Sitting of 22 February 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Railway Companies Amalgamation, appointed; Habitual Drunkards, nominated; Trade Partnerships, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Master and Servant (Wages)* [65].
Second Reading—Poor Law Loans* [51].
Committee—Royal Parks and Gardens [17]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Parks (Ireland) * [41].

EDUCATION—PUPIL TEACHERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked the Vice-President of the Council, Whether he

  865
  could state approximately the number of pupil teachers who were serving their apprenticeship in 1871, and the average number during the preceding three years?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the number of pupil teachers serving their apprenticeship in December, 1871, was 21,854, and he was glad to say that was a very large increase on the average number during the preceding three years, which was 15,772.

METROPOLIS—THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government would take the necessary steps to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee of last year on the Thames Embankment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that it is not in our power, by the authority of the Executive Government, to take any step of that character, because we are bound by law to obtain the full value of the property of the Crown; whereas, if I understand rightly the recommendation of the Committee, it is that a price or consideration ought to be given for it which, although I might not be justified in calling it nominal, is little more than nominal, or at any rate is entirely inadequate. It would, therefore, require an Act of Parliament; and we are not prepared to bring in an Act for the purpose of parting with the property of the Crown for a value altogether inadequate. If the hon. Member can point out to us any unobjectionable source from which we can obtain a proper value, we shall be ready to consider it.

AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts of last Session, any and what steps had been taken by the Treasury to examine into the system of audit of Army Accounts, and to acquire control over the Salaries and Office Expenses of the Court of Chancery?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the right hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware that evidence had been given before the
  866
  Public Accounts Committee to the effect that the word "may," in the 29th section of the Exchequer and Audit Act, ought to be read as "must." The Government had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on that question, and they had given an opinion that the word "may" ought not to be read as "must," but that it was a matter of discretion. Consequently, the Government had given instructions to the Auditor General to consider whether he ought not to enter into a more minute audit of the accounts of the Army and Navy, and the Auditor General had declined to do so; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had appointed a Special Committee to inquire how far the Treasury should exercise the power given them by the same section of calling upon the Auditor General to make the required audit. As to the second Question, respecting the Court of Chancery, he found that the difficulty in the way of doing what was wanted, not only in the Court of Chancery, but in other judicial estimates where the salaries were very high, consisted in the terms of Acts of Parliament which placed it out of the power of the Treasury to exercise the same control as they did over other Departments. It would require an Act of Parliament to enable Government to do so; but it was an Act which would meet with considerable opposition, and in the present state of Public Business he was not prepared to introduce it.

SCOTLAND—LICENSING BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the proposed licensing scheme of the Government would apply to Scotland; and, if not, whether he would be prepared, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill to suspend any further grant of new licences in Scotland, similar in substance to the Act passed last Session for England and Ireland?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Bill of the Government would not include Scotland, whose licensing system was different in some essential particulars from that of England. Whether it might be expedient to introduce for Scotland such a Bill as was passed for England and Ireland last Session would depend very much on the opinion of

  867
  Parliament after discussing the subject, of which, there would be ample opportunity during the coming months. Such a Bill would not require much time to pass, and it was premature to arrive at any decision on the subject.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he would state to the House the total amount paid for Telegrams in connection with the negotiation of the Washington Treaty?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I am informed that the amount charged for telegrams in the accounts of the Washington High Commissioners was £5,116, and that the amount charged in the Post Office account for telegrams from England to Washington was £2,161 13 s. 6d., making a total amount of £7,277 13 s. 6d.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.—QUESTION.
MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to a statement in the House of Commons under date April 24, 1868, What was the actual state of indebtedness of the Madras Irrigation Company to the Indian Government at the present time, both for direct advances of money and for interest upon the first million of capital raised, and which had been paid from the Treasury since the commencement of that adventure; and, whether the works of the Navigable Canal or of the Irrigation Works now showed any net receipts, after meeting the charges of establishment and maintenance, from which the sums due by the Company to the Government could be liquidated; and, if not, whether measures were in contemplation to enforce payment, or to take the works out of the hands of the present management?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to say that the direct advances of money up to January 31, 1872, amounted to £600,000; the interest thereon which had accrued on that date amounted to £86,360. The amount of capital raised by the Company is £999,666, on which interest has been paid by the Secretary of State in Council amounting to £511,852. In reply to his second Question, I have
868
to say that, according to the latest official Returns, the receipts for the 12 months ending November, 1871, were 9,019 rupees, which were not sufficient to meet the charges of establishment and maintenance for the year. In reply to his third Question, I have to say that the Company have been warned that the Government will take measures for enforcing payment of the debentures, aggregating £600,000, as they fall due. The first debenture for £12,000 has to be repaid, with interest, on the 18th of May, 1872. In June £17,000 falls due; in July £12,000; in October £12,000, and so on pretty regularly, the amount of £130,000 having to be paid, with interest, in the financial year 1872–3; but that the Government of India do not consider that the contingency contemplated by the contract of 1866, which would have entitled them to take the works out of the hands of the present management, has arisen.

METROPOLIS—NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government had finally approved any architectural design for the New Courts of Justice; and whether he would exhibit the same in the Library or elsewhere within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, for the inspection of Members of this House? The hon. Member said, that on the 21st of last July he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government approved the designs which were stated to have been accepted, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not approve those designs. He understood that during the vacation—["Order, order!"]——
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech in putting his Question.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I apprehend that I am entitled, by the practice of the House, to make any explanation which does not lead to controversy. I desire to say that I understand that during the vacation considerable modifications have been made in the designs. ["Order, order!"] I am perfectly in order. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that is the case or not?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, these designs were exhibited in the Library of the House for several weeks last Session, and hon. Gentlemen who were critical in such matters could not be induced to pronounce any opinion upon them. After having submitted them to this ordeal the Government did approve of the designs, and he did not know that any good purpose would be answered in exhibiting them in the Library again. Of course, if the House really wished it, no objection would be offered to that course.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.—QUESTION.
MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intended to bring in any measure during the present Session dealing with Friendly Societies; and whether any Report had been made or may be expected to be soon made by the Royal Commission appointed to investigate this question?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that some of the evidence that had been taken on this subject had been actually reported, and he was informed that further evidence with reference to it would soon be in the hands of Members. It was, however, not expected that any conclusion on the subject of Friendly Societies would be arrived at by the Commissioners during the present Session, and it would be impossible to attempt any legislation in the matter until the Report had been made.
MR. DODDSasked whether the Report would refer to Building Societies?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the evidence taken before the Commissioners related to Building as well as to Friendly Societies, but that the Report had not yet been printed.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, as Chairman of the Commission, might state that the forthcoming Report would refer to Building, but not to Friendly Societies.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE AMERICAN CASE.—QUESTION.
MR. GOLDSMIDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that the American Case had been presented to the Senate by the
870
United States Government, he would now present it to the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: I stated to my hon. Friend on a former occasion that we were not authorized, in consequence of the presentation of the American Case to the Senate, to present it to the Houses of Parliament, because a presentation to the Senate is a presentation to a co-ordinate body, and it is, therefore, a confidential and not a public presentation. But, at the same time, the circumstances of this case are very peculiar, because that kind of publicity, or half publicity, which has been given to it, seemed to render it desirable, with the permission of the American Government, that we should make it known to both Houses of Parliament in a regular manner. Application has been made to ascertain whether the Government of the United States have any objection to the presentation of the American Case to the two Houses of Parliament, and the American Minister has very courteously replied that no objection is entertained. If my hon. Friend moves for the production of this volume—it is already in type, in consequence of what has taken place in the Foreign Office—it will be produced as an unopposed Return, and I am in hopes it will be distributed almost immediately.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he would submit a formal Motion for that purpose.

FRENCH POLITICAL PRISONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any complaint had been made to the Foreign Office relating to certain French political prisoners who had been put handcuffed on board English steamers by the French police, and landed in this Country in a state of utter destitution; and, whether Her Majesty's Government had addressed or intended to address any communications to the Government of France in consequence of these proceedings? The hon. Gentleman said that he had ascertained that the handcuffs were taken off before the prisoners were brought on board the English steamer. He had learned that the prisoners were landed in January, at Newhaven, without sufficient clothing, and in a state of utter destitution, and without a farthing in their pockets,

  871
  and that they walked to London from Newhaven, living on roots and turnips all the way.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: A gentleman called at the Foreign Office some days ago to make the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, and he was requested to send it in a written form, in order that such action as was required might he taken upon it. That statement has reached me only since I came down to the House to-day, so I can only assure my hon. Friend that it shall he at once submitted to the consideration of the Secretary of State.

COURT OF CHANCERY FUNDS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any written communications had passed between the Lord Chancellor, the Treasury, the Exchequer and Audit Department, the Accountant General in Chancery, the National Debt Commissioners, and the Bank of England, or any of them, upon the subject matter of "The Court of Chancery Funds Bill;" and, if so, whether he would have any objection to lay such communications upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Chancery Funds Bill is pretty nearly the same as the measure of last year, in the framing of which we had communications with the Lord Chancellor, the Accountant General in Chancery, and the National Debt Commissioners. There were, however, no official communications, and I am not aware that there were any written ones. There has been no communication with the Bank of England. We sent the Exchequer and Audit Department a copy of last year's Bill, and yesterday received a communication from them, which I shall have no objection to produce.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he was prepared to state to the House the course he intended to take on Friday next with regard to the Business of the House, as by the Notice Paper it appeared that there were many Motions down for consideration on going into Committee of Supply? He believed that
  872
  there were nine Motions down for that day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, I will answer the Question. I am afraid the expectations kindly held out to us by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) are not likely to be fulfilled to-morrow night. We must assume that the Motions on the Paper will be proceeded with. If, however, they should be disposed of at any reasonable hour—[Colonel BARTTELOT: What hour?] Some time before midnight. ["Oh!"] I would suggest that an interruption in the middle of a sentence, with the view of drawing forth a reply, and then an interruption upon that, without knowing what is to follow, do not conduce to the convenience of business. I was about to add that we should not think of proposing any controverted matter under those circumstances, and therefore Gentlemen need not apprehend that. I think it would be convenient in the first place to know whether the House is disposed to deal at once with the Resolution relating to the admission of strangers, which is of some importance in connection with a measure which stands for early discussion. If that is to be contested we shall not proceed with it to-morrow. I am anxious to know a little more than we do at present as to the general disposition of the House with regard to the mode of procedure on these Resolutions. A very large number of Notices have been given, some of them very important. A noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) and the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) have both given Notices, and I should like to learn the feeling of the House as to the best method of procedure. Let it be understood that we have not the slightest intention of raising controverted questions to-morrow, there being, I fear, no prospect of time for discussing them. If the hour should be so late as to make it inconvenient to raise the question at all, I shall postpone it till Monday nominally, in order then to state what course we shall take.

  THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: I stated to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  873
  yesterday that, as the Chief Commissioner of Works was not in his place, I would put the Question which I have down on the Paper to-day; but, as I am aware that several hon. Members who are present are anxious to discuss this question, and being anxious to say a few words myself on the matter, I shall put myself in order by moving the adjournment of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, Sir, I am sure, at any rate, the House will agree with me and back me up when I claim for each Member a ticket for the Thanksgiving celebration at St. Paul's, and also one for each Member's lady. The number of Members of the House of Commons is 650 in round numbers, and each Member and his wife or another lady, would amount to 1,300. Now, considering that there are 950 places appropriated, it would be easy to order 300 or 400 more seats, and so provide for all. I am informed that some hon. Members, whose wives are unable to go, are anxious to take their daughters—indeed, I am told by several hon. Members that they will take their daughters without asking permission, and I am bound to say that if I were in their place and was a married man and had a daughter, I would do the same Before asking my Question, there is one other matter I should like to refer to. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his answer yesterday, said this was not a matter for the Government, but for the Lord Chamberlain. Now, I am informed that the Lord High Chamberlain has had nothing to do with the arrangements. [Mr. BRUCE: The Lord Chamberlain.] Well, the Lord Chamberlain is a portion of the Government—and it is in the power of the Government to provide places not only for hon. Members, but also for the ladies of Members. I beg now to ask the First Commissioner of Works the Question of which I have given Notice, Whether, in the event of married Members being allowed a ticket for the Thanksgiving at St. Paul's for their wives, unmarried Members would be also allowed the privilege of a ticket for their sisters or other lady; and, if not, upon what ground it was denied them?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Montague Guest.)
  MR. AYRTONwished to apologize for not being present yesterday. He was not, however, aware that the hon. Member intended to put any Question on the subject. Now, he did not hold the office of Vice Chamberlain, and, unfortunately, the noble Lord who did was not at this moment a Member of the House. It would be the noble Lord's duty to examine these delicate and interesting questions, and he would be able to deal with them in a manner to which he himself felt unequal. He should be happy to give any information he could; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) endeavoured yesterday to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and he himself could hardly have done more. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think it a logical sequence that if tickets were issued for the wives of Members they should be issued for the sisters of unmarried Members, who, no doubt, took a great interest in the ceremony, and that in the case of a Member having no sister a ticket should be allowed him for another lady. He could not, however, see any such sequence. It had been his duty, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain, to consider how much accommodation, consistently with the general arrangements of the Cathedral, could be provided for the use of the House of Commons. They, of course, examined precedents, and found that about 250 or 270 seats were reserved at the last Thanksgiving for the House of Commons. On the Duke of Wellington's funeral 500 were reserved. Considering the interest which hon. Members felt on this occasion, and the best mode of allotting the space, they devised a plan by which the entire space in the northern part of the dome, between Her Majesty's pew on the one hand and the choir on the other, was set apart for the use of the House. Beyond the dome was without the immediate circle of the service, and they thought it would not be agreeable for hon. Members to be placed beyond those limits. They found that 850, and on careful measurement 875, seats could thus be placed at the disposal of the House, being largely in excess of anything ever attempted or accomplished before. It became the duty, therefore, of the Lord Chamberlain to consider how he could appropriate those seats in accordance with the general feeling of the House. The first

  875
  consideration was how many Members would apply for tickets. An estimate was made on this head, and the next question was what rule should be laid down for the allotment of the remaining space. Assuming that 500 Members would probably take tickets for themselves, it was clear that a ticket could not be given for one lady to accompany every Member. He was himself in the same position as the hon. Member—that of having only one ticket—and could, therefore, make allowance for the view which he entertained; but the House generally would feel that if there was to be a selection it should be made in favour of those occupying a distinct position of relationship towards the Members of the House, and occupying a position in society as the wives of Members. In the opinion of the Lord Chamberlain they were entitled to the first consideration. But while it was impossible to make provision if an hon. Member were accompanied by a lady, yet the Lord Chamberlain, who was, of course, anxious to do everything in his power to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who were in the position of his hon. Friend, would be very happy if any hon. Member who was not going to be accompanied by his wife would apply to him for a ticket for any lady whom he might recommend, and the Lord Chamberlain, so far as he had any space at his disposal, would forward a ticket to such lady. More than that was really impossible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked whether the Government Offices would be closed on the 27th instant, to enable the public servants to participate in the general Thanksgiving?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The subject is new to me, and it has not been under my consideration. I am not aware that any order has been made to that effect. The noble Lord will be aware that to close some public offices would be to impose upon a large number of persons a compulsory rule. There are arrangements made for a certain number of the civil servants to go to St. Paul's.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I will put the Question to-morrow, so that the arrangement made can be known.
  MR. KENNAWAYasked whether the rumour was true that the Procession
  876
  would consist only of the Royal carriages, or whether, seeing that preparations were made everywhere to witness it, it would be attended by the chief State officials?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that unfortunately the Notice that the hon. Member had sent him did not reach him in time to enable him to have communication with the Lord Chamberlain upon the subject. If the hon. Member would put the Question to-morrow, he would endeavour to inform himself in the interval?
  COLONEL BERESFORDinquired whether the Custom House would be closed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no instruction to close the Custom House.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—APPOINTMENT OF SIR ROBERT COLLIER.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: Sir, I hope the House will permit me to say a few words by way of explanation with reference to a matter that occurred in the course of the debate on Monday last. It may be in the recollection of the House that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) was addressing the House, he stated, with reference to the Bill which was before the House last summer as to the Judicial Committee, that in the course of the debates on that measure he was asked by some one to place an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of qualifying the Attorney General and ex-Attorneys General, and also the Solicitor General and ex-Solicitor General, while still members of the Bar, to be members of the Judicial Committee; and he also stated that the gentleman who made the application to him said that such Amendment was thought desirable by several persons, including myself. I now know that which I did not know at the time I interposed. I may say that I came in quickly from another part of the House, hearing my name mentioned, and perhaps did not hear accurately; but I now understand that he added—what I did not catch at the time—that he was told I felt a delicacy about proposing it because I was an ex-Attorney General. I immediately

  877
  felt it my duty to state that that was the first time I ever heard of such a thing, and that the thought of proposing, or recommending that such an Amendment should be introduced, had never crossed my mind. I need not tell the House that I am on the best possible terms with my hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great esteem. I was perfectly certain that he had stated with accuracy the information which had been given to him, nor could I suppose that anyone would have intentionally misrepresented me in conversation with my hon. and learned Friend. I therefore endeavoured to see whether I could recall to my memory anything which could explain the statement which had been made to my hon. and learned Friend; and it did, soon afterwards, occur to me that there was a possible explanation, which on the same evening I personally communicated to him. He wishes that this explanation should be stated to the House, which I am very willing to do if the House will permit me. It was this—that while the Bill was passing through Parliament, before it came to the stage of the second reading here, I was almost daily in attendance upon the Judicial Committee in my professional capacity. When I am there I am in the habit, like other gentlemen, of talking to my professional friends and brethren whom I meet in the room appropriated for the Bar upon passing subjects of the day, and in the course of conversation with a gentleman, whose name I do not at this moment remember—and I have not asked my hon. and learned Friend the name of his informant—with reference to this Bill, after it was understood that the full salaries of Judges of Westminster Hall were to be given to the new members of the Judicial Committee, I perfectly recollect having expressed my own opinion that I no longer saw any reason for the restrictive qualifications in the Bill, and having said I was disposed to think that all persons whom the Queen has power to appoint Judges in any of the Superior Courts of Law or Equity should be equally eligible for these new appointments. This is, as far as my memory goes, what I said. No man can pretend to recollect the exact words which passed in such a conversation. What I said was not confidential. Those who heard it were perfectly at liberty to repeat what I
  878
  said. And I do not intend to impute to any person any intentional misrepresentation. But if I was supposed to have expressed an opinion in favour of so limited an enlargement of the qualification as that which would admit only past or present Law Officers of the Crown, while still excluding all other members of the Bar, I was much misunderstood. During the conversation the effect of the present qualification was noticed as excluding all members of the Bar, and I perfectly remember I did say that for that very reason, because there might be people who might think I might myself be ambitious of the situation, I would not take any part in suggesting any alteration of the measure. I certainly did not intend that any request or suggestion should be made to anyone else to do what I was unwilling to do myself; and until my hon. and learned Friend spoke I was not aware that anyone had done so. This I can assuredly say to the House—that if I have been supposed to have expressed an opinion in favour of a limited enlargement of the qualification so as to include only officers and past officers of the Crown, and nobody else, I was entirely misunderstood, as I was if it was supposed by anybody that it was my wish that any step should be taken in consequence of what I had said.
  MR. DENMAN: The explanation which my hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to give is perfectly satisfactory to me, because it is very clear to me that that which he remembers now is the conversation which gave rise to the report referred to by me in the words I spoke the other night. I believe he did not hear at the moment the words I quoted alluding to his unwillingness to propose an Amendment himself, which have since brought back to his recollection that a conversation had occurred which I have not the slightest doubt was the conversation which was represented to me in the shape in which I quoted it. Allow me further to say I must apologize to my hon. and learned Friend for having quoted his name in the House without having given him Notice I would do so. I really had no intention when I rose to mention his name. It was not until I heard some ironical cheers that I went more into detail than I intended.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. CARDWELL: It is impossible, Sir, to introduce the Army Estimates without some reference to figures, and some remarks on details which are necessarily dry and tedious; but I will endeavour to spare your patience as much as possible, and only to refer either to figures or details when I think you will wish to hear them in order to the understanding of what I desire to lay before you. I shall begin by assuming, and shall not labour to argue, that you are of the same opinion now that you were last year—that you do think that an Army is necessary for the defence of this country, and that you do desire "to combine together in one harmonious whole" all the forces to which, under the Votes of Parliament, you contribute. I shall also assume that you still adhere to the cardinal principles you established last Session—that you intend our service to be not a compulsory but a voluntary service, that you are satisfied with the abolition of purchase ["No, no!"]—well, the satisfaction, if not unanimous, is at least very general—and that you are satisfied also with the transfer of power from the Lords Lieutenant of counties to the responsible Minister of the Crown. It will be, I dare say, in your recollection that the Royal Commission upon Recruiting, which reported in 1867, found these peculiarities in our position. They said that we existed from hand to mouth, with no forecast for the future—that an Army of Reserve had been attempted to be constructed, but had proved a decided failure; and that not the least cause of the unpopularity of service in the Army was the circumstance that a soldier was compelled to spend at least two-thirds of his time on foreign service. The first measure which we took when we came into office was to reduce the number of the regiments of the British Army serving in foreign parts. The Estimates now on the Table propose to have an equal number of battalions at home and abroad. The next step that we took in 1870 was to introduce a system of short service, without which it is impossible that any real Reserve can exist. And last year we abolished the system of purchase, intending in the course of the present year to lay before you what we hope will be a satisfactory scheme, for the
880
purpose of uniting and combining together all the forces to which we contribute out of the Votes of Parliament.
I will first, before proceeding any further, state the changes which the present Estimates exhibit. The total Estimate for last year was £15,851,700; the total Estimate for this year is £14,824,500, being a saving of £1,027,200. If you take the net amount last year—that is to say, £14,697,700, and deduct the net amount this year, or £13,582,000, you will find that the reduction is £1,115,700. The difference is due to a more accurate valuation of the non-effective services between us and the India Office, giving, therefore, an advantage on the net estimate over the gross estimate in favour of the British Treasury. There is, however, no substantial reduction in men or matériel. As regards matériel, I stated last year that there would probably be a reduction to only about the amount that there actually is, on account of our being then engaged largely in arming the auxiliary forces with breech-loaders, getting up a store of sea torpedoes, altering siege and field artillery, and various other matters which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Sir Henry Storks) will explain when the particular Vote comes on. The reduction in money would have been greater than it is if it were not for a circumstance which may, perhaps, be satisfactory to the Committee as illustrating the general state of prosperity of the country, but which, of course, operated in increasing our Estimates—I mean the very high price of everything that we have to purchase for the use of our Army. Provisions, iron, fuel, clothing, in short, everything that we are called upon to buy, costs a very much higher price than before. Besides, in the Store Vote are included armaments of various kinds—the cost of which will cease when the works are fully armed—as well as several great works, such as those of Bermuda, which will terminate in a few years. The total numbers for 1872–3 are 133,649 men as compared with 135,047 in 1871–2, or 1,398 fewer. The number is not materially altered; but there is a slight reduction on account of the re-distribution of the forces, giving us at home seven battalions of Guards and 18 battalions of the Line first for service, consisting each of 820 men; 18 battalions of 700 men next for service, and 35 of 520,

