Sitting of 28 March 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Business of the House [No. 137].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Marine Mutiny*.
First Reading—Prison Ministers* [90].
Second Reading—Salmon Fisheries [75]; Mutiny*.
Committee—Trades Unions [94]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Citation Amendment (Scotland)* [1·89]; County Justices Qualification Amendment [77]; (£5,411,900) Consolidated Fund*.

POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST TO INDIA AND THE COLONIES.—QUESTION.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the advantages of the Parcel Post to India and the Colonies?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that no desire had been expressed for the transmission of parcels through the post to the Colonies, or to any of our possessions abroad, except India. As regarded India, the Post Office was precluded by its contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company from sending by post any article which was not now transmissible, without making a payment commensurate to the increased burden which would be thus imposed. The present expenditure on account of the postal service with India largely exceeded the revenue derived from it, and under these circumstances it was not the intention of the Government to extend the advantages of the parcel post to India.

COMMISSION ON COAL SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked the honourable Member for Glamorganshire, What is the reason of the delay of the Royal Commission on Coal Supply, appointed nearly five years ago, in reporting on the subjects referred to it?
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, in reply, that the delay had arisen from the great magnitude of the subject, for an investigation into the quantity of coal contained in the available coal fields of England, Scotland, and Ireland, was no slight task. Some delay occurred

  767
  at the commencement of the labours of the Commission, and other causes of delay had subsequently intervened. One important Member of the Commission had died; three other important Members, to whom laborious duties were entrusted, had been seriously ill, and the noble Chairman had been elevated to a high office, which considerably interfered with his labours as a Commissioner. The subject with which the Commission had to deal had been divided into various heads, and so parcelled out among the different Commissioners. On the first head, which dealt with the probable depth at which coal could be worked, the inquiry had been exhausted, and the Report prepared; and the same result had attended the inquiry into the second head, which related to combustion. Another head, which dealt with the probability of coal being found under more recent strata, had been referred to Sir Roderick Murchison and Professor Ramsay, who thought they would be able to report in about six weeks. Another portion of the inquiry related to the statistics of the consumption of coal, which was rendered necessary by the theories started as to the progressive rate of the consumption of coal. On that subject 120 pages of printed matter had been prepared, about the same quantity was in the printer's hands, and enough work still remained to occupy Mr. Hunt for about a month. The task of computing the quantity of coal contained in the various coal fields had been completed except in two cases; and on those two, the complete Report would be in the hands of the Commission in a week or ten days. Practically speaking the bulk of the labours of the Commission were at an end, and their Report might be expected in about three months from the present time, as it, in fact, only awaited the completion of Reports of the geological and statistical sections.

ARMY—REPORT OF THE WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for War, To lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee appointed by the War Office in July last, over which Dr. Craufurd presided? He had intended to ask also for the production of the Minute of Sir R. Power to
768
Sir H. Storks, and Sir H. Storks' Minute on the same; but he had been informed that those Minutes were private, and therefore not producible.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the subject-matter before the Committee had not yet been disposed of; but when it had been disposed of, the Report should be laid on the Table if the hon. Gentleman would move for it.

VOLUNTEER DRILL IN HYDE PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any objection to allow the Volunteers to drill in the northern division of Hyde Park when the same is not required for official parades or inspections?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, there was every desire on the part of the authorities to afford facilities to the Volunteers to drill themselves in Hyde Park; but that it had been considered quite inconsistent with the enjoyment of the Park by the public that in the afternoon, when they chiefly resorted to it, it should be given up for the purposes of drill. To meet the convenience of the Volunteers, the space railed in in front of Knightsbridge Barracks had been permitted to be used to a very considerable extent, and it was found quite sufficient for the purpose.

CASE OF THE "EPAMINONDAS."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the committal to prison for three months by the magistrates of South Shields, on Wednesday last, of ten seamen for refusing to proceed to Genoa in the "Epaminondas," alleged by them to be unseaworthy, and admitted by the second mate to be making two and a-half inches of water per hour; whether it is true, as alleged, that the "Epaminondas" had grounded twice before sailing, after being loaded, requiring on the first occasion the assistance of three steam tugs to get her off; whether it is true, as alleged, that the magistrates refused the application made on behalf of the men that the hearing should be postponed a day to enable them to obtain legal assistance; and, whether, if the facts are as

  769
  stated in the Shields Paper, it is his intention to direct a re-hearing of the case?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the ship, which was one of 1,072 tons, and carried 22 hands, left South Shields on the 28th February. She encountered rough winds and heavy seas and reached Yarmouth Roads on the 6th March, when nine of the men told the master they would not go on any further unless he landed at the nearest port, and had the ship overhauled. The master refused to do that, as the pumping had been light, and the ship perfectly seaworthy; but, eventually, he had to return to South Shields, where the ship was examined by a master surveyor and another person, who reported it seaworthy. The men were summoned, and applied for a postponement of the case for two days, in order to secure the services of an attorney named Monckton for their defence; but as the master was anxious to go to sea by the next tide, the magistrates would only consent to postpone the case for three or four hours, as there was an attorney in Court who would undertake the defence of the men. Mr. Monckton's clerk, however, declined to accept the arrangement, and the case went on. The evidence of the master and mate showed that the ship was seaworthy, and that she had not made an undue amount of water, and the pilot gave similar testimony. The surveyor, who had examined the vessel after her return to South Shields, also stated that she was seaworthy, and that a nicer, more wholesome, and more seaworthy vessel he had never seen anywhere. It was also shown that the ship had just been repaired at an expense of £500, and one of the witnesses called for the defence—the ship's carpenter—swore that the vessel was quite seaworthy, and that the defendants had no reasonable excuse for their conduct in refusing to proceed in her. As to the ship striking the bar on her way out, the circumstance was not called to the attention of the magistrates, and the men had not insisted on it as having any important bearing on the case. He (Mr. Bruce) had no power to direct the re-hearing of a case which had been decided; all he could do was, where the facts did not warrant the punishment inflicted, to reduce the amount of the punishment; but that was very rarely done, and only
  770
  then in the clearest cases, and usually with the consent of the magistrates who adjudicated. In this case, the magistrates considered the punishment was required by the frequency of the offence, and, under the circumstances, he did not feel justified in overruling their decision.

ARMY—OFFICERS IN THE RESERVE FORCES.—QUESTION.
MR. O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to fix any, and, if any, what limit as to the age beyond which it would not be expedient to retain the services of any Officer as an efficient in the Reserve Forces, regard being had to the respective ranks?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, no conclusion has been arrived at as to the precise ages; but it is under consideration to fix 60 for field-officers and adjutants, and for captains 55, unless specially recommended for continuance by the general officer of the district.

MILITARY ATTACHE AT PARIS—RESIGNATION OF GENERAL CLAREMONT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether General Claremont has within the last few days resigned his appointment as Military Attaché to the British Embassy in Paris; and under what circumstances at such a time his resignation has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: A despatch under date the 16th instant was received at the Foreign Office from Lord Lyons, in which General Claremont tendered the resignation of his appointment as military attaché at Paris. That resignation has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and Lord Lyons has been instructed to inform that officer that his services during the many years he has held his appointment have been, fully recognized and appreciated by successive Secretaries of State. General Claremont was at the same time informed that he will be free to leave Paris as soon as his successor shall have arrived to relieve him from his duties.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked under what circumstances the resignation was made?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I am afraid that I am unable to communicate the circumstances. The resignation was communicated through the official channel—Lord Lyons—and the Government accepted it.

PROSPECTIVE STRENGTH OF THE ARMY.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON moved an Address for a Return of the Normal Peace Establishment, exclusive of Colonial Corps and Native Indian Troops, contemplated by the Government scheme when after twelve years the Reserves will be full. It was highly important that the House should know what the military strength of the country was expected to be after the transition period contemplated by the Secretary of State for War in his proposals. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, if unable to grant the Return in the form he submitted, would impart the requisite information in some other way.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was quite impossible for him to give the hon. Gentleman the Returns for which he asked, because it was obvious that he could not say what it might be the wish of the Crown to ask, or the pleasure of Parliament to vote in the way of a military establishment 12 years hence. He should, however, be willing to give the hon. Member all the information he possessed with regard to the creation of Reserves.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GIBRALTAR—ARMAMENT.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. A. GUESTrose to draw the attention of the House to matters connected with the armament of Gibraltar; and to move an Address for a Return. He did not mean to enter upon the question how Gibraltar should be armed, or the nature of the batteries to be employed. His object was to draw attention to the wasteful manner in which the public money had been expended in constructing the batteries and the delay in the works, and to show that a bad policy had been pursued in mounting the heavy guns, of which there were but few at present in position in a temporary instead of
  772
  a permanent method. He believed the matters of which he complained resulted from the system of centralization adopted at the War Office. Whilst on this subject, he would ask why all matters in connection with the works at Gibraltar were conducted by the Defence Committee, who could not be acquainted with the local requirements, and not by the Governor and the Officers Commanding Royal Artillery and Engineers who would, of course, be responsible to the War Office for their operations? It was generally admitted that Gibraltar was in a thorough state of defence so far as a land attack was concerned. There were about 600 of the old smoothbore guns, and 50 of the 7-inch breech-loading Armstrongs in position, and these would be sufficient in the event of an attack by land. But it was impossible to argue that Gibraltar could repel an attack from the sea. The rapid improvement of artillery rendered it necessary that they should consider the subject of re-arming that fortress. We might congratulate ourselves in possessing in the 12-ton Woolwich gun an arm second to none, if not superior to any; and it was evident from the Estimates of 1868–9, that the Secretary of State for War intended at the time to use guns of that class in fortifying Gibraltar. About £15,000 was voted that year for the purpose of making the necessary alterations in the works to provide for them; and it was also decided that 16 of those guns should be sent to Gibraltar, and they were sent out that year. In the Estimates for 1869–70 a sum of £15,000 was included as the probable cost of revising our magazines at Gibraltar. Nearly £30,000 had been spent upon the works, and £3,000 upon the magazines; and he believed an additional Vote of £15,000 for the purpose would shortly be asked for by the Secretary of State. He would explain to the House the results of this large expenditure. Of the 16 12-ton Woolwich guns he had mentioned, only three had been put in position, and of that number two had, in November last, been placed behind shields which the Committee of 1868 had condemned as utterly incapable of withstanding the continuous fire of heavy modern guns—a fact which was well known when the shields were erected. But, although these two guns were in position, the magazines for them were

  773
  not completed; and he trusted the Secretary of State would be able to explain why the course he had described had been pursued. The third gun, instead of being mounted on permanent works, had from some inexplicable reason, been placed upon a temporary platform, composed of wooden balks to carry the racers, the whole set in a bed of ordinary concrete. This had not been done as an experiment, for he was informed that eight other guns were to be mounted in the same way. It was evident that the guns could not remain long in that condition, and therefore the money expended on the process had been entirely thrown away. One of these guns had been tried, and after firing 10 rounds it was found impossible to traverse it, as the truck was broken and one of the racers had been forced out of its position. This might be all very well in the time of peace, but if such an accident occurred during an engagement with iron-clads, every habitation in the place might be destroyed, even if the fortress remained untaken. In turning to the subject of the works, he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that he brought this matter forward in no hostile spirit towards the Government. The new Mole batteries were allowed to be of the first importance and of the best construction. It was true that the battery, originally constructed for these guns, had not yet received its armament, and while the question of iron shields was still unsettled, it was undesirable that the Government should come to any hasty decision; but he should be glad to hear from the Secretary of State what kind of shield would probably be adopted, and when they would be sent out to Gibraltar. His complaint with regard to the manner in which the public money had been wasted in the construction of the works arose from the fact that the majority of the new batteries at Gibraltar had been suddenly abandoned, either because of the unsuitability of the positions selected for them, or because of the unsuitability of the carriages sent out. The works had been constructed for one class of carriage, and another of quite a different description had arrived with the guns. He thought this was evidence of gross negligence. And it must be remembered that when works were abandoned in
  774
  an incomplete state, they were much damaged by the weather. He had himself seen several batteries in the condition he had described. He had reason to believe that the magazine accommodation at Gibraltar was not only the laughing-stock of military men, but also of civilians. There was hardly a single magazine which could not be knocked to pieces during the first hours of a bombardment, and, to make the matter worse, in some instances batteries had been built so close to magazines that the fire of an enemy must fall upon them. He knew that many officers thought that it would be advisable to have 35-ton guns in revolving towers, and also that there should be rams kept there; but these were matters into which he would not enter. It might be said that Gibraltar was not now so important a place as it formerly was; but at all events it could very easily be made most important; and he might mention that no less a sum than £10,000 was annually received from ships entering the harbour. He hoped that the Secretary for War would assure them that the question should have his serious attention. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Guns mounted on the Fortress of Gibraltar."
  SIR JOHN HAYseconded the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: Before I propose the Question, I wish to notice a practice which has lately prevailed of merely putting on the Paper a Notice to the effect that an hon. Member will draw the attention of the House to a certain subject and move a Resolution. On today's Paper, for example, there are two Notices in this form. Now, this is not enough to fulfil the obligations of Notice. The object of Notice is that Members should know beforehand what is to be the subject of consideration on a particular day, and, in order to fulfil the Rules of the House, it is necessary that the terms of a Resolution should be placed on the Paper at least a day before it is intended to be submitted to the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this

  775
  House, a Return of the number of Guns mounted on the Fortress of Gibraltar."—(Mr. Arthur Guest.)
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he should be happy to give the Return moved for; and he quite agreed that the works that the hon. Member had visited during the Recess—and he hoped he had spent an agreeable holiday—deserved the fullest attention on the part of the Government. He was glad to find that the land defences were all that the hon. Member could desire; and that all the fault which he had to find was as to putting the heavy guns in the sea defences. He inferred from his remarks that he had been shown over the works by some gentlemen who thought they could have done the work better than it had been done; but he must dissent from him as to the way in which the public money should have been spent. He contended that when public money had to be spent they should put the matter into the hands of responsible persons at home rather than trust it to officers abroad, over whom they could not have such an immediate control. What had happened was this. In 1866, when the German War attracted attention to these works, the Secretary of the Defence Committee, Colonel Jervois, whose great ability in connection with works of defence had been recognized by some of the very first authorities in Europe, was sent to Gibraltar. He spent some days there in December, 1866. On his return his Report was considered by the Defence Committee; and they held a special meeting at Woolwich, where there was one of the most perfect models of Gibraltar that existed of any fort in the world. That meeting was attended by General Lefroy, who had professionally visited Gibraltar a short time before, and General Frome, who had commanded the Royal Engineers there. The works were devised by the Defence Committee upon the Report which had been so made to them, assisted by the counsel of those two very distinguished officers, with a most excellent model of Gibraltar before them. Now it appeared to him, with great deference to the hon. Gentleman, that that was a far wiser mode of proceeding than to trust entirely to the Reports even of the most competent commanding officers on the spot. It was determined, on the recommendation of the Defence Committee,
  776
  that 12-ton 9-inch guns should be used in certain positions at Gibraltar. Shortly after that time, however, thicker plating was used for ships, and it became important to have still stronger guns. Consequently, 10-inch guns were substituted by the Government for the 9-inch or 12-ton guns. About the same time, also, it happened that the interesting discovery of the Moncrieff gun-carriage was made, and it was not certain how far that system could be applied to Gibraltar, nor how far the system of shields could be applied. Now, it would have been most unreasonable, in their opinion, to hurry on without availing themselves of such inventions as these; and the consequence was, that when these 12-ton guns came to be utilized it was determined to place them in a different position from that for which they had been originally intended. He would not attempt to enter scientifically into the matter; but he understood that in the former position they would have been used upon an "A" platform, but on being put in the new position they had a "C" platform. These platforms were about to be sent out, and the only reason why they had not gone before was that the traversing gear was not yet ready. The hon. Gentleman had been informed by somebody that the Government had finished the works to the extent of two-thirds of the whole work, and had then abandoned them; but he (Mr. Cardwell) had very different information. The hon. Gentleman also said that the casemates had been cut out of the rock where it had not originally been intended to have casemates.
  MR. A. GUEST: What I said was, that in certain places batteries had been abandoned, because it was intended by the Government to place the guns in rock casemates.
  MR. CARDWELL: An experiment having been tried by firing from a Queen's ship on to the rock, it was found that the splintering from the rock just above the guns would be dangerous to the gunners, and therefore it was determined to make casemates. With regard to the shields, they were about being put up. Means had been taken to strengthen them, and this accounted for the delay. As to the magazines, it was quite true that it came to his knowledge in preparing the Estimates last year what the state of the case was. Provision was made in those

