Sitting of 20 March 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Turnpike Acts Continuance, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental* [79].
First Reading—Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons)* [78].
Second Reading—Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation* [70].
Committee—Report—West African Settlements* [57]; Local Government Supplemental* [63].
Third Reading—Public Parks, &c. (Land)* [25], and passed.

CIVIL SERVICE—PENSIONS' COMMUTATION ACT (1869).—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government are willing to extend to the other Departments of the Civil Service the privileges accorded to the War and Admiralty Departments under the provisions of the Pensions Commutation Act (1869)?
MR. BAXTER: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the privilege of commutation referred to in his Question was an experiment. It is not at present under contemplation to extend it to the Civil Service.

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS IN TRADES.—QUESTION.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has authorised the preliminary regulations proposed by the Committee for securing the employment of soldiers in trades; whether he has considered the expediency of appointing, in addition to the non-commissioned officers recom-
266
mended by the Committee, a qualified commissioned officer in every regiment to superintend (so soon as the necessary drills are acquired) the instruction and employment of soldiers in trades on public works and industrial schools in the same manner that instructors of musketry are now nominated; whether his attention has been drawn to the small number of qualified pioneers existing in the Army; whether, considering the great difficulty anticipated by the Committee in the selection of suitable men, it is his intention to offer increased pay to the pioneer force, with the view of bringing that body up to a standard of efficiency equal to the Royal Engineers; and, whether from the experience gained during the last few years, it is now his intention of making the repair of barrack damages and fair wear and tear dilapidations compulsory on the troops inhabiting the various barracks on the Home station, and generally to establish an organised system whereby the spare time of the troops may be utilised, to the public benefit and to their own advantage?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the preliminary regulations have been authorized, except as regards the position and instruction of the non-commissioned officers in charge of the pioneers. I have approved the appointment of a qualified officer to superintend the workshops and manage the funds. Returns have been called for of the number of artizans who have been tested at their different trades; but the whole of the Returns have not yet been received. I have no proposal before me for increasing the pay of the pioneers. It would not always be practicable to make it compulsory on the troops to repair their own barracks; but it is my desire to turn to the best account the labour of the troops whenever it can be made available.

CURRENCY—HALF-CROWN PIECES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the worn condition of the half-crown pieces now in circulation, and to inquire whether it would not be for the public convenience for the Mint authorities to make a fresh issue of that useful coin?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am far from denying the use or value of two-and-sixpences; but my hon. Friend must not extract from that the admission that the half-crown is a useful coin. It is a coin which has been condemned since 1851, since which time no new half-crowns have been issued. It is manifestly inconvenient to have two large silver coins, such as the florin and half-crown, with only 6d. difference between them. Therefore it is not my intention to issue any more half-crowns, and if I could I would accelerate the process of their disappearance. All I can say is, that I hope they may be what is generally called "garbled." in greater numbers than hitherto at the Bank of England, so that they may be gradually broken up and destroyed.

EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE—INFANT SCHOOL GRANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. DAVIESasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a certificated teacher of a mixed school can obtain the grant of ten shillings for infants, provided only there be a separate room and all necessary appliances for an infant school, or is it necessary that there should be a separate certificated teacher as well as a separate room before that ten shilling grant can be obtained?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that it was necessary when the 10 s. grant was given that there should be a separate room as well as a separate teacher; but in schools where there was no separate room, and where the infant school was a class of a general school, the 8s. grant would be given, and in that case it would not be necessary to have a certificated teacher in that class.

THE PURCHASE SYSTEM—HIGH POLITICAL OFFICES.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he contemplates the introduction of any measure for the abolition of the purchase system in high political offices, the owners of which are mulcted in considerable sums for Stamps and other fees on their appointments?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I contemplate the introduction of any measure for the abolition of
268
the purchase system in high, political offices, from which he craftily means to draw me into the admission that the purchase system does exist in high political offices. I protest against being drawn into that net, and I will therefore pass over that part of the Question. As to whether I contemplate the abolition of stamps and other fees on appointments to high political offices, I have to say that the abolition of stamps I do not contemplate; but I have been for some time inquiring with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury and other gentlemen into the question of fees, and I do hope I shall be able to do something in that way.

METROPOLIS—CAB REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state the reason why, under the new Cab Regulations, the driver of a two-wheeled cab hired, by distance, but requested by the hirer to wait, is entitled to charge at the rate of eight pence for each period of fifteen minutes, while a four-wheeled cab is only allowed to charge six pence?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the simple answer to the Question was that the time of the Hansom cabmen was more valuable than that of the four-wheeled cabmen. When under the regulations of last year the owners of cabs were allowed to fix their own fares there was an almost unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the four-wheeled cabmen that they would adhere to the old prices, while there was an equally unanimous desire on the part of the Hansom cabmen to be allowed to charge 6d. an hour extra as to time. The reason they gave for that was that they travelled faster, and that their horses were better and more expensive. The loss of a quarter of an hour, therefore, would be greater to them than to the four-wheel cabmen. Under these circumstances, he thought it right to sanction the practice which had existed in that respect during the last 12 months.

POOR LAW—MILK SUPPLIES TO UNIONS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the President of the Poor Law Board, If his attention has been drawn to exposures

  269
  in the Milk Journal of the 1st of March, regarding the supplies of milk to Shoreditch, Holborn, and other Unions, and the system under which contracts for such supplies are granted by the guardians; and, whether he will institute an inquiry into the correctness of such statements, with the view of applying a remedy?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, in reply, that his attention had been drawn to the statement on seeing the Question of the noble Lord. He could hardly admit that the statements amounted to what the paper itself called "an exposure," because the result, as he read, it, was this—that among the samples of milk which had been analyzed many were supposed to have been lowered by admixture of water, but none were found to have been adulterated. Under these circumstances, he did not think that a case had been made out for inquiry into the correctness of the statements in question. He was free to confess, however, that it might be useful that some inquiry should be made into the methods by which contracts were granted, and he would take the subject into early consideration.

POST OFFICE—COUNTRY POSTMASTERSHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have determined for the future upon giving the appointments of Postmasters of the country Post Offices to pensioners from the Army and Navy; and, if so, whether he would not also consider the claims of pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, whether these appointments will remain as now vested in the Treasury or be transferred to the Post Office authorities?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the question of making an alteration in the mode of appointing postmasters in country offices had been under consideration, but no decision had as yet been arrived at.

EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Vice President of the Council, When he will communicate to the House, or lay upon the Table the alterations in the New Code?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the New Code being now in legal operation, I hope to lay on the Table to-morrow the Minute of the modifications proposed by the Government to meet what they supposed to be the wishes of the House, and which they themselves think desirable from the fresh information they have obtained. It may be convenient if I briefly mention them to the House. Article 25 will be altered to allow the attendance of children to be counted between the ages of three and four, though they will not be paid for unless they are four on the day of inspection. As regards night schools, for one year they will be required to be open 60 instead of 80 times, and from each scholar will be required 40 instead of 50 attendances. In the 2nd Schedule the maximum time for which pupil teachers can be obliged to serve will be, as under the Revised Code, six hours instead of five hours per day, and 30 hours instead of 25 hours per week. We had reduced the time thinking it might be too long for the pupil teachers; but we find that the half-time system prevents our maintaining the reduction; and though we must maintain the minimum of two hours per meeting for secular instruction, we do not wish to interfere with the managers if they wish to keep the school open for three hours for either secular or religious instruction. At the same time, we reduce the hours of special instruction by the teachers to pupil teachers from six hours to five hours per week, as was the case in the Revised Code. There will also be some alteration in Article 75, by which managers will be able at once to supply the place of pupil teachers dismissed for misconduct, and as regards half-time attendances, we provide for the exceptional position for this year of children under the Printworks Act. There are two other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) seemed to think that in some cases the surplus of educational income might be applied to other than educational purposes; as, for instance, to chapel funds. We believe that we prevent this being done by our administrative arrangements; but to make our intention and practice quite clear we introduce into Article 32, relating to the reduction of the grant, a provision by which the grant is reduced "by any expenditure not for educational purposes out of the income of the

  271
  school." The only other provision relates to a matter in which many hon. Members take an interest—the teaching of music. For reasons which I have already stated, we cannot this year include music among the special subjects; but on every account we are most anxious to encourage its teaching, and we believe this can be best done by making it part of the school work in all elementary day schools, infant as well as others; and we have, therefore, included among the new Minutes a provision that, after the 31st of March, 1872, the grant to day schools shall be reduced—
  "By one shilling per scholar on the average number in attendance unless the Inspector be satisfied that vocal music is made a part of the ordinary course of instruction."
  This provision must, of course, be laid on the Table of the House again at the beginning of next Session; but in the belief that it will be then approved by the House, we state now that it will be inserted in the Code of next year, in order that managers may this year make arrangements for teaching singing in those comparatively few schools in which it is not already taught, and especially in order that the school boards may provide for it in their new schools. By the end of this year we hope also to have arranged for inspection of music.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that under the Revised Code it was required that the alterations which might be made from year to year should be so specified that not only the House, but the country generally should be made acquainted with them, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to lay on the Table the new alterations proposed in such terms that hon. Members might see in what they consisted?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that, as regarded the alterations made by the New as compared with the Revised Code, it would be quite impossible to explain them in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman's Question seemed to indicate. To do so it would be necessary to print them in italics or in red letters, or to draw a line through every word of the Old Code. The modifications, however, were so expressed that he thought no hon. Member or manager of a school would be in doubt as to their scope and meaning.

ARMY—COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. LEAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a considerable number of Officers hold Commissions, other than honorary Commissions, simultaneously in the various branches of the auxiliary forces; whether he is aware that a considerable number of Officers on full pay, and borne on the strength of Infantry and Cavalry Regiments of the regular Army, also hold Commissions in the Yeomanry force; if it is desirable, in the interest of the public service, that Officers, whether Commanding Officers of corps or not, should hold more than one Commission at a time, either in the regular Army or in the auxiliary forces; and, if it is his intention to put an end to the practice by calling upon such Officers to elect which force they will serve in, and to resign the Commissions they may hold in the other branches of the service?
MR. CARDWELLreplied, that it was intended, within a limited time, to make such provision that two commissions could not be held at the same time by one officer.

NAVY—KEYHAM FACTORY.—QUESTION.
MR. J. D. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the fact that the workmen at the Government Factory, Keyham, Devonport, are leaving their employment in large numbers, owing to the low rate of wages; and, if so, what course he proposes to adopt in order to keep up a sufficient supply of skilled labour in that establishment?
MR. GOSCHENreplied, that no such representation had been made to the Admiralty. The superintendents of the dockyard, he might add, had been authorized to offer a higher rate of wages in those cases in which a superior class of workmen were required.

EMIGRATION.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether any replies to Earl Granville's Circular Despatch of the 14th February 1870, regarding Emigration, have been received other than those from which certain fragments are quoted in the paper termed a Report from Sir Clinton

273
Murdoch to Sir Frederick Rogers of the 5th August 1870, recently laid upon the Table; and when the Despatches on the subject referred to will be laid before this House?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, in reply, that the Report alluded to was made upon all the despatches then received, the pith of which it contained. But as he understood that some sort of promise of the production of the despatches had been made, and his hon. Friend desired to see them, they should be produced as soon as possible, together with two or three Papers subsequently received.

FRANCE—STATE OF PARIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has any information beyond that which has appeared in the morning papers to give the House, relative to the state of Paris; and, whether it is true that the orders for the departure of the Prussian troops has been countermanded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am under the impression that no information has arrived in London through the usual channels over and above that which appeared in the morning papers. I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question, however, to refer to official information with respect to the state of Paris, and I have to inform him that we have no further information of that kind. I may say that Lord Lyons has been requested by the French Government to follow them to Versailles, leaving in Paris certain members of the Embassy. With regard to countermanding the departure of the Prussian troops we have no information.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether offices and other business premises left in charge of a watchman and his wife are subject to the Inhabited House Duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, a house would not be liable to the duty under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member.