881
being very nearly that number of 500 which we have often heard spoken of as the proper number for a battalion on the peace establishment. The present Estimates add 500 to the Army Service Corps, and 336 to the Army Hospital Corps, which has been re-organized in conformity with the recommendations we have received. Two Madras regiments, numbering 1,760 men, have been returned to the India Company; and Hong Kong and Singapore will be garrisoned exclusively by troops on the British establishment. We have, therefore, I may say a far larger effective force at home than it had ever been our practice to retain in time of peace; but that these forces are not maintained at a larger cost than is now incurred is due to the policy of concentration which we have pursued, in bringing home troops from the colonies and using them for the defence of this country. I am sure that it will be agreeable to the Committee to know that that policy, while it will be found to be conducted with generosity and liberality as regards the terms on which we have withdrawn from individual colonies, has been accompanied on the part of the colonies by a spirit of self-reliance and a readiness to enter into measures for their own defence, which is both highly creditable to them and highly satisfactory to those who regard the strength and power of the Empire. Canada, for instance, has a force on foot in time of peace of 44,000 men, armed with Sniders and well equipped, and last year 37,000 of them were out in camps of exercise.
I will now pass on to speak of the question of enlistment, not the least important point in dealing with the Army Estimates, because it touches the first of the three cardinal principles which I consider to have been established last year. You were determined that you would not resort to compulsory service, but that you would have voluntary service, and you are naturally anxious to know how it has worked during the year past. The Army Reserve, which my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) last year called "a ridiculous little force with a pompous appellation," only mustered about 1,000 men when we first took it in hand; but now numbers a few more than 7,000, and we propose in the Estimates of the present year to raise it to 10,000. That, however, is entirely exclusive, of course, of
882
the new system of enlistment for short service, because no person enlisted for short service has gone into the Reserve. There were 2,000 men who passed from the Army into the Reserve last year; but that is quite a different matter from men enlisting for six years and then passing into the Reserve. The number of these men now in the Army is 13,497. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that of late recruiting has rather fallen off. It would be strange if it were otherwise, when the town is placarded with announcements of wages of 3s. 6d. a-day and railway fare for those who would go to the place where the employment was offered. If that circumstance did not produce some effect on recruiting it would, as I have said, be singular. But I am about to lay before you, as usual, the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and I think you will read it without any feelings of discouragement, or any notion that you are likely under the voluntary system to want recruits for your Army. You will find that there is a remarkable adaptation of the supply to our demand. As I have said, 2,000 men passed during the year from the Army into the Reserve; but the numbers that entered the service during the year were 23,568, the largest number since 1861, with one exception, the year 1870, when, on the outbreak of the German War, there was naturally some excitement, and then you got a few more—namely, 24,594. All the establishments are filled up, or nearly so, with the exception of the Artillery, and I desire those who are constantly saying that short service discourages recruits to take notice that we have not failed in recruiting for the infantry, to which short service applies, and that the only force not filled up is the Artillery—a force to which short service has not yet been made applicable. However, the fact I have mentioned does not show that we cannot get men even for the Artillery. It is due to the circumstance that we made an unusual addition to the Artillery last year, and that we have only yet raised a portion of the men for whom we obtained the sanction of Parliament. We readily obtained drivers; but the strength of a gunner is a peculiar qualification, and gunners can be obtained less rapidly than men belonging to the other branches of the service. We have, however, enlisted a considerable number, and I have no doubt that, in the course of

883
the present year, the whole number will be easily obtained. Last year many hon. Members were nervous about our recruits. They said these recruits were a very poor lot; were very young; would die like flies; and I do not know what besides. I could then only give my opinion to the contrary; very naturally gentlemen preferred their own opinions to mine; and therefore I was left in a minority among those who spoke upon the subject. We have now, however, the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, who speaks most favourably of the recruits, and says they give promise of making good effective soldiers. The reports of the commanding officers as to them are most favourable. Their average age is above 19; it seems that in the Autumn Manœuvres there was no perceptible difference between them and the older soldiers in undergoing labours which certainly were not inconsiderable, and that where there was any difference it was not to their disadvantage; and the number invalided was very small, less than 14 per 1,000, a number which bears favourable comparison with civil life. I will not pursue the remarks of the Inspector General, but his Report is not a one-sided Report; he points out what he considers subjects of discouragement as well as those which are more encouraging; and I shall lay his Report upon the Table, commending it to your careful attention.
The Militia, for which 139,000 men were provided last year, has not yet reached that number. The number in the last Return placed before me was 112,028, so that 26,972 are now wanting. To my mind, however, this deficiency is not a source of any discouragement. In the first place, you will find by-and-by, if you listen to what I lay before you, that we shall propose new measures with regard to recruiting both for the Line and the Militia, which, I trust, will prove satisfactory. In the second place, the number was of course not fully made up in Ireland; because the Irish Militia, as everybody knows, had not been trained for several years, and you could not expect that in the first year of training the numbers would be complete; but enrolments have gone on rapidly, and the reports are very satisfactory. Then, again, the Militia in England and Ireland, which in 1869 only gave to the Army 2,226 men, has in this year—and here is a most encouraging fact—given 8,194 men,
884
of whom 6,836 are from Great Britain, and 1,358 from Ireland. Then there is another reason why the number is not completed; and it is a reason which I am sure the House will approve. I declined to give encouragement to recruiting in the winter, which is usually the best time for recruiting, because it would have entailed the necessity of putting men into billets. I think there is nothing more objectionable, on every ground, than the system of billeting. I did not think it was worth while, for the purpose of making a better show at the close of the year in recruiting for the Militia, to resort to this system. In one case, I believe, it was allowed; but generally I set myself against the practice. The time for enrolling is just before training, and the enrolments are going on very well. Over 8,000 Militia were enrolled in January, and I do not doubt that the numbers reported by the commanding officers will be made up. I am happy to say that nothing can be more gratifying than the reports from Ireland with regard to the Irish Militia. They speak of the strength of the force, of the great anxiety of the men to learn their duties, and of the success of the training. They state that not a single case of Fenianism has occurred; that the men are particularly quiet and orderly; and that the Lord Lieutenant has personally inspected 22 regiments, and has thereby given the force great encouragement. I may mention another circumstance. Three years ago the great difficulty with regard to the Militia was that you could not obtain subaltern officers. There was then a deficiency of 487 subalterns. Now the contrary is the case, and upon the whole the balance shows 36 supernumerary subalterns. I attribute this fact not exclusively to the small concessions made in providing a little less meanly for officers in the Militia, but much more to the announcement that satisfactory conduct for two years in the Militia will be the passport for a limited number of officers to commissions in the Line. Both for the advantage of the Army, and also for the convenience of the public purse, we now propose to allow a limited, but not a small number of captains of the regular Army who have served 12 years to go, if they please, on half-pay for 10 years upon condition of their joining the Militia of the county to which they belong. I am assured, by officers of the highest ex

885
perience and knowledge of the service, that this is a concession likely to be exceedingly acceptable to many gentlemen who wish to marry and settle in their respective counties; and as they cease at the end of 10 years to have any further claim upon the public purse, the arrangement will be an economical one. In the event of the embodiment of the Militia, they will be eligible for retransfer to the Line, in which case they will count their Militia service towards pension, retirement, or promotion. But if we live—as I hope we shall live—in times of peace, and it is not necessary to embody the Militia, these officers will at the expiration of the 10 years cease to have any claim upon the public in the shape of half-pay or retiring pension. As to Militia officers, we propose to require that they shall qualify by examination for promotion to the rank of captain and field officer, and that commanding officers shall be superannuated at the age of 60, and other officers at the age of 55, always excepting those—and I hope they will be numerous—whom the general officer commanding may recommend on the ground of special fitness to be continued notwithstanding their age. The schools of instruction which were established a little more than a year and a half ago have been very popular, both with the Militia and the Volunteers. Several Friends of mine in this House, who have attended those schools, have described to me what occurred there, and I gather that the instruction given is very satisfactory. At any rate, 270 Militia and 503 Volunteer officers have received certificates from these schools, and the total number of Volunteer officers and non-commissioned officers who have obtained certificates of proficiency to December 1 was 10,630. The Volunteers show an increase of 1,948 efficients upon the year, and 3,960 extra-efficients. The Yeomanry have been reconstituted under the new regulations. Two single troops and one small regiment have been disbanded; six regiments have raised additional troops; and the establishment is now rather more than 2,400 below the number. The first-class Army Reserve is, by the last Returns, 7,165, and the Militia Reserve 28,303—making a total of 35,468 men liable to serve abroad. We have therefore attained what had not been attained in 1867—we have to some extent a real Reserve.
886
The number of men I have mentioned will raise the whole of our battalions at home to 1,000 strong if an emergency were to arise. The second-class Army Reserve men and the enrolled Pensioners make up a total of 25,400. I stated last year that they were 30,000, and the statement would be quite accurate if I repeated it now; because, though I do not intend to take a Vote for more than 25,000, inasmuch as only 25,000 men have joined the second-class Army Reserve, a Return, laid on the Table a short time ago, shows that a considerably larger number of pensioners are liable to come out upon proclamation, and would be well able to serve the country in garrison. The whole upshot, therefore, is that we have close upon 300,000 men, if you reckon Regulars, Militia, Yeomanry, and Army Reserves and Pensioners. If you add the Volunteers, it will give the number as 467,000, while the number liable for service abroad will be 146,500. That is the numerical account I have to give of the present state of the different forces. I have said that the first of the cardinal principles you laid down last year was that our Army should be raised by means of voluntary enlistment, and I think I have shown you that there is no reason to apprehend that the spirit of this country is not adequate to supply by such means our military requirements.
I will now pass on to the next question, and say a few words on the subject of purchase. Some hon. Gentlemen were in the beginning of November in very pleasant places, occupying themselves with very agreeable pursuits. It was, however, the duty of some other persons to be in the gloomy regions of Pall Mall, and at the end of October and beginning of November I happened to be one of those persons; and with regard to the effect of abolition of purchase, you may imagine that that gloom must have been almost insupportable by me, when rumours met me every day of the great exodus that was taking place from the British Army; that the officers and the Consolidated Fund were disappearing together, and that we should hear no more of either. But let me tell you what is the actual state of things. It is quite true that a large number of purchases were made just before the termination of the old system. It would, indeed, be singular

887
if it were otherwise. It is also true that immediately afterwards there was rather a large number of sales. I presume that some who desired to sell, not having made their market under the old system, found it convenient to have recourse to the Purchase Commissioners. However that was, I have the satisfaction of informing the Committee—and I commend what I am about to say to the notice of those Gentlemen who are always making dismal predictions about the enormous extent to which they say I understated the cost of the abolition of purchase—that I understand a very considerable part of the money voted this year will be repaid into the Exchequer; while, with respect to the next year, I have the comforting assurance that instead of the actuarial calculation which I laid on the Table, amounting to £1,160,000, the Army Purchase Commissioners are sending demands to the Treasury for only £853,000, being 25 per cent less than the calculation which I have just mentioned, though, of course, I cannot say positively that the amount will be sufficient, for no subject is more uncertain than these calculations connected with purchase; but it is the estimate which the Army Purchase Commissioners, with experience before them, have thought it right to propose. I may add that my right hon. and gallant Friend sitting beside me (Sir Henry Storks) tells me that while the system of purchase continued a great number of officers were anxious to enter as probationers into the Control Department, and that since purchase was abolished—I do not say it is cause and effect—a great number of those gentlemen have expressed a desire to return to their places in the Army, and to forego the advantages of the Control Department. The Warrant, I may add, which was issued in October, and by which the Army was to be governed in the abolition of purchase, was framed strictly on the principle which I mentioned in the House last year. That is, the principle of seniority, tempered by selection. It was not intended to give undue preference; but that every appointment and promotion should be given to thoroughly competent men. The separate grade of cornet and ensign is to be abolished, and the sub-lieutenant was appointed to be a probationer only, and if at the end of three years he is not qualified to be a lieutenant, he will
888
retire into private life, without having any claim whatever on the Treasury. We are obliged to wait for two years before we can introduce the new mode of entering the Army, and this is the explanation of the delay. In 1870 we made a considerable reduction in the number of the officers of the Army. There were, therefore, fewer vacancies to be filled up for some years to come. There was, at the time, a large number of candidates on the list of the Commander-in-Chief. They were all examined in an examination so far competitive that they were placed in the order of merit by the examiner, and those who passed will all receive their commissions in the order in which they passed, provided they are within the limit of age. Many have been at Sandhurst in the interval, and I mention this merely to show the necessity for some delay before we can begin with the new system. The sub-lieutenant, then, must qualify to be a lieutenant within three years, or else retire into private life and cease to be an officer of the Army. The lieutenant is to be either appointed from the sub-lieutenants or from the Militia, if he is recommended by the commanding officer, and that recommendation is approved by the general officer. In that case, he will have to pass the same professional examination which is required of non-commissioned officers when they receive commissions in the Army, and the same in general subjects as our Indian cadets. Lieutenants must, within five years, pass a qualifying examination for captaincies, or be removed; and captains must pass a qualifying examination for majors. Majors are appointed for five years, eligible for re-appointment; and lieutenant-colonels for five years, also eligible for re-appointment. In order to preserve the regimental system wherever a vacancy arises from a cause not purchaseable, it is primâ facie to go in the regiment except in the case of the lieutenant-colonel. Thus there is a test of merit from the first commission to the highest regimental place—the command of the regiment. I do not know whether I shall hear that these arrangements give any dissatisfaction to those whom they affect. I do not expect that that will be found to be the case. Now, if a young man ought not to be excluded from the Army by being obliged to purchase, neither, on the

