gave. If these people had a greater taste for party politics they would not want the Ballot at all. There were other objections of detail. The clause must have been drawn by somebody who had little experience of county rates. It stipulated that the justices of counties were to provide the cost of the contest according to the proportionate number of electors in those parishes of the county in which the contest took place; but surely the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill must be aware that the justices had nothing whatever to do with parishes; they had no cognizance of the parish rates, and they collected their county rates from the clerks of the Unions, so that it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to provide new machinery for the purposes of this clause if it was to be adopted. Such a provision as that contained in this clause would produce contested elections where they were not wanted, and would be very unpopular throughout the whole kingdom. It would make the whole Bill more distasteful than the introduction of the hole-and-corner nomination, and on those grounds he hoped Government would not be so unwise as to insert the clause.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that he was desirous of making a few observations respecting the clause. He was very much surprised to hear hon. and right hon. Gentleman say that this was a question with which the ratepayers had nothing to do. So far from that being the case, in boroughs every elector was certainly a ratepayer, though every ratepayer might not be an elector. But as a general rule, electors and ratepayers were synonymous terms. Another remark

  599
  had been made to which he very much demurred, and that was the great expense which the clause would throw upon ratepayers. This point had been urged to such an extent that one would suppose some great calamity was impending upon the country in the shape of taxation. But the House would not be unmindful of the circumstance that in the large towns the great extension of the franchise would be accompanied after the passing of that Bill with a large increase in the number of polling-places. In places, for example, like Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow, as well as in other large towns with say 45,000 electors, there would be at least 100 polling-places; and supposing each polling-place, with its returning officer, clerks, and attendants, to cost £20, the expense thrown upon the ratepayers would not exceed £2,000. It was very possible that the polling-places might be used either a few days before or a few days after for the municipal borough elections. Now, the expense of those elections was already chargeable on the rates, and surely there was no reason why the electors should not think it equally natural that the expenses of the Parliamentary elections should also be charged to the rates. Suppose they took the case of a large city like the City of Edinburgh, which he had the honour to represent. The election expenses would come to about £1,200; and what did the House think it would cost the poor ratepayers, for whom there was so much commiseration expressed? Why, the £1,200 would be met by a rate of one farthing in the pound, so that the occupier of a £10 house would be called on to pay 2½d. as his share of the expense of the election, and that not every year, as they had to contribute to municipal elections, but once, perhaps, in three or four years. How, then, could they talk of this as a poor man's grievance, especially when they took into consideration the tens of thousands of poor men who lived in houses far below £10 in value? He did not mention the case of the city he represented as the fittest illustration of what would occur in the kingdom generally, but as an approximation. There was, perhaps, a larger proportion of high-rented houses in Edinburgh than in any city out of the Metropolis, which would naturally make the burden fall much lighter on the
  600
  poorer classes. It had been said by hon. Members opposite that this proposition had been substantially brought before Parliament in 1865, and rejected. What he did know was, that it was brought before Parliament in 1868, and accepted on two divisions. In the Corrupt Practices Bill an hon. Member brought forward this precise proposition, and it was carried on the 18th July, the numbers being 78 against 69, and the clause was added to the Bill by a majority of 84 to 76. It was true that it was afterwards dropped out of the Bill, but on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke strongly and decidedly in its favour, and 10 Members of the present Government voted for it, besides several hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. That proved that it was far from being a new question. It was, in fact, much older than secret voting, which nobody in 1868 thought there was the slightest chance of carrying. Even at that time, the question was ripe for decision, and was practically decided by those two divisions. Reference had been made to the poor ratepayers so often that he must take leave to make one remark. He had met with many working men in the ranks of the employed, and his experience was, that they would be very glad indeed to pay that trifling expense, and thereby preserve their independence and dignity by sending Members to Parliament free of expense. Even at the present time that feeling was very general, and it was no uncommon thing in England to see men returned, every farthing of the expense being paid by the constituencies, particularly where they were returned by the popular vote. From the intercourse he had had with the working classes, he felt convinced that they would rejoice to have the opportunity of paying these expenses; and he held that that clause would be as valuable as the secret voting one itself. That it would be carried, if not to-day, at some future time, he was convinced. If, however, it was now dropped out of the Bill, it might be delayed for years; and he therefore earnestly trusted that the Government would not take the course which they had been advised to adopt.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSON, after referring to an Amendment which he had on the Paper, the object of which was to

  601
  prevent the dangers arising from the operation of the clause, said, he would have supported the Amendment before the House if he had been unable to carry his own. He however supported the clause, denying that it would prevent the election of the fittest man, or lead to unnecessary contests or sham candidatures. He did not think that the clause would encourage sham candidates to come forward, and he believed that it was no good to have contests at elections, because it tended to keep up the political policy of the constituencies. He believed that with the Ballot a healthy public feeling would spring up, even in counties. In his opinion a great many of the objections which were made against that clause were made simply to catch the ear of the masses; but the time was not far distant when people would see that it was right that they should pay a small sum, in order that they might be represented. He hoped that the clause would be carried, and that it would then be amended by some such proposition as he had placed upon the Paper.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he was of opinion that the local rate was already overburdened, and that this additional charge should not be placed upon it. The local rate already paid charges for the poor rate, county rate, police rate, and highway rate, and also the charges for constables, vaccination, assessment committee, registration of voters, and the preparation of jury lists. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. MARLINGsaid, he thought that the clause would tend to increase the number of candidates brought forward, and that under it there would be candidates who simply wished to air their private crotchet or to gratify a pique against one of the sitting Members. He should be glad to see the expense of polling-booths more looked after than it was under the present system. There was a very wide feeling abroad, which he must say he concurred in on principle, that the ratepayers were already unduly burdened by local taxation; and he doubted the prudence of throwing any further burden upon the local rate unless it were shown to be absolutely necessary. He should heartily support the Amendment.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he hoped as he had paid a good deal of attention, and taken a vast deal of interest in the
  602
  subject of local rates, that he might be permitted to say a few words with reference to the Amendment now under discussion. In his opinion the tendency and effect of the proposal of the Government to charge on the local rates a considerable proportion of electioneers' expenses, would be to provide Parliamentary candidates, and also to offer a premium for Parliamentary contests, at the cost of the ratepayers. The result would be that many men would stand for the sake of advertising themselves and their particular interests — it would be the cheapest and most efficacious mode of attaining notoriety, of gratifying personal ambition, and promoting private interests. It would be impossible to prevent fictitious candidates and vexatious expenditure; there would be a greater number of sham candidates, and the expenses, of the ratepayers would be proportionately increased. The next step—the obvious and inevitable sequitur—the natural corollary of the proposition contained in the clause, would be that they would have to pay Members of Parliament. That proposal had already advocates in the House; and the next question would be whether that payment should also be charged upon the rates, and he contended that such a proposition would be equally as just as the one before the House. The difficulty of working men was not so much how to get a seat in the House of Commons. Many hon. Members were already returned by their constituents free of cost. The insurmountable difficulty of working men would be, unless they were paid delegates, how to live when they got into the House. The proposition contained in the clause was not only impolitic, but unjust. Impolitic, because Members of Parliament would be more under the direct control of their constituencies; there would be the danger of their degenerating into mere machines. They would be more likely to pander to local prejudices—to give their chief attention to local, rather than national interests. Such a proposal, if carried, would tend to destroy — at all events, would tend to seriously diminish—independence of thought, feeling, and action in Parliamentary representatives. He should probably be told that the cost of municipal elections was defrayed from local rates, but there was a wide and broad distinction. Candidates for municipal honours

  603
  dealt only with matters of local interest—they were charged with the administration of matters which were the subject of rates. Candidates for Parliamentary honours, on the other hand, dealt with matters of national importance — with questions which concerned all classes, and every description of property. He would now say a few words with regard to the injustice of the proposition. Rates represented the value of real property only (lands and houses); not one-seventh of the total annual income of the country, not one-fourth of that which paid, or ought to pay, income tax. Why, he would ask, that anomalous and unjust exemption of the far greater proportion of national wealth from that impost? Why should capital or personal property be privileged? Why should it go scot free? Good laws and good government were equally conducive, and as absolutely necessary for its safety and security. Why should the monied millionaire pay nothing to the cost of a national institution which protected him, and secured to him the enjoyment of all he possessed, when the pauper, who occupied a miserable room, in a garret or cellar at 1s. a week, or the mechanic who rented a cottage at £5 a-year, was to be called upon to contribute towards that exceptional expenditure? Such an anomaly was calculated to foment rather than reconcile the invidious distinctions and differences between capital and labour—questions which already agitated men's minds at the present time, and should not be needlessly provoked. Suppose the proposition of the Government had been reversed—that they had suggested that personal property, instead of real property, should alone pay that new and novel tax. What a commotion there would have been! How much they would have heard of that invasion of rights of private property. And yet such a proposal would have been equally as just, for personal property was equally interested. They had abolished the property qualification for Members of Parliament. If, as formerly, income for real property were essentially necessary for a candidate, then he admitted there would have been some justification for this proposal. Now, a candidate need not even be a ratepayer; and yet in order too frequently to gratify his personal ambition, they proposed to give him power to inflict exceptional burdens
  604
  on those who were. They had been told that that addition to the rates would be but trifling. But that was a question not so much of amount as of principle, and yet they must bear in mind that that was only one of a series of new charges proposed to be imposed on the rates during the present Session. They should, doubtless, be told that that fresh imposition would be considered when the whole subject of local taxation was considered. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government gave him the same assurance last Session when he ventured to protest against the 6d. income tax, in the shape of an education rate, which was then permanently imposed exceptionally on ratepayers. He looked in vain for that promised consideration in the Local Taxation and Rating Bills, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the then President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen). The object of those Bills, and the voluminous Returns with which they were accompanied was to prove that the owners and occupiers of real property were favoured rather than aggrieved; but those conclusions were founded on incorrect data and unreliable Returns. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council gave him the same reply a short time since, when he (Sir Massey Lopes) asked in what way, and to what extent, he proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Vaccination Amendment Act — namely, that a considerable proportion of the expenses should be defrayed from the national Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman assured him that though the Bill did not deal with that part of the subject, yet it would be borne in mind when the question of local taxation was again considered. Hope deferred had made them very impatient. They believed reality was better than expectation, and would endeavour to resist all attempts to impose any further burdens for any national purpose whatever on the local rates. He should be glad to see some representatives of the working classes in that House, and was not afraid they should see too many of them. He thought every class ought to be represented, and that it would be impolitic to shut the doors of the House of Commons against them, though he believed that their grievances and interests were very ably advocated and justly considered at present

  605
  in that House, yet he was of opinion that they had less to fear from expressions of extreme views there than out-of-doors; they ran riot there, but they soon became toned down here. If it was considered advisable that certain expenses, hitherto paid by candidates, should be defrayed from other sources, those expenses should be charged on the national Exchequer and not upon local rates. If it was for the benefit of the community at large that poor men should have greater facilities for entering Parliament, the community at large should contribute to that object; but it would be manifestly unjust to impose burdens on one section of the community for the attainment of an object for the general good. Those costs should fall proportionately on all for whose benefit those services were to be performed. The object was not local but national, therefore the payment ought to be national. If it was deemed desirable to diminish the legitimate expenses of Parliamentary candidates, they could make paid agency and the conveyance of voters illegal; but they should not attempt to impose exceptional burdens on that section of the community which was already disproportionately taxed. Such a measure would be most unpopular; it would not tend to secure the seats of those who advocated it, or to promote the object which they professed to have in view; it would not increase the efficiency and disinterestedness of Members of that House, while it would seriously diminish the dignity, patriotism, and independence of the British House of Commons.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, as a representative of the working classes, he wished to express what he believed was their real feeling upon the question. In discussing the principle of the clause, he observed that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had reminded the Committee that down to a very recent period a Member of the House of Commons was always regarded as conferring a benefit upon his constituency by attending in Parliament to represent them, and that until the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, the cost of the legal machinery of an election was borne by the ratepayers. To his great astonishment, however, his hon. and learned Friend had drawn a conclusion from that, the very reverse of the obvious
  606
  one, and wished the Committee to infer that it was not fair that a constituency should pay the cost of the necessary legal machinery for obtaining representation in Parliament. The effect of the present system on the constituency was also very demoralizing, because it placed the Member in the position of a person who was receiving a favour from, rather than in the position of one who was rendering a service to, those who elected him. The Bill, therefore, tended to put the relations between the Member and his constituents on a true, sound, and healthy footing. His hon. and learned Friend feared that the clause would encourage "sham" candidates, and increase the expenses of elections; but it should be remembered that those necessary and legal charges were but a mere bagatelle in comparison with the entire amount of the expenses connected with elections, which deterred men from standing as candidates. Bagatelle, however, though they were, he objected to them on principle, and also because they were a considerable impediment to candidates of a humbler class. Mixed as were the materials of which that House was composed, there was still one class, and that the most numerous, and certainly not the least important, which was not represented as a class in it. He meant the working class, and it would be a great advantage, and only carrying out the true principle of representation, if there were three or four of those men in the House who could from their personal knowledge explain the wants and wishes of the class they represented; they would, he was confident, be heard with respect, and would receive a ready hearing. But when they imposed upon such a man, as a condition of becoming a Member, the payment of a certain sum of money, they might as well tell him that they did not want him there. When Mr. Odger stood for Southwark he paid a deposit of £100, but he was told by the returning officer that he must pay down £200—a sum greatly in excess of the actual requirements. Under the existing law a kind of contract was made between the returning officer and the candidates, and the returning officer, by the power given him to name the sum which each candidate must pay as his share of the expenses, had practically in his hands the means of excluding particular candidates. The deposit of £100 proposed by the Government was intended

  607
  to prevent sham and vexatious contests; and he did not see that it would be any hardship to a working man, because he would get his £100 back again if he was a bonâ fide candidate. They came there not to serve themselves or to gratify a laudable ambition, but on the principle that men who were able to give their time and attention to public matters were ready to take on themselves the burden of serving their country. That was the only true and healthy principle upon which a true representative system could exist. He could hardly think that hon. Members were serious when they spoke of that being a burden to the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had shown that the amount of rate which an individual ratepayer would have to bear would be infinitesimally small. He should support the clause, on the ground that it was a just principle that those expenses should be borne by the constituencies, and not by the persons who came to that House to serve them.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he had the misfortune to differ from a great many hon. Gentlemen around him, and also from the Government on that clause, although, happily, their difference did not arise on any question of principle. The question raised that night was one not so much of political principle as of political expediency—a matter which practical politicians should not ignore. Many large boroughs and some counties at present defrayed the cost of returning Members to Parliament, and if any constituency proposed to pay his election expenses he (Mr. V. Harcourt) would not object either on principle or on expediency. But there was all the difference in the world between a constituency doing that voluntarily, and its being made compulsory on them by Act of Parliament. While the practice was voluntary, the constituency paid only for persons whom they wished to have; but that clause would compel them to pay also for candidates whom they did not want. He objected further to the proposal, because it was altogether inopportune and likewise quite irrelevant to the Bill. It had clearly nothing to do with the question of secret voting, and, if dealt with at all, it should be by a separate measure. It was said they were asserting a principle on that occasion, but there was a considerable difference
  608
  between a principle and a crotchet; for he understood a principle to have something which had a tendency to accomplish the object it professed to attain; but a crotchet was a thing which had no tendency to attain either that or any other object, and he thought that proposition belonged to the latter category. They were told that the principle in that case was to admit poor men into Parliament. If that proposal were calculated to effect that object, he should heartily support it. He admitted the importance of poor men having seats in that House, and that the most numerous, and in many respects the very important, class of working men had no direct representatives in that Assembly; but it was altogether begging the question to say that those necessary expenses kept them out of it. It was not those necessary expenses that kept the workingman candidate out at Stafford, Southwark, Chelsea, Bristol, and other places where their election expenses were found for them. Again, where there had been test ballots taken, there were no election expenses, and yet in no case were working men chosen; while, again, at the school board elections, very few working men had been returned. He believed that one of the strongest of all the reasons which had induced the working men throughout the country not to elect men of their own class was that strong common sense and practical knowledge which distinguished them, and which taught them that men in their own class were not the best fitted to carry out the business of representing them in that House. They knew that a man who had to live by weekly wages could not sit morning and evening in that House, and at the same time earn his bread. He could come in only on one condition, and that was as a paid delegate. If the Government bonâ fide intended by that clause to bring working men into Parliament, why had they not made the 19th clause one for charging the rates with the payment of Members of Parliament? They had lately heard a good deal of over-regulation prices, and he could not help thinking if they once established the regulation price for Members of Parliament they would very soon hear of over-regulation prices. Once pay a Member for his votes collectively, and he would very soon make a market for his individual votes,

  609
  That was a question of political expediency, and they should ask what the constituencies as a body wished in the matter. It was eminently a question for the constituencies. At the last Election he was asked not to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); he willingly gave that pledge, and he had no right to retire from it. That proposal was distasteful to the constituencies. That was on account of the pressure of the rates. The existing system of local taxation was utterly indefensible, unjust in principle, and most unequal in its operation. He would be no party to placing any further burden on the rates till there had been some substantial attempt to redress the existing inequality on principles of justice. He was against that proposal in the 18th clause. The people had long looked for the Ballot as a boon; they were now going to give them the Ballot as a tax. A more imprudent, ungracious proceeding he could hardly conceive. The Government had not so large a margin of popularity that they could afford to throw any away. It so happened, unfortunately, that every measure of theirs that Session had been accompanied with the unpleasant feature of additional taxation. They began with the Army Bill, in a great part of which he concurred; but it had a sting in its tail—an additional 2d. income tax. That was an unfortunate circumstance. Then there was the Ballot Bill; and that was to be accompanied by increased rates. That, he thought, was not a fortunate concomitant of the Ballot Bill. It had also been the misfortune of the Government to fall out with a good many classes of the community. They had fallen out with the Army and the Licensed Victuallers, and many other people; but, as if that were not enough, they were going to clap a blister on the whole body of the ratepayers and to fall out with them. That was a most imprudent proceeding. It was most unwise and unnecessary in a Bill of this character to raise questions of this kind. They were told the wound they would have to endure would not be much. They must remember, however, that if they went close to a man with the gout in his foot, a very small thing would be sufficient to make him wince. That was the state of the country. It was at that present moment suffering from a severe fit of the gout of
  610
  taxation. He did not think it was right of the Government to inflict such a blow upon any party as the passing of that clause would necessarily inflict on the Liberal party. The Liberal party had much to accomplish yet; but if it was split up into small parts, as it would be by the passing of that clause, it could not accomplish the ends it had in view. He did not contest the principle on which that clause was founded; but he did contest the political wisdom of introducing the proposal in this Bill at this time. He believed there would come a time when the country would accept the principle of the clause and pass it, and he hoped to see it do so. They were told they ought to educate the constituencies up to this; that was all very well for those whose constituencies were educated; but there was a preliminary process in which the constituencies might educate some of them off the face of the earth. While he approved of the principle of that clause, he would commend to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council the principle of an equally wise legislator, Solon, who, when asked why he did not introduce a certain proposal into the laws of Athens, gave the very sensible answer—"I have given the Athenians not the best laws, but the best laws that they would bear." The proposal now before the Committee was distasteful to the constituencies, and its consequences would be disastrous to the Liberal party. Entertaining these opinions he opposed the clause, in the belief that if it were negatived the Bill would pass without the Government having recourse to an Autumn Session.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he made no apology for following his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), for he had clearly indicated the question before the House. It might be that nearly the whole of those on the opposite benches were opposed to the proposal of the Government. It might be that a large majority were in its favour; but he knew of no motives connected with party that ought, in his judgment, to influence opinions one way or the other. The House did not, in 1867, discuss the question as one of party, nor was it a question connected with which they could pretend to say that the fate of the present Bill ought to depend on the fate of that 18th clause. He was much attached to the principle of the clause; but

  611
  it would be worse than idle to say that in the event of not obtaining from the House a sanction to the clause, the Government should forget the substantial good which they thought they had secured to the country by the clauses of the Bill to which assent had been given. With regard to the last speaker (Mr. V. Harcourt), he was left in considerable doubt as to the means by which the continuity of the speech was to be put into a consistent whole. From certain portions of that speech he judged that his hon. and learned Friend had no objection to the clause, but was inclined to give his assent to it. But in other portions of the speech the principle degenerated into a crotchet. In the close of his speech, his hon. and learned Friend said the Government were proposing to attain an abstract and ideal good. The Government were not seeking the best law in the abstract, but the best relatively to the present state of opinion, both with regard to the election of Members of the working classes. His hon. and learned Friend said that working men were not elected, and that it was not desirable that they ever should be elected.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT: I did not say that I thought it desirable that they should not be elected, but the opposite.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly, his hon. and learned Friend said it was desirable that they should be elected; but he went on to show that they had not been elected, and then how extremely shrewd and practical working men were as a body in refusing to elect them, and how strong and powerful were the reasons which had prevented their doing so. Without prejudice and without polemical spirit he wished to state what appeared to him to be the merits of the question. At present they had got a system of law under which the necessary expenses of elections were charged upon the candidates. The Government proposed to charge them on the constituency, as upon the local rates; and there was a third proposal—although he must admit it was rather ambiguous and oracular—to charge them on the Consolidated Fund. He agreed in the condemnations pronounced upon the third proposition; and here he cordially joined hands with the hon. Mover of the Amendment, who stated that that mode of proceeding had
  612
  all the disadvantages of the charge upon the local rates without any of its advantages. As between the other two means of charging the expenses of elections, there were the system which existed and which was not intolerable, and the system proposed in the clause, which, in the opinion of the Government, would introduce a great practical improvement. He was thankful to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton for having placed the question in a direct and simple issue. The hon. and learned Member referred to the Parliament of 1832, and to the unanimity of that Parliament. No doubt he was correct in that as a matter of fact, and that that Parliament decided unanimously on placing the expenses on the candidates; but that was on account of the necessities of the then Government position. The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill went as a cry through the country; but Mr. Hume and others who raised that cry must not be held to be authorities against the present proposal, because they were obliged to forego the expression of their own opinions with regard to the construction of the Reform Act of 1832. With respect to the mode adopted of taking security against frivolous and needless contests, it should be recollected that saddling the expenses on the candidates was not the only deterring power against frivolous contests. One question was a question of principle; the other was a question of policy. The principle was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) when he referred to the false position in which the representative and the constituency were placed when the unavoidable expenses of election were charged on candidates. The present practice amounted to a legislative assertion that the candidate was seeking a favour at the hands of the constituency, and that the electors were conferring a favour upon him by giving him their votes. He did not deny that in the language of courtesy favour was given and received on both sides; but, looking to the essential elements of the calculation, the favour was done by the candidate to the electors, and therefore he should be glad to see erased the practical contradiction of fact which was written on the face of the Statute Book. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton had observed that it was in the time of George II. that the expenses were thrown on the

