Sitting of 1 August 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* [283].
Second Reading—Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2)* [281]; Income Tax Collection, Public Departments (No. 2)* [280]; Pensions Commutation Act (1871) Extension* [275]; Attorneys and Solicitors Act (1860) Amendment* [282].
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [245]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [271].
Considered as amended (re-committed)—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Public Health* [261].
Considered as amended—Military Forces Localisation (Expenses)* [222]; Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment* [258].
Withdrawn—Prisons (Ireland)* [221]; Summary Jurisdiction* [274]; Hosiery Manufacture (Wages)* [16]; Mine Dues* [177].

LOCAL TAXATION.—QUESTION.
MR. ST. AUBYNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will state to the House, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit any proposals to Parliament in the ensuing Session on the subjects of Local Taxation and Local Government?
MR. GLADSTONE: It is certainly our intention to give our best attention and consideration to the question of local taxation and local government during the Recess, with a view and in the hope of submitting proposals to Parliament on the subject. We have been, in truth, under pledges to that effect for a considerable time. Last year my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty made an attempt towards the redemption of those pledges by the introduction of an important measure, which, however, it was impossible to proceed with, for the purpose of testing its principles and provisions, on account of the overwhelming pressure of other and even yet more urgent business, or what was deemed more urgent business, at that time. That is one reason why we should give our attention to the subject in the Recess. Another reason, stronger still, is the very decided opinion which has already been pronounced by a large majority of the House. The authority of that decision we acknowledge to this extent, at least—that we
246
ought to give our best efforts to see what can be done with a view to the improvement of the present arrangements. My hon. Friend feels a natural anxiety on the subject; but he is aware that it would not be possible for me at this period to throw any effectual light upon the nature of the proposals we shall make. Of course, we shall consider it our duty to review and consider the proposals already made, without being bound by them if reasons should appear to call either for their extension or otherwise. I cannot venture—and my hon. Friend will not ask me—to enter into detail on the subject-matter of his Question. But I may say that with respect to the guiding, governing aim we shall have in view, at any rate we shall look very much to the following points:—first of all, to the introduction of the representative principle into local institutions where that representative principle does not already obtain; secondly, to equality and justice as between the landlords and occupiers of the soil; thirdly, to equality as between the various classes of the community in respect to the aggregate contributions they make to the public burdens; fourthly, I would say, to the general economy of public administration, so that we shall not impose any charges which might be avoided, or which might be reduced; lastly, and most of all, that certainly the Government will yield to none in their anxiety, in any proposals they make, not only not to weaken, but if possible to strengthen those invaluable principles of local self-government and local self-control to which we look as among the main securities of the institutions of the country.

NAVY—NAVIGATION OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the First Lord of Admiralty, If he is now prepared to state what alterations he proposes to make in the system under which Her Majesty's ships are navigated?
MR. RAIKESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to his recent declaration respecting the merits and value of the navigating officers of Her Majesty's Navy, he is prepared to take into consideration their claims to a more defined position as to

247
command, to a greater freedom in carrying out their responsible and important duties, as well as to a substantive recognition of their rank on board ship?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, he was not prepared at the present moment to state what alterations the Admiralty proposed to make in the system under which Her Majesty's ships were navigated. In reply to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Raikes), he would say that he was most unwilling to raise hopes in any case which it might not be in his power to fulfil. Of course, he was always ready to take into consideration the grievances of any class of officers in the service; but he was bound to state that there was no plan under the consideration of the Admiralty for dealing with the future of the navigating officers, except that an Order in Council had been prepared for the retirement of navigating sub-lieutenants.

FEES AT THE MANSION HOUSE AND GUILDHALL.—QUESTION.
MR. GILPINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the learned gentlemen who advise the magistrates at the Mansion House and Guildhall have any pecuniary interest in the committal of accused persons for trial? In putting the Question, he wished it to be understood that it had no reference whatever to the character of the gentlemen who acted as legal advisers in the City. They were both men of high and irreproachable character, and the Question must be taken to mean what it said, and nothing more.
MR. BRUCEassumed that the Question had reference solely to the power given by statute, commonly called Jervis's Act, to charge for depositions. By that Act the clerks were required to give to the prisoner copies of the depositions on which he might be committed or bailed, on the payment of a fee not exceeding 1½d. for each folio of 90 words. The clerks to the magistrates of the City of London received payment for copies of depositions supplied to both parties; but that was also the case with the clerks of police-courts and magistrates throughout the country. In lengthy and important cases called Companies' Cases, when the inquiry extended over several days, the practice was for the legal advisers of both parties indifferently to
248
apply to be supplied with the copies of evidence taken during each day, so that payment was made quite irrespective of the fact of committal. The clerks could, therefore, have no object in recommending the committal of prisoners, with a view to obtain remuneration from those charges. He had never heard any complaint on the subject; but the question of the remuneration by fees to clerks of justices must no doubt come under the consideration of Parliament next Session.

POST OFFICE—GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH POST OFFICES.—QUESTION.
MR. MILLERasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of all Correspondence within the last three years between the Postal Authorities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London, relating to any complaints as to the administration of the Glasgow Post Office, and of the General Post Office, Edinburgh; and, whether he will state what the objections are?
MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, there was no correspondence within the last three years between the postal authorities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London relating to complaints as to the administion of the Glasgow Post Office and the General Post Office, Edinburgh. If there was, it would be of a confidential character, and could not be produced. He thought it right to add that the secretary of the Glasgow Post Office was a gentleman in whom he had entire confidence, and he had never heard any complaint against him from any quarter.

ARMY—REGIMENTAL AND CONTROL PAYMASTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he contemplates improving the retirement of Regimental Paymasters, by placing them on an equality in that respect with Control Paymasters, who, after thirty years' service, can retire on £1 per diem, whereas Regimental Paymasters can only retire on 15 s.; and, if not, on what principle the distinction is to be justified?
MR. CARDWELL: The duties of the regimental paymaster and those of the Control paymaster are not the same, but very different. The whole question of

249
paymasters is under consideration, and I have suspended new appointments in all cases in which I could do so without inconvenience to the service. I am not prepared to hold out to existing paymasters the prospect of an increase in their retiring allowance.

ARMY—SALE OF OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD GARLIESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is prepared to permit the Purchase Commissioners to treat officers who have been placed compulsorily upon half-pay, upon the same principles of equity which have been applied to other officers upon application for retirement from the Service by the sale of their Commissions?
MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the Act of last Session gave every officer an indemnity in respect of the sale of the commission he held at the time of the passing of the Act, and made the Purchase Commissioners the sole judges in every case. He was not prepared to say that he should ask Parliament for any power to giver over-regulation prices in any case in which such power was not given by the Act of last Session.

THE ROYAL MINT—SILVER COINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAstated that since giving Notice of the Question he had now to ask he had received a communication from one of the principal bankers in Sheffield, to the effect that after applying in vain to about 30 towns in the Kingdom, he found that silver could only be procured in places in the North of Ireland. He wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps he is taking to diminish the great inconvenience which is at present experienced from the scarcity of silver coinage?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, notwithstanding that they had in the course of the present year coined £600,000 worth of silver, which was double the average issue, there was still such a demand for silver that they had found it necessary to take further measures. The machinery at the Mint, he regretted to state, was not equal to the work which was at present demanded of it, and they were bound to go on coining gold when it was required, while they had also copper coinage on
  250
  hand. Under these circumstances, they had felt it their duty to enter into a contract with a private firm—Messrs. Heaton and Sons of Birmingham—to perform for them the preliminary process of the coinage of silver—namely, to provide blanks to be finished at the Mint. He hoped under those arrangements to commence about the middle of August next issuing £50,000 worth of silver per week, and to continue it as long as silver should be required. At the same time, he must warn hon. Gentlemen that they were laying the foundation of what would probably become before long a glut of silver, and they must not expect him to take measures for reducing it.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—GALLEY HEAD LIGHTHOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, The cause of the delay that has occurred in commencing the works for the erection of a lighthouse on Galley Head; and, whether he can state when it is probable the work may be completed?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, the Irish Lights Commissioners had submitted to the Board of Trade estimates for the erection of a lighthouse on Galley Head, and they were being examined at the Trinity House. He had no doubt that an estimate amply sufficient for the purpose would be sanctioned within a very short time, and it would then remain for the Irish Lights Commissioners to begin the work.

RUMOURED ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHO: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the report current in the House that certain evil-disposed persons have, within the last few hours, nearly succeeded in blowing up Her Majesty's Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no truth, Sir, in the report.

CATTLE IMPORTATION.—QUESTION.
MR. MACFIE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council a Question of which I have given him private

251
Notice, Whether he has been able to discover by whose authority the animals which have been thrown into the sea near Leith have been so treated?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that on the 24th of July the Department received a telegram from the veterinary Inspector at Leith asking whether diseased carcases might be taken out to sea 20 miles off, and thrown overboard. The reply telegraphed was—
"The diseased carcases must be buried unless you can obtain security that they will be sunk at sea, so that they cannot be picked up or washed ashore."
Unfortunately that security was not obtained, and some 16 cattle were washed ashore. He hoped, however, that they were not diseased cattle, as to which he trusted proper care had been taken, but apparently healthy cattle taken back afterwards and thrown overboard. Undoubtedly there was a mistake in the matter, which he hoped would not occur again. He had been mistaken in stating that the local authorities at Leith were to blame, inasmuch as the cattle did not appear to have been within their jurisdiction.

THE CIVIL SERVICE—TEMPORARY WRITERS.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYwished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him short private Notice. There was a Treasury Minute issued on the 27th of June last to the temporary writers employed in the Civil Establishments of Her Majesty's Government, and it contained the two following conditions:—It offered to these writers a choice either to continue in their employment on the terms laid down in Clause 3 of the Order in Council of the 19th of August, 1871, or to retire, receiving a gratuity for the sale of a pension commuted to five years' purchase under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1854. The Question he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was, Whether the choice given by this Treasury Minute to the temporary writers would be continued after the close of the present Session of Parliament, or whether there was any chance of the retirement to which allusion was made in the Minute being then rendered compulsory?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, there was no intention whatever of limiting the option to the present Session of Parliament. Of course, a reasonable time must be allowed to the writers to take the option; but, as far as he was aware, there was nothing in the Minute which would operate to make retirement compulsory.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL— [BILL 261.]
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL— [BILL 261.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. KNIGHTrose to move that the Bill be considered upon that day month. He remarked that there had been no debate on the Bill going into Committee because it had been withdrawn with a view to its alteration. It was considerably shortened, many great powers were taken out of it, and in the form in which it had come back to the House it was not quite so objectionable as when it was first introduced. This Bill formed part of a general scheme to subject the whole of the local government of England to a Central Board in London. The scheme was begun last year, when the Board by which everything was to be governed was established—namely, the Poor Law Board, with a new name. Of the clauses of the Bill, 18 might be classed under the head of "tyranny," and 23 under the head of "taxation." Every one of these might well be made the subject of a speech; but on the present occasion he intended to refer only to two or three of them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill was simply a slight transfer of powers. [Mr. STANSFELD emphatically denied that he had ever made such a statement.] At all events, he (Mr. Knight) had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Clause 9 transferred all public property belonging to districts or parishes to the sanitary authority which was to be subject to the Board in London. At first sight this appeared to be a very simple affair; but it would be found that by Clause 18 all local property in England would be transferred from the bodies who held it as trustees for the

  253
  general benefit of the ratepayers to a body who had the power of making away with the whole of it, because they had the power of borrowing money upon it to any amount. Another objectionable clause of the Bill was that which would enable the Local Government Board to dissolve existing districts, and, by reconstituting them, place heavier taxes upon the land lying adjacent to towns than that description of property bore at present. Next came the most monstrous clause of all, which would give power to the Local Government Board to repeal local Acts, all of which had been well considered and agreed upon by Parliament, and most of which had worked satisfactorily for very many years. This was a clause which would bear most harshly upon many localities, and would create a feeling of general indignation throughout the country. Clause 40, also, was of a most tyrannical character, for it provided that the limit of rating under local Acts should not apply to sanitary expenses, and left the Local Government Board absolute power to decide what should be considered sanitary purposes. [Mr. STANSFELD said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was no such proposal in the Bill.] He (Mr. Knight) had not the Bill as last amended; but he distinctly remembered a proposal that the determination of the Local Government Board should be conclusive as to what sanitary purposes were. The amount of taxation which would be involved in carrying out the provisions of this little Bill would be enormous. One of its most objectionable features was that a direct bribe in the shape of increased salaries was offered to existing local officials, who were to become the servants of the new sanitary authorities. The opposition of these gentlemen to the present Bill was thus neatly and effectually got rid of. The net result of the measure, as put by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board, with all the authority of Gwydyr House, would be the imposition of a very great amount of additional taxation upon the rural districts. One of the chief objections urged against the Bill in the short discussions upon this Bill was the appointment of Boards of Guardians. For his own part, if let alone or controlled by some county authority, he did not believe that the Guardians would be an
  254
  improper body to intrust with these powers. They were possessed of ample local knowledge, and would do their work very well but for the powerful central authority which it was proposed to set over them. He himself had twice had a seat on the Board, and he could testify to the fact that no set of men could be more incapable of undertaking those duties than the Poor Law Board. That Board was composed of estimable gentlemen, who had spent many years in the public service, and who, as far as ordinary life in London was concerned, and as far as related to the petty precedents of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, were perfect, but who were as ignorant as it was possible for any set of men in the world to be of everything connected with the management of the rural districts and small towns of England. Upon the something like 20 different subjects which would be placed under their control they would have daily appeals from all parts of the country, and would have to give daily decisions, and if there were any men more incompetent to deal with these questions or more ignorant of all that related to them, he should be glad to learn where they were to be found. If they were to take a dozen magistrates from different parts of the country and add to them persons chosen by the ratepayers—selected probably from that useful but much abused class called "busy bodies," men who devoted themselves to the public service—they would probably secure just decisions in the cases brought under the attention of such a body, but such a result was impossible under the proposed system. As for the Parliamentary position of the Board, that stood for nothing. As long as they fell in with the prejudices of a certain clique they were regarded as very good fellows; but directly they placed themselves in opposition to that clique, even Presidents of the Board found themselves stopped and thwarted in every way. One of the chief gentlemen connected with the permanent staff said to him some time since—"For many years we have had nothing to do. We are a very large and powerful Board, and we are a very expensive Board. We have the power of managing, no doubt, the whole of the local government in England. The object of the Board must be to get that into our