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

ARMY RETIREMENT.—RESOLUTION.
MR. TREVELYAN, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
"That, in order to check the creation of vested interests which would have to be considered in arranging a sound and equitable system of retirement, no appointment should in future be made to honorary colonelcies,"
said, that during the last six months no question had so deeply interested the country as a comparison of our own military arrangements with those of Prussia. It was constantly asked how she was able to produce results so great at so small a cost. In endeavouring to supply an answer to that question he would point out that Prussia had only 150 generals for an Army of 300,000 men. Of these 150 generals every one was on active service, having a definite duty always to perform, and continuing an active general only so long as he performed that duty. There were 13 generals of districts, 28 generals of division, 4 generals inspectors of cavalry, 52 generals of infantry brigade, 27 generals of cavalry brigade, 13 generals of artillery brigade; the total number, as he had stated, being 150, whose pay and allowances amounted to £100,000 a-year for an Army of 300,000. When any of those generals retired he went on the pension list, and there were 473 generals on that list, at a cost of £120,000, or in other words, there were altogether 623 generals in the Prussian service, the charge for whom was £220,000. Now, what was the state of the case in the English Army. We had on full-pay and receiving pay as colonels of regiments 199 generals, on retired full-pay 177, on unattached or half-pay 204, or a total of 580. It was very difficult, so delusive were the Estimates, to ascertain the exact cost of this staff of generals; but, as nearly as he could ascertain it, he found it to be as follows:—For those employed on Staff pay £25,000; for honorary colonelcies, £162,500; salaries, including those paid at the Horse Guards and under other heads, £15,000; full-pay of general officers, £72,800; distinguished services, £9,000; generals of Royal Ar-

275
tillery and Engineers, £36,000; and the unattached half-pay paid to officers of the rank of general, £51,000; making a total annual cost of £371,000. The result was that, while the Prussian Army on a peace establishment consisted of 300,000 men, with 150 generals, or 1 to every 2,000, our peace establishment consisted of 133,000 men, with 43 generals employed on active service, or 1 to every 3,300. Our expenditure, as compared to the Prussian expenditure, was as 5 to 3, and the service obtained from the generals was as 5 to 19. Each general employed cost the Prussians £1,467, while in the English service each general employed cost £9,275, the active and retired being calculated in both cases. The real cause of the great expenditure upon this head in the British service was that there was no fixed establishment of generals in proportion to the real wants of the service. In our immense list it was difficult to say of a single officer whether he was an active or a retired servant of the public. Two great principles appeared to have been lost sight of, the one being that rank should always mean service, and that a man when promoted to the rank of general should, at the same time, be appointed to discharge a certain share of the duties distributed over a certain number of general officers. The next principle lost sight of was that everybody should be paid either in the shape of salary for what he was doing, or in the shape of a pension for what he had done. When unable to perform the functions of a general the officer holding that rank should be retired on a pension, which ought never to be increased or diminished. At present there were 839 colonels and lieutenant-colonels on our lists. It was said that the purchase system quickened promotion; but the youngest of those colonels would have from 20 to 25 years to wait before he could become a major general. Then there was a practice in operation of promoting to unattached rank on half-pay, so that some officers not only got a salary for doing nothing, but they actually received promotion while they were doing nothing. The Commander-in-Chief was not to blame in the matter, for he had no choice; the Duke of Cambridge had himself stated that the immense unattached list had been greatly swelled in order to compensate poor officers who could not purchase promotion, while as to the richer
276
officers who could afford to purchase, the Duke of Wellington had distinctly defended the system, observing that as a man who reached the rank of colonel could not sell out, his money was sunk in the service, and would be lost to himself and his family for ever. The Government had brought in a Bill to abolish purchase in the Army; but declined to name the amount of the retirement. He did not question the wisdom of this course; but maintained that, before proceeding further with that Purchase Bill the Government were bound to state whether they intended to utilize the present means of retirement. About £500,000 a-year went in retirement already, and one of the largest of the items which made up the sum was caused by these honorary colonelcies. The institution of these honorary colonelcies dated from the time when noblemen, attached to the Hanoverian dynasty, kept up regiments in the character of territorial magnates. The colonels of those regiments contracted to pay their men, and to supply them with clothing and equipment, on consideration of receiving a certain lump sum from the public Exchequer. Any person who had read Horace Walpole's letters would be aware that some of those regiments were very nice jobs. In 1707 the Army regulations, in rather clumsy language, stated—
"The sole responsibility of the colonel for the pay and equipment of his regiment is the principle of military finance, who is held responsible in his fortune and his character for the discharge of his duty in providing the supplies of his regiment."
Now, he believed that the public opinion at present was tending towards the view that the military officer in command should be responsible for the finance and commissariat of his command; but he should have no pecuniary interest in the matter. His responsibility should be that of an administrator, not of a contractor. The colonel who received the lump sum from the Exchequer found it necessary to have an Army agent in London, and the men who were the present Army agents were simply the successors of those first agents who were the confidential men of the territorial magnates. The matter had been inquired into several times, and in 1854 Lord Herbert gave the colonels a fixed sum, but continued their responsibility for the cloth-

277
ing; but in the next year that was taken away by Lord Palmerston, who left the colonelcies pure, unadulterated, and unmitigated sinecures. In the bad early days there used to exist a system of rewarding public servants with pensions on the Civil List, and by sinecure appointments; but there was now a regulated system of pensions in proportion to the length of service and amount of salary. This equitable and impartial system had not penetrated to the Army. There were 10 colonels at £2,200 a-year, 2 at £2,000 a-year each; 4 at £1,800 each; 28 at £1,350; and the remainder at £1,000 each; the total cost—leaving aside the payments to colonels-commandant of the Artillery and Engineers—being upwards of £160,000 a-year, and in many cases these colonelcies were far from being pensions in the right sense of the word. At least £25,000 or £26,000 a-year of the money was given in payment to officers who were now receiving salaries from the Crown. The Commander-in-Chief—and in all the cases he mentioned he wished to be understood as speaking without the slightest personal motive—received £4,000 a-year and a colonelcy of £2,200; the Adjutant General had £2,000 a-year with a colonelcy of £1,000; and the Military Secretary, whose office was a great abuse, would receive under the new arrangements £1,500 a-year in place of £2,000, and a colonelcy of £1,000. Either the salaries of those officials were sufficient for the duties imposed upon them, or they were not. If they were sufficient there was no need for the colonelcies in addition, and if the salaries were insufficient they ought to be increased by being raised in amount, and not by the addition of colonelcies. The late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) had established a system of pensions in the Navy which had worked very well. That right hon. Gentleman had fixed the pensions of admirals at £850 per annum, of vice admirals at £725, and of rear admirals at £600; and these pensions had been sufficient to tempt 8 admirals out of 20, 8 vice admirals out of 24, and 20 rear admirals out of 48 to accept retirement, reducing the list of admirals from 92 to 58. Pensions on this scale, therefore, were fairly sufficient for men in that rank of life and that standard of expense. In the Ordnance Corps the
278
colonel-commandant received £994; the pay of a general officer was £600. The prizes for Marines were something over £700 a-year, and the ordinary prizes for other corps were £600 a-year; 700 was, therefore, a fair average pension for a general officer. That was at the rate of twice or three times the sum consumed every year by one man. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) said the other evening—
"I desire to disclaim on my own part any defence of the system of honorary colonelcies, for I think, the system is not a good one, and might very easily be improved."—[3Hansard, cciv. 1888.]
That from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, when translated into language used by Gentlemen below the Gangway, was that its history and origin proved it be an ancient and indefensible abuse of the first order. He might be allowed to state how he thought the establishment of generals should be constituted. At the very outside we should have 60 generals in active service. We did not want 40. In such an Army as ours even 60 generals could not be empoyed. We should have no supplementary generals; but when new duties arose an officer should be promoted for them, for, in administrative matters, one man appointed on promotion was worth two taken off the redundant list. Sixty generals at £1,000 a-year, consolidated pay and allowances, would, be more than adequate for the whole service. Suppose there were 180 retired generals—and no one should be allowed to retire until he had had gone through the duties of a general—at the rate of £700 a-year, that would amount to £186,000 a-year, instead of £371,000. So that on the generals alone three-fourths of the money required for abolishing purchase would be saved. Now, in organization, if any good was to be done the matter should be taken in hand at once. He hoped, therefore, the Government would ascertain forthwith how many generals were really wanted, and then select those who by age and abilities ought to be on the active list, rigorously and in the most determined manner insisting that all the others should be considered retired. Nothing would give greater confidence to the country than that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) should come down to the House and say he found so many

279
generals could be saved, and that he would not employ one single man more. The House must be aware that a large number of general officers had sacrificed their regulation prices for a great many years to put themselves in a position eventually to succeed to these honorary colonelcies, and the course which ought to be taken with them was plain. There should be adopted, as at the Admiralty, a substantial system of pensions equal to the expectation each might have to an honorary colonelcy. Each should succeed to a pension as an honorary colonelcy fell vacant, and they should be allowed to commute their hopes for money down. These reforms would require determination, and even audacity, but the occasion was no common one. It was necessary that Parliament and the Government should rise to it. Let them take the opportunity of abolishing purchase to arrange the active and retired list on a rational and economical basis. He hoped the Government would declare that the morbid growth which had accumulated around purchase for two centuries should cease, and the country would see them through it. He entreated the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he committed himself to the principle that it was better in the interests of the Exchequer and the public to tempt men into a service by distant, large, uncertain prizes, rather than by ascertained, well-regulated, and moderate pensions. If that were the opinion of the Cabinet they had better at once reverse the policy of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and establish 80 or 100 post captaincies of £2,000 or £1,500 a-year each, giving all the best of them to the Lords of the Admiralty. He hoped, to obviate the necessity for a Division, the right hon. Gentleman would assure the House that he would fix a working establishment of generals, and arrange a sound and equitable system of retirement, as an earnest to the country that he was going to deal in a searching and courageous spirit with our unmanageable and unintelligible Army expenditure. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. A. BROWN, in seconding the Motion, said, he would not follow his hon. Friend in the history he had given of these honorary colonelcies, which, no doubt, was both correct and concise. It was a great mistake to suppose, as he
280
had himself at one time imagined, that honorary colonelcies were given as the reward of distinguished services. In fact, in two instances honorary colonelcies were held by officers who had not even war medals. The proper system was that rewards for distinguished service should come before the House in the shape of Votes in the Estimates, and not of appointment by the Horse Guards, over which the House had no control.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to check the creation of vested interests which would have to be considered in arranging a sound and equitable system of retirement, no appointment should in future be made to the paid colonelcy of a regiment which did not involve the active command of the regiment,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)
—instead thereof.
MR. CARDWELL: In addressing the House the other evening I stated that when the question of retirement came to be considered, there was a sum of more than £500,000 already paid in the form of retirement, which would have to enter into the consideration that would have to be given to the subject, and that of that sum a considerable amount was paid in honorary colonelcies. In many of the remarks of my hon. Friend I entirely agree; and I am not at all disposed, any more than the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) who preceded me in the office I have the honour to hold, to enter upon a defence of the system of honorary colonelcies. I quite agree in the doctrine that has been laid down that any payment of a sum of money which is received for the service of the State should have the form of either pay or pension; and it is as a pension that the payment to an honorary colonel should in general be regarded. It is the change of the ordinary pay of a general officer from a sum of not quite £500, to a sum, except in certain cases of larger amount, of £1,000. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion said these honorary colonelcies were not given for distinguished service; but that is certainly not according to my experience, for I do not think that during the time I have had the honour to be in office a single appointment of this kind has been made in which the recipient has not been a very distinguished officer. There is, of course, something to be said