  613
  candidates so far as regarded the county constituencies. But the hon. and learned Member would scarcely say that it was from the reign of George II. that they were to seek a model on which to found popular principles. The question must be decided on its merits—not from the model of the reign of George II., when the nation was under a totally different system from that which now prevailed, The proposal, as containing the sound and true principle as embodied in the clause, would tend to elevate the tone of representation; it would purify the atmosphere in which the Member of Parliament or the candidate met the constituency, and it would be an assertion on the Statute Book that the man who went to Parliament, even if he incidentally obtained that which benefited himself, did not go there with a charter to promote his own advantage, but to perform a public duty for the benefit of the nation. The policy of the change contemplated by the clause was a matter of more pressing importance than that of the abstract principle on which it rested, however sound it might be; that policy he took to be, as it was the object it was designed to facilitate, was the admission of working men within these walls; and here he felt that they were entirely removed from the ground of party differences. He was certain there was nothing that could render hon. Gentlemen opposite—he would not say more hostile, but less friendly to the admission of working men into the House, than the motives applicable to the minds and judgments of those who sat on that side of the House. Indeed, he would go further and say that there was nothing which he should esteem in the true sense of the word more truly Conservative than the admission of a sensible number of working men to those benches. What was it that they had long wanted, and that they wanted at the present day more than ever in proportion to the increased means of working men, and the increased activity of thought and communication among them? It was the establishment of links to connect them with the classes which were socially above them in regard to the political institutions of the country. They wanted in the political world that which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had so well shown, in his interesting work on
  614
  Pauperism, was wanting in the economical world, and which his hon. Friend thought the co-operative system was likely to supply. They wanted something which would unite the working men in a natural and legitimate manner with the rest of the community. The co-operative principle, placing the working man in the position of a capitalist, enabled him to enter into the feelings of capitalists, to appreciate the necessities which weighed upon the capitalist, and enabled him to form a just estimate of the relations between the two classes. The great blot of their representative system was that they had not been able to bring working men within those walls. When the Reform Act of 1867 was passed, so largely increasing the constituencies, there were few hon. Members who did not hope that one result of that change would be that they would have had the pleasure of welcoming in the House some of their fellow-citizens of the working class. Everyone had, however, been disappointed by the number and magnitude of the obstacles which had been found to intervene practically between the natural desire of the working class for representation in the persons of men of their own class, and the attainment of such desire. If the House was anxious in 1867 that those obstacles, so far as depended upon it, should be removed, there was an increased reason now for feeling that desire after the experience they had had. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) had, indeed, said it was not the expenses of elections which prevented the attainment of that object; but he would no doubt admit that that was one of the obstacles which stood in the way, and that the working classes themselves deemed it to be the most formidable of those obstacles. His hon. and learned Friend had also argued that the Government ought, according to their own principle, to go further, and propose a system of payment for Members of Parliament, in order to enable working men to enter that House. But that was altogether an ulterior question. His hon. and learned Friend had pointed out how that question might ultimately arrive at its solution by some voluntary system under which constituencies might if they chose, take the burden upon themselves. Perhaps some such system might be the means of solving the difficulty

  615
  with regard to the maintenance of working men sitting in that House. For his own part, he strongly objected to a general system of payment of Members; but if particular communities and bodies of persons chose to establish that system for themselves, he knew of no good reason why the House should interfere for the purpose of preventing them. He had always understood that a highly respectable county Member who formerly sat for many years on the Opposition benches, was enabled to make his appearance in the House by means of an annuity fund raised by his constituents, and he did not know why the obstacles in the way of working class representatives should not be met in the same manner. Meanwhile, the Government must deal with these obstacles as best they could. They believed it to be of great importance that working men should be returned to that House, as everyone of such representatives would form a strong link and bond of union between the working classes and the classes of which that House was generally composed. He did not deny, however, that the public mind was much divided on this subject, and that many hon. Members objected to the proposal of the Government. The division about to be taken might, indeed, prove that the public mind was not yet sufficiently prepared; but, nevertheless, the Government thought it their duty to urge the proposal upon the House. He would accept the judgment of the House, whatever it might be. If it was in their favour, he hoped the House would impartially endeavour to adjust the details of the system; if it were adverse to them, they would, nevertheless, feel that the question was one which must make progress with the progress of thought and the ripening of the public mind on the subject. In that case the Government would have the consolation of claiming the future for their own, and whether in the form of an arrangement to be made by particular constituencies, or of a more general measure, they felt confident that by one means or the other the wisdom of Parliament, contemplating and acknowledging without question the desirableness of uniting, if possible, all classes in the personal composition of that House, would devise and effect a means by which that great object might be attained.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would follow the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) example in treating that question as being in no sense a party one. It appeared to be understood, that if that clause were passed a door for the admission of working men into the House of Commons would be at once opened. Now, that he utterly denied. It was contrary both to the evidence of fact and of reason. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), in a somewhat inconsistent speech, had stated that the working men were so bent on having a measure of this sort that they had in part adopted it for themselves. Of course, no one objected to that. No doubt the highest and best principle would be that those who returned working men should show the sincerity of their convictions by paying the expenses, and certainly no one ever objected to a proceeding of the kind. With regard to the hon. Gentleman referred to by the Prime Minister, he was so esteemed by the farmers who returned him that they voluntarily assumed the burden which he was unable to sustain. A voluntary subscription was, however, very different from a permissive power to levy a rate, for a rate must be levied by the majority on the minority. He denied the correctness of the statement that no working men found their way into the House of Commons. He could not help thinking that men who, like Mr. G. Stephenson, had gone through every phase of labour both of body and mind, and passed on to the successful position which he at last attained, still retaining all his interest and all his knowledge of the feelings of the working classes, were better Representatives of those classes in the House of Commons than men could be who still continued in the ranks of workers for their daily bread. If working men did succeed in gaining an entrance to the House of Commons, they would find, he had no doubt, that they had been subject to many delusions; and, on the other hand, if they took the place of some of those who assumed to be peculiarly the working man's friends, he did not know that the House would suffer by it. As between the different modes which had been suggested of bearing the expenses of elections, he admitted there were only three ways of dealing with that question—namely, by means of local

  617
  rates, from the Imperial funds, or by the candidates; and of those three he must say he was in favour of devolving them upon the candidate, as at present; but those expenses were by no means the largest expenses of an election, and, no doubt, if the defrayment of them were intrusted to the local authorities they might be considerably reduced, and with that object he would suggest that elementary public schools deriving a grant from the State might lawfully be used for polling-booths, being an Imperial purpose. With respect to the question whether the payment should be from local or Imperial funds, he did not feel called upon to decide; but if they paid for municipal elections from the local fund, he did not see why elections for Members of Parliament should not be paid for by Imperial funds. It was at least as just to pay out of the Imperial as out of local funds. The question of deposit, they had been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), was not embraced in the clause now under discussion; but it had been throughout debated in connection with the clause; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), who, till the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government rose, had charge of the Bill, said that he had been convinced by the arguments that had been used, and therefore he put in the clause about the deposit to guard against the evils which he feared would exist if it were not there. If this were so he had forfeited the whole principle at once. Look how unjust they were. They brought in a Bill, which they said was first of all to do away with bribery, and they said that they were going to put a stop to canvassing, because a man would not know who were really going to vote for him. A man might come forward relying upon his ability and knowledge of the electors, and then, to his great astonishment, he found that he had polled but very few votes. They proposed to make him deposit £100, and he would be fined this sum because he had mistaken the feelings of the constituency. Now that seemed a very unjust thing. They had a system at present that did not prevent a poor man getting into that House. He could mention in former Parliaments many who were returned by extraneous aid. He said also that working men had been in the House; and he might
  618
  mention one very remarkable instance, that of the late Mr. Brotherton, who frequently alluded to the fact that he had been a factory worker. The payment out of the rates would not relieve the candidates from the real expenses of the election, and it was not worth while to bring upon the public that new charge unless to attain a matter which was of great consideration. They could not do it without an innovation, and however small the imposition might be, it would create an amount of irritation that would be quite disproportioned to the amount of burden that was placed upon the people. He could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in speaking in that very temperate tone—he might almost say in that milk-and-water tone—seemed to be letting it down easy, and showing his followers that the Government would not be at all disappointed if the Committee rejected the clause.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the history of this clause had been a very chequered one, for when originally proposed in the last Parliament it was carried by a majority of 8 votes, which was afterwards overruled by a majority of 7 at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), then the head of the Government. It was brought forward again in the shape of a Bill in the present Parliament, almost the first division being taken upon that proposition; but it was again unfortunate; all the Members of the Government, except three, were absent at a levée when it came on, and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the Bill was left to be damned with faint praise by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets; and, in spite of having to go through this trying ordeal, it was only defeated by the narrow majority of 3. That year the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself had taken it up, and he thanked him for his speech; there was, however, a tone of despondency about his remarks indicative of coming defeat, and he feared that in the hands of the Government the proposal would not fare so well as in the hands of a private Member. He had always been anxious that the British Parliament should be as fully representative as possible; but he felt that the

  619
  working man had been dragged into unfortunate prominence in that discussion. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt)—had made a speech which was really appropriate to that abstract question, that it was desirable that working men should be admitted. But if the effect of the clause were to exclude working men for 25 years, he should still advocate the principle it contained, believing that to be a proper one in itself. It not only gave a chance for their admission, but would secure economy of elections, which was particularly important, because the tendency of the Bill would unquestionably be to render the necessary expenses larger than before. The virtual principle of that clause was, that a seat in the House of Commons was not an honour to be bought, but a duty to be performed. His hon. and learned Friend, in a speech which was very perplexing, first said there was no principle in the clause, and afterwards, that it was so advanced that he was afraid of its effect, and that the question was unpopular with the constituencies; but he (Mr. Fawcett) would very much like to put the matter to a practical test in the constituency represented by his hon. and learned Friend, whose speech if not a crotchet was something worse, in that the first part contradicted the last. His hon. and learned friend was either afraid of his constituents, and did not dare, therefore, to support the clause, or his constituents were not sufficiently advanced to allow him to support the clause. The advantages of the Ballot would be dearly purchased if they were accompanied by cries which would increase the expense, and therefore he hoped means would be taken to give instruction in economy to the constituencies whose interest it now was to increase the cost of elections. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) said the effect of the clause would be to increase the number of contests—a result which he (Mr. Fawcett) did not think at all likely to follow, because as the electors would have to bear the expense they would not encourage candidates to come forward, unless there existed strong grounds for changing the representation of a constituency. At present there was no pressure of public opinion to prevent contests which originated in a desire to obtain profit at the expense of a candidate.
  620
  If that clause were law, the man who came forward as a candidate without any chance of success would have nearly all the ratepayers enlisted against him, and would be told that he ought to be kicked out of the place for subjecting them to useless expense. Much had been ominously said, and particularly by the Prime Minister, about the vast importance of passing a Secret Voting Bill; but he ventured to tell the House that among advanced Liberals even more importance was attached to the question of decreasing the cost of elections, than to the establishment of the principle of secret voting. What he wanted to see passed was a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, a measure which would affirm the principle that a seat in Parliament should not be bought, but that a man who was willing to discharge the duties connected with such a position should have imposed upon him in obtaining it the smallest pecuniary burdens possible.
  Question put, "That the word 'all' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 256: Majority 96.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rose merely for the purpose of stating that, much as the Government regretted the decision just come to, and although, technically, the Amendment was only for the omission of the first word of the clause and the replacing of it by another, yet of course they took the decision of the Committee as a decision upon the principle involved in the clause. He was therefore in hopes that there would be no attempt to proceed with the clause, which would be merely wasting the time of the Committee. The Government were prepared at once to assent to its being negatived, together with the next three clauses.
  Clause negatived.
  Clauses 19 to 21, inclusive, negatived.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EPPING FOREST BILL— [BILL 224.]
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. William Henry Gladstone.)
EPPING FOREST BILL— [BILL 224.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the blank in page 3, line 10, be filled up by inserting the names Charles Wood, Barrister at Law, John Watlington Perry Watlington, esquire, and Henry Ford Barclay, esquire."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must repeat a question he had put on a former occasion, when the Bill was in Committee, as to the source from which the expenses of the Commission were to be defrayed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Bill provided no special fund upon which the expenses of the Commission should be charged. The Treasury would bear all the first expenses of that Commission, and it would be quite open to the House to deal with the future expenses hereafter in any way it thought fit. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the name of "John Watlington Perry Watlington, esquire," in order to insert the name of "John Locke, esquire,"—(Sir Charles Dilke,)—instead thereof.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had two interests at heart. The interest of his constituents, and that of seeing the Bill successfully carried into effect. Both these interests he had endeavoured to secure by the selection of properly qualified gentlemen to sit as Commissioners. He trusted the House would be prepared to accept the Commission as a whole, and by that means carry into effect the object the House had in view.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he sincerely believed that by adopting the names proposed by the Government, they would be likely to carry into effect the object they all so much desired, and he trusted those names would be retained.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought the Commissioners would have given more confidence to the public if they had been entirely independent of the locality.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEdid not think the names proposed by the Government satisfactory. Parties should have been selected who were not resident
  622
  on the spot; for he did not think it right to appoint men on a Commission who were personally interested in matters upon which they would be called upon to decide.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILcontended that the counties adjacent to the Forest had a right to be represented in that matter.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that the Commissioners were to be paid Commissioners; and it was rather an extraordinary thing for that House to enter upon a contest as to whether one of its own Members should not be appointed to a position which might be one of considerable pecuniary profit.
  MR. WINGFIELD BAKERsaid, he looked on the Bill as an answer to an appeal from the people interested in the enjoyment of Epping Forest; and to carry out in full that answer the Commissioners should not be men subject to local influences, in favour of lords of manors, or otherwise.
  MR VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he understood from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that this was not to be a paid Commission. [Mr. AYRTON: Only the legal member is to be paid.] He objected to the constitution of that Commission. Two Essex gentlemen had been nominated. No doubt one of those gentlemen was to vote against the other, and the casting vote would be given to the Inclosure Commissioner. It was evident, then, that that question of Epping Forest was to be left in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners. The House had, he believed, a just distrust of those Commissioners on questions of this kind.
  Question put, "That the name of 'John Watlington Perry Watlington, esquire,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 75: Majority 62.
  MR. FAWCETT, in moving the postponement of the further consideration of the Bill, said, it would be better that the Bill should be lost than that the Commission should be so constituted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be postponed."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would consent to add one name to the list of Commissioners, who fully understood that they were not to be paid.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Charles Wood, Barrister at Law, John Watlington Perry Watlington, esquire, and Henry Ford Barclay, esquire, inserted.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the name of 'John Locke, esquire,' be inserted after the name of 'John Watlington Perry Watlington, esquire,'" put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL— [BILL 243.]
(The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL— [BILL 243.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that the object of the Bill was to repeal a section of an Irish Act of 40 Geo. III., which required the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant to bye-laws made by the trustees, a section in a prior Act, 35 Geo. III., had been repealed by the Irish Church Act. The Act of 40 Geo. III was omitted by mistake. The State had now nothing to do with Maynooth. The present number of trustees, all of which might be laymen, was 17, and the Roman Catholics wished the number increased to 28—this was also in the Bill. This was the whole Bill, and was the last Bill of any kind with reference to Maynooth, now completely severed from the State, Parliament would be troubled with.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was not until that late hour—two in the morning—that Her Majesty's Government had vouchsafed to give the House the slightest explanation with regard to that Bill. The purport of the Bill was to increase the number of the Governing Body of the College of Maynooth from 17 to 28; when he saw that number of 11 trustees to be added, he confessed that it very much puzzled him to discover the reason for adding that particular number.
  624
  On further inquiry, however, he found that 28 was exactly the number of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, including His Eminence Cardinal Cullen. Well, what would be the effect of that? There was at present 17 trustees, of whom, according to the old Acts now in operation, by the repeal of the statute of 1845, 11 must be continued as ecclesiastics, and be succeeded by ecclesiastics. If the six existing lay trustees, or a majority of them, thought fit, they might provide clerical successors to the lay trustees, as those might resign, or, in the course of nature, might be removed; and by continually filling up the vacant seats with clerics, they would gradually have Maynooth transferred to the Roman Catholic hierarchy solely. What would be the position of the College then? They would have all the powers under the old Act of George III., passed by the Irish Parliament. Under that Act they would have the power of continuing Maynooth either as a seminary for the exclusive education of ecclesiastics, or of adding thereto a department which should be applied to the education of the laity. They would in that way got a Roman Catholic University established in Ireland exactly on the footing which had been so much objected to by that House—that was to say, exclusively under the control of the Roman Catholic hierarchy; and although it would not have a Charter, it would have more, for it would have the authorization of three Acts of Parliament. By that process which he anticipated on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—namely, the filling up of the places of the existing lay trustees by episcopal successors—they would most effectually establish in Ireland a Roman Catholic College or University precisely on the footing to which that House had constantly objected. Well, he had given Notice that if that Bill went into Committee, he would move an Amendment to the effect that only three of the future trustees who had to be elected should be clerical trustees—that was, out of the 11 now to be elected under the powers of that Bill. The effect of that would be to make the clerical and the lay trustees equal in number—namely, 14 of each: 14 laymen, and 14 ecclesiastics. Now, that was a Governing Body, the constitution of which he could quite understand that House sanctioning;

  625
  but he did not think that that House would willingly proceed to grant further powers or exemptions to any exclusively clerical body in the control of that large property and the privileges connected with it, without re-considering the statutes under which the College of Maynooth was at present governed. That House should remember that the Act of 1845 (Sir Robert Peel's Act) was repealed, and that if they passed that Bill, as now proposed, there was nothing to prevent the establishment of Maynooth hereafter as an exclusively Roman Catholic institution, under the exclusive direction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. For his part, he did not believe that that was the intention of that House, and unless the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General for Ireland) who had charge of that Bill gave an assurance that there should be some provision introduced that should secure the perpetuity of the lay element—since the establishment of Maynooth had never received the sanction of Parliament, except as governed by a body consisting partly of laymen; no grant, indeed, had ever been made to it except upon that understanding — and considering that virtually that Bill provided the means of changing the constitution of the College of Maynooth in the direction to which that House had always objected, by making it an exclusively ecclesiastical seminary, through the process which he (Mr. Newdegate) expected to see carried out by the Roman Catholic hierarchy—for that reason he should propose that that Bill be read that day two months, unless, as he said, Her Majesty's Government gave some assurance that in Committee they would take measures to secure that the future constitution of the Governing Body of the College should be in some degree analogous to that which had hitherto existed; and that could only be effected by providing that hereafter, as heretofore, a certain proportion of the trustees should be laymen.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he must decline to give any such pledge as that required by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The only qualifications in the Acts of Geo. III for the trustees was that they should be natural-born subjects of the Crown. There were now
  626
  17 trustees, all of whom were clergymen, except one. The new trustees were always elected by the surviving trustees. The Bill had no effect except to increase the number.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," — (Mr. Newdegate,) — instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed, to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that Motion gave him an opportunity of briefly commenting upon the statement which had just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that he hoped the House would not be so illiberal, now that it was framing a new constitution for the College of Maynooth, as to clog it with any conditions. That hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that he was asking them to pass an Act which was to possess those new trustees with that large property. Was it unreasonable or illiberal that they should indicate the nature of the body to whom the property was to be transferred? Did he mean to ask them to make over that property to the exclusive control of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, because, as he informed them, all the lay trustees had resigned? Did not that tally with the statement which he (Mr. Newdegate) had made to that House—that the number 28 was the number of the Roman Catholic hierarchy; and if all the lay trustees had resigned, and they were to add 11 to the present number, there would be 17 to be elected, and if all those 17 were to be Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—which he understood to be the expectation of the hon. and learned Gentleman—they would be constituting, in fact, a Roman Catholic University, because there was power under the old Acts to connect with that College a lay department—in other

  627
  words, to attach a lay College to Maynooth. Why, that was constituting a Roman Catholic University under the exclusive direction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Now, he was perfectly certain that of hon. Members present at that moment in that House, not ten came down with the expectation of hearing that that was the real meaning of the Bill before the House. He should not attempt at that moment to propose any amendment of the Bill, because from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the six lay trustees had resigned, any Amendment to be effectual must go far beyond his, and must provide for retaining in the constitution of that new body at least the same proportion, if not a larger proportion of laymen than had ever been retained by Parliament for the government of that institution. For that reason he should take no further part in that discussion; but when the Bill came on for third reading he should certainly move an Amendment, the object of which would be to secure that, in the future government of Maynooth, there should not be a smaller proportion of laymen than had hitherto been. He was not going to divide the Committee on the present occasion, because he was not duly informed of the real nature and extent of that change until he heard the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He should not, therefore, put the Committee to the trouble of going a division until the House could act deliberately, and with a full knowledge of what it was asked to do by that Bill.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read a third time upon Thursday.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Army Regulation (237).
Royal Assent—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment [34 & 35 Vict. c. 59]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment [34 & 35 Vict. c. 60]; Election Commissioners Expenses [34 & 35 Vict. c. 61]; Charters (Colleges) [34 & 35 Vict. c. 63]; East India (Bishops Leave of Absence) [34 & 35 Vict. c. 62].

H.R.H. THE PRINCE ARTHUR WILLIAM PATRICK ALBERT.