  255
  hands by degrees." He smiled when he heard that statement; but when he smiled he did not think there could ever be a Minister base enough to propose it, or a Parliament base enough to accept it. They could see the effects of centralization in France, where, whether the Government was an Empire, a Monarchy, a Conservative Republic, or a Democratic Republic, the rural communities were merely slaves and were loudly crying out for decentralization. It was, therefore, wonderful to find the most Democratic Parliament since the Long Parliament willing to throw away our liberties, and to put the people of this country, step by step, little Bill by little Bill, under the control of a set of men as ignorant upon those matters as it was possible to conceive. He was not fond of addressing the House. He never did so if he could avoid it, and he never did so unless there was something which he felt ought to be said and there was no one willing to say it. He believed that when the Commission first sat there was a difference of opinion, but the centralizers got the day. He thought he could distinguish the interposition of Mr. E. Chadwick in the appearance of this measure. In 1835 letters were sent to all the counties inquiring into the state of the rural population, and the result was to show that they were "better housed, better clothed, and better fed" than in any other part of Europe, except Norway. Since that time the whole of the country had considerably ameliorated. Seven hundred towns had voluntarily undertaken the work of draining themselves, and whereas in 1835 no one ever heard of a nuisance because no one ever devoted any attention to the subject, now no nuisance was ever detected without an outcry against it being raised at once. He hoped Parliament would concur with him in letting the Bill stand till next Session. He did not see any great necessity for it, as he believed that this country was the best drained and best cleansed of any. What still remained to be done would be done without the great social revolution which the Bill intended to bring about. Sanitary reform was at the present time in a tentative condition, and he counselled Parliament not to force upon the nation untried systems. Some engineer would come forward somewhere with plans,
  256
  which would be taken up in other places, and ultimately tried all over the country at monstrous expense. They would remember when the telescopic back drainage was tried how all the mains broke up, and there was produced such a fever in Croydon as had never been heard of in England, and all that was the doing of an old Board of Health. The old Board had compelled the towns to empty their cesspools into the rivers; but residents on the banks of those rivers complained of the nuisance, and applied to the Court of Chancery. The Court, refusing the plea that the Department required it, ordered the practice to be discontinued. Birmingham had turned its sewage into a river which ran through the property of the President of the Royal Commission which considered the subject (Sir Charles Adderley), and the right hon. Gentleman sued the town authorities in Chancery in consequence. It would be much better if Parliament let the right hon. Gentleman fight the matter out in Chancery rather than precipitate a decision. He held that this Parliament had no right to pass this Bill after voting for the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). The people of England had consented to pay large charges which in other countries were paid by the Government, on condition of their being allowed to manage the expenditure themselves. If Parliament took the management from them and put it in the hands of a general Board, they were bound, out of the general resources of the country, to find these charges, and not inflict them on that small portion of the community which was already too much overburdened. They all remembered the failure of the old Board of Health, which was broken up amidst a howl of disapprobation. That Board was followed by an exceedingly good Bill—the Local Government Bill—the object of which was to help and not to force towns to drain themselves. Under the operation of that Bill a great many towns came every year. If the present measure were passed, it would be received with a general cry of disapprobation throughout the whole country. An engineer had stated that £70,000,000 would be wanted during the first 10 years, and as that was to be borrowed or raised by taxation, he could not conceive what the ratepayers

  257
  would say to it. He opposed the Bill because he refused to hear the brunt of being called one of a Parliament which had allowed it to pass without a word being said against it, or without a division being taken upon it. He therefore moved that it be taken into considera-this day month.
  MR. GREGORYexpressed his regret that the Government pressed forward the Bill. The House had before it a Licensing Bill—a measure of great importance, and one which was received with more general acceptance. Yet that measure was set aside, and precedence was given to the present Bill, which referred to Acts of Parliament containing, he believed, not fewer than 500 clauses; and the local bodies which were to be constituted under that Bill were to take cognizance of all these 500 clauses. The result of this would be a mass of confused interpretation. All the local bodies could do would be to refer to the central authority for advice, and if they did that the law which was to be administered would not be the law of Parliament, but that of the Central Board. The Bill began at the wrong end, as it was the duty of Government, before constituting these Boards, to give them a code of laws which they could properly administer. The Bill, if passed, would be utterly unworkable. He begged to second the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Knight.)
  MR. CORRANCE, in supporting the Motion, said, he had not hitherto shown himself as an opponent of the Bill, but he regretted to be obliged now to appear in that character. He had looked forward to this Bill with the most sanguine expectations when it was introduced in March last. It had, however, been stripped of 42 or 43 clauses. In its first shape, though the Bill was certainly stiff, formal, and pedantic, its dry bones would have been clothed with life; but nothing could be made of it as it now stood. As far as the ratepayers were concerned it would involve almost un-paralelled sacrifices. The Education Act with a tax of 1s. in the pound was a bagatelle to it. Under proper conditions, however, he would be the last
  258
  man to refuse to make these sacrifices. One of the conditions was that the burden should be made a national burden. The power of borrowing money conferred by the Bill raised very grave questions, for if the borrowing area was too small its credit would be small also, and the rate of interest would be high; but in addition to that, the borrowing of money from Government would make the small area utterly subservient. Another condition on which he insisted was entire independence of administration. Small areas were incapable of independence, and it would just come to this—that the money would be raised by the small areas and spent by Her Majesty's Government. The great reason for advocating the erection of a central administration was the patronage it would have to bestow. Was this the policy of the Liberal party? He had been trained as a Member of the Liberal party, and could say that it was not the policy that once prevailed in it. Such central administration it had utterly and always repudiated. The Liberal party seemed to be like Saturn, and were in the act now-adays of devouring their own children. He had made propositions to them which they would find in their own bureau, but these had been rejected, and were all down their own throats. He could not help observing that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill described it as provisional; and it seemed to him (Mr. Corrance) that it was very objectionable to have any provisional arrangement, because one part of the Bill clearly was not provisional, and that was that which gave power to the central administration. The appointment of officers was to be provisional—that was, for not more than five years; but would any efficient officer accept such a provisional appointment? The areas were also to be provisional, and next year they were promised an amalgamation which would make the areas larger. What the Government now wanted to hurry through Parliament at the blundering end of the Session was a provisional measure, whilst the power given to the central authority would not be provisional. He, however, would scarcely recommend his hon. Friend to divide the House, because he could not hope for a large amount of support at this period of the Session, and the numbers upon the division might be misconstrued out-of-doors.
  MR. HURSTsaid, he would support the Amendment because the Bill would take from the guardians almost entirely the power of managing their own affairs, and would stir up perpetual disaffection between the governed and the governing.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I remember the time when the Radical party, whose successors sit below the Ministerial gangway, considered the protection and defence of local self-government as a sacred part of their functions. But their successors of the present day seem to have totally abandoned that function. And it is remarkable, so intent has this House of Commons been upon carrying revolutionary measures affecting its own constitution, that it has not spared itself time to consider measures of the kind now before us, which, going beyond political revolution, bids fair to become the commencement of a social revolution in this country. These are wide considerations, which hon. Members seem to think should devolve upon Her Majesty's Government and certain right hon. Members of the House, but with which they themselves have no concern. On both sides of the House hon. Members seem content to come down when they are sent for, and to vote as they are told. I never knew a House in which there was less evidence of intellectual individuality. We are asked to pass this Bill, proposed as it is by Her Majesty's Government, and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Without this aid I do not believe that this Bill could pass. This House finds itself compromised by an official coalition for the purpose of breaking up the whole local administration of the country as established for sanitary purposes. I, nevertheless, will not consent to let this Bill pass without opposition. Now, what has been the history of those matters? I remember, and can attest the truth of all that has been stated by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) with respect to the action of the late Board of Health. I may mention that which need now be no secret, that the late Lord Derby asked me to accept the Presidency of that Board, and I refused, because I was convinced that that Department could not be continued without entailing the necessity for the centralizing action which is manifest in this Bill, I have, therefore, some
  260
  right to speak upon this subject. Let the House consider what is the character of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) introduced an elaborate measure on this subject, and it had this merit—that it attempted to establish local government by law, but it was so complicated that, under the circumstances of this Session, there was no chance of its passing. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board then took up the question; and what does his Bill contain? It contains provisions for breaking up all local administration, and settles nothing to replace the existing system, but the establishment of an indefinite power in the hands of the Local Government Board. Literally, it settles nothing else. Upon that Board, however, this Bill would confer power to break up every local sanitary administration in the country, and to change the limits of jurisdiction, and to alter the personal administration. It gives an unlimited power of borrowing to the authorities it would create within the areas which the central authority may establish, and corresponding with that unlimited power of borrowing for the multifarious purposes recited in the last clause of the Bill, it gives an unlimited power of taxation. In truth, the principle of this measure is to convert taxation by rating—that is, local taxation into public taxation—ignoring this difference—that whereas local rating is levied by an authority responsible to the inhabitants of the locality for the amount it levies, this rating under this Bill will practically be assessed by a central authority, which is in no way responsible to the inhabitants of the locality upon which this taxation will hereafter be imposed. I say, therefore, that this Bill, in this respect, is unconstitutional in principle. Then, Sir, look at the other provisions of this Bill. This House is asked to delegate an unknown amount of legislative power to a Central Board. In one clause of the Bill—the clause which repeals—there is power to repeal all local Acts, and inasmuch as there is no provision in the Bill for compelling the central authority to appeal again to Parliament for authority in repealing those Acts, this Bill is thoroughly unconstitutional. I would further observe with regard to the matter of expense,

  261
  there is power in this Bill to provide for the displacement of any number of the officers who are employed under the present local authorities. There is power, also—and that an unlimited power—to grant compensation to the officers so displaced. Sir, I must say that after considering the provisions of this Bill, it appears to me one of the most surprising measures that I ever knew submitted to the House of Commons; and yet, Sir, so over-borne by the length of its labours is this House of Commons, that the Bill is likely to pass without discussion. Her Majesty's Government are prudent in remaining silent on this subject. No explanation they could be expected willingly to give would, if it were to convey a true description of this Bill, commend it to the country. But the Government know that they are supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be the Leader of a great number of county Members. Thus they are confident, although it has been avowed that the chief weight of this additional taxation is to fall upon the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), being aware of that, is prudently silent. Reference has been made to the Resolution which the House adopted at the instance of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). Sir, I voted for that Resolution, though I did so with some misgivings. I should not have voted if it had not been specified that by virtue of that Resolution only certain local charges were to be relieved by funds provided out of the general taxation of the country; because I knew that relief would certainly be followed by measures transferring the jurisdiction over all these local objects of administration to which public revenue is applied to the central government. Had I known the consequence of passing that Resolution—had I understood the kind of revenge which was to be taken in retaliation for the passing of that Resolution would be the passing of such a measure as this—I would have voted against that Resolution. The result of that Resolution, as embodied in this Bill, shows that supporting that Resolution was a most imprudent step on the part of the county Members in this House; for the consequence which it has entailed upon them is that the Government,
  262
  aided by the Leader of the Opposition, brings in a measure which will break up all the local administration connected with the various purposes which may be termed "sanitary." These form so large a part of local administration that it may be said without exaggeration that this Bill will break up the system of local government, and substitute for it a system of centralization, of which we may hereafter have great difficulty in getting rid. But get rid, sooner or later, I trust we shall. Inasmuch, however, as I see nothing to ensue from this Bill but future contentions—such as were entailed by the operations of the late Board of Health—I shall vote against the Bill as a measure unworthy of the House of Commons. No doubt there are inducements which have operated upon the Government, in the prospect of increased patronage and relief from the labour of framing a more complete measure. The Government complain that they are overtaxed by business. I must confess that I am ashamed that Members of this House are perpetually urging the Government to take up measure after measure, which they might themselves introduce and ought to be able to carry. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who do this are virtually abandoning their own functions. As I have said, I hear the complaint that the Government are overtaxed with work. I do not doubt that they are overtaxed; but the permanent officials are not overtaxed with work, and it is a mistake to suppose that the labour entailed by the system of centralized administration, which this Bill would establish, will fall upon the responsible Ministers of the Crown. The real framers, the real administrators of this centralized system, will be the permanent officials—men who are totally irresponsible to this House; and if it be said that these officials are represented in this House by some Minister, like the President of the Local Government Board, as it is called, it must be remembered that the functions of the right hon. Gentleman are so multifarious that, if complaint is made against him in some particular, or even in a number of particulars, he immediately pleads his services in a thousand different capacities, and his responsibility virtually goes for nothing. The view, therefore, that I take of this measure is, that it is objectionable, because I can

  263
  see no reason for breaking up the whole system of local sanitary administration in one Session on the faith of a vague promise. Some other form of that administration will be established in the next Session. It seems to me that legislation is not worthy of the name if, when it does break up institutions—supposing there is a necessity for revolutionizing the institutions of the country—it does not at least substitute some definite form of government by law, instead of transferring, as this Bill does wholesale, powers of administration, powers of taxation, powers of interference with the domestic habits, and with the freedom of the people of this country to a central authority. I, for one, will not vote for the transfer of such powers wholesale to a central authority which has not proved its capacity or its worthiness for the charge, by even indicating in detail the measures of constructive legislation which it is prepared to propose.
  MR. STANSFELDwished to make a very few remarks in reply to the objections which had been raised to this Bill. He cordially agreed in one remark made by the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) that he hoped the result of this discussion would be that the Bill would be better understood. The hon. Member who opened the debate (Mr. Knight) signalized himself by not making a single correct reference to the clauses of the Bill, and by stating as inaccurately as it was possible for the ingenuity of man the object of those clauses. The infection seemed to have been caught by those who succeeded him. The hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) said that the law was in such a state of confusion that it was very difficult for the existing sanitary authorities to understand it, but that it would be perfectly impossible to understand the present measure; but he ought to have known that under the existing law the Board of Guardians were already the nuisance authorities, and all the Bill did, so far as the rural sanitary authorities were concerned, was to take from the parishes which were not organized bodies capable of understanding or directing administration the administration of sewage utilization, and adding that to the functions already exercised by Boards of Guardians. But the greatest misrepresentation—entirely unconscious misrepresentation, he was
  264
  sure—was that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He could not conceive it possible that the hon. Member could have taken the trouble to look at the Bill. He said the Bill completely destroyed local self-government in the country. Now, this was a matter of fact to be ascertained by looking at the clauses themselves. The Bill parcelled out among certain local sanitary authorities the powers and duties under certain existing Acts. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Which might be repealed.] He (Mr. Stansfeld) was dealing with the statement that the Bill would destroy local government, and he was answering it. What were those local authorities? The Bill created urban sanitary authorities. The first urban sanitary authority was the town council in boroughs. Was that breaking up local self-government? The second urban authority was Improvement Commissioners. The Bill recognized and confirmed them all. Was that undermining the principle of local self-government? And as to the rural authorities, the Bill only took the functions from the parishes which they were unable to fulfil and conferred them on the Board of Guardians, who were already a local sanitary authority. The hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) talked of the enormous centralizing powers taken by the Bill, and the new charges which would be created by it. The hon. Member had no right to mislead the House. No new centralizing power was taken by the Bill. The only new power taken was a power to require local sanitary authorities to appoint local medical officers of health. That was the only new power, save that to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had referred—the power of enlarging and uniting districts for certain sanitary purposes. There was no division of opinion, no doubt, in the mind of anyone as to the necessity of a provision of that kind. And the hon. Member entirely forgot or ignored the fact that that power was to be exercised by provisional orders, which meant legislation under conditions and provisions conceived and calculated to secure the most careful consideration of the local interests which might be affected by it. The hon. Member had talked of an indefinite increase of borrowing power conferred by this Bill, but no such borrowing power was conferred, it was given under already

