Sitting of 13 June 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Conventual and Monastic Institutions, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Municipal Corporation Acts Amendment* [193]; Factory Acts Extension Act (1864) Amendment* [194]; Railway Regulation Amendment* [195]; Hosiery Manufacture (Wages)* [196].
First Reading—Canada* [192].
Referred to Select Committee—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [178].
Committee—Army Regulation [39]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal* [164].
Third Reading—Courts of Justice (Additional Site)* [179]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* [175], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

BONELLI'S TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to a case heard before Vice Chancellor Bacon on the 31st of May last, in which the plaintiff, a Mr. Collie, sued the directors of the Bonelli's Telegraph Company for his commission of 25 per cent on a sum of £22,500, being the amount at which the plaintiff negotiated the sale of Bonelli's Company to the Post Office; whether he is aware that in the course of that trial it came out in evidence that before the Company had been advised to negotiate through Mr. Collie, they had been ready to sell their undertaking to the Post Office for £5,000; and, whether he will inform the House what it was the Post Office purchased for the sum of £22,500, and what benefit it is now deriving from such purchase?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he was informed that when the Telegraph Bill of 1868 was before a Parliamentary Committee, the secretary of Bonelli's Company did state that the Company would take £5,000 for their undertaking. The Company subsequently repudiated this informal offer, and declared that it was made without authority. It appeared that the Company had been for several years in a state of collapse. When it was understood that the Government were going to take over the telegraphs, it developed a considerable amount of activity, and proceeded to make arrangements, which it had the full right to do, for the purpose of establishing telegraphic communication between the different centres of business in the country. When the Monopoly Bill of 1869 was passed, the Post Office had either to purchase the rights of this Company, or to submit to a very inconvenient competition until an arrangement could be made. Some of the best and most lucrative parts of the country which the Government procured itself by its monopoly would have been occupied by this Company, and, under these circumstances, it was considered most expedient to pay the sum, recognized as a very large one, which was given to the Company under arbitration. It was a necessary part of the price paid by the Government for its monopoly. He was informed that the whole of the negotiations had been carried on exclusively with Messrs. Bumpus and Co., and not with Mr. Collie, as implied by his hon. Friend's Question.

IRELAND—LORD JUSTICE CHRISTIAN AND THE IRISH LAND ACT.—QUESTIONS.
SIR JOHN GRAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the judgments of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Justice of Appeal, delivered on Friday the 9th instant in the Court of Chancery Appeal, Ireland; and, if so, whether it is his intention to propose whatever legislative measures a review of these judgments may show to be necessary to give validity and effect to the Tenant Right of Ulster, which the Land Act of 1870 purports to legalize and enforce?
MR. MAGUIREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been directed to a judgment delivered

1979
by Lord Justice Christian, on Friday last, in the Court of Appeal in Chancery in Ireland, seriously affecting the legal validity of the Tenant Right customs of Ulster; and, whether he will at once give instructions to have the shorthand writer's note of the judgments delivered on that occasion by Lord O'Hagan and Lord Justice Christian procured; or, in case no authentic report can be obtained of these judgments through a shorthand writer, whether he will cause instant application to be made to the learned judges themselves, requesting them to supply authentic copies of their judgments, so as to have them laid upon the Table of the House without delay?
MR. PIMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment lately delivered in Dublin by the Lord Justice of Appeal, in the case of the Estate of the Marquis of Waterford, in which his Lordship is reported to have given his opinion that the "Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," had "failed in giving a legal efficiency" to the Ulster Tenant Right; that the Landed Estates Court ought not to recognize the existence of tenant right by setting it out in the rental; and that "after the conveyance" to the purchaser "all claims for tenant right would be utterly destroyed unless the Legislature once more interfered for the tenant's protection;" and, whether he is prepared to put an end to the state of uncertainty which must result from this judgment given by the Lord Justice of Appeal, by introducing without delay a Bill to give legal effect to the intentions of Parliament in passing the Land Act of 1870?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am very glad that upon a question of so much importance hon. Members of influence representing Irish constituencies have been so vigilant and so prompt in calling attention to circumstances which are undoubtedly of a character calculated to create uneasiness. I say it not by way of complaint, rather indeed by way of apology for myself; but, in consequence of this promptitude on the part of the hon. Members, I have not been able to make the full and careful inquiries into the subject that would have enabled me, had I had sufficient time to have made them, to give that minute and particular answer to the Questions of the hon. Members that I could wish
1980
to give them, and therefore I can only give a substantial answer to them. In the first place, I think I ought to mention that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) a note enclosing a letter to him from Lord Justice Christian, in which the latter states that he entirely disclaims and declines to be bound by the report which has appeared in the newspapers, which he alleges to be very far indeed from representing the real tenour of his remarks. Of course, I give no opinion upon this matter, further than to observe that the assertion of Lord Justice Christian himself as to his intention in delivering the judgment in question is a circumstance which it was my duty to mention—and I do so with pleasure and satisfaction—to the House. At the same time, the note of Lord Justice Christian does not purport to give an account of the opinions which he really intended to give on the subject, and, consequently, this part of the matter is not at present clear. In reply to the Questions that have been put to me, I have to say that what I believe to be the case is this—no official record, strictly speaking, of the reasons which a Judge may give for his decision exists, and I have not been able to learn that it has been usual to apply, on the part of the Executive Government, to a Judge to make a statement of such reasons with a view to their being laid before Parliament. Although I speak with some reserve in consequence of my inquiries having been hasty, I believe I am justified in stating that the notes of the shorthand writers, where there were any, have been produced and laid before Parliament; but in the present case the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) is under the impression that there is no report of that character, and, consequently, I am not in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the Question whether I am prepared to lay such a report of the judgment upon the Table of the House. We shall, however, look further into the matter, and if it be in our power to ascertain with precision what were the decisions given by a personage so important as the Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland we shall do our best to get to the bottom of it, and to lay the whole matter before this House, provided we can do so with propriety. But, quite apart from this matter, there remains

1981
something more important, which we have to consider—namely, the opinions which have justly or unjustly been attributed to Lord Justice Christian in the reports that have appeared of his judgment. I have to state with regard to those opinions, so attributed to him, that they are at variance with the opinions of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, another Judge of Appeal of the highest rank; that they are at variance with the opinions of the two Judges of the Landed Estates Court, from whose decision the appeal came; that they are also, as I am advised, at variance from the decision of several of the Chairmen of Counties, and of the most distinguished Judges of Appeal in the Lands Courts; while they are certainly at variance, as I am informed by the Law Officers for Ireland, with the construction put upon the Land Act by the various legal commentators and by the legal profession generally in Ireland. To this, I may add that this House is not insufficiently furnished with legal learning, and that no Act having ever attracted greater legal attention than the Land Act, it would be most extraordinary if the acute and accomplished minds that were constantly directed to the consideration of that Act had so grossly failed in effecting their object, as, from the opinions contained in the report which appeared in the newspapers as the judgment of Lord Justice Christian, would appear to be the case. Under these circumstances I own, for myself and for the Government, that we do not feel any great uneasiness upon the subject, and I should be glad if that feeling of confidence could be communicated to the minds, not only of the hon. Members—who, however, have only done their duty in raising the question—but to those of the numerous class who are profoundly interested in this matter in Ireland. I am by no means convinced that it will be necessary for us to propose any further legislation consequent upon a statement of this kind. But what I wish to convey absolutely and unconditionally to the hon. Members and to all who may be interested in the subject is this—that, whether there be need for legislation or not, the Government will not, as far as depends upon them, suffer the plain and manifest intention of Parliament in passing the Land Bill with regard to the Ulster Tenant Right to be defeated. These are our intentions in
1982
the matter, and although I hope that there may be no occasion for any new measure to be brought in in order that the intention of Parliament may be carried into effect, still, whether there be or be not such occasion, those who are interested in this matter may be assured that the Government will not fail to do whatever may be requisite in order to give full effect to the intentions which Parliament has expressed, and to what, under the circumstances, must morally be considered in the nature of a covenant entered into with the people of Ireland.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with the view of facilitating the passing of the Education (Scotland) Bill during the present Session, he will consent to have it passed through Committee pro formâ and reprinted with such of the suggested Amendments as Her Majesty's Government may think fit to adopt, or, failing this, whether he will consent to have the Bill referred to a Committee upstairs, so constituted as fairly to represent the different views held in Scotland on the subject?
  COLONEL SYKESasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that about 200 proposed Amendments of the Bill had been laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that he wished in the first place to remove from the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh a misconception for which possibly he was himself responsible. His hon. Friend thought the Government were under the impression that there was a disinclination on the part of the people of Scotland to the Scotch Education Bill. The Government were not under any such impression. All that he had heard led him to believe that the views of the people of Scotland were favourable to the general provisions of that measure. The Government would gladly adopt any course that they thought would facilitate the passing of the Bill during the present Session, because they could not but feel that one Session and a-half having been almost exclusively given to the consideration of important measures for the sister island, the claim of Scotland to

  1983
  the consideration of an important measure affecting that country was very high, and the Government clung to the hope that they would be able to induce the House to pass the Scotch Education Bill this Session. With regard to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, or passing it pro formâ through Committee, he had consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and his judgment at the present time was that neither course would really conduce to the passing of the Bill. Notwithstanding the formidable list of Amendments, he thought the House would be disposed to deal with the Bill in a very favourable manner.

ARMY REGULATION BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD GARLIESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state numerically the Clauses after Clause 5, which he proposes still to retain in the Army Regulation Bill?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the clauses which, looking at the Notice Paper, he proposed to omit were 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 34. The principal subjects to which they referred, he believed, were the extension of short service beyond the limit sanctioned by the Act of last Session, the clauses dealing with the Act of 1860, and the provisions for increasing the Militia in case of emergency, and the power to local authorities to borrow money to build barracks.
  COLONEL JERVISasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary that the Bill should be reprinted?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he believed it would be possible to send round with the votes a document which would show what the Bill was as it would stand.
  LORD GARLIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is a fact that an estimate has been drawn up as to the probable cost of the scheme for promotion and retirement which will be rendered necessary by the abolition of purchase in the Army, and, in the case of this being so, whether he will object to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the noble Lord had not given him sufficient notice of the question to enable him to make inquiries on
  1984
  the subject. It was not a matter relating to his Department at all, and he thought it would be more desirable if the noble Lord had specified more particularly what he meant by an estimate being drawn up, and by whom, and when it was drawn up. There was nothing of the kind in his office. He had made inquiries at the War Office and could find nothing of the kind there.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, the Secretary of State for War having informed the House that all the Army Bill would be withdrawn except certain clauses, he felt that unless he put the question at once he might not have an opportunity of making the inquiry before the Bill passed through Committee.
  MR. HUNTasked whether any scheme had been submitted to the Secretary of State for War respecting retirement in the event of the Bill passing, and if it had received the approval of the Government.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, no scheme had received the approval of the Government, but of course he had been in communication with a great many people upon the measure proposed by the Government. But he had repeatedly stated, with regard to retirement, that there would be no difficulty whatever in making acturial calculations when they they had got the requisite data.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is usual for a Secretary of State to bring a scheme of this sort before the House, involving the expenditure of public money, without such scheme having been placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and approved by him.

ARMY—CAPITATION ALLOWANCE TO VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
MR. WINNasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Capitation Grant due to the Volunteers for 1870 has not been paid to some Corps, although the Returns were sent in December last, and the military year ended on the 1st of April; and, whether the Government are aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in consequence of such delay of payment?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, there are 1,276 Volunteer corps. 750 claims for capitation allowance for the current year 1871–2 have been paid; 240 claims are

1985
in course of payment, and will be paid within the next eight days. The remainder—286 corps—of the claims will be paid on receipt of the necessary forms of application.

ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Knight Storks, Captain Vivian, The Judge Advocate.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 12 th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 4 (Compensation to officers of certain Indian regiments.)
SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDrose to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out all the words after "retire" to the end of the clause, in order to insert—
"Compensation equal to the sums they would have received from the junior officers of their regiments had they retired therefrom prior to the said appointed day."
The hon. Gentleman said, his object was to secure to the officers of the Indian non-purchase corps that compensation to which they were fairly entitled under the bonus system. The bonus system of the 12 non-purchase system regiments formerly belonging to the Indian Army was substantially the same as the system of over-regulation prices in purchase regiments. If there was any difference it was in favour of the officers of the non-purchase corps, because the bonus system had been sanctioned by the Court of Directors. He did not complain that the bonus system was to be brought to a close; but, as he had voted in favour of paying the over-regulation price, and as the bonus system and the system of over-regulation prices was the same, his contention was, that a different measure of compensation should not be dealt out to the officers of the two branches of the same service. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to apply to the officers of the non-purchase corps the same principle of indemnity which he had himself laid down with respect to the officers of purchase regiments. It had been suggested that he had better adopt the Amendments suggested by the hon. and gallant Members for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) and Harwich (Colonel Jervis); but his objection to their proposal was, that it would stillleave the amount of compensation vague and indefinite, whereas it had been very precisely defined in the
1986
case of the purchase corps. He therefore begged leave to move his Amendment.
COLONEL NORTHseconded the Amendment.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would admit the full force and validity of the principle with which his hon. Friend had pressed him. He was pleased to have the opportunity of making a reasonable concession, and as he had considered whether there was any necessary conflict between the application of the rule by the India Office prior to the date of the transfer of these regiments and the rules which would apply to the officers since the transfer, with a very slight Amendment he believed he could agree to the proposal, with the addition of the words, "according to the custom of the regiment," which he presumed the hon. Member would have no objection in inserting after the words, "they would have received."
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he understood the object of this to be that the country should not only pay the over-regulation money in the case of the purchase corps, but in the case of the non-purchase corps also, by paying the money arising out of the bonus system.
Amendment agreed to.
COLONEL JERVISsuggested, and Mr. CARDWELL acceded to, the omission from the clause of the words "with the sanction of the Treasury."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Provision for expense of compensating officers.)
MR. HUNTsaid, that this was a very important clause, and one on which the alterations proposed by the Government during this discussion had an important bearing. The clause was the ordinary form of saying that the money required for the purposes of the Bill was to be voted in the Estimates, and that he understood to be the intention of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made provision for a payment of £600,000 this year and for £1,200,000 next year; but at the time that that provision was made, a restriction was imposed upon the number of officers who should be allowed to retire. Now that that restriction had been removed, the estimate of £600,000 and £1,200,000, and all the other calculations which the Government had made,