  777
  Estimates to remedy the mischief, and still further provision, with the same object, was made in the Estimates of the present year.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was sorry that he could not regard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as quite satisfactory. If he understood the hon. Member correctly, he complained that the Government during the time that it had been in office had done nothing; and it seemed to him that the answer amounted to a plea of guilty. They were much indebted to the hon. Member for Poole for having devoted his attention during his accidental residence at Gibraltar to investigating the state of our defences in that most important fortress. No one could deny that it would be the duty of any Government to take care that all the modern appliances of war and of science should be applied to the proper defence of so important a fortress. The first complaint made was that the guns had been sent out, but had not been mounted. The late Government, if he remembered right, sent out 16 heavy guns to Gibraltar, and it remained for the present Government to send out the proper carriages, but, as he understood, they had done no such thing, and they were as much without carriages as when the late Government left office. Out of the 16 guns he understood that they had mounted three only, and one of these was so mounted that if anybody ventured to fire it it would tumble over upon the rash man who made the experiment.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was informed that the late Government sent out the guns and the carriages both; and they would not send the guns without carriages.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was informed that it was not so; and, besides, he could not reconcile what was now said with what had been said as to the Moncrieff gun-carriages.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, what he had said was this: that having gun carriages suitable for the position where it had been intended to place the guns, it had been determined to place in that position larger guns, and the old guns had to be mounted in a different position upon a different kind of carriage; that this carriage was nearly ready, but the traversing gear not having been finally decided on they had not yet been sent.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: That amounted very nearly to what he had said. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was hesitating between the ordinary carriage and the Moncrieff carriage, and that that was the cause of the delay. He understood that the shields remained very much what they were. The shields that were sent out were condemned, and the decision arrived at was that they should send out sounder and better shields. But that decision was departed from, and the condemned shields had, by some contrivance, been fitted up so that, though considered too weak, they might be made to answer the purpose. It was much to be regretted that the place of those shields was not supplied by stronger and better ones. The real question was whether it was the duty of the Government to look to the fortifications of Gibraltar without loss of time, and he should have been glad of a distinct assurance that the fortifications of so important a fortress would not be neglected, and that every possible means would be taken to send the best guns there.
  SIR HENRY STORKScould assure the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich that the Government were duly impressed with the importance of immediately completing the works and fortifications at Gibraltar. The delay that had taken place had arisen from the fact that iron-plated ships and artillery in their mode of construction did not stand still, and in this way it became a question whether they should not have heavier guns in the fortifications than those which had been originally intended. He would state the case as to the guns that were sent by the late Government. There were 16 9-inch muzzle-loading rifled guns, 13 of which had platforms of the Elswick pattern, and 3 of the service pattern, and these were sent out in 1867–8. None of these guns were mounted for some time after their arrival, because their positions could not be prepared until it had been decided whether the Moncrieff system could not be advantageously used. The second reason was that when the Defence Committee re-considered the defence of Gibraltar they placed 10-inch 18-ton guns where the 9-inch guns where to have been; and the third reason was that different platforms from those originally intended were determined on. The ar-

  779
  rangements now made were that the 12 9-inch guns upon Elswick platforms should be mounted at once, some temporarily and some permanently, and three of these were actually in position by the 1st of March, 1871; 13 other guns would be permanently mounted during 1871–2. There were four more guns and seven carriages under orders for Gibraltar, which would be sent as soon as the traversing-gear was decided on. Eleven 10-inch 18-ton guns were also under orders, and would be sent when the traversing arrangements were settled. By the end of March, 1872, 11 10-inch 18-ton guns, and 20 9-inch guns, would probably be in position. As regarded the shields, they would be strengthened so as to be capable of resisting the heaviest artillery, and other shields were intended to be ordered. There would also be mantlets for the defence of the men from splinters. With reference to what had been said about the plans and designs, he had to state that they were prepared on the spot by an officer of the Royal Engineers, in consultation with the officers of the Artillery; and when they came home they were sent to the Defence Committee for consideration and report, and finally submitted to the Secretary of State. The Director of Works was most anxious to have the co-operation of officers on the spot where works were to be carried out, and he believed they had been consulted whenever it was necessary to seek their assistance. With regard to the general question, he could only repeat that the Department over which he presided was most anxious about the arming of Gibraltar; and he therefore trusted that the House would rest satisfied that everything would be done to supply the means of defence to so important a place.
  SIR JOHN HAYwished to say a few words on the Gibraltar and Malta shields. Unless Gibraltar was kept for experimental purposes, he did not see that the purpose for which it had been kept for the last few years could be very satisfactory. It was known that rifled artillery was necessary, and rifled guns were accordingly sent out, for which carriages were adapted. The intention then was that the carriages which were to be sent out were to be adapted for these batteries, and the guns were to be
  780
  mounted forthwith, and the fortifications were to be put in a satisfactory state. Now, he had the satisfaction of hearing that heavier guns were to be mounted, but he did not understand from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman whether they were made or not. [Sir HENRY STORKS said they were all made, and would be sent out in the course of this year.] He was very glad to hear they were made; but it would take till this time next year before they could be mounted, and till that time Gibraltar would be in an unfortified condition. Gibraltar, Malta, and Bermuda were great fortified stations, on which the supplies of our fleet and the honour of the country depended. It would be remembered that Gibraltar was taken by surprise once before, and it was necessary to take care that it should not be taken by surprise again. At the present moment Gibraltar was not in a defensible condition. With regard to the shields themselves, the question had been asked if the test to which the shields had been put was not too severe? He had been Chairman of the Gibraltar Shield Committee, and the experiments had been decided upon in union with the other gentlemen on the Committee, and it was considered that they were a fair and proper test to which the shields should be put. At this interval of time he could not speak with precision, but if he remembered aright the 9-inch gun shield was entirely penetrated. Therefore he thought the Committee was right in reporting that the shields were not so strong as they should be. He did not think the Report was an unfair one, or that it was drawn with any prejudice to the character of the shields which were submitted to the Committee's notice. He could not think it was a wise arrangement that the guns, even for this year, should be left lying unmounted; and he urged that they should be placed in some position where they could be used for the defence of the fortress. He remembered having had, in former days, some service with a nation which made all its promotions by selection and by competitive examination—he meant the Chinese. He there found that they had platforms which would not carry the proper guns, and he trusted the Government of this country would not follow the same example, otherwise our warlike operations would terminate like that operation of the Chinese.
  MR. A. GUESTsaid, with regard to the battery which had been abandoned, they had been informed that it was abandoned because splinters of the rock would render the position dangerous. But he could only say that that very battery had been commenced in July of last year, and was abandoned in December. It had been begun in a great hurry. Certainly, if the Government had decided to place guns in rock casemates they might have waited a short time before they commenced these works, and thereby have avoided the throwing away of public money. He hoped the House would permit him to withdraw his Motion. He was perfectly satisfied with the short discussion which had taken place on the subject, and he hoped that the effect of it would be to get Gibraltar put in a proper state of defence.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MUNITIONS OF WAR—RESOLUTION.
MR. J. LOWTHERrose to call the attention of the House to the serious international complications which have arisen from the existing state of our municipal law relating to the export of arms and munitions of war to belligerent States; and to move a Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said it would be unnecessary to occupy the time of the House with any reiteration of complaints which had been addressed to the British Government by foreign nations, which were, unhappily, too fresh in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen. He had never, individually, had the slightest doubt that our municipal law was in harmony with International Law, and, under certain qualifications and exemptions, was practically identical with the municipal law of almost every European nation. He thought it was also practically the same as the American law. The subject was also, in his opinion, one which was purely for our own consideration as a matter of municipal law, and one in which we were in no wise bound to act, unless we chose to act along with other Powers. But he might be asked why, while entertaining these views, he had complicated this question by introducing into his Motion any reference to communications with foreign Powers; and in reply to that hypothetical objection he reminded the House that any arrangement
782
which might be arrived at by the British Parliament without previous communication with foreign Powers would be only too likely to lead to a renewal of the difficulties with which this subject had been always beset, and that we should be as far from a final and satisfactory settlement of the question as we were at the present moment; with the addition that our responsibilities and complications would be largely increased. This course of communicating with foreign Governments had not by any means originated with him. Lord Granville, in reply to representations which had been made to the English Government by the German Confederation, stated that it would be a difficult thing for any decision to be arrived at by the Government with a view to recommending any alteration of our municipal law, unless some common understanding between other Powers could be obtained. He went on to say, in a despatch dated the 15th of September, that—
"Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to enter into consultation with other nations as to the possibility of adopting in common a stricter rule."
The course, therefore, which he ventured to suggest to the House was one which had already received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. There was another reason why he thought the House would be of opinion that a common agreement between the various Powers should be a preliminary to any legislation on the subject. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members who had read the Blue Book to which he referred that Count Bernstorff drew a contrast between our action in the late war and that between Denmark and the German Bund in 1864. He stated that the reason why the exportation of cannon to Hamburg was on the latter occasion prohibited by the British Government was because, by a Treaty dated so far back as 1670, the King of Denmark and the Sovereign of Great Britain had mutually engaged to prohibit the exportation of soldiers, arms, engines, and ships in time of war. Now, we had within the last few months heard of a doctrine which had been hitherto unknown to the students of International Law—the doctrine of "benevolent" neutrality. A doctrine more untenable or absurd he ventured to say had never emanated from any statesman, or found its way

783
into any State Paper. He should not, therefore, be justified in trespassing on the time of the House by endeavouring to combat it. But he would ask the Government how they could reconcile the Treaty to which he alluded with a complete and impartial neutrality in the event of any war breaking out in which Denmark happened to be engaged. A state of things so anomalous demanded, in his opinion, their serious consideration. It would, he thought, be very generally admitted that our law on the subject was by no means satisfactory. As matters now stood we might find ourselves engaged, whenever a war occurred in any quarter of the globe, in controversies and complications not, perhaps, without danger, so that the question was one which required to be settled in one direction or another. The law of England dealt in no way with the export of arms or munitions of war. The Foreign Enlistment Act, even as amended last year, provided penalties for such acts as sending out men or ships to any of the belligerents, or whatever might be wanted to complete the complement of a vessel. Now, how was it that under those circumstances we could avoid seeming to occupy in 99 cases out of 100 a one-sided and partial position between two contending nations? It almost always happened that one of the belligerents had a preponderating force at sea. What, therefore, must be the feelings of that belligerent who found himself debarred from our markets for the purchase of commodities to which the other had free access? He might be told that he was referring to unfounded allegations which had emanated from belligerents while in the heat of strife, when the feelings gained the better of the judgment, and when they were in a feeling somewhat like that of a man suffering from gout, and that when they became restored to a state of calm and reviewed the position they would give us credit for our good intentions. He must, however, remind the House that in the case of the Russian War, when we ourselves were belligerents, we took advantage of some provisional order in force in Prussia, and that the Government of England, composed in a great degree of the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman now at its head, had occasion to address a remonstrance to the Prussian Government; and though this remonstrance failed, the
784
cause which led to it nevertheless produced very considerable ill-feeling in this country, and also in France, against the policy which was then pursued by the Prussian Government. It was not, however, denied that Prussia, on that occasion, exercised an undoubted right. Regarding the state of our own law, Count Bernstorff, in a despatch dated 1st of September, said that the British nation would be held morally responsible for the blood which had been shed through the agency of certain individuals referred to in the despatch, as the war would, but for them, have ended sooner, and fewer German soldiers would have been killed if the Government had not permitted such abuses of the International Law. He did not mean to defend this language of Count Bernstorff, as he thought we were acting within the limits of our International Law; but he would ask the House to consider whether, as a matter of wise domestic policy, and with the view of maintaining friendly relations with foreign Powers, it would not be desirable that the existing state of things should be brought to an end. The legislation hitherto had been partial and one-sided. It was usually urged, in opposition to the view he was advocating, that the law was the same for all parties, and that, of course, the market being open to the world, one belligerent had as good an opportunity of obtaining what he required as the other. He thought, however, that the amendment of the law, in the sense he proposed, was one that would hardly meet with any serious opposition, unless it were on two grounds; one was the difficulty of enforcing such a law. The House had been told last year by the Attorney General that they would find constant evasion of such a law. Now, of course, no moral distinction could be drawn between the sending out of ships, and arms, or cartridges, and common sense and a perusal of the Blue Book would, he thought, show that the most specific information was constantly forthcoming with reference to such a commerce as that which he was deprecating. He found that Count Bernstorff occupied the first days of September in writing constant despatches to Lord Granville on this subject. Lord Granville did not immediately inform Count Bernstorff that the Government were not prepared to interfere with the trade, and before

785
any announcement was made Count Bernstorff was constantly furnishing the Foreign Secretary with lists of the alleged exports. It could not be expected, indeed, that the Government could be called upon to prohibit the export of infinitestimal proprotions of arms; but it might be supposed that they would undertake to prevent wholesale exportation. It was a matter of notoriety, in every port of Europe that orders had been issued to certain manufacturers in certain portions of the globe. There was very little concealment in the matter. In the case of ships, however, they were almost invariably ordered for the Tycoon of Japan, or some other distant potentate, who had suddenly acquired a taste for naval expenditure. These ships generally bore some Eastern title, and were ordered by agents of the most peaceful Governments. He thought the Government might have put down any organized supply in the shape of arms. It was also objected to the proposition he now made that the law as it stood was essentially favourable to this country as a maritime nation. That was an objection which, if proved, would go a very long way to convince him. He confessed to having so much of selfish policy in his eye to be chary of interfering with anything that was beneficial to us as a nation; but, recollecting the trade in warlike materials carried on through Prussia during the Crimean War, he maintained that all the navies in the world could not prevent a trade in contraband between inland States. Therefore, if this country were engaged in a war with an inland State, the law now existing would not operate in its favour; for the inland State would get its supplies of armaments from its near neighbours without hindrance from the maritime power of England. It would hardly be maintained that a country possessing such preponderating manufacturing strength could be much affected by the import or export of arms. If an enemy were possessed of Woolwich and Enfield the case might be different; but that was an alternative he did not anticipate. The alteration in the municipal law last year was effected under considerable disadvantages. Any comprehensive treatment of the question was almost impossible. He had called in question the advisability of selecting that moment for legislation, be-
786
cause hostilities were just then beginning. The Government must have seen that if the question was ever to be fairly approached it must be in time of peace, when our legislation might be free from the charge of being hasty or one-sided. It was said that the export of arms was a legitimate branch of trade, and productive of employment to large classes of our countrymen, and that it added to the wealth of the country. Did the despatches of last year bear out these statements? Lord Granville came to the conclusion that the profit derived by this country from the export of arms was infinestimal in the extreme—that the supply had been almost entirely drawn from America, and that the amount of profit gained by the English people was next to nothing. He therefore asked the House whether there was any equivalent advantages to counterbalance the disadvantages of permitting such a trade to go on. Was the game worth the candle? The trade was one with which that House should have no sympathy. Count Bernstorff wrote that prohibitive measures would not diminish the lawful trade of the English people, but would merely compel some rapacious individuals who had profited to desist from their trade. The existing state of the law had been fraught with great peril to the peaceful relations of this country with foreign nations, and he thought it was the duty of the Government to communicate with foreign nations with a view to some united conclusion on the subject being adopted.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to arrive, in conjunction with Foreign Powers, at a settlement of the question of the export of arms and munitions of war from neutral to belligerent States."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
MR. JAMESsaid, he wished to state the grounds on which he hoped that neither the Government nor the House would assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend sought to induce the Government to enter into correspondence with Foreign States, with the view that the exportation of arms might be treated in a Conference as an international question. The speech of his hon. Friend was directed to the point that it was advisable that we should at once prohibit the export

787
of munitions of war. He would remind his hon. Friend that when this question was discussed in August last only 29 Members acquiesced in the view which his hon. Friend placed before them, and unless circumstances had arisen since that time to lead the House to alter the decision which it then arrived at, he presumed it would be admitted that there was no ground why they should reverse their former decision. With reference both to municipal law and the Law of Nations, he contended that the Motion of his hon. Friend was entirely without foundation. By general International Law there was entire free trade in all arms and munitions of war, and even vessels of war. It was in 1713, on complaint being made by the Swedish Minister, that the Judges decided, upon a reference to them for their opinion by the House of Lords, that all armed ships, ships of great power, and firearms, might be supplied from this country to any neutral State. That was not only the municipal law of this country, but the International Law; and so it remained in relation to every other country until 1793, when the French Government, being at war with us, were using the ports of America for fitting out privateering vessels against our commerce. We remonstrated with America, and an Act of Congress was passed in 1794, which was in 1818 confirmed, putting an end to the fitting out and arming vessels of war from the United States. There was gratitude among nations; and, therefore, in the Bill introduced by Lord Liverpool in 1819 a reciprocity clause with America was inserted to prevent vessels being armed and equipped in this country. The Liberal party, led by Sir James Mackintosh, protested against it as interfering with the free trade permitted by International Law; but the overwhelming power of the party then in office carried the Bill, with that clause, against these remonstrances. He concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking that the law was in an unsatisfactory state, because, unfortunately, we did then deviate from that perfect freedom of trade which existed by the Law of Nations, and which would have existed till this moment if that Act had not passed. His hon. Friend would now extend the difficulties that arose on the construction of the Act of 1819 by enacting a law which
788
could never be carried into effect in its letter and entirety—a law by which we were to prohibit the exportation of all arms and munitions of war. Would that be more beneficial to the people of this country, or more likely to lessen the probability of our coming into conflict with foreign nations? Our principle, as a commercial country, was to keep our ports and harbours open—to deal freely with all nations, to serve all parties alike—to offer every nation coming here to purchase anything they were willing to buy; but his hon. Friend proposed that we should refuse to sell to other nations what they were willing to buy. Would it be beneficial to this country that our sales should cease, and that we should be buyers only in the markets of the world? Such a system would drain this country of its wealth, and bring no accession to its power or influence. At the same time he did not think we should in this way be more likely to avoid the chance of coming into collision with foreign Powers. He thought the question ought to be looked at in a broader view. If the Government legislated in the spirit of his hon. Friend, did he not see that the Government would be compelled to assume responsibility if the law were infringed? If they adopted the principle advocated by his hon. Friend the export of every gun, and of every barrel of powder, would enable any country to say that it had cause of complaint. What answer would it be for us to say that we had done all we could to prevent such consequences? The answer would be—"You should have made your Custom House officers more vigilant." By adopting the legislation proposed they would be raising causes of complaint, and we should be debarred from saying that we were acting in accordance with municipal or International Law. If munitions of war were to be made no longer obtainable from this country, they would be procurable from other countries. So long as we were asked to do what no other nation had ever done in respect to this matter we were, in effect, being asked to drive out from this country the trade in the conveyance of arms and munitions of war for the benefit of the other markets of the world. No complaints against us on this head should be allowed to guide the legislation of this country unless they were well-founded and con-