889
other hand, ought he to he, it seems to me, excluded from it because the course of life in the Army is so extravagant, that he would find himself unable to meet the expense. We have, therefore, directed our attention to the question of expenditure. We have made provision, as regards the sub-lieutenant, that his clothing shall not be of an expensive, but of a simple kind, and that, if he is in the cavalry, he shall not have to purchase an expensive charger, but that his horse shall be provided for him at the public cost. With respect to bands and messes, a larger question arises. Nothing is more difficult than to enforce a sumptuary law. It is very easy to lay down such a law, but it is very difficult to enforce it. We have thought it our duty to make an attempt to do so. I have, therefore, placed on the Estimates a very small sum for reducing the amount hitherto paid by officers to Kneller Hall, and a larger sum for the purpose of relieving subalterns from any contributions whatever to bands. It is, I may add, the intention of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to issue regulations with regard to the expenses of bands and messes, which I think will be found to be efficacious. The reason why I am of that opinion is, that it is not intended that they shall be merely laws engraven on pillars, to be observed or neglected by the passer-by as he happens to like, but that it shall be obligatory on the commanding officer of the battalion to take care that these regulations are enforced. It was, I may add, impossible for us to issue our Warrant at the end of October without taking into consideration what was to be the future position of the Guards. The Warrant, however, did not touch that question; and, as it was reserved, I will now state what are the intentions of the Government with respect to the future position of the Guards. We considered the question from two points of view, as it concerned the splendour and dignity of the Crown, and as it affected the welfare of the Army. With respect to the first point, I am sure that no one will desire that we should interfere. With regard to the second, it will probably accord with the feeling of the House that exceptional privileges shall no longer be maintained, and that a system of equality shall prevail throughout the Army. The way in
890
which we propose to carry into effect this principle is this:—In the Household Cavalry there is at present only one officer holding exceptional rank—that of major and lieutenant-colonel. He is an officer who, by Court arrangements, is placed in immediate attendance on the Sovereign; and, if I am correctly informed, the post is almost invariably given to an officer who, by seniority, would be entitled to the higher of the two ranks. With his position, therefore, it is not proposed to interfere. With regard to the Foot Guards, all privileges are to be abolished, as far as those are concerned who enter after the 26th of August, 1871, excepting that the brevet rank of colonel will be given to the commanding officer of the battalion, in consequence of his being in immediate attendance upon the Queen. Exchanges with lieutenant-colonels of the Line are not allowed to captains and lieutenant-colonels of the Guards, nor is promotion to the command of a battalion of the Line to be given to any but mounted officers, who stand in the same position as majors, and who, like other majors, must qualify for promotion. All who entered after the 26th of August, 1871, are to be on the same footing as those who entered the other branches of the Army. I should say also that the colonels of the Guards will be allowed to choose their own nominees for sub-lieutenancies, subject, however, to the same competitive examinations as those imposed upon candidates for that position in other branches of the service. The general promotion in the regiment will be the same as in the Army generally, and will be regulated by the Warrant of the 30th of October. Then I come to the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, and in their case it has long been evident that something must be done to secure better promotion. A Select Committee, presided over, I believe, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), took up this question a few years ago, and recommended a system of retirement for these corps. But if a better system of retirement was needed before the abolition of purchase, there could be no doubt that it was still more necessary now, because if you place these two distinguished corps at a disadvantage with regard to promotion, as compared with the other branches of the Army, men would not be so willing to

891
enter those corps; but when entry into the whole Army is equally free to all, it is manifest that if you expose them to disadvantage as compared with the others you will find you will have no Artillery and no Engineers. That being the case, we have taken the subject into consideration. In 1870 I made a reduction in the number of subalterns, with a view particularly to the question of retirement, because it must be evident to every one that when you have to provide retirement for a certain number of men, the more you bring in at the bottom the more you have to find retirement for at the top. I diminished, to a certain extent, the number of subalterns with an express view of the question of retirement; and I asked Mr. Vivian, whose absence I much regret, to look into the question with the Accountant General for the purpose of reviewing the subject and of considering the best mode of providing for the Artillery and Engineers. They did so, and reported that it would be far better to pay men for staying in the Army than to pay them for going out. If you invite men to retire voluntarily at an early period, though the annual payment in the case of a young man would be small, it would amount to a large sum if capitalized, and you would probably run the risk of losing those only whose services were valuable in the market, and of retaining those with whom you might not have been unwilling to part. We have given the subject very careful consideration. Last year I asked the Committee to vote, and they did vote, a sum of £5,000, to be expended in exceptional retirements. That was because there was an exceptional pressure at a particular place in the list, due to the large number of cadets who entered the service immediately after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. I do not mean to say that an exceptional remedy may not be the best mode of meeting an exceptional case; but I concur with the Government actuary and Mr. Vivian that it is better in a seniority service to proportion your ranks than to pay men annuities. It is more economical and more satisfactory; but how is this to be done with respect to the Artillery? Now, what is the Artillery? Is the command of a battery of artillery a post not worthy to be occupied by a field officer? In France and Russia, I un-
892
derstand, the command of a battery in the field is assigned to a field officer; and though in Prussia it is placed under a captain, yet a captain there is a mounted officer. We think that the command of a battery in the field—looking to the immense importance of artillery in the warfare of the present day, and looking at the Order recently issued by the Commander-in-Chief, that artillery is to act more independently for the future—we think that the command of a battery may very properly be assigned to a field officer. Having, by the expenditure of the £5,000 voted us for that purpose last year, and by the introduction of a certain number of lieutenant-colonels of Artillery into the Reserve forces, brought the state of promotion in the Artillery into a more satisfactory condition, we now propose to establish the rank of major in the Artillery with a pay and position similar to that of major in the Line. The Deputy Adjutant General of Artillery is satisfied that the number of officers and the proportion of officers in the battery, if the officers are present, are sufficient; but if they are brought away for Staff or other purposes, the number is insufficient. Therefore, we propose that all officers employed in other services than those of their battery shall be supernumerary. This promotion will for the moment bring the Artillery up to what my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) would call his standard period; but the question whether the promotion will remain in a satisfactory state, must depend upon how we deal with those above the rank of majors—namely, the lieutenant-colonels and colonels—and to this I shall again have to refer when I come to speak of the Reserve forces. I cannot say that these alterations will be immediately carried into effect—or within the course of two years—for it will depend considerably on the consideration whether the immediate application of the principle would give the captains of the Royal Artillery an undue advantage over any portion of the officers of the Line. An additional charge in the Estimates this year of £14,800 has been included to provide for the elevation of the captains of Artillery to the rank of major. The £42,000 which is now assigned to retirements in the Royal Artillery is no longer to be disposed of in annuities of £600—a system which was

893
highly improvident as regards the public, and to which we intend to put an end. It is probable that hereafter annuities of £600 will have to be given to officers after 40 years' service; but it is evident that officers of 30 years' service are taking more than their share of the public money when they retire on annuities of £600; and we propose that, so far as the £42,400 is concerned, it shall be given, as the corresponding sum in the Line is given, to officers of 30 years' service, retiring on the pay of their respective ranks. We had some discussion last year about the brigade system, and I was asked to look into the brigade system of the Royal Artillery. I am not, however, prepared at present to state the result of the inquiries which have been made in that respect. The Adjutant General, assisted by the Director of Artillery and the Deputy Adjutant General of Artillery, has collected authentic information on the subject. I have not yet received his Report; but I am told that the opinion which has been arrived at is not favourable to the simple abandonment of the present system, and to leaving the arrangement to consist simply of units of batteries. As soon as I receive the Report I will lay it on the Table of the House. That is what I have to state in reference to the Royal Artillery. In the case of the Royal Engineers the matter is much simpler. No question arises there as to whether a battery is a field officer's command or a captain's command. The nature of the service of the Royal Engineers admits of proportioning your ranks so that you may give what promotion you desire. We propose, therefore, to give them a promotion equivalent to that which I have spoken of with regard to the Royal Artillery; and, for that purpose, a sum involving a total increase this year of £9,200 has been included in the Estimates.
Now, Sir, I come to consider the larger question, which is really the interesting question of the time. How are we to unite and bind together the various forces to which Parliament contributes? I have shown you that we have brought home a larger number of troops; that we have increased the Militia; that we have introduced short service; and that we have begun to establish a Reserve, The question is, how
894
to combine the whole of these various forces into the best system of military defence? It is a question very different from that which they have had to solve in Prussia. We can have neither the same tactical combination, the same permanent residence, nor the same local equipment. We have to deal with a voluntary enlistment, with a migratory population, with a fluctuating labour market, and with a large amount of foreign service, which, as I have shown, occupies one-half the battalions of the Line; while the position of our garrisons in the southern parts of the country renders it necessary that the larger portion of our Army should be assembled there. The object we have in view is simplicity of arrangement; but it is evident that this simplicity can only be attained by degrees; for we have to unite a number of systems, each in its own nature complicated, and we are compelled to do that, not by clearing away everything and beginning from the foundation—for we cannot rudely displace existing interests—but by combining different bodies in such a way as to form them into one harmonious whole. It would be comparatively easy for an architect to pull down everything and build again from his own design; but it is a very different undertaking to deal with a number of buildings of different styles of architecture, to leave them all partially standing, and yet to produce an edifice which shall not be inharmonious, and which shall be suitable for its purpose. An Order in Council has been passed, under the Act of last Session, by which on the 31st of March the powers of the Lords Lieutenant will cease, and the management of the Reserve Forces will be vested in the Ministers of the Crown. I have always said that localization was the object which we should seek to attain, and the question is what localization means as applied to ourselves. It is evident that it does not mean literally and exactly the same thing as it does when applied to Prussia. Our people do not always live in the same place, but migrate in search of labour. Our troops do not remain in their own country, they go to India and the colonies; and when they take part in a war they are moved by railway not to the seat of war, but only to the place where they have to go on board ship, and then are carried by vessels to some other country, where

895
they have to disembark and find a new base of operations. With us, therefore, localization means identification with a locality for the purposes of recruiting, of training, of connecting Regulars with auxiliaries, and of connecting the Reserves with those who are actually under the standards. We believe that the principle of localization, wisely carried into effect, will attract to the standards classes which do not now join them; will spread abroad a knowledge of the advantages which are offered by service in the Army; and will associate the Army with ties of family and kindred. It will induce men from the Militia to join the Army, and it will destroy competition in recruiting between the Army and the Militia. All these advantages, we believe, it will combine; and we desire to establish a local connection with regard both to officers and men. The sole object of any military system in time of peace must be to provide for a state of war, and the test of any peace organization must be its power—first, to place in the field immediately on the outbreak of war in the highest state of efficiency as large a force as is possibly compatible with the peace military expenditure; and, secondly, when we have placed that force on foot, to maintain it undiminished in numbers and efficiency throughout the continuance of hostilities. Sir, the principles on which we propose to localize the Army were stated by me just 12 months ago with as much clearness as I could hope to state them if I repeated them now. In the interval, I have communicated on the subject with His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and I shall lay on the Table a Memorandum by him of the mode in which, after much consideration, he thinks it is best to carry out those principles. The details of the question were referred to a Committee most competent to consider the subject, at the head of which was placed General M'Dougall, who has had so much to do in organizing the defensive force of Canada. The principle is the local connection of the Army under a general officer commanding the military district. The Committee are probably aware that the tactical unit is a battalion of eight companies. In our service every battalion contains 10 companies; it is, therefore, obvious that if you associate two
896
battalions together you have out of 20 companies two battalions of a tactical strength of eight companies, and four companies which you can make into a third battalion or a depôt. Many of our regiments are suitably formed already—that is to say, they possess second battalions, and the men are enlisted to serve, not in either battalion, but in the regiment. There are other regiments, however, consisting of only one battalion, and these battalions are altogether separate entities, and have no inter-communication with each other. The essential idea expressed in the Memorandum on organization by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is that of territorial districts, each to contain two Line battalions, two Militia Infantry battalions, and a certain quota of Volunteers, formed into an administrative brigade, the whole to rest on the brigade depôt or centre. I have shown you that there is an equality in the number of the battalions at home with those abroad, and it is intended that of two Line battalions united in one brigade one shall be always abroad and one always at home. The two Militia regiments will be associated with them in the same brigade. At the head of the whole will be placed a lieutenant-colonel of the Regular Army acting as brigadier, and commanding-in-chief not only the Regulars and Militia, but also the Volunteers of the district. The permanent Staff of the two Militia regiments will be associated with the local depôt, and eventually, when the present interests cease, the new permanent Staff will be appointed from the battalion which constitutes the depôt, so that if they are unsatisfactory they can be sent back to their regiments, and they will always be in the highest state of military training and efficiency. They will be an addition to the Staff of the local centres. All recruits, both for the Line and the Militia, will be trained at the local centres, and the whole of the recruiting will be under the supreme direction of the lieutenant-colonel who commands the depôt. The Army Reserve men and Pensioners resident in any brigade district will be attached to the depôt centre for the purposes of payment, training, and discipline. It is proposed to store all the infantry, Militia, and Army Reserve arms, clothing,