1987
were valueless, because any number of officers were entitled to sell their commissions and demand immediate payment at the hands of the Government. Whether, however, the officers would, to any extent, avail themselves of this opportunity would in a great measure depend upon the system of promotion to be established by the Government. Under the existing system an officer knew what he was purchasing, and knew, moreover, what were the conditions of the service, and was able to make up his mind whether it was worth his while to purchase his commission or any of the subsequent steps. There was, however, on the part of the officers, a great apprehension as to what the nature of the system of promotion was to be. If it was to be a system of promotion by seniority, what was the use of this Bill? And if it was to be a system of promotion by selection, they ought to know on what principles that system was to be based, for among the officers there was a bonâ fide fear that the system of selection would develop into a system of favoritism. The limitation being withdrawn, there was no saying what might be for some years the annual charge upon the Votes for the purpose of purchasing commissions. That fact entirely altered the conditions under which Clause 5 came before the Committee. The Government estimated that the purchase of commissions would extend over 25 years. But now it might be that the greater part of these commissions would have to be paid for in three or four years. It was a question, therefore, whether the very considerable amount to be thus provided should be paid out of the annual Votes of Parliament. Had the original scheme been carried out, there was no reason why the amount should not have been charged upon the Votes. The restriction, however, having been removed, and it being necessary to incur the expenditure within a few years, it would be unwise that the House should pledge itself to defray all this expenditure by means of annual Votes. For that reason, he thought there ought to be some exposition from the Government as to what they foreshadowed would occur in the matter.
On Question, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), that when the Bill
1988
was first introduced he heard very little objection taken except to this particular limitation, which was considered a great hardship. Now, he had been charged with an indisposition to yield to suggestions made. But the Government were very desirous to disarm opposition not only for their own advantage and convenience, but also, as he might truly say, from a desire to meet the wishes of opponents of the Bill; and, after inquiry, he saw no reason to believe that the limitation would be of any practical value. Officers were not less likely to wish to hold commissions after the new system was introduced than they were under the old. There was, indeed, an impression that officers would desire to serve under the new rather than under the old system, and no wonder. The taxpayer was about to be called on for a very considerable outlay. [Opposition cheers.] Yes, hon. Gentlemen opposite always cheered that statement; and they always endeavoured to make the outlay greater. The advantage of this outlay would be shared by those officers in the Army who were relieved from the burdens to which the purchase system now unjustly subjected them. Were they purchase officers, their position would be improved, because when they rose to a higher rank they would not be called upon to meet the outlay of a large sum in order to obtain it. Were they non-purchase officers, then they would acquire higher rank without being superseded by others who bought over them. The Government, therefore, naturally believed that there would not be any necessity for the limitation, and they were glad to have the opportunity of withdrawing it. They believed that the Estimate of £600,000 was a sufficient estimate, and that was his answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, they were proceeding under Clause 5 to make an indefinite expenditure as to which they had no information. The Committee ought to be furnished with some idea of the outlay to which they were committed.
COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYsaid, he thought the taxpayer was not the person who should pay for the abolition of purchase. The money ought to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or the National Debt might very well be increased upon a national question like this. The taxpayer did not care one straw whether

1989
the officers in the Army bought or did not buy their commissions.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, the officers only wanted justice, but the Government made no concessions to them, and had only given way upon a point suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes), who was perfectly contented in consequence. If, as the Secretary for War had just stated, officers in future would not be superseded by other officers, what then became of the system of selection?
MR. CARDWELL: Of course, I meant superseded by purchase.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, they were now considering a clause which provided that all expenditure incurred by the Commissioners should be defrayed out of means provided by Parliament. He (Mr. V. Harcourt) was very much disposed to agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, who thought Paliament ought not to pay, though he was surprised at the quarter from which the movement came. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Colonel C. H. Lindsay) said that the taxpayers ought not to pay this money. Well, they had had a great deal of military finance; but if the hon. and gallant Member could produce a scheme by which £9,000,000 was to be paid without taking it out of the pocket of the taxpayer, he (Mr. V. Harcourt) would promise him his support.
COLONEL C. H. LINDSAY: From somebody else.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, when they had the scheme of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite they would know how this £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 were to be raised without going to the pockets of the taxpayers.
COLONEL C. H. LINDSAY: It should be got from some other source.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he must challenge the hon. and gallant Member with having a scheme in the background which he would not develop. He (Mr. V. Harcourt) thought the clause before them was the one clause which would have led to no opposition, and he wished to know whether they did not want the moneys to be provided by Parliament?
MR. HUNTsaid, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. V. Harcourt), they might be quite willing that the taxpayers should find this money, and he did not know who else was to do so. At the
1990
same time, it was a question whether the particular form of words should be employed. The words employed were those usually adopted when money was to be raised by animal Votes of Parliament, and therefore unless it was likely that these expenses would not be spread over a number of years, it would be advisable that an Amendment should be made.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, he thought that part of the expense ought to fall on those hon. Members who went stumping the country last autumn, and on the large constituencies who had accepted their views. He would also throw a considerable amount of the cost upon those gentlemen in the War Office who, about the latter end of January, in default of producing anything, thought the most popular thing they could do would be to destroy everything we had got. As he stated last evening, the success of the scheme would depend on the confidence the officers of the Army had in it, as should there be a rush to sell out, there would be an inevitable increase in the expenditure, and he (Colonel Anson) wanted to know why the taxpayers of the country should be forced to pay £1,200,000 for the abolition of purchase. One of the chief arguments put before the country for the abolition of purchase was that it would reduce the cost of the Army. If that were so, the persons who in the future would be relieved of taxation ought to pay some portion of the cost of the abolition of purchase. The expense should be spread equally over a certain number of years.
MR. HERMONremarked on the injustice of what fell from the Secretary of State for War, who said a cheer was always raised on that—the Conservative—side when anyone deprecated the large expense that was being entailed on the country. Now, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had quite as much objection to the system of purchase when there was no plan before them. The question of the re-organization of the Army was one for the Executive, and he had endeavoured to look on this matter not as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, and had only asked himself whether the plan produced by the Government would benefit the country. Nobody knew how much expense they were now entailing on themselves. He was not inclined to throw any bur-

1991
dens on posterity; but he felt satisfied that before they embarked in an expenditure of this nature they should be satisfied they were getting the value for their money in the shape of a good scheme which would improve our position as a nation, and render the fighting portion of the Army more efficient, in which case the question of expense would be a secondary matter in the eyes of the country. He had voted with the Government on two or three occasions when he could conscientiously do so; but it was a serious matter to vote for a system involving large outlay when the Government had never laid any plan before them, or given an accurate idea of what the expense would be.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought it was incredible that, after Parliament had decided to abolish purchase, they should now be asking how was the money to be provided? Who had decided to do this? Parliament, and Parliament must provide the money. With regard to selection, he thought it would be a good thing if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would only say distinctly what he meant, and remove at once all ambiguity. Every regiment would by-and-by become a non-purchase regiment, and the officers should rise by seniority; for he (Colonel Sykes) could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman intended men should come into one regiment from another and pass over men's heads, destroying the regimental system. When officers arrived at the rank of major, then the working of selection might come in. In the Indian Army, up to the rank of major, promotion went always by regimental seniority, and afterwards went in a Line seniority list.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish before this clause is passed to be allowed to say a few words. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) will agree with me, that, important as the Bill before us is, this little clause is the most important portion of the whole Bill. We have just passed the 3rd Clause of this Bill, and we have been told at considerable length how the claims of officers in Her Majesty's service will be dealt with. But, Sir, I venture to think that having told so much that interests the officers my right hon. Friend ought to think of the interests of the public. We ought now to consider what are the
1992
interests of the public in this question. And, Sir, I heard with regret what fell from the Secretary of State for War, when he forgot for a moment his usual suavity of manner, and told us on this side we had done what we could to make this Bill more expensive. That is a very unjust imputation, and I do not think it is an imputation that the right hon. Gentleman can fairly and reasonably substantiate. On the contrary, I appeal to the House whether the language of those who object to this Bill has not uniformly been directed against its extravagant expensiveness? We have again and again raised the question—and I hope we shall repeatedly raise again the question—whether the changes you are about to make are worth the money you are about to pay for them; and it is on this question we can get no satisfactory answer from the Government. What is the expense about to be? Is it not right that the public should be enlightened on this question? Is it not right that we, the representatives of the people, should know that the changes that are to be made, and should be able to say whether or not they are worth paying so large a price for them? What is the price? The Government tell us that the commissions of officers in purchase regiments will cost about £8,000,000. That is a pretty large outlay to begin with. What will be the next item in this expenditure? That is the point on which Her Majesty's Government are so reticent. You have before you two alternatives—one is that you should have your regiments filled with old decaying officers; or that you should enable officers to retire. The Government will not tell us what their plan of retirement is. But those who have gone into calculations on the subject have come to the conclusion—the correctness of which I have no reason to doubt—that the amount of money that will be necessary will be no less than £1,200,000 a-year. That is the general calculation of what must be added to the Army Estimates every year. That sum capitalized amounts to £25,000,000 or £30,000,000, and all that is to be thrown on the people. That is a most serious consideration, and I think it has been rendered not less serious by the answer given to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Garlies). The answer my noble Friend (Lord Garlies) received to his Question this afternoon, from the right

1993
hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the calculation of the Government was not that the cost would be £800,000 a-year, was evasive and unsatisfactory. There is a general opinion on this side of the House that the Question was not fairly answered, and I hope that on Thursday, when my noble Friend intends to renew his Question, a better answer will be given. If the Bill should pass and become law, it is a serious question whether the pay of the officers of the Army must not be raised. If you revolutionize the British Army, as you are going to do, and effect a complete change in the mode of officering it, it will be impossible for the officers of the Army to live on the pittance they will receive. This being so, I confess it was with extreme regret I heard one or two hon. Members of the House, who are opposed to the abolition of purchase, state that it was their belief that the purchase system was doomed, and that it had been condemned by Parliament. I hold that no man has a right to hold such language upon a question of this magnitude until Parliament has come to a decision upon it. And let me tell the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) that he takes rather a more limited view of what is the British Parliament than we do. He considers it has been sanctioned by Parliament. [Colonel SYKES: Hear, hear.] I say it has not. It has many more stages to go through before any hon. Gentleman can say it has received the sanction of Parliament. If the Government really think their plan worth all this money, why do they not tell us what it is? Questions have been put to them on this point time after time; but we can get nothing but vague answers. Yesterday evening the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War spoke. But what did they say? The whole tenor of their answer was sic volo, sic jubeo. We have been told that purchase meets the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War at every turn in dealing with the Army. I have asked him several times, and I will ask him again now, will he tell us what these turns are? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House generally put forth what they deem their strongest case when advocating any measure. And what was the case of my right hon. Friend? Why, the old story about cornets and ensigns—a case
1994
which is disposed of in a single sentence. If you want to do away with cornets and ensigns you have only to ask Parliament for the money. They were saddling the country with millions of expenditure, and refusing to tell them in what respect the Army was to be better constituted or better conducted than it had been for the last two centuries. We ask the Government to give us a better reason than they have hitherto put forward for the course they propose to take. I must deny that either the Opposition, or hon. Members on the other side, have been open to the censure which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has passed upon them. He seems to think that the fault is entirely on one side and that the conduct of the Government is perfectly free from blame. But I think we have great cause to complain of the conduct of the Government—and we have not yet done complaining—on the ground that while they call upon the country to make this great sacrifice they refuse to give us the information which it is their duty to impart; and we must repeat, until we get that information, that they have not treated the House of Commons with that frankness, respect, and candour to which it is entitled. The other day the right hon. Gentleman complained that the majority of this House was not allowed to prevail, and he said that if it did not prevail, it would be better to close the doors of this House. I do not deny that as a general proposition; but I think a condition attaches to it—namely, that the majority ought to be in earnest. We all remember the discussions on the Irish Church Bill. Both sides of this House were in earnest then. Never was an opposition more seriously or vigorously conducted, but the majority prevailed without difficulty. Why do they not prevail now? Because the majority do not like the Bill. As I said before, I do not believe there are 20 Members in this House who really approve of this Bill. Everybody dislikes the Bill. This House dislikes it; the Army dislikes it; and the public dislike it. ["Hear, hear!"] At any rate, if they do not know much about the Bill, they very much dislike the income tax. I wish to ask the Government whether they are quite secure that when this Bill is passed, purchase will really be at an end? Are they sure the bonus system will not exist; or that purchase in a more objectionable shape will not take the place of the present plan?

1995
I very much doubt the power of the Government to prevent it, unless they adopt the most unpopular and odious system of selection to the extent of applying it to every rank in the Army. I believe you will find in a short time that there will be a secret purchase system; so that you are very likely to injure your Army, saddle the country with an enormous burden, and exchange a system which has worked well for one that has not. I desire before I sit down to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this clause is passed, and we have arrived at the end of this portion of the Bill, relating to purchase, he will consent to report Progress, and reprint the Bill in order that we may be able to judge of the shape it will eventually assume, and really know what the Bill is.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was called out of the House just now; but I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has been kind enough to say that the answer I gave the noble Lord opposite (Lord Garlies) was evasive and unsatisfactory. The Question the noble Lord asked was, whether an estimate of the probable cost of a retirement scheme had been drawn up, and whether I would lay it on the Table? My answer was that no such document had been drawn up in my office, and that I had ascertained from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that no such document had been drawn up in his office, and therefore I could not lay it on the Table. Now, I shall be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell me in what way my answer can accurately be described as being either evasive or unsatisfactory?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have no objection to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. If he had given to my noble Friend the answer which he has now given to me, I should have found no fault with it. But his answer was given in very different language, and in such a tone that I believe I speak the unanimous opinion of my Friends around me, when I say that they think the noble Lord had much reason to complain of the manner in which his Question was answered.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman does not answer my question. I did not ask his opinion as to my manner, or the tone
1996
of the answer, but in what respect it was either evasive or unsatisfactory. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to make any statement of my words tallying with the recollection of those who sit on this side of the House which will bear that construction.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would ask whether the hon. Member for Stroud and other Members of the Committee were precluded from making Amendments upon this clause?
THE CHAIRMANreplied that it was the well-known Rule of Committees that after the Question was put "That the clause stand part of the Bill," no Amendment upon it could be moved, unless it were the pleasure of the Committee that the Question should be withdrawn, and it could only be withdrawn on the proposition of the Member in charge of the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) could not be proposed from the Chair, because it was not in accordance with the preliminary Resolution which authorized the Committee to make provision for the expenses of the Bill.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that under those circumstances, he begged to draw the attention of the Committee to the burden which this clause would impose upon the British taxpayer, and expressed the objection he felt to a sum being annually voted by that House for the purpose of carrying this scheme into effect. It was the duty of that House to see that any taxation imposed for this object should be as little onerous as possible, and therefore he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he proposed to take in order to levy the taxation that this measure would render necessary? If the scheme of the hon. Member for Stroud had been considered, the burden might have been made less onerous.
COLONEL SYKES, in reference to an accusation made against him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), explained that when he said that Parliament had resolved that purchase should be abolished, of course he meant that the House of Commons, as representing the country, had come to that decision.
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) took exception to the statement that the bur-