789
sistent with justice. Now, no one could fairly argue that there was any foundation for the complaint made by Count Bernstorff in his letter to Lord Granville. On the 4th August this matter was fully discussed in that House; the Government, in order to avoid any complications arising from the ambiguity of the Act of 1819, having introduced the Foreign Enlistment Act of last year. In the discussion to which he was referring the Attorney General stated distinctly the opinions and policy of the Government upon this question, which in effect were that the freedom of trade should be maintained in respect to all the markets of the world. That policy was approved of by a considerable majority of the House. Now, although war had then been declared, the first blow had not been struck. Count Bernstorff who clearly had watched the debates in the House, remained for some time silent and dumb, and did not renew his complaint. The fortunes of war having, however, declared in favour of Prussia, the German Minister reiterated his complaint to Lord Granville, declaring that this country was bound to observe "a benevolent neutrality" during the existence of the war. Count Bernstorff admitted that neither International Law, nor the municipal law of this country, had not been broken; but he said that Prussia and Germany being our allies, they asked us, in effect, to cease to be just to France, to break our municipal laws as regarded that country, and to interdict any further dealings with her. If that request had been acceded to it would have been justly said that compliance was an act of hostility towards France, and that we had been coerced into acquiescence by a powerful State. The remonstrance which we addressed to Prussia at the time of the Crimean War was effectual as regarded the transit of arms from Belgium through Prussia, but ineffectual in relation to the trade of Prussia. His hon. Friend opposite said that we were bound under such circumstances to prevent the exportation of arms. Now, what did that mean? It meant simply that in case of war between two other nations every vessel that left our shores during hostilities should be searched. It would be no answer for us to make to any complaint from a belligerent that we had no Custom House force appointed for the
790
purpose of searching vessels, because the rejoinder would naturally be this—"You should have established such a force when you took such obligations upon yourselves." The hon. Gentleman's Motion would break down the simple laws of political economy, and cause great injury to this country if carried out, as well as create a state of things which would be a constant ground of complaint. It was the opinion of many that it was the passing of the Act of 1819, and the evasion of that Act, which involved this country in a contention with America in regard to the Alabama, the complaint being, not that international, but that municipal law had been evaded. He asked whether it was advisiable to extend such bonds, and pass a law which would of course be evaded 100 times more easily than the present law—for every evasion of that law would be a cause of complaint against the Government of this country? The opinion of Mr. Jefferson, of Mr. Canning in 1826, and of Mr. Huskisson in 1830, had all been expressed against the principle involved in this Motion, and he trusted that the House, anxious for the prosperity of our commerce and the maintenance of peace, would unanimously reject the Motion before it.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERwished to observe that to a great extent he agreed with the views so ably expressed by his hon. and learned Friend; but he confessed he did not participate in the feeling which his hon. and learned Friend seemed to have in respect to the value and importance to the artificers of this country of the trade in munitions of war. He rather took in that respect what seemed to him a somewhat higher view of the obligations which he believed to be incumbent upon traders as well as on the Government. When this country was neutral, it seemed to him that all its subjects should be neutral also; and, if so, they would not do those acts which, when they were done, were considered to justify the exercise of belligerent rights at sea against those who had committed such acts. On what principle was it, when British subjects exported articles of contraband of war to countries at war with each other when we were neutral, that we permitted those goods to be afterwards seized, and the persons engaged in carrying this trade on to be treated as having committed acts of hostility

791
against one of the belligerents? Manifestly, it was because those acts really partook of the nature of acts of hostility. He could not think, therefore, that it was sound commercial morality which drove a trade of this description and endeavoured to get profits out of it. Neither did he think it was a kind of trade which the Legislature of this country ought actively to protect. Indeed, he confessed he should not be ill-pleased if the law of this country went a step further than it did at present, and said it would not give the assistance of our Courts to the enforcement of contracts which involved British subjects to that extent in aiding foreign wars, and which made them liable at sea to the exercise of belligerent rights. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lowther) had justly said that this ought to be considered as a question of domestic interest and policy. The moment the hon. Member said that, he seemed to him to put an end to his own Motion, which declared that it was expedient to endeavour to arrive, in conjunction with foreign Powers, at a settlement of the question. If we told foreign Powers that our domestic interest was the regulating principle with us, we should not be very likely to arrive at a settlement in which they, equally with ourselves, would keep that principle in view. If that were the true principle, we ought to settle the matter for ourselves, without calling in the aid, on that ground, at all events, of foreign Governments. He confessed he should have no great confidence in any agreements of that kind. International Law was a matter depending on the general sentiment and established practice of civilized nations, as to the mutual obligation of States one to another. A convention was of the nature of a treaty; but when war took place between nations all treaties, as between the belligerent parties—though not as between them and neutrals—were dissolved. Looking at our own policy he agreed entirely with the hon. Member opposite that it ought to be our object to avoid increasing to a dangerous extent our responsibilities as neutrals. Well, that was the very reason why he opposed the hon. Gentleman's Motion. There was a growing tendency on the part of all belligerent Powers to quarrel with other nations for being sincerely neutral. There could be little doubt that the great grievance of the United States in regard to us
792
was our assumed want of sympathy with the North. From beginning to end all the differences between this country and the people of the United States had, to say the least, been exaggerated to a great extent by their disappointment at the existence of a considerable amount of sympathy among a portion of the people of this country with those who were unsuccessful in that contest. It was precisely the same in regard to the recent war on the Continent of Europe. Germany was angry because we did not see she was so clearly in the right, and it was said that our neutrality was not benevolent because we did not feel we ought to go out of our way to prevent France profiting by supplies from this country. France also had entertained some hope, though he thought upon insufficient grounds, that she would receive active assistance from us. In reality the exigencies of war were such that, while it was going on, every party at war naturally looked out for assistance from every quarter whence it was possible to obtain it, either by getting active aid for themselves, or by stopping that intercourse, which, according to International Law, might be legitimately carried on with their adversaries. It was obvious that no nation had ever yet persevered after peace had been restored in treating as a Breach of International Law the kind of traffic to which he had just referred; but the moment we began to enter into special legislation or stipulations on the subject there would at once arise complications and embarrassments. He would, therefore, strongly advise the Government to steer clear of these special laws, where the nature of the case was such that the want of them was not likely to involve us in controversies, which might lead to war. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken that prior to the Civil War in America no jurist, either British or American, nor any jurist of authority in any nation, had laid down a doctrine favourable to the proposition that any of the things prohibited by our Foreign Enlistment Act were contrary to the Law of Nations. While hoping that the Foreign Enlistment Act of last Session would prove to be a satisfactory measure, he confessed he had not received much encouragement from the first illustration which had occurred of its working. It appeared that during the passing of that Act there slipped into it something which

793
had not been recommended by the Neutrality Commissioners—namely, a provision concerning military telegraphy. The question arose as to what military telegraphy was, and a ship had been seized which was going to lay down a cable between Bordeaux and Dunkerque. The Court of Admiralty released the snip, not holding the case to be within the Act; but he supposed that if the telegraph wire which was being laid down had been of material assistance to the French in the course of the war, the Germans would have found in it a great cause of complaint. Our main object, then, in dealing with this question should be to stand within those limits where we should undertake nothing which we could not perform, and assume no obligations which at present everybody knew were not laid upon us. The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the present state of things as showing that transactions of this kind were known to the Custom House authorities, and could, therefore, be stopped without difficulty. But, as the law now stood, such transactions being lawful, there was no motive for concealing them. If they were prohibited, we must be prepared for a very different state of things, in which such transactions would take place under all the conditions of blockade running and smuggling; and was it to be imagined that when great profits were to be made by blockade running, or smuggling, or anything else that was not carried on in public, people would not engage in it? In fact, nothing would be more difficult than to prevent them. Why, we had found it most difficult in things so visible as ships. What was the difficulty? To get at the destination of the ships and their warlike purpose. But if there were difficulties in that case, how much greater would they be with regard to the general trade in arms and munitions of war? He apprehended it would be perfectly impossible to prevent people from engaging in an export trade of arms, and then it would be said that we had contracted obligations and had not fulfilled them. Had the hon. Gentleman considered that, to accomplish his object, we must stop the export of arms not only to the belligerent nations, but to every other part of the world; because, if we stopped the trade to France but not to the United States, the arms would go first to the United States and then to France? His hon. Friend
794
limited his Motion to two matters—arms and munitions of war. But everyone knew very well that if we once adopted that principle it would be said—There are other things by which you can assist nations, besides arms and munitions of war. There are loans of money, for instance. In time of war, the belligerent treated as contraband everything which was very valuable, for any warlike purpose, to its enemies. Coal, for example, and military clothing; in fact, there was nothing which, being exported for purposes of war, and being of material assistance to the belligerents, would not be treated as coming within the range of the same principle if once we adopted a new rule. His advice, therefore, was, that we should be content with the rather heavy responsibilities we had already assumed, and by no means enlarge them.
MR. KENNAWAYsaid, the object of the Motion of his hon. Friend was to arrive at some satisfactory settlement of the question, and the country was indebted to him for bringing it before the House. We were in this position. We had been arraigned by Germany before the whole civilized world as not being willing to forego the profits arising from this trade, and were told that we should be held responsible for the prolongation of the war, as well as for the loss of life which had taken place, and in his opinion we should have shown a culpable sense of indifference to the challenge if the public attention had not been called to the subject. His hon. Friend must have been encouraged in the course he had taken by some words of the Attorney General in introducing the Foreign Enlistment Bill, for he said that the Bill had been prepared rather for the sake of ourselves and our own dignity than to satisfy any demands which might be made upon us by foreign countries. He hoped that the same tone would be taken on the present occasion. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had asked what was the use of re-considering a subject when the House had given a vote on it in August last. But the fact was that France and Germany were then at war, and it was therefore impossible for us to open so vital a question, and to take action which would have laid us open to the charge of shaping our legislation in a direction hostile to one or other of the bellige-

795
rents. The question was in a very different position now, and was one of such magnitude that we ought fairly to look it in the face. It had been felt that such a traffic was not consistent with our dignity. Nor could it be denied that having so largely engaged in this traffic, our remonstrances would fall with less weight than they would otherwise have done. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had alluded to the case of the Alabama. But what was the lesson to be derived from that case? It was this—that, in spite of volumes of despatches proving our case in an unanswerable manner, we did not like to resist the outcry of an exasperated people; and it was not impossible that, after all, we might have to admit our liability. Notwithstanding the strong and almost unanswerable arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, he held that it was worthy of the highest statesmanship to see whether we could not arrive at a settlement of this question.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he had no sympathy with those who, for the selfish purposes of gain, ran the risk of embroiling us with foreign countries, and, therefore, in expressing his inability to agree with the Motion of the hon. Member for York as explained by him, he did so not in the interest of trade, but from the apprehension that in endeavouring to avoid one evil we might become involved in another and a more serious one. Nothing could be more generally recognized than the right of neutrals to trade with friendly neighbours. It had long, however, been the practice of neutrals to surrender so much of this right, in deference to belligerents, as appertained to what was called contraband of war, stipulating only that this should be accurately defined and fairly limited. Because it might be said that anything was available for warlike purposes—"for want of a nail the battle was lost." If the subjects of neutral States lost property, liberty, or even life in trying to evade blockading squadrons, or otherwise breaking the rules of war, they were very properly considered to have brought their misfortunes upon themselves; but it was not fair that belligerents should ask neutrals, in addition to giving up their acknowledged rights, to act as
796
police for them, and interfere to prevent their subjects doing that which they conceded to belligerents the right to prevent their doing. Neutrals would in this way be only laying a snare for themselves, and be running a risk of belligerents fastening a quarrel upon them for the non-fulfilment of duties which were not duties before they were voluntarily assumed. Then let the House see to what liability such a neutral Power as this country might be exposed in consequence not only of the impossibility, as the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had stated, of preventing the smuggling of munitions of war, but in consequence of such munitions with forged English trademarks, and even the British Government mark, being supplied from elsewhere to belligerents. The sale of the Alabama was not an offence against the Law of Nations, and we should have incurred no liability—supposing we had incurred any, which he did not admit—but we should have incurred no semblance of liability, had it not been for our own municipal law. There was nothing in International Law to prevent a neutral selling a ship of war to a belligerent. This was very different from fitting out an armed expedition from our shores, which would be a hostile operation in time of peace. The distinction was between what might be lawfully done in time of peace—the character of which was, to some extent, altered by a state of war—and what was essentially an offence against the Law of Nations. He thought it was very unwise to include telegraphic apparatus among forbidden articles. It had already caused us trouble. If nations quarrel, the injury that must almost inevitably be done to neutrals ought not to be enhanced by any artificial restrictions which could be avoided. And, looking at the question from a moral point of view, what difference was there between selling munitions of war to a nation actually belligerent or to one contemplating war? Simply this, that you furnished the nation preparing for aggression with the accumulated means of doing so, and left the nation upon whom the attack was made at the mercy of a richer or more unscrupulous enemy. As he had said before, he was not speaking in the interest of trade, upon which he was quite ready to impose the disabili-

797
ties suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond; but it appeared to him that however natural might be this desire on the part of a large number of people to put an end to what appeared to be taking advantage of the passions and adding to the sufferings of others, yet that, in the interest of the peace and independence of the country, we ought to be very careful before we placed upon ourselves burdens which might be too heavy for us to bear.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lowther) had referred to a despatch written by Lord Granville, in which he intimated the willingness of the English Government to consider the present question in conjunction with other Powers, but he had not read the concluding paragraph, in which the noble Earl stated that the expectations of the Government of any practical result "in the light indicated by the North German Government were not very sanguine." As the matter stood, the Government saw no reason to change the opinions on the subject which they had expressed last Session. For his own part he objected to the Motion, because it tended to increase the obligations of neutrals, and to make more burdensome to them that which was sufficiently burdensome to them already. Last year we went a considerable length in taking obligations on ourselves, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was perhaps right in contending that in one respect we had gone too far in that direction. We determined—not admitting there was any international obligation on us to do so, but for the sake of our own peace, security, and satisfaction—to undertake the duty of stopping every vessel which might be sent from any port in this country with the view to engage in the naval service of a foreign Power. That was going beyond the obligations imposed upon us by any international or municipal law. But they were now asked to incur a stronger obligation. Now, what had occurred to induce the House to accept a proposition which it resisted then? His hon. Friend rested his case on what he had described as the endless controversy and complications which had arisen owing to our having adhered during the late war to the rules of International Law. But although
798
he was prepared to admit that there had been some controversy between Lord Granville and Count Bernstorff, he entirely denied that there had been any complications. Lord Granville had been able, he thought he might say without fear of contradiction, to give a conclusive answer to Count Bernstorff, because he was in a position to refer to one of those landmarks in International Law which was so clear and distinct that no one could venture to dispute it. It was by resting on that landmark that Lord Granville had, in point of fact, put an end to the controversy, and that nothing like a complication had arisen. Suppose it had been otherwise, and that the prohibition proposed by his hon. Friend had been in force, there would have been in all probability not only controversy but complications also. His hon. Friend, he might add, admitted that we could stop only wholesale exportation of arms. But how was a distinction to be drawn between wholesale and retail exportation? How could we expect that an angry belligerent would accept an excuse founded on such distinction? Why, the result of the adoption of the course advocated by his hon. Friend, would be that we should have endless complications, and ever so many claims for damages, because we happened to have failed to prevent the exportation of arms from Liverpool or some other port. As to the distinction between ships and arms, it was one which had been taken a very long time ago. In 1793 we had made a complaint to the American Government on two grounds—in the first place, because they allowed French cruisers to be armed and equipped in their ports; and secondly, because they allowed arms and munitions of war to be exported to France. The answer of Mr. Jefferson was that, so far as the equipping of ships was concerned, our complaints were well-founded, and Washington prevented the exportation of armed vessels. That was before the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed. But as to the other ground of complaint, the reply was that it was impossible to comply with our wishes, for to request the American Government, as Mr. Jefferson put it, to establish a system of espionage over the shops of their gunmakers would be most unreasonable. In that reasoning we had acquiesced, and from that day to the present, the prevention of the

