Sitting of 15 June 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Chain Cables and Anchors* [201].
Ordered—First Reading—Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* [200].
First Reading—Glasgow Boundary* [198]; Sasines Register (Scotland)* [199].
Second Reading—Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* [183]; Kingsholm District Boundary* [185]; Sewage Utilisation Supplemental* [186]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [187]; Intoxicating Liquors (New Licences)* [157].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—New Mint Building Site* [176].
Committee—Army Regulation [39]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons) (re-comm.) [181]; House of Commons (Witnesses)* [156].
Withdrawn—Charily Commissioners* [99].

FRANCE—COMMERCIAL TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Government has notified its intention to put an end to the Commercial Treaty with Great Britain; and, if so, whether that Treaty (in conformity with Article No. 21) would not continue in force for twelve months after such notification?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, allusions have been made incidentally to the Treaty of Commerce between England and France by certain members of the French Government to Lord Lyons, but they have never assumed the shape of official communications. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member will probably not think it incumbent upon me to answer the latter portion of his Question.

NEW PRISON NEAR ROCHESTER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement is correct that it is the intention of the Government to build a Prison by means of Convict Labour on land between Gillingham and Borstal, near Rochester, which was originally purchased by the Crown for the purposes of the fortifications round London; and, if so, whether he will undertake that no further steps shall be taken in the matter without the consent of Parliament?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the question of employing convict labour in building a prison on land between Gillingham and Borstal was still under consideration, and the matter would not be decided until Parliament had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject.

METROPOLIS—HAMILTON PLACE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that a drinking trough for cattle and horses has been erected in Piccadilly exactly opposite the new thoroughfare through Hamilton Place; and, whether he will take steps to procure its immediate removal to a more suitable locality less obstructive to traffic?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, he had been informed that the trough in question had been erected by a benevolent Member of that House, the hon. Member for Weymouth who, believed that in so doing he was rendering a great service to animals. The hon. Member had previously erected a similar trough at Knightsbridge, which had been regarded as a great been by the drivers of vehicles. The exact site for the trough in question had been selected by the Vestry which the inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover Square had elected for the management of their affairs. Under these circumstances, if the inhabitants of that district did not approve the site that had been selected for the erection of this trough, they should either imitate the example which had been set them by the hon. Member for Weymouth and subscribe the necessary funds for erecting a handsome trough elsewhere, or else they might represent their grievances to their Vestry, and in the event of these not being redressed they could protect themselves by electing an anti-trough Vestry at the next general election for vestrymen for the district.

ARMY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GARLIESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is not a fact that an estimate has been prepared in the War Office of the probable cost of a scheme for promotion and retirement rendered necessary by the abolition of purchase in the Army, which tends to show that it is likely to cause an annual expenditure of from £800,000 to £1,000,000; and, if this be so, whether he will object to laving it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, no estimate has been prepared at the War Office tending to show that the probable increased cost of promotion and retirement caused by the abolition of purchase will, as compared with the present cost, amount to such a sum as is suggested in the Question of the noble Lord. I have repeatedly stated the reason which has prevented my laying upon the Table any such estimate—namely, the absence of any basis on which such an estimate could, in my opinion, be framed so as to be entitled to the confidence of the House.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLLINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Second Reading of the Charity Commissioners Bill this Session; and, if so, if he will now fix a definite day for the Second Reading?
  MR. BRUCE: I am assured, Sir, that it is impossible to fix a day for the second reading; and, as undoubtedly the Bill will require some time for its proper consideration, the Government think it better that the Order should be withdrawn.

RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the re-engagement of a soldier (whose conduct and health are good) for service with the standards from period to period up to twenty-one years will be allowed to rest solely with himself and his commanding officer; if he will state what will be the considerable changes which he has announced to be his intention to make in the future appointments of Volunteer Adjutants; and, whether he has any intention of making any alterations in the present appointment and duties of Volunteer Adjutants?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the re-engagement of a short-service soldier will depend upon the military authorities on the one side and the soldier himself on the other. It is in contemplation to appoint adjutants to the Reserve forces from regiments of the Army, supernumeraries, for a limited time, and with power of renewal, if their services are satisfactory. It is intended that all the permanent Staff of the Reserve forces shall be under the direction of the major-general commanding in the district and the colonels on the Staff, so as to be generally available for the purposes of recruiting for the Army as well as for the purposes of the Reserve forces.

ARMY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is not customary for a Minister intend-
  70
  ing to introduce a Government measure involving a large outlay of public money, to submit his scheme to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if so, whether an estimate of the probable animal cost of the promotion and retirement, as the necessary sequence of the passing of the Army Bill, was placed before and approved by him before he made his Financial Statement this year, and if he will cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is the practice for Ministers who are introducing measures involving large or even small financial changes to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War did so in the present instance, and he laid before me, as he has laid before the House, a trustworthy statement, as I believe it to be, of the expense of abolishing purchase. He did not give me any estimate of the cost of providing for promotion and retirement, for the reasons which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may probably have heard already more than once this Session; indeed, he might have heard them from the mouth of my right hon. Friend within the last two or three minutes. I will only add that I am convinced of the wisdom of the course taken by my right hon. Friend, because it would have been a more illusion to have laid before the House an estimate founded on data on which my right hon. Friend himself could not rely. Whatever the expenditure may be it could have made no difference whatever in the expenditure of the present year.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOLMSasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, When, the cordon round the Metropolis prohibiting the free ingress and egress of cattle will be removed; and, if its removal depends upon the construction of the waterside market, when will its construction be completed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the removal of the cordon round the Metropolis prohibiting the free ingress and egress of cattle depended upon the construction of the waterside market, and he had every reason to hope that it would be constructed at the time fixed

  71
  by the Act—namely, before the end of the year.

METROPOLIS—SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, When he will be prepared to exhibit the plans and model of the proposed Natural History Museum at South Kensington, and whether before the Estimate for the work is proposed; and, when the Instructions and Correspondence relating to the New Natural History Museum, which have been ordered to be laid upon the Table, will be in the hands of Members?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, the estimate of the expense of the Natural History Museum at South Kensington would be laid on the Table to-morrow. He never contemplated a model of that museum being prepared or exhibited, and he did not think any advantage would result from that course. He was informed by the architect that the plan and drawings would not be ready for some time. He had no doubt the architect would do all he could to accelerate the preparation of them. If the plans and drawings were not ready when the Estimates came on, the estimate for the building must necessarily be proposed in their absence.

THE LATE WAR-OFFICE INCOME-TAX COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. MELLORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the late War Office Income Tax Commissioners have had retiring pensions granted to them as follows: viz. Mr. Talbot, late chief clerk, £950; Mr. Wiffin, late accountant general, £650; and Sir William Brown, C.B., £800 per annum?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, Mr. Talbot had allotted to him a pension of £980, not £950, as in the Question; Mr. Wiffin had a pension allotted to him of £650; and a pension of £800 had been allotted to Sir William Brown.

CUSTOMS CLERKS' HOLIDAYS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN GROSVENORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is owing to any misconduct upon the part of writers in the Customs that the
  72
  promise recently made to them of a fortnight's annual holiday, without loss of pay, has been withdrawn?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that since the time when a fortnight's annual holiday, without loss of pay, was promised to writers in the Customs, it had been found that such holiday would militate very strongly against the uniformity of the system which had been established in the Department, but a fortnight's holiday would be allowed to the writers for the present year.

INDIA—EAST INDIA ADMINISTRATION

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I wish, Sir, to take this opportunity of saying that I find I was under a mistake the other day when I accused the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) of exercising an extreme right, or something more than an extreme right, in changing the terms of his Motion. I have since learnt that the course he took could be quite justified by precedent, though I still think it was inconvenient when so very serious a matter as the existence of anything that could fairly be called "widespread discontent" in India was in question. I wish further to say that I desire entirely to retract any moral blame which I attached, or was understood to attach, to the hon. Gentleman. My expressions will not at all bear the interpretation he put on them in his reply, as I am sure he will see if he has them read over to him again; but they do, I think, convey some fraction of moral blame, and that I absolutely retract.
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I beg to thank the Under Secretary for the explanation he has given. Not only when I heard the words in question used, but when they were read to me the next morning, they caused me very considerable pain. My conduct had not been dishonourable. The course I took was this:—I immediately consulted the highest official in this House as to whether it was in the least degree unusual or improper for a Member to alter the terms of his Motion three days before he brought it forward. Had my conduct been in the smallest degree unusual I should have asked the Speaker to have allowed me to make the most ample apology, not only to the Under Secretary, but also to this House,

  73
  for, above all things, I have been most anxious since I have had a seat here that I should do nothing which any opponent would be able to say was not perfectly straightforward. I am sure that in future the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, if I should have occasion to speak on the subject of India, will do me the justice of supposing that I am actuated by motives not less worthy, and a desire not less sincere, to promote the interests of India than he himself is actuated by. In conclusion, I beg to thank both sides of the House, for the great kindness which they have shown to me in this matter, and I beg most particularly to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) for the generous way in which he spoke the other night of the motives with which I brought forward my Motion.

ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Knight Storks, Captain Vivian, The Judge Advocate.)
ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th June.]

    PART II.—Army Enlistment.
    Clause 6 (Rules us to enlistment.)
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of making an appeal particularly to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), that he would permit the Government to make a Motion for omitting the clause, and to proceed with the Bill in the mode in which they intended. He entirely admitted, and, indeed, everyone must feel the great importance of the subject which his hon. Friend wished to bring under the consideration of the House. It was extremely desirable that the question should be fully and fairly considered; but he hoped his hon. Friend would think him not unreasonable if he asked him not to bring it forward as a formal Amendment to the clause with which it was the intention of the Government not to proceed.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS, who had given Notice to move as an Amendment to Clause 6 (or, if that Clause be withdrawn, as a new clause), page 4, line 41, before "no," insert—
    "No person enlisted as a soldier in any regiment of cavalry or infantry of the line shall be called
    74
    upon to serve Her Majesty out of the United Kingdom until he shall have attained the age of twenty years,"
    said, he hoped the Committee would believe that nothing was more contrary to the interests and wishes of one placed in his position than to tempt them to go into a discussion sooner than it was the general pleasure and convenience to do, and if the Government would only assign him an early day when the Bill had come out of Committee, he would be willing to yield. If the Government thought it would be more for the convenience of Public Business to grant him any day on which this should be the first Order, so that what he considered a pressing question should be in the same position, as it now stood, he would not have the slightest objection to sit down and not say another word. But he put it to his right hon. Friend whether it would be a good exchange to give up the advantageous position which he now held for the chance of bringing on the question at an hour before midnight, when it would be impossible that it should be fairly discussed.
    After long discussion, Mr. CARDWELL said, he would move that the clause be postponed.
    Motion agreed to; Clause postponed.

    PART III.—Auxiliary Forces.
    Clause 7 (Jurisdiction of lieutenants of counties in respect of auxiliary forces revested in Her Majesty.)
    MR. CARDWELL MR. CARDWELL moved, in page 5, to leave out from "either," in line 27, to "howsoever," in line 29, both inclusive, and insert—
    "Or by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, either of his own motion, or with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland."
    This Amendment would place the Irish Militia in the same position as the Militia of England, by taking it out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
    COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he was glad to see such an Amendment proposed, because he believed that the less power there was in Dublin Castle the better it would be.
    COLONEL GILPINasked whether the first commissions were to be in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant?
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that first commissions would continue to be re-

    75
    commended by the Lord Lieutenant; but when a subaltern had distinguished himself by service, then, on the recommendation of the commanding officer, or of the colonel on the Staff, he would be selected for promotion or for a commission in the Line.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he hoped there would be harmonious action between the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State, and that a different course would not be taken in different counties.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that would be the spirit in which he should desire to act. The main object was to avoid a dual responsibility.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CARDWELL MR. CARDWELL moved, in page 5, line 34, after "thereof," insert—
    ("Saving nevertheless to the lieutenants of counties their jurisdictions, powers, duties, and privileges in relation to the appointment of deputy lieutenants, the raising of the militia by ballot, and the proceedings incidental thereto.")
    MR. CONOLLYsaid, he thought it would be far better to leave the appointments, as at present, in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, whom it was hardly complimentary to confine to the appointments which were generally filled by a very different class of officers from those which were now under discussion.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that the Secretary of State was to recommend the officers—because it was of great importance that the Lords Lieutenant should have the power of appointing those gentlemen who, from their position, were likely to bring a considerable number of men into the regiment, an object which was effected better under the present system than it could be under any other by which it might be superseded.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that when the officer was once in the regiment he would rise by merit.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he did not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman had fully realized the fact that the captain of a Yeomanry corps and the commanding officer of a regiment were, practically, the only recruiting officers in a country district.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was intended to consult the Lords Lieutenant on appointments, with regard to their
    76
    bearing on the recruiting of the regiment.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman aright the commanding officers of local regiments would be considered competent to recommend persons as officers. That was intelligible. But he could not help fearing that military men might lose sight of this vital principle, that the commanding officer was the only recruiting officer as a rule. No greater mistake could be made than to suppose that persons of more intelligence could keep together a corps of Volunteers or Militia.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that it was intended that, in order to keep up a proper connection between the Militia and the counties to which the various corps belonged, the first appointment of Militia officers should be on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant. Under these circumstances, would it not be better to insert a statement to that effect in the Bill, otherwise there would be no guarantee for the continuance of the proposed practice, and another Secretary for War might take the power into his own hands.
    MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTpointed out that if the officers of the Militia were to rise by merit, and a considerable number of officers were to be brought from the Army into the Militia, it was difficult to see how this arrangement could work. Of course, officers from the Army could not be expected to take the position of subalterns, and if they were made captains, how could the Militia officers rise by merit?
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, nothing could upset the harmony of a regiment more than to carry out the arrangements contemplated.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, this was a good illustration of the impossibility of laying down rules beforehand in reforming the Army. The intention was, as he stated, to appoint officers of the Army to be adjutants of the Reserved force, making them supernumerary of their regiments while adjutants of the Militia, and subject to being recalled. It would frequently be necessary to bring into the Militia officers from the Army, and this would probably be done in a greater proportion than at present. With regard to putting the arrangement about the recommendation of officers in the face of the Bill, he would have no objection,