1997
den would fall upon the taxpayer; but it was evident that in whatever manner the expenses of this Bill were provided for, they must ultimately be defrayed out of money levied by additional taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War twitted hon. Members on that side of the House for the cheers they gave when any reference was made to unnecessary expense, and said they were inconsistent, because they had proposed to add to the cost of the Bill. But he overlooked the fact that he had failed to get rid of two objections to this measure—namely, that while, on the one hand, the country would gain nothing by the great expenditure which this measure would involve, on the other hand, the measure did not deal honestly towards officers on the subject of abolition of purchase, and proposed to pay them a composition of 10 s. or 15 s. instead of 20 s. in the pound. Before they left the discussion of this measure, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should furnish them with the grounds of his estimate of £8,000,000, and with a statement showing how that sum was to be expended. It was said that purchase met them at every turn; but he should like to have some proof of that, for it was evident that purchase could not affect such arrangements as the three years' enlistment, and the depriving of Lords Lieutenant of the power of nominations, or the portions of the Bill relating to the Militia.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that this important clause should not be disposed of in a summary way. His constituents were pressing him to obstruct this Bill in every possible way, for they considered that the Army had hitherto been well officered and efficient, and that as the aristocracy of this country found it for their benefit to pay for the privilege of serving their country, the constituencies were relieved from such charges as would be thrown upon them by this Bill. As trustees of public money they could not conscientiously sanction a measure of which the financial details were hidden in obscurity. They had to provide for the extinction of purchase and the transference of the Army from a profession to a trade. They would have to pay their officers better when they had removed every inducement which attracted to the Army the sons of monied men and of the aristocracy. ["Hear, hear!"]
1998
The aristocracy of money was represented in the Army equally with the aristocracy of birth, and it would be a loss to the Commonwealth if the sons of monied men were deprived of such a safety-valve as the Army. No doubt in the next half century colossal fortunes would be made by men of honesty and perseverance; yet their sons would be unable to enter a profession which brought them on a level with the society to which their parents had raised themselves. If the Committee were to grapple with this subject as a whole they must have an estimate. Otherwise the question would be left like the Maynooth Grant, to be brought forward year after year, and treated as a football for travelling showmen who went round the country. Those politicians who, in the manner of itinerant showmen exhibiting a double-headed woman or a pig-faced lady, perambulated the country for the purpose of creating excitement, would be sure to seize upon this question if it were left in an incomplete condition. He had taken the trouble of going through the Amendments, and so far from there having been any obstruction of an unnecessary nature, relatively speaking, from that side of the House, he found that the Amendments on the Paper were 54 Amendments from that side of the House, as against 35 from the other side. He could not see how the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government could charge the Conservative side of the House with obstructing the measure. They were there to guard the interests of the country, and were bound to consider a question which altered the whole defences of the country, and overthrew a system which, though parts of it could not be defended, had worked as well as any system could work.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he had hitherto abstained from taking part in the discussion, because, as a representative of a commercial constituency, he could not pretend to any professional knowledge of the subject. He had waited for the stage when the measure might be discussed on financial grounds. That stage had now arrived. He could not, however, see that any practical result would be attained by a discussion of Clause 5, because he presumed, even if the clause were negatived, Her Majesty's Government would be just as well able to carry the preceding clauses into effect. It

1999
would be, therefore, better to defer the discussion on the financial portion of the scheme, which they were only now beginning to touch. He wished, however, now to state that he would take an early opportunity, whether on the Report or the third reading, to raise the whole financial question.
MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had refused to furnish the House with a calculation of the probable cost of the measure, many hon. Members of the House had endeavoured to go into the question of the probable cost of the scheme. He had done so himself, and on a former occasion had brought forward his figures in no spirit of party or of hostility to the Bill. The question was what, according to the estimate of the Government, would be the probable cost, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of hon. Members of that House not to vote in support of any measure, the probable cost of which had not been distinctly ascertained. To make short work of it, he would move to report Progress, and he trusted that Motion would be persevered in until the Government chose to furnish the House with the estimated cost of the measure.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Bentinck.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must express his pleasure at the Notice given by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves). He had himself, some time ago, ventured to raise the financial question. At that time the country was not as fully aware of the cost of the abolition of purchase as it was now, and if the people had then the expense before them they would have thought twice before allowing their representatives to vote as they had done on the several questions that had come before the Committee. The country thought that the money to be expended was not simply for the abolition of purchase, but in order to place the whole military force of the country in such a position that we might look forward fearlessly, no matter from what quarter threats might come. But now that the Bill had been cut in two, and that the primary object for which it had been introduced had been abandoned, the Committee ought to have a full opportunity of discussing the mea-
2000
sure simply on financial grounds. He would certainly support the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool at the proper time.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that the abolition of purchase had never been thought worth a moment's consideration until the January of this year, when an hon. Member of this House thought fit to go down to Leeds among his (Mr. Wheelhouse's) constituents and make a speech to a very small audience in a very large hall. The original belief was, that the question was to be one of re-organization; but now it had been reduced simply to the question how much should be paid to abolish purchase. What he wanted was, that the taxpaying part of the community should be acquainted with what they had to pay. It had been said that those constituencies where persons had "stumped" should be made to pay the cost; but he begged leave to state that a very large proportion of his constituents were against the proposed measure. He knew he spoke with a strong commercial spirit as a representative of a great commercial constituency (Leeds); but it was precisely because he represented such a constituency that he felt it to be necessary that the House, and through it the people, should be made fully acquainted with the cost of retirement and with every phase of the question from beginning to end, since until that was done, the subject could not reasonably be expected to have any other eventuation than that of being unsatisfactory to every constituency which contributed, in any large measure, to the Imperial or local taxation of this country. To use a phrase that had become somewhat common of late, he (Mr. Wheelhouse) ventured to think that when the people were rendered fully aware of the fact, that the plan was to involve a cost of £1,000,000 or more for 10 years to come, without any apparent correlative advantage, they might come to the conclusion that, after all, "the game was not worth the candle."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, now that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had given the Committee reason to believe that the financial aspect of this question would be raised in a few days, he would confine himself to the expression of a hope that Her Majesty's Government, in preparation for that debate, would feel able and disposed to place clearly before the House the total cost at

2001
which they estimated this great scheme not only with reference to the abolition of purchase, but also to those ulterior measures which must form portions of it. Secondly, he would express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would clearly explain not the theoretical, but the practical advantages in the re-organization and increased efficiency of our forces, which they confidently expected to gain at the total cost which they should so submit to the consideration of the House. And, thirdly, he would express a hope that when Her Majesty's Government should have clearly placed those two aspects of the question before the House, they should then, for the first time, have from the professed economists of the House their deliberate opinion whether the practical results which Her Majesty's Government confidently expected to gain would be worth the cost and burden so to be imposed upon the country.
MR. FIELDENsaid, he would suggest the postponement of the clause for the present, and would observe that he had heard with great pleasure the announcement of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves). Though no doubt, theoretically, it was impossible to defend the purchase system, it was a question for their constituents, and one upon which it was fit to go to the country, whether, it being in existence, its abolition was worth the sum required for that purpose?
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 245: Majority 114.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he had hoped that on so grave a question, affecting the future of the Army of Great Britain, the Government would have conciliated the officers. On the contrary, from the beginning to the end, not a single suggestion made from his side of the House on behalf of the officers had been listened to. This Bill went to the very root of the organization of the British Army, not for the purpose of improving, but of destroying it. That, in his opinion, was the effect of the Bill, which offered even too large a compensation to officers withdrawing from the service, and did not adequately meet the just demands of those who remained. He was not disposed to accept the Bill as it stood, for he believed that it would tend to the destruction of the Army.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he conceived there existed some misapprehension as to the effect of the present clause. Some hon. Members were under the impression that it committed the House to an unlimited expenditure; but all the clause did was to point out the mode in which the expenditure should be defrayed.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that the clause only provided that Parliament was to raise the money; and if in any future Session it should be thought preferable to raise the money by loan that method could be adopted.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that, practically, by means of the present clause, purchase would be abolished and compensation given; and by now passing the clause hon. Members who could not command a majority on the Report of the Bill, or on the third reading, did, to a great extent, lose control over the matter. He protested against voting an unknown expenditure for an unknown result; and when it was stated that the scheme would cost £30,000,000 or £40,000,000, what was meant was that, in addition to the £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 the country would now have to pay, it must also make up its mind to pay a certain sum to induce officers to retire. The retirement had hitherto been paid for by the officers alone, and a surplus had been bagged by the Government for the Reserve Fund; but in future the money must come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. He defied the Prime Minister, who was now shaking his head in a most determined manner, to point out that he was wrong; and the House had a right, in consequence of that shaking of the Prime Minister's head, to a clear explanation showing that the statement was wrong that a large sum of money for retirement would in future have to come out of the pockets of people who now paid nothing for it. The Government called on the House to embark on this new expenditure for unknown results. He was against going on reporting Progress; let them be satisfied with the protest they had entered; and he hoped the facts of the case would sink deep into the minds of the people, and especially of the constituents of the economists—hon. Gentlemen who were trying to "square" it with their constituents by repudiating their political debts of honour. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford knew what

2003
he meant. [Mr. VERNON HARCOURT: Debts of dishonour.] He could not detain the Committee by going into that; he was referring to the over-regulation prices; and if the Government did not think these were debts of honour, they were not justified in asking the House to pay them. As the constituencies got to know more and more of the truth of that matter, hon. Gentlemen opposite would find it very difficult to "square" it with them on the hustings; and he hoped it would always be remembered that the Government were embarking the country in an unknown expenditure for the sake of wholly unknown results.
Clause agreed to.

ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]

  PART II.—Army Enlistment.
  Clause 6 (Rules as to enlistment).
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would suggest that inasmuch as very extensive changes had been made in the second part of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War should, before proceeding further, furnish hon. Members with a printed statement of the clauses which he intended to retain, in order that they might have a full opportunity of re-considering them in their amended form.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, with regard to Clause 6, considering the number of Amendments which were on the Paper, he proposed to omit it for the present, and to proceed with Clause 7 instead.
  COLONEL ANSONsaid, with respect to the clause in question, there was an important Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), relating to the whole question of recruiting for our Army. He therefore hoped that the Government would consent to the Chairman reporting Progress, in order that the subject referred to might be brought on the first thing on Thursday; for that purpose, therefore, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Anson.)
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the clauses of which he had given Notice he intended to propose omitting from the Bill were Clauses 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31,
  2004
  33, and 34. He now simply proposed to postpone Clause 6 and to proceed with Clause 7. He did not believe there was ever an occasion in which a similar course was objected to by the House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the difficulty in the matter was this—the 6th clause was in reality the 1st clause, which dealt practically with the organization of the Army. It appeared to him that this mode of proceeding was rather sharp practice on the part of the Government, for they could not expect hon. Gentlemen to keep in their memories the long string of clauses which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War wished to omit or retain—he (Lord John Manners) could not say exactly which.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was much gratified at seeing the great interest taken by the noble Lord in those clauses. He (Mr. Cardwell) should be glad to see Clause 6 adopted, although its effect would be only to add to the powers given by the Act of last Session. Seeing, however, the number of Amendments on the Paper to that clause, he should simply move that it be postponed.
  Question, "That the Committee do report Progress," put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 243: Majority 94.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in order that the remainder of the Morning Sitting might be devoted to real business, he should move that this clause be postponed.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he had communicated his intentions with perfect frankness to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and was ready to adopt any course that might suit the convenience of the House, his only object being to secure a discussion of one of the most essential principles involved in the Bill, and that which directly affected the civilian class. An opportunity should be given for an expression of opinion against that part of the Bill being wholly abandoned without their denying the right of the Government to withdraw any part of their Bill on stating fair reasons for so doing. Some reciprocity ought to be observed in these matters, and there were many hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who had not offered the slightest obstruction to the progress of the measure, yet felt so little confi-

  2005
  dence in it that they were unable to support the Government. Three months had been given to discussions about the officers, and now he asked for one day to consider the rank and file, as to which it would appear that his right hon. Friend had changed his mind since he introduced his measure. The interests of 190,000 men were at stake.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had made a very fair proposal, and he had undertaken to consent to any course that would give him the opportunity of taking the opinion of the House upon the subject referred to. But there was another question, and one of an invidious and unusual character, involved in this opposition to the withdrawal of the 6th clause. He remembered no instance in which, when the Government wished to withdraw a portion of a Bill, permission was refused, because that would lead to this practice—that the Committee would be engaged in discussing Amendments on clauses which the Government had no intention to press. The omission of the 6th clause would not prevent his hon. Friend from bringing the subject of recruiting forward in a separate form.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he could give the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a precedent for the course which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) now proposed to take. The right hon. Gentleman had himself furnished the precedent. In the course of the debates on the Reform Bill of 1867, and when there was some talk of withdrawing a portion of it, the right hon. Gentleman dissented, saying that the Bill was in the possession of the House, and that he should insist upon its right to deal with it as it pleased. However, it happened that the right hon. Gentleman was in a minority on that occasion. Hon. Members were greatly embarrassed by the mode in which the Government were conducting this Bill. Now, he believed that there was no subject in which the country felt more interest than the subject of enlistment. It ought to have been brought under the attention of the House long ago; and more than one hon. Gentleman of position and influence had consulted him as to the best method of doing so. But he had always felt that while the Bill was before the House, and while the
  2006
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was on the Paper, it was unnecessary to force a discussion on the subject, or to ask the Government to set aside a day for it, as the opportunity would be afforded in the natural progress of Business. But by the course now adopted by the Government that opportunity was lost, and they were prevented from discussing the matter, and placed in an absurd position on a subject of vital interest; for not the slightest allusion had been made in the House to one of the principal subjects on which the country desired to know the opinions of its Representatives. It seemed to him that the Committee had the right to expect that the Government should now place before them, in a clear and distinct manner, their views as to such portions of the Bill as were to be persevered with, and that it should not be asked to postpone this particular clause or to omit that one without any reference to the whole scheme of the Government. He could see no reason why this request should be refused; and though he had never sanctioned the use of Motions for reporting Progress as instruments of delay, and had not approved of the last Motion to that effect, it really appeared to him that they were now in a position in which they had the right to appeal to the forms of the House to protect them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was no practical difference of opinion between them as to the latter part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Though he should regret the loss even of the half-hour that remained of the Sitting, he should not prolong the contest if hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined to prevent further progress being made with the Bill. As to the request that the Bill should be re-printed, the Secretary for War had already entered into an engagement that that should be done. With respect, however, to another matter, he must dispute the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, and deny that there was any precedent for considering in detail a portion of a Bill which the Government wished to withdraw, and he challenged him to prove that that course was taken on the Reform Bill in 1867. In his opinion, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was totally inaccurate from beginning to end. A proposal was made to the House for an Amendment in the Reform Bill

  2007
  of the right hon. Gentleman. If his memory served him right, the right hon. Gentleman said that if that proposal were carried the Government must re-consider their position with reference to the Bill—distinctly intimating that they might think it their duty not to persevere with the Bill. Upon that he (Mr. Gladstone) rose in his place and said the House had then reached an advanced stage of the Bill, that the Bill had been moulded by the House, and that if the Government chose to decline to carry the Bill onwards, the Bill would be the property of the House, and the House would be entitled to proceed with the Bill. That was a matter entirely different from and had no relation to the subject now before the House. The Government did not propose to abandon this Bill. They did not propose to abandon those which were deemed, to be the vital parts of the Bill, and the objection taken by himself was not such an objection as was taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government intended to ask the Committee to negative one of these clauses; but the right hon. Gentleman wished that a series of Amendments upon it should first be discussed in detail. The clause itself might be negatived. Could anything be more unsatisfactory than the course proposed by the right Gentleman? Would it be possible for the Government to enter into a consideration of Amendments upon a clause which the Government were predetermined, if they had the power, to reject it?
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had always understood—and he was confirmed in that understanding by what had just fallen from the Prime Minister—that when a Bill, or any portion of a Bill, was laid before the House, it was the property of the House. The Government had laid a Bill on the Table, and now they announced their intention of omitting certain clauses which the majority of hon. Members thought were the most important clauses in the Bill. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire would maintain the position he had taken up.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, if the important question of enlistment was to be argued out, he did not see why it should not be argued on this clause.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, the Government to-day were acting inconsistently with the course they took yesterday. He held that this clause which the Government
  2008
  wished to withdraw or to have negatived would, as it stood, simply increase the destructive powers of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and those powers were sufficiently given by Clause 1, which the Committee had already passed. But the question of the men in the Army was the main thing after all, and he wanted, if possible, to prevent the disorganization of the men. It was possible that if this clause were retained, his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) might introduce some Amendment which would prevent boys of 16, 18, or 19, from being sent out, as now, to rot in the colonies and in India.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that when the noble Lord talked of inconsistency, he would recommend him to refer to that speech which lasted two or three hours, on the second reading of the Bill, in which the noble Lord pointed out, most elaborately, that the Bill had little or nothing in it except the purchase clause. But this afternoon and last night this clause that the Government proposed to withdraw had become of paramount importance, and far more important than the purchase clause. The noble Lord knew as well as he (Mr. Cardwell) did that what the Government were endeavouring to do was to facilitate the Business of the House. The noble Lord had just stated that he had the greatest possible objection to this clause, and yet he objected to its withdrawal. If his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) wished to bring forward his proposal about enlistment, he could obtain an opportunity of doing so at another time. Upon those who impeded the attempt of the Government to facilitate the progress of Public Business would rest all the responsibility of stopping it.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, he thought the Secretary of State ought to inform the Committee what were the views of the Government upon the subject of the clause which they wished to withdraw, for at present everybody was dissatisfied with the system of recruiting.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the Committee were in a difficulty by the fault of the Government. At the same time, he did not see how the Government could have taken any other course, after the peculiar opposition offered to the Bill. The regular course would be to re-commit