799
exportation of munitions of war by a neutral had never been insisted upon. It was true we had made a complaint to Prussia some years ago; but the complaint was that she had not enforced a municipal law of her own which prohibited the carrying of munitions of war through Belgium—a very different case from that for which his hon. Friend was contending. Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, because we had gone quite far enough in imposing liability on neutrals.
MR. BIRLEYobserved, that whatever might be the result of the Motion, it was quite clear that the law could not long remain in its present condition. International Law was pretty clear. It meant that the subjects of a State were not to levy war as adventurers or freebooters against one of two belligerents. But that view had of late years been widened, and by including ships of war under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and by the Act passed last Session, which so carefully went into the question of prohibition of exports either of ships of war or ships that might be used for warlike purposes, we showed a disposition to avoid the dangers and difficulties which arose in the case of the Alabama. It had been said that we might find ourselves involved in greater complications than ever, because of the difficulty of preventing the export of munitions of war. But was it not possible, either by means of a conference with foreign States, or by the framing of our own Act of Parliament, to provide that the Government should not be bound to watch every gunsmith's shop, or to be held responsible for every exportation? Would it not be sufficient to provide that information should be given to the Government by the Consuls or representatives of foreign States; and could we not impose certain restrictions without impeding trade? But whatever might be the decision of Parliament on this point, he was anxious that the law should be made so clear that manufacturers should be able to follow their business without being liable to imputations of unpatriotic or immoral conduct, and without being obliged to terminate contracts with foreign countries suddenly on the outbreak of war. He trusted the day was not far distant when this country, in conjunction with foreign nations would, in the interests of hu-
800
manity and in the fulfilment of their duty towards each other, remodel and improve the law on this subject in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for York.
MR. NORWOODobserved, that the wisdom of the action taken last year by himself and other hon. Members with the view of reducing the stringency of the Foreign Enlistment Bill had been shown by what had occurred in connection with a company which had a contract with France for the manufacture and supply of telegraph cables. Under a novel provision of that Act, the steamer International, belonging to that company, had been arrested; and although the Court of Admiralty had decided in favour of the innocency of the transaction of the company, its interests had been much injured by the detention of the vessel and legal costs incurred. There was much force in what had been said as to the difficulties of defining what was contraband of war. Arms and munitions formed only a small part of the supplies necessary to carry on war. The Prussians had received in their ports immense supplies of coal and woollen goods from Yorkshire for belligerent purposes, and within the last few months the trade between the manufacturing districts of this country and the near ports of Germany never had been so active. He had heard, with much pleasure, the authoritative statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), for he was of opinion that it would be extremely dangerous to increase the stringency of our municipal law, which was more secure than that of any other of the Great Powers. He was therefore unable to support the Motion of the hon. Member for York.
MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said he thought it was evident from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Taunton (Mr. James) and for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that the law was in a very unsatisfactory condition. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond suggested that contracts for the supply of munitions of war should not be recoverable in an English Court of Justice; but with all deference to so high an authority, he believed such an arrangement would, cause still further complications. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton boldly

801
suggested the idea of free trade in engines of destruction. That was a tangible proposition. His own objection applied to interference with one branch of trade when another was protected. He was unable to understand why the interests of the shipping trade were to be ignored while those of manufactures were carefully considered. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given excellent reasons for the repeal of the whole of our legislation on this subject. The Attorney General had attributed to him the advocacy of a retail trade in arms on the ground that it was impossible to wholly prevent exportation. But his argument was that whatever law was passed would be infringed to some extent, although he was of opinion that such legislation as he suggested would be evaded to no greater extent than other ordinary enactments. He did not propose to introduce stringent provisions into the Foreign Enlistment Act, but merely to carry out the intention expressed by the Foreign Secretary when he stated that the Government were willing to consider this question in conjunction with foreign Powers. He had not sought to prejudge the result of such negotiations. He would not trouble the House to go to a Division; but he must say that he had received no answer to the question he had raised. In his opinion, no arguments had been adduced on behalf of the Government to show why his Motion should not be adopted.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 75.]
(Mr. Dodds, Mr. Liddell, Colonel Amcotts, Earl Percy, Colonel Edwardes.)
SALMON FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 75.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DODDS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the subject of the salmon fisheries had been a subject of legislation from Magna Charta downwards, and in late years numerous Commissions had been appointed, and many Acts passed, yet the results were still unsatisfactory. In 1860 a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject of our salmon fisheries, and the recommendations of that Commission formed the subject
  802
  of legislation in 1861. The Act of that year, while repealing the old laws on the subject, nevertheless did not embody all the recommendations of the Commissioners, and although attended with a success that could hardly have been anticipated, it became speedily apparent that some further legislation was necessary. Accordingly, in 1865, another Salmon Fisheries Bill was introduced. It provided for the appointment of Boards of Conservancy of an improved constitution; for license duties on engines for the capture of salmon; and for the appointment of special Commissioners for English fisheries, with powers to inquire into, and adjudicate upon, fixed engines and other rights connected with the salmon fisheries. Neither did that measure, though it made a considerable step in the right direction, prove fully satisfactory; and in 1869 two new Bills were introduced: one by the Tyne Fishery Board at their own expense, and the other by the Government. The latter contained many useful provisions; but the Fishery Commissioners, having met to consider the subject, adopted a Resolution to the effect that a more comprehensive measure was required; and consequently the Bill was withdrawn, and a Select Committee, of which he (Mr. Dodds) had the honour to be chairman, was appointed to further investigate the subject. The Committee was re-appointed last year, and after collecting a mass of valuable evidence, presented a Report, the recommendations of which were embodied in the present Bill. In consequence of the pressure of other business, the Government had been unable to take up the question themselves; but, having promised their support to any private Member, he (Mr. Dodds) had undertaken to bring this Bill before the House. The provisions of the present Bill were substantially those which had been recommended by the Select Committee, and he should be able to explain any slight variations which had been made. The Bill was of a comprehensive character, and he would only allude to its main provisions. By the 5th clause, the Secretary of State was to nominate the first Board of Conservators for any new district; but by the 6th and following clauses the subsequent Boards were made elective, instead of being, as hitherto, nominated by the various Courts of

  803
  Quarter Sessions of the counties abutting upon the rivers of the district, He had been reluctant to make this alteration; but the evidence given before the Committee had left him no alternative. The Boards of Conservators in future to be elected were—unless otherwise specially determined—to consist of 12 members. The qualification for a member of the Board was that he must either be the owner of a several fishery within the district, or have paid licence duty during the previous fishing season. The qualification of electors was to have paid licence duty and fishery improvement rate within the district for the previous fishing season; a voter might have a plurality of votes not exceeding four, according to the scale of his payments. In order to consult the interests of the upper proprietors, as distinguished from those of the tidal and estuary fisheries, the electors would be formed into two "wards"—the upper and lower. The voting would be by means of voting papers, to be forwarded to each elector by the Chairman of the Board of Conservators. The Bill provided an increased scale of licence duties; but the Board of Conservators were empowered, with the consent and approval of the Home Office, to vary the licence duties payable in their district. They were also empowered, in addition to the licence duties, to levy a fishery improvement rate not exceeding 25 per cent on the licence duties. They were also to make by - laws for the better protection, preservation, and improvement of the fishing within their district; to vary the annual and weekly close time; to regulate the size of nets, and other purposes. But these laws were not to come into operation until they had been confirmed by a Judge of the superior Courts. The Secretary of the Board was required to make an annual return to the Secretary of State of the amount of income and expenditure of the Board, and of the actual and estimated produce of the fishery of the district, and other valuable statistical information. The measure also contained provisions with reference to the removal of artificial obstructions to the passage of salmon from the spawning beds to the sea, and vice versâ—a matter which lay at the root of all improvement in their salmon fisheries, and the neglect of which caused the destruction of a vast amount of valuable food,
  804
  and at one time threatened the utter extinction of that breed of fish in certain of our rivers at no distant date. The 31st clause was of great importance. It gave to the Boards of Conservators compulsory powers of acquiring any weir or obstruction for the purpose of removal only; they must present a petition to the Secretary of State, setting forth the various particulars, and the grounds of their opinion, and the Secretary might thereon make a provisional order, which again must be confirmed by Parliament. Since the voluntary removal from the Tyne by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Beaumont) of a dam which offered a formidable impediment to the passage of the fish, that river had literally swarmed with salmon. It was not till the Act of 1865 was passed that anything was done towards the removal of those pernicious barriers. Since that period the Special Commissioners had decided no fewer than 526 cases, in 40 only of which had their decisions been challenged and notices of appeal given. In 25 of these cases the notices had been withdrawn, in eight cases the judgment of the Commissioners had been affirmed, in two only had they been reversed, and the remaining five cases were still pending. In three-fourths of the whole 526 cases thus adjudicated upon, the claims of the parties were found to be illegal, and in the great majority of cases the cost had been very inconsiderable. Additional powers were conferred on the Boards of Conservators in respect of matters which had proved deficient in preceding Acts. They or their servants had power to enter on land, after seven days' notice, to repair all fishways, &c., paying of course compensation for any damage done; they might erect hecks and gratings to prevent salmon being led astray into mill-races or artificial channels; they and their bailiffs had power to traverse the banks of salmon rivers at all times; their bailiffs or any constable might secure persons found in the highway suspected of having salmon unlawfully obtained; and penalties were imposed upon persons obstructing them in the performance of their duties. The 32nd section was of some interest, for it gave to the Fishery Commissioners power to try the legality of engines, &c., belonging to the Crown. Some of the later clauses provided regulations in regard to

  805
  fishing. There was to be no fishing within 50 yards above, or 100 yards below, a weir or mill-race, except with rod and line; all hecks, &c, were to be open during the weekly close time, and removed altogether during the annual close season; no eel baskets were to be fixed in weirs between the 1st January and the 1st July, nor during the day at anytime. No draft net was to be shot within 30 yards of another until the latter was landed. Except in lakes no netting was allowed in the night time in the upper parts of rivers; and the same protection was extended to trout and char as to salmon—they were not to be caught or sold during the close season of salmon for rod and line. In conclusion, he said that the importance of this subject was generally admitted, and there was a general opinion that there should be some amendment of the law in the direction pointed out by this Bill. He was far from thinking that it was at present in the most perfect shape possible, and he hoped that considerable improvement would be made in it in Committee, so that they might be able to meet the requirements of the country without doing injustice to any class or interest whatever.
  Motion made, and Question proposes, "That the bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. BRUCEcomplimented the hon. Member upon the great pains which he had taken with this measure. He could not agree with all the provisions of it; but it accorded with the recommendations of the Select Committee, and also to a considerable extent with the Bill prepared by the Government, and therefore he had no objection to the second reading.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he would not oppose the second reading, it being understood that important alterations would be made in Committee.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 25th April.

COUNTY JUSTICES QUALIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 77.]
(Sir Roundell Palmer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Spencer Walpole, Mr. George Gregory.)
COUNTY JUSTICES QUALIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 77.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Repeal of the disqualification of attorneys, solicitors, and proctors from being justices of the peace for counties).
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, anticipating an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) had placed on the Paper to remove the disqualification of solicitors to act as county magistrates, expressed his opinion that it was in reason and principle a good thing that solicitors practising in counties should not, as a rule, be magistrates in those counties, not because it was to be feared they would abuse that position, but because it was deemed necessary that magistrates should be above suspicion. He therefore asked the Committee to depart from the strict principle only to the extent of allowing solicitors to become magistrates in counties where they did not practice. The clause was identical with one which had been framed by three noble and learned Lords in the Upper House, and he might add that the qualification contained in it was approved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), and by the Incorporated Law Society.
  MR. CRAUFURD MR. CRAUFURD moved, in line 12, to leave out all after "repealed," to the end of the clause. The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the statutory prohibition against attorneys being appointed magistrates in the counties in which they practised. There was no such disqualification in other parts of the kingdom, and he did not see why it should be retained in England. Why should solicitors be treated differently in England from what they were treated in Ireland or in Scotland, where no such statutory prohibition existed as was proposed in this Bill? Even in England practising solicitors in counties of cities, counties of towns, and in boroughs were permitted to act as magistrates if elected

  807
  to the mayoralty both during their tenure of such office and for 12 months afterwards. Consequently, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) was obliged to insert an exception with regard to counties of cities and counties of towns; and he justified that exception on the ground that citizens were to be trusted to select the proper men for magistrates; but why not, then, the persons who were to appoint the magistrates in counties? Could not the Lord Chancellor exercise his judgment as well as the inhabitants of a city or borough? Recorders were invariably appointed for towns in the circuit in which they practised. Why should solicitors not be trusted as well as barristers? Formerly the attorney was not a reputable man, and in bygone years he was in common parlance spoken of as the "lower branch of the law;" now he believed that the attorney and solicitor stood at least as high as the barrister; for he was the legal and moral adviser of the family, the barrister being called in by him only occasionally, and then only to act according to his instructions. He trusted, therefore, that this limitation would be struck out, and he moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. LIDDELLinstanced, in support of the Bill, the case of barristers who, however eminent, were debarred in their selection as chairmen of Quarter Sessions from practising at any sessions in the county.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he saw no objection to solicitors sitting on the bench of magistrates; but he would not permit this in the counties or towns where they were practising. He thought it for the interest of the profession itself that its members should not be open to the suspicion of preparing a case upon which they were called upon to adjudicate.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He would propose to substitute "and" for "or," and with that modification he would support the Bill.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that solicitors made excellent magistrates in Ireland; and he thought the measure would be most useful. He would, however, suggest that the restriction should extend not only to the counties in which they practised, but to adjoining counties also.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he hoped the Committee would pass the measure as it stood.
  MR. BRUCEexpressed his general approbation of the Bill as it now stood, and asked the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) not to press his Amendment. There was not a single Member who had supported the view he had taken.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKearnestly hoped the Committee would pass this measure, as many members of the profession had long looked upon their exclusion from the Bench as a great grievance—not a sentimental grievance, but a practical one.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he was perfectly content with the discussion, and would withdraw his Amendment; he was satisfied that the proviso would be found utterly unworkable, and would have to be repealed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 89]; re-committed for Tuesday 18th April.