    77
    as far as he was himself concerned. But he did not think it would be wise, in the first place, and in the next place he did not think there was any risk that any future Secretary of State would wish to be troubled with anything so extremely detailed and inconvenient as providing subalterns for the Militia. There was another thing it was desirable to avoid—namely, dual responsibility.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, they had practical experience that since the recommendation of officers was to be in the hands of Lords Lieutenant these gentlemen had been inundated with applications. The right hon. Gentleman said no Secretary of State would care to take the trouble of appointing subalterns. But there would be a great temptation to do so if these men had afterwards the right of passing into the Line.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, there were two questions before the Committee—namely, doing away with the power of the Lords Lieutenant appointing certain officers, and the amalgamation of the Regular and Reserve forces. The clause before them was one which had been introduced with a great flourish of trumpets, and that Lords Lieutenant should no longer appoint officers to the Militia was proclaimed in triumphant tones. Now, the transfer of jurisdiction would most likely do harm rather than good, for, as was pointed out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland), local influence was a powerful element in recruiting. These forces had always been considered local forces, and it was in the interest of the country that they should be locally considered. It had always been thought necessary and desirable to keep the Militia and the Regular force distinct, in the interests of the nation; and it was through local influences especially that the Militia had been maintained at all. He held that this experiment would add nothing to their strength, and might turn out far less beneficial than they supposed. He was not surprised if the Lords Lieutenant did not object to it, because they had in some instances received but scant courtesy from the Government. Then, as to who were to be appointed, the Secretary of State said they now saw from that discussion the disadvantage that would arise if they laid down strict regulations; but, for himself, he deduced a totally different conclusion—namely, that it was ab-
    78
    solutely necessary they should know what were the regulations under which officers would be appointed. To judge fairly of the powers given by that clause and of their bearing, they ought to have before them—whatthey had endeavoured in vain to elicit—a distinct understanding as to the mode in which those powers in reference to the appointment of officers were to be exercised. As a Volunteer officer himself, he asked the Secretary of State the other night to state explicitly what he meant by that amalgamation of the Regular and Reserve forces as regarded the force to which he belonged, and the answer then given was that it was intended to appoint officers of the Regular Army to be adjutants of the Militia and the Volunteers. But that was what was really done at present, and though there was to be a change in the mode of appointment, they would still have the same class of officers—that was, of the Regular Army—appointed to the Militia and Volunteers as adjutants. Instead of being appointed, as now, by the Lord Lieutenant—who in most cases acted upon the nomination or recommendation of the officers commanding the regiment, and responsible for its discipline—they would be selected by the Secretary of State for War, irrespective of any such nomination or recommendation. He had ventured on a previous occasion to protest against that change in the interest of the force to which he belonged. Every man commanding a regiment, whether of Regulars, Militia, or Volunteers, know that if he desired that his adjutant to work heartily with him for the good of the regiment, they must be on the most cordial terms. The appointment of an adjutant was almost as important as the selection of a man's wife. If a man and his wife did not agree together, things could not go on smoothly for the rest of their household; and it was equally important for the well-being of a regiment that its commanding officer and its adjutant should be cordial and friendly towards each other. Was that likely to be the case if the Secretary of State was to transfer any officer he chose from the Line to the Militia or the Volunteers to act as adjutant? The Government might, in magniloquent language, call that an amalgamation of their regular and Reserve forces; but he did not think it was for the interest of the service to make such an alteration as that

    79
    now proposed. It was difficult to believe that, after beating the big drum as they had been doing, the Government had no other change in the shape of re-organization to propose, except one which damaged the relative position of commanding officers and adjutants. He asked whether they had not something in the background, and whether they intended to officer the Volunteers and the Militia much more largely than at present with officers from the Regular Army. Before this clause passed, the Committee had a right to be informed as to what was the Government plan of amalgamation—whether that plan was to be confined to this infinitesimal part of their scheme of Army Re-organization, or whether there was something else in the background. He hoped that the Secretary for War would tell the Committee something clear and definite on that point.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILasked, whether it was the intention of the Secretary for War to make the appointments to the Militia for a period of five years? If the officers were to be constantly changed, it was possible that his plan would not work well.
    COLONEL GILPINstated that the law with regard to appointments of officers generally by Lords Lieutenant was, that the recommendation for a commission should be sent to the War Office, and if within 14 or 18 days no reply in the negative was received, then the commission was made out. With regard to adjutants, their appointments had always come direct from the Crown, but, as a rule, the commanding officer was consulted on the subject; for unless there was a cordial understanding between him and the adjutant, it was impossible that the well-being of a regiment could be maintained. He understood the Secretary for War to say that in future the adjutants to be appointed would be selected from supernumerary officers of the Line; but that would be a most unwise step, particularly with reference to Militia regiments. To deprive the Lords Lieutenant of their patronage was a doubtful expedient, because if the Militia were to be retained as a local force local influences must not be disregarded, and the best men in the county should be induced to join.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONdesired to know what would be the position of
    80
    existing adjutants, because if they were all to be deprived of their appointments five years hence, they must consider what they would do. From his own experience he was able to support the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that such appointments should be made permanent, for if a supernumerary officer were to be appointed every five years, no commanding officer of either Volunteers or Yeomanry would answer for the efficiency of his regiment.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, it by no means followed that an appointment made by the civil officer of a local force would be better than one made by a general of wide experience. It was clear that the Secretary for War intended to give full-pay officers Staff appointments of some kind connected with the Volunteer and Militia services. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way to the repeated charges from the opposite side, and especially from the noble Lord (Lord Elcho); but would retain in his own keeping the responsibility for which he was accountable to his Queen and country. It was impossible for him to work out these questions in the face of such a minority as he had to contend with. If the Reserve forces were to be of any real service to the country, they must submit to strict military discipline, and those who were to command them should be selected by responsible persons. Those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House could not always say what was in their minds upon this subject. It must not be supposed that civilians had no opportunity of knowing something of the feelings of the Army. Their difficulty was that they could not altogether say what they knew was the opinion of the junior ranks, and perhaps of the senior ranks too. They could not say why the abolition of purchase was necessary. He hoped the effect of this discussion would be to make persons in high places take more trouble to become acquainted with the conditions of this civilian service, and he thought it would be well to send some of the best young men in the Army into subordinate positions—as brigade majors or assistant organizers—to work up these forces.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I cannot help thinking that it would be better if hon. Members on the other side would

    81
    be content to do their own work, and perform their own duties, without lecturing us as to the manner in which we ought to conduct ourselves. When we were last in Committee we had the benefit of a lecture from the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), and now the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) seems to have been so much, encouraged by that example as to take the same course. The present discussion gives us a practical proof of the disadvantages under which we are labouring from the reticent and disingenuous manner in which this Bill has been introduced; and we have difficulty in discussing this clause of the Bill because of our ignorance as to the plans of the Government. There seems to be no difference of opinion between ourselves and the Secretary of State as to the object he has in view in filling up first commissions in the Army; but the question is, how it is to be carried out? He says, leave it to an understanding; but he has never told us what is to be the real system of passing officers from the Militia to the Line. Such, indeed, have been the statements on this part of the subject that, not only Members of this House, but the Lords Lieutenant of counties, who are to be made parties to this arrangement, have no idea how it will be managed. I do not object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it ought not to be left vague and uncertain; especially as it is quite clear that if there is to be anything like an extensive system of passing officers from the Militia to the Line, very important patronage will rest in some quarter or other. It seems to me that such patronage, and the patronage connected with first appointments, should not be in the same hands. With this view I venture to move, as an Amendment, to insert in line 30, after the words "Her Majesty," "on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant, of counties."
    THE CHAIRMANinformed the right hon. Baronet that his Amendment being in line 30, while the question before the Committee related to an Amendment in line 24, was out of Order.
    MR. CARDWELL: Whatever may be the impression formed by the right hon. Baronet with regard to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell
    82
    Palmer), I at least may object to certain kinds of lectures read to me by the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) spoke a short time ago about my sneering. I am not aware that I have over sneered at the noble Lord, and I should be very sorry to do so. He also spoke about my magniloquence and my beating of the big drum. I am quite willing to leave it to the judgment of this Committee whether I deserve to receive lectures upon sneering, upon magniloquence, or upon beating the big drum, and whether the noble Lord is the person to give them to me. But the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) has used a phrase—I do not know whether it is Parliamentary—which I take the liberty of letting him know he has no sort of right to apply to me—he used the word "disingenuous." The right hon. Baronet repeats it. It is an imputation of motive, and I believe that is un-Parliamentary. But whether it is un-parliamentary or not, I beg leave to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I think I have served to very little purpose in this House for many years if I am not superior to a charge of that kind coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I will tell the right hon. Baronet what would be disingenuous. I should be disingenuous if I were to pretend to that forecast of the future which I am conscious I have not if I were to try to lay down, or to profess to lay down beforehand, in definite terms, that which I know must be the result of experience. You are going, if you pass this Bill, to endeavour to fuse together systems which have descended to us from our ancestors, which are very complicated in themselves, and the steps in the process of uniting them must be still more complicated. We propose to begin at the beginning, by placing them all under the same military government, and applying to them, so far as their respective natures will admit, the same rules of administration. We think it highly desirable that forces which are intended to take an important part in the military defence of this country should be placed under the command of colonels on the Staff of the Regular Army, under major-generals commanding in the districts, and under the military authorities as a whole, and not under the Lords Lieutenant of counties. We believe that by these means a beginning will be