281
for not having a uniform scale of pensions and retirement, and for having the power of selection, so that distinguished and gallant service in the field may have its special reward. That, however, need not be accomplished by the particular mode which is now adopted; and it is a very fair subject for consideration, whether that mode ought to be adopted, or whether there are not other and better modes which can be adopted for accomplishing the same ends. I think it is also most desirable to consider whether the present scale of establishment of general officers is the scale which ought to be established, whether it is established on right principles, or whether, on the contrary, it would not be better to adopt the plan by which service as a general should be made the mode of arriving at the rank of general. The system of retirement is a subject of the greatest possible difficulty. It has been a great subject of consideration in the Navy; and when the purchase system is abolished it will be a subject of the greatest care and interest with regard to the Army. In times of peace, of the officers who constitute the officers of the Army a very large proportion—about one-sixth—will usually be over 60 years of age. It therefore follows, as a matter of course, that in some mode or other you have to make a provision for those who have given you their youth, their strength, and the best portion of their life, and who have arrived at a period when they are no longer capable of active exertions, and when it is no longer suitable that they should be employed in the junior ranks of the service, and, of course, you have not, in the higher ranks of the service, anything like a sufficient number of offices to find occupation for them. Therefore, either by pension or retirement, or in some other way, you have to make provision for a large proportion of men in the service who are most advanced in life. The present establishment of general officers was fixed after an inquiry by two Royal Commissions, the last of which reported about 12 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs wished that I should accomplish what is necessary in about two months; but I wish to do it well, upon sound principles, and in such a way as will give satisfaction to the House and to the service. In the first place, I think we had better dispose of the ques-
282
tion of purchase, because this matter is very much connected with the question. The truth is that when an officer arrives at a certain period of service—namely, when he holds the highest regimental commission—he is obliged to make his choice between one of two things. If he desires to realize the large sum of money which the regulation and the over-regulation prices produce, he must retire from the service by the sale of his commission; if, on the other hand, he seeks to obtain the prizes of the profession, which are given to general officers, then he forfeits his money; and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) told us the other evening, it is the best officers very often who forfeit their money. In dealing, then, with this whole question of rewards to general officers, it is absolutely necessary to consider the vested interests, not only of those who are now regimental officers, but the vested interests of those who, being general officers, have forfeited their money by avoiding the sale of their commissions, in the hope of obtaining a share in the rewards that are at present assigned to general officers. Now, when you are dealing liberally with the vested interests of those who are retiring by the sale of their commissions, it would be a misfortune and a mistake if you were to fail to do liberal justice also to those who have not availed themselves of the opportunity of selling their commissions, who have not retired, but who have gone on as general officers in the expectation of receiving the customary rewards of the service. Having, therefore, the same object in view as my hon. Friend, it appears to me that it would be premature for the House to come to the proposed conclusion on the subject. The whole question is so large, and requires to be dealt with with so much care and circumspection, that I think it would be prudent in the House to keep its own hands free, and to leave the hands of the Government free for a thorough investigation of the subject. I assure the hon. Member if I oppose his Motion it is not that I have the smallest desire to avoid going into the matter in the completest manner possible; it is, on the contrary, because I desire that what is to be done shall be done with complete knowledge, and with the most complete regard for the interest of the public and

283
of the gallant officers concerned. On these grounds I recommend my hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a Division, and not to ask the House to commit itself on the subject. Bearing in mind that we are abolishing purchase, and that we are making the most liberal contribution for the purpose of dealing equitably with the interests of those who sell, we should be extremely careful not by any hasty measure to anticipate the conclusion at which we should arrive, or, in the smallest degree, to prejudice the interests of those who have not sold their commissions, but have waited in order to obtain the highest rank in their profession.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I very much agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, for I think it would be premature, in the position in which we now stand, and considering the extensive plans that have been submitted to us and the country, to commit the House to any decision on the subject raised by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). I cannot help hoping that the hon. Gentleman himself will be of opinion that there is sound reason in what has been urged by my right hon. Friend opposite. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, as to what ought to be our future establishment of general officers, I am not disposed to say that the establishment does not require revision and reconsideration. But, on the other hand, I do not approve of independent Members of the House, by their own motion and their own will, presuming to prescribe what ought to be that establishment. That is exactly one of the duties which devolve upon the Executive, which ought to propose to the House what is the establishment which the interests of the country require; and then it is for the House to exercise its judgment, and decide whether it concurs in the views of the Government. I am not inclined to follow the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, or the right hon. Gentleman, into the question of retirement. It is the largest and most difficult of the questions which must be considered by the House, in consequence of the plans which the Government have brought forward; and there can be no doubt that when we come to consider the proposal
284
of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this retirement question, we shall have to consider the imposition upon the country of a very large addition to the present cost of the British Army. I did not follow the statements of the hon. Gentleman quite accurately with regard to what his ideas were as to the cost of retirement which would be involved in the plans of the Government; and particularly I did not quite understand either his view, or the view of my right hon. Friend opposite, as to the large amount—I think they said £500,000—which would be available hereafter towards the expense of retirement. I apprehend the ton. Gentleman to have referred in that statement to the present cost of honorary colonelcies. [Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes.] But the cost of these honorary colonelcies is not the payment made to general officers. However, that and every other form of service must be considered; and I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that which I think the House cannot call in question for a moment, that good faith must be observed with these gentlemen.
MR. TREVELYAN: I think if the right hon. Baronet had attended to me he would have known that I went into the question, and showed how good faith ought to be observed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Gentleman did not go into it in any way to convince me that such a sum would be saved to the country, or available for the retirement which must come upon us. But the point most prominently brought forward by the hon. Member in his Motion and in his speech is, whether or not the system of honorary colonelcies should continue. There I am bound to say I do not agree in the opinion that they should continue. I have always thought that system an anomaly, and a most objectionable mode of paying for the services of officers. A senior officer is receiving what certainly must be regarded, under the circumstances, as very limited compensation for his services and money. He is paid £450 a-year, and yet when a general officer who holds an honorary colonelcy succeeds, he suddenly comes in for £1,000 a-year. That ought to be revised; and it is evident that the matter will not escape the notice of Her Majesty's Government. But it would be premature to commit the House to

285
any decision upon the subject at present, and I trust the hon. Member will not press his Motion.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYstated that when a late Government was in office, he moved for Returns in regard to honorary colonelcies, and the Returns were unopposed by General Peel; but when he (Sir John Trelawny) found that they would take three months' labour of one clerk to prepare, he hesitated to cause so much expense. From that hour to this he had regretted his hesitation; because, had such Returns been presented, the House would have been able to see what services had been rendered by the officers who had received those high rewards. Before the Irish Church Bill was passed a Resolution was adopted by the House prohibiting the filling up of certain appointments becoming vacant in the Church. This was an analogous case, for by delaying the filling up of honorary colonelcies they would pave the way for the reform in the Army which the Secretary of State was prepared to carry out. He did not agree in the view of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), that Members below the Gangway were presumptuous in bringing Motions of this kind before the House. It could hardly be presumptuous to protect the taxpayer, who, after all, counted for something. When he saw that right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Table were agreed in opposing such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, he was at once "wide awake," at once suspecting that there was an abuse somewhere. He, therefore, was prepared to support his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he had some difficulty in supporting the proposition for the abolition of purchase, because it was unaccompanied by any statement on the part of the Government as to the system which they intended to substitute for it. When the House was called upon to vote so many millions for the abolition of purchase it ought to know what it was about to do. Returns which he had obtained, embracing the period from the Peace of 1815, up to the present time, showed the curious fact that the longer they remained at peace, the greater became the number of admirals, generals, and officers; whereas, one would naturally have expected an opposite result.
286
In 1815, at the close of a war of 22 years, we had 658 general officers. These were gradually diminished till, in 1850, there were only 326; but in 1870, after 55 years of peace, they had increased to 580. In 1815 we had 319 colonels and lieutenant-colonels; in 1870 the number had increased to 525 on full-pay, while the number on half-pay had increased from 57 in 1815 to 324 in 1870. In the Navy, at the close of the war, 1816, there were 242 admirals; these were reduced by 1846 to 153; but in 1870 the number had risen to 303. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would not press the House to vote for the abolition of purchase until he was prepared with a substitute for that system. He did not see why the changes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman could not be made in two months as well as in two years. When they came to the details of organization he had no doubt it would be found that many officers were inadequately paid. According to his opinion every man should be adequately paid, and he did not think that the present pay of officers would be, under the circumstances of the new arrangements, such as they were entitled to receive. But the number of officers might be very much reduced, for we had nearly double the number in proportion to rank and file that was sufficient for the Prussian armies. Prussia had been held up as a nation that managed her military affairs better than other nations, and of that she had given good evidence in the late war. Why, then, should we have twice as many officers to the rank and file that Prussia had? Under these circumstances, he recommended the Secretary of State to review his determination.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would force his Motion to a Division, because by that the House of Commons would show the hon. Member and the country that they valued the services of distinguished officers. Appointments to honorary colonelcies were not worth £1,000, as the hon. Gentleman represented; for officers of the Line obtaining them had already £450 a-year, and, in some cases, £550, all of which was given up on obtaining the £1,000 a-year, the pay of a colonel of a regiment. The hon. Gentleman, while "stumping" the provinces, had received great ovations, and had not allowed any-

287
body to answer his speeches; and the consequence was that he now came down to the House and dictated to Her Majesty's Government the mode in which they were to carry out this scheme. Instead of merely puting a Motion before the House, the hon. Gentleman told the Government they must act within two months. The hon. Member had fallen into one or two inaccuracies. He had included in his list of generals a number of generals who had retired on full-pay. Most, if not all of them, never were generals at all. They were colonels who had been allowed to retire with the honorary rank of generals, and therefore their appointments had nothing to do with the real list of generals. The hon. Gentleman said the Military Secretary always received his appointment in addition to the colonelcy of a regiment. Now, to his (Colonel Stuart Knox's) own knowledge, the present Military Secretary did not obtain the colonelcy of a regiment until the lapse of some years after he had received his appointment of Military Secretary; and therefore it was evident that both appointments were not necessary. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for having plainly stated that officers who had decided not to sell their commissions were entitled to the appointments under discussion; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether colonels who in the future did not sell, but went in under the new system to be generals, would not have the same right.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could not accept any representations of his views on this question, unless they were expressed in the words he had himself used.
MR. WHITWELLobserved that the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had distinctly laid down the principle that the vested interests of these officers must receive consideration. He (Mr. Whitwell) thoroughly approved the step taken by the Government to reform the Army. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had long considered the necessity of reforming the Army, and that the Army Bill was not the product of a panic, but a measure which the right hon. Gentleman thought the interests of the country required. It would, in his opinion, be a great advantage if the list of generals were so mo-
288
dified that it should contain the names only of such as were fit to command an Army; or, in other words, that those only should remain on the active list in whom the country had confidence. He hoped that the Government would come to the conclusion that no more honorary colonelcies should be filled up.
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTsaid, the Return which had been presented to the House was calculated to mislead those who did not belong to the profession, and he wondered that neither of his gallant Friends on the Treasury Bench had risen to correct the error into which many hon. Members had naturally fallen. It was only right that when hon. Members took up a Return in good faith, and were misled by it, some of the military Members of the Government should set them right. Many of the 150 general officers who were described in the Return as having retired on full pay he apprehended to be regimental lieutenant-colonels, with the brevet rank of colonel, but who had retired on the full-pay of the lower rank, the step of honorary rank as general officers having been given in order to induce them to retire from the service upon the smaller rate of pay.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 111: Majority 93.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY—PROMOTION BY SELECTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. STAPLETONrose to call attention to the difficulty of selecting Officers for regimental promotion through the Horse Guards in such a manner as to give general satisfaction, and to the advantage which might be derived from the examination of Lieutenants and Captains in the order in which they might offer themselves, with a view to their promotion from lists so constituted. He heartily supported Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to abolish the system of purchase in the Army; but he was afraid that, if the system of promotion by selection were adopted in its place, a greater evil would be created than that which it was sought to get

  289
  rid of. Very strong objections existed throughout the country to the adoption of the system of promotion by selection, as calculated to induce young officers to depend rather upon the favour of their superiors, and even upon influence brought to bear upon Ministers, than upon rendering themselves fit for promotion. Sir John Burgoyne, in his letter, which had recently been published, expressed his opinion that it was a fallacy to suppose that the best men in the Army would be selected for promotion, and he added that the performance of regimental duties in time of peace afforded no criterion for estimating the qualities of an officer, so as to justify the supersession of the senior officer by the junior. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had also shown that the system of selection would not work well, arguing from his experience in the Admiralty. He (Mr. Stapleton) would go further in his opinion; selection in the Navy had not caused the best men to come to the top. He could not, otherwise, account for the fact that there had been fewer men who had attained distinction in the Navy than in the Army; although the education of midshipmen had been cared for when that of ensigns was not. They had, no doubt, been passed over in consequence of a system of favouritism. They had been told that they should follow the system of the Austrian, French, and Prussian Armies. The Austrian Army, however, had suffered two defeats, and the Government was employed re-organizing it. As to the French Army he would say nothing. In Colonel Stofell's report on the Prussian Army, which appeared lately in The Times, it was stated that—
  "In order to appreciate properly the advantages offered to Staff officers, it must be remembered that promotion in the Prussian Army is by seniority. The King has the power to promote an officer at pleasure, but he seldom makes use of this prerogative, and, as the proportion of officers so promoted does not exceed a thirtieth or a fortieth of the whole, it may be said that promotion goes by seniority."
  In the face of that, it could not be said that promotion in the Prussian Army was by selection. He was not advocating a system of mere seniority, because they must have a principle of promotion that would enable young men to rise over the heads of those older than themselves. The plan he proposed might be described
  290
  as seniority tempered by examination, or selection guided by examination. And here he would again refer to the Prussian Army. Colonel Stofell, in his report, went on to say—
  "Officers, however, on the general Staff of the Army gain, on the average, from seven to eight years' advantage."
  And how did they get on the general Staff? Colonel Stofell said—
  "Every lieutenant, to whatever arm of the service he might belong, can, after he has served three years with his regiment, present himself for entrance to the War Academy in Berlin. This is a school of higher military instruction, unequalled by any in Europe, not only in regard to the merits of its teachers, but also in respect of the nature and extent of the studies."
  He begged the House to observe that there was no selection here; that every lieutenant was at liberty to present himself. Colonel Stofell also described the programme of the studies pursued in that institution, and then proceeded—
  "After a searching examination, for which, on the average, about 120 present themselves, 40 lieutenants enter this Academy yearly, all with a greater or less desire to qualify for the Staff. The course of study lasts three years, commencing on the 1st of October. The first year's course lasts nine months, after which the officers return for three months (the 1st of July to the 1st of October) to their respective regiments, to take part in the autumn manœuvres… … After three years all the lieutenants are sent back to their regiments without any final examination or class list. The professors and the director of the Academy report to General von Moltke those who have shown themselves to be the most able and zealous. Twelve of these are chosen, taking care that among them are officers of each of the three arms (Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery), and in the course of the year following their departure from the Academy each one is sent for six or nine months to a regiment of another branch of the service."
  There, it might be said, there was something like selection; yet the selection was not arbitrary, but was guided by careful examinations. After those gentlemen were actually sent to the Army, they had to make reports on what they had seen. Their names were concealed under seal, and their further promotion depended on the result of the considerations of those reports. Now, in our Army we already had the system of examination. Every subaltern underwent an examination before he became captain; and if they wished to promote the ablest officers without exciting jealousies let officers' names be placed on a list for promotion according to the order in which they passed an