  HER MAJESTY'S MESSAGE.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message of Thursday last considered (according to Order).
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it has been my agreeable duty on several previous occasions to ask your Lordships to concur in providing for sons and daughters of Her Majesty that competent—and certainly not extravagant—provision which is necessary to enable them to maintain that position to which they are born. It is, indeed, only a part of the contract which was entered into between Parliament and the Sovereign on Her Majesty's accession to the Throne; but the cheerful concurrence which your Lordships have always given to this proposition, on exactly similar precedents, makes me feel it unnecessary to dwell upon that part of the case. With regard to the young Prince for whom this provision is proposed, I feel that, as many of your Lordships are doubtless well aware, there are few young men in any class who have obtained more generally than His Royal Highness the respect and the good-will of those with whom he has associated; whether in his own family; whether in the society of this Metropolis, with which
  454
  he has as yet only sparingly mixed; whether amongst those with whom he has been professionally associated; or, whether in that great colony, where by his manner and his demeanour he not only maintained, but strengthened the friendly and loyal attachment of the colonists to the House to which he belongs. The noble Earl concluded by proposing an Address, thanking Her Majesty for her gracious Message, and assuring her that that House, always desirous of availing itself of every opportunity to manifest its dutiful attachment to Her Majesty's Royal Person and Family, would cheerfully concur in all such measures as should be necessary and proper for giving effect to the object of the Message.
  Then it was moved "That an humble Address of Thanks and Concurrence be presented to Her Majesty."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, it is my pleasing task to concur most cordially in what has fallen from my noble Friend (Earl Granville). I am sure I represent the feelings which exist on both sides of the House, when I say that there will be but one unanimous feeling of satisfaction at the proposal he has made. There is no member of the Royal Family who is more regarded, respected, or liked than the Prince who is the subject of the noble Earl's remarks. I have, therefore, the greatest possible satisfaction in seconding the proposal of the noble Earl.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen read the reply, stating that their Lordships assured Her Majesty that their House, always desirous to avail itself of every opportunity to manifest its dutiful attachment to Her Majesty's Person and Family, would cheerfully concur in all such measures as should be necessary and proper for giving effect to the object of Her Majesty's Message.
  The said Address agreed to, nemine dissentients:—To be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

ARMY REGULATION BILL—(No. 237.)
(The Lord Northbrook.)
ARMY REGULATION BILL—(No. 237.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had found it would be more convenient to the noble

  455
  Duke (the Duke of Richmond), while it would be quite as convenient or more so to the Government, if the noble Duke's Motion took precedence of the Motion for the second reading of the Army Regulation Bill, on the understanding that as soon as that Motion was disposed of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War would proceed with the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthen rose to move the following Motion:—
  "That this House before assenting to the Second Reading of the Army Regulation Bill desires to express its opinion that the interposition of the Executive during the progress of a measure submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty in order to attain by the exercise of the Prerogative and without the aid of Parliament the principal object included in that measure is calculated to depreciate and neutralize the independent action of the Legislature, and is strongly to be condemned."
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think the course proposed by my noble Friend (Earl Granville) is the most convenient one that under the present circumstances it was possible to take, because after my proposition has been disposed of as a substantive Motion, the second reading of the Bill can be proposed and dealt with in any manner your Lordships may think fit. The importance, my Lords, of the present crisis can scarcely be over-estimated. I doubt, indeed, whether the announcement made to us by my noble Friend ten days ago, that Her Majesty had that morning signed a Royal Warrant abolishing the purchase system has ever been paralleled within the Parliamentary history of this country, either for the importance of the course pursued on the question, or the amount of interest excited in pursuing such a course. I feel that while a grave responsibility rests upon noble Lords on both sides to maintain the honour and dignity of this House, no small responsibility falls upon my shoulders—representing, as I do, a very large body of noble Lords on this side—that the course we take, while maintaining that honour and dignity, shall not aggravate the difficulties of the situation in which we are placed. We should, at the same time, take care to allow nothing to occur, as far as we are able to prevent it, which shall endanger or sacrifice the independent character of this House. Now, in order that we may discuss properly the subject-matter which I wish to bring under your Lordships' notice it is not my intention to enter into the merits or
  456
  demerits of the so-called Army Regulation Bill, for it was dealt with in a most exhaustive manner by both sides of the House on a previous occasion; and I shall confine my remarks as much as possible to the state of things which has now arisen in consequence of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, studying brevity to the utmost of my power, it being very desirable that this debate, in which a number of noble Lords are anxious to take part, should close tonight. Your Lordships will recollect that matters connected with the organization of the Army were brought under the consideration of Parliament by Her Majesty in her most gracious Speech from the Throne. A Bill was accordingly introduced into the other House, and passed after very considerable discussion, differences of opinion being entertained by hon. Members on both sides, and the Amendments proposed proceeding as much from those on the Government side as from those on the opposite. It was then brought up to your Lordships, and on the second reading I moved a Resolution, the effect of which was, as your Lordships will recollect, not that you declined to entertain the subject-matter of the Bill, but that you wished before you further discussed it to be furnished with information on various points which you thought necessary to enable you to come to a conclusion on the measure. So far, indeed, was that Resolution, which was carried by a majority of your Lordships, from destroying the Bill, that in the Votes of the following day you will find it among the measures remaining for a second reading. Now, I imagined that the object of the Bill was to obtain the sanction of Parliament for its provisions, as distinguished from other parts of the system of Army organization which were in the power of the Executive. When dealing, indeed, with what ought to be in it, we were taken to task by the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll), who, in the forcible and vigorous manner for which he is remarkable, said—
  "The law and Constitution of this country place the discipline and organization of the Army in the hands of the Crown… Although the Resolution is vague, the speech of the noble Duke left nothing vague. He told us distinctly the plan of the Government must be embodied in the Bill. I venture to affirm, on the contrary, that this is unconstitutional. It is the duty of the Government,

  457
  I fully admit, to give every explanation to Parliament of the plan which they have for the re-organization of the Army; but it is equally the duty of the Government, which they will discharge, to defend the Prerogative of the Crown."
  According, therefore, to the noble Duke, it is not proper to insert in an Act of Parliament that which it is in the power of the Crown to do without an Act, and it would not have been proper or constitutional on that account to put in the Bill what we desired. Surely, however, it was equally unconstitutional to put into the Bill that which was clearly in the power of the Crown, for by a recent act of the Crown that portion of the Bill has been taken entirely out of our hands? Her Majesty's Government have therefore been, to a certain extent, unconstitutional and inconsistent in their conduct on this occasion. If they thought it necessary that this scheme should be inserted in the measure laid before Parliament, it ought to have remained there; whereas the Government, finding not that we were unwilling to deal with the question, not that we declined to discuss it, not even that we postponed it till another Session, but that we desired information on the subject, came forward and said—"Because you will not pass the Bill so quickly as we think you ought, we shall advise the Crown to exercise its Prerogative and take that portion of it out of your hands." I think I am certainly justified in saying that they have changed their minds on the subject, and are now dealing with it in a different way from what they did before. I was anxious to see the views of the Government as expressed at a recent festive meeting, and I find the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government using these words—
  "We are in a manner put upon trial for our lives. A Notice has been given—which is still only a Notice — that on Monday the severest punishment a branch of the Legislature can inflict will, I do not say be inflicted, but will be proposed to be inflicted upon us in the House of Lords—in that august Assembly which I trust may long continue to discharge with wisdom its important and essential functions in the Constitution of the country."
  Then he continues—
  "My Lord Mayor, with the opinion which I entertain of that august Assembly, I am unable to believe that they will censure the Government, which pleads guilty to no offence but this—"
  and observe what they plead guilty to—
  "That we have used a legal power for the suppression of an illegal practice. A system of gross,
  458
  notorious, and palpable illegality we have, in the exercise of our undoubted power, put an end to in the only manner which remained open to us after the circumstances which have occurred."—[The Times, July 31.]
  But if the Government have now dealt with the question in a legal manner, why did they not so deal with it six months ago? I defy the right hon. Gentleman to point out that they are dealing altogether with what can be called an illegal practice. In saying that they are dealing with an illegal and immoral practice, the right hon. Gentleman has mixed up the regulation prices, which are perfectly legal, with the over-regulation prices, which have been winked at for some time. If, then, that is the legal mode of dealing with the question of purchase, the Government ought to have dealt with it in a legal and proper manner in the first instance. They ought not to have put the subject of purchase into a Bill, and when your Lordships did not endorse their opinion then say, as if by way of punishment—"You are not fit to deal with this subject, and we will take it altogether out of your hands, because you do not deal with it in the manner which we wish." My Lords, I have also the opinion here of my noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack, who expresses some views which do not coincide with my own. He said—
  "We have, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, a Motion of Censure in the House of Lords impending over us; and I cannot sit down without saying that I do not believe any man in the whole country seriously in his heart believes that there ever was any intention or desire on the part of any Member of Her Majesty's Government, to act otherwise than harmoniously with the Upper branch of the Legislature."
  Now, if that is his idea of acting harmoniously with us, defend me from the legal acceptation of the term. If a man whom I meet in the street kicks me, it is presumptive evidence in my mind that he does not wish to act harmoniously; at all events, it leaves the impression that he intended an insult; and though what the Government intended I will not pretend to say, they certainly have not acted in a harmonious manner towards us. The noble and learned Lord went on to say—
  "But, on the other hand, I must say that, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and on the part of all of us who occupy posts in the Government, I think I may also say we do not intend—we do not dare, where there is

  459
  any measure which in our judgment affects the welfare and very safety of the country, and where that measure has been supported by the voice of the country, through their Representatives—we do not dare to refrain from the exercise of any constitutional power which is placed in our hands to give to the desire of the country its due effect. … I do not for one moment desire any violent change in any of these three powers, but I do desire that we shall have a free and fair exercise of them, without that exercise being called in question as an act of violence or insult."—[Ibid.]
  Now, as to the voice of the country, I deny that this question has ever been put to the country; and as to its being a constitutional power, why, if it was so, did they not make use of it before? With regard to a free and fair exercise of our constitutional powers, that is precisely what I ask, and because this has not been afforded us is one of my reasons for proposing this Motion. Now, I wish to say a few words with respect to it, and as it is very desirable that this debate should close this evening, I will confine my remarks as much as possible to the point at issue. As to the Royal Warrant, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) told us on a previous occasion that it was not an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but of a statutory power. I join issue with him on that point, and I wish to guard myself against anything that I may say being deemed in any way disrespectful or disloyal to the Sovereign. All my remarks will be directed against the advice given to the Sovereign by the Executive. I think I shall satisfy my noble Friend—at any rate I will endeavour to do so—that this is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative pure and simple, and that it is not the exercise of power under statute. The system of purchase, as your Lordships are aware, has existed for a considerable time. I believe it existed in the reign of Charles II.; that William III. abolished it for a season by Royal Warrant, without an Act of Parliament; that clauses were introduced into the Mutiny Act declaring it illegal; but that from 1700 those clauses were abandoned, since which date it was, until 1809, sanctioned by the Crown. Regulations were made from time to time as to the prices of commissions, the Crown being advised by general officers as to the prices which ought to be fixed, and the whole system, was, in fact, sanctioned by the Crown. In 1809 an Act was passed to prevent the purchase or
  460
  sale of all offices, and it no doubt occurred to these who framed it that, unless a saving clause was inserted, the Act would apply to the sale of commissions in the Army. The 7th section consequently excepted from the penalties of the Act the purchase and sale of commissions in the Army at prices regulated by the Crown. That section, however, which is recited in the Warrant, has nothing whatever to do with the power of abolishing purchase. It simply says that those who continue to buy and sell commissions under Warrants anterior to the Act and under the sanction of the Crown shall not be subject to the penalties of the Act. It had nothing, therefore, to do with originating or maintaining the purchase system, and it gave no power to the Crown which it did not possess before. It recognized the right of the Sovereign to make regulations as to the purchase and sale of commissions; but it neither conferred nor took away any power of the Crown. It indirectly acknowledged the Prerogative of the Crown, as the head of the Army, to grant commissions in the Army; but it neither strengthened nor weakened the power of the Crown; and had that Act been repealed at any time during the last 60 years it is clear that purchase would have gone on exactly as before. That section was the only part of the Act that my noble Friend, could have had in his mind; when he spoke of proceeding under statute, so that if I am right in my construction of it, the Crown has abolished purchase by an exercise of the Prerogative, without any reference to an Act of Parliament. The Warrant is, therefore, improperly worded, for the recital of the Acts 5 & 6 Edward VI. and 49 George III. forbidding the sale of offices, is mere surplus-age, having nothing to do with the subsequent words which, starting an altogether new subject, put an end to the purchase system. I want now to put distinctly to my noble Friend a question which I have no doubt he will answer, and to which I think this House is entitled to have a reply. My question is this—What was the Crown advised in regard to the issue of this Royal Warrant. The Royal Warrant bears date the 20th of July. That was on Thursday week; and on the Thursday night my noble Friend told us that the Sovereign had signed a Warrant on that day; and when I asked

  461
  him whether that was by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, or in virtue of any other power, he stated that it was under statute. Now I want to know, was the Crown advised that the Crown was acting under statute? Was the Crown advised that the Crown was acting in accordance with the Royal Prerogative pure and simple? Because I say that if the Crown was advised that the Crown was acting under statute, the Crown was improperly advised, and the signature of the Crown was obtained under circumstances which were not in accordance with the facts of the case. I shall be very much surprised if any noble Lord, legal or otherwise, will venture to assert and carry it to a proof that the Royal Warrant was signed under any other power than the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. My Lords, without wishing to take from the power of the Royal Prerogative, I cannot but think that on the present occasion the power so exercised has been very much strained. No doubt the Crown, under Royal Warrant, can institute a system of purchase; but with that system, as we have been told by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Northbrook) has grown up a vast network of vested interests; and setting aside for the moment over-regulation prices, of which most people entertain the idea that they should be paid, there can be no doubt that for the regulation prices it is right and proper that the officers should be indemnified. But while the Crown can set up these vested interests, the Crown cannot get rid of them. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that although you have abolished purchase, you cannot by Royal Warrant abolish everything which that system has created, and in order to indemnify the officers you must obtain the sanction of Parliament. It is therefore a stretch of the Prerogative to abolish what it has built up, unless it can carry this out entirely without the assistance of Parliament. If, moreover, it was thought at the commencement of the Session that the power of the Prerogative was not strong enough to abolish purchase, and that it was expedient to deal with it by Act of Parliament, what has happened to make the Prerogative stronger to-day than it was then, and to make it inexpedient to effect now by Act of Parliament what was expedient then? Another objection to this exercise of the Prerogative is,
  462
  that it affects the independence and deliberative character of this House. It must originally have been deemed necessary to take the opinion of your Lordships—indeed, the Crown, in the Speech from the Throne, told us our advice and counsel would be asked. Our advice has accordingly been asked, and while the matter placed under our consideration by Her Majesty is at this moment sub judice—for as long as the Bill is not out of the House its second reading may be moved toties quoties—Her Majesty is suddenly advised by the Executive to take the whole subject out of our consideration, and give us no opportunity of again dealing with it. I am not going to enter deeply into the legal question, but it does not require a very learned reader to know that, according to Blackstone, the Crown, while it can veto a measure, has no power of resolving that anything shall become legal. Therefore, the practical effect of what has been done is this—we declined to deal with the subject of purchase as embodied in the Bill in its present form, but by an exercise of the Prerogative the Crown has taken the matter out of our consideration, compelling us, whether we will or not, to pass another Act compensating the officers, for everybody admits the justice of compensating them, and that cannot be done without an Act of Parliament. By a Royal Warrant and a vote of the House of Commons we are compelled to pass a Bill which we should not under other circumstances have been desirous of doing. That is clearly a distinct interference with our legislative functions, and I shall be very much surprised if anyone should get up on the other side of the House, and deny the facts. I am forced to ask the question, are we a deliberative Assembly or not? Are questions of this kind to be brought before us, and are we to give our independent opinions, or is it reduced to this—that we are to give our opinion only when it coincides with the views of the Government? I apprehend that had we passed the Bill we should have heard nothing of a Royal Warrant, and the Prime Minister virtually tells us—"We will put this Bill before you, and if you come to a conclusion that we can endorse we shall be satisfied; but we intend to pass the Bill, and if your opinion is opposed to us we shall resort to the strongest stretch of the Prerogative

  463
  which can be imagined, and take the whole thing completely out of your hands." That being the position of the matter, it became our duty to consider what course we should take. No doubt we might oppose the second reading on its being again moved; but, inasmuch as the main provisions of the Bill, the abolition of purchase, is taken out of it, I do not think that that would be a dignified course. Had we negatived the second reading, and had purchase been abolished by Royal Warrant, another Bill would necessarily have been introduced for the purpose of compensating the officers, which would have had to pass through its various stages in both Houses, and at this period of the Session it would have been very undesirable to re-open a question involving much bitterness and acrimony. I do not, therefore, think it expedient or right to propose the rejection of the Bill. Again, we might, acknowledging our defeat, assent to the second reading and maintain a dignified silence, satisfied that defeats caused by conscientious convictions on the one hand, and the high-handed acts of the Government on the other, are more creditable and honourable to the vanquished than to the victors. Consistently, however, with the maintenance of the dignity of this House, I do not think that course would be a wise one. The only course, and, as I think, the best course, left is that, while, or rather before, assenting to the second reading of the Bill, we should enter on our Minutes a Protest, couched, I hope, in as strong, but at the same time as decorous, language as Parliamentary usage will allow. We shall enter our protest against the conduct of the Government, against proceedings which render all discussion subject to the sic volo, sic jubeo, of an imperious Minister; and, in accordance with that decision, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, That this House before assenting to the Second Reading of the Army Regulation Bill desires to express its opinion that the interposition of the Executive during the progress of a measure submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty in order to attain by the exercise of the Prerogative and without the aid of Parliament the principal object included in that measure is calculated to depreciate and neutralize the independent action of the Legislature, and is strongly to be condemned.—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am not surprised that your Lordships should have greeted with cheers the speech in which my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), in his easy and agreeable manner, has so very clearly stated the grounds which have induced him to decide on the course embodied in the very grave Resolution which he has just moved. I was certainly glad to recognize in that speech, as some of its brightest gems, three excellent extracts from speeches of three of my Colleagues, two of which were made on a recent festive occasion. Following my noble Friend's example, I will not again discuss the question which, I quite agree with him, was exhaustively discussed during three nights' debate — namely, the abstract merits of continuing that system of purchase, which its opponents say is bad in practice, and which its friends admit is wrong in theory, whatever that may mean. I must go a little further back than my noble Friend in his history of the Parliamentary proceedings on this subject. I will go back as far as last year, when the question of purchase had arrived at a point at which we believed it would have been difficult for a Government, even if willing, to abstain from touching it. At that time it was a matter of general notoriety that there was a system of over-regulation prices with regard to the purchase of commissions, but the Government had no official knowledge of the fact, and in order to procure that official information they appointed a strong Commission to investigate the matter. The principal point of their Report was that these over-regulation prices, with some few exceptions, were almost invariably the practice in the Army; that there had been a tacit acquiescence in that illegal system by the military and civil authorities; and they pointed out the remarkable fact that nearly all the officers under the rank of major general in the British Army were in the constant and systematic violation of the law upon that particular subject. In addition, the Commission argued, in a manner which I have heard no attempt to controvert, that it was impossible to deal with these over-regulation prices as long as the sale and purchase of commissions was sanctioned. The responsibility of the Government was great, and they did not shrink from it. My noble

  465
  Friend asks why, if there was a power of abolishing purchase by Warrant, we did not exercise it at the beginning of the year? Does he really ask that question in perfect good faith? Is it possible your Lordships can doubt what the object of the Government was? The illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) said one of his chief objections to the abolition of purchase, was the impossibility, as he up to a very short time ago had thought it, of the House of Commons securing that compensation which he thought just and liberal to the officers. That was not merely the illustrious Duke's opinion, for in successive Cabinets I have heard the question raised, where all were agreed that the system was indefensible, but thought the practical difficulty of the House of Commons giving so large a sum was one not to be lightly disposed of. Does my noble Friend really think that the most judicious way of settling this great and difficult question would have been to abolish the system by Royal Warrant before taking the opinion of the House of Commons, which would have had to vote these compensations? The Government wished to abolish purchase; but they wished concurrently with it to get a Parliamentary sanction for a legal and a pecuniary indemnity for the officers who had been violating the law, though under a system which involved no moral turpitude on their parts. That intention of the Government was fully stated. My noble Friend has alluded to the opposition offered to the Bill in "another place." No doubt there was constant and protracted opposition, on grounds which I am glad to say this House, in three nights' debate, entirely declined to entertain; and there was, further, an unwillingness even on the part of some of our Friends—to which my noble Friend has alluded—in consequence, but not of opposition to the objects of the Bill, of some discontent with the large military expenditure which Her Majesty's Government, on their own responsibility, had recommended to Parliament. With regard, however, to this just and liberal compensation to the officers, the great majority of the House of Commons cheerfully assented to that outlay, sending up a Bill the principal object of which, as explained both in that House and here, was not to abolish purchase—which we had a power to do,
  466
  as stated at the beginning of the debate in my noble Friend's (Lord Northbrook's) able speech—but to procure that pecuniary and legal indemnity for the officers to which I have just alluded. My noble Friend described the course which the Opposition, commanding that enormous majority which it undoubtedly did on the consideration of the question, thought fit to pursue on the second reading. He proposed, and other noble Lords supported, a Resolution which was characterized in words read by my noble Friend, and to which I could see no objection, although it was denounced by my noble Friend (Lord Northbrook) as of an unconstitutional character, particularly as it was interpreted by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who said that it was impossible to rely on the promises of the Government in regard to a matter which up to that time had always been under the control of the Crown, and not under that of Parliament, unless the promise itself was embodied in the Act. My noble Friend did not, I think, quote those words for the purpose of impugning them, but for the purpose of charging us with inconsistency—one of the most extraordinary charges I ever heard. He virtually said—"If you can do a thing by Royal Prerogative, you must necessarily, by your own confession, be doing wrong when you attempt to do it by Act of Parliament. The distinction seems to have escaped him in the difference between the Houses of Parliament trying to encroach on the Prerogative of the Crown, and the Crown willingly allowing matters relating to the Prerogative to be embodied and confirmed in an Act of Parliament. He asked me for an answer, and I think I have satisfactorily given one. That Resolution having been passed, I am bound to say Her Majesty's Government found themselves in a position of considerable embarrassment, although not in such great embarrassment as if there had been several courses to adopt, for I believe we adopted, not merely the best, but the only one. My noble Friend insinuates—and I heard for the first time the slightest hint of it—that the Resolution passed by a very large attendance of Peers towards the end of July, interfering with the second reading of the Bill, was not intended to delay the passing of this measure for more than one Session, or even possibly

  467
  for this Session. Now, it was impossible for the Government to entertain the slightest suspicion, without some hint from him or his Colleagues, that that was their intention. We did all that we possibly could to effect a settlement of the subject. We used every argument we knew of against the abstract disadvantages of purchase. We pointed out the particular circumstances which made a settlement of the question not only important, but urgent. We quoted the words of Sir George Grey, which have never been questioned, and which were immediately concurred in both by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and which were alluded to and enforced by Members of the Government in this House—as to the duty of the Government not to continue supporting an existing state of things, which even the noble Earl opposite admits they had the power to remove. How could we possibly imagine that after your remonstrances about asking your attention to such important subjects at so late a period of the Session, and your desire for further information, without any new argument, any change of circumstances, or any new fact, we could ask your Lordships at a late period of the Session to cancel what you had previously decided? It would have been a great impertinence, which would, I believe, have been rebuked by the contempt which such a proposal would have deserved. What were the other courses. It has been suggested that an Address to the Crown should have been moved in the other House. Now, I have no doubt it would have been satisfactory to our amour propre to receive such an application from the other House, and I have no doubt that had we made such an appeal it would have been successful; but what would have been the practical result. Why, putting aside the crowded state of business, we should have gained strength in a House where we do not require it, and should not have gained strength where we are so lamentably deficient of it as we are in this House. There is also the objection—which I, for one, feel in the strongest manner—that the result would have certainly been to aggravate the difference which had unfortunately sprung up between the two Houses. I presume nobody could think that after public opinion
  468
  on the matter, and after the decision of the House of Commons, we could raise the regulation to the standard of over-regulation prices. There was one other course, which was to do nothing; without the slightest regard to our duty to our Sovereign, to the House of Commons, to the country, and to the Army, to have allowed matters to go on till next Session, or some indefinite time when your Lordships might choose to change your opinion on the question of purchase. My noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) suggested a General Election to ascertain the views of the constituencies; but the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who, with the noble Marquess beside him (the Marquess of Salisbury), claims a higher Conservatism than the ordinary Members of the party—though I think the more commonplace Conservatism is better fitted to deal with the ordinary affairs of this life than the more transcendental one—urged, in proof that the country was not in favour of the abolition of purchase, that there had been no public meetings, or only one. Now, it so happened that the very morning after the noble Earl made that declaration I read the report of a large meeting in Yorkshire on the subject of this Bill, and that meeting, though in favour of the abolition of purchase, denounced as an act of gross injustice the proposal to take money out of the taxes levied on the poor for the purpose of granting an indemnification for an illegal practice. Would it have been Conservative on the part of the Government to have postponed the question in order to have meetings held throughout the country advocating the abolition of purchase on principles of that sort? Would it have been fair to the Army? The Resolution passed by your Lordships had already paralyzed the sale and purchase of commissions. Was it desirable that the Government should leave the Army in a state of alarm and uncertainty—a state which, according to an eminent officer, would tend to disorganize and hurt the discipline of the Army, of which we are so proud? Would it have been right for us to postpone indefinitely a change which we thought absolutely necessary for the re-organization of our military forces, and thus put off a work which we had so great a responsibility to perform? My Lords, I cannot imagine your Lordships