TRADES UNIONS BILL— [BILL 28.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Solicitor General Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
TRADES UNIONS BILL— [BILL 28.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. BRUCErose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the said Bill into two Bills. With the exception of some legal objections that were taken to a portion of what he might call the civil part of the Bill, there had been, he thought, a very general assent to that part of the measure. But objections were taken both in the House and out of the House to include what was called the criminal part in the same Bill. The criminal part of the Bill embraced certain offences and punishments which were not applicable to trades unionists alone; indeed, these offences were not committed more frequently by members of trades unions than by those who were not. It therefore seemed injurious and unfair that that portion should form part of the Bill for regulating trades unions. He was perfectly willing to give effect to that objection. To the criminal portion of the Bill some

  809
  objections were urged; but these were not of a very strong or general character. The members of trades unions themselves who waited upon him assured him that the particular mischiefs the Bill was intended to control were, in their opinion, deserving of punishment, and their only suggestion was that the provision should be made applicable to all classes of society. His answer was that the offences were committed generally only by workmen, and that to endeavour to apply the penalties to all classes would be an unnecessary piece of legislation very similar to the proposal to substitute for the stringent penalties of the game laws a general law against trespass, which would include within its operation any person who might wander where he had no right to go. There were well-known offences committed by workmen against each other, and those offences were not within the reach of the ordinary criminal law. The good sense of almost everyone admitted that they were offences which ought to be punished, and severely; and it was no stigma against the workmen, but for their protection, that a law of this kind should be passed. He was willing that it should be done in a way not to offend the feelings of a large class of persons, and therefore he moved the Instruction to the Committee. Should that Motion be assented to, it was his intention to proceed in the first instance with the civil portion of the Bill, and having passed that through Committee he should go on with the criminal portion; and if the House should pass both parts through Committee, he should print the Bills separately, and take the third reading on the same day.
  MR. ORR EWINGcalled the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the recommendations of the Commission which had reported in 1869, and suggested that he should make provision in his Bill for separating the funds of trades unions into two portions: in the first place, the funds to be used for trade purposes, and, in the second, those intended for benefit purposes. If this separation of the funds of unions had been made, great benefit would have been conferred on trades unionists in general, because the funds were applied to most antagonistic purposes, one of which, was the conduct of strikes, and the other the relief of the sick and of the sufferers by acci-
  810
  dents. He had no desire to retard the passing of the measure by offering any opposition to it; indeed, he approved of the Bill generally, and had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting what was now an important institution upon a proper footing. It was very anomalous that we should hitherto have acknowledged the existence of trades unions, and yet not have given to their funds the protection of the law. He must, however, demur to the statements made by the hon. Members for Sheffield and Frome, who said that trades unions had been of much benefit to the working classes, that it was the only way they could deal with trades en masse, and that where they did not exist there injustice and oppression prevailed. Far from agreeing with the hon. Member, he regarded trades unions as a blot upon our industrial system, and that instead of being a benefit to the class for whose benefit they were originally intended, they had been a great injury. He denied the alleged necessity for dealing with workmen en masse—a course calculated to subvert proper relations between them and their employers; and as to unions preventing oppression and injustice, he pointed to what was disclosed at Sheffield and Manchester as proving that unprecedented oppression and injustice were promoted by the unions. Then the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) contended that in the absence of trades unions there were found low wages and misery, and the hon. and learned Member went on to illustrate his argument by reference to distress in the East End of London in the tailoring trade. It appeared to him that the hon. Member mistook cause for effect. It was not because there had been no trades union amongst tailors, but because of trades unions. Did the hon. Member forget the great tailor strike of 1867, which was conducted with so much violence that several of the men were punished for breach of the law, and the master tailors brought in men from the Continent and the provinces, and began to employ women and that useful machine—the sewing machine, which had so injured that business? Trades unions had, therefore, been the cause of the present distress among the tailors, and not the absence of them had produced that unfortunate state of matters.
  MR. LEEMANrose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was not speaking to the Motion before the House, but to the general question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the immediate Question before the House was simply that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have the power to divide the Bill in two parts. Next would come the Question that he now leave the Chair, when the hon. Member would be in Order.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he had considered the first Motion to be carried.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he was glad that it had been decided to divide the Bill; but he could hardly believe that it was the wish of the Government to proceed with the second part of the Bill to-night, before any expression of opinion upon it had been obtained from those affected. Up to the present time they had opposed the 3rd clause altogether, denying that it ought to have any place in a Trades Unions Bill; but now that the Bill was to be divided, and the second part was to be simply an amendment of the Criminal Consolidation Act, and was not to apply specially to trade pursuits and workmen, the whole complexion of the case was altered; it seemed to him that it would be possible to amend the 3rd clause instead of rejecting it altogether. The opposition to it as it stood originally was not based on any desire that the offences named should go unpunished, but simply on the feeling that the clause ought to have no place in a Bill which did the unions a long-deferred act of justice. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not ask them to take the second part of the Bill to-night; but would give them time to consider what Amendments they desired to propose upon it.
  MR. C. FORSTERtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the reasonable request addressed to him, and would not ask them to go into Committee on the second part of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY HOAREjoined in the appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to allow the trades unionists time to consider what amendments they would wish to make in the Bill, and said that they did not oppose it altogether.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that; although the hon. Member for
  812
  York (Mr. Leeman) had called the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) to Order because he had gone into the general question, while the Motion was merely for dividing the Bill, yet every subsequent speaker had continued discussing the general question. It had been suggested that the House should postpone the second part of the Bill; but they were entering into its merits before they had discussed the first. It would, in his opinion, be time to amend the postponed clauses after that portion of the Bill first under consideration had been discussed.
  LORD ELCHOpresumed that it was intended that the two parts of the measure should proceed pari passu, so that one part should not become law and the other be dropped.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, the noble Lord need be under no apprehension on that point. There already existed sufficiently stringent laws against offenders, and he presumed that the penal provision of this Bill was to take the place of another Act of Parliament which was to be repealed. The noble Lord might be assured that the poor workmen would be held in sufficient bondage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to divide the said Bill into two Bills.—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  MR. ORR EWINGremarked that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had illustrated the benefits of trades unions by referring to the settlement by the hon. and learned Member for Frome of the differences between the ironmasters in England and the men in their employ. The hon. Member for Sheffield had asserted that this success was owing to the circumstance that in this country the men had a strong trades union; whereas in Scotland, where he said there were no trades unions, there had lately been a disastrous strike. He wished, however, to point out that the ironworkers in Scotland, had as strong an union as their English brethren. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was arbitrator in a dispute between the masters and men of this very trade, which was settled last summer, but subsequently another strike occurred; the men endeavoured to deal with the masters individually, and the

  813
  latter were compelled in self-defence to combine among themselves:—the result being—as, indeed, it always must be whenever there was a conflict between capital and labour—that the working men were beaten by the united energy and determination of the masters. He himself had a large number of men in his employ; but there had been no strike among them for 33 years. It was impossible to regulate wages by artificial means, as supply and demand would always rectify each other. The most prosperous and the best paid of the working classes in this country were domestic servants, among whom unions were unknown. Now that education was about to be so largely extended in this country, he hoped the working classes would begin to think for themselves, and to find out the only sound principle on which wages could be regulated—Supply and demand.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, his hon. Friend had forgotten that there were trade unions and trade unions. Knowing that they proved of great advantage in some cases, he wished to give his testimony in opposition to the opinion of his hon. Friend. For nearly 40 years he had been acquainted with a trades union formed in every town in the North of England carrying on the carpet manufacturing trade, and during the whole of that time not a single strike had occurred. Every negotiation for an advance or reduction of wages had been conducted at meetings of the masters and workmen; and the results, he believed, had invariably given satisfaction to both parties. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the two Bills would pass the third reading at the same time.
  LORD ELCHO, replying to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), said, he cordially sympathised with those who were anxious to put this question on a right and equitable footing. He had sat on the Trades Unions Commission, and agreed to its recommendations in this respect. He had a few minutes previously expressed a hope that the question would be dealt with as a whole in the course of the present Session, whereupon the hon. Gentleman made a sneering and ungracious remark, saying that the noble Lord need not be afraid, as the law against the poor workman was already sufficiently severe. Some hon. Gentlemen
  814
  in this House, and some out of the House, tried to make political capital out of the working men. When in his place in Parliament he had been able to do anything in the way of legislation which, in his conscience, he believed would be beneficial to the working classes, he had always done it. Thus he had moved for a Committee to consider a law relating to master and servant, which made the servant the slave of the master; and the result of the appointment of that Committee was that that law was repealed. In the same way no one was more ready than he was to relieve trades unionists from those restrictions which were injurious and unjust; but it should not be forgotten that they formed only a small portion of the working classes of the country. At a meeting over which he presided in favour of the technical education of workmen, Mr. Lucraft, who had succeeded in being, by the votes of his fellow-workmen, elected as a member of the London School Board, said he did not belong to a trades union, and told Mr. Applegarth that there were 17 non-unionists to every one who belonged to a society. That fact ought not to be forgotten; but he would also bring into court a witness with whom the House would not dispute. At a meeting held about two years ago in Exeter Hall, the Chairman said—
  "If the Universities are prepared to receive the assistance of others to acquire their rights they must remember that there are others in their trades who hold views opposed to those of the unionists, and they have their rights also. If 500 men in a trade desire to carry out a certain course, and 50 differ, the majority have no right to break the heads of the minority."
  That was the language of the hon. Member for Bristol, and that was what he (Lord Elcho) wished to secure.
  MR. BRUCEappealed to the House to go into Committee without further discussion, and said that the noble Lord had been unnecessarily severe on the hon. Member for Bristol. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. Bruce) had understood those remarks in a different light. [Lord ELCHO: No; it was meant so.] In justice to the hon. Gentleman he thought it right to say how the matter had struck him. The Bill consisted of two parts, and many persons objected to the passing of one part without the other. He had stated that it was his intention to leave each part of the Bill to be considered in

  815
  Committee, and then to take the third reading.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Trade union not criminal).
  MR. KENNAWAY MR. KENNAWAY moved, in line 6, after "Trade Union," insert—"registered as hereinafter provided." The issue he wished to raise upon this Amendment was whether the registration under the Bill was to be permissive or compulsory. This Bill made it permissive, certain advantages being held out to those societies which registered—for instance, they were enabled to hold an acre of ground. Under this clause certain advantages were offered to all trades unions. By the common law things done in restraint of trade by combinations rendered them illegal, and the rules of the union were such that they might often be brought under the common-law doctrine. He contended it was not right that those who did not register, and who would not comply with publicity, should share in the immunities and privileges offered by the Bill. Registration was necessary in the interests of the general public, as well as for the unionists themselves, to whom it was proposed to give, for the first time, legal sanction for their powerful combinations. It was therefore but right that precautions should be taken against their misuse of that power. A great improvement had taken place, no doubt, in the character of trades unions since the time when their outrages made such a black page in their history, and he hoped it would continue; but what had happened might happen again. By registration it would be impossible to appropriate funds to an illegal purpose, and without they could not know with whom they were dealing.
  MR. T. HUGHESobjected to the Amendment. So far as they had to deal with criminal matters, it was desirable they should be put into the other part of the Bill, and so far as ordinary trade combinations were concerned he hoped they had heard the last of "restraint of trade" and "conspiracy" in connection with them. The evidence taken before the Royal Commission should have satisfied anyone who had read it how capricious and bad the application of those old doctrines was. The best
  816
  feature of the Bill was the getting rid of them.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had hardly estimated its force and effect. The fact of a man being a member of a trades union under such circumstances rendered him liable to an indictment for conspiracy, from which it was the object of the present Bill to relieve him. A man surely ought not to be subjected to such a disqualification. It was, in fact, a kind of judge-made law, and applied according to the necessities of the day. According to the ablest writers upon the subject, such a power ought to be regarded with the utmost jealousy, and for those reasons he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. KENNAWAYsaid, he would not press his Amendment, but he thought no reason had been assigned against it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 postponed.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Trade union contracts, when not enforceable).
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, though apparently fair, this clause was rather one-sided in its operation. Masters' and men's societies held their members only by means of fines. The men's directly, the masters' by means of bonds. Both were unenforceable by law. This clause left the law unaltered, and would be fair but for these circumstances. The masters paid a small subscription, the loss of which was trifling; the subscription of the men was one, the loss of which would be the loss of their whole savings. The 3rd section of this clause, by preventing any legal proceeding for the application of the funds of the unions to benefits to members, practically gave them power to inflict fines amounting to their whole subscriptions by merely withholding the money. It was surely impolitic to pass such a clause as this, giving direct sanction to the not very honest system of getting funds on benevolent pretexts and spending them for restrictive purposes. He thought that members of unions ought to have power to recover benefits, and that to do so effectually separate trade and benefit accounts ought to be kept. All power, direct and indirect, of enforcing fines

  817
  should be taken from trades unions, or similar power of enforcing bonds should be given to masters' associations.
  MR. ELLIOT MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 3, lines 9 and 10, to leave out "but nothing in this section shall be deemed to constitute any of the above-mentioned agreements unlawful."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALopposed the Amendment. He stated that, although the contracts mentioned in the clause were not unlawful in themselves, Government were not prepared to give Courts of Law or Equity the power to enforce them. He had, on a former occasion, shown that, though a contract to marry was perfectly lawful, it could not be enforced by action at law or suit in equity.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he did not think there ought to be an agreement recognizable by law which could not be enforceable. As regarded the illustration just given, if a man entered into an agreement to marry, and did not marry he would be liable to an action for breach of promise.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that though a voluntary agreement was lawful, it could not generally be enforced.
  MR. BOUVERIE: A voluntary agreement was not an agreement for a consideration.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, it was ridiculous to suppose that any agreement could be valid, which could not be enforced at law.
  MR. BRUCEremarked that it was necessary to enact that an agreement of the kind contemplated by the clause, though it could not be legally enforced, might yet be lawful for the purpose of being registered.
  MR. LOPESsaid, that the illustration of a voluntary agreement was not in point, because when there was no consideration the law would not interfere to enforce the agreement. Mere voluntary agreements were not agreements at all in the eye of the law.
  MR. JAMESsuggested the case of a physician who, in selling his practice, entered into an agreement not to practice within 300 miles of his former residence. Such an agreement would not be enforceable at law; but neither would it be unlawful.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSadverted to a very ancient precedent in favour of the words proposed to be
  818
  omitted. In the Statute of Frauds it was enacted that no action should be brought upon any agreement not to be performed within a year which was not in writing. Such an agreement, while not actually unlawful, was not enforceable at law.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question was not whether these agreements were penal, but whether they were enforceable in law. To say that they could not be enforced, and yet that they were not for that reason unlawful, might give these societies the false impression that by some means which were not legal means they might enforce them on their members.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONheld there was nothing delusive about the words, which were a necessary safeguard to show that the parties would not be subjected to any penal consequences.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the 2nd section already provided for that.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he was desirous the Committee should not lose sight of the fact that whenever the funds of trades unions fell below the point which entitled them to confer promised benefits, they were in the custom of raising large sums for the purpose by a severe levy upon their members.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he thought the words in the latter part of the section necessary, as the former part declared that none of the agreements should be enforceable in law or equity.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he thought it was only right, when members subscribed to a benefit society, that they should know to what purposes the funds were applied.
  MR. BRUCEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman must have misapprehended the object of the Bill, if he thought it was intended to secure the benefits of those societies to their members. The right way of treating the clause was to regard it as one of an exceptional character.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he feared that by separating accounts, money subscribed for trade purposes might be otherwise appropriated. At present, 5 per cent of the funds were spent in strikes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Exclusion of 18 & 19 Vict. c.63., 30 & 31 Vict. c. 117., 25 & 26 Vict, c. 89., &c. from applying to trades unions).
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM MR. WINTERBOTHAM moved an Amendment leaving trades unions, for registration purposes, either under the Companies' Acts or the Friendly Societies' Acts, in precisely the same position as they are at present, and as if this Bill had not passed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 struck out.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Regulations for registry).
  MR. ELLIOT MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 7, after sub-section 1, insert—
  "All such rules shall limit the operations and funds of the union to the persons who are members thereof, and provide that the decision in all cases shall be arrived at by ballot."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as the unions had power to apply their funds to the assistance of each other.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Board of Trade to be registrar).
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the Board of Trade had declined to accept the office, and he therefore proposed, as an Amendment, that it should be imposed upon the registrars of friendly societies in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the office of Registrar of Friendly Societies was now vacant, and that the person who temporarily performed the duties of the office might be unable to undertake the additional labours now sought to be imposed upon him.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that under the Act which had been in force for two years, the trade societies had the power of registering, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies was bound to register all the trades unions that applied for registration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Summary proceedings for offences, penalties, &c.)
  MR. E. POTTERmoved, in line 8, after "as follows," leave out to "peace," in line 32, and insert—
  "1. In Great Britain the court of summary jurisdiction shall be,—

  (a.) In England, the lord mayor, and alderman of the city of London, a metropolitan police magistrate, or a stipendiary magistrate;

  (b.) In Scotland, the sheriff of the county or his substitute, or provost or other magistrate of a royal burgh.

  If the offence to be tried is alleged to have been committed within a distance of twenty miles by railway, or of six miles by road, from the nearest court-house of such lord mayor, alderman, metropolitan, stipendiary, sheriff, sheriff-substitute, provost, or other magistrate; but if the offence to be tried is not alleged to have been committed within the limits of any such distance as is above-mentioned, then the court of summary jurisdiction shall be—

  (a.) In England, two or more justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions at a place appointed for holding petty sessions;

  (b.) In Scotland, two or more judges or justices of the peace court;

  (c.) In Ireland, two or more justices of the peace, or one metropolitan or stipendiary magistrate for the time being empowered by law to do alone or with others any act authorised to be done by more than one justice of the peace."

  MR. BRUCEsaid, he desired as strongly as the hon. Member that cases of this kind should be adjudicated upon by stipendiary magistrates. There was often an objection to ordinary magistrates on the ground that they were connected by interest with the class of employers rather than with the employed, and he fully admitted the importance of such matters being decided by a tribunal above suspicion. But he thought the Amendment would not attain the end which the hon. Member had in view. It would probably have the effect of throwing upon a stipendiary magistrate the work of a district beyond his own, and altogether it would be of little practical use.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, this objection did not apply to Scotland, where there were sheriffs in every county, and where a strong feeling existed in favour of removing such cases as would arise under the Act from the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. The proposal contained in the Amendment would be of far greater importance in relation to the penal clauses than in reference to the portion of the Bill now under consideration.
  MR. BRUCEobserved, that at present they were only dealing with cases of defrauding societies of their money, and of issuing false rules. It would be time enough to consider the penal clauses when they were reached.
  MR. M'LARENapproved of the proposal to refer cases under the Act to sheriffs in Scotland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Repeal).
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, to leave out the word "Acts," in order to insert the word "Act."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTobjected to this upon the ground that the effect would be that the penal Act of George IV. would not be repealed by this Bill.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that the statute referred to would be repealed by the second Bill, which was referred to the same Committee.
  Question put, "That the word 'Acts' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 98: Majority 96.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  MARINE MUTINY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill for the Regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on Shore, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. GOSCHEN, and Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental* (62); Workshop Regulation Act, 1867, Amendment* (63).
Second Reading—Poor Law (Loans)* (50); Consolidated Fund (£162,580 9s. 11 d.)*.
Committee—Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) * (47).