  265
  existing legislation; but there was in this Bill a power to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to the sanitary authorities money at an immensely reduced rate of interest. With regard to increased charges to be thrown on the country, he repeated the opinion he had formerly given—he utterly disbelieved that this Bill in its operation would throw any considerable increase of rate or charge on the country. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) repeatedly acknowledged that the heaviest local charges were for waterworks and sewerage. He hoped the powers of supervision under this Bill would lead to expenditure of a moderate character, and that by improving the sanitary administration of the country would add to the prosperity and wealth of the community.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 16: Majority 152.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved after Clause 45, to insert the following clause:—(Securities under certain Provisional Orders to be valid). After Clause 50, insert the following clause:—(Penalty on breach of rules made under s. 52 of 29 and 30 Vict. c. 90.) Clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved after Clause 40, to insert the following clause:—
  (Repayment of borrowed moneys.)
  "Where a sanitary authority has either under the borrowing powers of the Sanitary Act or any Local Act already borrowed moneys for the purpose of paying for the land, works, or other property mentioned in the foregoing section on the credit of its rates repayable by annual instalments, such authority may, with and out of the moneys to be borrowed under said section thirty-eight, pay off so much of the amount already borrowed as is equal to three-quarters of the purchase money paid, and thereupon any mortgage of the rates already executed shall be re-adjusted so as to make the remainder of the moneys due thereon, if any, and the yearly interest thereof, payable during the residue of the term for which the whole was originally borrowed."
  The hon. Member observed that money under this clause could be borrowed at 3½ per cent; and if sanitary authorities were allowed to pay off their existing
  266
  debts by the money so borrowed, they would effect a saving in many cases of hundreds a-year.
  Clause brought up, and read a first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, his hon. Friend would learn with satisfaction that his only objection to the clause was that it was unnecessary, as the object in view would be carried out by an Amendment which he should propose to Clause 41.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 (Description of urban sanitary districts and urban sanitary authorities).
  MR. DIMSDALEmoved, in page 2, line 15, before "Provided," insert—
  "And any parish which is not included in any borough, election improvement Act district, or local government district at the passing of this Act, or so much of any parish as is not so included, shall, if it contains according to the last census a population exceeding three thousand, be a local government district under a local board."
  The hon. Gentleman remarked that his Amendment was based on a recommendation of the Sanitary Commission.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpointed out that the recommendation of the Commissioners was qualified in the following manner:—They recommended that where a parish had a certain population of which a considerable portion was evidently urban, every facility should be given to such a parish to become a local government district. His hon. Friend's Amendment, however, contained no such qualification, and he objected to it because there were many rural districts which had a sparse population of 3,000, and which ought not to have urban responsibilities thrust upon them.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, there would be the greatest difficulty in carrying the hon. Member's proposition into effect, because parishes of 3,000 inhabitants varied so much in extent. To meet the difficulty complained of, the powers in the Bill for forming local districts were as wide as possible. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. DIMSDALEsaid, that under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEmoved an Amendment to Clause 4, the effect of which would be to remove the University and the colleges out of the exception to the clause, and to vest the sanitary authority in the Town Council, instead of in the Improvement Commissioners. There were many reasons why it was desirable to adopt the course he proposed, the principal of which was that under the Bill as it stood the University would have to bear an excessive and undue amount of taxation as compared with the property in the borough. Another reason was that the borough had had added to it the rural district of Chesterton, over which the Improvement Commissioners had no jurisdiction, but which certainly ought to be included in any sanitary scheme affecting the borough.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the word "Cambridge."—(Mr. Spencer Walpole.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Cambridge' stand part of the Bill."
  An Amendment made.
  SIR ROBERT TORRENSsaid, that the object the right hon. Gentleman opposite had in view was in reality to reduce the contribution paid by the University and colleges to the rates to very nearly half of what it was at present. The colleges and the town of Cambridge were so mixed up together that it was absolutely impossible to drain or light the one without draining or lighting the other, and they were, therefore, obliged to place these matters under the supervision of a Board elected by and representing both interests. Negotiations had been pending between the town and the University, but the offers made by the former, which were eminently fair, had for the present been rejected under the pretence that no decision could be satisfactorily arrived at before it was known what this Bill would provide. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had stated that it was one of the leading principles of the Government, in passing this Bill, to disturb as little as they could help the existing local arrangements of the country. The
  268
  existing arrangements at Cambridge were equitable and serviceable, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the Bill in its present shape, and not accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not go into the details of all the objections which had been urged, but he thought that he should be able to throw out some suggestions which would meet the difficulty with respect to Cambridge. He thought the best way of meeting the difficulty would be not to omit that town from the exception, because that would make the Town Council the sanitary authority, which would not be desirable, but to add these words at the end of the clause—
  "The Cambridge Commissioners, described in section 31 of the Public Health Act of 1848, shall not exercise any fresh powers of rating or borrowing conferred upon them by this act until the expiration of one year after the passing thereof, unless the assent of the University be first specified in writing, under the hand of the Vice Chancellor."
  The effect of that would be to give a year for the negotiations which were now going on between the local authorities and the town to bear fruit.
  SIR ROBERT TORRENSwished that the permission of the Town Council of Cambridge should be necessary also.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession, and accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for the borough.
  Amendment (Mr. Spencer Walpole), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Stansfeld) agreed to.
  MR. WILLIAMS WYNNmoved the insertion of Welshpool among the list of excepted boroughs. The union of Welshpool was an enormous one, while the area of the town was very small, and he protested against such an enormous union being rated for the sanitary works required for so small an area. On that ground he wished to see the name of Welshpool included in the list of exemptions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the words "Much Wenlock," to insert the word "Welshpool"—(Mr. Williams Wynn.)
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYopposed the Amendment. The union of Welshpool contained 70 square miles, while the local district of the town contained

  269
  only 1,800 acres, and it was argued that the whole of the union would he liable to be rated for any sewage works which might be required for the local district. But the case of Welshpool was met by the provisions of a subsequent clause in the Bill, which empowered the local authority to rate a part instead of the whole of the district.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought that the difficulty would be better met by the way in which the district was treated by the Government, who had introduced words into the 16th clause which would meet the justice of the case. He therefore could not assent to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'Welshpool' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 63: Majority 43.
  MR. PELLmoved the insertion after the word "Wight" of these words, "and in all boroughs with a population not exceeding 3,000." Great expense would be occasioned to these small boroughs by appointing a medical officer and an inspector, which would be quite unnecessary if they were thrown into the surrounding districts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the word "Wight," to insert the words "and all boroughs with a population not exceeding 3,000."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. F. S. POWELLhoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, which, if adopted, would cause disturbance and inconvenience.
  MR. STANSFELDobserved that there were only four boroughs not being under Local Boards or Improvement Commissioners which would come within the scope of the Amendment. It was scarcely worth while to exempt them from the operation of the clause.
  MR. CORRANCEasked why the boroughs were not scheduled?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved the insertion of the word "rural," as otherwise the clause would be looked on as a somewhat vexatious interference with the regulations of Town Councils and Improvement Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, before the word "sanitary," to insert the word "rural."—(Mr. Henry Samuelson.)
  MR. STANSFELDthought the Amendment would be unnecessary.
  Question, "That the word 'rural' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause 9 (Transfer of property to sanitary authority and effects of transfer of property and powers).
  MR. HIBBERTmoved to insert the words "by the authority whose powers, rights, duties, liabilities, capacities, and obligations, are so transferred."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Repeal of Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1868, sect. 4).
  MR. F. S. POWELLmoved in page 6, line 5, to add at the end the following words:—
  "And all powers and duties conferred and imposed on officers of health under the said Act shall be exercised and performed by the medical officers of health from time to time appointed under the Sanitary Acts or this Act or any Local Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Appointment of committees by rural sanitary authority).
  MR. CORRANCEmoved an Amendment in line 32. The clause proposed that any rural sanitary authority might delegate its powers to a committee, one-third of which must be ex-officio guardians; but if the third could not be made up from ex-officio guardians, it was to be made up from "elected guardians." The Amendment proposed that it should be made up from "owners of property."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 32, to leave out the words "elected guardians," and insert the words "owners of rateable property subject to provisions and qualifications of 'Public Health Act, 1848,' sections twelve, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen."—(Mr. Corrance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'elected guardians' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STANSFELDopposed the Amendment on the ground that it raised a larger question than they could possibly discuss that night. He was in favour of the representation of owners of property on local boards, and he looked forward with great hope and interest

  271
  to arrangements being made which might have the effect of inducing them to take a greater part than they had hitherto taken in local government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 (Expenses of urban sanitary authority).
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEmoved in page 8, line 4, after "shall," to insert the following words—"be in every respect defrayed in the same manner as." He said that in the case of a borough in which he was interested, the occupiers of some 2,000 acres of land expressed extreme dissatisfaction at having to pay the whole rate, while another parish would have to pay only one-fourth of the rate. It might be asked why not put the Local Government Act in force in the borough, and then they would have to pay only one-fourth of the rate? The answer was that the landowners being in a minority were not able to do it. Petitions had been presented to the House, and he had formed one of a deputation to the Local Government Board on the subject, but without effect. It might be said that in large towns it would not do to make an exemption of land. In small boroughs, however, where land was held entirely for agricultural purposes, it would be only reasonable that there should be an exemption such as he sought for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the case of these boroughs would be considered. If such an assurance were not given, he proposed to divide the House on his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 4, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be in every respect defrayed in the same manner as."—(Colonel Brise.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STANSFELDregretted to say he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. The principle on which this Bill had been drawn was that with respect to rating it should do nothing that would alter the present incidence of rating. Wherever the Local Government Acts were in force in a district the rating would be under those Acts; where they were not in force the charges devolved upon the Town Council of the borough, as sanitary authority, and were payable
  272
  out of the borough fund or rate; wherever there were Improvement Commissioners the expenses would be paid out of the Commissioners' rate, and wherever any other sanitary authority had power to levy any rate for sanitary purposes that power would be continued. This Bill was not a rating Bill, nor was it meant to provide for special grievances which a minority of inhabitants in a district felt, which was the object of the Amendment.
  MR. PELLunderstood the object of the Amendment to be to allow certain districts or classes of property to receive the benefit of certain exemptions from taxation which had been granted them under existing Acts, and which, if the Bill passed, they would no longer have. [Mr. STANSFELD: No, no.] Notwithstanding that cry of "No, no," he understood that the clause would deprive the landowners of certain exemptions they at present enjoyed under the existing Acts.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Amendment would give an exemption to all boroughs, whether they adopted the Local Government Act or not.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked, if in future districts exemptions would be in accordance with the Local Government Act?
  MR. STANSFELD: Yes.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 63: Majority 40.
  Clause 18 (Mode of raising contributions in rural sanitary districts).
  MR. STANSFELDmoved in page 10, line 36, after parish, insert—
  "And such increase of rate shall be raised in such contributory place or part of a contributory place by an addition to the poor rate, or by a separate rate to be assessed, made, allowed, published, collected, and levied, in the same manner as a poor rate. The officers ordinarily employed in the collection of the poor rate shall, if required by the overseers, collect any separate rate made under this section, and receive such remuneration for the additional duty as the overseers with the consent of the vestry may determine."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Governing body of united district).
  MR. STANSFELDmoved in page 16, line 10, after "it" to insert—
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall exempt any member of a joint board from liability to be surcharged with the amount of any payment which may be disallowed by the auditor in the

  273
  accounts of such joint board, and which such member authorised or joined in authorising."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Repeal of Acts.
  Clause 33 (Repeal of Local Acts).
  MR. STANSFELDmoved in page 18, line 13, after "Acts," to insert "other than Acts for the conservancy of rivers."
  MR. DIMSDALEobjected to the Amendment. The Bill as originally framed would have qualified the stringency of the Lea Conservancy Acts—first, by fixing a standard of purity; and, secondly, by enabling the Local Government Board to alter or set aside those Acts. The former proposal, however, had been withdrawn, in deference, he presumed, to threatened opposition from residents in northern towns, and the Amendment would deprive the Lea district of the advantage they had anticipated from the latter. He preferred the Bill as it stood to the Amendment.
  MR. COWPERalso regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to propose this Amendment.
  MR. STANSFELDexplained that the Amendment was introduced in order to remedy an inconvenience that would result from the clause as it stood at present.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Transfer of powers and duties under Alkali Act, 1863, and Metropolis Water Acts, to Local Government Board).
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the clause transferred from the Board of Trade to the Local Government Board the powers created by the Alkali Acts and by the Metropolis Water Acts of 1852 and 1871; but it would tend to the mutual convenience of the Boards that the transfer should not at once take place. He therefore proposed to amend the clause by saying that the transfer of these powers might be effected by Order in Council at any time prior to the 1st January, 1873; and in the event of there being no such transfer that the transfer of the powers should take place on that date.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not agree in the propriety of effecting the transfer by an Order in Council.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEthought that this would be the most convenient way of doing it; and it was desirable that some delay should take place, because the Board of Trade was now engaged
  274
  in a very important inquiry in reference to obtaining for London a constant water supply. He quite approved of the transfer of the powers in question to the Local Government Board, and he might add that a process was going on by which the powers of the various Boards should be placed upon a more logical foundation than that which they had heretofore occupied. He warned his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), however, that a great deal more would be expected of him than he would have power to effect under the existing powers in reference to the water supply. He hoped that one day the supply of water would cease to be solely in the hands of the trading companies, whose principal object was to make a profit for their shareholders, and that it would be placed under some local authority.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his concluding remarks, and said that the Local Government Board would soon find that it was quite necessary that within a short time the existing Acts in reference to the supply of water to London should be replaced by new legislation, because the powers conferred by them were quite insufficient. He feared, however, lest the Amendment now proposed should practically tie up the hands of the Government, and prevent them from introducing any adequate measure during the whole of next Session. The Bill of 1871 was a Hybrid Bill, and notices had to be given in October, 1870. This course would have to be repeated for any future Bill dealing with the Water Companies' property. He hoped that the transfer of the powers from the Board of Trade to the Local Government Board would take place before October next.
  MR. F. S. POWELLregretted that the powers conferred by the Alkali Acts were not to be transferred at once.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed at the earliest possible moment next Session to the subject of the water supply of London. He had been under the impression that the Act of last year was an operative one, and that he might obtain a constant supply; but after he had gone to considerable expense with this view, his agent was laughed at by the water company when asking for a constant supply.