  291
  examination, which ought to be rendered as comprehensive as possible. It should include things military and things general. It should even include what Professor Huxley described as physical instruction. Each officer should be allowed to tender himself for examination as soon as he considered himself ready. He did not say, however, the examination should be a severe one, except in the higher grades. There were as many captains as lieutenants, therefore the first examination might be one which all could pass in time. The abler men would have this advantage—that they would get on quicker because they would be sooner ready. But as the number of field officers was less than that of captain, the second examination should be made severer, so as only to let through as many as were required. This examination might include field operations, for which the camps of instruction would afford an opportunity. The hon. Member also quoted the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne that the alleged necessity of preventing a recurrence to the system of purchase by private arrangements between officers could not justify the adoption of the system of selection proposed by the Government. He agreed with several Members of that House, as well as with Sir John Burgoyne, in thinking that the bonus system, as it was called, was not so great an evil as the Government supposed. He also thought that there were other provisions in the Government scheme of Army Reform—as the enforcement of the five years' rule in the case of field officers—majors as well as colonels—which would prevent the possibility of its growing up in an aggravated form. Officers would not give large sums to buy out superior officers, who must retire anyhow in a few years.
  COLONEL SYKES, speaking from many years' experience, and from circumstances which had come to his own knowledge, held that the system of purchase was injurious both to the individual officer and to the public interests. A man might spend a fortune before arriving at the rank of major or lieutenant-colonel, and having probably a family to provide for would be obliged to quit the Army by the chance of death, when he would lose every shilling he had invested, at the very time when, from his experience in different parts of the world, and his military qualifications, his
  292
  services would be most valuable to the country. He therefore entirely approved that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme which dealt with the abolition of purchase; but his opinion was very different with regard to the principle of selection for promotion. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for War said they would not be able to get on without selected officers; but did his right hon. Friend mean that he would have to select a subaltern from some other regiment when a subaltern's vacancy occurred, or when a captain's occurred, that he would have to select a captain from some other regiment, and the same with regard to the other officers? That would be entirely subversive of regimental organization and of discipline. Let his right hon. Friend look to the Indian Armies. Not one of the 5,000 officers in the Armies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay rose by selection; each rose in his regiment. They entered in the regiment as ensigns, and were promoted to be captains, from captains they became majors, and the whole majors and lieutenant-colonels were thrown into seniority tests in their respective armies, and were promoted by seniority. Why should not the same principle be adopted in England? It had worked well in India for 67 years, and he himself had risen in that manner in his own regiment without favouritism. The system had produced men of ability in India, and history recited hundreds of illustrations. The present Commander-in-Chief in India was one of those very men, and had been educated at the East India Company's Military Seminary at Addiscombe. Unfortunately, since the destruction of the Indian Army by its conversion into Irregulars, a system of selection had prevailed; that was to say, the 22 officers who had formerly belonged to a regiment, and who had risen as he (Colonel Sykes) rose, were now reduced to six officers, and they were selected, and, unhappily, were not necessarily appointed to the regiments in which they had risen. And what did the men in the ranks say in consequence? They said—"Our father and mother are gone, and officers are put to command us whom we have never heard of before, whom we do not know, and with whom we have no sympathy whatever." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a regimental system could be obtained in regiments in which officers were fre-

  293
  quently changed? How could officers become acquainted with their men—how could any sympathy exist between them and the men, with whom they did not stay more than three or four years? The system of selection had caused great dissatisfaction among European officers in India, and disgust amongst the Native troops; and he (Colonel Sykes) trusted, in case the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War applied the principle to the British Army at large, sufficient securities against favouritism should be provided.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYcould not but say that the principle of selection, as applied to the officers of the Army, was open to very great objection, and notwithstanding all that was said in the course of the debate last week, he had not heard anything fall from Her Majesty's Government which removed that objection. If the system of purchase was abolished, what was there to fall back upon? It must be the principle of seniority; and if that was to be the principle of promotion, the great question again arose—"What are we to pay ten millions of public money for?" He acknowledged that the principle of purchase was an anomalous one, and that it might be desirable to get rid of it. But there was another matter about which he had very grave doubts, and that was with respect to over-regulation prices. If they were to admit the principle of seniority—and he believed they would be compelled to admit it—he could see no reason whatever for getting rid of over-regulation prices. By getting rid of the purchase system they would give to the War Office, or Secretary of State, or Horse Guards, greater power of stopping improper promotion in regiments, which was a very proper thing, as no young man not thoroughly qualified ought to rise to higher posts in his regiment; but in dealing with over-regulation prices, he thought it would be desirable that Her Majesty's Government should consider the suggestions which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) in the course of the debate; and there was, in his opinion, another practical difficulty in connection with that subject. Do what they would, they would not be able to get rid of over-regulation prices, which he believed existed, in some shape or other, in branches of the service in which there was no
  294
  purchase system. He most earnestly entreated the Government to re-consider the subject.
  MR. M. T. BASSexpressed a hope that Government would not proceed with the manufacture of the Martini-Henry rifle without giving Parliament an opportunity of considering its merits or defects.
  SIR HENRY STORKSstated that the Committee which had been deputed to consider and Report upon the merits of breech-loading rifles had protracted its sitting over a long period in order that the inquiry might be prosecuted to the utmost. Their Report had been, at the instance of the Secretary of State for War, referred to the Council of Ordnance, which would probably meet in the course of the week to consider and advise his right hon. Friend upon the subject; but, as he had previously stated, every opportunity would be given to Parliament to express its opinion on the decision arrived at. The Martini-Henry rifle had been adopted, and the necessary steps would be taken to bring that arm into the service.
  SIR JOHN HAYgathered from what had been said that no investigation on other arms not already reported on would be made. Unfortunately, the Committee, to whose Report reference had been made, was appointed before the Westley-Richards-Henry, which he had used himself with much satisfaction, had been issued. The Soper, also, had not been before the Committee; he wished to know, therefore, whether those two arms would be examined by the Committee, or whether it was a foregone conclusion that the Martini-Henry was to be the arm of the service, notwithstanding many hon. Members believed other arms were superior to it.
  LORD ELCHO, as a Member of the Committee, said, he would reserve anything he had to say upon the subject until the Report was before the House, and hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would do the same.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that the character of the discussion had now drifted into one upon the value of arms. The question was, whether the present was a fitting opportunity for going into a discussion upon the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend? He (Viscount Bury) thought that the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stapleton), if adopted,

  295
  would strike at the very root of the regimental system. He wished to guard himself against the view of its being supposed that he sympathized with his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that if the principle of selection was to be adopted, he thought they might borrow a hint from the sister service, where it was required that a record of experience and observation should be kept. He thought that, if a similar rule were adopted in the military service, it would prove very valuable.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXinquired why it was that the recruits in the Irish Militia had not been supplied with the breech-loader?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply to the last question, stated that though great efforts had been made by the Government for the supply of the most effective weapons, they had not yet been able to overtake the arrears. The Artillery were trained to the use of big guns, and therefore the preference had been shown to those whose weapon was the rifle; but he was in hopes that before long they would be supplied with the breechloader—but such was the power of invention, that scarcely had they spent a large sum of money upon one implement before they were called upon to incur a fresh expenditure. The Report of the Committee which had been referred to was about to be printed, and would soon be in the hands of hon. Members, who would have full opportunity of considering it before being asked to vote money for the Martini-Henry rifle. As regarded the Motion of the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Stapleton), if he understood him rightly, his proposal would break up the regimental system altogether; it would apparently combine all the disadvantages of other systems without securing the best man for the first place. The system which prevailed in Prussia was that of seniority tempered by selection. He contended that any system of selection might be described as a system of seniority tempered by selection, because in all cases there would be an unwillingness to pass anyone over who would be entitled to promotion by seniority except for very good and sufficient reasons. While, therefore, in every branch of the service they felt bound to insist upon promotion by selection in order that merit might be rewarded,
  296
  and also that the growth of a new system of purchase might be prevented, that system of selection was intended to be exercised with a due regard to regimental considerations, and those considerations would naturally prevail more frequently in the lower than in the higher ranks of the service, inasmuch as in the higher ranks conspicuous merit would be more easily recognized. He was very much discouraged from going back to the old Indian system, as desired by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), because the Royal Commission upon Purchase, which had gone into that question at great length, had expressed a very decided opinion against its adoption. He had no doubt that the excellent suggestion made by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) would receive attention at the hands of the eminent men who were now preparing the rules by which the system of selection should be guided. He believed they would be able to establish such a system of selection in the British Army as would give great satisfaction to those who believed that their merit would secure their selection for promotion.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would be glad to hear when the Report would be presented.
  COLONEL SYKESdesired to know whether promotions to the rank of major would be made regimentally or not?
  MR. CARDWELLrepeated that due regard would be paid to regimental considerations; but that promotion by selection would be adopted throughout the service.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Army Estimates that evening—the largest which had been proposed since the Battle of Waterloo—would move the adjournment of the debate, with a view to putting himself in Order. It was highly desirable that these Estimates should be discussed generally before the House went into Committee of Supply, and as the forms of the House would preclude his taking the sense of the House that evening upon the Motion which he had placed on the Paper, he would ask the Government to postpone the subject, in deference to the wishes of many in that House, and the feeling, as he believed, of the great majority in the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR. CARDWELLdesired in every possible way to consult the convenience of hon. Members; but something also was due to the public service. The Mutiny Bill must shortly be passed, and financial matters required consideration, so that he feared he could not consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  COLONEL NORTHdesired to learn whether his right hon. Friend purposed making a statement on going into Committee on the Estimates.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had already made his statement.
  MR. CANDLISHtrusted that the Government would give an opportunity for the full discussion of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). If the Government assented to the adjournment the night would not be lost, for there were several important measures—the Scotch Education Bill among them—on the Paper for that evening.
  MR. PEASEjoined in the appeal for postponement, in order that the hon. Member for Sheffield might be placed in the position he would have occupied if the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had not pressed his Motion to a Division.
  COLONEL SYKESwould inquire whether the hon. Member for Sheffield would not be able to bring his Motion forward when the numbers came to be proposed in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that was no doubt the case; but it would not be equally satisfactory to Gentlemen who, having a subject of great importance to urge upon the attention of the House, would rather make the declaration of their sentiments in a manner which would seem consistent with the Motion they were supporting. It was, however, necessary that the Mutiny Bill should be passed, and that on Thursday at the latest Votes should be taken on these Estimates. Nothing could be more invidious than an attempt on the part of the Government to limit a debate on the question of public expenditure. If they went on that night they would have two nights available; but if they postponed the further consideration of the Army Estimates till Thursday, they would be
  298
  in the position of being compelled to press for a Vote. If, therefore, they felt that indulgence would be shown them on Thursday they would be ready to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HUNTwas somewhat surprised at the announcement just made by the right hon. Gentleman, when he remembered what recently took place with reference to the Army Regulation Bill. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said he wished to address the House on the subject; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government took the very unusual course of trying to close the debate that night, and the reason he gave was that the interests of the public service would not allow a longer time for the discussion. [Mr. GLADSTONE said, that was on the question of an Amendment.] The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to pursue the subject, and that, if the necessary progress were not made, it would be necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Saturday. But now they were told that it was not necessary to take their Votes that night, but that they might be taken on Thursday. It might be that the Division which had been taken that evening had added force to the remonstrance from below the Gangway to which the right hon. Gentleman had yielded.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXregretted to find the Government giving way upon such an important question to so small a minority, because when they should find themselves deserted by his friends below the Gangway they would, no doubt, look for support from the Opposition side of the House in furtherance of the Public Business.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I stated explicitly to the House was, that this was the latest night on which it would be practicable for us to take the Civil Supplementary Estimates, and that Thursday night was the night on which it would be necessary to take the Army Estimates.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that when he moved the adjournment of the debate last week it was distinctly intimated on the part of the Government that pressure was necessary to get through with the business. Hon. Members had come down prepared to discuss the Army Estimates, and it was unfair to them