  2009
  the Bill pro formâ, in order that it might be reprinted; but if they did, the Opposition would insist on their right of debating all the clauses again. It would be unfair to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. M. Torrens) to proceed now, and he therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, as he understood they were about to assent to the adjournment of the discussion, he would not be wasting time if he were to lay before the Committee some of the impressions which this and other scenes of the same kind which he had witnessed had made upon the mind of one, who, without pretending to have any claim to be heard in the discussion of purely military questions, was a very great well-wisher of the Army, of the honour of the country and the credit of Parliament. The Government had introduced this Bill, desiring that all the parts of it—the clauses which they now proposed to withdraw and the other clauses—should be debated upon their merits and considered in due course by the House. What was the reason why now, upon the 13th of June, that could not be done? He did not hesitate to say that it was because a course had been taken which he never remembered anything like before. They had had other great measures discussed in that House, and other great interests involved. Two years ago they had the question of the Irish Church. People felt very keenly and deeply on that question, and yet they went into the discussion in Committee upon each particular clause bonâ fide, and simply with reference to the merits and character of the matters involved, and they did not consume time for the sake of preventing the measure from being carried by a majority. Again, last year another question, certainly as trying as any possibly could be where great interests were concerned and great principles involved—the question of the Irish land — was before the House, and though there were most numerous Amendments, and most anxious questions discussed, yet the House, and particularly those hon. Gentlemen opposite whose interests were affected, and who were apprehensive of serious evils from the Bill, did themselves, in the estimation of the House and the country, infinite honour by the practical, businesslike manner in which they went into the details. They recognized on those occa-
  2010
  sions the duty of above all things respecting the principles of Parliamentary Government, and not conducting the opposition to that Bill or any other Bill, however great its importance, in a manner which might set the example of disorder and confusion in that House, and prevent the majority from having its due power and influence upon that or any other occasion on which there might be anything like a powerful minority. What was the appearance of what was going on now?—he would not say the intention, though it looked decidedly like the intention of consuming time as it had been already consumed in the debates over and over again. What he was contending for, was the principle of Parliamentary Government—that the decision of the majority of that House must be acquiesced in and submitted to. But what was the appearance of the present state of things? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, simply because he was in danger of being beaten by time, proposed to withdraw clauses which otherwise he was desirous to carry. To these clauses there were a great number of Notices of Amendments, and it looked as if the tactics of those who had hitherto caused so much delay, were again about to be brought into play. To insist that every one of those clauses should be brought forward in its turn, in order that the Amendments might be considered and decided upon when the Government abandoned the clauses altogether, must be merely to consume time without any useful result. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) considered the clauses very objectionable as they stood; and yet they were to be brought forward merely for the purpose of discussing in detail numberless Amendments which would consume time and end in the rejection of the Bill. He did not know what the intention might be; but of this he was perfectly sure—that it was neither in the interest of the Army, nor of the officers of the Army, nor of Conservative principles, nor of the party opposite, for whom he, for his own part, had a most sincere respect, that this course should be pursued upon that or any other occasion.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he must express his surprise that a Gentleman for whose abilities and talents he had so great a respect should have fallen into so great an error. This clause

  2011
  in itself involved a most important subject—the recruiting of the Army; and the question was, whether the Government were to be allowed to withdraw it from the House in that manner. He utterly disclaimed the idea of standing in the way of the Bill; he had never opened his lips on the questions that had been before the House; but in this subject of the recruiting of our Army he took the deepest interest.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, that this clause was nothing more than a repetition of the Bill of last year, which had the most disastrous effect, and he and those who thought with him were most anxious for an opportunity of amending it.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

NAVY — NAVAL CADETS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. T. BRASSEYrose to call attention to the Report of a Committee on the Education of Naval Officers recently presented to Parliament, and to move—
"That it is expedient to adopt the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty as to the training of Naval Cadets."
He said the House had been engaged last week in a discussion with reference to the manning of the Navy, and he would venture to hope that the Motion which stood in his name, referring to the education of our naval officers, might be regarded as having some interest to the House, in connection with the manning of the Navy; because certain it was that, to provide reserves of seamen without providing competent officers to command those reserves, in case of their being called on to take active service, would be an act of neglect which would be dangerous in a great national emergency. During the last 20 years, all the circumstances of sea life in the Navy had greatly changed; for instance, steam had been universally applied as a motive power to vessels of war. Naval gunnery had become more complicated, and therefore greater accuracy in mastering the details of gun drill was necessary. The science of Naval architecture had undergone a complete revolution, as a
2012
consequence of which the Navy presented to young beginners a new feature of study in the shape of iron-clad vessels of innumerable types. All these considerations pointed to the necessity of reviewing the system of training our naval officers. Again, the general advance in the standard of education made it necessary that the Navy, as a great national service, should participate in the general progress; and in order to enable the Navy to hold its own with the other great professions, more complete and general education should be obtained by naval officers than they had the opportunity of acquiring under the existing regulations. In order that naval officers should have advantage of this superior education, it was necessary to extend the time for the admission of naval cadets into the service; and he suggested that the age of 16 was not too advanced an age for the admission of naval cadets. He thought a natural consequence of such an extension of the time would be that the young cadet would be able to participate in the inestimable advantages of a public school education. In the evidence given before the Naval Commission of 1859, Admiral Mends gave strong testimony in favour of such training; and Captain Harris, who had been in command of the St. Vincent, the principal training ship for boys at Portsmouth, stated that the age of 17 was the best age at which to admit lads into the Navy to be trained as men-of-war's men. He might add that the Commission on Military Education had recently reported that 17 was the age at which professional aptitude was most readily acquired. If the agility aloft, and the seamanlike qualities required in the blue-jackets of the Navy, could be best acquired by lads entering the service at the age of 17, á fortiori that age would not be too advanced for the admission of young men who were to be educated as naval officers. By the present system, midshipmen were expected to do duty as officers before their education was complete. Now, that involved many inconveniences. For example, Sir Charles Napier pointed out to the Commission of 1859 that, under the existing system, it was often necessary to send away a very young officer in charge of a boat manned by seamen much more experienced than himself; and this Sir Charles had always felt to be an objection, as it often led to the young officer find-

2013
ing fault with the men, and led to punishments which were very injurious to the efficiency of the service. The last Committee on the Education of Officers reported that there was a general incompatibility between the positions of an officer and a school-boy, which were attempted to be combined by our present system. This double duty made the progress of the naval cadet extremely unsatisfactory. Their duties as midshipmen prevented them from giving up the necessary time to acquire instruction. In the Channel Fleet, as was shown by a recent Return, the maximum instruction to cadets was eight hours, and the minimum instruction was two hours a-week, so that it was impossible for a boy to obtain much instruction on board ship. In foreign Navies the age of admission was fixed at a much more advanced age. In the United States Navy, the age was from 14 to 18 years; In the French, it was from 14 to 17 years; in the Russian it was from 15 to 18 years; while in ours, under the existing regulations, the age was from 12 to 13. The subsequent course of instruction was in the Britannia for two years, with one year's training in a sea-going training ship, so that at the age of 16 the midshipman began to do duty as a young officer. The Committee had reviewed the whole subject very carefully, and recommended that the period of special training in the stationary ship should be extended by one year, so that there would be three years' special training in the stationary ship, and in the last year the boys would go to sea to obtain experience in cruising. Assuming that no change could be made in the age of admission, the recommendations of the Committee were wise and judicious; but he regretted that they had not seen fit to recommend the more advanced age he had suggested, in order that young officers might not be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing their studies in the public schools of England. He thought the course of education was too exclusively mathematical, and that modern languages did not occupy a sufficiently prominent place. In the American Navy it had been found that modern languages were not inferior to mathematics as a means of mental culture. He would quote Professor Mayne, of the Naval College at Portsmouth, as an authority in favour of the more careful and complete study of the
2014
French language; Captain Goodenough had also adverted to the lamentable ignorance of the French language when the French and English squadrons were exchanging international courtesies in 1865, and expressed his deep regret that so little French was known by the officers of Her Majesty's Fleet. There were other practical studies which were too little attended to; and he might instance particularly the study of steam. In the United States service they had found in the protracted war with the Southern States that great disadvantage arose in the service from the inefficiency of the numerous engineers who were taken into employment in the Navy, and from the inability of the executive officer to correct the mistakes of the engineering staff. Profiting by that experience, the American naval authorities had introduced a practical course of steam for young officers. There was, indeed, a similar course at the Naval College at Portsmouth; but that was only open to officers of a higher grade. He hoped a like provision would be made for cadets during the period of their educational training. He would further refer to the recommendation of the Committee on the Education of Officers in favour of fitting out two brigs to be attached to the vessels of instruction, because he believed that they would prove to be most valuable schools of practical instruction. Admiral Sullivan, in an able memorandum on the subject, specially adverted to the failure to teach seamanship on board the Bristol, and expressed a hope that by employing small vessels in which the young gentlemen themselves could carry out nautical evolutions, they would thereby become better practical seamen. Another great advantage from attaching these brigs to the stationary vessels would be that the young officers would learn the pilotage of our own waters, to which these vessels would be necessarily confined. In confirmation of the suggestion which he had ventured to make, he would refer to a passage in the "Autobiography of Lord Nelson," in which the great captain stated that when he was a very young officer he was allowed to go in the cutter and the deck long-boat attached to the flag-ship at Chatham, and was constantly employed in navigating the North and South Channels of the Thames, and thus became familiar with the whole pilotage from London to

2015
the North Foreland, and to Harwich, and acquired a facility and nerve in navigating in narrow waters and dangerous rocks and shoals which he found in his subsequent career of inestimable advantage. Our iron-clad vessels had tended materially to diminish the cruising experience of the young officers of the Fleet; and he hoped that it might be found practicable to employ a greater number of vessels in the Mediterranean of a class that could be navigated under sail. In the American Navy such vessels were always employed on foreign stations in time of peace. This suggestion would, he thought, prevent the recurrence of similar cases to that mentioned by Captain Goodenough, of a midshipman who, having served four years on board one ship, had never seen that ship tacked under canvass. In a paper recently read at the United Service Instition, the deficiency of the education of naval officers in the present day in practical seamanship was clearly shown; and he believed that in the Cunard service there was a regulation that no officer could take the rank of master or chief officer unless he had previously served in a sailing vessel. If in the Mediterranean it should not be deemed advisable to substitute sailing frigates, with auxiliary steam power, like the steam clipper frigate of the United States Navy, still brigs might be attached to the squadrons to give the young officers experience in cruising under sail. Many eminent witnesses, who had given evidence before the Committee on the Education of Naval Officers expressed an opinion in favour of the abolition of the special class of navigating officers. Such a change, he believed, would exert a beneficial influence upon the general knowledge of navigation in the Navy. The Report of the Committee of 1862 was not in favour of such abolition; but it was suggested that a few lieutenants should be allowed to volunteer for those duties. He could not but think that it was desirable that the experiment recommended should be tried of appointing ten officers to do navigating duties. Many eminent men in the service had given opinions in favour of abolishing the special navigating class, and Mr. Lindsay had on two occasions in able memoranda expressed a similar opinion. He would strongly urge upon the Admiralty that all the officers who had given opinions in fa-
2016
vour of the retention of the special navigating class had also most strongly recommended that a steam vessel should be employed specially to give instructions in pilotage to young officers who were qualifying to take charge of Her Majesty's ships, instead of their having to learn their profession when they were actually in charge of such ships. The Pysche despatch boat, which was recently lost on the coast of Sicily, was lost in consequence of the want of necessary experience of the navigating officer in charge of the watch. He should like, if possible, to obtain the support of the House in favour of extending the Naval College at Portsmouth, so as to make it a great naval University for the naval service, and also for the Mercantile Marine, which should be empowered to confer degrees in all branches of science which were important in a nautical point of view. This proposal was originally made by some eminent Liverpool merchants and shipowners, and was favourably received by the Duke of Somerset. Such an University would seem to afford the best means of effecting a real fusion between the Mercantile Marine and the naval service, so that the former should be able to afford material aid in a naval war. The proposal could be carried out at a small expense, and the degrees being open to both services would be more highly appreciated in the Mercantile Marine. Examinations could be held in the various ports in a similar manner to that adopted by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in conferring Art degrees. It might be thought that a sufficient number of mercantile officers would not be found to undergo an expensive course of education, but there were already two vessels—one in the Thames, and another in the Mersey—for the instruction of mercantile officers, and he could say that the one in the Thames was crowded with students. He would venture to propose that a commission in the Naval Reserve in future should be given only to persons who had passed an examination in the practical part of gunnery. It should be made incumbent on those who belonged to the Reserve forces to undergo short courses of study, and if for the Naval Reserve there could be arranged a short course of gunnery on board the Excellent, it would not be an unreasonable exaction to require that every officer in the Naval Reserve should qualify himself by going

2017
through the course. The Navy of the Northern States of America had received most efficient aid during the late war from the Mercantile Marine, which furnished no less than 7,500 naval officers to the fleet. In conclusion, he would say that though he should be prepared to go further than the recommendations of the Committee as regarded changes in the naval service, yet he accepted their recommendations so far as they went, believing them to be well calculated to secure increased efficiency and skill in the officers of the Navy. He begged leave to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to adopt the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty as to the training of Naval Cadets,"—(Mr. Brassey.)
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had apologized to the House for having made an unnecessary speech; but he (Mr. Goschen) could assure him that it was quite of a contrary character, and that the naval service would not complain of the tone of his remarks. They might not agree with all his observations, or all the conclusions at which he arrived; but they would concur with him in thinking that the subject was one the importance of which could not be overrated. A week ago the House was engaged in discussing the subject of the manning of the Navy; and great as was the importance of that subject, it was almost equalled in importance by the subject of to-night—namely, the education of the officers who were to take the command of the ships. The hon. Member had spoken of the great changes which had taken place in the Navy during the last 50 years. No doubt, these changes had been exceedingly great; but the changes which had been made in the education of the naval officers, though they might not yet have been so great as was necessary, had followed the course of events, so that greater attention was now paid to the education of the officers than was paid to it 10 or 20, or 30 years ago. A most important change had taken place in this way—that the time during which naval cadets received instruction had almost doubled. A short time ago, a year and three months was all the time that was devoted to the
2018
cadets; now they were instructed for two years before they were sent to sea, after which they went for a year to sea to learn their seamanship and navigation. The hon. Member had also spoken of the early age at which cadets entered the service. This was a moot point in the Navy; and while the hon. Member was able to cite opinions in favour of the later age, a very large number of officers still adhered to the idea that the cadets should be entered very young. From the strictly educational point of view, he believed that the hon. Member was right, and that the nation would have a more highly-educated set of officers, the later they entered the service. It was very important to secure as much school training for cadets as possible before they entered the Navy, and, if it could be shown that by the entry at 16 years of age, they would be as able to secure as many and as good officers as when they entered at 13, a very strong case would have been made out in favour of the latter age. He would be unwilling, considering the short time he had been at the Admiralty, to make any declaration of opinion as to the age at which cadets should enter the Navy. The analogy drawn by the hon. Member between the Army and Navy upon that point was not conclusive, because the life which the naval cadet had to follow differed so much more from ordinary life, than the change which took place in regard to the military cadet, that he did not think they could reason from one to the other. He was informed that the boys who took to the sea very young were more likely to stick to it, and make it a profession, than those who entered later in life. And further, he would ask his hon. Friend would he propose that they should have no boys who were under 16, or would he admit boys between 13 and 16? [Mr. T. BRASSEY: Between 12 and 16.] He certainly thought that would be the preferable mode of the two. But, if so, there would be a difficulty, which would be considerable—that those entered at 13 might become seniors in time in the Navy to those who entered at 16, and the boys coming from the schools, and being placed under their juniors might have much to suffer, and be alienated from the service at a very early age. He would not, however, express any definite opinion upon the subject at present, but promised that it should be fully