897
&c., at the depôt centre; and, as a general rule, to train the infantry Militia battalions under canvas at their respective depôt centres, which will be their natural head quarters. All Line and Militia recruits will, immediately on being raised, be sent to the brigade depôt for their recruit training. Nothing in these proposals is to be interpreted as diminishing in any manner the control hitherto exercised by Militia commanding officers over their respective regiments during the non-training periods of the year. The head-quarters of the regiments will, by this scheme, simply be transferred from one place to another. I shall lay upon the Table a complete account of the organization, and I shall be disappointed if you do not think it has been ably drawn up by the Committee over which General McDougall has presided. The proposal is, that there should be a convenient number of districts taken in reference to the strength of the Militia, and we have come to the conclusion that 66 will be a convenient number. In Scotland we propose that there shall be nine for 18 battalions. In Ireland there are at present only seven battalions connected with the country by name and local association, but the number is obviously insufficient. Therefore, we propose to add nine to the existing seven, so as to make the number 16, and to give them eight military districts. The remaining 49 districts will be in England. The Committee is, of course, aware that, under the Act of last year, the law of quotas has been abolished, and that we have the power of raising the Militia without reference to the quota. Now we find that, considering the altered population, the old quota is not in due proportion, and therefore, to a limited extent, a larger number will be drawn from Scotland and a smaller number from Ireland. It will be remarked that there are 71 battalions of the Line in this country, and that we only propose to have 66 local centres. The difference is accounted for by this circumstance—that the Rifles and the 60th we intend to leave with their own separate organization, and then, like the Guards, they will be outside this arrangement, which embraces the whole of the other battalions of the Army. The result of the system, when brought into complete operation, will be that, in all the districts of Great Britain and Ireland, one Line battalion
898
will be always abroad and the other battalion always at home. The object sought to be attained by this arrangement is, that the battalion at home may serve as a feeder for the supply of casualties in the twin battalion of the same district serving abroad. This arrangement is comparatively simple as regards the double battalion regiments. The men are enlisted not for the battalion but for the regiment, and the officers are exchangeable between the two battalions; but as regards the regiments which consist of only one battalion, there are difficulties in linking the two battalions together. First, as regards the men now enlisted we cannot make any alteration without the consent of each individual soldier; but we propose to enlist in future not for the battalion, but for the brigade, and to establish a common interest between the two regiments. With regard to the officers the case is different. It might, perhaps, be more agreeable to them to remain on the separate roll, or, on the other hand, it might conduce to their convenience to make them interchangeable. This subject, however, is so fully discussed in the Report I shall lay before you that I need not dwell on it further. In the arrangement which I shall lay before you, these things have been considered—the connection of each regiment with any other regiment, the connection of both with any particular locality, the having one always abroad, and one always at home, and the desirableness of disturbing the roster as little as possible. The arrangement which the Committee have recommended will not disturb the roster to any inconvenient degree, for it provides that no regiment shall be sent abroad till it has been six years at home. It has also been considered that some districts will furnish more than their quota and some less; and, therefore, although the principle of localization will pervade the system, it will not be a principle wholly without exception, because a regiment will be allowed to recruit at its headquarters, under certain regulations. It has also been found to conduce to the efficiency of the Army that regiments should not be drawn exclusively from one portion of the country, but that there should be an admixture in battalions of English, Irish, and Scotch. Now, it is quite possible, while preserving in the main all the ad-

899
vantages of a local system, to lay down regulations by which you will obtain the desirable admixture of natives of each of the three parts of the United Kingdom. And here let me state what the effect will be, as you will find it developed in each of the 66 districts. In each district there will be a depôt battalion and two Militia battalions, in such a state of preparation that the Line battalion of the brigade at home could be put at once upon a war footing, while at least one other Militia battalion would be ready for immediate embodiment, and the depôt would remain in a state to raise and train recruits, and to furnish the required reliefs. You will find all these matters referred to in minute detail in the Papers which I shall lay upon the Table. I have as yet spoken only of the Line and the Militia; but everybody knows that there is another force not less important—I mean the corps of Artillery. "We have already drawn from the Royal Artillery 10 lieutenant colonels, and trained them specially at Shoeburyness, who have been sent to 10 districts for the purpose of instructing the Militia Artillery and the Volunteer Artillery in the latest improvements in the science. We have already divided the country into Line districts, and we propose to divide it again into Artillery districts, which will be either coterminous with or included within the general officer's command. Scotland, for instance, which is under one general officer's command, will be subdivided into two districts, and so will the Northern and Western districts. All the Artillery in any general officer's command will, subject to the supreme control of the general officer, be under the colonel of the Royal Artillery commanding in that district. A lieutenant colonel of the Royal Artillery will be appointed for the Militia and Volunteers. The adjutants will be supernumerary captains of the Royal Artillery, while the permanent Staff will consist of non-commissioned officers of the Royal Artillery, who, as I said before, can, if they fail in their duty, be sent back to their regiment, and others of better character put into their places. The Militia Artillery regiments are to train whenever the means exist. The recruiting for the Royal Artillery will be under the direction of the lieutenant colonel. It may, however, be asked—As your great object is to prevent competition in recruiting,
900
and to cause all recruiting, both for the Regular Army and for the auxiliary forces, to be carried on under the same administration and control, how can you consistently have two kinds of recruiting going on simultaneously in the same district? The answer is, that a very small number in proportion of Artillery recruits will be required, and that the authority of the general officer commanding the district will prescribe the number to be recruited. For the Militia Artillery, recruiting will be conducted according to one of two alternative plans, which are described with great particularity in the Report. I think I ought not to occupy your time by detailing the differences between these plans; but one difference is, that, according to one of them, the permanent Staff will be at the brigade head-quarters, while, according to the other, it will be at the infantry local centre. The probability is, that one plan will be found more economical in some cases and the other in others, and there is no reason why there should be absolute uniformity of system. With regard to the cavalry, the same powers of combining the two forces do not exist. The cavalry is a comparatively small force, and the Yeomanry more properly belong to the organization of the Volunteers than to the organization of the Militia. Then the privates in the Yeomanry are not men who are likely to enlist in the cavalry. The connection, therefore, between the cavalry and the Yeomanry will be limited to this—that the adjutant of the Yeomanry will be a supernumerary officer of a cavalry regiment, and that the permanent Staff should also consist of non-commissioned officers of cavalry regiments. The object of this is to have none but efficient men, and if it should be found that an adjutant or sergeant is inefficient he can be sent back to his regiment and a more efficient officer put in his place. We also propose that a certain number of cavalry officers should be allowed to go on half-pay and join a Yeomanry regiment in their own county, and that both officers and men should be encouraged to train at the schools of the cavalry. I do not know whether I have succeeded in conveying to the Committee a general outline of the scheme we propose; but it is intended to unite the spontaneity and all the other advantages of the auxiliary forces with the highest possible

901
amount of training that the Regular Army can furnish to any other body of men. It is intended to associate every regiment and battalion of the Army with some particular district of the country, in order that the ties of kindred and of locality may bring into the Army a better class of men and a greater number than now present themselves; that the Militia may be willing to furnish recruits for the Army; and that by these and other means you may not only promote the general advantage of the Army, but also, particularly, that you may attain that object which last year you had so much in view—namely, that only men of a certain age and of fixed constitution should go out to discharge the duties of soldiers abroad. In order to get rid of billeting, which I hold to be an evil of the first magnitude, the Militia regiments will be trained, either at certain larger stations of which I will speak by-and-by, or at their depôt centres, where they will be partially under canvas, because the buildings will not hold them all. They will be put under an experienced officer of rank and in immediate connection with the organization of the Regulars, and when the training is over the camp may be left standing that the Volunteers of the district may have the use of it. Our object is, as far as possible, to make the drill more continuous, and to bring the training of the Volunteers within a limited portion of the year, in order that that training may gradually assume more and more the character of the training of the Regulars. The Volunteers of a local district will, as I have said, be associated with the brigade—that is to say, they will all be subject to the supreme command of a general officer; they will be under the lieutenant colonel who commands the local centre, but their internal organization will remain. There will be no double commissions after the 1st of April, 1873, so that an officer holding commissions in two different corps must elect in which he will remain. I do not mean to say we may not permit an officer to remain as an honorary officer; but I mean that as a substantive officer he must belong to one corps only. No officer or non-commissioned officer will be allowed to remain who does not qualify, nor be permitted to draw the capitation grant without attending drill as often as a private. Indeed, he ought to attend it
902
rather oftener for the sake of conveying instruction. No one will be allowed to continue a rifleman without going to the target, except he has become a marksman; then, of course, it is not necessary that he should be required to go any more than is necessary for maintaining the efficiency he has acquired. We propose that officers of Volunteers shall always be encouraged to train at the local centre of the brigade to which they belong. We propose that Volunteers shall attend once a year for brigade instruction when called upon to do so by the general officer commanding; that they shall receive a small allowance for doing so; and that on such occasion not less than half the enrolled strength of each corps must attend, in default of which the corps will lose the capitation grant for the current year. By these and similar arrangements we propose to give the Volunteers a definite place in our defensive organization, and ample opportunity of brigading with the Regulars and with the Militia. With regard to the Artillery Volunteers, I have already stated that they are to be placed under lieutenant colonels of Royal Artillery. We propose gradually to discontinue the brigade system as regards the Volunteer Artillery. Whatever advantages it may or may not have in the Royal Artillery, I think it will be found that the battery is the natural unit of the Volunteer Artillery, and it would be better to increase the number of lieutenant colonels of the Royal Artillery superintending and training the Volunteer Artillery than to maintain permanently the cumbrous administration of the brigade system. We do not intend to issue any more field guns. We propose to withdraw the field guns gradually as other means of training are provided, and especially those 40-pounders of which we have heard so much, and which, under the new organization, will be moved from place to place for the purpose of giving batteries successive opportunities of practising the science they profess. By these and similar arrangements the Volunteers will be closely united with the Regulars and the Militia, and they will be trained together; and in a short time I hope it may be said of them that they have none but qualified officers; that they are all practised riflemen; that the regulations are strictly enforced; and that

903
inefficient officers or corps have been got rid of. The lieutenant colonels of the Regular Army will be responsible for their efficiency, as well as for the efficiency of the corps under their immediate command. These measures will evidently at first sight involve some additional cost, because you have got to provide for 67 colonels who will be new, and at least 10 colonels of Royal Artillery; but the saving effected on the general arrangement, which will be shown in the Report, will exhibit a reduction on the whole, and show that, instead of an increase, there will be economy. I believe it to be quite true what Earl Grey stated before one of the Royal Commissions—that the expenditure upon the permanent Staff of the Reserve Forces is the most wasteful of all the expenditure of the country. I believe that if you introduce an efficient system of combining all these auxiliary forces in their several localities with the branches of the Regular Army to which they belong, giving them all a common interest and a common pride in the success of the local brigade, you will not only make an enormous stride in the way of efficiency, but you will find that you will promote economy at the same time. A noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) asked me a Question the other evening about the storehouses of the auxiliary forces, which are now chargeable on the counties, and I promised to give him an answer to-night. Last year, when the noble Lord brought forward a clause which I felt it my duty at that time to oppose, I opposed it rather upon temporary grounds; but I did not dispute the substantial justice of his demand. He says—Now that you have taken away from the county authorities the control of the auxiliary forces, do you intend to continue the responsibilities of the counties for the charge of providing storehouses? I have already alluded to the subject of billeting, which has been found to be bad in a moral point of view, to be extremely bad as regards discipline, and to be a great hardship upon those who are compelled to receive the men. I think, therefore, on this occasion it ought to be got rid of. I think, under our present system—if it can be called a system—we have had no strategical view in the disposition of our barracks, recruiting has been imperfect, there has
904
been no connection between the Regulars and the auxiliary forces, there has been competition in recruiting, there has been jealousy between them, the districts have not been coterminous, there has been no unity of system or organization, and there has been no fixed responsibility. And for all these defects we ought to try to find a remedy. The noble Lord asks me, in substance, do I mean to release the counties from the obligation, such as it is, which presses upon them? I answer the noble Lord that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, his demand is just. I think the responsibility ought to rest not upon local funds, but upon the general funds of the country. I am prepared, therefore, to say at once, if the Committee will support me, we shall release the counties from any obligation on the subject. In any district where the county buildings are suitable for our purpose I propose that we shall purchase them, of course, at a reasonable price; in districts where they are not suitable we shall place them at the disposal of the county, to sell them to their own advantage, and build for ourselves, once for all, the local centres necessary to our scheme. I do not think we ought to do it out of the yearly Estimates. It appears to me that a transfer of this kind from the local rates to the public funds ought not to be met out of the Revenue of the year. It appears to me that it is a permanent improvement of the freehold we enjoy. I am not able at present to lay before you a complete and detailed account; but I have an estimate which I shall lay before you, and which I am told by a competent authority is a liberal one, to the effect that the maximum cost will be £3,500,000. We shall have to find 66 centres; 26 will be new stations, and we shall have to convert 40 that are now occupied by the Regulars, and at which storehouses will be required. There will have to be land for parade ground at each centre, to be used not only by the Regulars who belong to the centre, but also by the Militia battalions of the district, and when not required by them, it will be available for the Volunteers. There will be some compensating arrangements for barracks taken. We propose, particularly in populous parts of the country—in Staffordshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and in Essex, for the metro-