  299
  that these should now be postponed merely at the instance of the hon. Member for Sheffield, who could make any observations which he desired to offer just as well that evening as on a future occasion.
  LORD GARLIESwished to know whether the suggestion which had been thrown out as proceeding with the Scotch Education Bill was to be acted upon. In the absence of the majority of the Scotch Members, he should certainly oppose any such proceeding.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTshould like to know from the Secretary for War, Whether, in the event of the Estimates coming on upon Thursday, he would undertake not to ask for more than the first Vote, which was really the only one of importance?
  MR. CARDWELL: The first Vote is, of course, the most important. There are, however, several smaller Votes, if the House was willing to go into them afterwards, which might be taken with advantage.
  MR. CRAUFURDpressed for a distinct answer to the question whether the Scotch Education Bill was to be taken. Not a quarter of an hour ago he had been assured by the Lord Advocate that there was not a chance of its coming on. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was to be taken, and, if so, at what hour, that hon. Gentlemen might be in their places.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he hoped the Government would not force on the Scotch Education Bill in the absence of many Gentlemen who took a strong interest in the question. Everybody supposed that the Military Estimates would have occupied at least until 12 o'clock; and, in the absence of Scotch Members, it was impossible that justice could be done to the education question.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that as nobody upon the Government Benches seemed prepared to address the House, perhaps he might be allowed to do so. A good deal had been heard of dual government in the Army; but now they had attained to dual government of the House of Commons. On a former occasion he had asserted that the real power and actual government of the country was to be found below the Gangway, on the Ministerial side, and now they had a literally good proof of the accuracy of this statement. For the
  300
  last few days hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had been making ineffectual appeals to the Government for liberty to express their opinions on one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of Parliament; but every possible obstacle had been thrown in their way. The moment, however, that a similar request proceeded from below the Gangway the Government at once gave way, and the whole Business of the House was thrown into confusion. In future, whenever he wished to put a Question in the House as to the conduct of Public Business, he should address himself, not to the Government Bench, but to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the reason the opinions of Gentlemen below the Gangway obtained so much weight was because they represented the views of the advanced section of the Liberal party, which often became the dominant public opinion in the country. He thought it would have been a most unfortunate thing if the Government had persisted in bringing on the Army Estimates, involving a large expenditure of public money without an opportunity being afforded to representatives of large constituencies of making known the feelings of those whom they represented.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it desirable the House should have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the proposal for such a large expenditure on our Army. Looking at the state of countries on the Continent, it appeared to him that the Government were going to legislate in a state of panic. They had at one time inconsiderably reduced our forces, and now they proposed to proceed in another direction by increasing our Army without any valid reason whatever.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, he was not in the House when the arrangement was come to between the hon: Member for Sheffield and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Had he been he should certainly have protested against it, as he himself had a Motion upon the Paper on going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. DALGLISHjoined in the hope which had been already expressed, that in the absence of other Scotch Members the Scotch Education Bill would not be forced on.
  MR. GILPINbelieved that the concession made by the Government to the hon. Member for Sheffield would facilitate the discussion upon Thursday night. He himself should now be willing to stop till any hour on that night to enable the Government to obtain such Votes as they required.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, the House would hereafter be placed in a great difficulty by the qualified concession made by the Prime Minister. The Gentlemen who were now anxious for postponement were the very Gentlemen who contended that the subject ought to be thoroughly discussed. An hon. Member had just declared his willingness to stay till any hour in the morning rather than put the Government to any inconvenience. It was not the Government, however, who would be put to inconvenience, but the private Members, who would have to choose between suppressing their own views altogether or putting them forward in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. Hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to an increase of our forces might bring the subject forward when the Army Estimates came on for discussion.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished, in order to prevent any misapprehension, to state that many Members below the Gangway were determined that the Vote for increasing the Army by 20,000 men should be fully discussed. They strongly objected to that increase.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, the same objection was felt as regarded the increase of 10,000 men.
  MR. DISRAELI: I regret that the Government have so unexpectedly arrived at this decision, because I feel anxious that the Business of the House should be proceeded with. It seems to me that decision is inconsistent with the declaration made on a previous occasion with reference to another debate. Of course, different interpretations may be placed on that declaration; but there are certain rules to which both sides of the House have agreed, and which we ought to observe, so far as possible, for the sake of public convenience. I confess I cannot understand why, because a Division has been taken by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—and I do not doubt at all the propriety of his Division to-night—we should be totally regardless of the rules we have laid
  302
  down for the conduct of the Business of this House. If another hon. Gentleman finds himself prevented in consequence of that Division from taking the opinion of the House, I do not see why an exception should be made in his favour by the Leader of this House. I want to know in what case and in what instance an hon. Gentleman may not rise and make his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who has the supreme control of the conduct of the Business of the House, with the same force and right as the hon. Member for Sheffield? If so, what is the use of all our rules? No doubt the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield was very interesting and important; but he was precluded from asking the opinion of the House upon it by the rules which have been established for our convenience. The question he meant to have brought forward could have been brought forward by another hon. Gentleman on a distinct Vote in Committee of Supply, when we should have had a complete opportunity of discussing the subject. I must enter my protest against the course of proceeding adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman is a great purist in matters of this kind. No person weighs the value of the time of this House with such scrupulous exactitude as the right hon. Gentleman. To-day we have returned to the House, after the labours of the past week, with our energies invigorated, and in expectation of doing a good stroke of business, when we find that, in deference to the morbid sensibility of the hon. Member for Sheffield, who, no doubt, takes a leading part in the affairs of this House and of this country, leads him to make this extravagant yet successful appeal to the consideration of the Government, although his experience in this House scarcely warrants him in doing so. Really, what chance have we of carrying on the business of the country, and of making in the course of the Session that progress which no one so much desires as the First Minister, if we proceed in this way? Here is a night wasted in the most capricious manner. We might have gone into Committee and had the question of the diminution of the cost of the Army brought forward by the hon. Member for Hudders-

  303
  field (Mr. Leatham), so that the whole subject might have been amply discussed this evening. I am totally at a loss to comprehend the sort of coma in which, after ten minutes' absence, I find the House of Commons. It seems to me to be symptomatic of a dangerous state of things. We have before us a Session of business requiring such an amount of energy that we almost look at it with a feeling of despair. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the matter, and after a confidential communication with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield we shall regain our common sense, and proceed with the business of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will take the liberty of reminding the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield is one of which the appropriateness under existing circumstances cannot be denied by anybody. We are unfortunately, and I say it with regret, asking for a very large increase of the Estimates. Now, so long as we have Motions on going into Committee of Supply, I doubt whether there can be found any more legitimate subject for bringing before the House by those who dissent from such an increase. The hon. Member's Motion, I apprehend, could not be made in Committee of Supply at all. It is, therefore, most reasonable on his part to make an appeal to the Government; and it would be most unreasonable on ours if we availed ourselves of a technical difficulty to prevent him from bringing the subject forward. It is, no doubt, very clever for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) to allude only to the hon. Member for Sheffield; but, in point of fact, a large number of Members of this House are desirous to express their opinions on the Motion. I can imagine no question which they have a better right to discuss, and the Government are bound to facilitate the discussion by every means in their power. We should have liked very much indeed to go on with the Estimates; but it would not be right, when a large number of Members wish to raise a question which it is their duty to decide, as to whether there shall be an increase in the military strength of the nation, to take advantage of a technical difficulty in order to shut them out from the debate. We are confident we can
  304
  rely on the moderation and good sense of hon. Members, and we feel assured that, if the Government meet their wishes, they will not let the public service suffer by preventing the Votes from being taken when the proper time arrives.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that there was no absolute necessity for passing the Vote for Men on Thursday. That could not be done till the last Vote for the Navy had been taken.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he hoped the Lord Advocate would give the House an assurance that the Scotch Education Bill would not be brought on to-night?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, every hon. Member had the same means he himself possessed of calculating the probability of the Bill getting into Committee before Easter. He should certainly lose no opportunity of pressing it forward; but he would not bring it on this evening after 11 o'clock. If to-night, or on any other night, a chance should arise of bringing it forward, he should make a point of being in his place, in order to take the measure into Committee. He was authorized to say that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had never expressed himself to any other effect than this.
  MR. M'LARENprotested against the Scotch Bill being forced on when hon. Members from that country had not had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the second reading. If it had been an Irish Bill provision would have been at once made for it; but everything connected with Scotland was shunted to make way for something that was considered more important. This was the state of things, when the people of Scotland paid at the rate of double the amount of taxation which the people in Ireland paid.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he felt it his duty to do what he could to protect those hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the second reading, though he felt that he owed no apology for having occupied so long a time on the previous occasion. It was not his fault that the Government had limited the time for the discussion in order to deal with Irish matters. It was then stated that further opportunity for debate on the Bill would occur on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair in order that the House might go

  305
  into Committee, and he, as well as, he had no doubt, many other Scotch Members, would avail himself of that opportunity, inasmuch as the Bill wore a different aspect from that which he had supposed, it now appearing that borough schools were not to obtain any advance of money under its provisions, notwithstanding the great things which it was said by the Lord Advocate would be done for them. He strongly, however, protested against proceeding with the Bill at a moment when there were scarcely a dozen Scotch Members in the House.
  MR. BAXTERsuggested that, as several hon. Members seemed disposed to speak on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, those Scotch Members who were present might proceed to do so at once, and the Committee might be deferred.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcontended that to proceed with the Bill would be to break the spirit of the engagements into which the Government had entered with respect to it. Many hon. Gentlemen had understood the Lord Advocate to say that there was no chance of its being brought on that evening.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, that the reason why the Scotch Members were not present was, that the Government had informed them, a few nights ago, that several Bills of great importance must be advanced a stage before the Scotch Education Bill was taken.
  MR. GLADSTONEexplained that he did not state the order in which several great and important subjects were to be taken, but he specially limited himself to speaking of those great subjects; and said that as to the others, they must take them as they could.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, that the impression remained upon the minds of Scotch Members that this measure was of very secondary importance to that of the Ballot, which stood for a second reading, and to the Licensing Bill, which had not yet been brought forward.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it perfectly monstrous that the Government should take advantage of their own laches in the conduct of the Business of the House, and press on a measure which everyone had been led to suppose would not be taken that night. But if the Scotch Education Bill was not to be discussed, he should like to
  306
  know what business was to be proceeded with, in order that hon. Members might be made aware whether there was a chance of any Bill on the Notice Paper in which they took an interest being urged forward, so that they might go home if there was no such prospect?
  MR. CRAUFURDwished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he had not distinctly stated to him that the Bill would not come on that evening?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied that he had said to at least some 20 Members that if an opportunity offered he should bring on the Bill. Being asked whether he thought there was any chance of its coming on that evening, his answer, he believed, was that he really thought there was none.
  COLONEL SYKESexpressed his astonishment that the learned Lord Advocate should endeavour to entrap the House into the consideration of the Scotch Education Bill at the present time, when Scotch Members had not expected it to come on. He hoped that faith would be kept with them.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not altogether agree with those who seemed anxious to prevent the Scotch Education Bill coming on for discussion. Those Scotch Members who were absent from their places must take the consequences of their non-attendance.
  MR. M'LAGANstrongly disapproved of any Member of the Government breaking faith with them. He had been told that there was not the slightest chance of the Scotch Bill coming on to-night, and he was surprised that the Government should now propose to take it.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that the Lord Advocate had assured him that there was not the remotest probability of that Bill being entered upon to-night, and he (Major Walker) repeated this to every hon. Member who asked him the question.
  LORD ELCHOasked whether the Government would, after those statements, venture to persevere with the Scotch Education Bill on the present occasion? If so, he would protest against the mode of carrying on Business.
  MR. SPEAKERexplained that the Question before the House was that he now leave the Chair, for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) moved that the debate be adjourned,