RESERVE FORCES—THE LORDS LIEUTENANT.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD VIVIAN, rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of law respecting the control of the Reserve Forces in the several Counties of Great Britain. The noble Lord said that the object of his Motion was to ascertain what was in point of law the power of Lords Lieutenant of counties in regard to the appointment of officers of the Militia. He need hardly remind the House that when, a few evenings since, he brought forward the case of his own appointment of an officer to the Royal Cornwall Rangers, which had been disallowed by the Secretary for War, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had given two different interpretations of the clause of the Act of Parliament which regulated those appointments. This difference was one reason for an inquiry. Another was that since the recent discussion he had made further inquiries, the result of which

  735
  had been to confirm his opinion of the inexpediency of appointing Major Trelawny to the command of the West Cornwall Rangers, and he had therefore informed the Secretary for War of his intention to adhere to the appointment of Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. Charles Edgcumbe, which appointment he should have gazetted but for that gentleman's indisposition, notwithstanding the view taken by the War Office. He had, in return, received what was vulgarly called a "snub," the Secretary of State having informed him that he saw no reason for approving the appointment, and that he must again signify Her Majesty's disapproval of it. He thought it was another reason that he should ask for inquiry, that a very able and deserving officer had suffered both in character and position through the slur cast upon him by the rejection of his nomination to the command of the Militia regiment in question. He wished, then, to know whether that disapprobation applied to Colonel Edgeumbe personally, or whether it was simply on account of the officers of the regiment being passed over? He could not help thinking there was some personal feeling mixed up in the opposition of the Secretary of State to the appointment—he could not account for his continued opposition on any other ground. While giving the Secretary of State every credit for capability, he could not understand how he could judge of the character of the officer of a Militia regiment 400 miles from London better than himself, who lived in the county, and knew all the circumstances. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman acted either on the opinion of the Inspecting Officers, who simply went down for a few hours, and had no opportunity of knowing the general character of Militia officers, or on that of other persons quite unknown to himself. Who would be responsible for the regiment, now about to go into the field without a lieutenant-colonel, and commanded by an officer whom he held to be disqualified through want of popularity, and whom he therefore had declined to appoint? The Secretary for War, not thinking it right apparently to take his advice upon any matter whatever, had given him snub No. 2. It had been customary for the Secretary to write to the Lord Lieutenant, suggesting a date for the calling out of the Militia, and
  736
  asking him, if he had any objection to it, to name another day. A circular issued by the War Office last year—which he believed to be waste paper, as it had never been laid before Parliament—directed that the Reserve Forces should be under the joint authority of the General Officers commanding within the districts and of the Lords Lieutenant, who were to consult as to the time of calling out the Militia. On the General Officer of the Western District asking him (Lord Vivian) what time he proposed, he suggested, instead of the 1st of May, the usual date, the middle of June. His reason for this was the irregularity and want of discipline attending the billeting system, which induced him last year to suggest that the Militia should be quartered in the forts. The War Office objected that these would not give half space enough; whereupon he (Lord Vivian) suggested that the force should encamp under canvas in the vicinity of the forts; but to this it was replied that the medical officer objected to an encampment under canvas as early in the season as May. He, accordingly, suggested this year the middle of June. Major Trelawny, he understood, at first fell in with this proposal, but afterwards asked him to re-consider the point, on the ground that the date would interfere with the hay harvest. He (Lord Vivian), however, believed that this would be completed by that time, and saw no ground for altering his opinion. The result had been an intimation from the Secretary of State that the regiment would be called out on the 1st of May—which he could only regard as another snub. He could cite other grievances; but he did not choose to receive any more of these little courtesies, especially as he did not believe that in any other case had a Lord Lieutenant been so treated, the War Office having in several similar instances given away. He presumed the War Department would continue to struggle against him, and he should seek to struggle on against it, not being disposed to submit to the Secretary of State's dictation in a matter which he himself could better understand. He thought, besides, that the Secretary of State had exceeded his powers, for he maintained that his disapproval, not being given within the 14 days prescribed by the Act, was invalid, yet the right hon. Gentleman still persisted in setting

  737
  the appointment aside. He was anxious for an inquiry which would settle the meaning of the Act, and would enable Lieutenants of counties to know what their duties were.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the law respecting the control of the Reserve Forces in the several counties of Great Britain."—(The Lord Vivian.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, he wished, in the first place, to explain that not the slightest disregard was intended towards the noble Lord in fixing the proper time for calling out the regiment in question. It had nothing whatever to do with the disputed appointment; and the existing arrangement had been made on the recommendation of the general officer of the district, by an officer subordinate to the Secretary of State, to whom it was not considered necessary to refer. There had been no intention of "snubbing" the noble Lord in the matter; and he thought it very inconvenient that every such detail should be brought before the Secretary of State. With regard to the main question, the noble Lord asked for an inquiry into the state of the law respecting the control of the Reserve forces in the several counties of Great Britain; but a Committee of their Lordships' House was hardly the proper tribunal to decide on the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. With respect to the statement of the noble Lord that, since he first brought the subject forward in their Lordships' House, he had received further information confirming his opinion with regard to the unfitness of Major Trelawny for the command of the regiment, the noble Lord had communicated to the Secretary of State no further information on the subject, though he should have brought under his notice any information likely to affect his decision. He would not again trouble their Lordships with the reasons which induced the Secretary of State to recommend Her Majesty to disapprove the appointment of Colonel Edgcumbe. As to what was stated about Major Trelawny not being popular, no Militia officer would be safe if his promotion were to be stopped on the allegation of unpopularity—a very vague term at best. Some of the best officers in the service had been "unpopular." The Duke of Wellington was, at one time, by no means popular; and, in the sister service,
  738
  Lord St. Vincent was by no means popular. Major Trelawny had received a regular military education at Sandhurst, where he had won both his commission and a certificate; he had served three years in the 36th Foot, and eight in the Inniskilling Dragoons, seven years as an Adjutant of Militia, and 10 years as Major of the Royal Cornwall Rangers. He was, moreover, in other respects, both as regarded his family and position as a magistrate and deputy Lieutenant of the county, undoubtedly, in every way, fit to be put in command of the regiment. Besides which, he ventured to say that the Reports of the Inspecting Officers spoke of him in terms not exceeded by the encomiums applied to any officers in the service; in fact, an officer on the Staff of Sir Augustus Spencer had authorized him to say that, in the opinion of that distinguished officer, he was one of the best officers he had ever seen in command of a battalion. He hardly supposed that the noble Lord desired to refer the question of the fitness of Major Trelawny to a Select Committee. The noble Lord had asked whether the disapprobation of Her Majesty of the appointment of Colonel Edgcumbe, communicated on different occasions, was, or was not, a personal disapprobation. He should have thought the noble Lord, who was contending for the rigid interpretation of an Act of Parliament, would have been careful not to ask such a question; because the Act of Parliament simply required the Crown to express disapproval of any appointment of which it did not approve, and the Act of Parliament had been strictly followed. As to the command of the regiment, he believed it devolved, in the absence of the colonel, upon the next senior officer; and this officer was Major Trelawny. He could assure the noble Lord that nothing could have been further from the wish of the Secretary of State than to cast a slur on anyone in the course which he had felt called on to pursue. The Secretary of State gave the noble Lord full credit for honesty of purpose, and he asked, in return, credit for equally upright motives in the performance of a painful duty. He assured the noble Lord that no private communications had passed between him and anyone else relative to this appointment, excepting the noble Lord himself and a near relative of Colonel

  739
  Edgcumbe. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that as a Lord Lieutenant of many years' standing, he should like to know what the law really was. It was his experience that Lords Lieutenant, on making recommendations, always received notice in a few days in the form prescribed by the Act in case of approval or disapproval. They were authorized to take silence for consent, and if 14 days passed, without an intimation that the Crown disapproved a recommendation, the officer would have a right to the appointment, and would be entitled to complain if it was not gazetted. It was objected by the Government on the last occasion, that to write a simple letter of recommendation was not to "certify" within the meaning of the Act; but such a letter was surely an official intimation; and when was disapproval to be signified by the Secretary of State, if not after the receipt of it? Surely not after the appointment had been gazetted. The other night, when the matter was before their Lordships, a noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) stated that he had always been in the habit of writing to the Secretary of State, stating the person whom he proposed to appoint, and if he heard nothing to the contrary, he concluded that the appointment was allowed. This was the course usually adopted, except that, as he (Lord Lyttelton) had said, Lords Lieutenant received express intimation of approval from the Secretary of State before completing the appointment. It seemed that under the new organization of our military forces, Lords Lieutenant were to have nothing more to do with these appointments—for which he did not in the least care; but during his short remaining term of official existence he should continue, unless otherwise advised, to write letters recommending certain persons, and if no disapproval were signified within 14 days he should proceed to gazette the appointments; this being not merely what he was empowered, but required by the Act to do. If this were not so, he should be glad to be informed; and unless some other mode of ascertainment was suggested, he should be glad if the Committee were granted.
  EARL GREYsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion, for a Committee, as pointed out by the noble
  740
  Under Secretary (Lord Northbrook), could not give an authoritative construction of an Act which, as was evidenced by the discussion the other evening, was not very well laid down or very clear. On the other hand, it was quite clear what the true interpretation of the Act was in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution, for whatever might be the technical meaning of the section, it was certainly the intention of Parliament that the Lords Lieutenant should act under the direction of the Crown in these matters. And it was not only the right of the Crown to exercise a complete control over its Lieutenants; it was also armed with ample authority for the purpose. The Lords Lieutenant held office during pleasure, and if they declined to submit to the decision of the Crown, signified to them by the proper authority, the Secretary of State would have only to inform them that Her Majesty had no further need of their services. That was the remedy, in the event of a difference of opinion arising, which ought not to be the case, for, whatever the technical construction of the Act, he should feel it his duty—and he thought that the noble Lord, on reflection, would see the matter in the same light—to act under the express direction of the Crown, signified by a responsible Minister. While, however, fully admitting the power of the Crown and the duty of Lords Lieutenant to obey the commands of the Sovereign, he admitted the full right of any Member of the Legislature to question the discretion with which Her Majesty had been advised to exercise the power committed to her. If any noble Lord should think there had been something wrong in the manner in which an appointment had been checked, it was open to him—and it was open to any Member of the other House—to move an Address to the Crown praying the withdrawal of her disapproval. That seemed to him the proper and formal way of raising the question.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I regret to find myself differing entirely from the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Grey), and upon a point in reference to which his authority is so valuable. The noble Earl states that the proper course on an occasion like the present—and I think he implies that it is the only constitutional course—is, that an humble Address should be

  741
  presented to Her Majesty begging that she will withdraw her disapprobation of the appointment. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that would be begging1 the whole question; because the point raised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Vivian) will have no effect whatever if the disapprobation of the Crown be signified within the proper time. And when the noble Earl says that the noble Lord ought to move an humble Address to the Crown, he is implying that which has not been admitted, even for a moment, in the course of the former or the present discussion—namely, that the Secretary of War has acted according to the powers as contained within the four corners of the Act of Parliament. It appears to me that the silence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on this occasion affords a strong ground for inducing your Lordships to appoint a Committee to investigate the question before the House; for I cannot but think that during the time which has elapsed since the former discussion took place, the noble and learned Lord must have been so occupied as not to have looked again into the various Acts of Parliament bearing upon this question.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORintimated that he had done so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I am very glad to hear it; and I can only, therefore, hope that, having informed himself as to the Acts which have been expressly quoted on this subject, the noble and learned Lord considers that this is not the proper place for discussing the question, and that we could better discuss it in Committee of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War (Lord Northbrook) says that a Committee of this House is not a competent tribunal to decide a disputed interpretation of a law. But this is a very simple matter. If your Lordships will examine the Act of George III. you will at once see that its requirements have not been complied with in this case. The intimation given by the noble Lord (Lord Vivian) was clearly the legitimate mode of announcing the appointment, for in the very same letter another gentleman was recommended to the command of a company, and that appointment has been gazetted. I will not go into the question whether Major Trelawny was popular or unpopular in the view of the Government; whether he
  742
  was educated at Sandhurst; whether he was brought up in the Army, or whether the experience he obtained in the cavalry was likely to make him a good field officer of infantry; for with these questions the Secretary for War, or the Lord Lieutenant, are much more competent to deal than I am; but I may remind my noble Friend the Under Secretary that he has not answered one point put by the noble Lord opposite—whether the objection the Secretary for War made was personal as regards the fitness or unfitness of Colonel Edgcumbe for the command of the regiment, or whether he considered that Colonel Edgcumbe should not be appointed because the Major ought not to be passed over? That is a question to which it is very easy to give an answer; it is a question to which we have a right to expect a distinct answer, about which there can be no mistake whatever. I have not the honour myself of holding the commission of Lord Lieutenant, therefore I may be supposed to speak purely from disinterested motives, and on public grounds alone; and I do say that there is much ground for complaining that the Lords Lieutenant of counties should be treated in the manner which, according to the noble Lord's (Lord Northbrook's) own showing, the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall has been treated. We have always been taught to look up to the position of Lord Lieutenant of a county. He holds a high position in his county—he represents, if I may say so, the Sovereign, and is frequently expected to convene, and generally to preside over, meetings of the county in regard to any public matters. What do we find is the conduct of the War Department? According to the Instructions issued by the Secretary for War under the Act of 1856, the Lord Lieutenant is to consult with the general commanding the district as to the times at which the Militia shall be called out. The noble Lord opposite, as Lord Lieutenant, considered that it would be much better to call them out in the summer, than to billet them in towns at the earlier period of the year; and he conveyed this view to the general commanding the district, with whom, according to the Order issued by the Secretary for War, he was to put himself in communication. The first thing the noble Lord ascertained was, that the arrangements made were entirely in opposition to the view he had

  743
  expressed; and now the answer he receives, by way of consolation, is that the subject of the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant was considered to be of such small importance that it was looked upon as a mere matter of detail to be dealt with by a subordinate in the War Department; that, in point of fact, the opinion of the Secretary for War was not given at all. Surely that is not the proper manner in which Lords Lieutenant of counties ought to be treated by a public Department like that of the War Office. We all know with regard to the billeting of the Militia in towns that the system is not healthful for the morals of the men, and that it is a system which ought to be avoided as much as possible. Yet this opinion, expressed by a Lord Lieutenant, was dealt with by a subordinate, and not by the Secretary for War. There is a somewhat extraordinary coincidence connected with this which I ought to mention—if, indeed, it really is a coincidence—the time selected for calling out the Militia, as decided by the subordinate in the War Office, happens to be exactly that recommended by the major of the regiment, whose opinion ought not to have prevailed in the matter at all, because the major is not the person indicated in the rules who should make a recommendation. Under these circumstances, I quite agree with the noble Lord opposite that there is a grievance of which he has every right to complain; and I venture to hope that the Lords Lieutenant of this country will not, in future, be treated by the Secretary for War in the way the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall has been treated on the present occasion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the question before the House, so clearly stated by the noble Earl on the cross Bench (Earl Grey), has been somewhat mystified by what has fallen from the noble Duke opposite. The question is—
  "To move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the law repecting the control of the Reserve Forces in the several counties of Great Britain."
  In dealing with this question, it is quite true the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) has given his own construction of the law—and I have no doubt his opinion upon it is as good as that of any other layman; but the whole question is one
  744
  which arises purely from the ill-drawing of the Act of Parliament, which is differently interpreted by two of the most eminent Law Lords in this House; and I think it is quite impossible that, in opposition to the opinion stated by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), your Lordships should refer to a Committee of the House a question of the legal construction of an Act of Parliament. The noble Duke has complained of the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall has been dealt with by the Secretary for War. For my own part, I do not think, after hearing the statement of the Under Secretary, that the Secretary for War could have adopted a different course from that which he has pursued, under the circumstances of the case. Some years ago a Commission was appointed, of which one of the most eminent Members was the noble Duke's Father, who perhaps took a more than usually active part in performing the duties of Lord Lieutenant—especially with regard to questions affecting the Militia and Reserve forces; and it was on his suggestion that the Commission made the recommendation which they did, to the effect that promotion, as a general rule, should be by seniority; and that in the event of any proposed deviation from this principle, it should be made known to the War Department, with a statement of the reasons for the deviation. A circular to the same effect was issued by Mr. Sidney Herbert. If that circular meant anything, it meant that the Secretary for War was bound to exercise his discretionary judgment upon the reasons so submitted to him. It has been objected that this circular was not a legal document; but I think the objection entirely fails, since it ignores the Secretary for War as an Adviser of Her Majesty, and as the head of the Executive Department, dealing with the matters committed to it. The noble Duke then goes on to encourage the noble Lord to consider it a snub that his recommendation had not been followed with regard to the particular time at which the Militia should be called out. The answer which the noble Lord (Lord Northbrook) gave, as I understand him, was an answer to the charge the noble Lord (Lord Vivian) brought against Mr. Cardwell, that the right hon. Gentleman had shown animus towards him, and my noble Friend has properly answered that no animus existed