2019
investigated, and would say that any arguments in favour of admitting cadets of greater age would receive full consideration by himself and his colleagues at the Admiralty. Great difference of opinion existed among naval men on the subject, but it was a fact that difficulty was experienced in advancing cadets in intellectual pursuits after leaving the training-ship, so that it would evidently be a gain if their studies could be prolonged before they entered the Navy. When they once went to sea they ceased to make any real progress in study. The Committee which sat on this subject recommended that the naval instructors should be abolished altogether, because the number of hours of instruction was so small as to be scarcely adequate to the cost. This brought him to another point—that the time should be extended during which cadets should be trained. Theoretically, there was a great deal to be said in favour of this plan; but on whom would the expense of an extra year's education fall? On the State, or on the parents? The naval cadets paid £70 a-year for the two years on board the Britannia; and the expense was considerable on the officers who sent their sons to training. While agreeing that an additional year's schooling would be a serious thing for the officers and for the parents of the boys generally, it was deserving of consideration whether the time of training should not be lengthened. He agreed in the suggestion regarding training brigs, for they had been found to work very successfully in the case of seamen, and he did not see why it should not be equally successful in the case of naval cadets. On the whole, he was inclined to think that if the naval instructors were really not causing that progress in education that might have been wished, it might be necessary to re-consider the whole of that portion of education, and see whether it could be possible to give a longer education before going to sea. But he must say that, in settling that point, it was a practical consideration that boys should not go to sea at a later age than was likely to give them a taste for the sea. The next point was this—Would it be desirable to substitute French to a certain extent for the higher branches of mathematics? Nothing could be more important than to increase the knowledge of French in our officers;
2020
but he did not think it would be desirable to give up mathematics—in fact, the Committee complained that mathematics were too much neglected by our naval officers already. He thought, in fact, that the time on hand was sufficient for the study of French and modern languages, and the study of mathematics also. The hon. Member next expressed a wish that after the naval cadets had become midshipmen, there should not be a want of training in navigation, and seamanship, and pilotage. It was quite desirable in every way to stimulate those studies; but he could not agree with the hon. Member's recommendation to abolish the navigating officers. There were officers in favour of their abolition, and there were officers opposed to it. His own view was, that it was obviously desirable that every lieutenant should be able to navigate a ship; but that was a very different thing from abolishing the class of navigating officers. The general view of the matter was that the navigating officers should be replaced in time of war by merchant seamen so as to liberate the fighting force; but if this were done, men would be introduced on occasions of great moment to navigate ships with which they were almost wholly unacquainted. It was desirable that those who had charge of these ships in time of war should be men who were thoroughly acquainted with all their eccentricities; and complete knowledge of ships of novel construction, such as our ships of war, could not be gained in a day. It was desirable that a navigating officer should be thoroughly well acquainted with his ship, just as it was advisable for a rider to know the character of his horse. But be this as it might, he was told that there was no more valuable class of officers than the navigating officers; and as a curious illustration of how what was undervalued in one country was valued in another, he would mention that a distinguished French officer had stated that there were two points of the English system which were most admirable, and that these were our navigation officers and our marines. Our navigating officers constituted a class of officers whom of all others in our Navy foreigners most admired; and there was this further consideration—that while the Mercantile Marine were exceedingly valuable upon all the beaten tracks, they would not be

2021
able to compete with the navigating officers in unknown waters and under exceptional circumstances. As to training, he entirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member, who said it was desirable to give to these navigating officers a special training for their profession. Now, no naval subject interested the Admiralty more than the education of that class of officers, and already the idea had been partly carried out; for those ships which had been employed around the coast, the Fox, Buzzard, Medina, Medusa, and Dee, which were continually moving about the Channel, had been almost entirely officered from that class, the object, of course, being to afford to them an opportunity of acquiring the requisite experience. The Admiralty would keep an eye on the education of navigating officers, and if he attached great importance to their existence, it must not be supposed on that account he did not think progress ought to be made in the education of the active lieutenants and sub-lieutenants; on the contrary, he felt everything should be done that could be done to qualify them for the performance of their functions with greater efficiency than at present. At present, however, he was not prepared to say it would be wise to amalgamate the two classes, and do away with the class of navigating officers. With regard to the question of age he was open to conviction, but did not think the hon. Member had adduced sufficient evidence to show that any change ought to be made in that particular. As to attaching a training brig to the Britannia, and lengthening the time of training, he thought the hon. Member had made out a stronger case, and it was a subject worthy of much consideration. He also admitted that great force existed in the remarks respecting the abolition of naval instructors on board the ships of the Navy. He could assure the hon. Member that all the points he had urged would receive the careful attention of the Admiralty; and he therefore hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), upon the excellent statement he had made to the House, and, at the same time, was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman the First
2022
Lord giving a prudent answer to the speech. For several years he had been in favour of admitting officers into the Navy at a later age than that now fixed. He thought the age should be 16. No doubt it was held by high authorities that youths took to the sea more readily and became more of amphibious animals if admitted at an earlier age, and that later on they were apt to become disgusted with their profession. On the other hand, it was of great importance that they should be able to go to Eton or Harrow, and enjoy the benefits of a public school education up to 15 or 16, instead of being taken from private educational training at 12. A distinguished relative of his own, Lord Dundonald, one of the most conspicuous examples of a naval officer who ever flew a flag, never went to sea till he was 18; and though one instance of that kind was not sufficient to prove the rule, it showed that a late age for entering the Navy was no disadvantage. As to naval instructors, he could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he intimated that it might be advantageous that there should no longer be instructors on board the ships of the Navy, for he did not gather from the Report of the Committee that they made an absolute recommendation for the discontinuance of this class of officers, and, for his part, he was entirely adverse to any such proposal. He was well aware that many naval officers had been trained without the advantage of naval instructors on board the ships in which they served—in fact, he was himself for three years on board a ship in which there was no such instructor; but in those days, the young naval officers were the protegés of the captains, and he personally had the good fortune to serve under a commander of great ability, who, taking an interest in the youngsters, devoted much of his time to their instruction. That was, however, no part of the commander's duty, and as it was impossible to calculate upon circumstances of exceptional good fortune in every case, it would be unfair to young naval officers in the present day to expect them to become efficient unless they had the assistance of competent instructors. He had heard with pleasure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the navigating officers. It was a question upon which, in his opinion, it would be

2023
desirable to leave well alone. The lieutenant on board a ship might be equally skilful and competent as a navigator, but the navigating officer ought, in addition, to be sufficiently familial with our coast to be able to take his ship safely into harbour without the assistance of a pilot in the darkest night of winter. It would, therefore, be a pity to abolish this class of officers.
CAPTAIN EGERTONsaid, he thought it almost impossible to fix too early an age for boys to commence their training as naval officers, so long as it was not fixed lower than 12 years; but, at the same time, he thought no impediment should be put in the way of officers entering up to the age of 15 or 16 years. With regard to the education of naval officers, he feared there was a tendency in the present day to give that education too theoretical a character to the neglect of the practical branches of their profession. For instance, out of 400 lieutenants on the active list, he found that only three or four had obtained first-class certificates at the Naval College. Agreeing with the hon. and gallant Baronet who had last spoken (Sir John Hay), as to the advisability of continuing the services of navigating officers in the Navy, he thought greater opportunities than they now enjoy should be afforded to these meritorious officers of obtaining the prizes of the profession. On behalf of the service, he begged to thank the hon. Member for Hastings for having so ably called attention to this naval question.
MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that after the promise of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the matter under discussion should receive consideration, he would not press his Motion to a division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA—EAST INDIA ADMINISTRATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. FAWCETTrose to call attention to a Petition recently presented to this House, numerously and influentially signed by Native and European inhabitants of India, in reference to the Financial and General Administration of the Affairs of that Country; and to move—
  "That, in order to make an inquiry into the finances and financial administration of India as complete and satisfactory as possible, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to obtain
  2024
  either by the granting of a Commission, or by some other means, evidence in India on the subject, both from Native and European inhabitants of that Country."
  The hon. Member said, that the Petitioners directed attention to the fact that in India there had been a succession of deficits, antagonistic to the well-being and credit of the country, and involving an increased and new taxation alien to the feelings and the customs of the people, and likely to create in their minds a sentiment of opposition to British rule. They then asserted that these deficits might be avoided if the finances of India were administered with greater statesmanship and economy. They alluded particularly to the Public Works Department, in which they alleged there was great waste, prodigality, and extravagance, and they asserted that many costly public works had been or were in the course of being carried out which were not likely to prove remunerative, and which would throw a heavy burden on the people of India. Further, they asserted that there was no proper check on the sums expended on stores in England, they being frequently purchased at extravagant rates. They next referred to the Home charges, complaining that there was no proper control over the Indian money spent in this country, and they asserted that Indian Budgets would continue to be uncertain as long as the Home charges were uncertain. Next, they objected to the vexation and the corruption which they asserted were sometimes caused by the collection of the income tax. They referred likewise to the inadequate representation of the Natives in the administration of the affairs of their country, stating that the unfairness of such inadequate representation was heightened by the fact that the greater portion of the year was spent by the Government at Simla, where it was difficult for the non-official Members to follow them, so that the Administrative were separated from the Executive parts of the Government. They further referred to certain changes which might be carried out in the Army, and they alluded particularly to the importance of abolishing the separate military commands in the different Presidencies. Having made these allegations, they went on to pray that a Commission might be appointed to take evidence in India on the subject. When this sub-

  2025
  ject was referred to in "another place," an extraordinary and unprecedented response was made on the part of Her Majesty's Government. They said to the Marquess of Salisbury—"If you press for a Commission to take evidence in India, we shall consider that it is a censure on the Government of India, and, in fact, we shall treat it as a Vote of Want of Confidence in that Government." He entreated the independent Members of that House to put an end to this system of treating almost every Motion as one involving a Vote of Want of Confidence. If, indeed, they did not make a strong protest against the practice, they would never have any question decided upon its merits, as the Government would constantly resort to a subterfuge that would prove fatal to the independence of the House. There was no ground whatever for treating this Petition from the people of India as though it involved a censure of, or a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government of India; and he (Mr. Fawcett) thought that the proposal of the Petitioners might be supported on three very distinct grounds of approval. In the first place, the demand of the Petitioners was in itself reasonable; secondly, the argument of the Government that a Vote of Want of Confidence was involved was absolutely indefensible; and, thirdly, it could be easily shown that no investigation into the affairs of India could be complete or satisfactory if evidence on the subject were not taken in India. By consenting to the appointment of a Select Committee, Her Majesty's Government had admitted that Indian finance and financial administration required investigation. Why, then, should there not be an inquiry in India as well as in England? What would be said if Englishmen had to go to India and give evidence respecting the finances of this country? Still, they might go there, although the cost and inconvenience would be very great; but it must not be forgotten that a large proportion of the Natives of India absolutely refused, for reasons connected with their religion and caste, to cross the ocean; and, consequently, their evidence could not be taken except in India. It might, perhaps, be said that he was one of the first to suggest the appointment of the Select Committee, and that he now came forward to ask for something more.
  2026
  Nothing could be further from his intentions than to say a word against that Committee which had now been sitting for three months, the revelations and the results of which would, he believed, be far more important than anyone could have anticipated. Nevertheless, that Committee would not do all that was necessary. The Petition he had referred to alleged that no investigation could be complete and satisfactory unless evidence was taken in India. Among the subscribers to that Petition was Mr. Boleyn Smith, the President of the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce, and also a non-official member of the Legislative Council there. In their Petition they distinctly asserted that unless evidence was taken in India, it was impossible for the investigation to be complete and for all the facts to be ascertained. If the request to have evidence taken in India was refused, a bad impression would be produced in that country, and much of the good which the investigation would otherwise do would be lost; for the people of India would say we not only refused to give them adequate representation, but we wished to create an impassable gulf between the rulers and the ruled, because we refused those who were most affected by a special investigation an opportunity of expressing their views. Every statesman who had considered Indian affairs had concluded that the greatest problem we had to solve was to create greater communion in India between the rulers and the ruled. Sir Donald M'Leod had said that the people of India had no constitutional method of making their wants known; that the devising such a method was the most important problem which could present itself to Indian statesmen; and that unless it were solved our dominion in India could not be secured, and the continuance of our power there could not work for the good of the people; and he added that the want of sympathy and of understanding between the Government and the people was absolutely lamentable, and if something were not done to remedy the evil our power in India must be most gravely imperilled. Would not this want of sympathy and of understanding be intensified if we held a special inquiry, at which those who had the least opportunity of being heard would be the people of India themselves? It might be said that nothing

  2027
  could be elicited in India which could not be gathered by the Select Committee sitting in this House; but no one could express a confident opinion on that point; and, even admitting that a Commission would not elicit a single fact which could not be brought out by the Select Committee upstairs, that assumption would scarcely weaken the force of his argument, for, however painstaking and exhaustive the inquiry might be, unless Natives of India were examined, the people of that country would not believe that justice had been done them. No one would be less inclined than himself to join in passing censure upon the Governor General of India; and he maintained that a Commission in India would no more amount to such a censure than the inquiry here implied any censure upon the Secretary of State for India. If the Government opposed a Commission, probably at the bottom of their refusal would be a certain official dread that Natives of India would propagate strange doctrines, make unreasonable proposals, and show that they did not appreciate the so-called blessings of England's rule. If this officialism were to prevail, the blunders of the past would be repeated in the future, and as long as it continued we should never be able to create more confidence between ourselves and the people of India. Officials were prone to think that what was good for Europeans must be good for Hindoos; and we were too much inclined to the conclusion that, if we sent to India some institution which we worshipped as a political fetish, and if it were not appreciated by the Indian people, this want of appreciation was a proof of their inferiority in civilization. It was said that our rule had conferred many blessings upon India by increasing the safety of life and the security of property; and, certainly, if the blessings we had conferred were to be measured by taxation, life and property ought to be secure. One thing, at all events, they had obtained from us, and that was administrative extravagance; and, admitting what we had done for the material well-being of India, we must consider the cost at which it had been purchased. Twelve years ago the annual expenditure in India was £30,000,000; now it was £50,000,000; twelve years ago its debt was £60,000,000; now it was £100,000,000. Conceding all that was
  2028
  said of the material prosperity of India, it could not be maintained that that would satisfy the people and make them contented, if we continued to treat them as unworthy to be consulted, and unfit to be intrusted with any of the privileges of self-government. If the people of India were like the aborigines of Australia we might continue to treat them in this way; but their traditions of the highest civilization came down from a time anterior to Greek or Latin literature. The people of India ought gradually to be admitted to a greater share in the government of that country; and, as a step in that direction, he hoped the House would support him in the demand he was about to make, that means should be adopted for obtaining evidence on Indian finance and Indian administration. Possibly it might be said that the evil complained of was about to be redressed, and that we were giving the people of India a higher education. But the higher the education they received only intensified the evil of excluding them from the government of the country. The House had no higher mission to perform than to do everything in its power to increase the sympathies between the English and Indian subjects of the Empire; and he ventured to think if independent Members, either by their votes or the expression of their opinions, should be the means of obtaining the Commission he sought for obtaining evidence in India, they would render no unimportant service to that great dependency; for they would at least show that the House was anxious that the people of India should be, as far as possible, taken into counsel—that their feelings should be inquired into, their wants ascertained, and redress given where redress was needed. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in order to make an inquiry into the finances and financial administration of India as complete and satisfactory as possible, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to obtain, either by the granting of a commission or by some other means, evidence in India on the subject both from Native and European inhabitants of that Country."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett)