    83
    made of a much more complete system of intercommunication and fusion between the various forces than now exists. The right hon. Baronet may, perhaps, have power of forecast enough to know exactly the several steps and changes by which such a union can be effected. If he has, I envy him the gift. All I can say is that I should be happy if I possessed it, and very glad to communicate the results of it to him. But I think it would be disingenuous to profess to possess it when you know you do not, and to pretend to say that that can be done by one determination which, however easy to do when you have the conscription in your hands, you cannot do by one move and one measures when you have voluntary forces to deal with, every one of which you must carry along with you in every step of your progress. For if you take one step rashly, and find that you have displeased and disgusted them, you must either retire from it immediately, and adopt another expedient, or your whole system will fail. I am sorry to have been obliged to occupy the Committee with those remarks; but I certainly could not allow the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without some notice.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: If any word that can fairly be called un-Parliamentary has fallen from me, I shall at once, on receiving an intimation from the Chair to that effect, withdraw that word. But whether the word be Parliamentary or not, I must say that few things would give me greater pain than to say anything that would be considered personally offensive by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I had no intention of imputing to him personally improper motives. But, on the other hand, we do feel deeply and strongty on this side of the House that we have been treated by the Government as we ought not to have been. We feel that there has been a want of candour, a want of frank communication of their intentions on this important subject, which we deeply lament, and at which we feel naturally indignant. I think we have a right to complain. We have complained of it again and again. There are many points relating to this subject on which, if it is not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to give us an answer, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my judgment, he ought to be able to give us an answer. If he is not
    84
    prepared to do so, I am obliged reluctantly to attribute it to their having brought in this great and important measure without that degree of forethought and preparation which any Government is bound to give to such a measure; and if Government is unable to give us the explanations we require, I say they ought not to have put this Bill upon the Table.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHadmitted that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War of receiving subalterns into the Militia with the prospect of obtaining commissions after two years' service had succeeded to a great extent in filling up the ranks of subaltern officers; but whether their hopes of reward would be fulfilled was another matter. After what he had heard during that debate with regard to the far larger question of attracting officers from the Line to serve as ordinary officers in the Militia, he did not see how any proposal of that kind was to be carried out; because if officers from the Line—who had, perhaps, just obtained their company—were appointed as captains to a Militia regiment above the heads of those subalterns who had served for a long time in that regiment, these Militia officers would be disgusted at being passed over. If that were to be done, what encouragement was there for subalterns to enter the Militia at all? It was a most difficult thing to induce officers who had served in the Line to enter the Militia as subalterns, and he did not see how this part of the system of interchange between the two forces was to be carried out under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. The question of officering the Militia was in a very unsatisfactory state, and he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that to effect an improvement in that particular the pay of officers should be increased; for if they required Militia officers, as at present, to be equally efficient with those in the Line, many men, to whom the pay was no object, would decline to expend the necessary time and trouble in order to qualify themselves for that position, so that they would be compelled to attract to the service a poorer class of officers, who were now deterred from it by the fact that the annual training commonly cost them £5 or £10 more than the pay which they received.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought it was highly desirable that some greater efficiency should be imparted to the Militia, which was a real reserve, and some fusion of it should be made with the Line, but that was attended with great difficulty and embarrassment, and caused great anxiety among Militia officers. One word of explanation from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War might remove the anxiety. The difficulty to which he had referred was increased by the facilities which his right hon. Friend had given for making initial appointments in the Militia with a view to arriving at appointments in the Line. If the lieutenancies and ensigncies were filled Tip, an officer could not come in from the Line except by supersession, and the question arose how that supersession was to take place. He therefore asked his right hon. Friend by whose authority this supersession was to take place? His right hon. Friend had formerly stated that the appointments were to be made on the authority of the Secretary of State. No doubt the responsibility rested with him; but he wished to know whether the Militia regiments were to be placed for the future on the same fooling as the Line in the matter of promotion? Looking to the fooling of officers of the Line and the Horse Guards towards citizen officers, there was no doubt that no appointment except, the high appointments, which were coveted, would be made, and this would strike a serious blow at the present system. His right hon. Friend had told the House that young men were joining the Militia; but he feared they were joining under a great delusion. Many gentlemen said they had read Cardwell's speech, and it would be a good thing to send their sons into the Militia. But the time of disappointment would come with regard to the appointments, unless some clear indication were given by his right hon. Friend with regard to them. He thought his right hon. Friend should state publicly in his place that the responsibility of the appointments in the Militia would rest upon himself in a far greater degree than with regard to the appointments in the Line, and that with reference to appointments in the Militia he would exercise full control, with a desire of doing justice to the officers of Militia regiments, and with the view of
    86
    maintaining the esprit de corps which at present existed among them. He regarded the Militia as the true military school of the country. It might be easily embodied, and might be made far more efficient than it was at present. It could be easily disembodied without involving any half-pay or any pension list. All that depended on the local character of that force.
    MR. CARDWELLentirely agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) that the Militia was the real reserve of the country. The appointment of officers would take place on the principle of seniority up to the rank of captain, and after that by selection. He had already stated with regard to the Army, and the remarks applied to the Militia, that it was not intended in the new arrangements in any way to interfere with the regimental system; but that, on the contrary, the principle of selection from the highest degree to the lowest would be exercised with a due regard to regimental considerations. He entirely agreed with hon. Gentlemen that the local principle of the Militia was most important, and that if there was to be a supersession of Militia officers by Army officers it should be upon the gravest grounds, and upon the most important recommendations. He was asked by what authority it would be done. He would answer the question in words that he had before used—the promotions would all be made on the same principles as in the Regular Army, the Inspector General of the Reserve forces being always consulted with respect to every promotion. A special responsibility would certainly rest on the Secretary for War; but the Inspector General of the Reserves would be consulted, because he would have before him the reports of the Generals of districts. He thought the Commander-in-Chief might also very reasonably be consulted.
    MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he thought nothing could be plainer in a former speech by the Secretary of State than that, after two years' service, Militia subalterns should have an opportunity of obtaining commissions in the Line.
    MR. CARDWELLremarked that what he had stated was, that a certain number of subalterns of Militia regiments who had served for two years in the Militia regiments, and had obtained testimonials, should obtain commissions in the Line.
    MR. HENLEYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether, if this measure were to pass, there would not be then a suitable opportunity for relieving the counties of the expense which they had at present to undergo in providing armouries and other matters for the Militia. The burden of expense had been increased considerably within the last two years. Those who paid local taxes felt it very much.
    COLONEL SYKESsuggested to the right hon. Gentleman that his principle with respect to the Militia should be promotion by seniority, and that promotion by selection should be the exception.
    MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, there could be no doubt that the great difficulty in organizing the irregular forces was the obtaining of a proper body of officers to command them. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman had stated that Militia officers who were to be transferred to the Line were transferred at present, and that they should be appointed in the same way for the future. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that in the early discussions on this Bill, when purchase met them tit every turn, they were told that the appointment of officers of the Line was a thing that was perfectly impracticable until purchase was abolished. They were now told that the way in which they were to be appointed to the Militia was the same as before.
    MR. CARDWELLexplained that what he did say was that if there were any supersessions it would be on the recommendation of the Inspector General of Reserves instead of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTreplied that the right hon. Gentleman had not said a word about supersession.
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, it was no doubt a privilege to commanding officers to appoint their own adjutants, and the practice had worked well. It would be found that the adjutants of Volunteers throughout the service were an eminently deserving, eminently hardworking, and a useful body of men, and the explanation was that it had been the interest of the commanding officers to select the best men. It was possible that the exigencies of the service, and
    88
    the desire to facilitate promotion in the Army, might prove a strong temptation to the Minister of War to pass off upon the Volunteers officers who would not be so suitable. The adjutants of the Volunteers might compare more than favourably with an equal number of officers in the Line, and the general character and knowledge of their profession of the adjutants of the Volunteers had done much to raise the military profession in the opinion of civilians generally. He hoped, therefore, there might be a tacit understanding that the commanding officers of regiments would be allowed to recommend the adjutants who were to serve with them in the same way as the Lords Lieutenant had previously done.
    MAJOR WALKERsaid, he considered that five years' service was infinitely too short for an adjutant of Militia to master all the duties of his position. The adjutant was also paymaster; he was the professional adviser of the officers on all professional matters, and it was, therefore, most important that he should be on the best terms with them. He had been asked to propose an Amendment in the absence of an hon. and gallant Friend of his (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), but he did not intend to press it. It was in page 5, line 36, after "Majesty," to insert—
    "All first appointments to the rank of ensign or lieutenant in the Militia having been approved by the Lord Lieutenant of the county."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War slated that Lords Lieutenant should be consulted with respect to first appointments in the Militia, but Secretaries for War were neither politically nor physically immortal, and a Secretary for War might succeed the right hon. Gentleman who would not share his opinions on the point. He ventured to prophesy that as the Militia rose—and it was rapidly rising in the estimation of the country—those first appointments would become objects of the keenest competition, and it was, therefore, he thought, desirable that words should be inserted in the Bill, under the operation of which it should be the recognized duty of Lords Lieutenant to assist the Secretary of State in making them.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know, whether the Secretary for War was to have the power, under the Bill, of removing officers of the Army to the

    89
    Militia against their will? If so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would inform the Committee what would be the position of an officer who had been thus removed when the Militia regiment in which he hold a commission was disbanded?
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it was not in contemplation to take an officer from full-pay in the Army and oblige him to serve in the Militia. He thought it, however, extremely probable that many officers would be induced to accept service in that force. One object of the arrangement was to prevent the sale of adjutancies. In reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), he might observe that the great object was to secure the best men as adjutants. It was not desirable, in his opinion, to limit their appointments to a period of five years, and they were, therefore, left open to renewal. What he meant when he spoke of supernumeraries was, that when, for instance, a very good officer was taken from the Army and made an adjutant in the Militia, he should be allowed to remain as a supernumerary on his regiment, so that he might not lose his position in the Army.
    COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he thought that by being placed in the position of a supernumerary in that way an officer might frequently be induced to give up his duties as adjutant in the Militia and return to his regiment. An officer ought not, in his opinion, to be led to look upon those adjutancies as merely temporary appointments. The service ought to be a real service, especially seeing the attention which it would be necessary to pay to the recruiting of the men.
    SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he must complain that the explanation of the provisions of the Bill had been so meagre that hon. Members were obliged to ask questions over and over again before they could obtain anything like a satisfactory answer.
    MR. CARDWELL, in replying to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Colonel Corbett), said, that under the Bill a commanding officer would have the power to remove his adjutant at the end of five years if he was dissatisfied with him, or to recommend him to be continued in the position if he was satisfied.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the discussion showed upon what slight grounds the Government had asked the country to undertake this large expenditure. With regard to Volunteer adjutants, he had heard with extreme satisfaction that they were not to be forced upon commanding officers, and that some security would be taken against the improper sale of these appointments. The simplest rule would probably be that the commanding officer should never listen to the recommendation of the retiring adjutant, he was also glad to hear that these appointments were to be terminable every five years. But it was clear from what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated as to the appointments both of adjutants and of Militia and Volunteer officers that they were left very much as at present. That being so, what became of the great scheme of the Government, and where was the necessity for incurring this large expenditure? The alleged ground for the expenditure was the necessity of amalgamating the forces, and practically the Government were going to leave things pretty much in their present state.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was gratified to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, for the original proposal had created some alarm. He urged that the Militia regiments should be made feeders to county regiments, so that a stronger tie should be made between the two.
    COLONEL DYOTTsaid, that if the Government intended that no officer should join the Militia service except he began at the bottom of the list—except he entered a Militia regiment—he believed it would be difficult to induce officers who had served in the Line to cuter the Militia service.
    COLONEL STUART KNOXwished to know whether the position of the existing adjutants would be interfered with.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in his speech on the 16th of February he had mentioned the expediency of having regiments recruited in their own districts, and had also mentioned the proposal with regard to Volunteer adjutancies. So long as existing adjutants were well reported of they would not be interfered with.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved at end of clause to add—
    "From and after the passing of this Act, no officer holding; the rank of honorary colonel in a regiment of Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteers shall be entitled to recommend persons for appointments to commissions, or for promotion, or in any way to interfere in the command of the regiment."
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, the appointment of honorary colonel was purely honorary, and if there were any regulations giving honorary colonels the power referred to by the hon. Baronet he would cancel it; but as he was informed that the privilege depended merely upon regulation, he did not think it right to end it by means of a statute.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    EARL PERCY, who had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause, said he would not propose his Motion, as he felt he should not be able to carry it; but he doubted whether the Militia would continue to retain its local character, considering that half-pay officers were to be appointed to commissions; that the Secretary of State was to have the power of choosing the adjutants; and that the Lords Lieutenant were to be deprived of the power of appointing officers above the rank of subaltern.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Number of auxiliary forces).
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to make a few remarks with regard to the Militia Reserve. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, either this year or the next, take into his consideration what was the design of General Peel in framing that Reserve—namely, that for every man who joined the Militia Reserve another man should be raised in the Militia regiments. If they could get men of proper age and physique to enter the Militia Reserve, they would have a valuable body on whom they could lay their hand in time of emergency. The Militia Reserve was one which he thought should be cultivated and improved; and in order to effect that object he thought their pay should be increased. Another question was that of the Militia volun-
    92
    teering by regiments for foreign service. Whenever war had occurred—for example, during the Crimean campaign and the Indian Mutiny—the Secretary of State, in the difficulty he experienced of finding men for the Army with the comparatively small force that we possessed, and of meeting the demands for garrisons and other purposes, had made an appeal to the patriotism and gallantry of the officers and men of the Militia to volunteer for foreign service, to which they were not bound by the terms of their engagement. That appeal had never been made in vain, and some 18 or 20 regiments had volunteered and served as garrisons in the Mediterranean stations. The Militia was almost like a second Army for foreign service. If, as believed by some authorities, and, he understood, by Lord Norreys in particular, there were many Militia regiments which would, like that nobleman's own, the Berkshire Militia, be willing to volunteer to be inscribed on a list where they would remain permanently as regiments of Militia ready for foreign service, the Government would know at once that, besides their Regular Army, they had a force to rely upon for foreign service. A high standard of efficiency might be adopted, and the regiments which came up to that standard might be placed on such a list. The Militia was often spoken of as the backbone of our military system; but we did not make the use we might and ought to do of that backbone. If we used our Militia not as that distinguished authority, Lord Sandhurst, recommended lately in "another place," but as General Peel had suggested, they might, with the local connection of the regiments, establish a sound system. He trusted the Government would give their serious consideration to that matter, in which he believed the solution of many of our difficulties would be found.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), and regretted that in 1867 he did not introduce the provision which General Peel had contemplated. Whatever might be the result of the proposal of the present Government in regard to short service, the forming of an Army of Reserve, and so on, there was no Reserve in which he had half so much confidence as in our Militia.
    MR. CARDWELL, without going into the future, which he hoped he would be excused from doing, with so much now upon his hands, remarked that the clause before them made the whole of the first Army Reserve of the Militia Reserve, and of the Militia, free from any statutory limit, and to consist of such a number of men as Parliament might from time to time provide.
    MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, he approved establishing relations between regiments of the Militia and of the Line, but hoped due care that regiments were sent to those localities with which they were connected, because it happened that some regiments were known by the name of counties from which they had not recruited a man for several generations.
    LORD ELCHOhoped that trifling matters, such as the particular form of a button, distinguishing a regiment, would not be altogether done away with, because, although trifling, they weighed with the class from which recruits were enlisted.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Enlistment in Militia under ordinary circumstances to be voluntary).
    MR. CARDWELLproposed the omission of the clause.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he must repeat his conviction that if the country desired a strong military force, it must adopt the compulsory system in some form or other, however modified. The principle of home defence in this country had always been that every British subject should come forward, if called upon, to defend his country, and when it was seen that almost the first act of the French Government was to introduce the Prussian system, making foreign as well as home service compulsory, it was high time that some steps should be taken in this country in the same direction. At present the Government had no control over the 170,000 Volunteers now enrolled; but that control could be obtained, and that force could be maintained at a high rate of strength by making it obligatory on all men to serve in some form, and making service as a Volunteer confer the right of exemption from something worse. If any Government had the courage to propose that, and risk their places on carrying it, on the ground that the state of neighbour-
    94
    ing nations required it, he believed the country would respond to the appeal. Without some such provision the Army could not be organized sufficiently; and he desired to enter his protest against a system founded on any other basis than compulsory service.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rejoiced in the admission that if this Bill did nor remedy the disorganized condition of our Army, neither would any other Bill, unless it were founded on compulsory service. Compulsory service, however, was at this moment the law of the land; but each year an Act was passed suspending that law, and he presumed this year would be no exception to the rule.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 10 (Training for Militia).
    SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL moved as an Amendment, the substitution of the word "less" for "more" at the end of the clause. If the Militia were to be made really efficient, their preliminary instruction ought to consist of a year's training, and then they would form a force which could be thoroughly relied upon. Another point which he wished to call the attention of the Committee to was the age at which troops were sent abroad. Soldiers under 20 years of ago ought not to be sent abroad, and the mortality among the troops sent to India below that age had been exceedingly great.
    MAJOR WALKERsaid, he agreed that the preliminary instruction of the Militia ought to be increased to the greatest possible amount compatible with the interests of the service, but there were important difficulties in the way of such an Amendment as this. If the preliminary training were increased to 12 months it was very questionable whether recruits would be obtained in anything like large numbers, for most men would not consent to give up a whole year of their time for the purpose of military drilling. In fact, the inducement to enter the Militia was different to the Line, as men generally entered with the idea of enjoying a holiday. The clause provided that the men were to attend for drill at the time and place appointed by the Secretary of State, and that, of course, meant that they were to be trained at one of the new headquarters which it was proposed to establish, and in doing that he had no doubt