  275
  He was glad that the powers conferred on the Board of Trade were to be transferred to the Local Government Board.
  MR. CAWLEYapproved of the suggested Amendment, but he believed that great alterations would be required before the powers in question were brought into operation. No single individual could obtain a constant supply till such supply was generally asked for; and Gentlemen must be contented to submit to some difficulty till they could bring their fellows to express a desire in that direction. A constant supply and the present fittings were incompatible. There was no reason for fixing the date of the operation of the Act at the 1st of October.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it had been remarked that if an inhabitant could not obtain a constant supply it was his own fault, and that he could not obtain it without the general consent of his neighbours. It had been suggested that the transfer of the powers of the Board of Trade to other Departments would not be sufficient without some further legislation on the subject.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Transfer of the powers and duties of Secretary of State under Highway and Turnpike Acts to Local Government Board).
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, the present management of the roads was very good, and he doubted whether any benefit would arise from a change from King Log to King Stork, but this would be the result of the clause. He supposed that there would be 30 or 40 Inspectors appointed. In fact it was usual, when a Government was going out of office, to appoint a number of Commissioners. There would be Inspectors and auditors sent about the country, and this would be offensive. But all this had nothing whatever to do with the public health. He moved that this clause be omitted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 36.—(Mr. Knight.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought it rather a gratuitous interference to transfer the Highways and Turnpike Trusts to the Local Government Board.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, it had been decided that highways and turnpikes should be transferred to the Local Government
  276
  Board in all Local Board districts. Great difficulties existed with regard to the highways and turnpikes.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Repeal of s. 151 of Public Health Act, 1848).
  MR. STANSFELDstated that by inadvertence the Resolution as to expenses on which this clause was founded had been expressed in terms insufficient to cover the object. It would, therefore, be necessary to omit the clause, and immediately after the Report to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of re-inserting the clause founded on a Resolution which had been agreed to by the whole House.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 42.—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he must divide the House against the clause unless a proviso were added that Oxford and other places having the exemption which the clause was intended to repeal should continue to enjoy it as heretofore.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the clause had been carried on a division by a considerable majority, and it was not just to accuse him of adopting an unfair course with respect to it.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of inserting a clause which the House had struck out?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose which he has stated. When the Bill has been re-committed the hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity of moving his Amendments.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Clause 44 (Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to sanitary authority on security of rates).
  MR. RATHBONEmoved an Amendment, with a view to enabling local authorities acting under local Acts to obtain loans in the same manner as if they acted under sanitary Acts.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 8, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "or by any local Acts which

  277
  confer borrowing powers for the same purposes for which the said powers are conferred by the Sanitary Acts, provided that the works in respect of which the said powers are conferred shall not have been undertaken at the time of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
  MR. STANSFELDexplained that under Clause 33 the Local Government Board would have power by provisional order to give local authorities the advantage desired.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved, in page 22, line 10, to leave out "not less than." He thought the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be at liberty to make advances at less than 3½ per cent if they were in a position to do so. On a former occasion, he cited the Scotch Education. Bill, which fixed the rate of loans for the erection of schools at 3½ per cent, in support of this view, but the First Lord of the Treasury told him the precedent of the English Education Act was against him. On referring, however, to that Act he found that it agreed with the Scotch Bill. He had ascertained, moreover, that in many cases the Commissioners had made loans at 3¼ per cent.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to set himself right with the House in this matter. His hon. Friend was quite correct in stating that the Scotch Education Bill agreed with the English Education Act, and in questioning this on a former occasion he acted on misinformation, proceeding from a source from which he had reason to expect accuracy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was not prepared to assume the responsibility for clauses in existing Acts with regard to interest for loans, and he himself had been astonished at finding that they contained such provisions. It might sometimes happen that money clauses got inserted in Bills without the knowledge of the Treasury. It was a matter of regret to him that clauses involving the lending of money at the rate of 3½ per cent should ever be allowed to get into a Bill, subject, however, to one important reservation—namely, that in cases where the loans were to be made at a particular time then it was not unreasonable that there should be such a provision, because they could judge of the condition of the money market at a particular time. That was no doubt the
  278
  case in regard to the Education Acts, where the expenditure was to be incurred within a very short time. But what was now proposed was, when they were passing an enactment without any limit of time to authorize the borrowing of money, that they should insert one fixed rate of interest which could not possibly be applicable except in a given state of the money market.
  Words struck out.
  Clause 48 (Audit of accounts).
  MR. PELLproposed, after "any" to insert "and shall be audited in such manner." The effect of his Amendment was to provide that the accounts of urban sanitary authorities should undergo a sufficient and proper audit as well as the accounts of rural sanitary authorities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 29, after the word "year," to insert the words "and shall be audited in such manner."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STANSFELDopposed the Amendment, but hoped that the time might come when a more uniform and satisfactory plan might be adopted.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESpressed upon the Government the necessity of securing uniformity in this respect.
  MR. RYLANDShoped the Government would maintain the position which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had taken.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 112: Majority 58.
  MR. HIBBERTmoved that the Bill be re-committed, with the view of inserting a clause to repeal the exemption clause with reference to stamps on deeds and conveyances, which was omitted in the previous Act.
  MR VERNON HARCOURTexpressed his opposition to such a course. They were told that this proceeding was to be taken on the ground of the sacred principle of non-exemption. This was one of those cheese-paring, irritating things which saved very little money and gave very grievous offence. It was one of the flies in the pot of ointment which caused it to stink. Though the Government were economical in small affairs, when they had a matter before

  279
  them involving the expenditure of £3,500,000 they were not so particular for a clause of exemption from stamps were to be inserted. Now that they had got rid of Clause 42, he appealed to his right hon. Friend to let the Bill remain as it was, and not ask the House to recommit the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped the House would not be deceived by the lawyer-like arguments of his hon. and learned Friend who had urged that because the Army Localization Bill contained an exemption, a similar clause ought also to be introduced into the present measure. It required, however, no knowledge of the law, but only common sense to detect the fallacy of such an argument, because the exemption in the latter case was merely an enactment that the Imperial Government should not pay stamp duty to itself. With regard to the present Bill, the Government proposed not to continue an exemption which was partial and unjust. Under the law which it was now proposed to modify, Town Councils were not exempted from the payment of stamp duties, but only local Boards, and this was in itself an injustice to those urban districts whose interests his hon. and learned Friend seemed so anxious to promote. If his hon. and learned Friend's proposal were adopted, every local Board in the country would be exempted from the payment of stamp duties on documents, and all individuals who were also parties to the deeds would enjoy the same exemptions, whereas Boards of Guardians would have to pay for a stamp on every document.
  Bill re-committed in respect of a Clause (Repeal of section 151 of Public Health Act 1848); considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

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

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GLADSTONEappealed to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), who had on the Paper a Notice of Motion
280
for to-morrow (Friday) evening relating to the Admiralty, to consent to postpone it on consideration of the state of the Business of the House, and at the same time expressed a hope that other hon. Members would not be unwilling to make a similar concession.
MR. SEELYconsented to waive his right to precedence, although he confessed that he did so with considerable reluctance. He gave Notice that he would bring forward the Motion early in the next Session.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that, in order to facilitate the conduct of Public Business, he would not bring on his Motion respecting the case of Lieutenant Tribe; but he trusted the Government would put down Supply some other night in order that he might submit the matter to the consideration of the House.

METROPOLIS—ROAD BETWEEN MARLBOROUGH HOUSE AND STOREY'S GATE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had a Notice which had stood on the Paper a very long time, and as it related to a great public improvement in the metropolis, he proposed to mention it briefly to the House. The Session ought not, in his opinion, to be allowed to close without the House being informed what action the Government proposed to take in regard to granting permission for private and public carriages to use the new road between Marlborough House and Storey's Gate. His right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works stated a long time ago that public carriages would be allowed to pass between those points, subject to the same regulations as were in force with reference to the road between Marlborough House and Buckingham Gate. The privilege to which he referred was limited to Members of Parliament only during the Session. But it was absolutely necessary for the convenience of the public that the privilege should be further extended, owing to the crowded state of the traffic in Parliament Street, which was likely to become aggravated in consequence of the indecision of the Government. Any person passing through Parliament Street would perceive that it was quite impossible that reasonable facilities could be given for the traffic which passed through it. Under these circumstances, he wished

  281
  to ask his right hon. Friend—for the Motion which stood in his name he would defer to a more convenient time—whether he could give any information to the House as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject? He would simply point out that without any additional, or, at all events, at a very slight additional expense, a great benefit might be conferred on the inhabitants of London, and not only upon them, but upon all their constituents who visited the metropolis. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would sanction this great improvement, especially as they did not intend to open a new roadway over the ornamental water.
  MR. AYRTONbegged to remind his hon. Friend that the road in question was opened in consequence of a Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Cambridgeshire. (Viscount Royston), who proposed that—
  "An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the road by the East end of Saint James's Park may be opened for carriage traffic from Marlborough House Gate to Storey's Gate."
  He had pointed out to the noble Lord that it would not meet the convenience of Members of this House nor serve the object he had in view, and consequently the Motion was withdrawn. He promised, however, that he should be prepared to make a road for the use of Members of both Houses of Parliament during the construction of the public offices; but his hon. Friend wished now to alter that arrangement, and to throw the road open for the use of all the world. The object, however, for which the road was made would be defeated if that were done. He stated at the time that in consequence of the great throng of traffic in Parliament Street during the Session of Parliament, Members were obstructed in coming to the House; that the ordinary traffic also was obstructed, and that the true way to meet the difficulty would be to allow Members to pass as rapidly as they could across the Park. But if the road were thrown open to the public, Members would experience, as they did before, considerable difficulty in getting to the House. He had not discovered any persons who found the least inconvenience from the present arrangement. On the contrary, the public had derived great benefit from it;
  282
  because, instead of Parliament Street being impassable, as it used to be, at certain hours of the day, it was now as free at one time as at another. ["Oh!"] Any person who saw Parliament Street during the Recess knew well that there was no obstruction whatever in that street, and there could therefore be no claim for the general public to go through the Park, who were not compelled, like Members of Parliament, to discharge a great public duty, and to whom time, even a minute or two, was a great and important object. There were certain gentlemen, having offices in George Street, who thought they ought to be put on the same footing as Members of Parliament. But there was this difference—that those gentlemen went there for their own profit, and a large profit they often made. He did not think, therefore, that any change ought to be made in the present arrangement, nor had he any authority to make it.
  MR. W. H. SMITHregretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to refuse the small boon asked for at his hands by his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven. King Street had been closed without any compensation to the people of the metropolis, and the road wanted was very much needed for the traffic from the North to the South. He could not help thinking that it would be very much to the advantage of the metropolis, and not by any means inconsistent with the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupied as Chief Commissioner of Works, if he took into consideration the rightful claim of the public to the use of this road.
  MR. BOUVERIEthought it very wrong that Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords should have any privileges outside the walls of Parliament. As Members of Parliament they had privileges to enable them to discharge their duty to their constituents in the House, such as freedom from arrest; but it was not right that outside Parliament the Members of either House should have some special advantage conferred upon them by the right hon. Gentleman who, one would have supposed, would be the very last person to confer it. He (Mr. Bouverie) could not understand why the public had not taken up this matter much more strongly than they had done, and insisted that the road should be open to all traffic.

  283
  He had himself seen carriages stopped by St. James's Palace, and the occupants asked whether they were Members of either House of Parliament. He should like to know what right or authority anybody had to ask anybody whether he was a Member. Outside that House they were all citizens, and they flattered themselves free and equal; and it had been reserved to the right hon. Gentleman, who had always been an ultra-Liberal and Radical, to set up a peculiar privilege for Members of both Houses.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with reference to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, that it ought to be borne in mind that the House of Commons, at the commencement of each Session of Parliament, gave a special order that—
  "The Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis do take care that, daring the sitting of Parliament, the passages to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to the passage of Members to and from this House."
  The passage of Members, therefore, was recognized as a special subject of public interest. This question was much larger than the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bentinck) supposed, and it could not be discussed with advantage at the present moment. Not one word had been said during the discussion of the real public—the pedestrian public—who enjoyed the surface of the Parks. There was no doubt that if they cut up the Parks into roads for carriages they would contribute greatly to the convenience of the carriage public. He did not want now to press any particular opinion upon the House. He thought the matter was one of growing importance, and required a great deal of consideration; but he was certain that Parliament would never be disposed to solve it by any proceeding so partial as the opening up of the very circuitous route, good for nothing except as giving an access to that House, which his right hon. Friend had opened for a special and peculiar purpose.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he was anxious to bring before the House the subject of which he had given Notice—namely, the position of the writers in the Government Offices. He therefore appealed to the Prime Minister to fix a certain day on which Supply would be brought forward, to give him an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to that subject. In making this appeal he did not mean to find any fault with the
  284
  Government with regard to the conduct of Public Business, as he believed they had done everything in their power to expedite it.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, his right hon. Friend, having already spoken, wished him to say that the Government were desirous of bringing on Supply at the earliest time; but to-morrow morning was given to the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill. If that Bill should be finished to-morrow morning the Government would be able to go on with Supply to-morrow evening. If not, and the Bill should be finished at the Sitting of the House in the evening, they would propose to go on with supply on Saturday at 12 o'clock.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £459,116, Steam Machinery and Ship building by Contract.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £716,091, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEmoved that the Vote be reduced by £10,000, being the sum proposed to be granted for alterations and repairs of Greenwich Hospital. He reminded the Committee that the building was intended to be used as a Naval College, and went on to refer to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when rejected by South Lancashire at the last Election, retired to the borough of Greenwich, but for the first three years of his representation did not favour his constituents with any public appearance. However, "when three long years were over, and some long tedious days," the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to propound his policy on Blackheath. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh!" but he was determined to state the opinions which he held with regard to these things, and no interruption which could possibly proceed from them would affect that determination. Having assembled a large army of police for his protection, the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary, for the purpose of maintaining

285
that order and quietude necessary for his sentiments to be heard, to assure the inhabitants of Greenwich that he was going to do something for them. Accordingly, he addressed them in these terms—
"Of your local interests, strictly so called, I will now say but one word, because it refers to a point of almost national interest—I mean with respect to the noble Hospital of Greenwich. I had the honour of stating to a deputation, formed without any distinction of political opinion, the views with which the Government approach the consideration of the question connected with that truly national building. Since that time the matter has had the attention of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I am sanguine in the belief that when his plans are matured you will find it will be, as I hope, in our power to apply the Hospital to a purpose which will be satisfactory to you, the inhabitants of Greenwich, and satisfactory to the country; nor do I despair even of this—although it may be premature to say so—that it is also a purpose which will revive and renew the glorious traditions of that building."
Previously, his right hon. Friend opposite had appointed a Commission for the purpose of improving the education of the Navy; and he thought education might be extended to some Members of Her Majesty's Government, for one right hon. Gentleman, in a debate on the Navy Estimates, recently stated it was very rare in England for a sailor to be at the head of the Admiralty. He found, however, that during 56 years of the last century sailors ruled the Admiralty, and that Walpole and Chatham, whenever they had work to do, put a sailor at the head of the Admiralty. The Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman consisted of three naval officers, two schoolmasters, and a lawyer. The three naval officers were in favour of Portsmouth as the place for the College, and the three civilians were in favour of Greenwich. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman issued a Circular to the officers of the Navy, asking—
"What, in your opinion, would be the relative advantages and disadvantages of moving the Naval College, as a place of higher education for naval officers, from its present position at Portsmouth to Greenwich, or elsewere?"
The result of the inquiry showed that 14 admirals, 20 captains, 3 commanders, 3 naval instructors, and 1 secretary to the Royal Navy—41 in all—were in favour of Portsmouth; 5 captains and 2 commanders were in
286
favour of Greenwich; and that 5 captains and 1 naval instructor held neutral opinions. He had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), for stating his opinion of the impolicy and impropriety of the proposed alteration. The advantage of Portsmouth for a Naval College over any other port was its immediate access to a field for exercise and station for training vessels all the year round. In 1863–4 the Admiralty of that day discussed, and he believed sanctioned, a similar scheme to the present, but with this difference—that the College was to be built at Anglesey. The advantages for gunnery at Spithead were very great, but Shoeburyness was by no means equal to it. He had been there when an hour had to be lost before a barge could get out of the line of fire. Greenwich was also objectionable on account of its proximity to London, and the attractions which the metropolis held out to young men who had been absent at sea for three or four years. When he was a young man at sea his day and night dreams were of a cruise in London and visiting the Opera. The united testimony of the officers in the Royal Navy, except five or six, was in favour of Portsmouth for the establishment of a Naval Training College. He looked upon the establishment of a College at Greenwich as a political ruse for the purpose of doing something for that constituency. He should take the opinion of the Committee upon what he denounced as a great political job, and an injustice and an insult to the Royal Navy. It was a mean and an unworthy act, and impolitic to the service. The proposal to turn Greenwich Hospital into a Royal Naval College was contrary to its original foundation—that of sheltering persons who had been wounded, or who were worn out in the service. It would have been far better to have turned it into a naval Hampton Court for the widows of deserving naval officers. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £706,091, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
MR. STONEsupported the Amendment. He feared it was impossible at this period of the Session to do justice to the subject, or to induce the Government to re-consider the matter. It was not a local dispute, but a question of national importance. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing what might result in a great revolution in the system of naval education. The question raised was whether the education should be theoretical or practical; and he presumed no one would doubt but a theoretical education only would be perfectly useless. His hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had referred to the opinion of naval officers on the subject. Those who had expressed themselves in favour of Greenwich had done so in the most hesitating manner, whilst those who were in favour of Portsmouth had declared their opinion without any doubt whatever on the matter, stating that a naval port was the only place where an efficient naval education could be given. It should be remembered that, as in most other professions so in the naval service, a great many matters connected with it could only be taught by combining practice with theory. Mr. Reed, in his evidence before the Committee, stating, for instance, that taking the subject of steam, it was useless to attempt the teaching of that simply by theory. And when asked if a model steam engine would be sufficient, he stated that it would be of no use, because one steam engine differed greatly from another. It might be asked how it was that the Naval College at Portsmouth had not been so successful as was to have been desired; but anyone who looked at the Report would see that the Committee gave most excellent reasons for that. In the first place, the buildings were most inadequate in every respect, and not properly adapted for their purpose. One of the most necessary things for a Naval College was an Observatory, but practically there was none at Portsmouth, for what should be an Observatory was occupied as a store for naval chronometers, and those instruments were too delicate for students to be allowed to go in and disturb them. Then there were no models at Portsmouth, and in the teaching of French the salary of the teacher had been cut down from £200 to £100 a-year, while sufficient inducements had never been held out to officers to study
288
there. An altogether new scheme had, however, been propounded by the Government, and on that subject he might point out that the Committee of Inquiry had unanimously reported that the framing of such a scheme ought to be ruled by considerations as to the best interests of the service, and that though economy should not be neglected, it should not be allowed to have more than a secondary influence in determining so important a matter. Certainly in a profession where a single error might lead to the loss of a ship worth £500,000, the saving of a few thousands in providing a proper professional education ought not to be made a matter of the first importance.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to put the Committee right on a matter about which there might be some misapprehension. It was quite true that the Admiralty had proposed a new and comprehensive scheme for providing a naval education, and it was not upon that scheme that the officers quoted by the hon. Baronet opposite had expressed their opinion. The proposal of the Government was not merely to remove the Naval College from Portsmouth to Greenwich, but to found an entirely new establishment at Greenwich, and he knew that officers, who were against a simple removal of the existing College, were distinctly and strongly in favour of the new scheme, which proposed to gather together under one head at Greenwich all the educational establishments which were connected with the Navy, not only for the education of officers, but also for the education of engineers, shipwrights, and naval architects. There had long been a necessity for some such step, and it was hoped now to promote naval architectural science in its widest sense, and to improve the class of highly trained engineers, and to produce men who should be thoroughly competent to deal with all the more important questions connected with the highest branches of science. The scheme, therefore, did not rest upon the narrow basis on which the hon. Baronet had placed it. He would not waste words in commenting on the observations of the hon. Baronet in regard to the connection of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government with Greenwich. The hon. Baronet seemed always to think that ulterior motives must be at the bottom of everything done by the Government; but