  469
  think that would have been a right course. Well, under those circumstances, we took a course which we believe to be strictly legal and constitutional; and we took it with the previously obtained sanction of the House of Commons in gard to the necessary expenditure, which made it perfectly certain that that House would have consented to vote compensation, at all events, for the regulation prices; and because we were morally certain that under the changed circumstances, with the responsibility for the abolition of purchase shifted from your shoulders on to those of the Government and the House of Commons, you would, with your well-known public spirit and sense of justice, scarcely refuse to give a second reading to a Bill, the original and main object of which was to provide a legal pecuniary compensation to officers in the Army. That course, which under the circumstances of the case we believe to be strictly just to all parties concerned, we have taken. It is now, however, proposed to precede the consideration of the Bill by a Vote of Censure on the Government for taking the one step they conscientiously believed to be the only, and the correct one, they could pursue. Some persons have thought that as that vote is not likely to lead to any practical result, it might be totally disregarded. My Lords, I differ entirely from that view, and I am bound to admit that if in such an Assembly as this you came calmly and temperately to the determination to censure the Government, without any feelings in regard to a recent affront which has been supposed to be put upon you—even, if in my conscience I thought my Colleagues and myself had done nothing for which we could justly reproach ourselves—the censure of your Lordships' House would, at all events on me, fall with great weight. But when I have some grounds for thinking that these conditions are not all fulfilled, your Lordships will allow me to say that that circumstance takes away somewhat from the sting your censure might otherwise have conveyed. My noble Friend talked of these proceedings as necessary for the dignity of this House. I have great doubt whether what has occurred up to the present has added to the dignity of this House. Last Thursday week it was agreed in private that the Government were to seek to obtain a second reading of their Bill on the
  470
  Monday following. But the next day I was requested to postpone the adjournment in order to give time to my noble Friend to return to the House to state his views on the state of affairs. He did return to the House, and asked that the question should be adjourned for ten days in order to allow of certain engagements being kept. I do not say so; but by others it was supposed that the time was necessary for distributing certain missives through the post for Ireland and Scotland. My noble Friend then gave a Notice of Motion which was mixed up with the Bill, and six days afterwards the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) came down, at the request of my noble Friend, and put forward a Motion, changed both as to matter and Parliamentary form. There never was a more hasty Motion than that, and it would have placed the official Members of this House in the position of the witness in the legal Joe Miller, who was asked by counsel—"Answer me—yes or no, are you continuing to beat your wife?" You have taken from it the objection in point of Parliamentary form, and you have also taken from it a matter of some importance—namely, the reason given for passing the second reading, that the compensation to which the officers in the Army are entitled might be secured to them. I think your Lordships have a right to know why that statement was inserted in the Resolution first given Notice of, and why it is omitted in the present Resolution. Is the Resolution submitted to us now couched in the strongest language consistent with decorum. If I might venture to give an opinion, I should say that there was seldom a Resolution brought before your Lordships so inaccurate in regard to facts and so ill-worded as the present one. The Motion begins—
  "That this House before assenting to the Second Reading of the Army Regulation Bill desires to express its opinion that the interposition of the Executive during the progress of a measure submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty."
  Now, it may seem a small criticism, but I ask what is meant by the "Executive?" Does my noble Friend mean it to apply to the Head of the State, or the Executive Government. It has been laid down by a literary and Conservative statesman that Executive is an adjective and not a substantive, but that our

  471
  American cousins had made it a substantive and applied it to the Head of the State. I suppose, however, my noble Friend means to allude to the Executive Government. The Motion next speaks of a measure submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty, although I know not why, for the fact is, Her Majesty never does submit measures to Parliament. Then, again, what is the meaning of "interposing?" I have read in poetry of a goddess interposing in favour of some hero whom she wished to aid, and I have heard of a magistrate interposing when he desired to prevent a duel. I am also aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker of the House of Commons interposes most usefully to prevent a disorderly debate; but how the Executive Government can at any time interpose with the progress of a measure in Parliament, except by dissolution or prorogation, I am at a loss to understand, and still more in the present case, as the progress of the measure was not stopped by our interposition, but by an Amendment, which we consider irregular, if not unconstitutional, and which, at all events, received no support from us. The Motion goes on to say—"in order to attain by the exercise of the Prerogative and without the aid of Parliament the principal object," &c. Now I deny that the course advised by the Government is a mere naked exercise of the Prerogative, or that my noble Friend has given reasons for considering it so, and I confess I am unable to follow my noble Friend's reasoning with respect to the Statute of George III. There is no doubt that the power was inherent in the Prerogative before that Act was passed, but will my noble Friend assert that you do not have a much greater authority when a portion of the Prerogative is defined and embodied in an Act of Parliament, in the passing of which the three branches of the Legislature have concurred? Nothing can be clearer than that the only object of the Act of Parliament was to attach penalties to the sale and purchase of commissions in the Army, though an exception was made from those penalties with respect to any transactions under any Warrant passed or to be passed by the Crown. My noble Friend has denied that the Crown can exercise these rights; but will he, or will any other noble Lord, tell me how it is that the Crown has
  472
  dealt with these rights in more than one instance under an Act of Parliament? I have a list of all the Warrants affecting purchase in the Army which have been issued. The first was issued in 1783, and there were 13 other Warrants issued previous to the time of the passing of the Act of 1809, by which changes of all sorts were made, sometimes purchase being abolished, and sometimes the prices of commissions being changed. But what has occurred since the Act of 1809? In 1821 there was a Royal Warrant, and in 1823 another. The Duke of Wellington, who is no mean authority upon this point, made an arrangement by which to limit the time during which he sanctioned the purchase and sale of commissions in non-purchase regiments, and at the expiration of that time there was to be an end of the permission. Surely that entirely disposes of the objections now raised. But what do I find later on? Eighteen years ago a Royal Warrant was issued, abolishing purchase above the rank of captain and lieutenant colonel in the Foot Guards. If a Royal Warrant could abolish purchase for certain ranks in the Guards, could it not do the same thing in regard to regiments of the Line, and if it could do that, is it impossible for the Crown to go lower down, and abolish purchase in reference to commissions below the rank of captain? There is one case which is still more strong, and which occurred so recently as 1861, when the Order of Her Majesty abolished purchase among the Gentlemen-at-Arms and Yeomen of the Guard. It is true that these persons are old soldiers, who are more required for purposes of pomp than for purposes of defence; but they form a part of the military forces to which the Mutiny Act applies, and their position in regard to purchase is essentially the same as that of any Line regiment of Her Majesty's service. It is hardly necessary for me to refer to what was done by Sir John Pakington, who obtained the sanction of Her Majesty to abolish the rank of cornet and ensign, though that measure was given up by the right hon. Gentleman's successor in consequence of the opposition met with in attempting to carry it out. Indeed, the question whether commissions should or should not be sold has always been left to the discretion of the Crown, and sometimes that permission to sell has not been granted, when it has been

  473
  considered that the circumstances of the case justified the authorities in adopting such a course. Under these circumstances, I am at a loss to see how my noble Friend can make out that the present Royal Warrant puts the slightest restriction on the Prerogative. I ask your Lordships whether my noble Friend has made out a case for provoking or perpetuating a difference with the other House of Parliament. I therefore deny that there is anything wrong in the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, which, I believe, is the only course they could have adopted in justice to the Army and to themselves, in order to settle a great and difficult question. I ventured the other day to advert to the course of policy adopted by the Duke of Wellington at a time when this House had recovered greater weight and authority than it had possessed for many years previously. That policy consisted in avoiding as much as possible any difficulties between this and the other House of Parliament, and resolving only to strike when the blow would fall with great effect. I will now venture, in pursuance of that opinion of the Duke of Wellington, to mention two instances which appear to have special reference to certain questions which your Lordships have now to decide; one of those questions being the second reading of this Bill, and the other being the Vote of Censure which it is now proposed to pass upon the Government. Your Lordships may remember that some years ago a great change took place in the enlistment of soldiers in the Army, and instead of being enlisted for life, they were enlisted for the shorter period of 20 years. The Duke of Wellington was strongly opposed to the contemplated change; but when it was decided upon by the Government of the day, and supported by the opinion of the House of Commons, who passed it, the strongest support was given to it by the noble Duke, both by his speech and by his vote. Is not that some indication of the course he would have been likely to take with regard to this Bill? With regard to the second point, a friend of mine told me that at that time a Petition was placed in his hands against the Government which was then in power. He knew that the same Petition had been handed to the Duke of Wellington, and he went to the noble Duke saying—
  474
  "Here is a strong and damaging case against the Government; if you will present an Address in the House of Lords, I will do the same in the House of Commons." But what was the noble Duke's answer? He said—"What will be the result of such a course? What object is to be gained by marking the difference which exists between the two Houses? I should be certain to carry my Motion in the House of Lords, and you would be perfectly certain to lose yours in the House of Commons. We should gain no practical object by that; but we should do what we had better avoid—mark and point out the difference that exists between the two Houses of Parliament." Under these circumstances, then, I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is not possible that your vote to-night may appear to the public, and to the poorer and uneducated classes, as an opinion deliberately set forward by the majority of this, the more Conservative portion of the Legislature, that there is no great evil in the habitual violation of the law which has been inquired into by a Royal Commission, and officially denounced; that there is no great evil in the authorities, after such an announcement, conniving at such a violation of the law; and that it is the opinion of this House that it is criminal on the part of Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of a power, which I maintain is both legal and constitutional, for putting an end, at the earliest moment, to so great a scandal? Would not such a course, in the language of your own Resolution, go far to "depreciate and neutralize" the Queen's Government, who are responsible for the great and national task of re-organizing the Army, and that at a time when you have no present intention of displacing them from the responsible position which they occupy? My Lords, knowing the very large majority of your Lordships who are against me in opinion, I am obliged to you for the indulgence with which you have treated me while I have made those observations which I thought it was my duty to bring forward in speaking upon this subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that this is a crisis in which we should discuss the matter before us with calmness and deliberation, and that the peculiar circumstances under

  475
  which we vote to-night lift our debates above the ordinary level, requiring from us no small exercise of that judicial faculty which the Constitution has in-trusted to your House. But I do not think that our deliberations will gain in value, or that your vote will be worth much to-night, if many of the speeches from the opposite side follow in the track of that which has been pursued by the noble Earl. It appears to me that in one form or another, the spirit of silence has taken hold of the councils of Her Majesty's Government. In the other House of Parliament we know they have no other means of meeting in debate the attacks of their adversaries than by commanding their followers under the pain of the severest displeasure of their Chief—and we know how severely that displeasure is visited upon recalcitrant followers—to abstain from taking any part in the debates. It would not, perhaps, be safe to pursue the same policy here; but the noble Earl has made the best imitation of it within his power, for he has made a speech in which he has dealt with everything—grammar, time, the Duke of Wellington, and a variety of other interesting topics; but he never approached within half-a-mile of the points which he was invited to discuss. Now, it is not the grammar of my noble Friend's (the Duke of Richmond's) Resolution, or the precise definition of the word "Executive;" it is not even the interests of the officers of the Army, which may suffer during the autumn, in case this question remains unsettled by reason of the Bill miscarrying, which are to be the subjects of your deliberation to-night. You are invited to-night to discuss a high constitutional question; you are asked to decide upon a grave breach of constitutional usage; and that is a consideration which must far transcend in importance the particular question and circumstances out of which the act we complain of originally took its rise. My Lords, I trust that during this debate we shall not go again into the question of purchase. Although the noble Earl has gone into it very largely, I shall not follow his example. We are satisfied that, as far as our power in the existing state of the law lay, we attempted to prevent the abolition of purchase unaccompanied by any restrictions which should prevent the dangers of Parliamentary corruption, and the dangers of
  476
  stagnation which, as it seemed to us, would attend so precipitate a measure. Our opinion has been overruled in a way which, as far as we can see at present, until challenged, is at all events legal; and further than this we do not desire to go. But what we call upon the Government to justify to-night is quite another matter. They brought before us the the abolition of purchase as a question which was subject to Parliamentary jurisdiction; they submitted it to a Parliamentary debate; they asked for a Parliamentary decision; and when that decision went against them they said—"We snap our fingers in your face against your decision, and will decide for ourselves in spite of you." A course like that is not to be justified by referring to the inconveniences which, as I before observed, officers will undergo, if the question of purchase remains unsettled during the autumn. The justification of the Government has hitherto been based entirely upon this ground—that there were now acknowledged, with a formality which had never existed before, corrupt practices in the Army, which it was the duty of the Government to connive at no longer, and that it became the duty of the Government, whether they obtained the authority of Parliament or not, to exercise such power as they possessed, in order to prevent that illegality from continuing. Now, if the conduct of the Government had corresponded at all with that justification, I should not now complain of it. If they had said—"We know of these illegal practices; we cannot assent to their continuance; we will prevent over-regulation prices for the future; and will trust to Parliament to give the fair compensation which may be necessary to be incurred in effecting that object." I do not think they would have failed in respect to the Legislature, or gone beyond their proper sphere of duty. But they did more than that. They said—"A Commission has declared that unless you abolish purchase you cannot prevent over-regulation prices." Now, that was a point for Parliament to decide. It was entirely a question of inference. It might turn out ultimately to be as the Commission declared it would be, and in that case Parliament would, no doubt, have applied a remedy. But it was simply childish to say that over-regulation prices could not be made to cease without cutting up root

  477
  and branch the whole system of purchase. The two things were not necessarily connected. In order, however, to carry out a measure which Government had proposed, and which Parliament had rejected, the Government called up a dormant Royal Prerogative in the middle of the discussion. ["No, no!"] It was a dormant Royal Prerogative, for it had not been acted upon for 150 years, and the calling up of a dormant Royal Prerogative not acted upon for so long a period, is a thing which Parliament must always regard with the greatest jealousy. Owing to the peculiar degree and measure in which the various powers of the Constitution have grown up in this country, our law books are full of Royal Prerogatives which no Sovereign now would ever dream of exercising. If you go on strict precedent alone, it is open to the Executive to decide at any moment matters which are now always left to the Legislature. I believe that if historical instances of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative are to guide us in the present day, even such a matter as the determination of the towns which should be represented in Parliament might perfectly well be settled by a Royal Warrant; and the arguments used by the Government would be very applicable to that case. It would be possible that a Committee should report that bribery existed in certain towns, and that it was impossible to destroy the bribery and put an end to the illegality without taking away the franchise from those towns. A Reform Bill to that effect might be rejected by the House of Lords, and then a Royal Warrant might issue, based upon the practice in the reign of James I. in order to do that which Parliament refused to do. But were that a mere case of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, however much constitutional lawyers might object to it, there would not necessarily be ground for the grave censure which is now demanded. The whole gist of the matter is, that, having presented a Bill to Parliament, they carry out the provisions of that Bill, notwithstanding the rejection by Parliament of the measure itself. What was the Resolution which the Government formed on the subject at the beginning of the Session, when they laid the Bill before Parliament? The noble Earl says they were embarrassed when
  478
  the vote of this House was given against their Bill; but does he mean to say that such was his innocence, and such his ignorance of the state of Conservative opinion in this House, that it never crossed his mind that the Bill might possibly meet an evil fate within these walls?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I thought it very unlikely.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But does the noble Earl, then, only provide for things which he thinks are likely to happen? Does he take no precautions against possible contingencies? The noble Earl and his Colleagues must have known perfectly well that it was possible the Bill might be rejected here. Then, in that case, I want to know what had the Government determined to do? I suppose the ground they take is that, from the first they had determined, if this House did not pass the Bill, to act without us. Yet it is impossible to believe that any responsible statesman would act in such a manner. They must have known and felt that certain courtesies were due from the various bodies of the State to each other. What has been done is a thing you would do to no man in private life. You would never say to a man—"This a matter for you to decide upon; I place it before you for your decision;" and then, when he decided against you, would it be a matter of common courtesy to say—"I shall fall back upon rights which I never mentioned before, and decide without you?" It appears to me a more probable hypothesis that, up to the rejection of the Bill, the Government had formed no resolution on the subject; that, when the Bill was rejected, the Government were actuated by passions which we had hoped never existed in minds so celestial; and that the Government then resolved they would make the House of Lords feel what it was to thwart them, and that they could do without us. [Earl GRANVILLE: Hear, hear!] I can sympathize with the noble Earl who thus cheers me, for he has been the instrument—I have no doubt the most reluctant instrument—of insulting the Order to which he belongs. We know in the Government of which he is a Member what fate awaits the very slightest departure from the one sovereign will. The noble Earl has given us a lecture—and he is rather apt to give us such lectures

  479
  —upon the position of this House under the Constitution, and upon the course he thinks it desirable we should follow. So far as I understood him, he thinks the whole duty of the House of Lords is to obey the House of Commons. The Duke of Wellington, by pursuing that course, raised this House to its present high pitch of authority, and that is the course the noble Earl recommends to us. Now, I freely admit it is the duty of this House to pay earnest attention to the particular party which is in power, and to the particular set of opinions which at the time may be in favour in the country. I admit that the course of the House of Lords should be guided by a due consideration of those facts, however little I may admit that such considerations must predominate. But at the present time less importance than usual should, I think, be attached to the numerical results of the divisions in the House of Commons. During the last three years the course of the predominant party, which we are told, it is the duty of the House of Lords to obey, has been very peculiar. I do not grudge them their large majority. On the contrary, when I first heard that they had such a majority, I was glad there was a party which could take a definite position and put an end to a state of things which, in my opinion, had proved injurious to the standing of public men in this country. But I was not prepared for a phenomenon which has, I think, startled the Liberal party itself. Under ordinary circumstances I should hardly ventured to discuss the Liberal party, but when we are told it is our paramount duty here to obey the behests of that party, I submit we have a right to review the decisions and character of the Sovereign to whom we are expected to bow. Now, the fact which throws some slur upon the great numerical majorities obtained by the Liberal party lies in this—it does not seem to be the average opinion of that party which guides the movements of the House of Commons. The party consists of those who vote with great earnestness for their Leaders, and of those who vote with great earnestness for their opinions; and, when the stress comes, those who vote with particular earnestness for their opinions are apt to carry with them those who chiefly care about their Leaders. Then, there is also a very extreme wing of the Liberal
  480
  party in the House of Commons, and their allegiance has been secured by sacrifices which I suspect are not always satisfactory to the Members of the party who sit at their side; and from that circumstance we have this phenomenon—that the Minister who possesses the confidence of the large majority, who is in possession of the Prerogative of the Crown, appears to be constantly forced to purchase back the fickle and wavering allegiance of his extreme followers by acting in obedience to their views. Thus it is the extreme and not the moderate opinions which give the tone to and guide the party. When such a state of things exists — when the Royal Prerogative is used for the purpose of giving effect to extreme opinions; when it is made an instrument in the hands of an extreme section, when a great and powerful majority is used for the purpose of enforcing the opinions not of moderate but of extreme men in that party, it occurs to me that then the functions of this House rise into peculiar prominence and importance, and it is our duty to reserve for the opinion of the constituencies measures passed by the House of Commons under that pressure. These, however, are matters to which I should not have referred, if the noble Earl had not dwelt upon the duties of this House in a manner which, I think, is hardly complimentary to its independence or its position in the State. After all, if we are only to exercise our authority by always sacrificing our opinions, is it quite worth while to exercise that authority at all? Is it worth while to hold powers merely for the purpose of using them in support of the views of other people, and against our own convictions? Yet that is the philosophy on which we are invited to model ourselves to-night. My Lords, I do not believe that such motives as these will influence your decision. You are called upon to vote upon a great constitutional wrong. You are called upon to defend the independence of Parliament against the misuse by an imperious Minister of the Prerogative of the Crown. You are called upon to stamp with disapprobation an act which has no precedent in English history—an act which, if you did not mark it as it deserves, would stand for ever in derogation and depreciation of the authority of the House to which you belong. I know that the

  481
  popular defence out-of-doors for the act of the Ministry is that any act, however unprecedented and unconstitutional, is venial if done in furtherance and in support of the opinion of the House of Commons. But such views are little in accordance with the preservation of the balance of the Constitution which we hold, and I am sure that on reflection they will be little approved by the people of this country. Do not let it be said that this Vote of Censure is an unpractical proceeding, because it will not be followed by the resignation of the Ministers. This is the record of a solemn opinion which you place before your countrymen for their approval. It is an invitation to them to consider this great constitutional question. It is an invitation for them, who are in the last resort the supreme authority, to determine whether it is or is not right that every branch of the Constitution should observe with self-restraint and with courtesy the limits of each other's powers. Those who are not favourable to our existing institutions, those who are in love with the sweet simplicity of a National Assembly elected by universal suffrage, and changing its Constitution once every 20 years—such persons, I have no doubt, will give their warm approval to an act which has set two branches of the Legislature in conflict at the bidding and under the patronage of the third. But I am sure that the act of the Government will not be approved by those who value the special stability which, among all the nations of Europe, is the privilege of the institutions under which we dwell, and I am sure they will join with you in marking with deserved condemnation an act, which above all others, is a menace to the independence of Parliament and an insult to the acknowledged authority — and the never misused authority—of the House of Lords.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) who has just sat down, began his speech by an observation in which I heartily concur—that the subject we are called upon to discuss to-night is one which should lift this debate out of the ordinary category of party debates in this House; but I must say my noble Friend followed up that observation by a speech which I will venture to call one of the bitterest and narrowest party speeches I have ever heard in this House.
  482
  I will not follow the example of my noble Friend, but will merely say that not only has his speech been eminently unjust to the Government, but it has also been full of direct violations of the Standing Orders of this House. It is against the Standing Orders of this House to impute disgraceful motives to any Member of it; but my noble Friend has not scrupled to ascribe to the Members of the Government motives which he must know, and which he ascribed to us because he did know, would be disgraceful as actuating the conduct of the responsible Advisers of the Crown. Having said so much, I decline to follow my noble Friend into the field of argument which he traversed, or to speculate upon the passions, the prejudices, and the motives which may have influenced the Leaders of the Conservative party in the course which has brought us and this House into the position in which we now stand; I will give my noble Friend and those who act with him credit for motives with which he did not credit us; I believe them to have been actuated by regard for the public interest. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) alluded to a speech of mine the other night, in terms which, under the veil of compliment, conveyed a covert rebuke. I can sincerely say that, if I used any expressions which gave offence to any Member of this House, I am sorry I used them; but in doing so, I must say I retract nothing of the argument. I believe it to have been sound, and no attempt has been made to answer it. But I must claim the indulgence of your Lordships on one point. It is the rule of this House that when Motions are made, we may speak of them in such terms, within Parliamentary limits, as we please to use; but after a vote has been taken it is contrary to the usual rule to speak with equal freedom. I must crave indulgence, then, if I speak of the Motion which is proposed, and of the Motion which has been carried as freely as if the latter were still in debate before us. My position is, that though the action of the Government may possibly be without precedent, our justification is that we were placed in a position entirely unprecedented, and that the vote which the House came to the other night was equally unprecedented. Ever since 1866, when one of the greatest military Monarchies in