  2029
  deserved the careful consideration of the House. To one alone he particularly wished to call attention. There were a number of feudatories whose dominions had from time to time been absorbed by the English Government, and to whom pensions or annuities had been secured by treaty in lieu of the rights which they surrendered. Questions, however, were continually raised as to the duration of a succession to these annuities, and when the heir of one of these feudatories attempted to assert his right against the Government he was met by the plea that the treaty under which he claimed was an Act of State of which no Court of Law could take cognizance. This state of things had been aggravated by Sunnuds granted by Lord Canning to the successors of these feudatories after the Indian Mutiny, guaranteeing their rights and the succession to them according to Mohammedan law, or the custom of the country or the family, as the case might be. These Sunnuds were, no doubt, most proper in themselves; but the construction of them was in many cases a purely legal question, and the parties interested were stopped from a decision of them by any competent tribunal in the manner he had stated. In one case within his own knowledge the Court of First Instance, notwithstanding the plea in question had been raised by Government, had entertained the case, upon which the Government appealed to the Privy Council, who held that a legal tribunal had no jurisdiction, and that the plea therefore must be maintained; but in giving judgment the Judicial Committee made such strong observations on the conduct of the Government, that the latter compromised the case. He believed if all such questions were referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for judgment, a much greater sense of satisfaction and security would be spread among the Natives of India. He trusted the matter would be taken into consideration by the Government.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Before alluding to the Resolution which is now before us, I wish to point out to the House that that Resolution is not the Resolution which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) put upon the Paper, and which he kept on the Paper till within the last two or three days. That Resolution ran as follows:—
  2030
  "To call attention to a Petition recently presented to this House, numerously and influentially signed by Native and European Inhabitants of India, in reference to the Financial and General Administration of Affairs in that Country; and to move, That, considering the wide-spread discontent existing amongst the Native and European Inhabitants of India in reference to the Financial and General Administration of the Affairs of that Country, this House is of opinion that it would be expedient to appoint a Commission, so that evidence might be obtained on the subject in India, both from Natives and Europeans:
  "And, to move, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to take steps to obtain more fully and precisely the opinions of the Native and European inhabitants of India, with regard to the finances and financial administration of that Country."
  The House will see that that Resolution is conceived in a totally different spirit from the new one. I do not know, Sir, whether you would rule that the hon. Member has exceeded his extreme rights in obtaining a place upon the Paper on behalf of one Resolution, and then replacing it by another so different, both in the reasons on which it is founded, and in the course which it proposes; but of this, Sir, I am quite certain—that not only all hon. Members, but all honourable men will be of opinion that for one in the responsible position of a Member of this great Assembly to attach his name to the proposition, that there is general discontent among the Native and European inhabitants of India, and then after giving as wide publicity to that statement as he could, to run away at the last moment and to decline to take the judgment of the House upon that question, is not a proceeding calculated to advance the interests of the country. But now for the new Resolution of the hon. Member. If the name attached even to it had not been that of any Member of the House except himself I should have listened to it with some surprise, for a stranger proposal has not, I think, often been made to us. It will be in the recollection of many that the hon. Member, catching last year some echo of the grumbling with which an income tax of 7½d. in the pound was greeted in India by the small but influential class which had to pay it, became, or appeared to become, very much alarmed about the state of Indian finance, and informed us that he would move this Session for a Committee on that subject. The Government, believing that nothing but good could come from laying bare the

  2031
  whole state of the finance and financial administration of our great Eastern dependency, met the hon. Member much more than half-way, and moved for the appointment of a Committee, which was appointed and immediately entered upon its duties. That Committee, exceptionally large from the first, consists now of 27 Members, many of whom attend most closely and take an active part in the examination of the witnesses. There have already been 17 meetings, though only a moderate portion of the gigantic subject with which we have to deal has been traversed; but I appeal to every hon. Member of that Committee to say whether there has been, either on the part of the Chairman or of myself, the slightest shadow of an attempt to shut out any evidence whatsoever that could reasonably be expected to throw light into the inquiry, or even to suggest that the Committee should not investigate everything which could by any fair interpretation come within our Order of Reference—and it is difficult to say what branch of Government will not come under an Order of Reference which instructs us to deal with the moving power of every branch of Government—with finance and financial administration. These things being so, the hon. Member calmly comes down, and telling the House, in effect, that its Committee is incapable of arriving at the truth and of satisfying opinion in India, proposes to send a Commission to that country. Well, if sending a Commission to India would not be sending coals to Newcastle I do not know what that phrase means. Why, how do you govern India, except by a British Commission perpetually renewed? I have always thought that it is most important, from time to time, to inquire into the affairs of India by Select Committees of this or of the other House of Parliament, because it is most important to keep the necessarily despotic Commission which governs India in harmony with the tone and spirit of our Constitutional and Parliamentary system; but why you should send out another Commission to do a part of the work which is being already done by your standing Commission is more than I can understand. I can, on the other hand, quite understand why the course he adopts should appear a natural one to the hon. Member. It is so very much easier to come down here and to make
  2032
  good, strong, round assertions, than to sit hour after hour upstairs, patiently waiting, till your turn comes, to try and prove by examining or cross-examining a witness the truth of those strong assertions, and hearing every moment facts and opinions which conflict with dearly cherished theories. I can, I say, quite understand, after sitting on Committee with him, why the hon. Member should be dissatisfied with the tribunal which he himself proposed and should suggest another method of arriving at what he would describe as the truth. To allude to evidence that has been given before that Committee, which may not have been acceptable to the hon. Member, would, of course, be out of Order, and so I will not do it; but I may say, with regard to the future, that the chief pleasure to which I look forward on this Committee—and at the best there is not very much pleasure to be got out of a Committee in the month of June—is seeing the writhings of the theories of the hon. Member as witness after witness touches them with the light of fact, just as Ithuriel touched that other hon. Gentleman with his spear.
  And now a word about the Petition that gives occasion, or rather opportunity, for the hon. Member's Motion. It consists of 20 paragraphs. Of these, the first 10 and the 15th relate to matters which may come directly within the cognizance of the Committee on East Indian Finance and Financial Administration. About the points raised in these paragraphs I will say nothing, for the very simple reason that what the House wants to know with regard to them is not either the opinion of the Government or the opinion of the hon. Member for Brighton. What it wants to know is the opinion of its own Committee, when that Committee has taken the usual means of forming an opinion; but just to show the carelessness, the neglect of the most ordinary methods of arriving at correct conclusions which have inspired the authors of this Petition, I will read one paragraph, and then explain the state of the case with regard to it. Paragraph 8 runs as follows:—
  "With reference to the Home charges generally, your Petitioners submit that the people of India have the same right to be furnished with a full account of the expenditure of that portion of their revenue, which is disbursed in England, as of that which is disbursed in India; and that, as regards such of the charges concerned as are not

  2033
  of a fixed and permanent character, a power of practical control should be vested in the Government of India, or in some authority responsible immediately to it."
  Now, here is the answer which is furnished to this, in an extract from the speech made on the 9th of March last by Sir Richard Temple, the very man who would have had most reason to complain, if the statements put forward by the Petitioners had had any foundation in fact—
  "Before finally quitting the finances of the year I must ask leave to notice certain remarks which have been made, and, indeed, reiterated, regarding the accounts of the Home Treasury of the Government of India which are kept in England. It has been said that the expenditure in England on account of India is incurred without sufficient reference to the authorities in India, and that the detailed accounts of it are not made known in India. Now, I showed, in my last exposition, that by far the greatest part of that expenditure is really incurred either under rules proposed by the Government of India, or upon requisitions made by the Government of India. So far we ourselves must accept a very large share of the responsibility. There are some exceptions to this; but they are not considerable. So much for the expenditure. No doubt the accounts of that expenditure are kept under the direct orders of the Secretary of State for India. But they are rendered to us, month by month, with the greatest regularity and the fullest detail. We again publish the account annually, with all its details, in The Gazette of India, and have usually done so for years past; the publication taking place in the summer. In short, the information before the public in India regarding the expenditure in England, is as full as that regarding any portion of the public expenditure whatever."
  That contradiction is, I think, pretty decisive; but if the hon. Member for Brighton thinks that he can substantiate the views of the Petitioners on that or any other point where they pass out of the region of mere truism and commonplace, he has got his tribunal upstairs, and I wish him much joy of his chances of success. There are, however, a few matters noted in the Petition which do not come within even the wide sweeping net of a Committee on Finance and Financial Administration, about which I may be expected to say a little. The 11th and 12th paragraphs complain of the existing constitution of the Viceregal Council; the 13th deprecates the resort of the supreme Government to the hills; the 14th, against which the Native Petitioners protest, proposes to make the Governor General more independent of the Home authorities—or, in other words, of the Cabinet of the day and of Par-
  2034
  liament—and the paragraphs from the 15th to the end complain of the present organization of the Native Army, and pray for a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole circle of subjects to which the Petitioners allude—that is, in effect, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, into the whole financial and general administration of the country.
  Now, as to the constitution of the Viceregal Legislative Council, and as to the present organization of the Native Army. These may conceivably become one day legitimate subjects for separate inquiries; but both the Council and the Army are quite new institutions, dating from 1861, only 10 years ago; and to inquire into them at present would be to imitate the behaviour of a child who digs up seeds to see how they are growing. These questions, I say, may conceivably some day require examination; but the instrument of that examination will not, I should think, in either case be a Royal Commission. As to the first, a Committee of this House would surely be in every way a fitter tribunal to try the question—how far representative institutions can be extended to our Asiatic possessions. I know no reason in the nature of things why they should not some day or other be so extended; but the time has not arrived for a real representation in India. Even here representative institutions grew very slowly, and although it is natural enough that these Petitioners should ask for the re-modelling of the Legislative Council because they fancy that they will thereby obtain some accession of influence, we must not forget that they are interested parties.
  With regard to the present organization of the Native Army, that, too, may be conceivably one day a very legitimate subject for a separate inquiry; but the mode of inquiry which is alone at present applicable is being applied now, for the Native Army is constantly being watched and constantly examined by your great officers in India. If they are incompetent — if Lord Mayo and Lord Napier of Magdala are unfit to advise the Government as to the Native Army—recall them, and send better men, if you can find them, in their place; but do not supersede them by sending a Royal Commission to take off their hands, perhaps, the very gravest and most responsible part of their duty; for, after all

  2035
  that has happened, it would be idle to deny that the good ordering of the Native Army must be always one of the most important portions of the duties to be performed by the great officers of the Queen in India. I need not add, I am sure, that it is one of the most delicate, as well as one of the most important portions of their duty—just about the last to be handed over as part of a bundle of subjects to be inquired into by a Royal Commission, mainly constituted with a view to inquire into finance, for much more than half the Petition relates to that subject, which was evidently uppermost in the minds of the Petitioners. It remains to say a word as to the proposed independence of the Viceroy and the resort of the Government to Simla. As to the first, I have already pointed out that the Native Petitioners will have none of it. They know that the Europeans who have signed it merely wish the Viceroy to be independent, because they think they can act upon him, and they know they cannot act upon the Home Government; but does the Viceroy ask for more independence? Will not every Viceroy tell you that in 99 cases out of 100—in every case, I may say—where the House of Commons does not positively interfere, the tendency of the Home Government under all Administrations is always to strengthen the hand of the Viceroy? When it does not do so, it almost always is because some particular course could not be reconciled with British opinion; and while India remains a dependency of the British Crown it must be governed in the last resort by British opinion, wisely, cautiously, even diffidently expressed—expressed after hearing all that the specialists have to say—but still British opinion.
  As to the annual removal of the Supreme Government to Simla, the opposition to it arises merely from the private interests and quite natural prejudices of the inhabitants of Calcutta; but a very short-sighted opposition it is, for it is pretty clear that if the Government of India had to remain in one place year out and year in, it would not remain in Calcutta. Once let the annual resort to Simla, or some other place where the European can work at full power during the hot season, be given up, and Calcutta will cease for ever and a day to be the political capital of India.
  2036
  And next with reference to the cry that the Natives of India have not sufficient opportunity of expressing their views before this Committee. What is to prevent any Natives of India putting their views directly before the Committee, either in the shape of Petitions to this House—which would, of course, be immediately referred to it—or by sending over any person to be examined whom they may select, or by instructing any of their numerous countrymen here to go before the Committee? Already several Natives of India have been proposed as witnesses before that Committee, and I should fancy that the Committee would be only too happy to hear the evidence of any Natives of India, for whom the hon. Member desiring to call them would vouch as having anything to say that would be worth hearing. I am afraid, however, that most persons who know India will tell us that the views of the Natives of India upon finance and financial administration—and, indeed, upon all the problems which occupy us in connection with India—will fall under one of two heads. Either they will be mere reflections of some well-known form of Anglo-Indian opinion upon finance—say of the existing Governmental view, or of the more sanguine view which I may call Mr. Laing's view, or of what I may call the irrational view, which can be summed up in these words—"Diminish revenue, and increase expenditure;" or they will be the expression of the good old-fashioned pre-British view—"Make your taxes light, and leave your detestable improvements alone." The hon. Member has held forth to the House at great length upon consultative councils; but does he really think the Committee is so stupid that it will not investigate all the more plausible suggestions for the improvement of Indian Financial Administration? Why, for what other purpose was it appointed? Was it appointed only for the purpose of watching the hon. Member for Brighton engaged in the congenial occupation of finding mares' nests? It was unnecessary to appoint a Committee to do that. The House has been—sufficiently often—a witness to the hon. Member's success in that branch of ornithological research. Let the hon. Member make himself easy. If the Committee, after having used all the ample powers which the House has