289
not long since he had had to stand up in his place and apologize for asserting that a job had been perpetrated where nothing of the sort had taken place.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: The job existed; but the individual whom I thought had perpetrated it was not the man.
MR. GOSCHENthought that scarcely any one besides the hon. Baronet would suspect that the foundation of a great educational establishment at Greenwich could have been proposed from such unworthy motives as the hon. Baronet had suggested. The Government hoped to found at Greenwich an establishment worthy of such an ancient and renowned building, and one also worthy of the country. In the exceedingly temperate speech of the hon. Member who last spoke, there were some errors which he desired to notice. In the first place, the establishment at Greenwich was not intended, as he had before stated, for the study of naval officers alone, but for the study also of the members of the various subsidiary professions which were connected with the Navy; and they all knew the advantage which was always to be derived from the concentration of educational establishments, and securing the highest available talent to preside over them. No doubt, the Naval College at Portsmouth had done excellent service, but it was on the smallest possible scale. In December last there were only five captains, 13 commanders, eight gunnery lieutenants, and five marine officers studying there, in addition to the sub-lieutenants who went there not for continuous study, but to "cram" for their examinations; but it was hoped that at Greenwich there would be not only a much larger number of naval officers, but a number of engineers and students from the Architectural School at South Kensington, which had already turned out such excellent shipwrights and engineers. He felt confident that this scheme would possess the greatest attraction for naval officers, and since it had been propounded no remonstrance had been made against it at the Admiralty, and some of the naval officers who had been quoted as being against were entirely in its favour, and showed the greatest interest in the matter. He wished to press on the Committee that this was not a small question. The mere transference from Portsmouth might have been small, for
290
the numbers there were not large; but the establishment of an institution worthy of the country was not a small question. He should regret if such a project should be condemned by a hasty vote, because such a result would be a sore disappointment not only to the students, but also to the naval profession. He regretted also that the time was so short for the discussion of the question; but such speeches as that of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) should not be left unanswered. He (Mr. Goschen) was only speaking his convictions when he said that the greatest practical advantage would arise from this establishment. It would be attended by the younger men to prosecute their studies in the first instance, and also by officers on half-pay, who would go there optionally. These last were men who had been practising their profession for some time, and who wished to gain a knowledge of steam, physics, the properties of metals, electricity, and other subjects which were becoming everyday more important. They hoped to attract the ablest men of the profession to the college, and he begged to commend the scheme to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
SIR JOHN HAY, as one of the witnesses examined not orally, but by communication, by the Committee which sat at the Admiralty, was desirous to state that he was not one of those witnesses to whom the right hon. Gentleman had alluded as having changed their opinions. It was extremely inconvenient at that late period of the Session, and without fuller information, to be asked to vote £10,000 for this purpose. It was evident that the only reason why Greenwich was selected was because there was a magnificent building there which could be made available for such an establishment, and because it was surrounded with a halo of naval renown. He had ascertained that the sum required would be much larger than £10,000, and for the same sum expended at Portsmouth there could be greater accommodation secured. The various classes of officers at Greenwich were similar in character to those at Portsmouth, but it was by no means necessary that they should all be educated under the same roof. Those proceeding to sea had not their education neglected, but were trained under skilled naval instructors. [Mr. STONE:

291
The evidence showed that such education was very insufficient.] He admitted that some of it was not what could be desired, but parts of it were of a high character. They afterwards wished to know something of the latest inventions in gunnery, mechanics, and shipbuilding, and Portsmouth was most convenient, as there were no fleets at Greenwich, so that the education imparted there would be entirely theoretical. He should vote against the appropriation of this money till they knew how much in all it was intended to expend upon Greenwich.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had been informed on competent authority that, after careful estimates, £10,000 would cover the whole transformation of Greenwich, including portions of the furniture. No part of the practical information already given at Portsmouth would be withdrawn.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 99: Majority 35.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the Government when they were going to lay the scheme before Parliament, and whether the House thought it constitutional for the Government to spend money on a public work before it was voted by Parliament? One part of the scheme was to manœuvre in the Thames. He wanted to know how the ships were to get out of the way of the penny boats?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that he could not lay the scheme before Parliament before he obtained the Vote. No money had been spent, except such as was necessary to procure a correct estimate.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he could not avoid referring to one subject, lest he should seem to be acquiescing in what he strongly condemned. In the year 1864 an important Report, dealing with the question of the Imperial defences, was presented to Parliament, in which there was this simple but comprehensive recommendation as to Cork Harbour—
"Your Committee feel the full force of the advantage to the fleet of a first-class dock in so western a port as Cork; and they advise the immediate construction of a first-class dock in some convenient site in that harbour."
In the year following an estimate was proposed for the work, which, it was distinctly stated, was to be constructed in or about a period of five years. Assuming
292
that the amount now set forth as sufficient to do the work was really enough—which it was not—it would require some 11 years, at the present rate of expenditure, before it was exhausted. The gross estimate was £333,000; and of this sum £122,000 had been voted, and £108,000 expended. The Vote proposed last year was only £20,000, and the same sum was asked for this year. If only £20,000 were thus annually expended, the work would be completed in nearly 20 years, instead of the five originally calculated upon. Now, was this undertaking useful for the public service, or was it not? If it was useful, why not go on with it and finish it without delay, and with such expedition as was consistent with economy? Delay was no economy—starving a work down to the lowest point was extravagance, not economy. The necessity for docks in this western harbour was as great now—greater now by far—than when the Committee reported in favour of the undertaking. Had these works been completed, the Megœra would have been properly examined before being sent to sea, and a disaster avoided which, but for the mercy of Providence, might have been as serious and awful as that in the case of the Captain. There was no reason why these docks should not be pushed on at twice their present rate; for not only was the House willing to vote £50,000 in place of £20,000, but there was in Cork and the surrounding district any amount of skilled labour that could be required. He knew how Departments were anxious to clip and pare their Estimates in certain directions; but he said this was not a direction in which the Admiralty ought to clip and pare and starve. They must not imagine that an emergency might not arise when docks in this western part of the United Kingdom would be of the very last importance to the Navy. We enjoyed profound peace at this moment, and he hoped we might long do so; but in the present state of Europe no man knew what a single year might bring either to this or other nations; and it was the duty of statesmen to look a-head, and not to be found without preparation or protection when the time of peril arose. If the First Lord would consult the highest authorities on such matters upon this subject, he was perfectly assured

293
they would recommend the vigorous prosecution of the work; and he would even venture to say that the eminent officer who commanded in the harbour was of that opinion. He had said so much unwillingly, knowing how valuable time was at this moment; and would only call on the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance that he would redeem his own promise, and provide sufficient means for completing these docks in a reasonable time.
MR. CAWLEYpointed out the evils resulting from the slow progress of the new works at Chatham, consequent upon their being executed to so large an extent by convict labour.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, progress was being made with the works at Chatham; but explained that the Factory had not been proceeded with, because the style of shipbuilding had so greatly altered since the plans for the Factory were made three or four years ago. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), he begged to say that Parliament had from year to year voted large sums of money for the work in question, and all possible progress was made and would continue to be made. The rate of progress must necessarily depend upon the progress made at Portsmouth and Chatham. Year by year the dock accommodation was being increased.
MR. MAGUIREdid not think the answer was satisfactory. It was promised that the works at Cork should be completed in five years, but according to the present rate of progress they could not be completed in less than 20 years. He complained of a breach of faith towards himself, and he should take an opportunity of showing his resentment when, on some future occasion, the Government got into a cleft stick.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEagreed that the hon. Member for Cork had ground for complaint of the conduct of the Admiralty.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENcomplained that the statements made on behalf of the Government were not of the clear and straightforward character that the public had a right to expect.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Cork should at this advanced period have a just ground to make the complaint which had fallen from him.
MR. MAGUIRE, in reply, said, he had brought forward this question on public grounds, and not solely as the representative of Cork.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) £70,800, Medicines, Medical Stores, &c.
(4.) £818,626, Half-Pay, &c. to Officers of Navy and Marines.
SIR JOHN HAYcalled the attention of the Committee to the case of Commander John P. Cheyne, R.N. In spite of the gallant officer's appointment for life at the Plymouth Hospital by the Duke of Somerset, he was some few years afterwards retired in accordance with new regulations on half-pay, and without receiving that compensation to which he was fully and fairly entitled. The appointment was given to Commander Cheyne as a compensation to some extent for the severity of a wound received in active service, and the hardship inflicted upon him by such a reduction of pay ought, in his opinion, to receive the favourable consideration of the Admiralty.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the question had already been before the House. The whole point was this—that the office held by Commander Cheyne was really never conferred on him for life, but only until the time he was retired.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that injustice had undoubtedly been done to Commander Cheyne.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought the honour of the country required more liberal treatment of Commander Cheyne under the circumstances.
MR. CHILDERSobserved that, when in office, he did his best to obtain liberal compensation from the Treasury, and he thought he succeeded, the result being that instead of £182, Commander Cheyne received £275 a-year on his retirement.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £151,703, Greenwich Hospital and School.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, that the debate be adjourned till Thursday next, and said he hoped the Prime Minister would assent.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONput it to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), whether it could be desirable to discuss such a question on the eve of the Prorogation?
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought Irish Members should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the question of resuming would not depend on the will of the Government when the remaining Government Business had been disposed of, as it soon would be; but after the first night of the debate it appeared to him undesirable that the debate should be resumed. It was impossible to dissociate the pending public prosecutions from the adjourned debate; and the people of Ireland could hardly think it desirable that the question should be discussed in a thin House. Every purpose that could be gained by discussion had been gained already, and nothing but evil would result from further debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock in the Morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (272); Greenwich Hospital* (273); Public Works Loan Commissioners (School Boards Loans)* (274); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (275); Kensington Station and North and South London Junction Railway Act, 1859 (Repayment of Moneys)* (276).
Second Reading—Pawnbrokers (262).
Committee—Report—Local Government Board (Ireland)* (246); Irish Church Act Amendment (No. 2)* (249); Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (218); Countess of Mayo's Annuity* (258); Military Manœuvres* (259–277).
Report—Wild Birds Protection* (248).
Third Reading—Victoria Park* (227); Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* (265); Mines (Coal) Regulation* (255); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (256); Basses Lights (Ceylon)* (241); Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252); Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (269), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Francis Baron Napier in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Scotland, Knight of the most ancient and most noble Order of the Thistle, having been created Baron Ettrick of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE VICTORIA TOWER—SMOKE NUISANCE PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Home Department, in reference to a matter which he had made a subject of inquiry on a former occasion. Since that occasion a Question had been asked of the Home Secretary, in "another place;" but he confessed that he thought some more information was still required, notwithstanding what had been said on the matter in the House of Commons. The evil complained of was, that certain potteries on the other side of the water emitted smoke which contained muriatic acid. This acid was very destructive to the stone of the buildings contiguous to the potteries, and many medical authorities were of opinion that it was very prejudicial to health. He understood, in fact, from the scientific examination which had taken place, that there was
216
no doubt that the stone in Lambeth Palace had been seriously injured by the discharge of that muriatic acid. He, therefore, wished to know whether the Secretary of State had taken any steps to remove that nuisance? There were two Nuisance Acts. The first exempted from the operation of the Act such manufactories as those to which he had alluded, but the second distinctly and by name introduced these manufactories into the Act. It therefore seemed to follow that there would be no difficulty in the Secretary of State proceeding against those who were the cause of that destruction of property. But in the reports which he had seen a distinction was drawn between the smoke and the muriatic acid which the smoke contained. Now, the smoke contained the evil, and if the smoke was suppressed the evil would be suppressed also. It was therefore very unsatisfactory to be told that the parties who created the invisible agent might be proceeded against by action at law; but it was not the invisible agent that was so much complained of as the smoke which contained the muriatic acid, and that smoke might be stopped by the Secretary of State. He had presented a memorial on the subject, which was signed by several medical gentlemen, by an eminent solicitor, by several influential clergymen, and by a number of the inhabitants. No reply to that memorial had been received through him; but he understood the memorial itself had been referred to the Local Board of Health, by which it had been sent to the Vestry. He wished to ask the noble Earl, Whether any answer had been returned to the memorial, and whether any steps had been taken in this instance by the Home Office to put in force the Smoke Nuisance Act?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, in reply, that an answer had been returned to the memorial. Two distinct Departments were concerned in the question raised by the most rev. Primate. Under the Smoke Nuisance Acts it was the province of the Home Secretary to proceed, and in this case he had given special directions that all the necessary measures should be taken for giving effect to those Acts. As regards the emission of muriatic acid gas from the potteries, however, which was the more serious part of the complaint, the most rev. Primate was no doubt aware that the powers in respect

217
to cases of this kind formerly possessed by the Home Secretary under the Local Government Act and the Sanitary Act, were last year transferred to the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board, accordingly, had communicated with the Lambeth Vestry, and had inquired what steps they intended to take in the matter. The Vestry stated that they had under consideration a report by their medical officer, as to the injury to health done by the emission of muriatic acid. No answer had, however, been received from them as to whether they contemplated taking any, and if so, what steps. Until the Vestry had come to a decision, nothing could be done, because the Local Government Board could not interfere unless and until the local authority failed to do their duty in respect to any nuisance injurious to health. As to injuries to property, it rested with individuals to have recourse to the ordinary Courts of Law.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS—CHARITY OF DAVID HUGHES AT BEAUMARIS; SCHOOL AT FELSTEAD; AND SCHOOL AT TIDESWELL.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWERS TO THE ADDRESSES.
  THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Viscount SYDNEY)reported—That the Lords with White Staves had (according to Order) waited on Her Majesty with their Lordships' Addresses of Friday last, to which Her Majesty was pleased to return the following most Gracious Answer—in each case severally:—
  "MY LORDS,
  "I have received your Addresses, praying that I would withhold my Assent from the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the charity founded by will of David Hughes, dated 30th of December 1609, at Beaumaris, in the county of Anglesey; for the management of the School, and Almshouse Charity or Charities known as the Felstead Charities, founded by Richard Lord Rich, at Felstead, in the county of Essex; and for the management of the School founded by Robert Pursglove, at Tideswell, in the county of Derby, in the year 1561.
  "I shall withhold my assent from the schemes."