  307
  for the purpose of entering into an explanation as to the business before them. That matter having now been settled, the question was whether the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield should be withdrawn. After that there would still be the Question that he do now leave the Chair.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.
  MR. ANDERSONcalled attention to the fact that the reductions made last year on highly paid offices on the Horse Guards' Staff had been nearly all restored in this year's Estimates.
  MR. HUNTrose to Order. The Army Estimates were not to be taken that evening, and he wished to know whether the hon. Member could call attention to them in the manner proposed?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member for Glasgow was in Order.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he found that the salary of the Commander-in-Chief, which had been reduced from £4,432 to £4,000, had been raised in the Estimates of this year to £4,444; that of the Private Secretary, which had been reduced from £365 to £300, was again raised to £365; that of the Inspector General, which had been £1,000 was raised to £1,365; that of the Quartermaster General remained unchanged, but that of the Military Secretary, which had been reduced from £2,243 to £1,500 a-year, was again raised, to £2,000. He hoped, before going into the great question of the Army Estimates, that they would have some explanation of this circumstance.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that these Votes would come before the Committee on the Army Estimates, and he hoped his hon. Friend would wait for an explanation till that occasion. He thought it would then be explained that the increase was rather nominal than real.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. HUNTtook the opportunity of offering a suggestion to the Government which he thought would have the effect of expediting Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government professed the other night a great desire to find an early night for
  308
  the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) to bring his Vote of Censure on the Government in connection with the Conference: would it not be possible to enable the hon. Baronet to bring on his Motion to-night?
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £211,642, be granted to Her Majesty, for the Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871."
[Then the Services are set forth at length.]
MR. RYLANDSobjected to the Vote, on the ground that it was contrary to the understanding come to last year that the sum should be taken in a lump.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not aware of any such understanding; but he would withdraw the Vote in its totality.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call attention to the large amount of Supplementary Estimates presented by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had on several occasions laid great stress on the fact that the late Government had found it necessary to produce Supplementary Estimates. In 1868–9 a Supplementary Estimate for £171,000 had been brought forward, and when the present Government came into office they added to it £130,000, making the whole £300,000. The late Government were subjected to very severe strictures on this account; but the next year there was a Supplementary Estimate presented of nearly £200,000 in July, and in March last year another for £170,000. In July last there was another Supplementary Estimate of £50,000, and now there was another of £211,000. He hoped if hon. Gentlemen opposite ever crossed the floor of the House they would in Opposition remember what they had done when on the Treasury Bench.
MR. BOWRINGobserved that £50,200 of the sum to be voted was for the relief of Paris, in which they must all cordially concur.

(1.) £5,800, Portland Harbour (Supplementary sum).

309

(2.) £9,500, Public Record Repository, Acquisition of Lands (Supplementary sum).

(3.) £3,819, British Consulate and Embassy Houses, Constantinople, &c. (Supplementary sum).

MR. RYLANDSexpressed a hope that the Government would continue to rent accommodation for the Embassy rather than incur the great expense of attempting to re-build what had been burnt down.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £1,254, National Debt Office (Supplementary sum).
(5.) £3,350, Office of Works (Supplementary sum).
(6.) £3,026, Poor Law Commission, Ireland (Supplementary sum).
(7.) £4,000, Law Charges (Supplementary sum).
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobserved, that law charges were very heavy at all times. He did not know why, considering what was voted last year, these should be asked for.
MR. BAXTERsaid, these charges had been very carefully looked into. They had been occasioned by the prosecutions for bribery at Norwich, Beverley, and Bridgwater.
MR. WHITEcontended that where bribery was proved to have extensively prevailed, the municipality should be amerced in the amount which the investigation cost.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the expense of the Commissions was already thrown on the locality; but these were expenses incurred by the Solicitor to the Treasury.
COLONEL SYKESheld it was time that a special Committee sat upon the question of diminishing these law charges, and of determining how they could do with less law.
MR. WHITE: Yes; and more justice.
Vote agreed, to.
(8.) £4,800, Bankruptcy Court (Supplementary sum).
(9.) £2,500, Miscellaneous Legal Charges, England (Supplementary sum).
(10.) £11,000, Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland (Supplementary sum).
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, these law charges were monstrous altogether. This year we were paying £2,000 more than last year, and no Fenian prosecutions had taken place in Ireland that he was aware of.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that the Vote included spring assizes that were unusually heavy and protracted, and that ought to have been included in the Estimate for the preceding year.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £75,000, National Gallery (Supplementary sum).
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he thought an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting a recent purchase of pictures would be acceptable.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the money was asked for on account of the purchase for the National Gallery of a collection of pictures made by the late Sir Robert Peel 50 years ago. The collection consisted of 77 pictures and 18 drawings, by Rubens, Vandyck, and others; it included eight pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds; but the majority of the works were the masterpieces of the most eminent artists of the Dutch school. Among the pictures were the celebrated one of John Knox preaching, and the equally celebrated "Chapeau de Paille." All the pictures had been originally chosen with great care, taste, and judgment; the collection was in excellent order; and it was unique and complete in itself as a representation of the Dutch school. The collection had been carefully examined by two competent gentlemen, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Boxall, who reported that it was well worth the money, and he hoped that it would be no further expense to the country. The Committee were aware that the Trustees of the National Gallery had been allowed £10,000 a-year to spend in pictures; but this year £8,000 was unexpended, as was £8,500 in the preceding year; in three or four years about £20,000 of these annual Votes had been re-paid into the Exchequer, and it was now intended to stop the annual Vote for the present until, by these savings, and the amount of the annual Vote, the present purchase had been paid for. He did not mean to say that the Trustees would wholly refuse to buy any work of great merit that was offered them; indeed, they

311
would take the responsibility of doing that if it were necessary, and of asking the House afterwards to approve their conduct; but they would endeavour to defray the cost of this collection by the annual subscription of £10,000, believing that, by this purchase, they had done better for the public than they could have done by the expenditure of an equal amount spread over a number of years.
MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of impugning the merits of the pictures, as he believed they were quite worth the money. But the House was on the eve of discussing increased Estimates; it was about to expend a large sum of money on very doubtful objects, and in the face of such an amount of pauperism as now existed he held they had no right to waste the public funds in this extravagant manner. It was a great mistake to spend money on such luxuries, seeing that we forgot that we had ceased to be either a great or a rich country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might smile; but that was not far from the truth. It would be no consolation to those of our countrymen who feared invasion, or to a starving mechanic who could not find bread for his children, to say that we must have fine pictures. The whole proceeding was most unjustifiable, and if he could get any support from hon. Members opposite he should divide against this Vote.
MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he was confident, in spite of the diatribe they had just listened to, that the Vote would be supported with acclamation, not only by the House but by the country, as such Votes invariably had been. He had always found the greatest willingness on the part of the House to sanction any outlay recommended by the Ministry for the acquisition of those works of art which were a subject of pleasure to all who viewed them, and of improvement to all who studied them. There were many present who remembered the unanimity with which, the House applauded the purchase of the Due de Blacas collection for the British Museum, and by no section of the House was that transaction more approved of than by the Gentlemen below the Gangway, to whom the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) had been appealing. The hon. Member said this
312
was not the moment to buy pictures; but were pictures to be bought like a hat or a coat, whenever you wanted them? He said this expenditure was waste. This was not waste. There was more waste in one year in building ships that would neither sail, steam, nor fight; more waste in one estimate, the result of panic and of nonsense, than in the estimates of 20 years for the purchase of works of art. These things remained to be a credit and a joy to the nation. They were not bought one year at great expense to be superseded and thrown aside as useless the next year. Every year added to their value, for every year fresh competitors entered the market for their acquisition. Every little town of Belgium, France, and Germany was forming its local museum and its picture gallery, and the advancement of taste and refinement in the products of those countries, was a proof of the good effect of these exhibitions. He hoped the same effects would, by the establishment of similar institutions in England, be produced, for we could not but acknowledge our shortcomings in those articles in which refinement of taste was the great requisite; and he trusted the time would shortly arrive when the representatives of large towns would insist on the superfluities from the central galleries and museums being spread throughout England whenever there was a fitting structure to receive them. It was impossible to overrate the value of the collection just purchased. The National Gallery had not been yet half a century in existence, and yet there were few, if any, collections in any country which embraced so wide, so select, and so fine a class of pictures of the various schools of Italian art, taking them altogether. The National Gallery owed its origin to the purchase of the Angerstein collection in the year 1823; but it could not be said that the systematic acquisition of pictures had commenced till the annual Vote of £10,000 was begun in the year 1855. The credit of this, in some respects, unrivalled collection as regards Italian art is due to the taste, learning, and activity of the late Sir Charles Eastlake, and his successor, Mr. Boxall, by the same high qualities, has added many magnificent specimens to the Gallery. Still, in regard to Dutch pictures there was a great deficiency, which was much regretted and com-

313
plained of by many persons who took a deep interest in this school of art. Now that deficiency was at an end, and we could enter the lists even with the Louvre, as regards our collection of Dutch masters. By this acquisition the gaps had been filled up, the possibility of doing which could hardly have been contemplated within any given period of time, if at all. They had obtained a Terburg of the finest quality, and in the finest condition. They had obtained noble specimens of Metzu, Mieris, Van der Heyden, Wouvermans, De Koning, Ostade, Carl du Jardin, Jan Steen, all of which had previously been wanting. They had also obtained admirable pictures by other masters, already represented. Besides the famous "Chapeau de Paille," by Rubens, alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among the pictures bought was the chef d'œuvre of Hobbema, and two Peter de Hooghes, which would be a joy to all who saw them. Nor were our own English artists omitted. There was the Wilkie mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several pictures by Reynolds, among which the portrait of Dr. Johnson would stand comparison with the finest works of the Italian pencil. There was an additional interest, too, connected with the collection, for it was the labour of love of one of our greatest English statesmen, and it was gratifying to see that the taste of the amateur was on a par with the sagacity of the Minister, for throughout this large collection there could hardly be named more than two or three pictures which were not of the very highest order of merit, a compliment which could be paid to few private galleries. The hon. Member for Norfolk spoke of lavishing money in making this purchase; but he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) could assure the House that the pictures were bought at a sum considerably below their value; and, apparently, by the arrangements made, the country would not be put to the additional expense of 1s.; and he would convince the House he was justified in making that assertion. When the National Gallery was re-organized—in fact, set on a complete new footing in 1855, a Treasury Minute was passed, defining the duties of all persons connected with the institution. Among other regulations were the following:—
314
"My Lords propose, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, to insert annually in the Estimate for the Gallery a sum expressly for the purchase of pictures. The sum need not be annually expended, but might accumulate, and thus enable the Trustees and Director to purchase a fine collection at once, if such an opportunity should offer."
The Trustees and Director have acted on this recommendation; and, at this moment, when the opportunity did offer itself, they had surrendered to the Treasury, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a sum of £20,700, which, with the £10,000 which would have come to them in the present year, makes up nearly half of the purchase. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also intimated his intention of not renewing the annual grant for the present, so that, as he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had stated, the whole purchase would be made without taking an extra shilling out of the pocket of the nation. He confessed he should be sorry no longer to see the national Grant on the Estimates; but he was comforted by the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if any fine pictures presented themselves, he would purchase them on the recommendation of the Director. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might rest assured that the Trustees and Director would continue to show the same desire to keep down expenditure as they had ever manifested, and would be as chary of the public money as if it were their own. Before sitting down, he wished to do an act of justice to his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), who had sold these pictures to the nation. He (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had already stated that the collection had been bought on the most reasonable terms. A couple of years ago, Sir Robert Peel would have obtained an infinitely greater sum than they were now voting; and, even at the present moment, he would have got much more than he was willing to accept. But Sir Robert Peel acted with the greatest delicacy and public spirit. He said—"My object is that all these pictures should be kept together; they belonged to my father, and I wish the nation should have them. I have had these pictures valued roughly by a competent person at £80,000; but, taking off the percentage I should have to pay if they were sold by public auction, I offer them at £75,000." It was suggested by me that the Government valuation might not come up to