    95
    the desirability of keeping up the local connection would not be lost sight of. But this might be dangerous, for the men sent to these training centres might be put under instructors other than those of their own regiments, and, probably, under men belonging to regiments of the Line, and in that way there would be a tendency to cry up the Regulars and give the recruits themselves a contempt for the Militia. One thing that ought to be done was, the establishing of a really well-instructed body of non-commissioned officers, irrespective of the members of the permanent Staff; and their yearly period of training ought not to interfere with their other employments, for they were just the men who, from their steadiness and sobriety, obtained the best civilian vocations.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he cordially concurred in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Walker) and observed that the powers conferred by this clause would not be so used as to lead to any inconvenience. He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir William Russell) would be content with the discussion which had arisen, and not press his Amendment to a division. He quite agreed in the opinion that if they were to train a man for a year at a time they would get no Militia recruits at all, and if they did the men so trained would cost as much as, and become soldiers, and not remain Militiamen.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he would suggest that non-commissioned officers should be allowed to qualify themselves in the manner now permitted to the Volunteers—that was to say, by the capitation grant, a plan which would do away with the necessity of their preliminary yearly training at stated periods.
    SIR WILLIAM RUSSELLsaid, the present system of Militia training was unfair and unjust to the Militia, and an unnecessary expense to the country. Unless the men were trained for a longer period they could not be expected to become soldiers.
    COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was of opinion that all Militia recruits should undergo a continuous training of not less than six months at least.
    Amendment negatived.
    COLONEL CORBETT COLONEL CORBETT moved to add at the end of the clause the words "or less
    96
    than three months." He thought it would be better to retain the men for training during three months when they first offered themselves, and when they would probably be out of work and able to remain, than to call them up a future date; not only that, but it was of no use training a man for less than three months, for it took at least that time to make a man an efficient soldier.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not think three months at all too long a period for the training; but he did not think the House, which was very jealous with regard to questions of military expenditure, would do well to bind itself by statute with regard to future Estimates. The matter would be better left to the Executive Government acting under the control of Parliament. In addition to this, the exigencies of the labour market in different parts of the country would render it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out the proposals of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he would suggest that increased efficiency on the part of the Militia might be obtained without inconvenience to trade if the system adopted in the Volunteer force were extended to the Militia, and the men were allowed to attend their necessary drills at the times most convenient to themselves. There should be circulating Serjeants passing from village to village with boxes of rifles, and the young men could be drilled on the village green, receiving 6d. or 1s. as the case might be, which they would probably spend in what he would hope might, by the time contemplated, be described as unadulterated beer. By adopting this plan, a saving might be effected, in their being able to shorten the period of the annual training.
    COLONEL ANSONsaid, he thought the value of the periodical training was that it taught men discipline as well as drill.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, that if his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) would visit him in Devonshire he would show him some boxes similar to those of which he had spoken, and which were used ten years ago. He would suggest, further, the importance of the training officers being more carefully instructed in their duties.
    COLONEL CORBETTsaid, under the circumstances, he would not press his

    97
    Amendment; but suggested that the commanding officers of the district should be consulted as to the possibility of periodical training being continued.
    COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) should remember that the men who taught the Militia their drill were the same as those who made the best Regular soldiers in the world.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 11 to 14, inclusive, negatived.
    Clause 15 (Application of Mutiny Act to volunteers when in training).
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he should not trouble the House with reference to the clause at present, as he had not expected it would be reached that night; but on the Report he should move its omission if the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) did not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the Volunteer force, valuable as it was at present, might be rendered far more valuable. If the Secretary of State for War would firmly handle this question, and determine what was essential for the welfare of the country and of the Volunteers, the latter would respond to any proposal he might make. He believed they would even consent to be called out every year for seven or eight days' service with the Regular Army.
    COLONEL WILMOTsaid, he cordially accepted the clause, but thought there would be difficulties in the way of carrying it out.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, the clause had been inserted because the Government were willing that those Volunteers who were willing to come should be brigaded with the Regular troops.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he should like to know whether there were any provisions in the Mutiny Act suitable to the Volunteers. It was absurd to put men under an Act which would not enable the authorities to punish them, especially when the Volunteers were kept in a state of excellent discipline by the power possessed by those in command of instantly dismissing men for bad conduct.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he did not think the practical difficulties were as great as the noble Lord seemed to fancy. The
    98
    old Yeomanry were originally under that Act.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the Yeomanry were paid, whereas the Volunteers were an unpaid force. If the Volunteers were called out in service they would be paid, and would naturally come under the Mutiny Act. Considering the circumstances under which the Volunteers had been called into existence, and the state in which they had been kept for 12 years, nothing had occurred to put upon them the slur of being placed under the Mutiny Act.
    Clause agreed to.

    PART IV.—SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
    As to Sale of Commissions.
    Clause 16 (Appointment of Commissioners to compensate officers).
    COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he would move as an Amendment, in page 8, line 34, to leave out "three," and insert "five;" and in page 9, line 5, to leave out "two," and insert "three," so that there should be five instead of three Commissioners. He might also mention that Clause 19 prevented any appeal from the decision of the Commissioners.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, the business devolving on the Commissioners would not be heavy, though the business devolving on the actuaries, perhaps, might be. It would be very unwise to have a large number of Commissioners, especially as they would have to be paid. No appeal was allowed, because they were really intended to act as a Court of Arbitration; and the Bill defined their duties so clearly, that gentlemen of good sense and intelligence would have no difficulty in discharging them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Appointment of clerks by Commissioners) agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Powers and duties of Commissioners).
    COLONEL ANSONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to accept the following Amendment:—In page 9, line 15, after the word "commission" to add the following words:—
    "And having ascertained such prices, the full sum shall be given in every case, without any deduction whatever in consequence of higher pay in

    99
    any superior rank, or of any subsequent selection to higher rank, or in consequence of any temporary depreciation of the value of a commission in consequence of being stationed in unhealthy climates or in consequence of foreign war, and the only grounds on which any reduction shall be made shall be on account of value previously received in money; and in all cases which may arise in which it may be discovered that an officer has been unable to sell previous to the day appointed for the abolition of purchase owing to temporary causes, such as there being no purchase officer willing to give the customary over-regulation price, or in consequence of there being a supernumerary in one of the ranks of the regiment, then full compensation shall be given to such officer as if no impediment had existed in the sale of his commission."
    MR. CARDWELL, although he thought that the clause would effect what was intended in the Amendment, promised to carefully consider the suggestion.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Decision of Commissioners to be conclusive) agreed to.
    Supplemental Provisions as to the Ballot,
    Clauses 20 to 24, inclusive, negatived.
    Rules by Secretary of State.
    Clause 25 negatived.

    PART V.—MISCELLANEOUS AND DEFINITIONS.
    Power of Government to take Railroads on Emergency.
    Clause 27 (Power of Government on occasion of emergency to take possession of railroads).
    MR. C. FORSTER, for Mr. LEEMAN, moved, in page 18, line 5, after "thereof," insert "and may take possession of any plant without taking-possession of the railroad itself."
    Line 7, after "direct," insert—
    "And the directors, officers, and servants of any such railroad shall obey the directions of the Secretary of State as to the user of such railroad as aforesaid for Her Majesty's service."
    Amendments agreed to.
    Further Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Barracks and Land.
    Clause 28 (Power of county or municipal boroughs to build barracks).
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, although the clause was to be withdrawn, he should be glad to hear what were the views of the Government on the subject,
    100
    because, with the present pressure of local taxation, there was no chance of any county building barracks. The whole Militia force could hardly be put under canvas, and it was very undesirable that Militiamen should be exposed during the period of their training to the demoralizing associations of country towns.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had been in hopes that counties might combine to build barracks for the Militia, considering that money would be lent by the Treasury, and that billet money might be applied in paying a portion of the interest; but looking to the large expense that would be incurred, and the short period the barracks would be occupied, and also to the state of feeling which prevailed in regard to rating, he thought it better to withdraw the clause.
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he considered that his right hon. Friend had done wisely in not pressing the clause on the attention of the House. But the Government might avail themselves of the powers they possessed and group counties for the building of barracks; he did not think the counties possessed the power of combining for that purpose. Barracks might be built on an inexpensive scale, to be occupied by different regiments in succession. He saw no reason why the embodiment of the Militia should not be spread over more than the months of April and May, September and October, when harvest was over, might be made equally available
    MR. CARDWELLobserved, that the calling out of the Militia at any period of the year depended on the labour market; but they had also to guard against a great amount of fraud which might be practised by the same person receiving the bounty of different Militia regiments.
    Clause negatived.
    Clauses 29 to 31 negatived.
    Clause 32 (Power of militia and volunteer corps to acquire land for any necessary purposes) agreed to.
    Penalties and Saving Clauses.
    Clauses 33 and 34 negatived.
    Clause 35 agreed to.
    Definitions.
    Clause 36 agreed to.
    MR. CARDWELL MR. CARDWELL moved to insert, after Clause 26, a new clause (Order as to billeting and quartering of Militia).
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. STAPLETON MR. STAPLETON moved to insert the following new clause:—
    (Militia liable to serve in parts of Europe.)
    "The general Militia shall be liable to serve in any part of Europe, except those parts which are under the dominion of the Emperor of Russia or the Sultan; but every soldier and non-commissioned officer who shall have enlisted, and every officer whose commission shall bear date before the passing of this Act, whose regiment shall be ordered on foreign service, shall be entitled to elect to remain in the United Kingdom; and such soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers as may so elect to remain in the United Kingdom shall serve with or constitute the depôts of the regiments to which they respectively belong."
    The Militiamen ought to be enlisted on the understanding that they were to serve in any part of Europe, and the officers ought to accept their commissions on the same understanding. Foreign countries ought to be made aware that in the event of our being involved in war we could immediately turn our Militia to account. It would be easy to make the Militia efficient troops, and thus place at our disposal a fine force without the expenditure of a single additional farthing. Eminent generals had expressed an opinion in favour of the principle involved in his clause, the insertion of which in the Bill he begged to move. The limit as to Turkey and Russia was inserted to show that he did not think the Militia would be called upon in wars undertaken merely on account of India. Any other wars in Europe must be regarded as having for their ultimate object the safety of our own shores, the defence of which was the proper function of the Militia.
    Clause read a first time.
    On Motion, "That the clause be read a second time,"
    MAJOR WALKER, as a Militia officer, opposed the clause, not on the ground of a reluctance to serve abroad, but because he believed that it would prove an obstacle in the way of recruiting for the Militia, for the class of men who entered that force being taken from the lowest strata of society were very suspicious of
    102
    contracting new engagements. It was the mere unnecessary to introduce such a provision into the Bill, inasmuch as during the Crimean War no less than 40 Militia regiments had volunteered for foreign service. He trusted that the House and the country would have sufficient confidence in the patriotism of the Militia, and would leave them a free choice in the matter.
    MR. STANLEYsaid, he must remind the hon. Member who had moved, the clause, that when this country was at war, the volunteering for foreign service by the Militia had not only been by regiments, but also by individual Militiamen volunteering to serve in the Line, which had thus obtained a considerable accession to its strength. The proposal, moreover, was objectionable in regard to its limitation.
    MR. CARDWELLhoped his hon. Friend would not press his clause to a division.
    MR. STAPLETONsaid, he believed that although a great number of the Militia would be very unwilling to go to India, they would be very willing to serve on the Continent of Europe. He would, however, withdraw the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE, in the absence of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory), moved a new clause—(Power to Commissioners to commute).
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), moved, after Clause 23, to insert a new clause—(Compensation to clerks of general meetings).
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause could not be entertained by the Committee, because it was not covered by the preliminary Resolution passed with reference to the Bill.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to consider the question raised by the clause?
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was afraid he could not hold out any hope that the Government would think it right that these clerks should receive compensation.
    SIR JOHN HAY SIR JOHN HAY moved the following clause:—

    103
    Officers to lodge security in aid of retirement.
    "Be it further provided, That, after the passing of this Act, each officer shall, on receiving his commission in Her Majesty's Army, lodge a sum of money not exceeding five hundred pounds, in the hands of the Accountant General of the War Office, and that on each succeeding step of rank to which the said officer shall be promoted, he shall lodge such additional sum as may be deemed necessary; each officer shall, on retiring from the Army, if he shall have not been cashiered, receive back as a bonus, or as an annuity, the sums of money he shall have so lodged, with such increment as may be due at the rate of three and a half per cent."
    The hon. and gallant Baronet said, there was hardly a trade or civil profession which did not require that persons on entering it should, either by themselves or their friends, lodge a sum of money, or outer into a bond with the view of securing their good behaviour. In the Navy, security for good behaviour on the part of those who entered it was required to a considerable amount. He thought the country was entitled to obtain from those who were about to serve it in the Army that security for good behaviour which was required in the other professions in the States. There was this further consideration, that the adoption of the clause would relieve the country of an enormous amount, which was now paid to officers on retirement.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the same objection applied to this clause as to the last—namely, that it was out of Order to move the clause, as it was not covered by the original Resolution.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) (re-committed) BILL—(Lords)— [BILL 181.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. LOCKE KING, in rising to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, said, he could not help thinking that everything connected with the Bill was unsatisfactory and inconvenient. The time when the measure had been previously brought before the House was inconvenient, and the usual practice of making a statement with regard to a Bill had not been followed by its promoters. A Committee upstairs would be a much better place to discuss Amendments on a religious question like this than a Committee of the Whole House.
  104
  It was said that the Bill ought to pass because it had come from a Royal Commission. Well, a great deal was expected from that Commission, but it had done very little, and that little very badly. Alterations had been proposed which caused surprise, and others omitted where decision was necessary—for instance, the Rubric on ornaments, by the misinterpretation of which so many innovations had been introduced, and for removal of which the Commission had been appointed, was left untouched. Moreover, this Bill was a mere fragment of what had been recommended. The Commission showed all the weakness of compromise, and that House, also, was expected to show its weakness by accepting the compromise. That the Government should undertake a small Bill like this was by no means satisfactory. If they passed this Bill they would soon have another disturbance with regard to the Prayer Book, and then another Commission. It was said the trade was disturbed, and for that reason this Bill must pass. Whose fault was that? It rested with one or two Prelates, who assured the trade the Bill would pass last year, and, in consequence, the new Prayer Books were printed. If trade complained, the people would complain if that alteration was made. There was a great deal of sentiment connected with the Prayer Book. People were attached to their own Prayer Book—they did not like to change it. It was more than 200 years since it had been disturbed in any way, and if they were now to make any alterations, let it be done in such a way that those alterations would last at least for two or three generations. No one could say if this Bill passed that it would not be necessary that considerable alterations should be made in the Prayer Book at no distant day. Many of the clergy were themselves opposed to the Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that other important recommendations of the Commission should be embodied in it, or it might be said we had been treated deceitfully; and Canon Trevor also objected to it. The Guardian, Church Times, and The Record recommended the postponement of the measure; and he had a letter from a clergyman, who objected that the Lessons provided by the Bill were not, on the whole, an improvement on the old Lessons; that a large portion of the Proverbs now read were omitted, and