PAWNBROKERS BILL—(No. 262.)
(The Earl of Harrowby.)
PAWNBROKERS BILL—(No. 262.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the necessity of some re-construction of the whole law on the subject had been long felt, for it was admitted that parts of the existing Acts were practically a dead letter. Indeed, the evidence taken during the Inquiry instituted by the Select Committee of the House of Commons showed that it had ceased to be customary to comply with the existing Acts; and the present Bill was entirely founded on the recommendations of the Report of that Committee. He, therefore, anticipated no opposition to the Bill at that stage.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had been requested by a committee of pawnbrokers to support this Bill. The proposed increase in the rate of interest would be partly compensated for by a lower charge being exacted for the tickets. The Bill, however, contained a Proviso enacting that a halfpenny should be paid where a farthing was due, and a penny in lieu of three farthings, as this appeared to be done with the intention of getting rid of farthings by a side wind, he should give Notice of an Amendment to omit the Proviso.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not help calling the attention of the noble Lord who had moved the second reading, and also that of the Government, to the practice of passing through these Bills at the very end of the Session, when there was no time to fully consider them. If a Bill came up to their Lordships prepared under the eyes of the Government, it would be different; but that Bill had been prepared by a private Member, and he did not believe there was any responsibility attaching to it. Not only that, but it repealed a number of existing statutes, for on looking into it he found that the Schedule began by reciting the statute of the reign of James I., which enabled persons who had their property stolen to recover it from the pawnbroker, and

  219
  then it went on to deal with an Act of George IV. Such a measure should have been examined by those of their Lordships who were learned in the law. He did not pretend to say what this Bill did or did not contain, but one thing which characterized this anomalous legislation was the manner in which it interfered with the right of free trade between the pawnbroker and those who went to him. He, however, had never heard of anybody standing up for the rights of the customers. It was said the pawnbrokers were in favour of the Bill, and no wonder, for it would enable them to charge 25 per cent interest in certain cases, the highest rate which they could now charge being 20 per cent. It would also enable them to charge a small sum for the ticket, an arrangement which in the case of small advances for short periods would increase the actual amount of interest from 25 to 50 per cent. These small loans of two and three shillings formed an enormous proportion of the whole. He confessed he disliked such a subject being handled by any other than a responsible Minister of the Crown, and he should, therefore, not object to let the matter sleep for two or three years, till the Government could take it up. Besides, it was certain that, sooner or later, we should have to carry out our free trade policy by extending it to transactions between pawnbrokers and their customers. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was quite aware that the arguments of the noble Marquess had considerable force, particularly as the Bill had only been printed that morning; but, so far from it being a measure that had not been considered by the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government, the subject had been considered two years ago by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and the Bill itself had been sent to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had been carefully examined by the Home Office. It had been agreed on by both sides, and only one hon. Member had opposed the progress of the Bill. He, therefore, hoped the noble Marquess would not oppose the second reading, as their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering all the provisions of the Bill next week.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he wished to explain that in all transactions above 10 s. between pawnbrokers and their customers there would be free trade. It was only in small sums under that amount the pawnbroker was to be forbidden to charge a higher rate of interest. In these cases, the principles of free trade had been interfered with by the existing law; but for higher sums the pawnbroker and his customer would be allowed to make their own bargain. The Bill had met with the approbation of city missionaries and other friends of the poor, and, under all the circumstances, he hoped it approximated sufficiently to free trade to satisfy the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS—ROYAL ARTILLERY AND ROYAL ENGINEERS—THE PROMOTIONS.—ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
LORD STRATHNAIRN, who had given Notice to move for Returns showing the effects of the promotions in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers and the officers of the other Corps, said: My Lords, no one is more opposed than myself to Parliamentary interference in military affairs, but interference becomes a duty, when errors, inherent in a civil government of the Army, and uninfluenced by the opinions of its military head, compromise at times its best interests. Late Sessions afford striking examples of the unfavourable effects of the supreme military authority being vested in the hands of a Minister who, great as may be his eloquence and his ability, has during the whole of his life been unacquainted with a profession which, more than any other, requires experience at the helm. I shall have the honour to submit to your Lordships one example of this great anomaly, because it has strong analogy with the question of supersession, and is appropriate, showing that the inexperience of the head of the War Department led him to adopt a policy fatal to a great Army interest—the soldier's pension, which the experience of the Commander-in-Chief obliged him to oppose; and the

221
example is the more opportune, because the interference of the House of Lords saved the Army from a dilemma. Discussions, my Lords, in and out of Parliament, without end, and the best military opinions, have decided that the policy which gives the greatest expansion in a right direction to the soldier's powers of thought and reflection is the safest guarantee of his moral welfare and his discipline. And it follows, by simple logic, that this desideratum is obtained by pension, which is only given to good soldiers, and which causes a man to reflect for 21 years that good conduct ensures him a happy home and independence; while the contrary, misconduct, entails on him the unenvied existence, the isolation from belongings, and the dependence of the workhouse. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for War, under the influence of Prussian successes, has become an ardent admirer and advocate of the Prussian system of short service without pension; so much so, that he said in "another place" that it lay at the root of all Army reform; and he was the more enamoured of the system, because it had been calculated that the discontinuance of the pension, and the lump sum of money in hand in lieu of it, at the end of the short service, would enable the right hon. Gentleman to make great savings, which would pay off the heavy cost of retirements hitherto borne by the purchase system. But the knowledge of the illustrious Duke of British and foreign Armies had taught him that a system which was practicable and successful under the Prussian compulsory, involuntary, would be impracticable with its contrast, the English voluntary service. And the Commander-in-Chief also knew that the loss of pension would diminish good recruiting, strike a blow at the discipline and well-being of British troops, and that the lump sum of money given on discharge to soldiers of the peculiar material which composes the British Army—excellent when under proper influences, but not so reliable when freed from them—would close a career, deprived of a great incentive to good pension, with scenes of excesses, destitution, and dependence, discreditable to the service and to the country. His Royal Highness, therefore, far from associating himself with the unqualified enthusiastic praise of short service without pension, invariably
222
characterized it as a "tentative measure;" and afterwards recorded his opposition to it in a compact made in debate in your Lordships' House with Lord Northbrook, in July, 1870, in which he stated that he would vote for the second reading of the Short Service Act on the understanding that it was to run pari passû—co-exist—with the Long Service Act and pension. For the sake of the conciliation and good understanding which it is so desirable should exist between Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, I shall not follow further the course of this affair, and shall only say—what it is indispensable should be said, that afterwards an official Order, not emanating from the illustrious Duke, discontinued enlistment under the Long Service Act and pension. With my impression as to the ruinous consequences to the Army of the loss of pension, I made frequent appeals to the representatives of the War Department in your Lordships' House, supported efficaciously by noble Lords, but most especially so by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and finally, as the Session was drawing to a close, solicited a conversation with Lord Northbrook in the Library, in which I made another effort for the restoration of the pension. To my great satisfaction, the noble Lord then informed me that a General Order would shortly be issued, restoring the Long Service Act with pension. I am glad to have this opportunity of recording my sense of the courtesy and frankness with which the noble Lord, whose ability we have so often admired in debate, conducted his relations with me in and out of this House. This brief history of the pension, my Lords, is an appropriate preface to, and throws a light on the question of supersession now before the House. Both questions evince misconception of military interests and feeling. The one of pension—the sure and best guarantee of the soldier's discipline, and a reward of his long and good service; the other an equal disregard of the rights of promotion and feelings of the officers. The attitude of the Commander-in-Chief has points of analogy in both cases. His Royal. Highness's objections were decided as to the discontinuance of the pension. In the case of supersession, His Royal Highness preferred retirement to the measure of the Government. And how, my Lords, could the Commander-in-Chief

223
approve a supersession which blighted the esprit de corps, which His Royal Highness has so often told your Lordships is the corner-stone of the Army's devotion and success?—a supersession which, at the moment I speak, has discouraged the esprit de corps of some 600 captains of the Guards, Line, and Royal Marines, all of tried qualifications; 27 of whom have passed the Staff College examination; many wounded or mentioned in despatches for good and gallant service before the enemy; half-a-dozen with Victoria Crosses, and numerous others with medals for campaigns—such as Captain O'Connor, V.C., of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who has 18 years' service, was severely wounded at the Alma when carrying the Queen's colour, which he planted on the redoubt after being wounded, and was thanked by General Sir George Brown and General—now Sir William—Codrington on the field. Captain O'Connor was also dangerously wounded at the Redan, he was present throughout the Indian Mutiny War, and wears the Victoria Cross, Crimean medal and two clasps, Sardinian and Turkish medals, the Medjidie and the Indian Mutiny War medal with two clasps. Captain Farquharson, V.C., of the 42nd Royal Highlanders, has 17 years' service and served in the Crimea with his regiment, also throughout the Indian Mutiny War; received the Victoria Cross at Lucknow for storming a bastion, and mounting two guns, which he spiked, and where he was severely wounded. He wears the Victoria Cross, Crimean medal with clasp, Turkish medal, and Indian Mutiny War medal with clasp. Captain Butler, V.C., of the 101st Royal Bengal Fusiliers, who has 18 years' service, served throughout the Indian Mutiny War; was present at the storm and capture of Delhi, where he was slightly wounded, and at the storm and capture of Lucknow; here he swam the Goomtee under a heavy fire, and inspected the entrenchments, for which he received the Victoria Cross; also, during the subsequent operations in Oude. He also served in the Indian North-Western Frontier War, and at Umbeyla. He wears the Victoria Cross, the Indian Mutiny War medal with two clasps, and the Indian War medal with two clasps. Captain Home, 25th Regiment, who has 21 years' service and passed the Staff College, was present as
224
adjutant of the 48th Regiment in the Crimea, where he was wounded at Sebastopol; wears the Crimean medal with clasp, the Turkish medal, and Medjidie. Captain Law, of the 103rd Regiment, who has served 26 years, served in the Punjab campaign, at the storming of Mooltan, where he was wounded; present at the Battle of Goojerat and pursuit of the Affghans to the Khyber, and in the Indian Mutiny War; wears Punjab medal, with two clasps, and Indian Mutiny War medal. Captain Kinsman, of the Royal Marines, who has served 27 years, and is Instructor of Gunnery, was present with the Baltic Expedition in 1854, and in the China Expedition in 1857–9; wears Baltic medal and China medal, with clasp. Captain Kelly, of the 60th Rifles, promoted from the ranks, who has served 18 years, was present with his regiment as adjutant when the 60th so greatly distinguished itself during the siege of Delhi, and throughout the operations in the Indian Mutiny War, and subsequently as brigade major to a movable column in Oude; wears Indian Mutiny War medal and clasp. I can say from personal knowledge that he is a most efficient and valuable officer, and well worthy of a higher rank. The more military the feeling of an officer, the greater his honourable ambition for distinction at any sacrifice of health and life; the better his qualifications and his field services, the more acutely does he feel the mortification of a vast promotion given over his head to juniors, who, ardently as they wished it, never had the opportunity of seeing active service. Supersession hurts the material interests as well as the feelings of officers. Their juniors obtain the increased pay and better employment consequent on higher rank. It frequently occurs that in consequence of the varied and fitful currents of promotion, a step, especially from captain to major, often enables an officer to attain the higher grade, and consequent better employment, years before those of the same standing. Striking instances of this occurred on my own general and personal Staff. One, a captain, by receiving a brevet majority for good service in the field, became a general officer with a very high staff appointment 10 years before his contemporaries. The other, also a captain, and having received a brevet majority for service in the field in 1865,

225
will now, in 1872, shortly become, in the ordinary course of promotion, a lieutenant-colonel; whereas, if he had not been promoted to a brevet majority, he would at this moment have been a captain in his regiment. Officers of one regiment do not object to the regular promotion of another regiment, however rapid and superseding incidental circumstances may make it, such as promotion for field service, casualties in action, deaths from bad climates. But they do view with regret and mistrust supersession en masse by the War Office, to which the Commander-in-Chief cannot give his adhesion because he prefers another scheme. When I say this, I most readily state that officers of the Ordnance Corps have in individual cases of exceptional promotion been superseded by officers very much their juniors. But to place the whole blame of this grievance on the Guards and Line is one of those cases of injustice and mystification which mask this question, and of which I shall lift the veil immediately. I shall not now enter into the complicated question to what extent this disadvantage has been compensated by the higher pay of Ordnance officers, no outlay for purchase or sacrifice of purchase-money hereafter, and finally by the retiring allowance of £600 a-year, given annually to a certain number of colonels, which is nearly double the full-pay retirement to the rest of the Army. To the Royal Engineers another advantageous career is opened—the Board of Works, which runs pari passû with their Engineer duties. This part, this aspect of the question of supersession—I mean the grievances suffered by the Ordnance Corps from supersession by the Guards and Line, and the omission to notice or to remedy other and principal causes of those grievances—brings prominently to light serious responsibilities incurred by Her Majesty's Government. It is perfectly well-known in the service that these causes are defects in the organization of the Ordnance Corps, one of which, good authorities think, one cause is the vast length of line, the concentration of the immense body of officers in one regiment, along which promotion must travel; and all are agreed that the other cause is the result of organic defect—stagnation—which has aggravated, if it has not altogether given rise to those grievances of which the War Office has,
226
very unjustly, placed the whole blame on the purchase system of the Guards and Line. While these grievances were proclaimed with a flourish of trumpets, and re-echoed by nearly the whole of the Press with military precision throughout the country, not a word was said as to the real, but unavowed, culprits, the organic defects; and so complete was the mystification, that a well-timed Motion of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Abinger), which would have brought to light the organic defects, was met with that curt refusal which is so often given to just but unpalatable inquiry. The Press, however, is in no way whatever to blame for these one-sided impressions. They, like the public, were kept in the dark. The House of Commons' Select Committee of 1867, admirably composed of Members of all parties, after a sitting of two months, recommended a well-devised retirement as the best remedy for removal of stagnation and increase of efficiency of officers of the Ordnance Corps and Royal Marines. And the illustrious Duke, in the debate of the 18th of June, stated his preference of retirement to the scheme of the Government. It is as clear that retirement relieves stagnation as that the removal of a dam sets free the current of a stream, and I say this on the authority of every Royal Commission and every Artillery officer who has given evidence since 1825. But the Government, in disregard of the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief, adopted the course exactly opposed to these opinions, and, instead of holding out inducements to officers to retire, hold out the strongest inducements in the way of increased rank and pay to stand fast, of which the natural consequence, and one universally predicted, is that the remedial measure of the Government will increase the evil of stagnation. Therefore, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated in his speech that the present supersession was the remedy for stagnation, we have before us the agreeable prospect a few years hence of another supersession for another stagnation. I have always been in favour of the commander of a battery holding the rank of a field-officer; but the last of my thoughts was, that this promotion should be effected by a vast selection disfigured by a vast supersession, in dereliction of the Secretary of State's formal promise