  2037
  conferred on it, finds that it cannot execute the task which is committed to it, it will suggest some means for carrying the inquiry further. But it is for the Committee to do that, and not for a single Member—one twenty-seventh part of it. For the House to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member at this stage of the Committee's proceedings will be to pass upon that Committee a severe and quite undeserved censure. And I must therefore give, on the part of the Government, the most unqualified opposition to it.
  MR. C. B. DENISONsaid, by common consent and felicitous usage all parties in that House discussed Indian questions without reference to party politics. He would not, therefore, yield to the temptation of commenting on the extreme divergence of opinion shown by the speeches of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, and on the tone of unusual asperity adopted by his hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Brighton, but would keep to the question before the House. What was really for the good of India was the question they had to ask themselves. Was it the Committee or the proposed Royal Commission? To fall back on the latter would be to stultify themselves; for the Committee which was now sitting had not concluded one-half of its labours, or even made an interim report to the House. He agreed entirely in the concluding remarks of his hon. Friend, that circumstances might arise—he did not apprehend they would arise—which would prevent them getting the required information; and in that case it would be their duty to consider what steps should be taken to bring that information under their cognizance. But, as far as they could at present see, there was no reason to apprehend that any difficulty would be thrown in their way. The hon. Member for Brighton alluded to a gentleman who was president of the Chamber of Commerce, and laid great stress on the fact that he had signed the Petition praying for a Royal Commission. But he was coming as a witness before the Committee at his (Mr. C. B. Denison's) suggestion, and he should be much surprised to find that gentleman still adhering to the opinion that a Royal Commission was essential to the object they had in view. He
  2038
  could not agree that the Committee was appointed with a foregone conclusion that there were great abuses to remedy. His view was that there were some things which called for investigation, and others in which there were misapprehensions which the labours of the Committee would remove. And it must not be forgotten that in the Petition which formed the basis of the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton, there was internal evidence to lead to the belief that the Petitioners themselves were not at the time aware of the appointment of a Committee of that House. Under those circumstances he was strongly opposed to the Motion at the present moment, and preferred to wait the result of the labours of the existing Committee. If in any way thwarted in their inquiry it would be open to them to recommend Commissions to India, but that was a course open to many obvious objections and difficulties, and not to be lightly or hastily determined on.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he must agree with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India in the remarks which he had made on the proposition that the Viceroy should be left more free. The reason why the non-official English in India desired more power for the Viceroy was because they thought they could bring more influence to bear on him than on the Secretary of State. The controlling powers of the Secretary of State were greatly approved of by the Natives, and he was not surprised that they should have dissented from this part of the Petition. There was, however, serious discontent at the present moment in India at the financial measures of the Government, as was proved by the number of Petitions from the four great cities, the unanimous opinion of the Press, and even the speeches in the Council of the Governor General where civil servants high in position testified to the discontent of the people, and the anxiety they themselves experienced while watching the constant increase in taxation. From the time of Lord Cornwallis to that of Lord Lawrence there was one creed in regard to taxation in India—namely, to trust mainly to the established sources of taxation, and to be most cautious in imposing new imposts. Lord Lawrence said in 1864 that the people were poor, and were impatient of any except the old

  2039
  modes of taxation, while Lord Canning declared he would rather govern India with 50,000 European soldiers and no income tax, than with twice that number with that impost. Although the income tax had now been lowered to 1 per cent, yet the grants from Imperial revenues for local wants having been reduced, the odium of raising further taxes had been thrown upon the local governments. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald stated this distinctly the other day, and actually proposed a tax upon feasts, which would have been an impost on the hospitality exercised at family gatherings and religious ceremonies. That proposition had been withdrawn; but other new taxes were about to be imposed. It would have been better to have reduced expenditure rather than to have resorted to these irritating measures, and he believed that great troubles were in store for us if this policy of increasing taxation at the arbitrary will of the Government was persevered in, for it was sowing broadcast the seeds of disaffection. He did not attach much importance to the objection that a Royal Commission would weaken confidence in the Governor General of India, for authority was not strengthened by refusing to inquire into grievances. But he did not entertain the conviction that a Royal Commission was necessary. There were former members of the service, and of the commercial classes now in this country, as competent to give evidence before the Select Committee as those persons who were now residing in India in the service of the State or in the pursuit of commerce. He admitted that inquiry without hearing the opinions of the members of the community most affected by the financial administration would be imperfect; but he thought we might reasonably expect that Native gentlemen of education and position would present themselves for examination before the Committee. The difficulties of the journey were not too great to preclude that idea; and the laws of caste were not so stringent as to prevent the adoption of such a course, as was evident from the number of Native gentlemen who now came to this country to pursue their studies. And, besides, he had no doubt that the great associations of wealthy landowners in Bengal and Oude would be ready to defray the expense of sending representatives to ex-
  2040
  pound their views. He saw no statement in the Petition to the effect that an inquiry could not be properly conducted in this country, and he did not think that those who had accepted the Committee would be acting in good faith towards the Government if they raised their demands to a Royal Commission in India. He was satisfied with the assurance that the portions of the Petition relating to finance should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. AYRTON, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Finance, said he must oppose the Motion, which he considered to be unnecessary. Personally, he should be glad to see it carried, if it would relieve him from the duty of presiding over the long and arduous labours of the Committee, which was proceeding with great care, deliberation, and zeal, laying a broad foundation for further investigation, and qualifying its Members to give full consideration hereafter to questions connected with Indian finance. That subject, he might observe, was a most difficult one, for as expenditure had exceeded income, they would have to consider how financial operations could be brought within the resources of the country. It was satisfactory to know that this Petition had evidently been prepared without any knowledge of the fact that an inquiry was already proceeding. Persons who had presented other Petitions, on becoming acquainted with the circumstance that a Select Committee had been appointed, had expressed great satisfaction. An association including the most intelligent and influential persons in Bombay, and another association in London, of which a great many gentlemen connected with India were members, were also satisfied with the step which had been taken in appointing the Committee. It would be observed that the Committee which had been appointed had precisely the same duties and the same purpose as the Royal Commission would have, and that being so, the House would be placing itself in an extraordinary position if it appointed a Commission which was virtually to supersede its own Committee. He asked the House, out of respect to its own Committee, and out of consistency in its own proceedings, not to entertain the Motion of his hon. Friend. There could not be a Governor General administering the affairs of India, and at the

  2041
  same time another body roving about the country hearing evidence against the Governor General in Council, and against the Governors of the various Presidencies, without unsettling the minds of the people of the country. He trusted, therefore, seeing that the Committee possessed a capacity that could not belong to a Commission, that the House would not assent to the Motion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not feel he was quite the man in that House to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); but he did hope that the hon. Member would forgive him, if he asked him not to press his Motion to a division. He sympathized very deeply with the motives which had induced the hon. Member to bring forward this Motion, and he sympathized also with the persons who had signed the memorial to which he had called attention. The real grievance hitherto had been the great difficulty of calling the attention of the British Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, to Indian questions. When the Indian Budget came on for discussion it had been very difficult often to secure an attendance. At present they were happily in a very different position from that of late years, because that House had shown that it was alive to that difficulty, and they were now investigating, by a Committee, the financial condition of the country, and endeavouring to arrive at the truth as regarded its administration. If this had been a case of smothering inquiry he should not rise to assist the Government to stop inquiry, but it was because the present investigation had been entered on in a sincere and earnest spirit that he thought it very undesirable to throw any cold water on the new-born zeal of the House of Commons. What was really wanted was, that they should endeavour to understand these questions and investigate them for themselves; and though it might be hereafter found desirable to obtain information in the manner suggested by the Motion, yet until that time came, and until that fact was brought before the House by the Committee itself, it was contrary to the spirit in which the Petition had been drawn up that they should leave the Committee in the hands of a Royal Commission. That was the principal ground on which he would wish the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion. It would be
  2042
  unfortunate if the Motion should be pressed to a division and be defeated, because that result would lead to a misapprehension in India.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should not have troubled the House further but for the very unusual tone which had been adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. Five years' experience in that House had convinced him that an hon. Member had done right in bringing a question forward, if the fact of its having been brought forward caused the Minister in charge of the Department to which the question related to lose his temper. The Under Secretary for India had characterized his line of conduct in altering the terms of his Motion as being one which would not have been taken by any honourable man; but he would remind the House that the Government had, after wasting much of the time of the Session, altered their course in reference to the Bill for the regulation, and re-organization of the Army without giving any previous notice of their intention at all. The Under Secretary for India stated further that he (Mr. Fawcett) last year constituted himself the organ of a small and discontented section in bringing forward a Motion for a Select Committee, but as a matter of fact the effect of his Motion had been the appointment of the Committee and the introduction of the Indian Budget early in the Session instead of at the end, as was the case heretofore. He should not, in deference to the appeal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), press his Motion to a division at the present moment; but he wished it to be clearly understood that if at any time hereafter the necessity for holding an inquiry in India was urged by witnesses from India to be examined before the Committee now sitting he should renew his Motion.
  Motion, by leave withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
MR. GREENEsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House, upon the ground that at that late hour no new business should be entered upon. There were many questions to come on, which would occupy much time if properly discussed, added to which the House had to meet again at 12 o'clock of that same day.
After short debate—
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn," — (Mr. Greene.)
The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 101: Majority 45.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONrose to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair; but
MR. SPEAKERruled that the noble Lord was not in Order.

SUNDAY OBSERVATION ACT REPEAL BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. P. A. TAYLORrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the twenty-ninth year of Charles the Second, chapter seven, intituled "An Act for the better Observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday." The hon. Member urged that the Act he sought to repeal operated unjustly, especially upon the poorer class of tradespeople, many of whom had been subjected to prosecution at the instance of the Rev. Bee Wright, supported by other Sabbatarians, though the magistrates only imposed nominal fines upon the persons summoned. Moreover, the present Act did not stop working on Sundays, as had been proved on a late occasion in connection with the International Exhibition.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the twenty-ninth year of Charles the Second, chapter seven, intituled 'An Act for the better Observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday."—(Mr. Taylor.)
Debate arising.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 61: Majority 16.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn." — (Mr. Newdegate.)
The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 67: Majority 9.
After further debate,
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

HARROW SCHOOL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to disallow the Statute now lying upon the Table of the House, by which membership of the Church of England is, for the first time, imposed as a qualification for appointment to the governing body of Harrow School."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday next.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DIXON, Bill to amend the Municipal Corporation Acts of 1835 and 1859 with respect to the qualification of Aldermen and Councillors, and the division of boroughs into wards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DIXON, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. CARTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 193.]

  FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION ACT (1864) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill to amend "The Factory Acts Extension Act, 1864," by providing for the regulation of the labour of young persons and women in Brick and Tile Yards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Viscount SANDON, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. AKROYD, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, and Mr. SAMUELSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]

  CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.
  Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions nominated: — Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. JESSEL, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. MATTHEWS, Mr. COGAN, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. BOURKE, Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, Mr. JOHN GILBERT TALBOT, Mr. PEASE, Mr. GEORGE GREGORY, and Sir JOHN OGILVY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  RAILWAY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend the Law respecting the Inspection and Regulation of Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

  HOSIERY MANUFACTURE (WAGES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PELL, Bill to provide for the payment of wages without stoppages in the Hosiery Manufacture, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PELL, Mr. WHEELHOUSE, Mr. FREDERIC SMITH, and Mr. JOSHUA FIELDEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices Act Amendment* (173); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental (No. 2)* (174); Land Drainage Supplemental* (175); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (176); Clerk of the Peace* (180); Burial Grounds* (181).
Second Reading—Betting (129); Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment* (135); Gasworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (No. 2)* (154); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (127).
Committee — Citation Amendment (Scotland)* (76–177); East India Stocks (Dividends)* (116–178); Postage* (118–179).
Committee—Report—Pharmacy* (153); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (103); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (149); India (Local Legislatures)* (150).

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 138.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 138.)

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments, and Commons' Reasons for disagreeing from some of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYtrusted their Lordships would not insist on the retention of the clause which they had inserted in the Bill, and to which the Commons disagree. The clause in question—Clause A—raised a most important issue, for it proposed to impose a "negative test," as it had been called—a certain form of declaration—on persons admitted to tutorial offices in colleges. He had seen with as much regret as surprise that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had

  1963
  given Notice of his intention to divide the House in favour of the retention of the clause. The clause was only carried by the narrow majority of 71 to 66 —a majority of 5 votes only; while in the other House it was disagreed from without a division. And though he was far from saying that their Lordships should renounce their independent opinion merely because the other House took a different view, it was not unfair or unconstitutional to ask that when one House had so decided an opinion that there was practical unanimity, while the other was nearly equally divided in opinion, the latter should give way, and not insist upon the Amendment they had inserted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not agree with the somewhat summary view of the noble Earl who had so curtly addressed their Lordships, that whenever the House passed anything without a division it was the duty of this House to accept it. [The Earl of KIMBERLEY denied that he had said so.] He saw no reason why they should assume from the absence of a division in the Commons that their feeling was unanimous, for it was notorious that it was not so. When a party in any legislative Assembly felt themselves to be enormously over-matched, it was not uncommon for them to save their opponents the trouble of a division;—an instance of which occurred only last light, when the noble Earl (Earl Russell) though refusing to withdraw his Motion, in reference to the Treaty of Washington, did not press it to a division, because he knew he was in a minority. He had been assured, moreover, by two Members of the other House that the absence of a division was owing to a misunderstanding, and that it was not to be inferred that no portion of the House desired to support the clause. He freely admitted that, intended as a compromise between two opposing forces, the Amendment had, like all compromises, being little popular with the party from whom it took something, while it had not been accepted by the other to whom it refused something they demanded. The support it received had consequently been small. It was a declaration which did not satisfy the extreme and unbending friends of the Church of England. The time, he thought, had come when in matters of
  1964
  education we might look to our real enemies instead of to traditional conflicts, and might combine our forces in an attempt to exclude the unbeliever to whom we were all opposed, instead of wasting our scattered forces in internal divisions. That such a course would commend itself to the extremists on either side he never flattered himself; but he had hoped the Amendment would have received greater support from those Dissenters—and he believed that out of the House of Commons they were the enormous majority—who aimed at something else than the humiliation of the Church of England. But although it was true the Amendment had found no favour in the House of Commons, whether it would meet with favour from the country it was impossible to tell until the country had had an opportunity of discussing, not the particular phraseology of this declaration, but the great question whether, apart from all controversy as to the prerogatives of the Church, the Christian character of the education given in our Universities should be preserved. This had not been fairly submitted to the people; and he was not prepared to accept the voice of partizans in the House of Commons as showing what their decision would be. He did not feel himself justified by the smallness of the majority in this House in withdrawing from their Lordships an opportunity of determining whether or not they would insist on a declaration which they must have known from the outset would not be welcome to the majority of the House of Commons. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had alluded to the smallness of the majority by which the clause had been carried in their Lordships' House; but he would remind the noble Earl that Lord Melbourne, when once twitted with having only a majority of 1, replied that it was, at all events, rather more than the other side—an answer which had the advantage of being an arithmetical fact. The consideration which weighed with him in asking their Lordships to insist on this Amendment was that this was not a mere trivial Amendment, but was the assertion of a great principle, and that it was not for him to assume the responsibility of deciding whether the House should recede from it. Originally, he would remind them, these colleges had the right of electing whom they pleased