  105
  that neither the clergy nor the laity had been practically consulted upon the matter. The principle was admitted that a portion of the Apocrypha should be excluded, and he would ask why the whole of it should not be excluded, as it was uninspired? Another objection was, that either the Old or the New Prayer Book could be used, so that people would have to take both "Church Services" to Church, because they could not know beforehand which one would be used. Added to all those objections, there was a general feeling among Churchmen that the Bill was unnecessary; and for all those reasons combined, he would now move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Locke King.)
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought the objections ought to have been taken at an earlier stage, because they amounted to an absolute objection to the measure. The Government felt that had they attempted more than was contained in the Bill, it would have been impossible to carry any measure, certainly during the present, and, perhaps, in any future Session. There was such a diversity of opinion on other points referred to the Commission that it was impossible to say that the views of the Church outside this House had been clearly pronounced respecting them. Under those circumstances the Government had to consider whether they would act upon this portion of the Report of the Commission containing the Lectionary, or abandon altogether the hope of legislation; and they believed that though, among 20,000 clergymen, it was impossible to expect unanimity, the Bill represented the general feeling of the clergy. The Commission was carefully selected; it was fairly representative, consisting of both clergy and laity; they selected from their body a committee of men best qualified to consider the alterations in the Table of Lessons; the committee made a unanimous Report to the Commission, who adopted it as unanimously. These proposed changes were referred to the Universities and to various persons of authority in the Church. Finally, they were considered and adopted by Convocation, although a difference of opinion occurred there; and while Convocation was, perhaps, an imperfect re-
  106
  presentation of the Church, it was the best we possessed, and he did not know what other steps could be taken to ascertain the opinion of the Church. The Government, therefore, felt it their duty to introduce a measure founded on this part of the Report of the Commission, and for that reason, he felt himself compelled to resist the Motion. They had accepted certain Amendments which would allow time for persona to become accustomed to these alterations; but the details of the measure were such as could not properly be considered either in that House or in a Select Committee. He, however, trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King). He would not say whether the change was a good or a bad one, nor had he one word to say against the composition of the Commission who recommended it; but who asked for it? What Petitions had been presented in its favour, except from printers who would profit by it? Look at the tens of thousands of people whose minds, by this change, would be disturbed. God knew they were disturbed enough already in going into churches. Constant novelties there hindered them from knowing whether they stood on their heads or their heels. But that Bill would make confusion worse confounded, for by one of its provisions the minister was to be allowed to decide in the morning whether he would read one Lesson or two. The humbler classes among them stuck to tradition, and the existing Lessons had long prescription in their favour. Unless a great advantage could be shown as resulting from the change, why make it? Highly-educated persons might understand why it was made, but not humbler folk. Nor did this matter stand alone. The Convocation of one of the Provinces, of their own hook, had chosen to set to work upon the Bible, so far as he knew, without authority from anybody. Who could tell at the end of seven years how much of the Bible would be left? He believed such a change as that would be injurious not only to the Church, but to the faith which in different forms most of them professed, and he thought it was entirely uncalled for.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that having served upon the Commission, though not

  107
  on the Committee, he thought it was impossible that anybody could be appointed more entitled to the respect and confidence of the country. The Committee showed clearly that the proposed changes were improvements; the work of selection had been admirably done; and he believed it would tend not to disturb but to satisfy public feeling, when the feeling occasioned by its novelty had worn off.
  MR. MONKsaid, he had nothing to say against the composition of the Committee, the fairness of which he did not dispute; but the great questions submitted to the Royal Commissioners remained entirety unsolved by this Bill, which only dealt with the Lectionary and the arrangement of the Calendar; and in that respect he thought they were somewhat unfairly dealt with, after reading the Bill a second time without discussion, in being told they must either accept or reject it as a whole. In some respects he did not think the new Lectionary an improvement on the old one. Many of the Lessons were seriously curtailed, and in some cases six or eight verses were substituted instead of a whole chapter—a change that he could not approve of. As to the alleged assent of Convocation, did that body really represent the Church, of England—laity as well as clergy? Let Convocation first of all reform itself, and then the House would be able to leave the consideration of these matters to it. If the Bill passed, a serious tax, amounting it was calculated to £30,000 or £40,000, would be imposed upon 13,000 or 14,000 parishes, which were now bound to provide Prayer Books of a large size for use there, and how was this money to be raised, now that church rates were abolished? He should support the Motion.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, it was to be regretted that such a tribunal as that House should be called upon, by way of appeal, to determine questions in which a large number of hon. Members took no interest whatever. The House of Commons consisted largely of Nonconformists, Catholics, and Jews, yet they were called upon to decide as to the form of prayer which the Church of England should adopt. He did not think that House was a proper tribunal to decide whether or not certain portions of the Apocrypha, and certain books of Moses, were to be read; and the Church
  108
  of England would have acted more wisely by submitting the matter to some domestic tribunal of its own, than by throwing this obstacle in the way of disposing of the great mass of public measures before the House, and which were more to the public interest.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) had had more acquaintance with the circumstances of the case, and the history of legislation in this country, he would have found that there was some answer to his observations. As long as there is in the country a Church which has the character of a national Church, it would be a great anomaly—in fact, it would be intolerable—that changes should be introduced into its fundamental arrangements, and into its service, which were compulsory by law, and enforceable under penalties, without consent of the Legislature. My hon. and learned Friend feels that there is an incongruity in submitting to the Legislature such details. No doubt there is incongruity; but if he had referred to the history of the country he would have found that such incongruities had, on former occasions, been cured by the good sense of Englishmen, and especially by the good sense of the House of Commons. This is not the first time that a Bill of this character has been submitted to the House of Commons, but on every occasion on which there has been such a Bill the House of Commons has felt that it was essentially ill-constituted for the purposes of an ecclesiastical synod, and has been content to take a broad view of the measures submitted to it, and either to accept or reject them as a whole. I hope the House will not adopt the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King). I am certain it would be far better for us to decline to deal with the Bill altogether than to set about patching it in Committee, according to the individual fancy of this or that Member who thinks that he, by the strength, of his own will, could affect this or that particular improvement, and that he could amend it, independent of the great authority which stood arrayed on behalf of this Bill. Let us look whether it is or is not wise to reject this Bill. Individually, I am, like the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr.

  109
  Henley), very thankful for the Table of Lessons we have in the Prayer Book, and I should have been perfectly well content to leave to other generations the consideration of its improvement. But when he says—"Who have asked for improvement?" I am bound to say that many considerable persons have asked for it. Great authorities have asked for it. Reference has been made to Convocation. Convocation, though not strictly a representative body, yet is an important body, and represents a large mass of the opinion of the class which of all others is most interested in the question. Convocation in both Provinces has given its assent to this change; the Louse of Lords has given its assent to the change; and these three bodies—the Commission, Convocation, and the House of Lords—are not bodies of which it can be said that they are of too radical or too reforming a character. The right hon. Gentleman asked—"Why shake the minds of the people?" I feel with him about shaking the minds of the people; but I think it would be an exaggeration for me to say we are confronted by changes. There is no change here in the customs and belief of the Church, and the sound of the ancient English Scriptures; they still sound as before in the ears of the English people; and though the people are attached to the services of the Church, yet I do not think they are so acquainted with the Calendar and the chapter, and verses of the chapter which are to be read on each Sunday, as to detect the change which is to be made. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the choice between one Calendar and the other; but it is only fair to say that Government, in venturing to introduce that Amendment into the Bill, did not intend to act on any principle of giving effect to their own individual will. It never entered into the head of anyone that congregations would go backwards and forwards capriciously from one Calendar to another. The consideration which weighed was that in many parishes it would be a hardship to purchase Prayer Books with new Calendars, and in any case it would be undesirable to provoke opposition by proposing the necessity of a sudden change. That was a matter for which—though we have introduced such a change—we certainly had no strong opinion of our own to urge if
  110
  we should be proved to be wrong. But though there is no general discontent with the general Table of Lessons, I think, upon the whole, this new Calendar has been favourably received by the country, and it is with that belief that it is now proposed, and not from any impatience to change the existing form of service, which years of use have endeared to so many persons. Nevertheless, after all those bodies I have referred to, possessed of great authority in the matter, have assented to the contents of the Bill, I think that no sufficient reason has been shown why this House, though modified in its constitution in recent years, should decline to accept a measure of this kind; for the House has, on several occasions, dealt with measures affecting the temporal and spiritual arrangements of the Church. I admit the great unfitness of the House to discuss and modify in detail a Bill of this character, but that does not constitute a reason why, as a legislative and deliberative Assembly, it should withhold its general assent to a measure which has undergone great consideration, and has received the assent and approval of a large body of the community interested in the subject. I trust, therefore, the House will not agree to the Motion.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister, whether, by accepting the legislation that was proposed by the Royal Commissioners on this point, the Committee would be precluded from subsequently dealing with their other recommendations? The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had cast some aspersions on the conduct of the Royal Commissioners, but if he took the trouble to read the résumé of their Report that had been prepared by one of their number, he would feel that their recommendations were worthy of the consideration of all thoughtful men. In the first instance, he was of opinion that it would be well to leave this matter alone; but having since had the opportunity of very carefully considering the subject, he had come to see the immense superiority of the new Table of Lessons over the old one, and he should be lath to stand in the way of the adoption of so great an improvement. The Government had already made a concession as to the liberty to be granted to clergymen with respect to the

  111
  use of the new Lessons, in proposing that no one should be obliged, to read them until 1879; but it would be more in accordance with the present state of public feeling if that liberty were extended for an indefinite period, and clergymen had the alternative of using either the old Lessons or the now ones. The opinion of Churchmen would soon decide the matter in one way or the other, and on their decision, based upon the experience of a few years, there could be legislation hereafter. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock), he could only say that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had been careful not to run counter to the religious feelings of those who sat on the other benches, and he appealed to those who entertained the same opinions as the hon. and learned Member not to use such language as he had uttered on so sacred a matter. He could not consent to the doctrine that the representatives of the United Kingdom were not interested in the settlement of matters concerning the Church of this country; whether hon. Members belonged to the Church of England or not, the condition of the Church must be a matter of the greatest importance to them and to the nation generally, and as in all professions it was of great service to get an outside opinion, so it was of great advantage to the Church to elicit the opinions of Nonconformists, since by that means light would be thrown on some of its difficulties, which everyone who wished well to the country, whether he belonged to her communion or not, would desire, for the sake of the public welfare, to see overcome.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) did not apply, and that he could assure the House that this matter had not been slurred over by the Royal Commissioners. The revision of the Table of Lessons was one of the objects committed to them, and it was not for them to inquire whether there was a public demand for it. When the Commissioners met, they were of opinion that the work of revision had better, in the first instance, be intrusted to a sub-Committee, and such a body was appointed as was truly representative of the larger Commission. The Table of Lessons which they prepared was circulated among the
  112
  whole body, and by them it was maturely considered. It did not pass without certain alterations being made, and in its revised form it had been adopted by the Convocation of both Provinces and by the other House of Parliament. This House ought not to criticize those details to which some of the Amendments pointed, but should adopt the Bill with the long period that had been granted by the Government for the adoption of the now Table. If it approved itself to the common sense of religious people, the new Table would gradually and peaceably take its place, without the parishes being put to the expense supposed by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), since any parish could for a penny buy a copy of the Act which would contain the Table of Lessons. At the end of seven years, if it should not be approved of, and the old Table should be preferred, the present Bill might be repealed by a very short Act. He trusted the Bill would be passed through Committee, and that the new Table would give peace and contentment to the Church.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, as no Dissenter had yet spoken on the question, he wished to say a few words upon it. Since the Prime Minister had deprecated discussion on the details of this Bill, on the ground that the House was unfit to deal with them, it was fair to presume he was really opposed to it. But how were Dissenters to vote upon the question. [An hon. MEMBER: Not at all.] Dissenters believed that civil government had nothing to do with the internal affairs of a Christian church; how, then, could they do otherwise than vote with the hon. Member for Surrey? The Prime Minister knew that the feeling for disestablishment was growing rapidly. ["No, no!] He knew that 91 Members had voted for disestablishment, and that should not be lost sight of. ["Question!] It was the question; because, as he believed, the civil power had nothing to do with the inside of a church, it was his duty to vote for the Amendment. The Prime Minister must know disestablishment was near at hand, and that when the Church was disestablished it would be able to deal with the Prayer Book as it pleased.
  DR. BALLsaid, he intended to support the Government, but he must protest against the doctrine that the House should take the Bill as the Government had chosen to alter it. The Commission