227
on the abolition of purchase and privileges of promotion that for the future promotion in the Army was to be conducted on a principle of perfect equality. But is it not, my Lords, a mockery to call promotion an equality which places A, who has never seen service and was junior to and under the orders of B in one month, over B in the next month, who has been wounded, honourably mentioned, and decorated for devoted and distinguished service in the field? In the cloud which, under these circumstances, darkens the future of officers, it is a source of lively satisfaction to see the appearance of a silver lining in the generous sentiments recently expressed to me by three distinguished officers of the Ordnance Corps. The gist of what they said is that, as the new promotion of the Army is to be conducted on a principle of even-handed justice, they would wish that an equivalent to their promotion should be given to the other branches. I sincerely hope that opinions, which, I am well assured, prevail among such a high-spirited body as the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery, may be shared by Her Majesty's Government. The financial sacrifice of giving brevet majorities to the superseded officers would be small; the assertion of the rights of equality of promotion and of the interests of officers would be invaluable. In reply to a question from the Royal Commission on Military Education, before whom I had been called to give evidence, I stated that the best guarantee of just selection of officers as a reward for merit would be honourable mention in despatches, or any reliable evidence of good conduct in the field or efficiency, and finally, the repeated recommendation at half-yearly inspections by the inspecting general, the commanding officer, and the General Commanding-in-Chief. I asked for all these Reports; but it was objected that one category was confidential, which I do not consider a valid objection, as the heading "confidential" only covers unfavourable, not favourable Reports. I now hear that exception is to be taken to the production of the other category. I shall, therefore, leave on the Government the responsibility of withholding Reports from your Lordships which would have proved how many superseded officers had come up to the standard which I had proposed for selection, and how unmerited
228
were the comparisons drawn by the noble Marquess between branches of the service. For, my Lords, without entering into the meshes of legal niceties, the plain and unmistakable meaning of the noble Marquess's language was a comparison between the officers of the Ordnance Corps and the Guards and Line, unfavourable to the latter; and he also produced statistics to show that the opinions of the Members of your Lordships' House, in and connected with the Army, who had voted for a Royal Commission of Inquiry, were influenced by bias. If the noble Marquess had thought of the emblems on the colours of British regiments, given for successes by an almost matchless leader, so military and so impartial that he never granted a badge but for a real victory, successes which decided the greatest events, perhaps, in the world's history, won by the three arms, hand-in-hand, in inseparable union, he would not have thrown down an apple of discord, nor have depreciated by comparisons and regrettable statistics services which live under the imperishable recollections of their union and success. Comparisons are not to be thought of; each arm, in its turn, has its scenes and hour of danger and distinction; and that Engineer and Artillery have their full share of both is well known to every military Member of your Lordships' House. To show how utterly impossible it is that myself or any noble Lord of military experience can be influenced by unfavourable bias to the Ordnance Corps, I can only say that I owe the coveted, the distinguished honour of a seat in your Lordships' House equally to my whole Force, and to none more am I indebted than to Artillery and Engineers. How great these obligations are will be shown by extracts from my despatches, which evidence the warmest expressions of my feeling for them and of my approval—
"Captain Neville, of the Royal Engineers, who volunteered to act as my aide-de-camp the night he arrived in my camp, was killed by a shell bursting on his head the next day, while reporting to me the delivery of an order at the action of Baroda, in which I had to engage to prevent the enemy from cutting me off from Saugor, which I was ordered to relieve. Lieutenants Dick and Micklejohn, of the Bombay Engineers, were killed at the top of the scaling ladders—not the bottom, my lords—up which they were leading the storming parties at Jhansi. Lieutenant Colonel Turnbull, Bombay Artillery, was killed by musketry tire from the roofs of the houses in the

229
streets of Jhansi, where he had gone to choose a position for his battery to batter the Palace and part of the town not taken. Lieutenant Prendergast, Madras Engineers, was dangerously wounded in the action of the Betwa, when the enemy wished to leave Jhansi. He obtained the Victoria Cross. Then there is honourable mention of the Eagle Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, for invariable gallant conduct, but particularly when a division of guns was ordered to enfilade the enemy's left. One gun of the division was knocked over by a round shot, and the other, by its excellent enfilading fire, so shook the enemy that the turning movement against me was prevented, and I was able to turn the whole line."
Again, my despatches contain—
"Special mention of the 21st Company, Royal Engineers, whom at Calpee I was obliged, on account of the reduced state of my Force, to use as a company in the first line, and of whom I said in my despatches that 'they fought as well in the field as they worked in the trenches, and were worthy of their distinguished corps.'"
Traits of feeling which mark the best of friendships—the friendship of the field, show how great was the esteem which existed between these officers and myself. Lieutenant Dick, as he mounted the scaling ladders, said—"I will now show Sir Hugh Rose my gratitude;" Colonel Turnbull, just before he died, expressed as his last wish a desire to "shake hands" with me; and Captain Neville, with a presentiment of his death, expressed a wish that "his sword should be delivered to his family." I carried this sword through all the difficulties of the campaign, till on my return march to Bombay it was stolen from under my head, when I was asleep, by the professional thieves so numerous in India. My Lords, I think these instances will show that I can have no unfavourable bias towards the Ordnance Corps. The Motion of which I have given Notice is, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns—
"Firstly, Of all lieutenants and captains of the Foot Guards, captains of Cavalry, Infantry, and Royal Marines (Light Infantry), and captains and second captains of Royal Marines (Artillery), who will be superseded by the promotion of captains of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers to the rank of major; showing the length of service, and in what rank, of the officers thus superseded:
Secondly, Of the names of all officers thus superseded who have been wounded, mentioned in despatches, reports, or letters to superior authority for good service in the field, who are in possession of a medal or medals, or other decoration, and for what service, or who have been reported on favourably, or recommended as adjutants, or in any appointment on the staff, or brought to notice for good conduct when giving aid to the
230
civil power, or on any other occasion, or for sending in useful plans of country or reconnaissance reports, or who have passed the staff college examination, or gone through the prescribed course of instruction at one of the schools of musketry, or have qualified in telegraphy, &c. &c."
I shall, however, not press the latter portion of the Motion, for I believe the Government are not disposed to grant this information, and I do not think it right to trouble your Lordships to divide. The noble and gallant Lord then moved the Address in accordance with his Notice.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he must decline to follow the noble and gallant Lord in those passages of his speech in which he dealt with the respective merits of long and short service. The subject was one on which the noble and gallant Lord spoke with great authority, but it was scarcely relevant to the Motion on the Paper. He must enter his protest, however, against the repeated introduction by the noble and gallant Lord of the name of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief as an advocate of the views which the noble and gallant Lord had expressed. The Motion had stood for some time on the Paper, and he could not help regretting that the noble and gallant Lord should not have brought it forward before the departure of His Royal Highness from this country; but those who listened to the judicial summing-up of the illustrious Duke, delivered from the cross benches, would agree that nothing could be less one-sided than his remarks on that occasion. As to the Motion, he was glad the noble and gallant Lord had withdrawn the latter part of it, which asked for voluminous Returns touching on confidential matters not usually included in Returns made to Parliament. With regard to the earlier part of the Motion, however, the Government would be glad to supply the information asked for, and no one was more entitled to demand that information than the noble and gallant Lord. Widely divergent statements had been made as to the amount and extent of the supersession, and he should be glad to supply the noble and gallant Lord with information which would show him that his estimate a little exceeded the mark; for in calculating the extent of the supersession, two factors must be borne in mind—the number of officers

231
superseded, and the number of officers by whom they were superseded. He proposed, therefore, to add to the Return another column supplying this information. He proposed, also, to add a Return showing the converse case—the extent to which the Ordnance Corps had been superseded by the Guards and the Line; because, with all deference to the experience of the noble and gallant Lord, he could not agree with him in thinking that in this case the grievance was entirely one-sided. The noble and gallant Lord had quoted several instances of supersession on his side, but plenty of instances might be quoted on the other side. For example, there was the case of a captain of over 27 years' service, who went through the whole of the Punjab Campaign and the Indian Mutiny, when he was wounded; yet who, until this change was made, still remained a captain. There were three other instances—an officer of 22 years' service, and two others of 20 years' service, who served, with distinction, throughout the Crimean Campaign, and still remained captains. He did not deny that there was supersession; but he believed that if all the circumstances were considered, it was not of a nature or an extent to create any real hardship to the officers concerned. As for the information which the noble and gallant Lord desired, it would be given by the Government with perfect confidence that it would not be detrimental to their case.
VISCOUNT MELVILLE, while he acknowledged that supersession was a necessity of the new system, contended that there was no reason why officers of the same standing and length of service should have been superseded in the manner of which his noble and gallant Friend complained. It would cost very little to have done all that justice required, and thus to have avoided creating that disagreeable feeling which the promotions of the officers of the Scientific Corps had engendered in the breasts of those who saw themselves superseded. The late Lord Herbert had established what was called a Reserve Fund, which came out of the pockets of the officers of the purchase corps; but, instead of that fund being appropriated to the benefit of those who had contributed to it, it went to provide retirement for the officers of the Artillery and Engineers. No Return with respect to the fund had
232
ever been made. Seeing that the country had derived so much benefit from the Reserve Fund, great dissatisfaction had been created in consequence of those officers not having obtained rank according to their length of service, and he thought that fund might be equitably used to provide justice in the cases complained of.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,
Returns, firstly, of all lieutenants and captains of the Foot Guards, captains of Cavalry, Infantry; and Royal Marines (Light Infantry), and captains and second captains of Royal Marines (Artillery), who will be superseded by the promotion of captains of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers to the rank of major; showing the length of service, and in what rank, of the officers thus superseded; and showing also the number of officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, junior to them, by whom they will be superseded: Also,
Return showing the number of officers of Cavalry, Guards, and Line holding Army Rank as major, lieutenant-colonel, and colonel respectively, who are of shorter total service than the senior captain of Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers of each year who will be made a major under the recent warrants.—(The Lord Strathnairn.)

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870).

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I feel some difficulty in undertaking the task which I have imposed on myself in bringing so vast a subject under the notice of the House, and asking your Lordships to consider not only the Report of the Committee, but also the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. A discussion took place in this House on the 3rd of June, in which I took no part, and the result of that debate was that a Committee of your Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870. I have a copy of the Report of that Committee, which was ordered to be printed on the 18th of July. I understand that the Appendix is not yet printed, and I regret that I have not an opportunity of referring to the evidence before your Lordships' Committee. No doubt, there may have been some very valuable testimony collected with reference to this Act, as it appears that members of the Judicial Bench and Chairmen of the Quarter Sessions were examined; but whatever were the labours

  233
  of your Lordships' Committee, I believe that all will agree that the offspring is the very smallest that any mountain in its labour ever produced after so many weeks trial and sorrow. I observe that amongst other information they obtained Returns from the Clerks of the Peace, and if they prove to be worth the expense of printing, I shall be very much surprised. I cannot conceive that they will show anything more than a schedule of the cases brought to the Quarter Sessions, and an index to the cases of all kinds tried under the Act of 1870. The Committee state that they confined their inquiry solely to the working of the Act, not to its defects. I apprehend that they must have had some difficulty in avoiding the defects, if they properly examined into the working of such an imperfect machine. They must be a very peculiar body who could examine the working of an engine without observing the faults and imperfections in its construction, and finding it to be their duty to make them known, and report its improper construction, its want of connection between its several parts, and the destruction to property that it was calculated to create in the progress of its work. The Committee, however, admit that they found it impossible to close their eyes to the obscurities of the Act, and that their vigilance detected some few defects, some two or three of which they approach with the timidity of the youngest and gentlest of the softer sex. Their first objection is the primary Tribunal for hearing land cases, and they are of opinion that the Court of the Chairmen of Counties is unsatisfactory. They were no doubt right in entertaining that opinion; but the Committee came to the peculiar conclusion that although it is not satisfactory they do not think it expedient to make any change in the construction of the Tribunal. They subsequently, however, put a postscript to their Report, and recommended that the Chairman should be empowered to reserve a case on a point of law directly for the Court of Land Cases Reserved. This modest recommendation is some little change in the Tribunal of First Instance; but I cannot understand why the matter of fact should not be sent to the Court above as well as the matter of law; and as the matter of law may depend very much upon the matter of fact, it would appear a more
  234
  just course to allow the whole case to come to a new hearing in the superior Court, and I do not think that the owners of property in Ireland should be satisfied with less. Hitherto, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was limited in his jurisdiction to sums not exceeding £40; any matter which involved a question of title, no matter how small, was entirely outside his jurisdiction, and he could not entertain it. The Act of 1870 places the Chairman in quite a new position—as new as that of the owner of an estate and his tenant. The Chairman is now entrusted to adjudicate on matters of title of the most peculiar and novel character, and required to define title the most difficult and subtle that can be well imagined. They are empowered at their will to confiscate the estate of the landlord, and to hand over to the tenant more than the value of the lands. Under these circumstances, it behoves your Lordships to examine into the nature of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the character of that Tribunal. The Chairmen are appointed by the Government, at salaries varying from £700 to £1,100—thus there are 8 at £700 a-year; 10 at £900 a-year; 15 at £1,100 a-year; total 33, at £31,000. These 33 gentlemen preside over 151 Courts of Quarter Sessions in various parts of Ireland, and in some of these towns there is not accommodation for the litigants, who must in consequence travel considerable distances every day of the sessions. The Chairman is rarely assisted by any other than local attorneys, and consequently it frequently happens that he is obliged to postpone a case at trial, until he returns to Dublin to consult the authorities. It is to a Court of this character that the Legislature has entrusted the disposal of the land in Ireland, and to decide if it is to belong to the land-land or to the tenant. It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire what the Act of 1870 has directed shall be done in respect to this primary Tribunal? The 22nd section directs—"That for the purposes of this part of this Act the Court shall mean—the Civil Bill Court, &c." The 23rd section gives the Chairman authority to administer an oath, &c.; the 24th section provides for an appeal; the 31st section empowers the Judges to make rules for the proceedings—1st, in the Civil Bill Courts; 2ndly, for proceedings in appeal; 3rdly, for proceedings