905
polis —to build training barracks where the Militia regiments may be trained successively during that portion of the year when they can conveniently go out for training, and which shall be occupied by the Regular troops during the winter. We propose to have reserve store establishments for local supply, with a view to decentralization; where a general officer, for instance, when he requires camp equipage, may send for it instead of writing to the War Office. We propose to establish in the North of England a training and tactical station where all arms of the service—artillery, infantry, and cavalry—whether of the regular or auxiliary forces, may have the opportunity of training; and, finally, we propose to have a metropolitan exercise and practice ground for the numerous metropolitan corps. If the Committee are pleased to sanction these arrangements, I am assured the whole expense will not exceed £3,500,000, which will not be placed on the taxes of the year, but be met by Terminable Annuities. The outline I have thus presented means simply this—it means that all the forces you employ and pay should be effective in the greatest possible degree; it means that you shall have what the country has never had before—a system; and that, instead of drifting without any proper or settled plan, you shall have at least an account of all the moneys you vote. Time would fail mo to go into other subjects; nor, indeed, is there any other subject worthy to occupy your attention in comparison with this. You may have at home a regular force more effective in point of numbers than at any former period of our history; you may have auxiliary forces full of loyalty and full of zeal; but if you do not give those auxiliary forces the full benefit of that high training which can alone be found in the Regular Army, you are wasting your money—you are expending your energies for no useful purpose; and, what is worse, you are relying upon a delusive system, and preparing for yourselves a day of retribution. The object of these proposals is—not to encourage you to a great expenditure, for I believe you will find them in the end not fruitful of expenditure, but of real economy—what I ask you to do is to take care you get money's worth for your money; and that whether it is the Regular Army,
906
whether it is the Militia, or whether it is the Volunteers, you should turn the whole to the best account, and combine them, as I stated last year, in one harmonious whole for the defence and assurance of the country.
I do not wish to sit down without saying a few words on the subject of education of the Army, because I feel that we have really done great things to promote the education of the Army. My predecessor, whom I see opposite, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of education of the Army. I think it will be found that we have carried into effect in substance nearly all the recommendations of that Commission. Circumstances have been materially altered since they reported. They were hampered by the existence of the purchase system, and wishing to recommend that every man should enter the Army by merit, they were prevented from giving the recommendations they would have given under present circumstances. But this I wish to say—that I believe education in the Army is actively supported by the Army itself. I have read with interest the lecture delivered at the Royal United Service Institution by Colonel Middleton. He there says that when the obligation on officers to attend garrison instructors was not compulsorily retrospective, the officers have made it so, and since the last half-yearly inspection 450 officers have attended the garrison instructors, most of them voluntarily. I cannot help alluding to a circumstance in regard to military education, which I think of considerable interest—I mean the introduction into the British Army of that game called Kriegspiel, so well known in the Prussian Army. My gallant Friend General Eyre presented to me a complete set of the maps; it was immediately introduced, and, I am happy to say, it has proved both agreeable and instructive. Another mode of instruction has been introduced—I speak of the military manœuvres. It may seem strange that it should be reserved for the year 1871 to introduce into this country that system of military manœuvre which has been practised in Germany for 50 years. It used to be thought impossible to apply that system to a country so little military in its habits as our own. We did not know when we first brought in the Bill whether we should meet any opposition

907
from the landed interest. We brought in the Bill and we met with no opposition, except a little desire to have it in one place rather than in another. Then when we got into the country we could not tell what demands would he made for damage done—why, all the elaborate clauses, all the provisions which were made for a Court of Arbitration—all the arrangements taking care that the public should not suffer were useless. When we got down there we found everybody delighted—the officers were delighted, the soldiers were delighted, the country gentlemen were delighted, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) was as much delighted as anybody else. I only mention this to show that we accomplished the object for the very moderate sum we had proposed in the Estimates of last year. You will not hear of any Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of liquidating the charges incurred at the Autumn Manœuvres. I believe I am correct in stating that the claims for damage done are under £1,000. I think we are much indebted to Lord Onslow, and other landed proprietors, who were good enough to assist in promoting the manœuvres. We shall renew the proposals this year; we take a Vote in the Estimates for the purpose; I cannot at the present moment name the place. The Topographical department have been engaged in examining several places, and in a short time I suppose I shall be able to announce the decision to the House. I am anxious to do so as soon as possible, because I know it would be convenient for Militia and Yeomanry regiments to be able to make their arrangements. We had the good fortune to have present last year a great number of distinguished foreign officers, and I have every reason to believe that the complimentary expressions they used were not merely the result of their politeness, but they were really gratified by what they saw. The number of men assembled was, I understand, quite as large as is usual at similar Continental manœuvres. I regret very much that the Yeomanry, with the exception of the Hampshire corps, could not attend—owing, I believe, to the lateness of the harvest; but, whatever place may be selected this year, I hope a large portion of the auxiliary forces will assemble with the Regular
908
Army. I had intended to say something about stores and forts; but I have already trespassed so long on your indulgence that I must leave that to my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Storks), on a future occasion when the Vote for that purpose is taken. I only wish, in conclusion, to advert to one circumstance which occurred in the course of the year which affords me very great satisfaction, and which conduces extremely to the good government and welfare of the Army. The House will recollect that an important Committee was appointed relative to the business of the War Office, which was presided over by Lord Northbrook, and I cannot mention his name without expressing my regret at his approaching removal, while I heartily congratulate the country on his promotion to the high office, the duties of which he is so well qualified to discharge to the public advantage and to his own honour. Owing to the Report of that noble Lord's Committee, and the kindness of the House in permitting me to carry the Bill, which enabled a better division to be made of the duties and labours of the War Department; and, owing to the union of the principal offices under one roof, there has arisen a convenience and a facility in the transaction of business which, I am sure, everybody who knows anything about it must be delighted to witness. And I hope that, when the new buildings shall have been completed, we may be able to accommodate not only all the principal offices, but even those outlying departments which are now placed at the Horse Guards, because we cannot find room for them in the present building. I know that decentralization is very justly a favourite topic in this House; and if I tell you that in the last three years we have diminished our average daily correspondence from 1,500 registered letters to 900, I think you will admit that we are making some progress in the mode of conducting the business of the Army. I believe I speak the sentiments of others as well as my own in saying this; and I can only say that I trust this change will be a source of great benefit and advantage to the community. Sir, I now confide to the Committee these proposals. I am very conscious bow imperfectly I have brought them before the Committee. I sincerely trust, however, that when the Committee see

909
them in a more ample form in the Memorandum of the Commander-in-Chief and the Report of General M'Dougall, they will see reason to approve and accept them. They do not commit you to extravagant proposals at a future time; but they do accomplish this—that for what you spend you shall have a return; that you shall combine the different forces, for which you require the public money, in one system, devised for one purpose, and devoted to one end and object; and that, instead of a vast variety of disorganized and conflicting arrangements, you will have the strength of this country combined in a form which, I think, will secure it not only against danger, but against the apprehension of danger. We stated last year that we should endeavour to secure you not only against danger, but against constantly recurring panics; and I trust that you will find we have faithfully redeemed the promise we then made.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 133,649, all ranks (including an average number of 6,185, all ranks, to be employed with the Depôts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of Regiments serving in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions), be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 1st day of April 1872 to the 31st day of March 1873, inclusive."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that hon. Members on his side of the House were sincerely desirous last year of supporting the Government in their plans for the re-organization of the Army, provided they could approve them, and they were now ready to give the fullest and fairest consideration to the proposals just explained by the right hon. Gentleman, which he trusted would not give rise to so much difference as the proposal to abolish purchase. But whatever should be the ultimate view Which the House might take of the plan proposed by the Government, the propositions embraced such a great mass of details, and touched so deeply the future constitution and welfare of the Army, that he was sure he expressed the sentiment of everyone who heard him when he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the House a reasonable time for considering the proposals, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would now allow the debate to be adjourned, without calling on the Com-
910
mittee to agree to the amount of force to be maintained, for the adoption of that Vote would be tantamount to passing the whole of the Estimates. He would avoid saying at present anything likely to lead to debate, though there were some points which he had expected the right hon. Gentleman to refer to; but as the right hon. Gentleman adverted to the manœuvres of last year, he wished to observe that he believed that with respect to them the feeling of satisfaction and delight was general. He believed that they were very beneficial to the Army, and was therefore glad to hear that they were to be renewed in the present year.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that if it were agreeable to the Committee he would move that the Chairman report Progress, with the view of taking the discussion on Monday.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought the discussion on the proposals should be adjourned until hon. Members had had time to consider them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had expressed his apprehension that he had imperfectly explained the propositions; but he must say that nothing could be more clear than the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and there were many matters of which he spoke, especially that relating to local organization, which persons who took an interest in the Army must approve. But out of the 29 proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, only two of them were such as could not have been carried out without the abolition of purchase. That entirely confirmed the view taken by himself and his hon. Friends in the fierce contests of last Session.
MAJOR ANSONexpressed a hope that, before the discussion was resumed, the Minute of the Commander-in-Chief and the proceedings of the Committee presided over by General M'Dougall, which had been referred to, would be laid before the House.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTtook exception to the very large expenditure proposed in the present year for the Army, and said that out of the House a very strong feeling prevailed that the defences of the country were founded on the wrong principle of keeping up a large expensive Army. The country was coming to the conclusion that no nation could be regarded as secure unless its people took some part in the military

911
organization. One Member of the Government last year expressed the opinion that the war between France and Germany had rung the knell of standing Armies, and that it was perfectly clear no standing Army could hope to keep the field against a body of men organized for their own defence. He and those who agreed with him, however, had never asked for anything like the German system of conscription; they had never believed the requirements of the country needed it. Some such system as the Swiss seemed best adapted to our wants. Certainly the people of the country must themselves devote a certain amount of time to preparation for defensive warfare if our system were to be trusted. The whole secret of the success attending the German siege of Paris was to be found in the fact that the people of France had not been trained to arms; had they been so the German line of communication would have been broken through, and the position of the German Army would have become dangerous in the extreme. The French, however, trusted to their standing Army, and without it they were helpless. He was convinced that at the next Election the voters in the large towns would express themselves very plainly in protest against our enormous military Estimates. This year's would be £1,000,000 in excess of last year's. He was not surprised that the Autumn Manœuvres should have been viewed with satisfaction by our foreign visitors, for they must have seen how expensive and yet how inefficient our system was; but he was afraid that Englishmen had little reason to participate in that satisfaction. In conclusion, he acknowledged that several of the changes suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be improvements.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. A. Herbert's) eulogy of the Swiss system was rather less interesting than it would otherwise have been, owing to the fact that the Swiss were now busily engaged in altering and amending it. He hoped that the Government would defer the further discussion of these proposals to a later date than next Monday, because two days were not sufficient to master the Minute of the Commander-in-Chief and the Report of the Committee. He also wished to ask, whether lieutenants of Militia before the 1st of November would be re-
912
quired to pass a general as well as a professional examination before they would be admitted into the Army; and whether officers of the Line would be promoted to commands in the Guards, or officers of the Guards to promotion in the Line?
VISCOUNT BURYexpressed the great satisfaction with which he had listened to the Secretary of State for War's very complete statement, and asked whether, in the case of promotion in the Guards, he had understood the right hon Gentleman to say that officers were to be brought in from other regiments and promoted into the Guards, or, whether such promotion was to be regimental?
COLONEL BARTTELOTthanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for his very clear statement; and although he would refrain at present from passing any opinion on its details, he was sure it would commend itself to the country as a whole, because it was the very scheme the country had been asking for, and gave some hope that in future we should be able to find men when wanted, and find them able to do the work required of them. He was glad the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Auberon Herbert) had made the statement he had, because he was convinced the voice of the country would be against him, as it had shown itself upon two previous occasions in reference to two other matters upon which the hon. Member held erroneous opinions. He trusted the House would be put into possession of the promised Papers before the scheme was discussed.
MR. EASTWICKasked that the debate be adjourned beyond Monday, and suggested that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should require our military attachés at foreign Courts to draw up Reports on the subject of compulsory service; and, in the case of those countries in which it had been adopted, to state the reasons which had led to its adoption. He doubted whether the feeling against it in England was so strong as the right hon. Gentleman supposed.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped there was no truth in the rumour that the advanced Artillery class was to be abandoned. He was told that there were at present very few candidates for admission into the class; but he thought this only showed that the inducements