  113
  which had dealt with, the matter was appointed by the late Lord Derby, and was composed of men of all shades of opinion, lay and clerical; the Lectionary recommended by them was adopted unanimously, and although he was not altogether satisfied with it, he was not prepared to raise his individual opinion against the unanimous conclusions of so eminent a body as that Commission. He did not, for instance, approve the change by which the New Testament was to be read only twice a-year instead of thrice; there were many who never heard the sound of the Gospel except in church, and it was unadvisable that the opportunities now afforded to such persons of becoming acquainted with the foundation of our faith should be curtailed. He also objected to allowing two Lectionaries to exist up to the year 1879. In the old Lectionary, 106 Lessons were taken from the Apocrypha; in the new only 40, and numerous other changes were made. If the two Lectionaries were allowed to be in force for the next seven years not only would the people be at a loss to know which Lectionary would be used, but the very existence of two Lectionaries would become a standard of disagreement. He objected to giving parties in the Church an opportunity of setting up that or any other Shibboleth. It would also be a great inconvenience to members of the Church if it were in the power of the minister to choose which Lectionary he would use; as one clergyman would adopt the new one, whilst another minister might use the old one, and thereby great confusion would arise. This proposal was a pure invention of the Government, unsupported by the House of Lords, Convocation, or the Commission. The Prime Minister had said he wished to ascertain the opinion of the people upon the subject; but no steps had been taken to do so, and it was most impolitic to allow the opinion of the people upon such a subject to be developed in the midst of schismatic contentions. He maintained that the Bill ought not to be confined simply to the Lectionary; for, as he reminded the House, the Commission appointed by the late Lord Derby was not selected for that purpose only, but with especial reference to the growth and increase of Ritualism, in England. That was not the only unanimous recommendation of the Commissioners, for there
  114
  were a great many of the numerous recommendations which were made unanimously, and which were not included in in the Bill before the House. He should ill-discharge his duty if he did not say that he thought the Bill inadequate; but he had derived considerable consolation from the statement of the Prime Minister—that the Government in passing this Bill must not be taken as opposing the other recommendations of the Commission, which would be open to future consideration.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought these questions ought to be settled between the members of the Church of England, and that they could never be so settled until the constitution of the Governing Body of that Church was revised and remodelled more in accordance with the feelings of the people of this country. These matters would then be arranged within Convocation, and when they came to Parliament to sanction their arrangement they would meet with that respect to which they were entitled. Were matters in the position he had described, that House need not have incurred the well-merited reproof, which he hoped they would take to heart, of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock). He would support the Amendment. He was a Conservative, and detested change merely as such. Unless change was shown to be necessary, he invariably opposed it. He was not aware that public opinion was in favour of the proposed change, and he believed it would create doubt and difficulty in the minds of the laity.
  MR. GRAHAMsaid, he believed it was not the duty of hon. Members who did not belong to the Church of England to walk out of the House, but to vote on this question according to their conscientious opinion. The Prime Minister had said that the Bill must be accepted in its entirety upon the authority simply of Convocation and the Ritualistic Commission. As a Presbyterian, he (Mr. Graham) could not admit that any such bodies had any right to dictate the formula according to which the people of that country were to worship God. No more unchristian principle could be asserted than that these formulas should be imposed upon the people by the votes of political parties. He could not support this Bill, especially as it provided

  115
  that matter should be read in the public services of our churches as God's Word which he did not believe to be so.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he was unable to follow the argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graham), to the effect that they had no right to impose the reading of particular Lessons. The existing Lessons rested on the authority of Parliament, and the object of this Bill was partly to reduce the number. As regarded the questions of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), and the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball), as to the intentions of the Government, he would observe that there were a great many other recommendations upon which the Commissioners were agreed; but, on the other hand, there were a large number upon which they were not unanimous, and as these comprised some of the most interesting and important questions, in dealing with the others it would have been impossible to pass them by. The Government had to consider whether the time was come for proposing legislation with regard to points on which there was such difference of opinion, and they thought it was not come. But those questions were under the consideration of the Church—possibly at no distant period they might be dealt with; and whenever there was a reasonable prospect of their being satisfactorily and harmoniously decided, that Government, or any succeeding one would, he was sure, be happy to take up the matter.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), that neither he nor any hon. Member of that House should walk out on this or any other occasion. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), he wished to remind that hon. Gentleman that 26 years ago the Dissenters' Chapel Bill was brought into the House at the instigation of the Nonconformists, that it had to meet a narrow sectarian opposition, but that the majority of Churchmen in the House supported the Dissenters on that occasion; and he thought the Dissenters would do well to support on this occasion a question which had been thoroughly sifted by the Church authorities.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLE, who spoke amid considerable interruption, said, he
  116
  had taken great pains in examining the new Lectionary, and unhesitatingly declared that the old one was the better of the two. The present Bill gave a chance of two Lectionaries, and he was convinced that this would be certain to introduce into parishes new elements of discord.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) only desired to extend to the Church the same liberty which Parliament conferred upon the Dissenters 26 years ago. It had been said that the duty of Parliament in regard to this question was to confirm the decision of Convocation; but to this he strongly objected, for this, if for no other reason—that, so far as he had been able to ascertain, Convocation could not be said in any adequate way to represent the opinions of the great mass of the lay members of the Church of England.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 204: Majority 165.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Substitution of Tables of Lessons in schedule for old Tables).
  MR. HOLTrose to propose one of a series of Amendments, the first being in page 2, line 3, after "read," to insert the word "and," which would have the effect of introducing into the Prayer Book the old and new Tables of Lessons. He tendered his best thanks to the Government for the consideration they had given to his Amendments, and their endeavour by the alterations they had made in the Bill to introduce them to some extent. The Bill was opposed last Session, and it was hoped that delay would result in the introduction of a more comprehensive measure this Session dealing with the Rubric as well as the Table of Lessons. The Government who issued that Commission, and the present Government, who renewed it, were of opinion that the most important question to deal with was the Rubric, that of the Table of Lessons being secondary and subordinate to it. There were, therefore, abundant reasons last year to show that the Bill was prematurely introduced, because the Commissioners had not then reported on the chief subject submitted for their consideration; and the experience of last Session showed that the Bill must

  117
  fail unless its scope was enlarged. This was the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed in his letter to the Bishop of London last January. He was therefore surprised and disappointed to find the Bill had been introduced in its present form. It was, however, thought better not to oppose the measure, but to offer such Amendments for the consideration of the Committee as might render it less objectionable. If this Amendment was not adopted, he admitted that most of the others must fall to the ground. His objection to the Government scheme was that it would destroy after some years the use of the old Table of Lessons, and he desired the Committee to take such a course as would leave the clergy free still to use the old Table of Lessons, and by making the action of the Bill permissive, not compulsory, would also prepare the way for the final settlement of the question.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he approved of the Amendment. He had reluctantly voted with the minority in the last division, because he feared that this Bill, if carried in its present form, would produce anxiety and indignation in the minds of many worthy people.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the object of the proposition of the hon. Member for North-east Lancashire was to render the use of the old or new Table of Lessons optional; but the hon. Member seemed to intend that the effect of his Amendment should be only temporary, and he failed to see the practical difference between it and the proposition of the Government. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he thought the new Lectionary superior to the old one, but was in favour of giving a large discretion to the clergy as to the reading of the Holy Scriptures in churches. The Government, after rejecting an Amendment which he had suggested, to enable a clergyman to substitute a passage from the Scriptures for a Lesson from the Apocrypha, had postponed the operation of this minute reform for seven years. He did not think this reasonable, and should support the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Government had adopted a wise and prudent course in giving an option to the clergy in this matter, because many clergymen would have felt conscientious scruples as to using the new
  118
  Lectionary at once. But in the course of seven years he believed that public opinion would be formed in favour of the new Table, and that it would be accepted by the whole Church. He hoped the House would support the Government.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSK, who spoke amid considerable interruption, protested against the practice of requiring the House to legislate on subjects with regard to which it was assumed that some hon. Members had no right to express opinions, and deprecated going into details on this measure.
  MR. HOLTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BALL DR. BALL moved an Amendment, fixing the period giving the optional power of reading the Lessons at "1873" instead of "1879," the former being the date agreed to by the House of Lords. He wanted to know the reason why the Bill was altered after it came down from the Lords?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government adopted the latter period, in conformity with the unanimous assent of the Prelates in the House of Lords.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would vote for the Amendment, if pressed to a division.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped his right hon. and learned Friend would not persevere with his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule,
  MR. HOLT MR. HOLT moved in line 25, to omit "the second time," and to insert "one of the two services," leaving it optional to the clergyman to use the particular form laid down at one of these two services.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEurged that this part of the Schedule should be left as it stood.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 6, after "minister," to insert—
  "Except that when any Lesson from the Apocrypha is appointed for the holyday the proper Lessons for the Sunday shall always be read."
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 6, after the word "minister," to insert the words "but whensoever a lesson is appointed taken from the Apocrypha, the minister may, at his discretion, substitute a chapter taken from the canonical books of the Old Testament."—(Mr. Holt.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 81: Majority 10.
  Schedule agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Preamble be agreed to,"
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 19, after the word "Prayer," to insert the words "and such revised Tables of Lessons have been considered and approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. MACFIE MR. MACFIE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONEhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press that Motion, which, at this stage of the Bill, would be very unfair. He opposed the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. G. Hardy's) Amendment, remarking that there had been a technical informality in connection with the meeting of Convocation at which the subject was considered. The words had been deliberately struck out in the House of Lords, with the assent of all the temporal and spiritual Peers.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he would support the Amendment, and would state that nothing would have induced him to vote for the Bill had it not been for the fact that Convocation, which, however imperfect in its constitution, was actually the representative of the Church, had approved the measure.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he could not admit that Convocation was the legal representative of the Church of England while Parliament existed and the Sovereign remained the Head of the Church. Convocation represented the clergy.
  DR. BALLrecommended the adjournment of the debate, as the decision come to by the House of Lords was far too important a matter to be disposed of in a cursory manner at the close of a long Sitting.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know from the Government, whether the House knew as a fact of that which it was asked to introduce into the Preamble officially.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had official cognizance of it, but that it had not been communicated officially to Parliament.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 94: Majority 39.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill to be reported.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House, That Mr. Speaker was unable to resume the Chair this Evening.
  Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had learnt with great astonishment that the Government intended to proceed to-morrow at the Morning Sitting to discuss the Report of the Committee on Public Business. He protested against such a course being pursued without due notice, and at an hour when professional Members of the House must necessarily be absent. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were anxious to proceed with the subject to-morrow, not so much in their own interest as in that of private Members. The discussion would be confined to two proposals which had been made by the Committee—that relating to the power of counting out on Tuesdays and Fridays, which the Government proposed should not be exercised until halfpast 9 o'clock, when there had been a Morning Sitting, and that relating to the exclusion of strangers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, Bill to amend "The Metropolitan Building Act, 1855," by adding to the exemptions from Part I, of the

121
Act the buildings of the New Foreign Cattle Market on the site of Deptford Dock, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE and Sir DAVID SALOMONS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 200.]

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law respecting the Proving and Sale of Chain Cables and Anchors.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 201.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Courts of Justice (Additional Site)* (182); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (183); Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal* (184); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment (185).
Second Reading—Union of Benefices (155), negatived; Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (162); Burial Law Amendment* [126]; Public Health (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* (148).
Committee—Betting* (129); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (127).
Committee—Report—Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment* (135).
Report—Citation Amendment (Scotland) * (177); East India Stocks (Dividends)* (178); Postage* (179).
Third Reading—Pharmacy* (153), and passed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, AMENDMENT BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD CAIRNSrose to ask their Lordships to give a first reading to a short Bill which had for its object to remove certain doubts that had arisen with regard to the effect of a certain portion of the Irish Land Act passed last year. The occasion of this Bill had arisen out of certain observations which on Tuesday evening last had been imputed to the learned Lord Justice of Appeal of the Land Court. However, after the contradiction given to the language reported to have been used, he would not refer to it in detail. The two questions which had been raised with reference to the Act were these:—First, it had been doubted whether the rights intended and supposed to be given by the Act to tenants by the Ulster tenant-right had been really and effectually secured to them by the wording of the Act; and, secondly, whether in the case of property sold in the Landed Estates Court, and subject to these tenant-rights, the rights of the tenant might not be jeopardized and lost altogether by the effect of the conveyance by the Court, unless these rights were specifically noticed and reserved on the face of the conveyance. Now, as to the former question, there could not be the least doubt that the Act intended to secure these rights to the tenants; and, moreover, claims were made under the Act very frequently, they had been repeatedly adjudicated upon, and if any person thought the Act failed in securing the rights of tenants, it was only necessary to appeal from one of those decisions in order to set the matter at rest. There had been no appeal challenging the efficacy of the Act in that respect, and he saw no necessity for legislation. The other question, however, was more diffi-

  47
  cult—it was an important question to consider what effect a conveyance by the Landed Estates Court might have upon the rights of occupying tenants. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack remarked the other night that there was a difficulty in the way of legislation, as there might be an appeal to this House from the recent decision. Now, if an appeal could settle the matter, he (Lord Cairns) should prefer, though at the risk of some delay and expense, to await it; but it was really one which no appeal would decide. What had happened was this:—A considerable property in the North of Ireland being about to be sold, preparations were made in the Landed Estates Court for advertising it, and for stating I he rights and encumbrances to which it was subject. Some of the tenants applied to the Court, not as litigants, but asking the Judges, in their administrative capacity, to place on the particulars of sale and in the conveyance some notice of their rights. The Judges conceiving this to be unnecessary, and their rights to be sufficiently secure, the tenants carried the matter to the Court of Appeal, where both the Judges sustained the decision of the Landed Estates Court. They did so, however, on different grounds, the Lord Chancellor thinking that the rights were sufficiently secured, while Lord Justice Christian doubted whether they could be enforced, and apparently thought the Landed Estates Court could take no cognizance of them. Now, in case of an appeal to this Court, their Lordships might think the decision of the Landed Estates Court was correct, and yet a purchaser might afterwards contend that under the Landed Estates Court Act the property was free from all claims not stated in the conveyance. Without expressing his own opinion on the matter, the doubt was obviously a reasonable one, which it was desirable to remove by a short declaratory Act before any vested rights had been created which it might be difficult to deal with. He would not re-open the controversy as to the Act itself. Many of their Lordships had a great repugnance to it at first, while the objections of some were removed or lessened by the alterations it received in this House; but they would, he was sure, be unanimous in thinking that whatever rights were thereby given to tenants, should not be endangered by the accident of a
  48
  particular property being sold in the Landed Estates Court without any reference to such rights on the face of the conveyance. In truth, it would be impossible to specify them in detail in every conveyance, as they depended on a variety of circumstances, and it was therefore desirable to enact that they should not be affected by such omission. It was important to landlords as well as to tenants that when estates came to be sold, they should not be disposed of with any uncertainty as to the charges upon them. He therefore asked their Lordships to give a first reading to a Bill enacting that in the case of any proceedings under the Landed Estates Court Act the rights of tenants under the Act of last Session should remain valid, although they might not be specified or referred to in the conveyance. The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant. (Ireland) Act, 1870.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthanked his noble and learned Friend for introducing the Bill. After what had occurred it was desirable that all doubt should be removed, and the sooner this was done the better. On the part of the Government he should be happy to assist in passing the Bill as speedily as possible.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No 185.)