  235
  in land cases reserved; and 4thly, as to any other matter or thing, whether similar or not to those above-mentioned. These rules, when made, have all the force of an Act of Parliament. The Judges have made rules, and they have ruled—
  "That all applications and disputes under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, in the division of the county where the land, or some part thereof, is situated."
  This rule I think highly inconvenient not only to litigants, but also to the administration of justice, in consequence of the very great number of Courts of Quarter Sessions and the peculiar and varying arrangement of the districts; so that in many instances the Court is held in one town, and at another period in another town of the same district, and occasionally adjourned from one town to another. In considering this matter, I must observe—and I wish Her Majesty's Government to take notice—that the 62nd section of the Act has not been brought into operation. By that section, it was enacted—
  "For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland shall, in addition to the Civil Bill Courts now by law directed, hold such Courts, in such places, within their respective jurisdictions as may be prescribed by the Privy Council in Ireland."
  That provision has been altogether neglected, and the Judges have, by their rules, most imperfectly provided for this serious and flagrant omission by their 2nd rule; directing that—
  "At each ordinary Sessions, now held in each year, there shall be for each division of the county in one town in such division a separate part of such Sessions for the disposal of business under this Act to be termed the Land Session."
  This arrangement is most objectionable, and how far the Judges are justified in making this rule, in the absence of the action of the Privy Council, it is for your Lordships to consider. But I think that it would be highly desirable that the Privy Council should be put in motion, and that the Court for hearing and determining land cases under this Act should be held in the county town apart from all other business, or of an ordinary Civil Bill Court, and that every opportunity should be afforded for the attendance of the members of the Bar, to assist the Chairman and to protect the interests of the litigants. It is a matter for consideration, if ejectments on title
  236
  should not be heard at such Land Sessions, and if such an arrangement would not save expense. I now come to the second appeal objection taken into consideration by the Committee of your Lordships' House—namely, the appeal to the Judge of Assize, and in this I regard the Act as exceedingly defective, inasmuch as the 24th section gives to the county of Dublin an appeal to two Judges of the Superior Courts of Law. To the other counties of Ireland it gives the appeal to the Judges of Assize; then the Act further states that such appeal may be heard by one of said Judges; but in case any question of law shall arise upon such appeal, the Judge before whom such question arises may, if he thinks fit, require that the same shall be heard and determined by both the said Judges, and thereupon such question shall be heard and determined by both the said Judges, who shall, for such purpose, sit together. This section proceeds to provide for a further appeal to the Court of Land Cases Reserved thus—"the Judges to whom any such appeal may be made, may, where they deem it expedient, reserve any matter or question arising upon such appeal by way of case stated for consideration of the Court of Land Cases Reserved in Dublin." Thus, your Lordships will observe that, in matters of appeal from one Judge at Assize, the Judge may, "if he thinks fit," require that the same be heard before both Judges, and the two Judges "may, when they deem it expedient, reserve any matter or question arising upon such appeal by way of case stated for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin." It is clearly intended by the Legislature that this should be a very effective Court of Appeal; that in all difficult cases the two Judges should sit together; and that if any peculiarity in the case should appear, that the Judges should "reserve such matter or question" for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin. It appears from a Return that has been made to the House of Lords, upon an Order bearing date the 10th of May, 1872, that there have been two instances only in which the Judge of Assize has refused to allow of the case being sent to the Court of Land Cases Reserved—one, that of William Fleck, claimant; The Baron O'Neill, respondent. It appears, in that case, that the Chairman awarded

  237
  to the claimant £100, and that, on appeal, the Judge increased the award to £125 7s. 2d.; but on what grounds it is not shown, or why the appeal to the Court of Land Oases Reserved was refused. With respect to the second case we are better informed. It is that, now notorious case, of Hugh Friel, claimant; The Earl of Leitrim, respondent. As this case is now a matter of history, the law has taken its course, and the decree satisfied—the land surrendered, and the cabins on it levelled to the ground. I apprehend that I have just as good a right to refer to this case as any other matter of history, or as to any other case in which any other persons might have been concerned, or as if the case had occurred 50 or 100 years ago. At the same time, I wish it to be clearly understood that I wish to speak with the greatest respect of Mr. Justice Lawson; and, although I object to his views, his Judgment, and his acts, I shall argue the matter—or endeavour, to the best of my skill, to do so—without imputing any improper motive to the Judge; but, on the contrary, presuming that he would come to the same conclusions. Supposing the case were that of any noble Lord who now hears me—and it is because I think that Mr. Justice Lawson's acts are dangerous and subversive of the rights of property that I ask your Lordships' attention to his own explanation, given in a letter to a noble and learned Lord not now present (Lord Romilly), and published in The Times newspaper of the 4th of June. He first states that the award was £235. That is an error. It was £250, and is so stated in the Return to your Lordships' House. He states—
  "That the claimant proved that he paid £180 to his brother Patrick for the tenant-right of part of this farm, and that this payment was made with the sanction and approval of Mr. Wray, who was the agent over the estate at the time. This evidence was wholly uncontradicted."
  The claimant did not produce Mr. Wray to corroborate this statement, though Mr. Wray was summoned by him to the Land Sessions; and it was proved that neither the claimant or his brother Patrick were tenants at the time that this payment was stated to have taken place, neither could the claimant show how the money was paid. Mr. Justice Lawson proceeds to state—
  238
  "The claimant was served with notice to quit because he had given shelter to his brother after he was evicted."
  This statement is inaccurate. I stated in my evidence that several attempts had been made to murder my servants, and that it was in consideration of these outrages that I caused a notice to quit to be served on the claimant, and it was on account of my desire to protect my servants' lives from such murderous attacks—when the police and the laws of the country had failed—that I wished to remove this family, who have been now rewarded under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. I was indignant at an act taken by me for the protection of my servants having been thus misrepresented, and I wish to point out that similar cases are likely to occur, and to take the liberty of challenging the mode of procedure in regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Only a few days since the same Judge tried a criminal case in the same county. A Presbyterian clergyman wishing to sell his holding, the permission to do so was withheld, and thereupon came a man, who came from America, with a revolver, and avowed his intention to shoot somebody; but whom he wanted to shoot did not appear to be known. Two policemen who were on duty arrested a man who was intoxicated in the town of Milford. The man who came from America interfered, together with two of his brothers. He fired at the policemen, missing one, and mortally wounding the other in the back. An attempt to rescue the murderer from the police was made by his two brothers, and it was only by the interference of a gentleman, who had witnessed the latter part of the transaction, that he was secured. But there was no conviction for murder, for the man was merely found guilty of manslaughter, and the aiders and abettors of the crime only received 12 months' imprisonment. Of course, if that kind of government were to continue in Ireland, murder would increase to such an extent that people in the upper classes of society in that country would have to take to shooting those inclined to attack them, and perhaps nothing but the shooting of one or two persons in that way would put an end to this very Liberal system of Government. Mr. Justice Lawson states that a respectable surveyor swore that

  239
  the profit rent of the claimant's farm was worth £19 7s. 6d., and that the tenant-right would sell for £278; and it appears by Mr. Justice Lawson's letter to Lord Romilly, and used in debate in your Lordships' House, that it was on this fictitious value given in evidence that the learned Judge thought proper to take from me my estate, and compel me to pay to an objectionable tenant more than double its value for a holding on the top of a rocky mountain, unfit for tillage, incapable of any important improvement, consisting of 32 statute acres, let at the rate of 3s. 9d. per acre for the yearly rent of £6 to the claimant as a tenant from year to year so recently as the year 1860, when the claimant became a tenant for the first time on the estate without the payment of any fine or reward to any person whatsoever. It is desirable to bear in mind that this Judgment carries with it the two-fold evil, of an encouragement to the fabrication of a fictitious value, and a strong inducement to great exaggeration; and, secondly, a great discouragement to the owner of lands to let land at a moderate rent, as in the event of his giving it at a low valuation, or in any other way improving the value of the holding to the occupier, he must himself become a loser if he should wish at any future time to resume the possession of the lands thus underlet. Mr. Justice Lawson is good enough in his letter to the noble and learned Lord to express very small consideration for my evidence in this case; nevertheless, I produced the lease of the lands of the date of 1767, which did not expire until the year 1830, or thereabouts. The settlement of the estate dated 1800. It was proved that the lease expired during the lifetime of the tenant for life, and that I, his heir, succeeded to the estate in the year 1854; that the Mr. Wray who he refers to acted as my agent for only two years after my succession to the estate; and that I was not in possession of the estate at the time of the transaction which Mr. Justice Lawson refers to. The accounts of the estate were produced, and it was shown that the widow Grace Friel was the tenant of the holding up to 1860; that she being under a notice to quit surrendered the holding, and a new letting was made in 1860, the holding being divided; part was let to Grace Friel, part to John Friel, and part to Hugh Friel, the
  240
  claimant; that Grace and John were evicted before the passing of the Act of 1870, and that Hugh Friel never was a tenant until the year 1860. It was upon an observation from Mr. Justice Lawson that my counsel—who, though a junior, is a most able and learned lawyer and an honour to his profession—reminded the Judge that the claimant did get notice that no tenant-right was allowed on the estate by the eviction of his brother John, who got no compensation on eviction; and it was proved that for 16 years or thereabouts prior to the passing of the Act of 1870 no tenant-right had been allowed or claimed, and that it was not the custom prevalent on the estate at the time of the passing of the Act. Mr. Justice Lawson entertained such confidence in his own judgment in this difficult case that he did not think fit to require that it should be heard before both Judges of Assize as provided for under the 24th section; neither did he deem it expedient to reserve any matter or question for the consideration of the Court of Land Cases Reserved at Dublin; although it appeared that there were several points of law not as yet decided—for instance, 1st, Does a period of 16 years prior to the passing of the Act of 1870 constitute a sufficient period by which the usages prevalent on the estate according to the 1st section of the Act should be governed, or does it not? 2ndly, Does a change of tenancy created before the passing of the Act of 1870 destroy a right which an individual may have enjoyed prior to that change, on different lands, and under different circumstances, or does it not? 3rdly, If the acts or omissions of a tenant-for-life under settlements made prior to the passing of the Act of 1870, the estate having passed to the next heir prior to the year 1870, bind the heir as regards the usages prevalent in the province of Ulster, or otherwise? These important points of law Mr. Justice Lawson deemed it to be inexpedient to reserve for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin, and he expected me to prove a negative to an assertion by the claimant that he had paid a sum of money to his brother, at a time when neither claimant or his brother were tenants on the estate, and before I was in possession of the estate, or able to exercise any control over it. Mr. Justice Lawson states that the Ulster custom of

  241
  tenant-right had always existed on the estate, and on all the estates in the district, notwithstanding that it was proved and admitted that it had not existed for 16 years or thereabouts prior to the year 1870; and although it was proved that the estate was held in Rundale up to the year 1848, when the lands were divided without any compensation being made to the tenants. I have found it necessary to state this case thus fully to your Lordships as a most important matter for your attention and consideration as regards other estates in Ulster, and in Ireland generally. If the property and the estates of the landlords of Ulster are to be confiscated in this way, the sooner they are informed of the fact the better. The Act has already made over to the tenant all the improvements on the holding, which the landlord is unable to prove were made by himself; and as the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are given the power to legislate and dictate how far the estate shall belong to the tenant, and not to the lessor, the only safeguard that the landlord can have is that of appeal from the arbitrary decision of the Inferior Court to a higher. If that right of appeal is in any way interfered with either by the will of a Judge or by any other cause, it is very much to be feared that the property in an estate will be of little value to the person who was regarded as the owner up to the year 1870. The difficulty which exists in defining what was or was not the usages prevalent in Ulster at the time of the passing of the Act are so great, and the opinions so various, that nothing but further legislation can suffice to prevent the most disastrous consequences and endless litigation and ruin. The longer that the Government delay taking action in this matter in order to remove these doubts as to the intention of the Act, the greater will the difficulties become. I do not see how this difficulty can be properly settled by the Irish Bench, or why the Judges should be called upon to undertake a task which it is the duty of the Legislature to perform; and if the Legislature abdicates its authority in this instance, why should not their determination be made known, and some other form of Government provided other than that of constituting the same persons the makers and the administrators of the laws as regards the rights of property?
  242
  It may be prudent to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and report upon the extent to which the Ulster tenant-right should be admitted; what should be the maximum award that should be paid to a tenant on his quitting his holding by the act of his landlord; to what extent the usages should apply; whether the custom should apply to an estate, to a particular holding, to a town land, to a barony, or a county. These several areas have been a matter of dispute as to which constitute that which should be the subject of the Ulster custom. The 2nd section would rather tend to the view that it should be the particular holding. That alone should be the subject of contention in the Land Court by a claimant. As that section contemplates, the landlord either may acquire or purchase from the tenant the benefit of the Ulster usage, and that thenceforth such holding shall cease to be subject to such usage. But if the Legislature intended that a particular holding should be excluded from, and cease to be subject to, the usage in one case, the landlord having acquired the right by possession in that case, how can it be properly held that any district can be subject to the usage when there may be numerous instances within that district where the reverse is the fact, and which do not come before the Judge, and ought not to be taken into account when trying the claims of an individual tenant? I believe the object of the Act is to throw the land into large farms. Such a result will be objectionable in the highest degree; for a very considerable portion of the lands of Ireland, hitherto under cultivation by spade labour, are quite unfit to be thrown into large farms, or to be tilled by the plough. Nevertheless, it appears that the only mode by which the landlords can extricate themselves from the difficulties and dangers by which they are surrounded, by the various traps which have been set for them by this Act, is to let no land unless the holding can be formed so that the rateable value shall not be less than £50 a-year. That is a deplorable state for a country to be thrown into. The result must be that a great extent will be thrown out of cultivation, and the population will be considerably decreased. It was truly said that the tenant ought to have security for his outlay on his holding, and it is just that he should

  243
  enjoy that security; but that is quite another thing from giving him the estate, or taking away the property of the lessor, and confiscating his estate for the benefit of an objectionable tenant. There ought to be a distinct and equitable line drawn, and wrong should not be done to the lessor, or more than right given to the tenant. I hope that this matter, which involves the rights of property not only in Ireland, but in England also, will meet with careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess, and that before Parliament meets again a measure will be prepared, explaining and amending the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870.
  LORD DUNSANYthought his noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) had made out a strong case for some examination. It was true that there had just been a Committee to inquire into the matter. A new crop of difficulties was arising according to the news received that morning. He saw a report of an appeal taken from the judgment of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and the Judge took a different view from the Court below, holding that the only case in which there could be maximum penalties inflicted was "capricious eviction." Now, he (Lord Dunsany) confessed that he could not understand the meaning of that term. It was one which had, he believed, been invented by Mr. Gladstone, and nobody was, of course, better able than that right hon. Gentleman to explain its meaning. Some precise definition was, however, he thought, required of a word on which so much was made to turn. It ought to be construed as meaning something for which no reasonable or just cause could be assigned. He would only add that the working of the Irish Land Act should be carefully watched, and that it should be as far as possible improved before its principles came to be applied, as he supposed they would be, to England.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas sure he would be excused for following up at any length the statements just addressed to their Lordships. He did not think that that was the place to try a case, or to give his own view of Mr. Justice Lawson's decision. They all knew him to be a learned and most excellent Judge. He (the Earl of Kimberley) was very glad that the noble Lord had called attention
  244
  to the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House, as it was of such a nature as would dispel many doubts which were entertained on the subject. It had not found fault with the working of the Irish Land Act. On the contrary, it expressed a decided opinion that it was not desirable to make any change in the present Courts of First Instance. That decision was arrived at unanimously, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) thought that when their Lordships read the evidence, they would be of the same opinion too. On other points, however, there were serious differences of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee. The recommendation, for instance, that there should in all cases be an appeal from the Judge of Assize to the Court of Land Cases Reserved was only carried by a majority of 1. There was no other very material point in the Report, the Committee rightly deciding that, as only one case had yet come before the Court of Land Cases Reserved, it was premature to entertain any question as to that tribunal. As to certain doubts expressed in the Report with respect to the working of the Act, he (the Earl of Kimberley) was of opinion, with the minority of the Committee, that it was inexpedient to say anything on that subject. It was, at all events, premature to deal with these or any other points noticed by the Committee at present. He could only say that the Report would receive the best consideration of the Government during the Recess; but he was not then prepared to say whether they would next year introduce any measure for the amendment of the Irish Land Act.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMintimated that in the event of the Government taking no action next year, he should bring in a measure for the amendment of the Act himself.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."
  After short debate, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Eight o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.