  483
  the world was shaken into the dust in a single campaign, and almost in a single battle, there has been a strong and general impression that the military history of the world had entered upon new conditions, and that we ought to look to the re-organization of our forces. That impression was deepened and intensified almost into a degree of panic by the events of the great campaign of last year, when France, which was believed to be the strongest military Monarchy in the world, was completely overthrown in the course of a few months by the forces of the German Empire. From the occurrence of those catastrophes, it was the prevailing opinion of all parties in this country that those circumstances called for our imme-mediate attention, and that the re-organization of our Army was one of the first things which we ought to undertake. What then occurred? The responsible Advisers of the Crown came down to Parliament with a Bill which was described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as a Bill to confer powers and to remove obstructions. The responsible Advisers of the Crown came down to Parliament and said—"We are convinced of the necessity of re-organizing our Army; we find purchase standing in our way at every turn, and we therefore ask both Houses of the Legislature to enable us to abolish it." Now, what was the action of the House of Commons? It was this—They said—"We will enable you to deal with purchase in the manner you desire, and we will give you the money which it will be necessary for you to return to the officers in payment of the over-regulation prices, although those prices have been illegal." The House of Commons further listened to the explanations which were given by the Secretary of State for War, and said, virtually—"We have sufficient confidence in you and in your plans to pass this Bill, and thus give you the powers for which you ask." Moreover, the House of Commons, taking the Constitutional course, admitted that the details of Army organization rested with the responsible Advisers of the Crown, and signified their approval of the general direction in which those Advisers proposed to proceed in carrying out their scheme. They therefore passed the Bill enabling the Government to deal with
  484
  purchase, as well as to refund to the officers the over-regulation prices which they had paid. Well, that having been the action of the House of Commons, what was done by the House of Lords? The House of Lords said—"We refuse to pass the Bill enabling you to deal with over-regulation prices, or enabling you to deal with the question of purchase, until you submit to us for our approval the whole of the details of your scheme of Army re-organization." The noble Duke who began this debate (the Duke of Richmond) referred to the argument which I used on a former occasion as to the unconstitutional character of the vote; but all the subsequent reflection which I have been able to bestow on the subject confirms the impression I then entertained. I feel satisfied that the Motion we were discussing was most unconstitutional, and one which would lead to the most disastrous and injurious results. And let me, in the first place, ask your Lordships to consider what was the character of that Motion. It was a distinct Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. We are, as my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville) has said, in a permanent minority of 50 or 70 votes in this House; and we know that when the Conservative party act as a body they can at any time outvote us. We cannot, therefore, be much surprised that we are sometimes defeated by a vote of this House, and I shall not dwell, therefore, on the circumstance that the vote to which I am referring was one of Want of Confidence in the Government. What is most important is that it was not a Vote of Want of Confidence in this Government only, but in the Queen's Government, who, as the responsible Advisers of the Crown, deemed it to be their duty to proceed in the manner which we proposed. Take the comparative position of the two Houses of Parliament, and you will at once see the importance of this argument. I alluded the other day to the danger of refusing to pass such a Bill as the Army Regulation Bill, until the details which were asked for by the majority were laid before us. Now, the House of Commons is the more powerful House and we should take care lest the bad example set here might be followed in that Assembly. There is, however, this difference between the two Houses—that a vote of this character carried

  485
  by the House of Commons would be immediately fatal to the Ministry; while a Vote of Want of Confidence would not only upset the Government, but would be the means of dissolving the House itself. There exists, therefore, in the action of the House of Commons a practical check which does not exist in the House of Lords. This shows how the various powers in the State are balanced by ancient constitutional principles. Our Constitution is not a written one, but it is one which consists essentially in the exercise of the spirit of moderation and good sense between the different branches of the Legislature. And who was it, I would ask, that first violated that spirit of moderation and good sense? I say it firmly but respectfully, that the violation lies with that branch of the Legislature which declared that it would not proceed to legislate on a subject requiring by universal confession almost immediate action until in an unconstitutional manner the details of Army organization were submitted to it, thus interfering with the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown. If that precedent had been allowed by the Government to be set up, a most dangerous precedent would have been established—a precedent which it would be difficult for the House of Commons to pursue for the reasons which I have stated, but which it would be perfectly easy for your Lordships to follow, because there would not be the same danger of upsetting a Government, so that you might refuse to legislate on any subject until the Advisers of the Crown had laid before you details such as those connected with the organization of our Army. I say, therefore, that your vote was an unconstitutional vote. I will now ask you whether you think it was a reasonable vote? You ought to have further details with respect to Army organization. I would put to you the question—how we were to define selection? I defy any man to define it; while with regard to a scheme of retirement were there not different calculations on that point which rendered it impossible that we could submit to you in reference to it any particular statement with any confidence? I must now complain of the ingenuousness of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) when he tells us that this House did not throw out the Army Regulation Bill, or
  486
  even suspend its progress. Is that, I would ask, a fair way to represent what has really occurred? Has any answer been given on that point to the question which was put by my noble Friend behind me? Was it possible the Government could have come down the night after the Amendment of the noble Duke was carried, and move the second reading of the Bill without any new motive and in the absence of any new circumstances? If we had ventured to do that, I feel sure the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would be the very first to say that we were offering an insult to your Lordships' House. I contend, therefore, that all the pretexts put forward by the noble Duke—["Order, order!"]—I will say all the arguments—or, rather, the pretended arguments—["Order, order!"]—well, as noble Lords opposite are so squeamish with respect to the use of language having the slightest tinge of that which they have not hesitated to employ towards us, I will withdraw even the word "pretended," and will merely observe that all the arguments of the noble Duke with respect to the vote come to by this House the other night are not arguments consistent with the notorious facts of the case, or with his own manly and straightforward character. The Government were placed in this position by the vote—they knew that the Bill was defeated for this Session, unless a new state of circumstances should arise; for it is not fair to represent the vote as anything else than one of virtual rejection of the Bill for this Session. The Government, therefore, found themselves in this position—that every step for the re-organization of the Army, which was interfered with by the existence of purchase, was postponed for another year by the action of the House of Lords, which thus appeared to arrogate to itself the power of directing the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the regulation of the Army. Such being our position—a position, I maintain, entirely without precedent in our Parliamentary history—what was the course which we should take? There were, no doubt, the three traditional courses open to us, and I will just allude to one or two which it is said we ought to have adopted. We might have resigned our offices. My noble Friend opposite (the

  487
  Duke of Richmond) did not suggest that we should have taken that course, but it is, nevertheless, one which we might have pursued. I will, however, venture to say that for a Government to resign, having a large majority in the House of Commons, because of an adverse vote in this House, in which every Liberal Government has to work against a large majority, would be a course too favourable to the authority and influence of this House and one not to be thought of. There is another course which was suggested to us. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) told the House the other night that the abolition of purchase was in the hands of the Crown, and that it was competent to us to abolish it by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and to take a Vote of the House of Commons for the regulation prices. The noble Earl then went on to say that if he were rightly informed, it was equally competent for us to take a Vote in the House of Commons for the over-regulation prices. That was a remarkable statement, and I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to the consequences which would follow from the adoption of the noble Earl's suggestion. It is true that we could abolish purchase by the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, and that we could also take a Vote of the House of Commons without any reference to this House, for the regulation prices. I must, however, confess that the suggestion from a Leader of the Conservative party that we might take a Vote in the House of Commons for over-regulation prices, too, somewhat astonished me. To act upon such a suggestion involved this—that we should make one House of Parliament dispense with the law. It is the law which makes over-regulation prices illegal; and if we had taken a Vote of the House of Commons for over-regulation prices, we should be dispensing with the law, without asking for that dispensation, the sanction of all the branches of the Legislature. That alternative, therefore, being before the Government, was one which we deliberately and advisedly rejected. We were unwilling to dispense with the law without asking the sanction of this House, and in taking that course we showed our respect for the House of Lords in a manner which, perhaps, you little imagine, and which, in some quarters, it was thought we did not entertain.
  488
  There is also another suggestion which was repeated by my noble Friend the noble Marquess to-night. He says we might have allowed the regulation prices to continue, and have put a stop to the over-regulation prices. Now, that sounds a very plausible suggestion; but the course which the noble Marquess recommends would not be either a straightforward or a manly one to pursue. It would, besides, be one eminently unjust to the officers of the Army, and you would rob the officers in appearing to save yourselves. You would have professed to be acting within the strict limits of the law, while you would in reality have been robbing the officers of the whole of their over-regulation prices. Besides that, it would, I believe, be physically impossible to separate regulation from over-regulation prices, for reasons which I gave the other night, and which it is now unnecessary to repeat. But even if we could do so, we should be leaving the officers of the Army in a most unfair position had we followed the advice of the noble Marquess. There was another course open to us, and notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject by noble Lords opposite, that, I fancy, is the course which they think we ought to have taken. They think we ought simply to have accepted our defeat, and to have given up the Bill until next Session. Well, what does the adoption of that course mean? It means that we should allow regulation and over-regulation prices to continue, and that we should, with our eyes open, permit a continued violation of the law; in other words, that the House of Lords should by its sole vote be placed exactly in that dispensing position in which we refused that the House of Commons should be allowed to stand. We, however, declined to make either House the sole dispenser of law; and, on that ground, having fully considered it, we deliberately, and I think rightly, rejected that, the third and last course we could pursue. Well, all those various courses which I have mentioned having been considered and rejected by us, what remained for us to do? It was our duty, we thought, to put an end to a position of embarrassment, illegality, and suspense, and we were not afraid to exercise this Prerogative of the Crown, which, besides being a Prerogative of the Crown, has

  489
  been sanctioned and fortified by a special statute of the Legislature. On the contrary, we deemed it to be our duty to exercise that Prerogative to suspend, and not absolutely altogether to abolish purchase. I say that because, although in the circumstances in which we are now placed, and with the declaration of public opinion on the question of purchase, it is perfectly true that the suspension amounts to a practical abolition of the system, yet legally and technically it is only suspended by Royal Warrant, and is not dealt with precisely as we proposed to deal with it by this Bill, for the suspension of the practice by Royal Warrant only implies that it is suspended during the time that the pleasure of the Crown shall be extended to the Warrant itself. We know, so strong is public opinion against purchase, that, once knocked down, it cannot be restored, and we attain the same object which we proposed to effect by the Bill, although we do it in a different manner. "But," asks the noble Marquess, "Why did you not resort to the exercise of the Prerogative at first in order to abolish purchase?" Well, although we did introduce a clause into the Bill to render purchase illegal, the main object of the Bill was not the abolition of purchase, but to get the sanction of the House of Commons and Parliament for the payment of the over-regulation prices. If it was a matter of over-precaution to insert a clause to abolish purchase, that is the utmost that on that point can be said against the Government. Having obtained the Vote of the House of Commons, and being quite satisfied that, in your Lordships' opinion, if purchase were abolished the officers should be paid the over-regulation prices, I contend it was our duty, under all the circumstances of the case, to take the course which we have adopted. There is another point to which I should like briefly to advert. The noble Marquess, who is very fond of appealing to the esprit de corps of this House, says—"What is the use of introducing a Bill to your Lordships' notice if you are not to vote freely upon it?" The noble Marquess has never, that I am aware, asked such a question with respect to the Appropriation Bill, which we are free to discuss and reject, and his language must be received with some amount of qualification. Now, this Bill is precisely of that
  490
  class of measures to which I am referring. Take the case of the Bill which was introduced as the first of a long series for the purpose of shortening the length of military service in the Army. It was unfavourably criticized by a large majority of military men in this House. It was disapproved, I believe, by the Duke of Wellington; but it was thought to be a measure—the Government having on their own responsibility deemed it desirable to take a certain course—which it would hardly become this House to reject. The same observations apply to another Bill for the shortening of the period of service, against which, although many noble Lords opposite spoke, they never voted against it. We were very much opposed by military men in this House. Almost every noble Lord of military experience was against the Short Service Bill, and the other Bills to which I have referred, and yet they did not give effect to their opposition. I say, therefore, the vote taken the other night was one of an unusual and violent character, and forced the Government to take the course which your Lordships are now invited to condemn. You think that we have done something grievous and injurious to the character of this House. I believe that we have saved this House from a position of difficulty; that we have saved it from invading an important Prerogative of the Crown—a policy which might be pursued to any extent by your Lordships' House, but which could not be pursued by the House of Commons. We believe, in the second place, that we have saved to the country valuable time which would otherwise have been lost in the organization of the Army; and that we have saved the officers from a period of suspense which would be most injurious to them, and not without danger as regards their pecuniary interests. Further, we have saved the constitutional functions of the Executive from invasion by the vote of this House; and we have saved the House also from any share of responsibility for the abolition of purchase, which it declared itself unwilling to condemn. And, lastly, we have saved Parliament from the repetition of scenes which have not been creditable to Parliamentary government, and which could not but involve serious danger. After these substantial objections, it seems hardly worth while to point out that this Resolution

  491
  involves propositions not one of which is true in point of fact. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) has dwelt on the fact that in the Resolution the Executive is spoken of as the Crown, and the Crown as the Executive; I will, therefore, pass over that. But then the House is asked to express its opinion that—
  "The interposition of the Executive during the progress of a measure submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty in order to attain by the exercise of the Prerogative and without the aid of Parliament the principal object included in that measure is calculated to depreciate and neutralize the independent action of the Legislature."
  I say it is not true to speak of the "progress" of the measure. You stopped its progress, and you intended to stop it. Then, it is not true to use these words—
  "In order to attain by the exercise of the Prerogative and without the aid of Parliament the principal object included in that measure."
  It is not by the exercise of the Prerogative alone, but by the exercise of a prerogative appointed by statute. The very fact that we are now pursuing the Bill shows that we do desire the aid of Parliament in a most important matter. And, then, again, it is not "the principal object included in the measure." There is not one of those propositions which are true in point of fact. Lastly, it is said that what we have done "is calculated to depreciate and neutralize the independent action of the Legislature." This is really amusing. Why, legislation would have been stopped by your Vote, and by whose action is it now going on? How can you affirm such a proposition? The second reading is not yet passed; but I understand you intend to show your independence by moving various Amendments in Committee. Therefore, I say, not one of these propositions is true, and if this House desires to pass a Vote of Censure, surely it is not desirable to pass it in terms everyone of which is demonstrably untrue. In its spirit the Resolution is a violent and unjust condemnation of the action we have taken. We believe, on the other hand, that we have deserved the thanks of the House and the country for having delivered the Army from a great difficulty, and this House from a position in which it seemed, however unintentionally, to have attacked the functions which properly belong to the responsible Advisers of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: my Lords, my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Argyll) addressed to me the other night a very strong rebuke for certain terms which I used in my speech; but I must say my noble Friend has to-night hardly acted on the principle which he himself laid down, for from first to last he has given us a series of hard words and hard names as applied to our conduct. I certainly cannot express my assent to the concluding words of the speech of my noble Friend. He has referred to the language used upon this question by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). Even in his absence, it is not my place, on the present occasion, to defend that noble Earl; but I must say that the sense in which my noble Friend's speech was to be understood was very different from that which was placed upon it by my noble Friend opposite. A question which I think to be very pertinent was asked by the noble Duke who moved the Resolution (the Duke of Richmond), as to the sense in which this Royal Warrant has been signed, whether by Royal Prerogative, or by virtue of statutory powers. That seems to me a very vital point, but neither the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary (Earl Granville) nor my noble Friend who has just spoken replied to my noble Friend's challenge in anything like a satisfactory manner.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The Warrant itself was statutory.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The question has been raised over and over again, and my noble Friend has spoken of it sometimes as one thing, and sometimes as another; at one time as a Prerogative, at another as a Prerogative appointed by statute; and he used this remarkable expression—that the Prerogative was fortified by statute. I apprehend that Prerogative as such requires no fortification by statute. My noble Friend stated the various courses open to Her Majesty's Government, and by an exhaustive process arrived at last at the course which they ultimately adopted, and that course he justified. Let me attempt to justify the course pursued by those who are prepared to vote for this Resolution. Those who vote for this Resolution must be justified in a certain sense by the conduct which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. There are no less than four parties who are affected by that conduct

  493
  —this House, the House of Commons, the Crown, and the Government themselves. I venture to say that every one of those four parties is placed more or less in a false position by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. This has been the course pursued as regards this House—we have had presented to us by Her Majesty's Government somewhat, late in this Session, a Bill, which the majority of your Lordships thought quite inexpedient to adopt in the form in which it was laid before us by the Government, and we declined to read it a second time until, at all events, a scheme of re-organization was laid before us. That was clearly and unquestionably the right of this House. But at that stage Her Majesty's Government had recourse to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and by that Prerogative did that which this House had declined to do until certain schemes of re-organization had been laid before it. We have heard this evening of speeches of a very remarkable kind delivered on Saturday, speeches in which most extravagant denunciations were made by Ministers of the conduct of a minority in "another place," and what is less extraordinary, a wholesale and glowing eulogy passed upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in all matters. We have also been accused in this House of a wish to produce some collision between the two Houses of Parliament, and were admonished to discharge our functions with prudence and wisdom, so as to obviate any such contretemps occurring. I can only say, for my own part, looking back to the history of the last few years, that it does seem to me that it has been only by the most extreme prudence, forbearance, and caution on the part of this House and its Leaders, that we have been saved from collision with the other House of Parliament. I am at a loss myself to understand how the reckless or insane wish to bring this House into collision with the other House of Parliament can reasonably be laid to our charge. I say, therefore, so far as this House is concerned, we have a right to complain, and it is our bounden duty to condemn in temperate language, as I conceive we do, the course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. But if this is our position, what is the position of the House of Commons? They have quite as much reason to complain—and I must say the
  494
  right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems disposed to admit it in its fullest significance—of time wasted, of Bills withdrawn, Bills of the highest public importance—far more important in a social and public point of view than the Bills which have been pressed forward. The House of Commons have to complain of the utter waste of the whole Session; for all that they can congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having done, is having passed one Bill for the coercion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and another for the regulation of dogs. It is true that the Radical party in the House of Commons gain a temporary triumph; but it is at the expense of their own past principles; for it is perfectly evident, even by the admission of my noble Friend, that purchase has been abolished by an exercise of the Prerogative, and what the Royal Prerogative has destroyed the Royal Prerogative can set up again. There is, however, another party in the House of Commons, besides the Radical section, for whom I should have thought Her Majesty's Government would have had greater consideration; there is the moderate Liberal party sitting on the same side, to whose opinion, when expressed, no Government can afford to be insensible, and who, if their speeches be good for anything, disprove the strain put on the Constitution, because they know the danger which violent constitutional wrenches produce, and who are hardly likely to regard the course which the Government has pursued with satisfaction. They must know very well that if this use of the Prerogative can be made to over-ride the decision of this House, it may one day be made to over-ride the decision of the House of Commons. Thirdly, in what position have they placed the Crown? The position of the Crown appears eminently unsatisfactory. If there is any one power in the Constitution which all Ministers for years past have agreed to withhold from public gaze it undoubtedly has been the power of the Prerogative of the Crown. They have considered it not merely as a matter of political prudence to do so, but also as a matter of duty to the holder of the Crown. Her Majesty's Government have been the first to depart from that wise reserve; they have brought the Crown into the most direct antagonism with this House,

  495
  and possibly exposed it to much unpopularity abroad. A question has been repeatedly asked this evening, to which no real answer has been given—namely, whether or not Her Majesty's Government, in the early stages of this Army Bill, contemplated the course of action now adopted, in the alternative of employing the Royal Warrant? If they did, then they ought to have used the Prerogative without coming to Parliament at all. But if they did not, then by the course they adopted they sought to bring penal retribution on this House, and that is not the act of a wise, prudent, and cautious statesman, but rather of a political gambler. Lastly, what is the position of the Government itself? I say nothing of the transparent inconsistency of beginning with Parliamentary procedure, and ultimately—I will not say of the apparent vindictiveness towards this House, because I am willing to accept the disclaimer of noble Lords opposite, but of the violence done to the Constitution, which, I presume, but few Constitutional lawyers will deny, but, on the contrary, will be ready to admit that nothing equal to it has occurred since the days of the Long Parliament. But the course of the Government implies a total forgetfulness of their duty as a Government. In this country a Government is not merely a collection of Gentlemen professing certain political and party opinions, and holding office simply or chiefly to promote those opinions, or to push the interests of their party. Those who hold high office in this country are the servants of the Crown, and it is their bounden duty, in another sense, to hold the balance between the different parts of the Constitution, and to sanction nothing that would jeopardize or imperil its existence. We are not used to see our Ministers carry a lighted candle into a powder magazine, or dig up the foundations of the Constitution in order to ascertain their strength. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary appealed to-night, as he did on a former night, to the conduct of the Duke of Wellington in leading this House. I would appeal to the conduct of one under whom the noble Earl served, one who lived in later times, a Liberal Minister, who exercised great power both in Parliament and the country with the most cautious reserve and abstention, and who was most jealous as regards all the
  496
  component parts of the Constitution. I might refer the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government to the conduct which Lord Palmerston pursued not on one occasion only, but on three or four occasions not dissimilar to the present. Lord Palmerston's wise and cautious policy saved us from a great crisis more than once, and from violent dislocation of the various parts of the Constitution, which we believe to be necessary, and which you say are valuable. I quite admit that an hereditary Chamber must discharge the duties which devolve upon it with great care. There are some public questions on which the country decides and the House of Commons, as the organ of the country, expresses and represents that decision. But these questions are few. On the other hand, there are questions upon which the country has no opinion at all, and upon which the House of Commons cannot possibly express the views of the country. On the first class of questions, I cheerfully admit that it is the duty of this House to bow to the decision of the country when it has been once spoken. But with regard to the larger class of questions, I say that this House is entitled, and that it is its duty, to claim the right of suspension of certain Bills and of the revision of others. I venture to say we have done no more than this. If you deny us that power, then I say the functions of this House will become worthless; then our existence here is a mere mockery. Our existence, if we have any existence at all, is a mere suspended animation, and as such it is an existence which neither this House nor any House worthy of the name could for one moment endure. Now, the Radical section of the House of Commons is so far consistent, that whenever there is a disagreement between the two Houses, it calls for our extinction. That is mere rhodomontade, no doubt, but it is at least consistent with their principles. They admit that they do desire to abolish us; but I appeal to the good sense and justice of the people whether, if this House is to continue, it is to continue in a condition in which it cannot by any possibility exercise its functions usefully to the country, or honourably or creditably to itself as a branch of the Legislature? If we continue to exist, we continue to exist for the good of the country, and for our own credit and