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL—(No. 155.)
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL—(No. 155.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to extend to all cathedral cities the Act of 1860, which enabled contiguous parishes to be united. In his own cathedral city there were many parishes so small that the work of the Church could hardly be carried on in them with becoming dignity, and some of the churches were so hemmed in and ill-ventilated and lighted, that worship could not be fitly carried on in them. The work of the clergyman could not be carried on in a becoming and efficient manner, because the income was so small. In many of them it was impossible to get persons to undertake parochial offices. The church-

  49
  wardens of two parishes in Exeter—one containing 200 inhabitants, and the other 300—had called upon him and represented to him the desirability of uniting these two parishes; and that it was desirable that one of the churches should be closed. They said that they had incurred personal liability for the repair of the fabric, and that the result of a voluntary rate had only produced the sum of 10 s. He believed that great benefit would result if the union of small benefices could be facilitated. The provisions of the existing Act respecting London were not precisely suited to other cathedral cities, and the consents required were very numerous; but he doubted whether Parliament would dispense with these safeguards, while the expense attending the removal of bodies might be regarded as a chock on ill-considered action. Seeing, therefore, no immediate prospect of better machinery, he should be sorry to lose the present opportunity, when consents might be obtained which a few years hence might be impracticable, and he believed that the inconvenient arrangement of parishes of which he complained was almost confined to cathedral cities.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he objected to both the form and substance of the Bill. His objection to the form was that it referred to another Act—which would be very inconvenient for those who would have to work out its provisions. He objected also to the substance of the Bill, as it would create pluralities without limitation as to the population of the parishes united; and it would facilitate the pulling down churches for the purpose of selling the sites. It was true that the existing Act exempted London from such a limitation; but this was au exceptional case, for a London parish might have a weekday population of 25,000, and one of only 300 or 400 on Sundays. The clauses were agreed to after much discussion at the instance of the most rev. Prelate who then presided over the See of London. The parishes mentioned by the right rev. Prelate might be united with others provided the aggregate population did not exceed 1,500—a limitation which was imposed on the ground that such a population was as large as a clergyman could
  50
  attend to single-handed. It was undesirable to pull down churches and sell the sites, for a small parish did not necessarily imply a small congregation. He would move that the Bill, which he thought had been drawn by an astute conveyancer, in order that it might slip through without notice, be read a second time this day six months.
  An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONapproved the object of the Bill, but he would ask his right rev. Brother as to the wisdom of attaching it to the Act of 1860, which had been as unworkable as the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Powis) could wish. During the ten years of its operation there had been 31 commissions to consider the advisability of the union of benefices in London, 30 of them being in the first two or three years after its passing. Eight of these schemes were approved and 23 disapproved; but of those eight only one had been carried out, the church being in course of erection: one was likely to be carried out, and three or four others might come to maturity. The reason was that the Act gave not only a voice to every party interested, but it gave them an absolute veto, and anyone could either refuse his consent or make it conditional on extravagant terms. The result was that persons imposed terms which it was impossible to accept. In other analogous cases there was some mode of adjudicating on objections, but here there was none, and, though the parishioners generally might have no objection, it was not easy to procure their attendance in any number; while it might be the interest of the vestry clerk to keep things as they were. In some of the city parishes, they being already old unions, two or three, or even more patrons had to be consulted, each having an absolute veto. He had been informed of a case which had been hung up, because a patron who had a fourth turn refused his assent unless he received patronage in exchange, or considerable compensation—although one of those gentlemen who called themselves "clerical agents" slated that the value of a fourth turn to presentation was inappreciable. The proceeds of sales of sites, moreover, were much smaller than they should be. The recent Census had shown

  51
  a large decrease in the City parishes, and in many the Sunday population was vanishing. Indeed, he was informed that in one the number of people who slept in it on the night of the Census was under a dozen. The unworkableness of the existing Act had become such a scandal that its amendment must speedily be undertaken, and he could hardly recommend any extension of it in its present shape.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, but he entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) in his statement regarding the great difficulty that was experienced in working the original Act. The removal of bodies made the union of City parishes very expensive, and the sites had not, as was expected, realized a sufficient sum to build and properly endow churches in populous suburbs. It was desirable that an improved and general measure should be passed.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYobjected to the form of the Bill as clumsy, and not calculated to meet the necessities of the case. Those difficulties would have to be faced sooner or later by a Bill of an effectual and comprehensive character. In some cities, where churches were crowded together without populations attached to them, it was impossible, now that church rates were abolished, to keep them in repair.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the power of uniting small benefices was very desirable, and the present Bill simply extended an existing Act to all cathedral cities. York much required such a power. A meeting held there shortly after his acceptance of the sec, and attended by all the leading Churchmen, unanimously condemned as a great evil the existence of 26 small benefices, some without endowments or congregations, He had appointed a clergyman, in one case, to two contiguous bonefifes—a plan which had been in operation two or three years without the slightest complaint from the parishioners that the duties were less efficiently performed. Two congregations thus assembled in each church alternately; but there was no reason why they should not have a single church, and the sites of the churches pulled down would often be serviceable for schools. He admitted that the Bill would be but slightly ope-
  52
  rative, but as far as it went he felt bound to support it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he opposed the Bill for the very reason given in the last observation of the most rev. Prelate—that it would be but slightly operative. The unworkableness of the existing Act was a reason for not extending it. He objected to such a mode of dealing with the question. He did not agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) that the Bill had been drawn by an astute conveyaneer, for the recital spoke of "the Session of Parliament which sat" in such and such a year. It would be unintelligible without reference to the Act of 1860, and he could not see why cathedral cities required legislation more than other large towns. Under these circumstances he trusted that the right rev. Prelate would leave the subject to be dealt with next Session on a larger and more comprehensive scale.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that he thought that the Bill could be easily amended in Committee in a way to remove the objections urged against it.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not heard a single argument advanced in favour of the Bill; and even those who supported it qualified their approval by so many modifications that it would be hardly wise to accept their advice and pass a Bill which was so ill-drawn that it would be a crying disgrace to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought the right rev. Prelate was justified in introducing a Bill which proposed simply to extend the same power to cathedral cities which had already been given with respect to the Metropolis, on the principle that it was always desirable to secure uniformity of procedure. Although the procedure fit for London might not be fit for other smaller towns, the right rev. Prelate thought it would be better to adopt the clauses of the Act dealing with London rather than encumber the Statute Book with exceptional legislation, in the same way as it had been deemed expedient in the case of railways and public companies to make one law applicable to all. No one connected with a cathedral city could doubt the want of some measure of this description. Since he had had the honour of holding his present office he had been informed of several of those small bene-

  53
  fices having lapsed to the Crown in consequence of the impossibility of finding persons to accept them. The present measure, however, was capable of great improvement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked that if Parliament intended to occupy itself with subjects of this kind it might be desirable to have a Churchyard Desecration Clauses Act; but, in the meantime, he pointed out that while in London, where land was very valuable, it would be well to incur expenditure wider the Act of 1860, in ordinary cathedral towns, where land as a rule was not valuable, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would provoke a great deal of ill-feeling by desecrating the ground and hurting the feelings of the relatives of those inferred there, without in the end being able to recoup themselves for the outlay.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six month.

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD WESTBURY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Privy Council, said, that on the last occasion when he brought this subject forward the manner in which the great functions of the Privy Council as a Court of High Appeal were discharged was fully entered into. The great importance of the subject, both in a legal and constitutional point of view, was fully admitted; and there was, he believed, but one opinion expressed—that it was the absolute duty of the Government to remove the evil-which was admitted on all hands to be a, disgrace to the administration of justice. At that time not fewer than 370 appeals from India and our colonial possessions had accumulated, and to that number were to be added others not then lodged, but which were in course of transmission to this country. Upon inquiring the time that would be required for the dispatch of these appeals, it was found that if the Court sat continuously, de die in diem, for the same period of time that the Courts of Chancery and Common Law were in the habit of sitting, at least two whole years would be re-
54
quired for the proper dispatch of the accumulated amount of judicial business. But during those two years there would be a fresh supply of appeals, and probably 200 new appeals would be lodged while the accumulated business was being disposed of. They all knew the amount of business that was constantly arriving from the Courts of India, and the importance which was attached by India and the colonies to the connection with this country as securing a satisfactory determination of litigation. If, then, the Court took two years to dispatch the 370 appeals before it, and there was a nearly equal accumulation of fresh appeals during that time, it was hopeless to expect to arrive at a speedy and satisfactory administration of justice. Therefore it was impossible to see that anything could be done except to apply ourselves promptly to the constitution of a tribunal which would first dispose of the arrears and then deal satisfactorily with the appeals from India and our colonial possessions as they arose. On that occasion some difficulty was raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, not to the evils he (Lord Westbury) had pointed out, but to the remedy he proposed should be applied; but as he distinctly stated that he would divide the House unless he received from the Government something like a positive pledge of action in the matter, that pledge was given, and he withdrew his Motion. Notwithstanding all this, absolutely nothing had been done, and for reasons which no man could tell. There was no division of opinion—there was no hesitation as to what should be done; and though it was to his mind a poor expedient, he was willing to accept it, such as it was, because he despaired of obtaining anything better. It was agreed that there should be added to the Judicial Committee two of the Puisne Judges, who should be encouraged to accept retiring pensions, such pensions being augmented by an addition of £1,000 a-year, so as to make up salaries similar in amount to those they were receiving at the time of their retirement, on condition that they devoted themselves continuously to the duties of the Judicial Committee. In addition to this it was proposed to secure the services, by a similar process, of at least one member who had filled the office of Judge in one of the High

55
Courts of Judicature in India; and these three Judges, with Sir James Colvile and Sir Lawrence Peel, who would receive similar allowances, would constitute the permanent Committee. He should have been very glad if a more comprehensive scheme had been adopted, but he was afraid that in this day they Mere all too desirous of merely patching up and resorting to miserable expedients instead of fulfilling great and imperative duties in a manner correspondent with their importance. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the final Court of Appeal for doing justice to many millions of people who were increasing in wealth and commercial relations, all giving rise to a variety of judicial questions calling for settlement. These people were provided with Judges of First Instance; but they could not in the colonies get the quality of justice they required, and there was a great deficiency in regard to Judges who should exercise the highest appellate jurisdiction, and a feeling of disappointment resulted. It was characteristic of most men that they were content with the administration of justice when they drew it from the highest and most important sources, but were not content to receive it through subordinate channels. In one of the leading Australian papers—The Melbourne Argus—there appeared the following expression of feeling, which conveyed what he wished to impress on the House—
"But there is no doubt Dint a strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the present machinery for finally disposing of colonial appeals is rapidly growing in this country. It is too bad that the most important cases should be left untouched for two, for three, or even for four years. When at length the time for hearing arrives, there is no security that a Court will be formed such as the colonies have a right to expect."
Then followed some discouraging observations, which, though not far from being just, he should abstain from reading. The article then proceeded to say—
"We earnestly trust that neither pains nor cost will be spared to provide a fitting organ for the greatest appellate jurisdiction in the world. We look, therefore, with the deepest interest for the news of the promised Jaw reforms of the Lord Chancellor. All that we ask is that our suits shall be decided by a fully organized English Court, and not by some stray legal casuals. We think that the colonies are worth the salaries of three or four Judges, even if the expenses of the Court should mount up to £20,000 or £25,000
56
a-year. Such a sum does not seem unreasonable for the dignity and efficiency of the oldest jurisdiction in the kingdom, and, we may fairly add, the greatest; and if England is so poor as to be unable to provide for the due performance of the Queen's primary duty, it will be well worth our while to contribute towards a Court which shall be fit to advice the Queen how to do right towards all her subjects who dwell beyond the limits of the British Isles."
The "promised law reforms of the Lord Chancellor," referred to in the extract he had quoted, had unfortunately passed into that limbo of the past which was peopled with the ghosts of many other "promised reforms," and if he were called upon to give a motto descriptive of the policy of the Government in reference to legal reforms, he should inscribe, in large characters, the words—
"Quærenda pecunia primum est,
Virtus post nummos."
"Virtus," in this case the duty of providing for the proper administration of justice, was by Her Majesty's Government placed post nummos. A great Commission had sat and reported upon this subject as to the proper course to be taken, and nothing was wanted but the money in order to enable the administration of justice to proceed in a proper manner. The same motto would apply to the scheme for building the Law Courts, and there were other schemes for which nothing but nummos was wanting, and yet they were postponed. It was very painful to him to say anything against Her Majesty's Government; in fact, he frequently abstained from speaking in order that he might not fall into this, and it was only when goaded beyond the power of endurance that such remarks escaped from him. As to the appeals, nothing had been done since last year, and the present state of things was worse than it was then. In the year 1870 there were 370 appeals in arrear, and on the 10th of the present month the registrar reported the number set down for hearing as 86; the number in the office and under prosecution being as nearly as possible 300 more—making 386, foreign and colonial, in all. This number did not include the appeals relating to patents, the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty cases, the interlocutory motions and petitions, and the Indian appeals, which might be estimated at not less than 100 more, or 486 in all. For various reasons some of those appeals might not come on for