  745
  in the case at all on the part of Mr. Cardwell. The noble Duke then regards it as an intolerable slight upon the Lords Lieutenant that this case should not have been determined immediately by the Secretary for War himself. I think your Lordships will readily admit that in a large Office, where there is much red tape and mere matter of detail, it is impossible that the Secretary for War can himself personally attend to every matter appertaining to the Department without neglecting the essential duties attaching to him as a Minister. I think that the noble Duke, in his anxiety to do justice to the position of Lords Lieutenant, has, in some degree, confounded the duties which attached to them as the heads of the counties with those which properly belong to another class of functionaries—the high sheriffs. At the same time, I do not in the least question the high honour and position of Lords Lieutenant; and I am quite sure that the more anxious they may be to give example to those placed under their superintendence, the more anxious they must be to act in perfect accordance with the Crown, when properly advised by those who are bound to advise them. I certainly do enter my strong protest against your Lordships entertaining this Motion, which I really think is absolutely without precedent, being a Motion to refer to your Lordships' Committee a discussion between two of the Law Lords as to what is the real construction of an Act of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think it worth your Lordships' while to refer this legal point to a Committee. The course that has been adopted in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall is so manifestly wrong, that I think it would be a work of supererogation for a Committee to inquire into the matter. To ask a Committee to investigate the subject would be practically to ask them to determine whether a fortnight was a month, and that, I think, is hardly a proper subject to submit to the meditation of a Committee. But the question which has given rise to the question now before us, and to a debate which has already taken place, appears to me to throw considerable light upon the probable effect of the legislation on military affairs with which we are threatened. Two cases have been brought forward—two cases of "snubbing," to use the strong and
  746
  just vernacular of the noble Lord—for the consideration of the House. With regard to the first case, we have heard that under the present state of things the control of military affairs is so intensely centralized, that when a Lord Lieutenant brings a certain matter relating to county policy and morality under the notice of the Secretary for War, so heavy is the business of his Department that the Minister of the Crown finds it impossible to attend to the matter personally, and the Lord Lieutenant is left to be snubbed by any underling. That appears to me to be treatment most unworthy of the dignity and position of a Lord Lieutenant. I do not blame the Minister of the Crown in this case, because I believe he knew nothing of the affair—neither do I blame the Office; but I ask your Lordships to note the results of that centralization into which we are rushing. It is the inevitable result of placing so much work upon one responsible Minister of the Crown that he had more to do than he can personally accomplish, and the result is that the duty is transferred to persons who are unknown, and who have no responsibility. The second snub which has been put upon the noble Lord is a rather awkward circumstance, because the neglect to lay the matter before the Secretary of State succeeded in point of time the displeasure of the War Office which the Lord Lieutenant had been unfortunate enough to incur, which rather gave ground for the suspicion that if anyone was bold enough to challenge the decision of the War Office, or so unfortunate as to incur the displeasure of that mysterious tribunal, he would find his access to the Secretary of State not so easy as before. But there is a much more serious question at the bottom of this matter. Why are these two officers passed over? Is it true that one of these officers is a Member of Parliament and that the other is not?
  EARL GRANVILLE: That is not the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was informed that such was the fact. However, I do not stand up for the purpose of making personal imputations upon anyone. My object is to point out the enormous danger that is likely to result from the unrestrained system of selection which it seems to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government

  747
  to introduce. If such a system be adopted, your statesmen may be as pure and as free from party bias as possible; but, as long as officers of the Army are Members of Parliament, or are selected from the class from which Members of Parliament come, and their interests have to be decided upon by the Secretary of State, so long will cases of this kind crop up, and your whole military administration will be tainted with suspicion. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that Colonel Edgcumbe has been hardly treated in this matter, and also that the Lord Lieutenant has been hardly treated; but what is proved by this case is the utter incapacity of our military system to bear either a great increase of centralization, or to allow the invidious and onerous duties of unrestrained selection to be placed in the hands of a political officer.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was of opinion that the dignity of the Lords Lieutenant of counties had been somewhat neglected in the present case. He held it to be the law that the whole responsibility for the well-being of a Militia regiment rested mainly with the Lord Lieutenant of the particular county to which it belonged; and in accordance with that responsibility the noble Lord the Lieutenant for the county of Cornwall had intimated to the War Office his recommendation of the appointment of a certain officer to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the Royal Cornish Rangers. What struck him as being somewhat singular in the case was, that before communicating with the War Office his noble Friend informed Major Trelawny that it was his intention to make a recommendation, the effect of which would be to pass him over, and that Major Trelawny entirely approved of that course on account of his want of knowledge of the new drill, that he considered the appointment of Colonel Edgcumbe to be a good one, and that had he himself been appointed he would have been as a square block in a round hole. After that Major Trelawny wrote to the War Office, stating he was about to be passed over—which seemed to be playing a double game. Colonel Edgcumbe, it appeared, in anticipation of being appointed to the command, had been induced to resign his commission in the Grenadier Guards; and no doubt, with his full knowledge of all the new
  748
  military duties required of him, he would have been a most valuable commander of any Militia regiment; but he afterwards received an intimation that the recommendation which the Lord Lieutenant believed had been accepted by the Crown had, for reasons which were not given, not been approved by the Crown. That was not the way to enable a Lord Lieutenant to maintain his position in his county; and from what had appeared, the noble Lord's recommendations had been set aside without any reason assigned, and the command of the regiment allowed to fall into the hands of an officer who acknowledged himself incompetent to discharge the duties. How could a Lord Lieutenant who could not be trusted to appoint an officer to the command of a regiment be fit to take charge of the affairs of a county? The question of popularity was one that never ought to have mentioned, and it was one that ought not to weigh in considering the qualifications of an officer. It would be a dangerous thing either to select officers to command regiments, or to reject them on account of their popularity or unpopularity. The simple question ought to be, who was the best man to command a regiment? The danger of principle of selection had been exemplified in this case; and what alarmed him was, that when the principle came to be carried out it would often be challenged, and would have to be argued out in Parliament. But he did not think the Motion would have any effect in settling the construction of the Act; and, under the circumstances, he would ask his noble Friend to be content with the discussion, and not press his Motion to a Division.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was certainly surprised to hear the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) state his intention of supporting the Motion, on the ground that the Government had acted in this matter on the principle of what he was pleased to term unrestrained selection. He has overlooked that the Secretary of State—whether he has acted rightly or wrongly—has stood up for seniority, and therefore shown that he is not likely to exercise in an unrestrained manner the principle of selection. He must have forgotten that in the present case it is the Lord Lieutenant who has adopted the principle of

  749
  unrestrained selection, while the Secretary for War has strictly followed the principle of seniority. The noble Marquess also stated that the Lord Lieutenant had received more than one "snub;" that he had been turned over to a subordinate officer of the War Department, and that the matter of the calling out of the Militia regiment had been decided by an underling. But who is this "underling" who signed this appointment? Why, he is the Inspector General of the Militia. And I must ask the House whether it is possible for the War Office administration to be properly conducted, if it is to be said that a matter of this kind is not to be decided by a general officer, who, in all probability, is a much more competent person to determine such a question than the Secretary for War himself would be. Quite apart from this particular case, the whole discussion is a very apt illustration of the necessity for the military reforms which have been proposed by the Government. If the country has made up its mind upon one thing more than another, it is that our Army organization should be made practical and real. Much as I respect Lords Lieutenant and the Militia service, and the laudable desire of country gentlemen to belong to that force, and that they should be treated with respect by the Government, it is far more important that the Militia should be made real regiments, and form part of the general organization of the Army, and not be regarded as a kind of civilian portion of the Army. If it is so regarded, it is impossible for the Secretary of State for War not to take the opinion of competent general officers and officers commanding the districts, in preference to the recommendations of Lords Lieutenant, and as a part of the new system we are about to introduce, Militia regiments to be more efficient must be absolutely more and more under the control of the Secretary of State for War and the officers of the Army. As regards the particular case which has arisen in the county of Cornwall I do not wish to say anything, for enough has been said about it already; but, however much the unfortunate position in which Colonel Edgcumbe has been placed may be regretted, I cannot but think that the county of Cornwall has not been ill-treated in having Major Trelawny placed in command of this ex-
  750
  cellent regiment. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the appointment of the Committee.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEsaid, that some remarks which fell from his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War in a former debate would lead to the impression that Colonel Edgcumbe had resigned his commission in the Guards with the full knowledge that his appointment to the Royal Cornwall Rangers was extremely uncertain, in consequence of the claims of another officer having been put forward. The noble Lord referred to a warning which he had conveyed through him (the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe); but he was not at the time aware that the conversation to which he alluded was held more than a fortnight after Colonel Edgcumbe's resignation had been sent in. In point of fact, at the time Colonel Edgcumbe resigned, he had not the slightest reason for apprehending that the power of veto would be exercised against his appointment, nor was it until it was too late to recall the step he had taken that he had any intimation whatever of Major Trelawny's intention to protest. Referring to a remark that had fallen from the noble Earl on the cross Benches (the Earl of Dalhousie), he felt sure that Major Trelawny was not a man capable of any double dealing, although it was to be regretted that the letter referred to was not more explicit.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he should be sorry if it was thought that all Lords Lieutenant were opposed to the proposed change as regarded the Militia, for their position in that respect certainly was not a very comfortable one. For himself, his belief was, that when the new system was established by which the Reserve forces of the different military divisions of the country were to be brigaded and drilled from time to time with the Regular troops, the most perfect machinery would exist for finding out what officers were good and what were not, so that good men could be put in command. That was a very difficult matter now. What could the Lord Lieutenant of the county know in regard to the discipline of a regiment, except from the officers in command, and what he might gather from his own observation and from the general feeling of the country? He did not think any of these were a good means of forming a

  751
  judgment. He was himself the Lord Lieutenant of a small county, and although, if a vacancy occurred in the command of the Militia there to-morrow, he might not experience a great difficulty in recommending an officer to fill it, because the officer who was second in command was a good man, yet he could well understand that in such cases a Lord Lieutenant might have great difficulty in finding out who was the best man; and at present, even after that difficulty should have been overcome, and the Lord Lieutenant had had the misfortune of quarrelling with many people in consequence of his selection, his decision might be thrown over—he did not say wrongly—by the War Office. Surely, if after all the trouble he had taken, the Lord Lieutenant was not certain that his recommendation would be attended to, the sooner that state of things was put an end to the better. The discussion of that evening would have convinced him, if he had not been convinced before, that the Lord Lieutenant would be in a more pleasant position, and the service of the country be better carried on under the proposed new system than was the case at present. He had no desire to find fault with the present authorities of the War Office; but he was afraid that anybody who had anything to do with that Department had occasion sometimes to complain that it allowed his letters to remain unanswered.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, that the position of the Lords Lieutenant, in regard to the appointment of Militia officers, appeared not to be understood by many noble Lords. The reason why the Lord Lieutenant had vested in him the appointment of these officers, subject to the approval of the War Office, was that he was cognizant of the persons in his county who were best fitted for such positions, which the authorities of the War Office could not be supposed to be. It must be recollected that hitherto the Militia had been a voluntary force; that it had belonged to the county, had been raised in the county, and was officered by gentlemen of the county, inasmuch as it was supposed that the gentlemen of the county had more influence in obtaining men to fill the ranks than any other class of persons. It would seem that now, however; if he rightly understood the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of
  752
  Kimberley), the Lord Lieutenant was to be superseded altogether; that he was not to be consulted in any way, not only as to officering the Militia, but even as to the best and most suitable time and place for assembling the men for training—matters which, in the case of a local force, depended less on military considerations than on the season for taking the men from their ordinary labour and occupations with the least inconvenience to them. If, therefore, those questions were to be taken out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who was most acquainted with them, and transferred to the Inspector General of Militia, who knew nothing about them, very great injury would be done to the Militia itself. Manifestly, the first object they should have in view was to fill the ranks of the regiments, and as long as they maintained a local force and officered it from the county, and as long as the leading persons in the county, or any person in the county, took an interest in that force, so long the Lord Lieutenant ought to have a voice in all questions that concerned it.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

ARMY—MILITARY EDUCATION.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN, who had given Notice to move an Address for Returns respecting Garrison Instructors, and for Copies of Instructions on the Military Education of Officers, issued consequent to the Report of the Commissioners, said—My Lords, the interests of the country are so intimately concerned in the unfortunate state of affairs on the Continent, and the country relies so much for the protection of its rights and position on the efficiency of the Army in the art of war, that I consider it my duty to bring to your Lordships' notice, with the view to their amendment, serious deficiencies in our military training and education, and especially in its first requisite, strategy; and yet it is strategy, my Lords, which, in an incredibly short time, has made Prussia mistress of the destinies of France, as 65 years ago it placed Prussia and her independence at the mercy of France. We ought not to be blind to the lessons which recent Continental events are so well fitted to teach. We ourselves have had warnings to

  753
  which we ought not to turn a deaf ear; protracted and not always successful operations in our Colonies against uncivilized insurgents, reverses which checkered brilliant successes in the Crimea, and threw a shade over our imperishable recollections of the Peninsula and Flanders, and an Empire all but lost in India. Before going further, I will explain the nature of the deficiencies in our training for war. They arise from our Regulation Book of Instruction, which teaches the mechanism of movements, but not their strategical object or adaptation to the varied features of ground for troops; they, therefore, are taught peace, not service movements; they move, but do not manœuvre. I am fully alive to the importance of skilfully executed movements—the best devised plans of strategy have often been spoilt by faulty movements. The mistake is to teach movements, but to omit their object. They should be inseparable. In the examination of officers for promotion, the same error is committed. Since I held the command of a Bombay division, in 1857, to the end of my command in Ireland, I have never ceased, in Reports to my superiors and instructions to those under my command, to correct this misprision of the first element of an Army's education. I stated this also fully, and other shortcomings, to the Commission on Military Education, as well as their remedy, and I am glad to see, in a new Book of Instruction of October last, that some of them, have been adopted; but these improvements are few and partial, and they omit the great desideratum in the instruction of young officers and soldiers of combining drill from its first stages with reason and object, so that, the mind once directed in the right way, an ordinary capacity may gradually become a good service officer, and a genius may wing his flight to elevations now, unfortunately, tenanted only by Count Moltke and his strategical Staff. All those simple and important manœuvres which figured in the late Prussian successes are also omitted in the new Book. The last of my thoughts in bringing this Motion before your Lordships is to make the smallest pretension to superior capacity; I do so under the sense of duty in critical times, which tells me that if a British Army be obliged to take the field, it should do so second to none in fitness for war. If, however, I do
  754
  not lay claim to superior capacity, I do lay claim to some experience in two matters which lie at the roots of this question—strategy, and the state of instruction in the Army. As regards the latter, it has fallen to my lot to have commanded, or to have inspected, nearly every battery and regiment in Her Majesty's service. I conduct my inspections in a manner which makes my Staff and myself personally acquainted with the nature and condition of the instruction imparted in almost every regiment in the service. The remarks, favourable or otherwise, are sent to commanding officers, and copies of them kept as records in the Adjutant General's office. The experience I have thus acquired enables me to say that, both as regards officers and men, our Army has almost none of that kind of instruction on which I set a high value. As regards strategy, peculiar circumstances made me acquainted with it from my earliest days. My father was Her Majesty's Envoy at Berlin, where I had a military education, of which strategy was the chief element. In those days Prussia was in the full tide of her noble and patriotic efforts to retrieve the disasters which a mistaken art of war had entailed on her, and the wrongs which it had done in 1806 to her gallant Army and a resolute people. It is a singular coincidence that mistaken training should, but in a more aggravated, form, have been the same error as our own at present—peace, but not service movements. The map and the tactics of Frederick the Great had been replaced by the plummet and the pace-stick. But in my days there was a re-action, and everything in Prussia was strategy. The atmosphere was strategical, and I imbibed some of its influences. In the Crimea I witnessed the results of good or mistaken strategy; and in India, if I had not been assisted by troops of whom Lords Canning and Elphinstone said, in telegrams and general orders—"that they had marched from Bombay to the Jumna and Gwalior, from success to success, without a check, under hardships heroically borne, although seldom endured even in India," and if I had not invariably had recourse to strategical precautions and manœuvres, I could not have overcome the difficulties of overwhelming numbers which cut off my base as I advanced, of an unknown country, and a line of