315
that amount, to which Sir Robert Peel replied that he would not stand out for some thousands, so long as the pictures were bought by the nation, and kept together. The circumstances of this sale were greatly to the credit of the public spirit and disinterestedness of the right hon. Baronet; and, while he congratulated the House and thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the acquisition, he could not refrain from noticing how much the country was indebted to Sir Robert Peel for the completion of this auspicious negotiation.
MR. HUNTsupported the Vote, believing that the money would be well spent. So far from the poor complaining, he thought these pictures would give the greatest delight to all classes, and would enrich the nation by improving its taste and refining its ideas.
MR. RYLANDSsupported the Vote, believing the collection would not only be advantageous to the National Gallery, but to a great number of the working classes, when they had an opportunity of seeing these paintings. He was glad to seethe first budding of economy in the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Bentinck). On Thursday evening he might be able to save the country a much larger sum by joining those who wished to reduce the Estimates.
MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he did not understand the last argument, because the Votes of Thursday evening would be spent on works of usefulness. He did not dispute the value of the pictures, but thought that when there was such an enormous demand for the public money, and such an enormous amount of pauperism, it was not a wise and just mode of expenditure. It was a new fact in natural history to say that they could feed a starving man by showing him pictures.
MR. ILLINGWORTHobserved, that there was very little interest felt by the pauper classes of the country in an increase in the Army Estimates. There was a strong feeling in the country that any increase in these Estimates was not only unnecessary but mischievous.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsupported the Vote, and wished to see the national collection of pictures increased. It was poor compared with that of other countries.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £1,467, Commissions for Suppression of the Slave Trade (Supplementary sum).
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwished for some explanation of the item of £83 for the conveyance of distinguished persons.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdrew attention to the item of £2,421 16 s. 3d. for the preparation of a plan and model in connection with the proposed Thames Embankment site of the New Courts of Justice. It was rather hard that when the site definitely fixed upon for erecting those buildings was the one that had been originally chosen that the country should be put to this expense to satisfy the fancy of the right hon. Gentleman who had been the predecessor of the First Commissioner of Works in Office. The expense ought to come out of the fund which was appropriated towards the erection of the New Courts of Justice and not out of the public money.
MR. AYRTONobserved, that it would be impossible to take the course suggested, because the Act of Parliament decided that the Courts should be built on a particular site, and that the funds should be applied to the purchase of the land and the erection of the buildings. The funds thus appropriated could not be applied to anything relating to the construction of the Courts on another site. A Committee was appointed by the unanimous vote of the House to consider whether some more economical method could not be devised in order to get rid of the enormous expenditure which was threatened, and it became necessary to have an architect in attendance on the Committee and to have plans and models constructed. An inquiry of that nature was always extremely expensive, and this item represented the actual expenditure incurred in that investigation, which had at last resulted in the saving of £1,500,000 to the country.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as satisfactory. The item was not incurred in order to prevent a greater expenditure, for the Committee

317
had nothing to do with cutting down the estimates for the Courts of Justice.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the cutting down of the estimates was no doubt a subsequent act of the Office of Works; but it was first deemed necessary to appoint the Committee to investigate the subject, and awaken the public mind to the propriety of the reduction.
MR. MONKcalled attention to the sum of £1,676 paid to Messrs. Freshfield and Co., solicitors, for costs connected with the preparation of the National Debt Bill, the Forgery Bill, and the Statute Law Revision Bill. He wished to know if it was the practice to employ private solicitors to draw up Government Bills when the Government had solicitors of their own to do the work? Unless a satisfactory explanation of this item were given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,676.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that these Bills were prepared by agreement between the Government and the Bank of England as a codification of the law relating to the Bank. The Bank of England paid half the expense, and they were naturally anxious that their own solicitors should be employed in the drawing up of the Bills. The work had been excellently done, and the result was two very valuable pieces of consolidation.
MR. HERMONpointed out as matter which called for explanation, an item in connection with an inquest held in consequence of a boiler explosion at Portsmouth, and another in connection with the total eclipse of the sun in August, 1868, and asked whether the sum of £5,212 for the Clerks of Unions and others in Ireland for the preparation of the Return relative to Land Tenure had been paid for a Return moved for by a Member of that House, because if Returns involved such an enormous expenditure he should refrain from moving for the one for which he had given Notice To-morrow.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENcalled attention to the enormous expense incurred by the appointment of Select Committees on public questions, as evidenced by the item of £2,700 for the expenses attending the Committee for the site of the New Courts of Justice.
MAJOR WALKERcalled attention to the fact that Returns, &c., for the preparation of the Irish Land Bill had cost
318
the country £89,000, and that that item ought to have been provided for in the Estimates of last year.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked for an explanation of the item of £500 paid as compensation to General La Mothe on account of the Jamaica insurrection. He wished to know if General La Mothe had really any claim on the finances of this country for that compensation?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not in a position to answer that question now, but he would answer it on another day.
MR. CANDLISHcalled attention to the item of £858 16 s. for the maintenance of the son of the late King of Abyssinia. Such an item ought to have been known to the Government when the Estimates were first submitted to Parliament, and ought then to have been included in them. In addition to that the amount was excessive, for the son of the late King Theodore was only 10 or 11 years old, and a lad of that age could be well provided for at a boarding school for £200 or £300 a-year.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked for some explanation of an item of £14 10 s. for the insignia of Prince Arthur as a Knight of St. Patrick.
SIR JOHN HAYasked how the sum of £856 for the education and maintenance of the son of the late King Theodore was arrived at, and contrasted the liberality thus shown to a Prince whose father, at least, had not deserved our gratitude, with the refusal of our Government to vote a single farthing to show proper respect to Prince Kassa, to whose friendship, they had it on the testimony of Lord Napier of Magdala, that the success of our expedition to Abyssinia was very greatly owing. Prince Kassa entertained our Envoys, protected our communications, and provided supplies of food for our troops. He now wished his Envoys to visit England for a political object connected with the civilization of his own country, and, like an Eastern Prince, he desired them to be received when they came here with a moderate amount of hospitality becoming their rank. That, however, was entirely declined, and a Prince to whom we were much indebted was treated with the greatest indignity.
COLONEL SYKESconfirmed what had just been said of the importance of Prince Kassa's services to the Abyssinian Expedition, and stated that that Prince

319
wished to send two Envoys to this country with a letter and a present to the Queen. The Envoys had been detained in Egypt since last October, and they were told that they might send the present, but that they could not come themselves, for we could not make them our guests, although it was said the Pasha of Egypt, with more generosity, had made them his guests during their detention in Egypt. The Prince had sent a message to him (Colonel Sykes), through Colonel Kirkman in his service, that he was willing to give free grants of land to European immigrants in his country for the cultivation of cotton, sugar, and indigo. We had a name and a dignity to maintain in the world, and would be made a by-word by refusing to defray the trifling cost of entertaining at the Clarendon or Claridge's Hotels, of Prince Kassa's two Envoys for a couple of months.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not concur in the view taken by the last speaker. After the costly and painful experience we had lately had, he thought we had every reason to look with great caution upon anything which might entangle us in transactions with Abyssinian Potentates and Princes. It was very undesirable that the Government should in any way recognize those Abyssinian Envoys, or should hold out the least inducement to Europeans to settle in those barbarous countries, except entirely at their own risk. Turning to another subject, if the Government draughtsmen were not fully employed, he was not convinced that the draughting of the Bills included in that Vote should not have been done by the legal officers of the Crown.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the Correspondence on the subject, which was accessible to any hon. Gentleman, fully explained why Messrs. Freshfield and Co. were employed. It was thought that no one was so competent to undertake the preparation of Bills involving so much detail and so much difficulty as the gentlemen who had been so many years employed in connection with the Bank.
MR. MONKsaid, he was not altogether satisfied with the explanation which had been given of the item for drawing the Bills with reference to the National Debt. No reason had been assigned why the Statute Law Revision
320
Bill should not have been drawn by the Government draughtsmen, and he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £800 in respect of that Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Vote be reduced by the sum of £800."—(Mr. Monk.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that this Bill also, although described as the Statute Law Revision Bill, formed a part of the work of consolidation of the laws relating to the National Debt.
Question,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,065, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871,"
put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
LORD ELCHOinquired the meaning of an item of £46, an allowance for "a Congo pirate chief, and rations to him."
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he would explain the matter on the Report.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked for the names of the distinguished persons conveyed by packet; he referred to the Vote for £83 5s. for that purpose.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Vote be reduced by the sum of £83 5s."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,781 15 s., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871."
MR. BAXTERpromised to supply the names on bringing up the Report.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(14.) £6,031, Compensation to sufferers by fire at Pera.
MR. CANDLISHasked upon what grounds this Vote was asked for.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the officers lived in the Embassy house, and on the occasion of the fire they all exerted themselves most zealously to put it out, even at the risk of their lives; but, although they managed to save some of the public property, they lost all their own. Under

321
these circumstances, it would be cruel not to compensate them, in accordance with uniform precedent. It was proposed to grant to each officer some proportion of his estimated loss, but not the whole.
SIR JOHN HAYbelieved that in many cases the Government would be recouped from insurances had not those insurances been stopped from motives of economy. At Shanghai, for instance, the Consulate offices were burnt down only 15 days after the insurance, which was not renewed, had expired. He fully agreed that the officers were entitled to some compensation.
MR. MONKmentioned that last year it was stated that, before the Embassy house at Constantinople was rebuilt, estimates of the expense would be laid on the Table of the House; and he wished to know when those estimates would be in the hands of Members?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the estimate would form part of the Civil Service Estimates for the present year. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay), the Government had pursued the course adopted by all owners of large property, and had been their own insurers. In the case of Constantinople, the Treasury consented to make a contribution in aid of the sufferers. It was true that the Consulate offices at Shanghai were uninsured, and were burnt down; but he felt convinced that the premiums which they would have had to pay on property in China and Japan would have exceeded in amount their probable losses by fire.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £8,030, Compensation to Owners of "La Have."
(16.) £50,200, Relief of Paris.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Vote, which was incurred in what they all regarded as the performance of a duty on the part of the Government. He had only risen because the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter), in answering a Question on this subject on a former evening, after stating the quantity of provisions then in course of being sent, had added, that the fact of their being able to send such a quantity would be an answer to the criticisms made with regard to the very great re-
322
duction made in the Government stores. The amount of tons which the hon. Gentleman mentioned to the House as being in our possession amounted to about 17 days' provisions for a fleet of 50,000 men, and he therefore did not think the amount so large when the country expected that there should be at least a year's provisions in store.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he had stated that the Government with three days' notice had sent 2,500 tons of provisions and that 1,100 tons more were ready for the purpose, if necessary. He altogether disputed the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there were only 17 days' provisions for 50,000 men in store; but during the Recess the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others had caused great apprehension in the country by charging the Government with having greatly reduced the stores, and he took the opportunity of showing that these statements were utterly unwarrantable.
MR. WHITWELLasked whether the amount mentioned was the total amount sent out?
MR. BAXTERreplied that £48,000 was the value of the naval store contributed by the Admiralty, and the whole was replaced by the purchase department in a week.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would be glad to learn how the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had arrived at the estimate with which he had favoured the Committee—an estimate which credited each seaman with eating something like 7 lb of solid food per day.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had not the figures by him; but he had given them on the strength of an accurate calculation made by Mr. Richards, the late Controller of Victualling. He had himself gone into the figures; but his calculation amounted to 21 days, while Mr. Richards' was 17.
MR. BAXTERobserved, that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had made a similar statement, one which he found had occasioned great merriment at the Treasury.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £148,265, be granted to Her Majesty, for the following Revenue and Post Office Packet Ser-

323
vices, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1871, viz.:—

£

Inland Revenue

30,000

Post Office Packet Service

118,265

£148,265

(18.) That a sum, not exceeding £63,973 9s. 11 d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses of Expenditure beyond the Grants for the following Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1870, viz.:—

Class I.

£

s.

d.

Portland Harbour

4,411

18

11

Embassy Houses, Paris and Madrid

51

3

3

Embassy Houses and Consular Buildings, Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran

5,768

7

8

Class II.

Registrars of Friendly Societies

217

18

9

Lord Lieutenant's Household, Ireland

61

3

5

Chief Secretary's Office, Ireland

2,529

15

2

Class III.

Criminal Prosecutions

3,101

15

6

Land Registry Office

17

15

5

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland

83

1

11

Convict Establishments in the Colonies

23,388

0

9

Court of Chancery, England

5,121

2

8

Court of Bankruptcy, England

9,843

15

8

Class IV.

National Portrait Gallery, England

308

18

1

Public Education, Ireland

6,584

1

5

National Gallery, Ireland

456

2

1

Queen's University, Ireland

277

9

6

Belfast Theological Professors, &c.

50

5

5

Class V.

Coolie Emigration

310

13

0

Treasury Chest

134

7

5

Class VI.