  497
  honour. If we exist for the good of the country, then I say we must have certain legislative powers—less than the powers I have described we cannot possibly have—and if we have those powers, then I say in fairness, in justice, in right to the country, we are bound to exercise them. And if we exist for our own credit and honour, then we must claim free speech and free vote, and a right to exercise our duties without fear and without favour. The noble Earl taxes us with passing a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. I regret, for my own part, that the Resolution should be forced to take the form of censure. That is inevitable in the nature of things. We ask this House to censure the course that has been pursued not for the sake of passing a mere censure on the Government, but in order to vindicate the present action and future independence of this House as a branch of the Legislature which has always been free, and which, if it ceased to be free, would not deserve any longer to exist.
  LORD ROMILLY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in explanation of the vote I mean to give on this question, for from the position I hold, it becomes a part of my duty not to give the vote I intend to give without expressing my reasons for giving it. I wish, in the first place, your Lordships to consider what you are called upon to deal with. Her Majesty, through her Ministers, suggested a certain measure to both Houses of Parliament, which she thought it desirable to be carried. Now, what has been the course of it, since the beginning of the Session? That measure, the Army Bill, as we all know, passed the other House after protracted debates, and when it reached this House your Lordships resolved that it ought not to be passed until certain conditions had been complied with. Thereupon, Her Majesty immediately passes it without your consent. Of course, when I say "Her Majesty," it is with a full regard to the constitutional doctrine, that whatever the Monarch does is done on the advice of the responsible Advisers of the Crown. It is very important, in considering the subject, to observe the peculiar course adopted by the Government in introducing this subject to Parliament. I never knew a case in which the Crown interfered personally for the purpose of influencing the debates or
  498
  the decisions of Parliament; but here the Queen is put into actual personal collision with this House, and it was that which creates the great distinction in this case. She does not stand as the arbiter of a conflict of opinion between the two Houses; but the Queen interferes personally, and says to us—"You have said that the Bill shall not be passed—but it shall be passed." Now, I say that that is a position in which the Crown ought not to be placed, for it inevitably does great harm. A great number of people in the country believe that the acts of the Crown are really the personal acts of the Sovereign, and they will imagine that the Queen and the House of Lords are personally at issue. Such a course as that which has been adopted is wholly without a precedent since the Bill of Rights. I have looked as far as my occupation would allow, and I have not found a single instance in which the Crown has ever interfered to over-ride the decision of Parliament in a similar way to the present. When I was in the House of Commons it was a common observation that you must not mention the name of the Crown for the purpose of influencing anyone; and yet in the present case the Crown is brought in personally to interfere with the functions of this House. Another noble Lord on this side called "No, no!" to-night when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) said that a "dormant" Prerogative had been revived, but can it be denied that the exercise of this Prerogative was dormant—in fact, that in this form it had never been exercised before? The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) referred to a great number of instances in which regulations had been made for disposing of certain places in the Army and the like; but I beg to assert they had no resemblance whatever to this case. Is there one of those cases where that particular case had previously been brought before Parliament who had expressed an opinion adverse to the exercise of the Prerogative? if not, no one is a precedent for the present proceeding. In all those cases the regulation was made by law. The Prerogative of the Crown was illegal if it affected the private interests of any persons whatever. No one could say that a Royal dispensation could diminish the property or private right of the

  499
  subject, and accordingly, in the worst of times, it was always laid down that when the Crown exercised its Prerogative to the detriment of the rights of any private subject, such exercise was illegal. Therefore, in all those cases to which the noble Earl referred, certainly nobody was injured; if any persons were injured, they had their redress in the Courts of Justice of the country. But what is the effect of the present exercise of the Prerogative? We must consider it in itself, and without regard to the future action of Parliament, because no one is entitled to defend an improper exercise of the Prerogative, on the ground that it was to be expected that Parliament would interfere to remedy the injustice to individuals that might be the consequence of the act of the Crown. How does the matter stand? An Act passed in 1809, by which the sale and purchase of commissions was excepted from the operation of the Sale of Offices Act, and on the strength of that exception, and of other regulations issued by the Crown, a number of persons have invested money in commissions in the Army; and now at a stroke of the pen, by the signing of a single Warrant, their commissions have been rendered worthless, thereby depriving everyone of those persons who under the sanction of an Act of Parliament and of Army regulations had paid hundreds, and in some instances thousands of pounds for their offices, of their pecuniary interests in those offices, and even making them liable to pay a penalty: and this merely on the belief that Parliament will think fit to decide whether, and to what extent, it will compensate those persons. As I before observed, I have looked for precedents for this case, but I have not been able to find one. There are plenty of precedents, no doubt, of the Crown exercising its Prerogative domestically among the servants of the Crown and the like, but none where the Crown interferes with a large class of persons, subject to the administration of Parliament. Can that be a just ex-exercise of the Prerogative? And if we admit the principle, will it not easily extend itself to other cases? For instance, I remember the Reform Bill of 1830; and when it was rejected by the House of Commons there were not a few persons who said—"Well, let the Crown send a writ to Manchester, to Birmingham,
  500
  and other large towns to elect Members of Parliament." This had been done in scores of cases in the earlier period of our history. But that was not considered either a just or, in the proper sense of the word, a constitutional proceeding, and it was not adopted. But why? Because the matter had been submitted to Parliament, and the matter could not constitutionally be taken at their hands. Again, observe another consequence of the issue of this Royal Warrant. It is either to be acted on, or not to be acted on. If it is to be acted on, then the purchase clauses of the Army Bill are wholly superfluous, and this result will follow—that the next Prime Minister may consider purchase to be a very good thing, and he may restore it; and you are thus leading to a possible state of uncertainty infinitely greater than any that would have resulted from the action of your Lordships' House. But if it is intended to act upon the Royal Warrant, I can only say that it is the most violent method of making your Lordships eat your own words that can well be conceived. Why did not the Government call upon the House of Commons for an Address to the Queen, asking Her to issue a Warrant putting an end to purchase? That would have been perfectly legitimate, and no doubt the Queen might then have acted as an arbiter between the two Houses. I cannot but suspect the reason to have been that they were apprehensive that the House of Commons would not assent to that course, with such a majority as they would think sufficient to justify such a proceeding. If that course had been taken, however, the difficulty between the two Houses would have been no greater than it was made when your Lordships threw out the Bill—for I admit that the vote of the second reading was intended to defeat the Bill. In these matters the Crown never interferes where there is no opposition, except at the instance of one or the other House of Parliament; and, therefore, hitherto I have considered the question as if the Warrant were perfectly legal. But is it legal? I entertain very considerable doubts about it, though I will not give a confident opinion, as I have been too much occupied to look into the question to the full extent I could desire. But the Prerogative is either sanctioned by the Bill

  501
  of Rights, or it is independent of it. The Bill of Rights says that no dispensation shall be valid, unless it is done by an Act of Parliament authorized by the Act itself. Is this Warrant issued by the authority of the Act of Parliament of 1809? Certainly not. The words of the clause in question, by which commissions in the Army are excepted from the operation of this Act, are these—
  "Provided always, that it shall not extend to any purchases, sale, or exchange, of any commissions in His Majesty's forces, for such prices as may be regulated by any regulation made or to be made by His Majesty in that behalf."
  That is the whole of it. Where do you see in that power to put an end to the regulation price; although it is true that under that Act purchase might have been got rid of by a subterfuge, to which, however, no Court of Justice would for one moment have listened to—namely, by reducing the regulation prices to 6d. or 1s.? But to say that a power given by Parliament to any one to regulate prices gives that person a right to abolish or prohibit the thing for which the price was to be given, is contrary to common sense and a violation of any rule of construction. The Warrant, therefore, cannot be supported by the Act of 1809, or by any Act authorized by the Bill of Rights. Then, can it be supported by the Prerogative of the Crown left untouched by the Bill of Rights? That Prerogative, according to all the highest legal authorities, must be exercised in such a manner as not to injure anyone; and, if it do, it is illegal; but the result of this would be a serious injury to a considerable class of persons, unless you put in a clause for their compensation. It is impossible, however, to support the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown upon the faith that Parliament will do something which is to take the sting out of it. If it could be so supported, no exercise of the Royal Prerogative would be illegal. It might be a fit thing for your Lordships to have the opinion of the Judges upon it, and I should like to know whether the opinion of the Solicitor or the Attorney General was taken upon the subject. Your Lordships came to a vote upon the Bill early on Tuesday morning, about 3 o'clock, and the Warrant was signed at Osborne on Thursday afternoon. In my experience of the sort of cases laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, they
  502
  would not have had time to consider the matter in the interval. Well, then, what a precipitate proceeding this is, and what object can there be, except to compel your Lordships to come to a decision which is dissented from by the majority of your Lordships' House. This is not a case of verbal criticisms, as might be supposed from some of the observations which have fallen from Her Majesty's Ministers, but it is a great constitutional question, which has never been raised since 1690. There has been an exercise of the Prerogative of the Queen, not for her own advantage, but at the instigation of her Government; and I believe wholly unconscious of the circumstance that a similar power might be inflicted upon either House of Parliament, as occasion might require; and the question is, whether your Lordships are to stand forward in the breach, and protest against what has been done? I am of opinion that it is your duty to do so, and that you would be shrinking from the due exercise of the constitutional functions vested in you unless you did so. I will not detain your Lordships further; but I think that as I am going against all my Friends in this matter, that it would not be becoming in me to support the Motion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) without stating the conclusion at which I had arrived, after careful consideration, of the real constitutional justice of the case.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, he could quite understand that the step taken by the Government in that matter came upon the public by surprise; and that the question was one of considerable importance, looking at the way in which the course taken had been attacked, and the principles which were said to be involved. He could not but think that the language of exaggeration had been employed in describing what had been done—"a great constitutional wrong, an outrage to that House, a constitutional wrench, and an entirely illegal act;" and he thought that the noble and learned Lord who last spoke (Lord Romilly) would find that in the opinion of the Judges in Westminster Hall that proceeding was perfectly legal. Moreover, its legality had not been questioned even by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond). The charge brought against the Government by the Resolution was that "during the progress" of a measure through Parliament

  503
  they had recourse to the authority of the Crown. But was there any progress in connection with the measure at the time? Their Lordships had refused to read Bill a second time until certain things had been done, which could not be done that Session; and therefore the Bill had been substantially rejected. Under those circumstances the Government was justified in regarding the Bill as dead, and in shaping their course on that supposition. But what steps were the Government, acting on the assumption that the measure had been practically set aside for the present Session, bound to take? By the Act of 1809 the sale of commissions on conditions other than those laid down by regulations contained in subsequent Royal Warrants were declared to be illegal, and that statute further enacted that such illegal sales should involve the forfeiture of the commissions, the subjects of such sales; that such commissions being sold by the Crown, half their proceeds, not exceeding £500, should go to the informer; and that all persons aiding and abetting such sales should be liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. As the law now stood, those were the penalties that had been incurred by all officers who had purchased or sold commissions for more than the regulation prices; and it was only surprising that the existing illegal practice should have gone on for so many years without some evil-minded individual calling them to account for the breach of the law which they had committed, perhaps even to the extent of indicting the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Cardwell) himself, for misdemeanour, on account of his unwilling and unavoidable complicity in that nefarious commerce. Not only that, but the fact of the obligation of the War Office to put an end to it being made public, it was obvious that the system could not be allowed to continue. The action of the Government might have been good or bad; but, after all, what else could they do? The Government, therefore, having in view the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Committee which had been appointed to consider this question, had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when a complete stop must be put to these illegal sales, and therefore they had introduced this measure in order to secure to the officers the re-payment of
  504
  the over-regulation as well as the regulation prices, which they had paid under a system for which they were not personally responsible, and also to obtain from them an indemnity for the breach of the law. The measure having been practically rejected by their Lordships, the Government, in order to throw a shield over the officers, exposed as they were to the penalties liable to be imposed upon them by the violation of the provisions of the Act, determined, both in accordance with their duty and and inclination, to put an end to purchase altogether by Royal Warrant. Upon the question whether or not it was legal for the Crown to issue such a Royal Warrant after the matter had been submitted to Parliament, he should not enter, because the legality of the instrument could easily be tested in their Courts of Law. The Government had been taunted with having unnecessarily invoked the Prerogative. Undoubtedly, the word Prerogative had had an ugly sound in former days, when Prerogative had usually been exercised in order to invade the liberties of the people; but in the present instance it must be acknowledged on all hands that, theoretically at least, the Army was constitutionally under the control and management of the Crown; and, in accordance with that doctrine, the Crown had exercised that power freely, and without question. The Prerogative, therefore, which had been exercised in the present case was merely an exercise of the right of control which all were entitled to exercise over their own households. He could scarcely believe his ears when the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had declared the step taken by the Government to be the revival of a dormant Prerogative of the Crown. In 1721, in 1766, in 1773, in 1783, in 1818, in 1851, and in 1861 Royal Warrants had been issued, regulating the conditions under which the sales of commissions in the Army might be effected; and therefore it was absurd to pretend that the right of the Crown to issue such Warrants had become dormant. The only question that remained for consideration was whether the step that the Government had taken in the matter was a politic one, and one that was called for by the peculiar circumstances of the case? During the whole of the debate he had heard no course put forward as being

  505
  preferable to that which had been adopted by the Government. It had certainly been suggested that the Government should have contented themselves for the present with abolishing the over-regulation prices; but so long as purchase was permitted at all, it had been found utterly futile to endeavour to prevent over-regulation prices being paid for commissions, and therefore the Government had felt themselves bound to put an end to the purchase and sale of commissions altogether. Turning to the Resolution now before the House, he regarded it as intending to mean that Her Majesty's Government, after having submitted the subject to the determination of Parliament, had acted improperly in setting aside that determination, and in taking upon themselves to decide the question by means of an exercise of the Royal Prerogative. But it would not have done for the Government to have introduced into Parliament a Bill merely to give compensation and an indemnity to the officers, because then it might have fairly been asked how it was that no complete scheme had been submitted to Parliament dealing with the subject of the abolition of purchase as a whole. The Bill having been practically rejected by their Lordships' House — although doubtless it was capable of being revived—the Government had been forced to deal with the matter in the best way they could. As far as he understood what was going to happen, noble Lords on both sides of the House were about to read the Bill a second time; but it was proposed on the part of noble Lords opposite, to preface their assent to the second reading of the measure with the Resolution now under discussion. And here he must ask what possible benefit could be achieved by passing such a Resolution? Would the character of the House be vindicated by their Lordships agreeing to such an expression of opinion? Of course, if their Lordships felt that the House had been outraged and insulted by the conduct of the Government, he could understand that the passing of such a Vote of Censure might be regarded as a sort of retaliation—a poor sort of retaliation at the best. He ventured, however, to declare that there had been no intention whatever on the part of Her Majesty's Government to outrage or to insult their Lordships' House. The measure in
  506
  question having been practically rejected, the Government had a right to regard it as dead, and to take such steps under those circumstances as they considered to be necessary; and their conduct could in no way be regarded as having the slightest reference to the decision arrived at by their Lordships' House. It was sometimes said that that House was bound to accept all measures that were passed by the House of Commons; but he contended that the independence of the House of Lords was one of the greatest possessions of the country. If ever such a question should arise he would be the last to agree to the proposition that that House existed only for the purpose of registering the decrees of the House of Commons. Better not exist at all than that. And if it could be shown that that Warrant was an attack on their independence, he, for one, would be the very last person to speak a word in its favour. Now, nobody expected that the Motion if carried would have any effect on Her Majesty's Government in the way of changing the Administration, and what then would be the use of passing it? That House only acted in dignity when it acted for some definite and constitutional purpose. Those who thought an affront had been put on that House would doubtless support the Resolution. Those, again, who thought that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government of general affairs had not been satisfactory would support the Resolution. But those who, like himself, felt that the dignity of that House was not involved, and that the Government had adopted the only course open to them in the discharge of their responsibilty to the country and to the Army, the officers of which might be subject to a criminal prosecution, would refuse to assent to a course which, in his opinion, was in every way ill-advised.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, when I entered this House a few hours ago I had no intention of taking any part in this discussion, but I understand that I have been referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who quoted me as having given encouragement and support to the Government, and as even in some measure having suggested the course which the Government have now adopted, by way of relieving themselves from the embarrassment created by the

  507
  vote of the other night. I feel it due to myself to say in the most distinct manner—and I am sure I shall be borne out by all who listened to what I then said—that no language of that kind was ever used, or intended to be used, by me. It is true that I warned my noble Friends on this side of the House that there was a possibility that the Government would adopt this course; and that I had been informed that it was legally within their power to do so; but I do not think it requires very much argument to show that between pointing out that a certain course is possible, and encouraging or recommending that course, there is an exceedingly wide difference. To use a homely illustration, suppose that a friend of mine was in the habit of going to bed at night leaving the door of his house unlocked, and that I warned my friend that if he persisted in that carelessness he would be very likely to find some day or another that his house had been robbed, I do not think it could fairly be contended that such a warning on my part was intended, or could operate as an encouragement to robbery. If, in the first instance, the Government had held the language that this question of purchase, being one concerning the discipline and organization of the Army, lay within the scope of the Royal Prerogative, and that, upon that ground, they did not intend to ask for a Parliamentary decision upon it; but that they intended to abolish it on their own responsibility as Ministers of the Crown, in preference to laying their proposal before both Houses of Parliament, and awaiting a discussion upon the subject—I say, that if they had in the first instance taken that course, whatever may be said of the legality or constitutional character of that course, that is a matter on which I should have desired the opinion of higher authorities than myself; but I could not have denied that that was a course of action perfectly logical, quite consistent, and which would very probably prove to be legal. What we have to complain of is, not that this matter has been dealt with by the power of the Executive, but that it has first been put nominally and ostensibly under our control and under the control of the other House of Parliament, and then suddenly and unexpectedly it has been withdrawn from us. I think that both we and the other House of Parliament
  508
  have a right to complain that both they and we have been allowed for weeks and months together to discuss this subject, with the full understanding, and in the belief on both sides, that it was a subject on which the decision of Parliament would be taken and abided by; and that the Government have allowed both the other branch of the Legislature and ourselves to discuss the matter upon these terms, they knowing all the time that these discussions would go for nothing, and that they had the final decision in their own hands. That is a course of proceeding for which there is, as far as I am aware, no precedent in our political life. There is only one thing to which I can liken it. It is very much as if a solicitor who had been employed in the affairs of some person lately deceased were to allow two parties to go to law upon the merits of a certain will made by that deceased person, the solicitor having all the while in his custody a will of a later date by which to supersede it. The plea that is put forward for this certainly unusual course is—"Oh! think of the poor officers! Think of their suspense, and of the inconvenience to them, and of the danger lest they should lose compensation for the over-regulation prices!" I have never doubted or denied that if the matter dragged on through the whole of the present Parliament, if you went to a General Election under these circumstances, there might be a very fair question whether the over-regulation prices would not be imperilled, and for this reason—that the electors not having been consulted on the subject would not be held to be in any way bound by any vote that had been given by a former Parliament, or by any Parliamentary arrangement which had been made between Ministers and other Members of the House. It would be a fair argument to say that in the event of a General Election the over-regulation prices would be endangered, but to carry it further and to say—"We do not venture to hang up this matter for six months; we do not venture to come forward with a new Bill next year, because we have no security that the same Members of the same Parliament, who deliberately after weeks and months of discussion voted compensation for over-regulation prices, considering that compensation to be just, would do so again"—to say that those

  509
  same men, Members of the same Parliament, would in the beginning of next year refuse a grant which they had voted eight or nine months before, would be to hold language which would be a severer censure and a sharper sarcasm on Parliamentary government than any I have ever heard. I sat for many years in the House of Commons, and I confess that I formed of that body a somewhat higher opinion than appears to be entertained by those who command a majority in it at the present time. [Earl GRANVILLE: No, no!] If, as I understand, the noble Earl opposite repudiates that ground, then I should like to know what other ground they have for acting in this singularly precipitate manner? If, as I now understand him to contend, there would no difficulty in obtaining the same terms next Session, then I say the Government have cut from under their feet the only plea, the only ground to which I can attach the slightest efficacy. I wish to put upon the act of the Government the best construction it will bear, and therefore I will not say that there was in the minds of the Government or in the minds of those who support them an idea of entrapping this House into a vote which, whether right or wrong, was sure to be unpopular out-of-doors, and would become ridiculous if the subsequent act of the Government rendered it nugatory. But I think, if necessary, I could find some justification for that view of their course in the language used by a Member of the Cabinet, for I noticed an ominous and significant remark that fell from a Member of the Government not long ago when speaking of another measure, and one of great constitutional importance, as to which there was "elsewhere" a question whether it should come up to us or not. That Member of the Cabinet said it was essential that the measure should be sent up to the House of Lords. Why? In order that it might be passed this year? No; but in order that on the House of Lords might be thrown the responsibility of its rejection. We now know, assuming the course of the Government to be legally and constitutionally right, that the decision of this House need not have been asked for in this question of purchase at all; but we were induced to vote upon it and to give a vote which to the great mass of the people would be in some degree unpopular;
  510
  while another Bill is also to be sent up to us not in order that we may pass it, but in order that we may incur the unpopularity of rejecting it. If it were the case that anyone was leading an agitation against this House, and if for that purpose it was with him an object to weaken the moral influence and authority of this House, I say he could have taken no course more adroitly calculated to achieve that object than that which the Government have taken. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) says—"The action of the Government may have been good or bad; but, after all, what else could they have done?" If the Government chose by their mismanagement of affairs to put themselves in an utterly false position, are we responsible for that? If an undoubtedly embarrassing situation must result from their failure to obtain the support of this House to their measure, was that an event which it was entirely beyond their power to foresee? Was it not easy to make provision for it? There is no escape from the alternative. If they foresaw a difficulty they were bound not to put the Legislature and the country into that difficulty. If they did not foresee it that is another illustration of what we have often heard—that as "much mischief may be produced by well-intentioned blundering as by deliberate and designed wrongdoing." I think this step is bad as a constitutional proceeding, but that it is still worse as a precedent. Regretting, for my own part, that the Government should have adopted this course, and thereby have endangered what I consider to be a good cause, I do most heartily join in the Vote of Censure which we are asked to pass upon them. The noble and learned Lord appeals to our sense of practical utility, and, he says—"Whether the Government are right or wrong, what benefit will this Resolution effect?" I say the benefit will be this, it may not—it will not—produce a political change; it will not undo what has been done; but, at least, we shall have put on record our opinion that power does not constitute right, that astuteness is not statesmanship, and that sharp practice does not pay in the long run.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that when that debate opened, their Lordships were told that they should rather look to the interests of the public; but

  511
  he feared they had fallen away from their first excellent intentions, and had now got into a complicated position, for from Army purchase and over-regulation they had roamed as far as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The noble and learned (Lord Romilly) had recommended them to call in the aid of the Judges; but he (the Duke of Somerset) thought that the public themselves would require to be the judges on the subject under discussion. Under the circumstances in which they were placed, what did the Government intend to do? If the Government had proposed to refer this question to public meetings during the autumn, he confessed that he thought they would have been liable to censure, for the merits of the question were too difficult and complicated for discussion at public meetings. Then, what course was to be taken? As many of the arguments in favour of purchase went to the maintenance of that system on principle, he saw no chance of amending the system, except by such a course as that taken by the Government; though he thought a little more time might have been allowed to pass after the vote come to by that House. He could not agree in the statement that the exercise of that power by the Crown was illegal, when there existed so many precedents of Royal Warrants regulating and, in some cases, abolishing purchase, and on that ground, he should vote in favour of the Government, though he could not have done so had the Resolution before the House been strictly correct. The Resolution spoke of "the interposition of the Executive during the progress of a measure;" but the fact was that that measure was practically put an end to by the vote to which their Lordships came. It has been candidly admitted that such was the object for which many votes at least had been given. Considering that the Cabinet and the majority of the House of Commons were in favour of abolishing purchase, he could see no other course for the Government to pursue than that which they had taken.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he voted for the second reading of the Army Regulation Bill, partly on the ground that he thought it desirable the Government should be free to proceed with the amendment of the military system, to which amendment they said purchase
  512
  was an obstacle, and also because he thought that purchase itself could not be defended; and if he felt satisfied with that vote, he must say that he should be equally satisfied with the very different vote he was now going to give, because he could not approve the Government interposing in respect to a matter before Parliament. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, having before the commencement of the Session decided to proceed in this matter by Parliamentary methods, had thereby limited himself to that course of action; and that the right hon. Gentleman should overrule an unsatisfactory vote by drawing a rusty Sword of State in the shape of a Royal Prerogative to cut through a difficulty was a step which could not be approved by any temperate observer of the forms in which Government should be conducted. Ministers might describe their action as the abatement of an illegality by a legal measure; but to others it must look like an unusual and arbitrary exercise of power, and as such it deserved what it would shortly receive—the just, censure of that House. It was a grave question whether such a power ought to rest in the hands of any Government; and having regard to the hand in which it now rested, it would probably be the duty of their Lordships to consider the question very soon. Though he voted on a previous occasion for the second reading of the Bill, he must now decline any further connection with such unsafe counsellors.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if your Lordships had rejected the measure proposed to you without consideration, you would have been very much to blame; but that by no means being the case, I think Her Majesty's Government culpable for interposing in the discussion, and putting an end to the matter by an absolute exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown. As Peers of the Realm, we may be allowed to take as great an interest in the honour of the Army and the integrity of the kingdom as any of Her Majesty's Ministers or any Member of the House of Commons; and if that is so, then the question arises, supposing your Lordships to agree in the proposal contained in the Bill, what system of military organization should we put in place of that proposed to be done away with? It is well known that