57
hearing, and he would therefore strike off the 86, leaving in arrear 400 appeals of great importance to be dealt with. The appeals were also of great importance, for no appeal was brought before the Judicial Committee which involved a stake of less than £1,000, and many related to estates valued at hundreds of thousands of pounds, and sometimes the interests of a whole Province. What an enormous amount of anxiety was produced by the ownership of this property remaining undecided! Such a state of things was a premium to a litigious and obstinate man to persevere in litigation which was almost hopeless, because he might perhaps compel the opposite party to consent to some kind of compromise. It would be useless for him to dilate on the disappointment of nations that were forced to submit to our yoke, and who asked in return that they should enjoy the advantage of having justice properly administered. What, then, could we do in this matter? We might establish a great tribunal, presided over by some man of great eminence and reputation as a lawyer, and having other able Judges associated with him. Such a tribunal would discharge its duties in as satisfactory a manner as his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and the great Courts of Westminster Hall discharged theirs. It was vain, however, to ask for the establishment of such a tribunal; and therefore he asked for something which was more in accordance with the will of the Government, and which was a sort of expedient for the present, although it was neither consistent with their Lordships' dignity, nor at all adequate to attain the great object in view. He asked the Government to give a pledge that within ten days from the present time a Bill should be introduced into that House for the purpose of constituting a tribunal in the manner which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack proposed last year—namely, by adding to the Judicial Committee two Judges from Westminster Hall, and by so constituting what he might call the Indian Chamber of the Committee that it might sit constantly until the great heap of business before it had been diminished to such an extent as to be manageable for the future in the ordinary way. For some reason, which he could not at present
58
discover, the appeals from Bengal were far more numerous than those from the other Presidencies of India. Out of the 386 appeals at present awaiting a hearing there were from Bengal 274, from Madras five, and from Bombay only two. How was this enormous disproportion to be accounted for? Surely there must be in the constitution of the Court of Bengal and in the arrangements something which made it impossible that the cases should be satisfactorily decided in the first instance. If the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India would determine what was to be done in India, and if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would consider the constitution of this tribunal, we might sweep away the opprobrious arrears of appeals, and fairly expect that they would not be augmented in the future. He said in the most determined and explicit manner that if he could not obtain from the Government that which they promised him at the end of June, 1869, he would, like the widow in Scripture, try to got it by importunity. If a Bill were not brought in within the time he had named, he pledged himself to move an Address to the Crown, and take their Lordships' opinion on the subject. It would be useless for his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to answer that there was in the House of Commons, a Bill which, in fact, was but a second edition of that which failed on a previous occasion to receive any approbation in their Lordships' House. The Bill in question had not, he believed, yet been read a first time in the House of Commons, and it would be a mockery to say it was likely to pass and come into immediate operation. Unless their Lordships came to the rescue and demanded that what was right should be done, he should be left to renew the present appeal in June, 1872.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no pain which his noble and learned Friend could give to himself and the members of the Government could be equal to the pain they all felt at the existence of the grievance which he had described. They had been quite as sensitive to it as he had been, and he was perfectly aware it was a grievance of which India and the colonies had occasion justly to complain, that there was no well-organized Court to hear appeals from them, and finally to decide their

59
litigation. Without for one moment palliating or justifying the grievance which existed, he wished to describe its nature and character. He only wished it were possible within ten days to effect the salutary change desired by his noble and learned Friend; and, although he could not give a solemn pledge that the change should be effected in any given time, he would say that the Government would do their best to remedy the grievance arising from the present state of this Appeal Court. It was hardly just to say that nothing had been done—that a pledge had been given and broken; for a Bill was introduced into this House, and, although it did not meet with the approbation of the noble and learned Lord, their Lordships passed it, and it was sent to the other House, where the progress of measures of law reform had been impeded, and was likely to be impeded, by measures of more popular interest. Certainly the present Government had not been slow in endeavouring to effect law reforms. That which was most pressing when he came into office was the reform of the Bankruptcy Law, which preceding Governments had attempted, and the great need of which was shown by the fact that in the course of the year there were not less than 80,000 bankruptcy cases, in 5,000 or 6,000 of which alone a dividend was paid; whereas, he was glad to learn, from the learned Judges who presided over the Bankrupt Courts in the North of England, that the result of legislation was that there were very few cases in which no dividend was paid, that in the majority of cases a dividend of 10 s. in the pound was paid, and there were very few in which the dividend was as low as 5s. in the pound. The Bankruptcy Bill was passed notwithstanding the engrossing demand upon the attention of Parliament caused by the legislation with regard to the Irish Church. In the next Session he was anxious to carry through a Bill for the reform of our legal tribunals; but the pressure of those two important measures, the Irish Land Bill and the Education Bill, fully occupied the House of Commons, and the Bills which he had introduced with reference to the Appellate Court, and the reform of judicature generally, made no progress in the other House. This Session a Bill, which some learned Judges considered a great im-
60
provement upon those of last year, had been circulated for comment and suggestion, and for some time it had been in the hands of a Member of the other House, with a view to its introduction there, in fulfilment of a promise he had given when the regular course of business there would permit. The present grievance with reference to the hearing of appeals before the Privy Council was in no way due to the present Government, but it had arisen from two circumstances, to one of which the noble and learned Lord had adverted. The appeals from India had increased with enormous rapidity during the last few years, and of course the Government could not be held responsible for that. Further, the constitution of the Appellate Court, which had well answered its purpose for 30 odd years, had wholly broken down. Five of its most able members and continuous attendants, although all living, had been rendered unable, from age or infirmity, to attend its sittings; and for this untoward circumstance the Government could not be held responsible. They would, however, be responsible if they did not attempt to provide a remedy for the state of things which had fallen somewhat suddenly upon us in this respect. With reference to the delay in the hearing of Indian appeals, he held in his hand a report of a discussion which took place at a meeting of a society that took an interest in these matters, and in that discussion there was read a letter from a gentleman who had a most perfect knowledge of the subject (Mr. Forsyth), who said that one cause of the delay was the want in India of qualified transcribers to prepare the evidence for transmission to this country. From this cause it took ordinarily from four to five years to prepare a case, and that accounted for the number of appeals that were "hung up." But the number that was actually set down for hearing was comparatively small. There were now 80 Indian appeals set down for hearing, but the remaining 200 or 300 were causes which could not be heard if the Privy Council were reconstituted to-morrow.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, that all the papers had been transmitted and were now in the office; but the appeals were not put down for hearing, owing to the expense and inconvenience of entering them before they could be heard.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, no doubt, expense was incurred by setting them down for hearing, because in that case counsel must attend, but causes could be entered without being set down for hearing; and if these 300 causes were ready to be heard there was no reason why they should not be set down. When he came into office there were two years' arrears of appeals in their Lordships' House; but now, notwithstanding that two causes had occupied eight weeks of judicial time—those of the Wicklow peerage and Miss Shcdden—the House was hearing appeals of the present Session. That being so, great encouragement was afforded to hope that, by providing Judges who could sit for a few weeks consecutively, the appeals that were set down could be disposed of. The existing grievance, therefore, was not one which had been long foreseen, and which could have been provided against; but, on the contrary, it had come on suddenly, and it had increased very much since the noble and learned Lord occupied the Woolsack, and the accumulation of appeals had arisen from five Judges being placed unexpectedly hors de combat with reference to their ability to sit and hear them. Having last year introduced a Bill for remedying the grievance—a Bill which passed their Lordships' House and was stopped in the other House only by the great accumulation of business—he thought the Government could not fairly be considered callous or insensible to the evils which had been described by his noble and learned Friend. With reference to Australia, he did not know what the statistics were as to appeals waiting for hearing; but there were only two appeals from that colony down on the paper. It was quite right, however, to take care that there should not hereafter be the same grievance to complain of as in India. What he deprecated was, that his noble and learned Friend should take up a tone which seemed to indicate that he was subjected to a personal injury in having had promises made to him and then broken, when he trusted he had satisfied their Lordships that he did not hesitate one moment longer than was necessary in passing a Bill through that House which was only stopped in the other House by the pressure of business. He was quite ready to say that, without confining himself within the rather
62
peremptory limits prescribed by his noble and learned Friend, he trusted they would be able so to arrange matters that, until a Bill, to be commenced in the other House—if they worn fortunate enough to receive it in any reasonable time—should pass, the sittings of the Court should be continuous, so as to take up the arrears. But he could not sit down without saying that the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House had not given entire satisfaction, and he trusted the remedy hereafter would be by a general and comprehensive measure. There was one evil which ought speedily to be remedied—he meant the co-ordinate jurisdiction of their Lordships and of the Privy Council in the construction of English law. That House determined English law in the last resort. An appeal came from Australia which was governed by English law. That appeal went to another tribunal whose decisions were final on all questions of colonial law; and there might therefore be a clashing between their Lordships' House and the Privy Council on the construction of an English statute or some doctrine of English law. That was an unsatisfactory state of things, and he hoped when there was an opportunity of bringing forward the larger measure of which he had spoken something would be done to remedy it. He trusted he should be able to propound some means by which these two great Courts of Appeal might be able to render mutual assistance on all questions of English law, so as to act together in concert and harmony with each, other, so that there might be uniformity of law; and some measure which, he believed, would be found to contribute very largely to having a continually sitting Court in the Privy Council, and, so far as it was wanted, a continually sitting Court by means of a Committee of their Lordships' House for hearing appeals. Undoubtedly a very considerable reform was wanted in this direction. He had not gone into his noble and learned Friend's statistics. That was not necessary. He quite admitted the evil. But the immediate pressure, he thought, must be measured by the printed list; for there was, in fact, nothing more which was ready to be disposed of. If there were other appeals ready for hearing, he did not understand why they should not be set down. By means of the temporary

63
measure which he had suggested—namely, continuing the present sittings and sitting during the legal session, the present arrears would in all probability be disposed of.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he wished to make a single observation on the two measures to which his noble and learned Friend had referred. It was quite true that when the Bankruptcy Act became law the year before last, he hoped that some improvement would be effected in the law on that subject; but if his noble and learned Friend persuaded himself that in the opinion of the public that measure was working well and giving satisfaction, he was labouring under an entire mistake. It was very difficult to say whether there was not at this moment greater dissatisfaction occasioned by the working of that measure than there ever had been before. Then, as to the Judicature Bills presented last year, he thought their Lordships had great reason to complain of the course which had been taken. When brought before their Lordships' House they were mere skeletons of what a measure ought to be—skeletons without life, flesh, or blood. Everything of importance was to be filled up by rules to be made under the authority of those measures. He protested very much against the course which had been taken; but he was appealed to to allow the Bills to pass in order to allow the rules to be prepared, and a compromise was effected that the Bills should not come into operation until the rules, which were to supply the life-blood to the Bills, had been laid before Parliament. Now, what had been done? The Bills had gone down to the House of Commons, where they were not even proposed for discussion. He did not think that a Government with a large majority at their back were justified in laying these Bills aside without attempting to pass them through the other House. What was the consequence? Having arrived near the end of the Session, his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) told them he had prepared and circulated some Bills on the subject. All he know was, they had never been presented to Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, they had been circulated among all the Judges both of Law and Equity.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he must remind his noble and learned Friend that it was not the duty of the Judges, but of Parliament, to legislate on this subject, and it was not enough at nearly the end of the Session to tell them that Bills had been circulated among the Judges which had been referred to in the Queen's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne. Now, a late stage of another Session had been reached, and the measures which had been again referred to in the Speech from the Throne were in about the same position. With reference to the Privy Council, although the printed list of appeals waiting for hearing amounted to only 86, he did not think, judging from his own experience, it was too much to say if the Judicial Committee sat consecutively during the whole judicial year they would be unable to dispose of that arrear; and there would then be another arrear. The delay which occurred was attended with great inconvenience to suitors. Appeals to the Privy Council required a considerable expenditure of money. Printed cases must be prepared before they were sot down, and no solicitor would incur that expense, which would be out of his own pocket, while the arrear was such that he saw there was no chance of his case being reached within 12 months. Looking to the time that was occupied by the Privy Council in hearing cases, the wonder was that so many as 86 had been put down. It was no answer to say that the business of their Lordships' House was not now very much in arrear; but even if there was a great arrear he doubted whether it would so imperatively call for the interposition of their Lordships at this particular moment, because the business before this House related to England, Scotland, and Ireland, where people knew what was going on, and could interfere and agitate if they found that their interests were being neglected. Their Lordships, however, were now asked to protect the colonists and the people of India, who were not able to make their complaints known except through the newspapers, and were, therefore, driven to agitate in their own countries for the establishment of a Court of Final Appeal in each particular colony—a step which would destroy one of the most valuable links that connected this country and her colonies—namely, the drawing their sources of law from

65
the Courts of England. He did not say that the Government were to blame for there being so much litigation from the colonies to be disposed of here; but they were exposed to blame for not being at least in a better condition to remedy existing grievances than they were last year. Another complaint that he had to make against the Government was with regard to the Bill that they introduced last year to improve the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He thought its provisions inadequate, and that they would rather deteriorate the tribunal; but, giving way to the urgency of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he abstained from doing anything more than proposing that the Bill should be for one year only. In a division on that point all the Members of the Government voted against him, and his Amendment was negatived by a majority of 11; but when the Bill went down to the House of Commons the Home Secretary, before a word of criticism had been offered, recommended that the Bill should be only a temporary one. That was not encouraging. If his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) had asked for complete legislation within ten days he would have been unreasonable, but he only asked that the proposed Bill should be introduced within that time. There was not the least reason why that should not be done; and to be unable to promise to bring forward within ten days a Bill that was mentioned in the Royal Speech was tantamount to saying that the Government were in difficulties and did not care to meddle with the matter.
LORD ROMILLYsaid, he had always understood that the remedy for the existing evil was to be a temporary one only; but if the reform of the Judicial Committee was to be postponed until the passing of a general measure as to the whole appellate jurisdiction of this country, he would venture to say that the subject would outlive many of their Lordships. He understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to promise that he would alter the judicial tribunal itself, so as to enable it to sit continuously. It was idle to refer so constantly to the late Lord Kingsdown, who liked sitting in a judicial capacity, and constantly did so, without receiving any reward. By him the Court was kept always sitting; but that could not
66
now be done unless proper persons were employed at a sufficient salary. Some temporary measure was required for enabling the Judicial Committee to dispose of that business which was essential for the administration of justice over a large part of the world. He therefore hoped his noble and learned Friend would not wait until these Bills came from the other House, but would at once introduce a measure to remedy a grievance which was universally felt.
LORD WESTBURY, in reference to the Indian Appeals, said he hoped that the promise of the Lord Chancellor would be put on record.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was no necessity for any record. The Government would take care to propose some arrangement by which a competent Court might be constituted to hear Indian Appeals without delay. How the Court should be constituted was a matter that would require consideration.
LORD WESTBURYgave notice that if some measure were not soon taken he would move an Address to the Crown on the subject.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.