Non-conforming Clergy, Ireland

31

10

11

Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

114

10

1

Advances for New Courts of Justice

1,109

12

11

£63,973

9

11

House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PAUPER INMATES' DISCHARGE AND REGULATION BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 70.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that this measure dealt with two of the classes giving the greatest trouble in workhouses. It proposed that paupers frequenting work-
  324
  houses so constantly as to give rise to the belief that they belonged to the class of habitual paupers, merely using these institutions for their own convenience, should not in future be allowed to leave immediately, or at their own discretion, but should only be able to discharge themselves after the expiration of certain fixed period of notice. As to casuals, a very general opinion was entertained by those most competent to give an opinion upon the subject, that uniformity of diet and of work ought to be imposed, and Clause 6 accordingly took power to make regulations with a view to enforce this uniformity. The present state of the law as to the detention of casuals was that they could only be kept until they had performed the task which was supposed to pay for their board and lodging at night, if they performed it in less than four hours, or for a maximum period of four hours during which this task was supposed to be performed. It was now proposed to take power to detain them for four hours, and in any case until their task had been performed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas far from contending that additional power ought not to be placed in the hands of masters of workhouses; but the change now proposed was something entirely new in the history of the Poor Law. For the first time during the 40 years that the Poor Law had existed, a power of imprisonment within the workhouse was about to be conferred on the Guardians. The only power of that kind at present existing was one inserted in the Act of 1867, passed under his own charge, providing that in the case of contagious disease a power should exist of detaining the person so affected upon a proper medical certificate. The extension of the principle of detention contained in the present Bill ought not to be adopted without full recognition of its importance; and he hoped the Government would not bring on the Committee upon the Bill at an hour when it would be impossible to discuss the details of the measure properly. The first paragraph of the 4th clause would require revision, as it appeared to extend to all classes of pauper inmates without distinction.
  MR. STANSFELDundertook that full notice should be given of the next stage

  325
  of the Bill, and further, promised to give his attention to the clause referred to by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that in consequence of the postponement of the Army Estimates this matter had come suddenly and unexpectedly under the notice of the House. He did not wish to stop the second reading of the Bill, but felt bound to say that the Government proposed to act upon the old principle, which was, probably, the right one, of making vagrants not subject to the Poor Law, but criminals; but the jurisdiction was to be vested in the Guardians, and not in the magistrates, as was formerly the case. This was a very serious change indeed, and he feared the right hon. Gentleman had opened a question, the limits of which he, perhaps, did not perceive.
  Bill read a second time, and committed, for Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).—RESOLUTION.
MR. EASTWICK, in rising to move—
"That when Papers are presented by Command, or in pursuance of an Order of this House, or in answer to an Address, the same shall be laid upon the Table in such a form as to ensure a speedy delivery thereof to Members,"
said: Sir, I will not take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes. The matter which I wish to bring before it is a very simple one, and at first sight may appear very unimportant; but on consideration I think it will be found to deserve immediate attention. Sir, hon. Members, who sit on the Front Benches, and occupy official positions, are not much dependent on Parliamentary Papers for information as to subjects which interest them. They can obtain from their own Departments, or from the Departments of their Colleagues, all, or almost all, the information they require; but unofficial Members, like myself, are altogether dependent on those Returns, and cannot stir a step without them; and therefore it is of the last importance to us that the Papers moved for should be distributed with the utmost possible expedition and regularity. But, Sir, a practice has grown up which retards the distribution of Papers, and make it inconveniently irregular. This practice is, if I may call it by a single name, that of "dummies." What I mean is the practice
326
of laying Papers on the Table of the House in blank, which is done that they may come out during the Recess; and unless they are so laid on the Table and are ordered to be printed, they cannot be circulated. Well, Sir, this practice, which began in an indulgence, has degenerated into an abuse. Those who lay the dummies on the Table, as happens in more serious matters, think they have cleared their consciences by the form, and seem not to care when the Returns themselves are delivered. I support this remark by a statement which I have in my hands, which shows that 15 Papers, moved for last Session, at dates between the 29th of April and the 10th of August, were not delivered till quite recently—that is, between the 10th of February and the 15th of March this Session. But, Sir, I can go a step beyond this, for the statement shows that seven Papers moved for last Session, between the 9th of June and the 10th of August, have not been delivered even yet. But even this is not all. I find there are two Papers which were moved for in the Session of 1868–9, which are still undelivered. It is obvious how much this must embarrass the arrangements even in the Library of the House, for the volumes cannot be bound up till these Papers are delivered. To private Members the inconvenience is very great, as they must either keep their Papers unbound, or leave them in the binders' hands till they are completed. With all deference to the better judgment of the Committee, of which you, Sir, are Chairman, I would suggest that, as a remedy for this abuse, it should be ordered that when Papers are laid on the Table in blank they should be accompanied with a statement of the exact period within which the real Papers will be distributed. I would further suggest that the period should be limited to four months from the end of the Session, so that all the Papers connected with that Session may be bound up at least a month before Parliament meets for the next Session. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
Motion agree to.
Ordered, That when Papers are presented by Command, or in pursuance of an Order of this House, or in answer to an Address, the same shall be laid upon the Table in such a form as to ensure a speedy delivery thereof to Members.—(Mr. Eastwick.)

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).—RESOLUTION.

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade under "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1868," relating to the Frith of Forth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESOUR and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 79.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Poor Law (Loans)* (50).
Second Reading—Justices Procedure (England) (31).

JUSTICES PROCEDURE (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 31.)—(The Lord Cairns.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CAIRNS, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to consolidate the existing Acts which regulated the procedure and practice of magistrates' and petty sessions courts in England. Their Lordships, he thought, would be aware both of the magnitude and the importance of the task which he had undertaken. There were, he was informed, not less than 10,000 acting magistrates in England and Wales, and nearly 1,000 magistrates' or petty sessions courts, and considering the number of persons interested in them, and the number of cases, small in themselves, but important as regarded their consequences decided by them, their Lordships would see the desirability of collecting in one statute the whole of the law and procedure applicable to such tribunals. The only general Acts which at all resemble consolidation Acts, governing the proceedings before justices, were the Acts generally known as Jervis's Acts, which were passed nearly a quarter of a century ago. Those Acts were not complete Acts of consolidation, and were imperfect in many points of detail, and did not give that facility in the administration of justice which was expected of them. Moreover, various circumstances had since necessitated alterations both in the law and procedure of the courts. Although in England we had not as yet any consolidation of the law of procedure, yet in recent years a consolidation of the law in this direction had been accomplished in Ireland and Scotland—in the former country in 1851 by the Petty Sessions Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93; and for Scotland by the Summary Procedure Act, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 53. The present Bill was originally introduced into the other House in 1865; but, after

  261
  it had made some progress, the state of Public Business necessitated its withdrawal. Considerable attention had since been paid to the matter with the view of simplifying it as much as possible. Although responsible for the measure in this House, their Lordships were well aware that he had no claim to be its author; but it might be satisfactory to them to know that it had been prepared under the superintendence of Mr. Oke, chief clerk of the Lord Mayor's Court, who was well versed in the subject, and had had large experience both in that court and other petty sessions courts in the country in matters of this description. If their Lordships consent to give the Bill a second reading now he should propose its committal pro formâ on Friday week, for the purpose of rectifying some errors in printing and in the arrangement of the clauses, so that after Easter it might go through Committee in the regular way.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill was one of considerable magnitude as regarded the number of its clauses. His noble and learned Friend was quite correct in stating that the last attempt at amalgamating the Acts relating to magisterial procedure was introduced in the other House in 1865, where, however, though it had the cordial support of a large number of acting county and borough magistrates, of the Justices Clerks' Society, and of the Jurisprudence Committee of the Social Science Association, it was not proceeded with; and since that time no further proceedings had been taken. Since the introduction of the present Bill he had made inquiries at the Home Office as to the necessity of such a measure, the result being that no complaint had been made by magistrates of the working of the Acts passed 23 years ago by Lord Chief Justice Jervis, which consolidated all the then existing statutes respecting magisterial jurisdiction. He could not find that any serious defect or impediment had arisen. The Bill contained one new provision to which no objection could be offered—especially as it had been for some time in operation in Ireland—namely, one giving police magistrates the power of keeping order in their courts. Although this pur-
  262
  ported to be a consolidation Bill, he was informed, as the result of a cursory inspection of the measure by a competent legal authority, that care had not been taken to preserve the language of the old Acts. It was most important that this should be done in a consolidated Act, for the language of every Act was subject to criticism and legal investigation, very few being so fortunate as not to require judicial construction, and when such a construction had been definitively settled, it was very undesirable to deviate from the phraseology, as this might necessitate further argument and a new decision. He did not object to the second reading; but he would suggest the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, as a Committee of the Whole House was hardly competent to discuss a Bill of this character.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that, considering the number of Peers on Select Committees and the number who usually attended the House, the latter were the more select body. If, as appeared desirable, the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, he would suggest a departure from the inconvenient practice of having it a very large body. Three or five Peers would form a sufficient Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 31 st instant.

GREECE—MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY BRIGANDS—MR. F. NOEL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether and when it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay before the House such further Papers relative to the Greek Massacres of last year as may show the progress, if any, of the judicial proceedings which were then instituted, and the present position of Mr. F. Noel with regard to that inquiry? He had no wish, he said, to raise debate upon that horrible occurrence, knowing that other noble Lords equally interested in the matter were far more competent to do so; but he was anxious that such further information might be given as would enable the House to discuss the question fully at some future time. It would not be fair

  263
  to the English Government, to that body which was inaccurately called the Greek Government, or to the other persons concerned, to enter into a discussion on the partial information at present published. His judgment might possibly, of course, be modified by the additional Papers; but as far as the Blue Book of last year went, he could see nothing to cast suspicion on Mr. Noel. It was incredible, indeed, that a gentleman to whom some at least of the relatives of the victims felt a debt of gratitude, should have had any complicity in so horrible a crime.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government had no objection to produce the Papers, and believed they would be laid on the Table before the end of the week.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was glad to hear the noble Earl's answer, and thanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) for the manner in which he had brought the matter forward. It was clearly desirable to postpone a discussion until the House had the whole case before it. He was sure the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would do everything in his power to obtain a satisfactory solution of the matter; but he felt bound to express his great dissatisfaction with the judicial proceedings at Athens as far as they had yet proceeded. Those proceedings tended rather to confuse than to explain the matter, and, while exculpating every Greek functionary who might be supposed to have been a party to the massacre, to throw the whole blame on an Englishman—he being the Englishman who above all those on the spot concerned in the affair seemed to him to have shown special energy, courage, and good sense.

IRELAND—THE WESTMEATH, &c. (UNLAWFUL COMBINATION) COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to postpone any especial action, legislative or executive, with regard to outrages in Ireland until after the Committee of the House of Commons, which has been appointed to inquire into the state of parts of that country and to conspiracies said to exist therein, shall have reported the result of their inquiries; whether that Committee will examine witnesses, and whether the
  264
  Committee is expected to make a Report before Easter? The noble Marquess said, he thought that, after the congratulatory remarks in Her Majesty's Speech on the state of Ireland, and the slight importance attached therein to exceptions to its general condition, general surprise had been excited by the proposal of a Committee by the Government. As far back as the 24th of last month the Government intimated their intention to ask the other House to sanction the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland said at the time would be a Secret Committee. On the 27th of the same month the Committee was appointed, and it was then announced by the Prime Minister that the Committee would not have the character of secrecy. Since that day no action had been taken by the Government in the matter, and the inquiry, he was informed, had only just begun. In the interval two deplorable murders had been committed—one in Mayo and the other in Leinster. These outrages, therefore, were not confined to Westmeath. The Government had abandoned the original proposal that the Committee should be a secret one, and that it should consider the remedy to be applied; intimating that their minds were already made up, and their object was simply to obtain in a constitutional manner the co-operation of Parliament in the measures to be taken. These were circumstances which induced all who were interested in the welfare and safety of Ireland anxiously to inquire whether the Government intended to wait until the Committee terminated their labours before taking any prompt action with a view to the repression of the appalling outrages perpetrated in that country. Nobody in this House, and but very few in the other House, or in the country, had expressed any doubt as to the condition of parts of Ireland, and no attempt had been made to thwart the action of the Government. He was surprised, therefore, that nothing had yet been done; and if nothing was to be done before Easter, he would ask whether it was desirable that anything at all should be done?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am not aware that I have anything to add to what was stated by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack the other day when this question was discussed on a Question of the noble and

  265
  learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), except to answer the noble Marquess's Question whether the Committee will examine witnesses, and how soon they are expected to report. I am told that they are already hearing evidence, that it is not expected they will examine many witnesses, that they will consume as little time as possible in the inquiry, and that they will report at an early date.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.