913
offered were insufficient. This was no time when the higher scientific training of our offices should be diminished or discouraged. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War confirm the statement in the Royal Warrant—that it would be two years before any commissions were thrown open to competition. He certainly thought that the commencement of the new system would be synchronous with the abandonment of the old; whereas, it now seemed that, as far as new commissions were concerned, we had at present the advantages of neither system. As regarded the commissions to be granted to candidates from the Universities, he thought the number should be limited, and could not consider Responsions a sufficient test. He should have preferred to see such commissions confined to those who have taken honours. Lastly, it was stated in the Royal Warrant that the open competition for commissions would be taken on the standard recommended by the Royal Commission on Education. The present system, which had been adopted, after much consideration, two years ago, was, however, an improvement on that recommended by the Commission, and, if altered at all, he hoped it would be by giving more weight to mathematics and other branches of science, rather than by attaching still greater importance to Latin and Greek. It was very desirable that the country should know as soon as possible what the new system of competitive examination was to be, and what would be the relative proportion of marks given for different subjects. While anxious for information on these points, he could not refrain from congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the very able and interesting statement he had made.
MR. WHEELHOUSEremarked that civilians had a greater interest in this question than was commonly imagined. He therefore trusted that the full discussion of the subject would be fixed for a date somewhat later than Monday next, and that the important Report, to which allusion had been made, would be produced beforehand.
MR. HOLMSalso appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give the House a little more time, especially as the localization
914
of troops included all the questions of the Reserves, Control, &c. At the same time he must admit that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman contained the very essence of all military reform, though he (Mr. Holms) would find it necessary to disagree with some features of the scheme by-and-by.
MR. RYLANDS, although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham's (Mr. Auberon Herbert's) view of military arrangements, thought the public out-of-doors took a deep interest in the amount of expenditure the House sanctioned. All the plans of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, admitting that they would prove as successful as he expected, were only additional reasons why they should keep down the number of men voted for the Regular Army to a minimum. It was depreciating the Militia and the Volunteers to ask the House to vote more men for the Regular Army than they had, when those auxiliary forces either did not exist at all, or existed only in an inefficient state. In his opinion the number of men ought to be reduced, and the total expenditure on their war force confined to what was thought sufficient two years ago.
LORD ELCHOasked for the production of the reports as well of English as of foreign officers, relative to the manœuvres, before the House was called upon to vote the money for the several forces.
SIR HENRY HOAREdissented from the view taken by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not consent to reduce the number of men that he had proposed that night. Without in the least disparaging either the Militia or the Volunteers, they were bound to have a certain number of drilled troops on whom they could depend in order to maintain their Regular Army, and this was certainly not a moment, nor were we in a position, in which we could safely afford to disregard the possibility of European complications arising. As the representative of a populous constituency (Chelsea), he would be no party to sweeping reductions in our military forces, and he believed that the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman would give general satisfaction throughout the country.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped that the discussion upon the Army Estimates would not be taken before Thursday next. He desired to know whether, in connection with the majors in the Artillery, it was proposed to do away with first lieutenants?
MR. CARDWELL, in fixing a day for the discussion to be taken, had only in view the convenience of the House. Thursday not being at his disposal, he supposed he had better fix the discussion for next Monday week. In answer to various questions, the right hon. Gentleman said that Militia lieutenants transferred to the Line would be subject to the same general examination as Queen's cadets, and to the same professional examination as non-commissioned officers promoted. From what he had heard about the present system of Responsions at Oxford, he thought he would require a further test. Captains and lieutenant colonels in the Guards would not be allowed to exchange with lieutenant colonels of the Line, and only mounted officers would stand for promotion on a footing with majors in the Line. Exchanges between the two branches he did not think would often occur. With reference to the Autumn Manœuvres, he thought he had already said that he would lay upon the Table of the House the Reports of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, of the Control department, and of the Executive Commission. It would not be in conformity with usage, neither would it be right, to lay upon the Table the Reports of commanding officers relative to recruiting; but that of the Inspector General in connection with that subject would be laid upon the Table.
SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON, in referring to the great diminution in the Estimates under the head of sums expended for the purchase of horses for the Royal Artillery, wished to know why it was that the artillery was not properly horsed? He had himself seen three batteries of artillery which ought to have been able to horse 18 guns unable to turn out more than eight in consequence of the want of horses.
SIR HENRY STORKSexplained that there were at present 275 horses wanting to complete the full number of the Royal Artillery, but that number would be purchased before the 1st of April.
916
During the present month 140 had been purchased.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL.
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)
ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL.

  [BILL 17.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 15th February.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definition of "park-keeper").
  MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved, in line 21, after "appointed," insert "by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings." The hon. Member observed that the clause proposed to change the authority under which the Parks were placed at present. His own feeling, as well as that of many hon. Members, was that the Parks ought to be left alone. He thought the people who frequented the Parks were well-behaved people, who enjoyed the green grass and the fresh air, even although some of them might not be well-dressed or well-washed. A regulation had been made, and posted up at the entrance, that no person who was badly-dressed should be admitted to the Parks; but that regulation was inoperative, as no doubt that which prohibited hired conveyances from entering the Parks would be. If they were to create a new authority, it was necessary to see that it was responsible to that House. He objected to conferring powers upon a park-keeper appointed by a Ranger. He did not quite concur with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt) in his condemnation of the Government for introducing this Bill; but he should have preferred it had it been brought in by the other side of the House.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, when he understood the position of the question. There were four Parks out of a much larger number which had always been under a

  917
  Ranger, that office being reserved by the Act of Parliament which vested the Parks in the Board of Works. But the Ranger was simply an officer under the Crown, for whom the Government was responsible, and, if he misconducted himself, it would be as easy to advise his removal as to recommend the removal of a stipendiary magistrate. The effect of the Amendment would be to abolish the office; but if any hon. Member thought the office unnecessary he should raise the question in a direct shape. He had found no difference of conduct between the keepers appointed by the Board of Works in Kensington Gardens and those appointed by the Ranger in Hyde Park, and he believed it was best to have keepers who made the care of the Parks their sole duty.
  SIR HARRY VERNEY, while admitting that the Parks in the immediate vicinity of London should be under the charge of police, remarked that at Kew and Richmond the duty might be intrusted to meritorious old soldiers, which would be a great boon to the Army.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 58: Majority 26.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that the 3rd clause defined the persons who were to exercise the enormous and unprecedented powers conferred by this Bill. Those park-keepers were to have the power of enforcing the penalties in Clause 4. They might arrest without warrant any person committing any of the offences defined in the Schedule, and they were in addition to have all the powers belonging to a police-constable of the metropolis. Their powers were, therefore, of an indefinite and undefined character. The First Commissioner of Works said the other day, that all the powers given under this Bill were ordinarily given in the case of Parks under the control of municipal bodies. Upon that statement he joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He equally denied the assertion that at common law municipal corporations possessed the powers conferred by this Bill. Under the Municipal Corporations Act no power was given to enforce by-laws by summary and arbitrary arrest, and the power
  918
  given was specially defined to be arrest by summons and warrant in the usual constitutional manner. The First Commissioner of Works had said that the powers in this Bill were similiar to those given to railway companies; but that was equally incorrect. Railway companies had power to make by-laws, and they could not enforce their by-laws without summons and warrant. There were powers given them to arrest without warrant; but that was confined to offences defined in the Act, which made all the difference in the world. The First Commissioner said also the other night that this Bill was only the limited application of a principle which had been applied to every other part of the country except the Royal Parks. He could not attempt to disprove that statement by a general negative in reference to local Acts of Parliament; but he had examined the Act relative to the Halifax Park and others in the Library, and in no single case did he find a power of arrest given to enforce the by-laws of the Park. In the case of Southwark Park, which was under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, no such powers were given. He did not undertake to say that Acts of which he knew nothing had not slipped through; but the great leading examples relied on by the Government to support the Bill proved the exact opposite of what had been asserted from the Treasury Bench. And he had a right to complain that in measures of this kind deeply affecting the liberty of the subject and the Constitution of the country, they never saw the Law Officers of the Crown on the Government benches; they were so occupied with private affairs that they had no time to devote to the business of the Crown. If they could have given five minutes' attention to this Bill, it would never have been produced in its present state; and if they had given five minutes' reflection, they would never have stated the law from the Treasury Bench as it had been stated the other night. The House had also heard, a few evenings ago, that the power in this Bill was in accordance with the Metropolitan Police Act. It was not so. The result of all this was, that his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) and himself had prepared a number of Amendments with the view of bringing the Bill into accordance

  919
  with the usual law of the country. The House of Commons was, by this Bill, called upon to make a new precedent in the law of this country, and this country was very much governed by precedent. If they established precedents of that kind it might lead further than precedents generally did. Arrest without warrant was a very serious thing, and in old times it was a power much more sparingly exercised than at present. Well, it might be said—"What, after all, does arrest without warrant for indefinite offences signify?" It signified very much. It was contrary to the Constitution and laws of this country that arrest without warrant for indefinite offences should be made, with one or two exceptions. Arrest without warrant for indefinite offences meant much the same as if a man were to draw a blank cheque and let anyone fill it up as he liked. He wanted to know whether the House of Commons was going to draw a blank cheque against the liberties of the subject in this country, and to allow a Ranger or Minister of Works, or somebody else, to fill it up with any figure he pleased? That was the scheme of this Bill. He was aware that all these things were treated with contempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which in them was perfectly natural, and was becoming natural on the Treasury Bench. A friend had said to him—"Oh, you are quite out of fashion; you believe in the liberties of the subject." Well, belief in the liberties of the subject was a good old fashion; he was not ashamed of it; and he would venture to suggest to hon. Members opposite that it was not their interest to put these things out of fashion. If they chose to set the example of departing from the spirit of the law and Constitution of this country to serve a temporary purpose, they would find plenty of people to follow that example in a way they might not like at all. We had heard a great deal said about arbitrary power, Royal Warrants, and so on. Well there was plenty more where that came from, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite chose to override the spirit of the Constitution and the laws of the country they would be the people to suffer most by it. How would Gentlemen opposite like, for example, a Commissioner with indefinite powers to go down and regulate their estates, and when they began to talk about the rights of property, the
  920
  liberties of the subject, and Magna Charta, he would say—"Oh, that's all nonsense. I am a Commissioner sent down by Parliament, with indefinite power to make regulations." Now, it was not the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take this line of conduct, for, in his opinion, there was nothing in the world so arbitrary as a Democracy if allowed to go unchecked by the spirit of the Constitution. He was wrong, perhaps, in saying that there was nothing in the world so arbitrary as a Democracy. There was one thing which was more arbitrary still, and that was an Aristocracy acting in concert and coalition with a Liberal Administration. [Laughter.] Therefore, when an appeal was made to great principles which today protected the poor and which tomorrow the rich might require for their own defence, he would advise hon. Gentlemen not to laugh at it. It was said—
  "Cervantes laughed Spain's chivalry away;"
  and it was not a good thing for Spain when that happened; so the day might come when Gentlemen who laughed now might prize those principles which today appeared so absurd. He had ventured to say that this legislation was new, unprecedented, and, to borrow a phrase from the Treasury Bench, "heroic legislation." What was the reason this "heroic legislation" was attempted? It was from fear of "the roughs." Now, he wanted to know what was "a rough?" He often wondered, when he heard the expression, whether he was "a rough." His hon. Friends the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), who were the real authors of the Bill, and who used the Treasury Bench in this matter, declared that he was a rough. Well, then, if they would excuse him, he was acting here in hi own defence, pro domâ suâ. Now, how would they define "a rough?" Did they mean a man who habitually broke the law or was disposed to break it? He supposed that was what was generally intended by the word. But hon. Gentlemen were not generally so severe in their legislation against people who habitually broke the law. There was an instance of their dealing with people of that class last Session, when they voted £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of the public money to compensate them. So that when hon. Members had to do with