  755
  operations some 700 or 800 miles long, defended by forts. In 15 actions and sieges I was obliged to reconnoitre night and day, to use turning movements, feints to cover a real attack, concentration of fire on a weak or given point, and so forth, none of which are in our old or new Book. The result of my twofold experience has taught me that, as regards officers and men, the English Army is without equal. They are a rare combination of ardour when it is required, and of steadfastness when it is necessary; but, in consequence of the want of strategical education, they are so deficient in strategical knowledge that if, unfortunately, we were involved in war, the odds would be in dangerous proportion against them in the field. I, of course, except officers of superior talents, with strategical instincts, and who have had other means of instruction. Nor would it be fair to place the responsibility of our system on present proper names or Governments. It dates from our forefathers, and, in fact, it has its origin in our insular position, habits, and distaste for preparations for Continental wars. I beg your Lordships' indulgence while I adduce a few illustrations of the want of strategical education of a simple description from the first to the last pages of the Book. In consequence of no object being assigned, the young officer or recruit is not acquainted with the reason of the numerous points and parries in the bayonet exercise, nor does he learn that part of it which makes him more than a match for cavalry. He is equally untaught as to the advantage of early or the danger of delayed fire. As regards evolutions of a regiment, when I ask an officer the object of a change of front, as a rule he assigns any but the service one, and I have to explain to him that the service object is to oppose an attack on his weakest point—his flank, or vice versâ. He is equally uninformed as to the firing which should cover the movement, and I show him that early and successive fire from the company of formation will check the enemy and cover the formation, while delayed fire may cause its destruction. A first-rate Artillery officer of long standing performed a diagonal change of front on the two centre guns of his brigade, but delayed his fire till the flank guns were in the new alignment. I told him the mechanism of the
  756
  movement was perfect, but that I could not say as much of its strategy; that if he had opened fire from his guns of formation, he might have killed a general or thrown his assailant into confusion, as well as covered his defenceless guns, throwing up to and retiring into the new aligument. And, my Lords, when we hear of batteries captured and formations cut up by cavalry, it is only too often caused by delayed fire. And yet this simple instruction and these words, "early and delayed fire," are not in the book. On another occasion, for the sake of practice, I requested an officer of 40 years' standing, commanding a regiment during the Fenian period in Ireland, when constant depositions and intercepted letters showed intentions to attack barracks, blow up their garrisons, and burn them with Greek fire, to defend his barracks against an attack by the road. Two loopholed defences, with banquette, gave a cross fire on the road. The officer threw his battalion into order—the skirmishers with their face against a wall 20 feet high, with no means of defence—but did not place a man in the loopholed defences. As regards field days and movements of large bodies in India and Ireland, there was no system of instruction or camps of instruction in India or in Ireland. The general officer stationed at the Curragh informed me that he had never heard of a second line; and yet an order of battle for attack or defence without a second line is forbidden by every principle of war. It invites a disaster. The field days were characterized by constant changes of front at too large an angle against a supposed enemy, so constant that no power of locomotion could have enabled an enemy to change to such distant positions—flanks were exposed; and as there was no combination between the three arms, collisions and firing into each other ensued. All arms, individually and collectively, frequently took up positions on the top of a height or rising ground, which exposed them, instead of in the rear of it, which would have covered them. And if in former days defeat often, and loss of life always, followed on neglect of cover, or of turning movements, use of ground is now indispensable in these days of improved arms. In England I have seen field days in which the same defects occurred; and we all read in the newspapers an account of

  757
  a remarkable field day at Wimbledon Common last year, written by a noble Lord commanding a brigade, whose better judgment appears to have been overruled, of which I will say no more than that it was not a representation but a ridicule of the realities of war—and that, too, at a time when, on account of events in Europe, a display of such military inefficiency was to be regretted. It is apposite to observe here that the instruction of the Militia and Volunteers is the same as that of the Army. I now beg to adduce a few service examples of the unfavourable results of mistaken military education in the Crimea and India. As regards the Crimea, I do not wish to ring the changes on Balaklava. I will merely observe that, although nothing could be greater than the devoted gallantry of the troops, yet that the charge with a brigade of cavalry, with the Feduchine Heights with artillery and riflemen on their left line, and a masked battery to their right front, a large force of all arms in front, was a thing never heard of before, and could only end in the loss of most valuable life. Then, on account of neglect of ground and other rules for outposts, pickets and guards of trenches were only too often surprised and driven in. But in justice to a noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) I am happy to say that I was told by very competent authority that he always evinced both zeal and ability, with the best results, in placing his outposts and sentries. In-kermann, though a great victory, was a surprise, which rendered a retirement necessary in the first instance and caused loss of life. In October, 1855, the day of the general and final attack on Sebastopol, Marshal Pelissier sent me to tell the English Commander-in-Chief that the French had taken the Malakhoff. General Simpson requested me to tell the French Commander-in-Chief that his troops had been unable to take the Redan. Now, my Lords, the cause of this failure was an attack in one line without a second line in support. As regards India, the sieges of Delhi and Lucknow, two main operations against the insurgents, were both caused by misprision of strategy. If the commanders at military stations had by simple strategical arrangements prevented mutinous garrisons from leaving their stations, they would not have formed a nucleus at Delhi. The siege of Lucknow was ushered in by the defeat
  758
  of its garrison at the strong village of Chiwhut, one march from Lucknow, where they went to attack a large force of mutinous regiments. In disregard of strategical foresight, the left flank of the English troops was posted on the village, which was neither occupied nor watched. Fatal volleys at close range into the English left were the first intimation of the dangerous flank attack. It was followed by a retreat to Lucknow, with a loss of artillery and the arrival of the enemy before the city as besiegers. An advance in light infantry order against a fort held by a few mutineers, without reconnoitering or a turning movement, was the cause of the check of one of the finest brigades of all arms that ever took the field in India, with a large loss, including that of a general officer of the highest promise. I now beg, my Lords, to close my statement of deficiencies in our education and training for war, its causes, and results. I regret the necessity which has compelled me to notice military failings; but I should have been guilty not only of false and culpable delicacy, but of the greatest dereliction of duty of which an officer can be capable if I had silenced convictions which told me British troops had already sustained reverses, in consequence of mistaken training; and that for the same reason they would certainly encounter fresh—perhaps irretrievable—disasters were they to take the field against an Army perfected in the art of war: more especially when in the last few months we have witnessed one of the best and most successful armies in the world fall in collapse, not from any want of their often proved gallantry, of which I have on so many occasions been witness, but from a neglected art of war. I think that when vast and cardinal changes are announced which point to a great evil, although that evil is not known by bad results, it may be an advantage to the Government and Parliament that they have now before them a plain statement of facts, proving the existence of our military shortcoming; and I venture to think that when your Lordships have heard the simple remedies which I suggested to the Commission on Military Education, you will agree that they are as simple as the evil is palpable. I venture to think that another advantage of my statement is that it removes the impression which exists in some quarters that the blame

  759
  of reverses I have alluded to attach to officers. The statement places the saddle on the right horse. A faulty education is alone to blame.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns of the number and statements of service of garrison instructors, and copies of instructions given to them for the execution of their duties by the Secretary of State for War, as well as copies of any instructions given by him or of communications made by the Royal Commission on the military education of officers of Her Majesty's army consequent on the Commissioners' report on that subject.—(The Lord Strathnairn.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, he would gladly admit that not only had the noble and gallant Lord who had just sat down (Lord Strathnairn) earned a high reputation by his distinguished services in the field, but also by the thoroughness with which he had performed the less conspicuous duty of inspection of the troops in peace. The subject the noble and gallant Lord had brought under their Lordships' notice was one of the highest importance, and any information which the Government could furnish would be readily given. There would, therefore, be no objection to furnishing the Returns for which the Motion had been made. The whole of this subject was referred, several years ago, to a Royal Commission, of which he had himself the honour of being a Member, and which had the advantage of receiving the evidence of the noble and gallant Lord. The general result of the inquiries of the Royal Commission with respect to the state of the education of our officers entirely confirmed the statement which his noble and gallant Friend had made that evening. Those inquiries showed that great deficiencies existed in almost every branch of military education; and that no fault could rest upon our officers for not acquiring an education for which no adequate provision had been made. But the subject would again come before their Lordships, when the measure now before the other House was before them, when the whole subject might be fully discussed. Meanwhile, he was happy to inform their Lordships that considerable progress had been made in the education of officers after they had joined the service. Since the Report of the Commission, almost all the different branches of education in the Army had been dealt
  760
  with by the Secretary of State. The Commission recommended, among other things, that officers should be appointed qualified to instruct other officers in certain points described in the General Order issued by the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, in August, 1870. Those officers—the garrison instructors—had now been at work some time, and the Report which had been made at the close of last year was most favourable to the progress of the system. The Report showed that there had been the greatest desire evinced, not only by the junior officers, but by officers of long standing in the Army, to take advantage of the means of instruction furnished them; and that their number was steadily increasing. The number of officers at present receiving instruction at the hands of the garrison instructors was between 300 and 400, and quite recently the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief had issued an order permitting a certain number of officers of each regiment to be excused regimental duty while attending the instruction of the garrison instructor. He trusted, therefore, it would be evident to their Lordships that the subject had not been lost sight of. He felt quite sure that there was no one connected with the administration of the military affairs in this country—no one even who had paid any attention to the events which had recently occurred on the Continent of Europe—who did not feel with the noble and gallant Lord who had just addressed the House, and who was not desirous that the officers of the British Army should have an opportunity of acquiring such a thorough knowledge of their profession as that which was possessed by the officers of the Prussian Army; for nothing had been more remarkable throughout the late war than the superior qualities and training of the Prussian officers. In giving these Papers, he had only to add that the Secretary of State for War was fully alive to the importance of the subject, and that his attention was steadily directed to the importance of affording every facility to officers of the Army for acquiring a complete military education.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I should be sorry to detain the House if I did not feel called upon to make one or two observations upon the Motion which has been brought for-

  761
  ward by my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Strathnairn). I hope the House will distinctly understand that this subject of military education has been under consideration for a long period; that it is not now discussed for the first time, but has been under consideration ever since I took the position which I have the honour to hold. And my noble and gallant Friend, I trust, will admit, that during the period which I have held that position, and also during the tenure of my predecessors, alterations have by degrees been introduced into the Army system, all tending in the direction which has of late exhibited itself in such a marked degree in the Continental armies. But your Lordships must bear in mind that military questions in former days were not considered of that interest and importance which now attach to them in the eyes of this country, and that it was a matter of very great difficulty to get the public to appreciate the importance of technical education and other qualifications which tend to make a good officer. I trust the period has now arrived when these matters will be viewed in a different spirit; indeed, there is reason to believe that such will be the case from the fact that they have been taken up so warmly and energetically by the country. I am as convinced, as I am of the fact that I am now addressing your Lordships, that every officer of the Army is as desirous and anxious to advance this question of military education as either my noble and gallant Friend or myself. But, in truth, the officers of the British Army are exposed to enormous difficulties. We have never been allowed to collect large bodies of troops together, as is constantly done upon the Continent; and though theory may be very well in its way, it is valueless unless combined with opportunities for practice. And let me fairly tell your Lordships that it is much more difficult in this country to carry out combined movements of troops, such as take place upon the Continent, than your Lordships generally may imagine. I have frequently attended reviews abroad, and I can assure your Lordships that I was surprised to see the injury that is done without the slightest consideration, the fields passed over and the property destroyed, in a manner that would never for an instant be tolerated at home. If we are really to apply to this country the
  762
  practice of foreign nations, we must be prepared for something of the same sort—something which will entail a very considerable outlay; for you cannot expect that a landed proprietor, great or small, will submit to all these inconveniences without receiving large compensation. I know that even upon the Continent the cost attending these concentrations is very considerable. If, however, the country is prepared to engage in that sort of expenditure, I shall be only too glad, militarily, that we should have the benefit of availing ourselves of the opportunities thus afforded. There may certainly be tracts of land in this country—and I hope they will be found—where the concentration of bodies of troops will be possible: possibly upon Crown lands, which in ancient days were forests, and are still unenclosed, such combinations may be practicable, But I am still of opinion that, with every desire to carry out the Continental principle, it will be very difficult to do so upon a large scale in this country. At the same time, I am fully justified in stating, after what my noble and gallant Friend has just said, that it is the intention and desire of the Government to carry out this year some concentrations of troops upon a scale commensurate with the circumstances of this country. My noble and gallant Friend, who no doubt has had opportunities of judging, has stated that occasionally he has had to find fault with officers, and that they did not come up to the standard that he expected. For my part, however, and I am not now speaking of the conduct of the British officer in action, but of his performance of ordinary daily duties in time of peace, I have always found the greatest zeal, energy, and willingness on the part of the British officer; and I have found, moreover, that he carried with him the good feeling and the confidence of the men with whom he had to deal. Of course, there may be instances, among large bodies of men, of want of intelligence, that I freely admit; but I put it to your Lordships whether the same thing may not be found in almost every avocation of life. And though there may have been occasions when my noble and gallant Friend has had to find fault with officers under his authority, I am sure that he must have had many more opportunities of praising what came to his notice. With regard to the

  763
  question of instruction—the garrison instructors are of novel introduction. It was thought desirable, and indeed essential, that officers, having now to pass a much more stringent examination than was the case before, should have opportunities of acquiring that knowledge, which it was impracticable for them to acquire in civil life, and without which it was impossible for them properly to satisfy the requirements of these examinations, and therefore these garrison instructors were appointed to afford such information. I am happy to endorse what has fallen from my noble Friend the Under Secretary, that a very large body of officers—more, in fact, than we have been able to deal with, so far as we have gone—have come forward to obtain the benefit of the instruction that is now afforded. And not alone has this interest in the subject been evinced by officers who have still to pass their examinations, but by officers who have no further examination to pass. I can only repeat that, if opportunities of acquiring professional information are given to British officers, I feel convinced they will be only too glad to avail themselves of such facilities. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that when I first entered upon the duties of my present position, the system of examination for promotion was carried out to a very limited extent only; but during the time that I have been connected with the Horse Guards, and owing to the support which I have received from successive Secretaries of State, the system of examination has been largely increased in connection with promotion from the junior to the senior grades. No doubt much remains to be done; but this will be facilitated by the introduction of these garrison and regimental instructors, by whom the officers will be assisted in acquiring military knowledge. I am sure that no subject of greater importance could be brought forward than this question of the military education of officers. My noble and gallant Friend himself has testified to the zeal and energy of British officers; and, for my own part, I am glad that I have been afforded an opportunity of speaking of what I have seen and known of the energy and real devotion of British officers during the whole period that I have had the advantage of being connected with the Army.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he felt much satisfaction at the prospect of manœuvres by flying columns during the present year, and hoped it would be found practicable to brigade some of the Reserve forces with the Regular troops. The more that could be done the more advantageous would be the result. He also hoped that the flying columns and divisions would march fully equipped, with their ambulances and Control Staff, so that an opportunity might be afforded for judging of the merits or demerits of the Control system—for though no doubt the system could only be fully tested in time of war, he personally had a strong opinion in its favour, though he believed there had been in practice somewhat too great a tendency to centralization. Regimental carts for small-arm ammunition might also accompany the division; but as to these, though the Commission over which his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Strathnairn) presided reported on the subject three years ago, he believed that nothing practical had since been done. He had listened with much pleasure to the opinions expressed by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, as to the officers of the British Army, whose efficiency it had been the custom to disparage of late since the purchase question was raised in the other House. Some critics even had gone the length of saying that the British officers were simply rich and incompetent. Their Lordships might possibly not be aware that the examination for promotion offered, in the opinion of the Commissioners, a very fair programme to test the efficiency of an officer: they had to pass an examination that included a knowledge of drill, of the Queen's Regulations, of the interior economy of a regiment, of the art of fortification, and of reconnoitreing—and although the Commissioners added that in some instances the examinations had been loosely conducted, yet that was not the fault of the purchase system or of the officers themselves, but of those who were responsible for the way in which the examinations were conducted. It had been said that proper instruction was not given to officers; but that remark would not apply to the Staff College, where the examinations were severe enough to satisfy any requirements. He concurred in the recommendation of the Royal

  765
  Commissioners that education should be more practical and less theoretical—and one of the most important of their recommendations was that no officer should be allowed to go to the Staff College, unless the general officer under whom he served reported that he was physically as well as mentally capable of performing his duties. He was glad to hear that a complete scheme for the instruction of the Artillery had been drawn up by officers who were worthy of all consideration—for one of the great complaints in the past had been that there was no uniform standard of examination in that department. It seemed that after the passing of the Army Regulation Bill, all officers were to be appointed to direct commissions by competitive examination; but he feared that such a system would increase those "cramming" schools which were admitted to be a great evil. He was pleased to hear the illustrious Duke say that English officers only needed opportunity and encouragement in order to render them efficient in their duties, for these gentlemen possessed qualifications superior to the officers of any Army in Europe.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that the main object of his Motion was to draw the attention of Parliament to the want of strategical instruction for the officers of our Army. Garrison instructors did not undertake to give it, and nothing could be more undesirable than that officers should attempt to teach one of the highest branches which they never had the opportunity of learning. With reference to what had fallen from the illustrious Duke, he desired to say that his Address was intended to remove the erroneous impression which had been created to the disfavour of the British officers; and with respect to the relations between them and their soldiers, he maintained that the men of the English Army were more easily controlled by their officers than the men of any other. He was not enamoured of the purchase system, but it was only fair that some regard should be paid to its working.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Six o'clock.