  513
  purchase in the Army has existed for a very long time, and the Act of 1809 was an Act confirming, by way of exception, the practice of the sale and purchase of commissions. I am, however, persuaded that it is expedient to abolish purchase because I think it wrong to let a young man entering the Army understand that his success in his profession must consist in having plenty of money to buy promotion. If, in proposing the abolition of purchase, the Government have neither provided a system of voluntary retirement nor put forward any other plan which would have ensured a proper flow of promotion, the result must be that you will have officers at the head of your regiments who are disabled by age and infirmity from commanding them properly. It was permissible, therefore, for the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) and the House of Lords to ask what system would be substituted for that which was to be abolished. I believe the noble Duke made those inquiries not with a view merely to impede the progress of the Bill, but to obtain a good settlement of this question. "What," he asked, "is your plan for the retirement of officers? What is your plan for the amalgamation of the Army with the Militia and the Reserves? What are the other changes you propose with a view to give you an effective Army? After we know what you propose we will consider your Bill." We know both how desirable and how advisable it is to secure a good system; and I believe that if the Government had been really in earnest and had had a good plan, the House would have taken it into immediate consideration. If after the Bill had been passed by the House of Commons the Government had no plan whatever for rendering the Army efficient, then they were to blame for not having a plan. If they had such a plan then they were still more to blame, because it it is clear that if they had made up their minds they had nothing to do but draw up a clear memorandum, which, if placed before this House, would have been properly considered, and, if it disclosed a good plan, would have been supported by a majority. I must say, however, that I hardly expected the Government to adopt such a course, because they seem throughout to have had quite as strong an opinion as that of the
  514
  Pope in their own infallibility, while those who differed from them were threatened with excommunication. As to the exercise of the Prerogative, it goes against the clear will of Parliament as set forth in the Act of 1809. No doubt you may say that, as purchase can only be made by the Queen's Regulations, you put an end to purchase if you abolish all the regulations. But that is not performing your duty in the way intended by Parliament; and you might as well say that if the Committee of Council proposed no further grants of money for the support of the State-aided schools, those schools should be put an end to. If you say that Ministers may act in such a case without an Act of Parliament, you give to the Prerogative of the Crown an arbitrary exercise which has never been seen since the reign of Elizabeth, and which would not have been attempted by George III. or William IV. If that be so, the responsibility of the Ministry is very serious. Such a use of the Royal Prerogative is one which no Minister is justified in advising, and that being so, I think this House is perfectly justified in giving its opinion that it is an undue exercise of the Prerogative, and ought to be strongly condemned. I shall vote, therefore, for the Motion of the noble Duke. Though this may not be a great emergency, it is a serious one, and the conduct of the Government may lead to mischief which, if not arrested in time, may be of the gravest importance to the country. I see that the newspapers which favour the stop taken by the Government taunt the House of Lords with being totally insignificant in themselves, and with having pursued a selfish course in regard to purchase. The Government, of course, do not share this opinion, but their conduct rather reminds one of Sheridan's lines—
  "Whose spur insidiously applied
  Provokes the caper it affects to chide."
  Certainly that seems to be the effect of the Royal Warrant. In conclusion, in protesting against any such step as that proposed, let me quote lines which have been quoted before with reference to those who wish to destroy the House of Lords, and put an end to a Constitution which has given as much freedom and happiness as I believe any Constitution or any Government have conferred, or any people upon earth have enjoyed—

  515
  "Fond, impious man, thinkest thou that sanguine cloud
  Thy hand has raised can quench the orb of day?
  To-morrow he renews his golden flood,
  And warms the nations with redoubled ray."
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, he wished to say only a few words. He was glad to have the authority of the noble Earl who had last spoken (Earl Russell) in favour of the abolition of purchase, but questioned the construction he had put upon the Act of 1809. The object of that Act was to prohibit the sale of offices, and to limit and control the purchase or sale of commissions, and visit with condign punishment all who dealt with commissions in any other way than that fixed by the regulations from the Crown. If that construction were correct, the position of the Government was different from that described by the noble Earl. It had been proved that the regulation prices were inseparably linked with the over-regulation prices, and as the latter involved the improper practices which it was the object of the Act of 1809 to restrain, it followed that the exercise of the power of the Crown for the purpose of withdrawing the regulations which alone made the purchase and sale of commissions legal was in complete accordance with the spirit of that Act. With the exception of the noble Earl, and some others, the whole opposition to the Government Bill had come from the supporters of the system of purchase; the Motion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) which had been already passed, was based upon the maintenance of the same system, and there was no attempt to propose any alternative plan. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who to-night had answered arguments which were never used by the Government, had on a previous night, in a remarkable speech, said that purchase might be abolished independently of Parliament; that the system was doomed, and that he did not see what was to be gained by delay. And according to the noble Earl, purchase having been abolished by the exercise of the power of the Crown, a Vote might have been taken in the House of Commons for the payment of over-regulation prices. To-night, however, the noble Earl gave their Lordships to understand that the suggestion which he had made in his speech on the second reading was
  516
  one that could not possibly be carried into practical action.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: What I said was that there was high authority in favour of the course of which the noble Lord (Lord Northbrook) speaks as being a legal course; but I did not say a word as to its being a course which in my opinion it would be right or wise to adopt.
  LORD NORTHBROOK: The noble Earl seemed to admit the course would be a legal course, and he (Lord Northbrook) saw no reason, therefore, why he should be at all surprised that it should be adopted. Be that as it might, the noble Earl had stated that, if the course taken by the Government in abolishing purchase had been taken some time back, his objections would probably not have been so great as those which he had that evening expressed. But he entirely forgot that both the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the Secretary of State for War had held the most unmistakable language on the subject in the House of Commons. They said the abolition of purchase must, in the opinion of the Government, be carried into effect without delay, and that an Act of Parliament was necessary for the purpose, only in order that full and liberal justice might be done to the officers of the Army. He (Lord Northbrook) had made the same statement on moving the second reading of the Army Regulation Bill. When, therefore, noble Lords opposite spoke of the course which the Government had adopted as a surprise, he (Lord Northbrook) had a right to maintain, on the contrary, that the objection which they took to it was a novel objection which had never been raised during the discussions in the other House of Parliament, or during the three long nights of debate in their Lordships' House. He must add that the Government had received that evening very few suggestions as to the course which they should have pursued. One of those few, however, was made by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) who appeared to be more strongly impressed than many of those around him with the difficulties which stood in the way of continuing purchase after the strong expression of opinion contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, with respect to the existence

  517
  and effect of over-regulation prices. The noble Marquess said he would, not complain if the Government had taken steps to put a stop to over-regulation prices, and that the course he would have advised was that the Government should accept the rejection of the Bill and then proceed to take measures to do away with those prices.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Compensation being given to the officers.
  LORD NORTHBROOK: But how would the noble Marquess have compensated the officers? By a Vote of the House of Commons?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
  LORD NORTHBROOK: If they had taken that course they would have placed the House of Commons in the position of awarding compensation for practices which were illegal by statute, and that entirely without the sanction of the House of Lords. But how would the noble Marquess reconcile that course with that dignity which properly belonged to their Lordships' House, and of which he was so strenuous an upholder? To him (Lord Northbrook) it appeared that to render practices legal by the mere vote of the House of Commons which were by statute illegal would be to inflict a grave insult on the House of Lords. And how, he should like to know, did the noble Marquess propose to carry out his suggestion that over-regulation prices should be prevented? Was it to be a sham or reality? If it was to be merely a brutum fulmen, no Government ought, he maintained, to act in a manner which would be so unworthy of its position; while, if it were to be a reality, it could be secured only by changing the whole system of promotion in the Army, and sweeping away that regimental system of which noble Lords opposite were such strenuous supporters. It was impossible, as anyone who had looked carefully into the question must admit, to abolish over-regulation prices without abolishing regulation prices also, and in the Report of the Royal Commission it was distinctly stated that they must fall together; while, in addition, the experience of two centuries pointed in the same direction. The result of the suggestion of the noble Marquess would be that the dignity of the House of Lords would be supported at the expense of the officers of the Army; for the officers would be unable to get that
  518
  compensation for their equitable claims which had been recognized by both Houses of Parliament, and which he was sure were recognized also by the good sense and good feeling of the whole country. The plan of the noble Marquess was the only alternative plan which he had heard recommended in the course of the discussion, and he should not dwell further upon it, nor endeavour to enforce the arguments which had been so ably urged by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in support of the policy of the Government. He would simply add that while he did not share the high responsibility of the Members of the Cabinet in reference to the question, he would accept his own share of any censure which their Lordships might think it right to pass on the Government with the conviction that they had taken the only course which they could possibly take with a due regard to the public interest, to the equitable claims of the officers of the Army, and to the necessity of putting an end to a notorious violation of the law.
  LORD CAIRNS: While the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Northbrook) is endeavouring to ascertain with accuracy the proper description of the feelings with which he will accept the censure of this House, I will venture to call the attention of your Lordships to some important admissions which have been made in the course of this debate. The noble Duke the Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll) has informed us that on this question the conduct of the Government is absolutely without precedent. That is a serious statement, coming from one of Her Majesty's Ministers. When at this advanced period of our history the conduct of the Government in an important act of government is found to be absolutely without precedent, it certainly seems to me that it behoves your Lordships critically and narrowly to examine the grounds for the justification of that conduct. But I must, at the outset, point out another circumstance, in respect to which the position of the Government appears to me to be also without precedent. The Motion which has now been submitted to your Lordships has been properly described as a Vote of Censure on the Government. That Motion has been resisted by various Members of the Ministry, but resisted by

  519
  only two Members of your Lordships' House who do not hold place in the Government. One of those noble Lords is my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Penzance); and what did he say? Borrowing a phrase which I am told is not uncommon in his Court, he spoke of the "impropriety of the conduct of the Government," adding that he was fully alive to the weight of the arguments which had been adduced as to that impropriety. Another advocate of the Government was the noble Duke opposite, who was formerly at the head of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset). How did he support them? He thinks the act which we propose to censure might have been better done and with more temper; and that if the Resolution of my noble Friend behind me (the Duke of Richmond) did not happen to contain the words "during the progress of a measure," he would not give his vote in favour of the Government.
  But there was another admission made by the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll), on which I wish to say a word. He told us that the act of the Crown was, indeed, an act of Prerogative, but that it was an act of Prerogative fortified by statute; and my noble and learned Friend who supported the Government (Lord Penzance) stated that he did not object to its being called boldly an act of the Prerogative, if by that it was meant the absolute right of the Sovereign to deal with the Army in any way she may think fit. There is, at all events, some advantage in transferring a question of this kind from the festive and airy atmosphere of after-dinner rhetoric into an arena where arguments must be adduced, and where they may be answered. I rejoice at the progress which the Government have made within the last ten days with respect to this subject. Not more than ten days since we had a blank and positive denial that the question of the exercise of the Prerogative was involved in the Royal Warrant. The Sovereign, we were told, had not been advised to exercise her Prerogative; it was merely the performance of a statutory duty which was imposed on the Sovereign by Act of Parliament. Now, forsooth, we have got the admission that it is Prerogative, but Prerogative fortified by statute. We must go a little further, and I, for one, do not despair of the absolute conversion of the noble Duke himself
  520
  (the Duke of Argyll) before this discussion is over, so great is the progress in learning which he has made within the last ten days.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I said nothing ten days ago.
  LORD CAIRNS: Then did the noble Duke, some nine or ten days ago, dissent from the views which were expressed by his noble Colleague who represents the Government in this House? But, be that as it may, it is well that we should try to clear up at the outset the question whether the Act which we are discussing is an exercise of a statutory right by the Crown, or the exercise by the Crown of its Prerogative. I do not know that I could confer a more fatal gift on the Government than to admit to them that it was the exercise of a statutory right. In that case I should be prepared to endorse all that was so well and strongly said by my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Romilly), and to maintain that the Act was positively illegal. It would be perfectly fatal to them. What is a statutory right? The question is not one of law—it is a question of common sense, depending on the meaning of two or three words, on which any of your Lordships is as competent to form an opinion as any lawyer in this House. The Act of 1809 says that—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to any purchases, sales, or exchanges of any commissions in His Majesty's forces, for such prices as may be regulated by any regulation made or to be made by His Majesty."
  Let me concede for a moment that this is a statutory power conferred on the Crown. But what is it a statutory power to do? Is it a statutory power to abolish purchase? Nothing of the kind. It is a statutory power to regulate prices. It assumes that there will be purchase, and it gives to the Crown, on the hypothesis that there is to be purchase, the right to regulate the prices that are to be given. I will suggest to your Lordships a few out of the numerous illustrations which might be adduced upon this part of the subject. Suppose we were to go back to the days when it was the fashion of the Government to regulate the price of bread, and suppose you had a statute authorizing the Executive—I beg pardon for using the expression; but I console myself with the reflection that during the speeches of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) and the noble Duke

  521
  (the Duke of Argyll) they five different times used the expression in the same sense as it is employed in the Resolution—suppose, I say, that power was given to the Executive by Act of Parliament to fix the price at which bread was to be sold, and that there was a clause that the selling of bread over that price would subject the seller to penalties. I want to know would that entitle the person who has the power to regulate the sale of bread to say—"There shall be no prices for bread for the future?" There is at present another power—one probably possessed by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) as Warden of the Cinque Ports — to regulate the number of pilots to serve a port. But what would be thought of the authority that should say that for the future there should be no number whatever defined, and that no pilots would be authorized to serve the port? The subject is hardly worth pursuing; but if I conceded that the Crown had no authority for this proceeding but the words of a statute, the Government would stand convicted of having advised the Sovereign to exercise a power which they had misconstrued, and which would therefore be void.
  But it is not the case—and the second thoughts of the Government are much better than the first—that this is the execution of a statutory power. What was the Act of 1809? In 1809 the system of purchase had existed undisturbed for upwards of a century. The Crown exercised its right to fix the prices of commissions—there was no question about that right. And here I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what the essence and characteristic of Prerogative are. Prerogative is a power not conferred by statute. That is what makes Prerogative differ from every other power in this country. This right had existed, and had been exercised by the Crown, independent of Parliament, for upwards of 100 years. Then came the Act of 1809, which contained a saving clause, and, as your Lordships well know, a saving clause preserves, but never creates rights. The clause in question did not add to the Prerogative of the Crown; it did not take from the Prerogative; it did not create it. It took the Prerogative as it found it, and left it as it found it. It is said that the Act of Parliament recognizes the Prerogative. Of course it did. But is that the creation
  522
  of the Prerogative? I will undertake to produce a score of Acts of Parliament which recognize the Prerogative of the Crown to create Peers; but is the right to create Peers a right conferred by an Act of Parliament? I might produce a score of Acts of Parliament recognizing the right of the Crown to create Privy Councillors; but is it to be pretended that the Crown derives that authority from such Acts?
  But, my Lords, this introduces us to a very grave question, and one as to which it appears there certainly is no precedent. I venture to think that it makes all the difference in the world whether the act of the Crown in this case was a statutory act or a Prerogative act. If it were the case that in 1809 Parliament imposed on the Crown the power of saying whether purchase should continue in the Army or not, then Parliament delegated to the Crown not only the right, but the duty of solving that question. For the Crown to exercise such a right would not only have nothing extraordinary in it, but would be simply pursuing the course which it was directed and encouraged by Parliament to pursue. But if, on the other hand, the act was an act of Prerogative, the characteristic of which is that it is a power not authorized by Parliament, then at once come upon the surface all those questions as to the expediency, the policy, the precedent for exorcising that Prerogative. I will refer, as a proof of this, to what passed only nine or ten days ago. I observed that both in this House and "elsewhere" the Government recoiled from the charge that there had been any act of the Prerogative in this case. In fact, the Government at the outset, by deprecating the very mention of Prerogative, confessed that they could not justify their act unless they made it out to be the execution of a Parliamentary power. Here are the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—
  "The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) says that the Government have fallen back on the exercise of the Prerogative; and, having thus introduced the term which he thinks will be unpopular, though he expresses a hope it may long exist, he warns us against the danger of putting Prerogative in conflict with Parliament. Sir, this is an instance of the inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We have had no recourse to Prerogative, and we have had no conflict with Parliament."

  523
  And what did the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) say? He said—
  "Your Lordships adopted the Resolution of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) with which we are all so well acquainted; and Her Majesty's Government had to consider both their bounden duty—for they agreed in every word Sir George Grey had said—and also the enormous inconvenience which would occur to the Army itself, and to all the arrangements connected with it, from any delay or uncertainty in this matter. The result of that consideration has been to advise Her Majesty—not to make any use of her Royal Prerogative, because there is no question of that in this matter—but in the exercise of that discretion which is conferred upon the Crown by statutory enactment to take the only means which is possible to put an end to the illegal practice which has thus been denounced; and I may add that Her Majesty has graciously consented to sign a Warrant this day which cancels the regulation that sanctions prices being paid for the sale, purchase, and exchange of commissions."
  Then the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) said—
  "I understood the noble Earl to state that Her Majesty in the exercise of her Prerogative—
  "Earl GRANVILLE: Nothing of the kind. I distinctly stated that it was not done by Her Majesty in the exercise of her Royal Prerogative, but by power conferred on the Crown by statutory enactment. ……
  "The Marquess of SALISBURY: I think it would be well if your Lordships were put in possession of a written statement of the proceedings of the Government, in the shape of a copy of the Royal Warrant that has just been signed by Her Majesty in the exercise of her Prerogative. ……
  "Earl GRANVILLE: I cannot imagine any objection to the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and I will produce a copy of the exact terms of the Warrant. The noble Marquess, notwithstanding my repeated explanations, still talks of the Queen's Prerogative; perhaps he thinks it gives a more invidious character to our proceedings so to describe it."
  In fact, we can have nothing more clear or distinct than this — that when this Warrant was executed the Government were under the impression that it was not an exercise of the Prerogative, but a statutory right, and that the advice given to the Sovereign was, that the Queen was not making use of her Prerogative right. Now there is one thing very clear in our Constitution — the Queen can do no wrong; and another thing equally clear is that it is to the advice given by Ministers that we are to look for responsibility. But a third maxim which we shall find in every text book of Constitutional Law is that the Crown is not to be deceived in the character of the act which it performs. I said that the act was without precedent, and the Government must
  524
  choose between two alternatives. There was but little interval in this matter for the advice tendered to the Crown. The division was taken on Tuesday, and the Royal Warrant was executed on Thursday—an interval of 48 hours. The noble Earl opposite has spoken of haste with regard to this Resolution; I want to know what language he would use with regard to the haste in issuing this Royal Warrant? The Ministers must take their choice between these two alternatives; either there was no advice whatever tendered to the Sovereign as to the character of the Warrant, or else the advice tendered was what the Government stated in this House to have been tendered—namely, that the Sovereign was signing this Warrant, not in the exercise of her Royal Prerogative, but in execution of a power and duty reposed in her by statute. That advice, I maintain, was not warranted by fact, and we have got here what is absolutely without precedent, a Government convicted—and convicted on their own confession—of having, upon an important crisis, not intentionally, not wilfully, but in sheer and now admitted ignorance, misrepresented to their Sovereign the character of the act which she was called upon to perform, and of having advised her that she was merely exercising a statutory power, when in reality she was performing an act of the most stringent Prerogative.
  Then, my Lords, I ask is this act of the Prerogative a constitutional act? I do not ask whether it is operative, because I have no doubt it is, and that is the circumstance in Prerogative acts which properly brings them under the consideration of Parliament. If the Sovereign were to place her veto, by the advice of her Ministers, upon a Bill that passed through the two Houses, that veto would be operative, but no one would deny that it would be unconstitutional. If the Sovereign were to withhold from her Army the pay voted by Parliament the act would be one within the power of the Sovereign, and would be legal, but it would undoubtedly be unconstitutional. If the Sovereign were to increase, out of her own resources, the pay of the Army beyond what was voted by Parliament, there could not be a doubt but it would be legal, though it would be equally beyond doubt that it would be unconstitutional. So, I say, with regard

  525
  to this act. It is perfectly operative. I do not see that any remedy exists against the consequences of it in our Courts of Law; but it is for your Lordships to consider whether it is constitutional. Again, if the Sovereign were to cancel every commission of every officer in the Army, it would be operative and legal, no doubt, but I apprehend that it would be also unconstitutional. Nothing can be more irrelevant than the production to-night of those two or three Warrants to which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) referred, Warrants advised by the Duke of Wellington for authorizing the officers of a non-purchase to sell to a purchase corps, and another to abolish purchase in the corps of Yeomen of the Guard; or the Warrant in 1854 during the time of the Crimean War, apparently for the purpose of working out some private arrangement between officers of the Guards. What have these to do with the general system of purchase? Be it good or be it bad, it has continued in the Army for upwards of 200 years. I quite admit it is a system built up by Royal will and by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and what have been the consequences? I remember how the system was described on a late occasion by Mr. Goschen, who said—
  "Such is the state of things brought about by the system of purchase that the Army is not the Army of the nation, but the Army of the officers."
  And the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for the War Department (Lord Northbrook) said, not many days ago, that the system of purchase had created a spider's web of vested interests which had gathered around the Army and prevented any interference on the part of the Government for the objects they had in view. My Lords, if these statements are accurate, then I maintain, as a maxim of Constitutional Law, that although Prerogative may build up, it does not follow as a correlative proposition that Prerogative may destroy. I maintain that when a system has been built up which has struck its roots deep, which has spread itself through the whole of our social system, which has involved the expenditure and investment of millions of money; a system which it has been said—I do not stop to inquire into the truth of that assertion—has made the Army the Army not of the nation, but of the officers; a system which has
  526
  spread around the Army a spider's web of vested interests—if all that is true, I maintain that the time has passed for Prerogative, as Prerogative, to overthrow the system which it has thus created. I cannot help recollecting an observation of our admirable historian of the Constitution, Mr. Hallam, in one of his pages in considering the power of Parliament over this country. He says, very truly, that it is a great mistake to suppose that the best definitions of the power of Parliament are to be found since the Restoration. He takes you back to a Statute of Edward II., and says there is a definition of the occasions where Parliament has intervened to be found in that statute which is the truest expression of the limits of our Parliamentary Government, and of those occasions when there ought to be an exercise of our Parliamentary powers. And what does that statute—the 15th of Edward II.—say? It says in the quaint language of the times—
  "The matters to be established for the estate of the King and of his heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, shall be treated, accorded, and established in Parliament by the King, and by the assent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and the Commonalty of the Realm according as has been before accustomed."
  I maintain that is a constitutional principle; and if it is the case, as one of your own Ministers has said, that the Army which ought to be the Army of the nation has become the Army of the officers, I maintain that that is a point upon which Parliament should intervene. If that state of things has been brought about by the Prerogative, it is a state of things to be redressed not by the Prerogative, but by Parliament. And the reason is obvious. It is impossible that Prerogative can overthrow that system which it has built up, and at the same time do perfect justice to all the rights which have been thus created. Nothing short of Parliament can exercise that power. There is a saying which I always look upon as one of the greatest force—that error is infinite, and when once you engage in a course of error it is difficult to enumerate the evil consequences to which that course will lead. Let me point out some of the consequences to which the course taken by the Government must necessarily lead. In the first place, you have advised the Crown to break faith with the officers of the Army. Remember, you have advised the Crown to stop purchase in future; you