  1965
  to form part of their own body; but Parliament had decided that they should elect simply by competitive examination—in other words, that a retentive memory should be the only qualification required to constitute the teachers of English youth. A fellowship was either a reward or an opportunity of teaching. As a reward it was not combated that a retentive memory should be the criterion; but he demurred to the assertion that this alone should be a qulification for the office of teaching:—and now that the test which had hitherto been imposed on fellows was to be repealed, he asked that tutors should declare that they would avoid teaching in opposition to the inspiration and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, which everybody in this House admitted to be their duty. The declaration had been objected to as vague and as offending tender consciences; but the House of Commons might have suggested another:—and that it would be a burden on tender consciences was sufficiently refuted by the numberless cases in which persons undertaking an office had to declare that they would perform the duties which it involved. He was conscious that this was not the only security which could be devised for the preservation of religious teaching and the existence of religious teachers in the Universities, and had the Government or the House of Commons shown any inclination to enter into discussion on these points he should have been glad to find some means less objectionable to them of attaining the object in view; but as they had simply and bluntly refused all securities for the exclusion of infidelity or the continuance of a class of religious teachers, he had no choice but to ask their Lordships to re-affirm the principle and to throw upon the Commons, if they would not meet them, the responsibility of a refusal. It was to the principle and not to the form that he adhered, and he believed the principle to be dear to the English people, for in the recent election of school boards they had reaffirmed it by large majorities with as much vigour and determination as at any previous period of our history. Their Lordships would be abdicating their duties and renouncing that guardianship of the essential principles of our institutions which specially belonged to them if, out of fear of the majority of the
  1966
  House of Commons, which appeared to be guided by catchwords more than by principles, they receded from the determination they arrived at the other night.
  Moved, to insist on Clause A to which the Commons disagree.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he was surprised that a statesman of the noble Marquess' ability should ask their Lordships to insist on an Amendment which had been adopted by their Lordships' House by a very small majority, and which found no supporters in the other. He did not think the noble Marquess had quoted quite correctly Lord Melbourne's answer, which was that a majority of 1 was the surest in the world; that every man would attach so much importance to himself as to consider that he was the one man, and would be certain to be in his place. Whether the noble Marquess' majority would be equally steadfast he was not so certain. He objected to this new test as vague, indiscriminate, and indecisive to the last degree; and for his own part he must say he should prefer subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, because from habit and frequent study men were willing to subscribe to them as each understood them. In the Select Committee it was proposed to debar tutors from impugning the divinity of Christ—a doctrine which was clearly understood—and this would have excluded Unitarians; but it was very properly asked whether it was fair to exclude one particular sect, and the proposal was negatived. The House of Commons had done everything they could to conciliate their Lordships, but their Lordships had responded to this by sending down a declaration that tutors should not impugn the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Now, there had been disputes of late years on the right rev. bench, in the Privy Council, and among the public as to what doctrines were scriptural and what were not, and a vaguer test could not be devised. If their Lordships insisted upon it the Bill would probably drop for the Session. Now, he did not know what the noble Marquess' wish was, but his own opinion was, that it would be well for the Bill in that case to drop, for when it came up again from the Commons it

  1967
  would, probably, be with important modifications, such as those which he had himself proposed for the abolition of clerical fellowships, but which he withdrew at the solicitation of Government. He should, however, deprecate any step which should prolong the controversy between the two Houses of Parliament on this question, and the continued irritation of the public mind; and he entreated their Lordships not to retard the settlement of a question which had alienated many of the moderate and more liberal of the opposite party. That settlement, he believed, would conduce to the improvement of the Universities, and of education throughout the country. He trusted that the Motion of the noble Marquess would be rejected, not by a majority of 5, but by such a majority as would make a continuance of the conflict hopeless.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he quite agreed with the course taken by the noble Marquess. His noble Friend, and those who acted with him, were ready to accept a compromise; but in doing so they were anxious to obtain some security for religious teaching, and this declaration had been recommended as the best that could be adopted. Whether this was a vague declaration, as it had been described by the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden), or not, he was not going to discuss; but the House of Commons had not proposed to alter it, nor to substitute another; nor had the noble Lord himself proposed anything of the kind. It had been said that it would be an insult to those who had to take it; but he (the Duke of Rutland) thought it was rather an insult to them to suppose that there could be any hesitation in making such a declaration; or that, if they did take it, they would not take it bonâ fide. If these colleges had been endowed by an eminent Dissenter like John Wesley, and the Legislature had proposed not only to confiscate the emoluments with which he had endowed them, but had refused them any security for the religious character of the education to be given in them, there would have been a great outcry.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he objected to the imposition of any new test, and this one was open to all the objections taken to it by the House of Commons. As long as the general tone of the country was favourable to religion the feeling at
  1968
  the Universities would continue to be so also, and more reliance could be placed on this security than on a test which apparently bound persons, but which did not really do so. A sincere and earnest believer might regard certain parts of the Bible as not of Divine authority, while others would maintain the opposite view, and the taking of a declaration like this would expose him to being pointed out as unsound in his opinions—thus introducing into the Universities doubt and controversy much to be deprecated. He hoped their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment, and that the settlement of this question would lead to great improvements at Oxford and Cambridge. The Government had done wisely in not carrying the Bill further, and in avoiding the question of clerical fellowships and other points, for he believed the Universities and colleges would be able themselves to make the necessary reforms. The Master of Balliol, Mr. Jowett, had proposed a plan which seemed to him essential and adequate. His proposal was that there should be two classes of fellowships—one for persons employed in teaching in the college, while the other class would be held for a certain number of years, giving their holders the opportunity and means of pursuing studies which would ultimately bring them to eminence and to a competence, but which their circumstances would otherwise prevent them from pursuing. It was also desirable that men who distinguished themselves in the study of modern literature should be awarded honours equally with those who excelled in the older branches of study. With the vast resources at their disposal Oxford and Cambridge would be able to carry out many useful reforms; and he trusted that by the settlement of this question they would become, in every sense of the term, national institutions.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had supported the Amendment, though he had done so on grounds different from those stated by the noble Marquess in bringing it forward. The issue was no longer between Church and Dissent, but between Christianity and Rationalism. The country, he believed, were it appealed to, would ratify the Amendment; and, though its phraseology might be criticized, it would be a pledge on the part of the country in favour of

  1969
  religious teaching in the Universities. He understood that in the Scotch Universities a similar test existed, and met with no objection, and he could see no reason why it should be objected to as regarded ours. The only fault found with this declaration was that some clever Sophist or Rationalist might evade it; but on the principle of mental reservation no promise was binding; but he believed the parents of this country would approve it as an expression of opinion that Christianity should still be taught in the Universities.
  EARL GREYadmitted that the danger against which the Amendment was directed was by no means an imaginary one. Undoubtedly, the mode in which fellows of colleges were formerly elected—namely, by favour of the electors—was open to grave abuses; but he was by no means sure that Parliament had acted wisely in making their election depend altogether on competitive examinations, for by so doing we had lost the security we formerly had that those intrusted with the government of the colleges should be men of religious convictions. He was sensible of the danger of a school of men being formed in the Universities, men of great intellectual power, who rejected to a certain extent the principles of Christianity, and who by their possession of fellowships might exercise too great an influence in the government of the colleges; but, though the danger against which it was sought to provide might be a real one, he could not see how the Amendment would meet it. The best guard against this danger would be not the imposition of a negative test, but restoring to those who had the election of fellows some of the discretion they formerly possessed, and by which they were able to give preference to men of religious character. It was difficult, however, by a test to ascertain whether men were favourable to Christianity or not, and this declaration seemed to him quite inadequate to meet the danger against which it was directed. He did not wish this House to set itself in opposition to the other House, except in a case where it had reason and sound argument on its side, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that though originally a supporter of the Amend
  1970
  ment, he could not follow the noble Marquess in adhering to it after the small majority by which it was adopted by their Lordships, and after what had occurred elsewhere. He voted for it, though not attaching much value to it, as being in consonance with the feeling of the parents of this country, but without wishing that it should have the effect of the loss of the Bill; and the opposition to the principle of the measure having ceased, so that its passing in some shape was certain, he preferred to sacrifice the Amendment to a prolongation of irritation and controversy.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he would have preferred not voting on a measure which was chiefly intended to benefit persons who were not Catholics; but, in token of his sympathy with those who were making a stand against the party who wished to exclude religion altogether from education, he should support the clause.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYhoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would explain what would be the effect of the Bill on the question whether intellectual attainments were alone to be the criterion of elections to fellowships, or whether religious character was also to be taken into account.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, reminded the noble Marquess, who had said he stood upon the principle though not the form of the Amendment, that though principles were excellent things, the application of them was the main question. In stating that he did not care much about the form, but insisted on the principle, he had really given up the whole case. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that there was some danger of religious opinions of an objectionable character arising from time to time in the Universities and in the country, but the test proposed was utterly and absolutely inadequate to meet any such danger. Nor was it merely inadequate—it was objectionable and injurious, because, while it would be a trap to catch some sensitive consciences, it was so vague and elastic that it would be readily taken by those whom it was most desirable to exclude. Such a test could not attain the object which the noble Marquess had in view, and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would reject it.
  On Question, Whether to insist? their their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 129: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Boston, L.

  Bath, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Cairns, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Churston, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Abergavenny, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Denman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Headley, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Northwick, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Raglan, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Howe, E.

  Kellie, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Manvers, E.

  Morton, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Radnor, E.

  Romney, E.

  Sinclair, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Vane, E.

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

  Verulam, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Thurlow, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Hood, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Somerset, D.

  York, Archp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cleveland, D.

  Camden, M.

  Devonshire, D.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Grafton, D.

  Westminster, M.

  1972

  Abingdon, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Cowper, E.

  Craven, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Dartrey, E.

  De Grey and Ripon, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Derby, E.

  Greville, L.

  Devon, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Essex, E.

  Harris, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Keane, L.

  Grey, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Londesborough, L.

  Leicester, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Morley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Russell, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Halifax, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Sydney, V.

  Monson, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Northbrook, L.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Hereford, Bp.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Portman, L.

  Acton, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Ashburton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Belper, L.

  Seaton, L.

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

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Carew, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Suffield, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Castletown, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Vernon, L.

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

  Wenlock, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think it would serve any useful purpose to divide on the other points, but trusted the noble Earl would not assume that because they did not divide the House was therefore unanimous.
  The rest of the Amendments to which the Commons disagree not insisted on; and the Commons Amendments agreed to.

BETTING BILL—(No. 129.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
BETTING BILL—(No. 129.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to amend the Act of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, entitled an "Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses." That Act, passed in 1853, had failed to effect the purposes for which it was passed; and, moreover, it was confined to England and Ireland and did not extend to Scotland. This Bill would extend the Act to Scotland, and they would thus be enabled to reach a class of offenders who at present escaped with impunity. There were a class of men who got their living by advertising to give information and advice in respect of betting, and to make bets on behalf of other persons. When the Act of 1853 became law these people retired to Scotland and issued their advertisements from that country, where the Act had no operation. Their circulars went through the length and breadth of the land, and, offering very great temptations, they entrapped a great number of unwary persons to entrust them with money for the purpose of making bets. These sums were frequently as small as 1s.; but these small bets were perhaps the most pernicious part of the whole system. When the time came, these advertising betting men presented their dupes with a debtor and creditor account, by which it was made to appear that their money had been fairly lost—because lost it invariably, or almost invariably, was. They were, in fact, in the great majority of cases, mere swindlers. He did not at all suppose that betting could be put down by Act of Parliament; but the Legislature could at any rate do some service by putting a stop to the depredations of this description.
  1974
  The 3rd section was directed to the Amendment of that clause of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, which related to betting houses. At present, the penalties of the Act were restricted to the owner or occupier of any house or office used for betting, or his servants or agents. This restrictive part of the clause was repealed, and now any person who should receive money for betting purposes was brought under the Act. As in the existing Act, this clause affected only what was called deposit betting—that is, when a sum of money was handed over to another person before the event on which the money was staked, came off. By the 4th clause, persons advertising that they will give information or advice as to betting, or with intent to induce any person to resort to them for such information or advice, or to take shares in any bet or wager, were made punishable as by the 7th section of the principal Act. And the 5th clause enacted that a circular or letter, sent by post or by any other means, in connection with betting transactions of this kind, shall be deemed an advertisement within the meaning of the 7th section of the principal Act, and be punished accordingly.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE IRISH LAND ACT.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD GREVILLErose to call attention to the judgment delivered on Friday last in the Court of Appeal in Ireland by Lord Justice Christian, involving a point of great importance in connection with the Act of last year. The Landed Estates Court decided that they were not bound to insert in the particulars of the sale of an estate the claims of the tenants to compensation for improvements under the Act of 1870. The tenants thought they would be injuriously affected by this decision, and accordingly they carried their case to the Court of Chancery Appeal, which was constituted of two Judges, one a permanent Judge entitled the Lord Justice of Appeal, and the other the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The latter affirmed the decision for the same reasons as had been given by the Court below—namely, that he did not think that the interests of the tenants were in any way affected by

1975
the conveyance. The Lord Justice of Appeal also affirmed the decision, but on the ground that he did not consider that the tenants possessed any right whatever under the Act of 1870. He would quote the exact words of the learned Judge, who was one of the ablest Judges in the land, and whose opinion, therefore, carried great weight. He said—
"They were asked to ascribe to the Land Act an effect which would be confiscation pure, simple, and uncompensated—a specimen of legislation unparalled in the whole range of real property statute law. It was sought to have that effect given to the first clause of the Land Act by the use of the words that the usage prevalent in Ulster should be declared legal. He could give no such construction to that clause. He supposed that the Act was passed from the highest motives of Imperial policy, and he might suppose that it was passed as the price of keeping a political party in power. But all that was beside the question."
The 1st clause of the Act passed last year enacted that the Ulster tenant-right customs should be legal, but now the Court of the highest Court of Appeal in Ireland had declared that they were not legal.
LORD CAIRNSrose to Order. He did not dispute for a moment that the subject was of great importance, or that the noble Lord had the right to ask a Question respecting it. As, however, the Question related to expressions alleged to have been used by a learned Judge, he submitted that those expressions ought not to be quoted from a newspaper report.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had hesitated to interpose, but he ought now to state that the learned Judge who was alluded to entirely disavowed the accuracy of the report.
LORD GREVILLEsaid, there was nothing more to be said if the learned Judge asserted that the report was in the main inaccurate. He would not go into that part of the case, but it was a very serious thing if the tenantry generally throughout Ireland—and particularly in Ulster and those other districts in which tenant-right customs prevailed—were to be left in doubt as to whether their property in improvements which was supposed to have been created by the Act of last year did not really exist, and if any proprietor could by selling his estate defeat the whole object of the Act. He should be very glad to find that the learned Judge had not used the words attributed to him; but as
1976
great fears were entertained on the subject by many persons in Ireland, he would ask what course the Government intended to pursue if the report turned out to be substantially correct?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not at all surprised at the noble Lord (Lord Greville) asking the Question, which he would answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. On examining the newspaper reports—which had not attracted his attention until it was brought before him in connection with this question—he found it contained expressions so strong and singular alleged to have been made by Lord Justice Christian, that, supposing them to be correct, he should have felt some embarrassment as to the course proper to be pursued. He had, however, now been allowed to see a letter from the learned Judge, who, speaking of the report, said, in substance—
"It is not a report, but rather a travesty of what I was supposed to have said. The strong expressions which I may have used with reference to one subject have been transferred and carried to a totally different subject, and the whole report, as it appears in the newspapers, is unintelligible and does not contain anything that I expressed."
So far for the report. Under these circumstances it would of course be impossible for him (the Lord Chancellor) to express an opinion on the statements attributed to the learned Judge. With regard to the subject-matter itself, he must observe that no decision had been given to the effect that the Ulster custom was not protected and rendered valid by the Act of last year. Indeed, the learned Lord Justice of Appeal concurred with the Lord Chancellor in the judgment. The matter, therefore, amounted to this—supposing that the words attributed to the learned Lord Justice of Appeal were actually used by him—that there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Court, with respect to a matter which was not before them for decision at the time. Unless the tenantry carried the case further, there would be no means of obtaining a legal decision as to the construction to be placed on the Act; and until the Government knew what the actual construction was he did not see how any legislative measure could be brought forward with reference to the subject.

CLERK OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for making regulations as to the office of Clerk of the Peace for the county palatine of Lancaster—Was, presented by The Lord CLANDEBOYE; read 1a. (No. 180.)

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law of Burials in England and Wales—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a. (No. 181.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.