  527
  have advised the Crown to stop exchanges; you have made the Crown bear the ungracious responsibility of breaking faith with the officers, and at this moment you have no certainty that the money which ought to be repaid to the officers will be repaid. You may speculate about it, you may expect to get it; but you admit that you cannot ask for it by a mere Vote of the House of Commons. I do not think it would have removed the difficulty if you had had an Address of the House of Commons. But you have not had an Address of the House of Commons. In your hot haste, which my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) so well described—in your want of temper, you hurried on to obtain this Warrant of the Crown, without even waiting for the ceremony of a Vote from the House of Commons. Well, what is the next consequence? You say you have done nothing to affect the independence of Parliament. My Lords, do you think that we can discuss a measure fairly and independently when we are told that if we do not pass it the interests of the officers, to the amount of several millions of money, will be sacrificed? Do you think that is a fair way to ask Parliament calmly and temperately, and without prejudice, to discuss a legislative measure, when it is weighted with the certainty that if rejected it must involve a loss of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 to deserving men? But is this all? You have taken great trouble, and taken up a position which you admit is altogether without precedent, and, after all, you have not abolished purchase. You admit that if this House refuses to take the responsibility, you cannot insist upon retaining the clauses of the Bill abolishing purchase. All that you have done by this violent strain is to produce a temporary suspension of purchase, leaving it in the power of some future Minister to renew it. [Laughter.] Noble Lords opposite may laugh, but they are more skilful prophets than I take them for if they can foretell what step an impatient people may be unduced by some future Liberal Minister to take, in a moment of financial difficulty, rather than provide £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 under this Bill.
  But, my Lords, I ask your Lordships to consider the effect as regards the position of this House. I concurred cheerfully with the majority of your
  528
  Lordships' House, some ten days ago, in affirming the Resolution proposed on the second reading of this Bill, but I did not do so because I was anxious to maintain purchase. I speak here with some diffidence of my own opinion, and I speak for myself alone. But I candidly confess I do not like purchase in theory, and I would make a very considerable sacrifice to get rid of it. But, in the first place, I should like to know what is the sacrifice I must make to get rid of it; and, in the second place, I should like to know the system which is to do the work which, beyond all dispute, purchase has hitherto done. I recollect that in the month of February last the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when introducing the Army Bill, said on this point that special regard would be paid to selection. But the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India tells us to-night that the idea of laying down rules for selection was pure nonsense. This is the noble Duke's view. What was the view of the Secretary of State for War? The right hon. Gentleman in February last referred to the question of selection, saying that he would not go into details because, with the view of the utmost security being offered to the officers of the Army for the impartiality and fairness of promotion, these details were under the consideration of some of the most eminent officers of the Army—and I think he mentioned the name of an officer whom we are all glad to see in this House, and who was then Sir William Mansfield. I think that was very reasonable in the month of February. But we had arrived at the month of July, and when the main question connected with the abolition of purchase was what was to supply the place of purchase, and by what rules was to be guarded that arbitrary selection which was to take the place of purchase. I naturally asked myself how had these details been dealt with by these eminent officers? And I could only come to this conclusion—either that the details were in the possession of the Government, and that they would not produce them, or else that these eminent officers had given the question up in despair. I venture to think I adopted a course which was entirely in my power, and entirely constitutional, and entirely a sincere course, when I called upon the Government, before assenting to the second reading

  529
  of the Bill, to produce these details which I found promised in the month of February last—a promise which has never been fulfilled. I speak, then, without any prejudice against a measure for abolishing purchase; but, I ask, what is the effect of the course taken by the Government upon our position as one of the branches of the Legislature? In February last the following words were put into the mouth of the Sovereign by Her Majesty's Government:—
  "No time will be lost in laying before you a Bill for the better regulation of the Army and of the auxiliary land forces, and I hardly need to commend it to your anxious and impartial consideration."
  That language, interpreted according to customary usage, meant that Her Majesty, through her Ministers, intended to lay a measure on the subject before Parliament for their consideration. This measure having been debated for some months in the other House as a Bill for the abolition of purchase, it is all very well for the Government to say now that the abolition of purchase was but a very small part of their whole scheme. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Northbrook) appears to have forgotten the language, with which we are all familiar, which was used by Ministers in the other House when they were charged with having thrown away all but a mere fragment of their original Bill. In reply to that accusation they pleaded that the measure was essentially one for the abolition of purchase, and that as such alone they were anxious to pass it through Parliament. The measure having been debated in the Lower House as a Purchase Bill is introduced into this House as a Purchase Bill, and treating it as such, it was, both technically and in substance, not rejected by your Lordships. You expressed an opinion—which you had a perfect right to express—that the passing of the measure should be subject to the production of certain details, which you deemed essential to the safe working of the measure. I maintain that the continuance of this measure after the vote of this House was entirely at the option of Her Majesty's Government, who, after laying before us the details of their scheme for the re-organization of the Army, might at any moment have asked your Lordships to proceed with the second reading of the Bill. But, instead of laying before us the details of their scheme, they think proper to refuse to
  530
  let us know anything about them, and proceed to set aside our decision, and to deal with the matter by Royal Warrant. On this point I ask your Lordships to hold, as an important constitutional proposition, that when the Crown has placed any of its Prerogatives at the disposal of Parliament, as was done in the present instance, it is contrary, I will not say merely to constitutional principle, but to good faith and to common fair dealing on the part of the Government afterwards to withdraw from the consideration of Parliament the measure affecting such Prerogatives. And, my Lords, observe the invidious position in which the Government place the Crown. If there be one case in which the Prerogative of the Crown should not be exercised, it is where its exercise would amount to an interference between the two Houses of Parliament. Here, at least, is a case in which the Crown should be passive. But the Government have, in their hot haste, brought the Prerogative of the Crown into action, in order to enable the majority of our House to triumph over the majority in the other.
  Now, my Lords, let us see what are the defences put forward on behalf of the Government in this matter. It has been said that, at all events, they have obtained the consent of the House of Commons to their acts. I deny that proposition altogether. Although not a Member of the Liberal party, I hope I am able to do full justice to the principles that have always actuated them. I fully recognize the great part which they have played in the history of this country, and in our struggles for freedom; and however much we may differ on questions that may arise from time to time, we ought not to forget that we are all citizens of a common country, and that those liberties of which we are all so proud have been obtained, not by the action of one party, but by that of both parties, and that the Liberal party have in those struggles borne an effective and a noble part. When I look at the traditions of the Liberal party I, for one, will not believe—whatever vote may be extracted from the House of Commons with regard to a past and executed act of the Government—that if the question had been submitted to them originally whether purchase was to be abolished by the mere exercise of the Royal Prerogative, they would have approved such a course

  531
  being adopted. They would rather have said—"We have confidence in the Parliamentary constitution of this country, and we desire that this great act of State should be accomplished through the medium of an Act of Parliament. We are prepared to stand by that measure, and we feel satisfied that the arguments in its favour will prevail, and we do not want the Royal Prerogative to be taken down from the rusty peg on which it has been suspended for centuries, in order to effect that which can be carried out by means of the ordinary course of Parliamentary legislation." But, my Lords, if Her Majesty's Government, failing to support this exercise of the Prerogative upon its own merits, are thus compelled to call in aid the consent of the House of Commons, what they are supporting is not the Prerogative of the Crown, but that of the majority of the House of Commons. If that is the Constitution under which we live, it is a dictatorship: a dictatorship subject to control, no doubt, but subject to no control beyond that of an accidental majority of the House of Commons for the time being. I hope that the Liberal party, in considering this question, will recollect that the Prerogative which may be used by one Government for one purpose may be used by another Government for another purpose, and that they will take to heart the position in which the liberties and freedom of action of the people of this country will be placed if those who may happen, for the time being, to form the minority of the House of Commons are to be over-ruled by the Government of the majority putting in force the Royal Prerogative against them. Far be it from me to suggest that the Government, in the course they have taken, have had any intention to insult this House. In the happy innocence of after-dinner oratory a remark fell from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack the other night at the Mansion House, before any suggestion had been made on the subject, to the effect that the Government never intended to insult the House of Lords. My Lords, I can relieve the mind of my noble and learned Friend. I do not say that no insult has been offered; but it is not an insult to this House. It is an insult to the Constitution of the country.
  But what is the next defence of the Government? They say it was
  532
  utterly impossible that the Government could any longer consent to wink at an open violation of the law. I am a lawyer, and I should be the last to speak lightly of any violation of the law; but I should like to ask the Government when this new-born zeal in favour of the law first arose. Did it arise when this Bill was first introduced into Parliament? Certainly not; the Bill was introduced for a totally different purpose—in consequence of the pressure on the Government, exerted by the nation, which demanded that the forces should be re-organized, and which in no way troubled itself as to whether certain particular officers had or had not violated the law. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War refer to this violation of the law in his speech in introducing the Bill? Certainly not. He dwelt upon the importance of welding our national forces into one homogeneous Army; but not a word was said about the illegality of the sale of commissions. In fact, the first we ever heard upon the subject was on the occasion of a critical division in the House of Commons on the third reading of the Bill, when both the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in very large and weighty sentences, first declared that it was impossible that the Government could any longer wink at the sale of commissions at prices above those fixed by Royal Warrant. But we may ask the question, how was it that those over-regulation prices were made illegal? They were made illegal for the first time by the Act of 1809, which armed you with powers for preventing and checking the illegality. In all conscience those powers were sharp and decisive enough. By the exercise of those powers, you might have degraded the officer; you might have tried an officer by Court Martial and prevented him from ever again holding a commission; and, finally, if you so chose, you might have indicted him criminally for misdemeanor. I do not challenge the opinion of the Royal Commission, that as long as you had regulation prices it would be difficult to put down the over-regulation prices; but I want to know where is the foundation for all this new-born sensitiveness and conscientiousness on the part of the Government? The only act which made

  533
  the taking of over-regulation prices illegal armed the Government with certain powers for preventing that illegality. If those powers were sufficient, you could not want anything more; if they were not sufficient, your course was to come to Parliament and say that they would not accomplish the ends that Parliament had in view. But what right had the Government to resort to a coup d'état, and to call into requisition a Royal Warrant for abolishing purchase altogether? This illegality was an after-thought on the part of the Government when they were in a difficulty about the passing of their Bill.
  But what is the next excuse? The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) says—"The Government had this object in view—to save Parliament from a repetition of scenes not creditable to the House." What does that mean? I hope he does not mean this House. Have there been any scenes in this House? I suppose the noble Duke means "scenes not creditable" to the other House. Your Lordships are not supposed to be aware of scenes which occur in the other House, and I do not think you have ever been constituted judges as to whether scenes occurring in the other House were creditable or not. I had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament for many more years than I have sat in your Lordships' House. I look upon the other House of Parliament as the grandest Representative Assembly in the world, and I would rather suffer any penalty than be a party to any act which would detract from the dignity or authority of the other House of Parliament. I have been in that House in times of stress and difficulty, when parties were much more evenly matched than they are now—when a Government had a much smaller majority than has the present one; but I never saw scenes that were "discreditable," and if it is true that such scenes have occurred in the other House of Parliament, I, who have some experience of that House and of Leaders of the Government in that House, cannot help thinking that there must be some reason connected with the manner in which that House is led which leads to scenes being enacted that none of us have witnessed, but which are reported to us by a Secretary of State. Whether there be scenes or not—and God forbid I should say there are—I
  534
  must protest against your Lordships being made the victims of a coup d'état, in order to correct scenes that occur in the other House of Parliament.
  Is there, then, any other defence? It is said that this act was done on the responsibility of the Government. I do not know that any act of arbitrary power that has ever been done in this country has not been done on the responsibility of those who did it. Lord Halifax—I do not of course mean the noble Viscount opposite—issued General Warrants on his own responsibility; but I never thought that that made General Warrants any the better. We are informed that the noble Viscount was the envoy of the Government to procure the signature of the Sovereign to the present Warrant. I wonder much that, as the noble Viscount went upon his errand, it did not by chance occur to his recollection that within little more than a century he was both bearing the title and following in the steps of a former Lord Halifax.
  "After all," says the noble Earl (Earl Granville) "your censure will not do us much harm; you are going to read the Bill a second, time." My Lords, this at at all events is neither a defence nor an excuse. It is the refuge and consolation of those who have no defence to offer and no excuse to make. I do not grudge the Government their refuge, and I do not envy them their consolation. Read your Bill a second time; but take with it the mark, the censure, the condemnation of this House—censure and condemnation which I am persuaded will be approved by the deliberate opinion of the country, and confirmed by the verdict of history—censure and condemnation, that, at a crisis which demanded the wisdom and forbearance of statesmen, you have, with the petulance and recklessness of children, in order to obtain the apparent and unreal triumph of the moment, permanently, violently, wantonly strained, and discredited the Constitution of your country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence, this being the first time I have addressed you on any subject connected with the Army, and having sat as a silent listener during 36 hours of your Lordships' debates on this matter rather more, I confess, as a conscript than as a Volunteer. I then thought it right to abstain

  535
  from intruding on a subject with which I was not familiar, but now we meet on other ground. Thankful am I that the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken (Lord Cairns) rejoiced that we had arrived at a stage of the argument when we could discuss calmly the legal questions that are before your Lordships' notice, and I will deal with them in the first instance, though I shall not forget some passages which have occurred in the course of the debate, and which I would rather not have heard; for, although in this controversy they must be left unanswered by me, they must not be unnoticed. As regards the legal position, the noble and learned Lord twitted us with standing here as culprits at your Lordships' Bar with none to speak in our favour but two, who damaged our cause by the want of warmth in their defence. I am sorry to add one to the number of culprits who are called upon to speak in their own defence, and in doing so I would impress upon the noble and learned Lord that the question of purchase was condemned by the Members of other Governments beside the present. The noble and learned Lord also said that we have advanced prodigiously in our argument on the legal point since we began this discussion; but I hope to lead you still more clearly to our conclusion. Whoever drew up this indictment against us, it is not altogether within the ordinary accuracy of legal language, for it talks of Her Majesty and the Executive without saying one word as to Her Majesty's Advisers; but putting that aside, we know what its real intention is—that it is meant for the purpose of attacking us, and we accept the Motion as intended for that purpose. In doing that, the whole offence should be stated, yet what has been the case? In the most fervid passage of the noble and learned Lord's oratory, when he raised himself to a pitch of indignant denunciation, he said the Government were convicted on their own confession, though by whom made or when I have not the slightest idea. As to our having poured into the Royal ear advice which was inconsistent with the facts, what is the case? There can be no doubt that from the time of Charles II. the sale of commissions in the Army became prevalent. No doubt the Crown exercised its Prerogative, and took upon itself to continue those sales;
  536
  but, at the same time, in 1721, a Royal Warrant expressly declared that, although this liberty had been given to purchase, it did not include any liberty to sell. I mention that as a simple and conclusive argument against what the noble and learned Lord has said. Then came the Act of 1809, which struck at the sale of commissions in a certain way, stating that it should not apply to the sale of commissions where the Crown had fixed a price, and where no more than the fixed price was given; but parties going one step beyond that price would be guilty of misdemeanour, liable to be cashiered, and rendered unable to serve Her Majesty. Can anyone doubt that that Act struck at the sale of commissions? It provided the Crown with a dispensing power; but if the Crown said nothing, then no sale of commissions could be made. The noble and learned Lord, in connection with this part of the case, said we must have told Her Majesty that she was not exercising an act of her Prerogative but an act of power. But that is not in accordance with the language of the Warrant, and I apprehend that we are not guilty of the charge which has been brought against us. I grant, however, that there was a question as to whether this is a desirable or an undesirable exercise of the Prerogative. How stood the case at the beginning of this Session? The Army Regulation Bill was introduced, and then, said the noble and learned Lord, nothing was stated about over-regulation prices. But the fact is, that the Royal Commission in the year before reported on that subject, and the Government Bill proposed to indemnify those who had committed themselves by paying over-regulation prices and were by law entitled to no compensation. That was the case with regard to over-regulation prices, and the Bill also prohibited regulation prices for the future. Well, it is said that, having introduced these provisions into the Bill, we were bound to abstain from exercising the Royal Prerogative. But it should be borne in mind that the purpose for which those provisions were put in the Bill was to prevent some future Minister replacing the whole matter in the same state as it was before. We had a great and important duty thrown on us at the commencement of the Session. It was then stated on all sides that England

  537
  must be protected; and we were seriously admonished on this point by what had occurred on the Continent, where within eight or nine months we had seen a whole Empire for a time destroyed, and one of the finest Armies in Europe annihilated. The Government were then called on to provide means for the defence of the country, and we were convinced that so long as purchase existed the Army was not the Army of the nation, but the Army of those who had purchased interests in it. Believing that no reform could be effected without abolishing purchase, we proposed to abolish it; but when the House of Lords came to the decision they arrived at a few nights ago, what course had the Government to pursue? It was not for them to resign, for the House of Commons were in favour of the proposal of the Government. We were bound to bestir ourselves, and we adopted a course which, I think, was, under all circumstances, the best that could have been adopted; and with regard to that course, if it was any comfort to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Romilly) to know that the Law Officers of the Government were consulted, before that course was decided on as proper to be taken, he (the Lord Chancellor) had great pleasure in informing him that such was the case. Now, it might be patriotic on your part to throw out our Bill, because you did not like it. But if, though you disliked the Bill, you could do nothing, and could not take the reins of Government into your own hands, was not this one of the cases in which something must be done. The saying that "something must be done" is not one which I like in general as a principle of action; but in this case I think it holds good, and we did that which was right and just in the position in which we found ourselves. Though I have no special knowledge of military details, I have listened to the arguments used in debate and to the statements of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Northbrook), and must say I have not heard one single argument of any force urged against the proposals of the Government, except on the question of purchase. Well, it is said we ought to have propounded a scheme, and your Lordships passed a Resolution not rejecting the Bill, but saying you were unwilling to proceed with it until
  538
  you learnt a great deal more than what had been told you. But everybody admitted that the noble Lord gave a better and clearer idea of the plans of the Government than had ever been given before; and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) complained that it was even too full of details. And was this a weak-minded and foolish scheme? The illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), upon whom I wish to fix no shadow of responsibility beyond that which he himself assumed, said these plans had been laid before him, that he would take upon himself to give effect to them, and that the officers had been treated not only justly but liberally. What becomes, then, of the argument that the Bill must be stopped because we presented you with no deliberate scheme? Now, it is an abrogation of the Prerogative if, in a Bill of this kind, you attempt to set forth all the details on which you are about to regulate the Army. It was not proper, then, to insert these details in the Bill. But, after the recent vote of this House, what other resource had the Government than the Royal Prerogative? They could not be expected to wait till another Parliamentary year, with another debate such as that which had taken place in the other House, not knowing, too, what a year might bring forth, and what events might arise in Europe. It would be a fool's paradise to believe that, though we are now at peace, Europe will be free from alarms. We took then, I submit, the wise course—a course which put an end to the Royal Prerogative by abolishing the system to which it referred, giving, at the same time, an indemnity to those who had broken the law, and pecuniary compensation to those whom it would affect. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) says—"You ought not to have embarrassed yourselves with the question of over-regulation prices, because you had ample powers to deal with them in the Act of 1809." But does the noble and learned Lord mean seriously that we should have placed half the officers of the Army in the position of men guilty of a misdemeanour, subject to the penalties attaching to that offence? I contend that, if we were to continue the functions of the Government—if we were to provide adequately for the national defence, and do justice to those with whom we have been dealing,

  539
  and the price of whose commissions would have sunk very low in the market under the uncertainty to which they would otherwise have been subjected, the only straightforward and effectual course was to exercise the constitutional powers intrusted to the Sovereign, and say that a Royal Warrant should at once resolve the difficulties which lay in the way of Army re-organization. We have been twitted with having desired to insult the House of Lords. Now, I cannot help thinking that those who make such a charge do so merely from a desire to justify themselves for their Vote of Censure. Certainly a Vote of Censure so utterly unjustifiable will not be found in your Lordships' Journals. We have no motive for insulting the House of Lords, and I think no reasonable person could suppose that any insult was intended. There is some danger in always thinking you are insulted, and no man, or body of men, were ever the more respected for being so anxious about their dignity, and the best plan of preserving your dignity is to preserve a self-consciousness of having done nothing to imperil your dignity. I do not believe you will really assert your dignity by the Vote of Censure now proposed; and by passing a Resolution of this description, directed against a proposal to which the great body of Englishmen through their Representatives have assented, you will certainly not insure the harmony which it is desirable to maintain between the two Houses of Parliament. The decision of calm men judging calmly is one which must have great weight; but to the decision of men who imagine that they have been insulted equal importance is not to be attached. I cannot argue with passion, and I will not call it petulance. The course which the Government have taken was dictated by that sense of duty which led them to endeavour to serve their country in the manner they deemed to be best, for they did not think it right by a dissolution to submit the delicate question of over-regulation prices to the constituencies; and, moreover, they were anxious for harmonious action between the two Houses of Parliament. I cannot better conclude than in the words of the noble Duke who opened this debate—words with which I entirely sympathize—"Defeat in such a case as this would be more glorious for the vanquished than victory."
  On Question, Whether to agree to the said Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 162; Not-Contents 82: Majority 80.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Motion agreed to accordingly.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Romney, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Russell, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Sandwich, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Selkirk, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Stamford and Warrington, E.

  Bath, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Camden, M.

  Tankerville, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Vane, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Westmoreland, E.

  Townshend, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Tweeddale, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Combermere, V.

  De Vesel, V.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Annesley, E.

  Hill, V.

  Aylesford, E.

  Hood, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Melville, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Brownlow, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Derby, E.

  Blantyre, L.

  Devon, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Carleton, L. (E. Shannon.)

  Harewood, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Howe, E.

  Churston, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Kellie, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Colchester, L

  Macclesfield, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Conyers, L.

  Mount Edgeumbe, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Nelson, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Denman, L.

  Poulett, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Radnor, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  541

  Dunboyne, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Egerton, L.

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Rayleigh, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Romilly, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Scarsdale, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Grantley, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hawke, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

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

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Hylton, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Lytton, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Northwick, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Vivian, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Wharneliffe, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Acton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Anglesey, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Carew, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Clarendon, E.

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

  Cottenham, E.

  Cowley, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Dacre, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Essex, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Eliot, L.

  Granville, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Harris, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Halifax, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Lurgan, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  542

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Robartes, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Methuen, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Suffield, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Penzance, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Truro, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Then it was moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEmoved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Viscount Melville.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDinterposed, and requested his noble and gallant Friend not to persist in his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEhaving consented,
  The said Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, A.M., till a quarter before Five o'clock.