  921
  roughs of their own class they did not arrest them without warrant, but compensated them out of the money of the people. Now, looking the other day into the organs of public information, he found the object of the Bill described in a journal which he always read with the greatest reverence, one with which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge was not altogether unacquainted. That journal stated that the object of the Bill was to get rid of "that loathsome and disorderly crew who may any afternoon be seen disporting themselves like Yahoos in St. James's Park." Now, many Members were in the habit of coming down to the House through St. James's Park, and must have seen those who were thus described in a journal said to be "written by gentlemen for gentlemen." He had himself seen those "Yahoos" in St. James's Park in the sultry months of July, not so well dressed as his hon. Friends, but lying asleep on the grass, and he was glad to see them there—the only time when, living, perhaps, as they did among the slums of Westminster, they were able to get a breath of fresh air. Now, if this Bill was intended to turn out these "loathsome and disorderly Yahoos" from St. James's Park, and to prevent them from getting a breath of fresh air, that was one of the reasons why he opposed it. He could not help feeling that this Bill was part of that whole campaign indicated in the early part of the afternoon, which was intended, among other things, to resist giving a corner of the Thames Embankment to the people. In the case of Epping Forest, in the case of the New Forest, on questions on enclosure—in short, wherever there was a chance of the people of this country getting a little fresh air, a little further space, there, sometimes with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, sometimes without it, he and a few of his Friends had to fight a perpetual battle against a Liberal Administration. Now, he for one declined leaving questions of this kind to the Ranger, and he should like to say why. He happened to sit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Thames Embankment Committee, and there was some evidence given before it which showed how functionaries of that description regarded their duties in this matter. A witness was called by the Government
  922
  to prove that no spaces of the kind to be found on the Embankment should be allowed for a public garden, because it would be so injurious either to private houses connected with it, or even to public offices. He would read a sentence or two from the evidence of Mr. Cates, of the Office of Woods and Forests. That gentleman said—
  "A garden of that kind may possibly become a playground, and it is not a very pleasant thing to have a playground and children playing under your windows."
  That showed the spirit in which those Acts were administered by officials of that description, and it was into the hands of such men the making of those regulations would be put. Again, when the witness was asked—"Can it be used as a playground, do you think? "The answer was—" I have no doubt that the ingenuity of children may be able to do that." These were the gentlemen who, in return for their official salaries, tried to defeat the ingenuity of children who wished for a playground. He would vote against placing the open spaces of this country in the hands of persons of that description. Three courses had been proposed upon this subject. One was to let it alone—the wise advice of a former Leader of a Liberal party, who did not get into so many scrapes as the present Leader did. The second course was that which he had suggested—namely, that the Parks should be placed under the control of the police of the district. Do not let it be said that he and those who acted with him were the enemies of order. His proposal was a sufficient answer to any such charge; but there would then be a security that the regulation of the Parks would be in the hands not of servants appointed by the Ranger, but by a responsible authority under regular discipline. The statement that the powers under the Bill were in conformity with the Police Act was unfounded; those arbitrary powers of summary arrest, though they might perhaps have slipped into some local Bill, did not exist elsewhere. A third course was to take the scheme of the Bill, and, if possible, extract from it its virus and venom. The disadvantage of such a course was, that it constituted a separate authority from the metropolitan police which seemed undesirable. He, therefore, moved the omission of the 3rd

  923
  clause with a view to insert a clause placing the control of the Parks under the police.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that having been at the foot of Nelson's column and heard the speeches sometimes delivered there, he thought his hon. and learned Friend must have intended to give the House some kind of idea of those speeches, addressed as they were to people whose information was not such as to make them aware that they were misled. He would not follow his hon. and learned Friend into questions about Army purchase, but would merely repeat propositions of law, which were quite accurate—first, that where corporate bodies had control over a place common law would give them the right of making byelaws to regulate the use of that place; and, next, that to such bodies had been delegated the power of making regulations which were penal. It was not necessary to go back to Magna Charta. He preferred to quote Acts of Parliament passed when we had grown somewhat wiser. Now, in the very last Session of Parliament two Acts had been passed for the regulation of "Wimbledon and Putney Parks, which adjoined Richmond, and of Wandsworth Common, which was actually in the metropolis. Those Acts contained the same clause empowering any constable or officer of the Conservators (who were in exactly the same position as the Commissioners of Works) to seize and detain any person offending against the Act or against any by-law of the Conservators whose name or address was unknown to them, and convey him before a justice to be dealt with according to law. The Act from which he quoted was a private Act, but the result of a great deal of agitation, and was passed at the instance of the very Gentleman with whom his hon. and learned Friend was co-operating to vindicate the rights of the people in the enjoyment of the Parks. The Committee, of which his hon. and learned Friend was so distinguished a Member, were the promoters of the Bill, and yet when the Government followed in their footsteps the hon. and learned Gentleman came down to accuse them of conspiring against the liberties of the people. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persist in his opposition, but would now allow the Bill to make progress. As a metropolitan Member, his experience
  924
  was, that to place the Parks under the control of the police would not be at all to the gratification of the people; but would, on the contrary, be most disagreeable to them. It was rather a misfortune that the Parks were not in the hands of an organized system of park-keepers, fitted to perform the special duties required of them, and kept under efficient control. The police were now used to a considerable extent, quite as much as was desirable, and no one could assert that the park-keepers were, in conduct and character, inferior to the police. As a general proposition, it would be wholly impracticable to put the Parks under the regulation of the police, who did not possess the necessary powers in harmony with the cultivation and use of the Parks for a variety of purposes. For the police to undertake the charge of the Parks was quite impracticable, and so far from such a step conducing to the liberty of the subject, it would place the whole matter in the hands of the Commissioner of Police, who was not directly responsible to the House of Commons, and take it out of the hands of a Member of the Government who was responsible to the House of Commons at all times. If, therefore, there was anything bad in the Bill, the Amendment would make it ten times worse.
  SIR HENRY HOARE, in common with all but one or two of the metropolitan Members, believed the object of the Bill was to put the Parks under the control of an officer who would withdraw the right of public meeting. Now, surely it was not wise in times of danger to sit on the safety-valve, and it was much better that the people of London should have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. If only a small number of people, and those disposed to create a disturbance, assembled on such occasions, that was an indication in its way of what the real feeling of the people at large was. It was rather strange that the metropolitan Members should have to come down to the House at any hour of the night to oppose measures introduced by the very Government which they were elected to support. A short time ago the First Commissioner of Works wanted to cut down the trees in Kensington Gardens, and he now aimed at clearing the Parks of the class of people usually frequenting them. It seemed as if the Government wished to

  925
  concentrate on him all the odium they incurred, and as if the right hon. Gentleman intended making the Parks a wilderness into which to wander as a scapegoat. He should advise the Government to revert to first principles—to that "flesh-and-blood" doctrine which was their original principle, and he would appeal to the Prime Minister to act handsomely and withdraw the Bill at once. He believed that the success of the measure and an attempt by the keepers to exclude the people from the Parks would provoke a serious emeute.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not know whether the First Commissioner of Works had been at the foot of the Nelson column as a speaker or a listener; but if his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) at all resembled the speeches delivered there they must be poor stuff indeed. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to disdain Magna Charta and to prefer as precedents Acts passed since he had held office. As to the Wimbledon Common Act, it was passed under very peculiar circumstances; and it did not follow because one Act containing objectionable provisions had slipped through the House without comment that that was to be held up as a precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman thought so much of the Act, would he be prepared to adopt another of its provisions, which was that all persons holding property above a certain value should be taxed for the benefit of all the rest? Unless some better precedent could be adduced he should support the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was surprised at the tone of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare). That hon. Baronet talked as though the Parks belonged to the people of London; but the fact was, that they belonged to the nation at large, who had to pay the cost of keeping them up. If Londoners wished the entire control of them, let them purchase the fee-simple, as other towns which required Parks had to do, unless, indeed, they had munificent benefactors like the late Sir Francis Crossley. As things stood, it displayed some audacity, a quality in which the hon. Baronet was not deficient, for Londoners to assume a tone of dictation as to the management of the Parks.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he should claim the vote of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), on behalf of those living in the country when the Thames Embankment was discussed, with reference to persons being made to pay for property they had taken from the Crown. He agreed that the Parks were the property of the whole nation, and thought that they should be placed under the control of the metropolitan police, because there would be a responsible Minister from whom they could demand explanations, and who would be responsible for the acts of the police.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, before he left office the principle of placing the Parks in the care of the metropolitan police had been practically adopted, and he believed it was recognized up to that very moment. But that was a very different question to that raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt). It appeared to him that to adopt such an Amendment would be a hasty and inconsiderate step. The only persons appointed by the Ranger were the gatekeepers. All the other functionaries connected with the Parks were appointed by the First Commissioner of Public Works. The only question before the Committee was the 3rd clause, which defined a park-keeper; and if no better definition could be suggested, they ought to proceed to vote upon it.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the clause affirmed the principle of park keeping, and therefore it was opposed. The last division reached the Government's working majority of 27, and therefore there was no reason to despair. The Government affirmed that they sought no powers except those already conferred on municipal corporations, and he challenged that assertion. The search for precedents had failed, and had produced nothing but one extraordinary farrago of erroneous law. The Bill proposed to give power to arrest without warrant Her Majesty's subjects in a manner which was entirely unprecedented.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that for 32 years the Metropolitan Police had had the power of arresting individuals without a warrant for a great variety of offences, including that of keeping a ferocious dog at large, singing obscene songs, furious driving, destroying trees and shrubs in a public walk, extinguishing a lamp, and fly-

  927
  ing kites, &c. It was not likely that the operation of the Bill would add new powers to those which had been so long exercised without complaint. But in order to give the security which was demanded he would propose that the rules and regulations to be made for the Parks should be laid on the Table of the House for a certain time before they could come into operation. One set would not do for all the Parks, because cabs circulated freely in Regent's Park and not in Hyde Park.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been made in an extremely hasty manner, and Notice of it ought to have been given. It involved a very serious alteration in the whole scheme, and it ought to be placed on the Notice Paper for several days before they were called upon to discuss it.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that all these rides and regulations should be laid before Parliament before they became lawchanged the entire character of the Bill, and he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) in thinking it necessary that they should have due time for its consideration. He begged, therefore, to move that the Chairman now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Locke.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) could hardly be serious in making that Motion. He thought also that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) was a little severe in laying down that no Government engaged in discussing the details of a Bill was ever to make a concession for the sake of procuring harmony and a general agreement, except upon giving several days' Notice. His hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had, however, actually placed on the Notice Paper a proposal which had now been before the House for a considerable time—an Amendment to the effect that the rules to be made under the Bill should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if not disapproved by either House within a month afterwards, they should
  928
  come into force. The Government had as sincere a respect as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) for the liberty of the subject, and desired to surround it with proper guarantees. There might, however, be cases of particular celebrations in the Parks which might present exceptional circumstances, and which might require regulations of a special and temporary character; and therefore, it might be necessary to introduce into his hon. Friend's (Mr. Ryland's) Amendment some modification in respect to regulations that were strictly exceptional. Thus, the control of Parliament would be maintained over the by-laws which might be made; and he hoped that, now they had such an admirable opportunity of settling the details of the Bill, the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am astonished at the course suddenly taken by the Government. The question before us is that the 3rd clause stand part of the Bill, and that clause has to do with the duties of park-keeper, and to have such a proposal as that now made brought forward under such circumstances by the Government, is about the most irregular proceeding I ever heard of in my life. Let us either do one thing or the other; but what has this new proposition to do with the 3rd clause of the Bill? The Government ought to have the strength to stand on what they have done. They have introduced a measure the 3rd clause of which defines the duties of the park-keeper, and now, when they find that they do not get support where they looked for it, and get it where they had no right to expect it, they immediately turn round and sell themselves to the enemy. Surely we have a right to complain that they should thus, all of a sudden, on a clause referring to an entirely different subject, take the opportunity of saying that they mean to alter the complexion of their Bill? ["No!"] Yes, I venture to say they alter the whole complexion of their Bill. The Bill was put forward as one intended to be carried out on the responsibility of the Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) at first told us that he was going to take upon himself, and to place on all his successors in his office, the responsibility for the rules and regulations to be made for the Parks, But

  929
  what do we now find? Why, that the Government are seeking to evade their proper responsibility, and to shift it to the shoulders of this and the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when, he ought years ago to have taken the part that any man would have taken who was interested in the order of the country and not in its disorder, when a Bill on this subject was proposed, instead of attempting to amend the measure, the right hon. Gentleman, who now wants order in the Parks, then set himself against order. Now, however, having brought in his Bill, he turns round and throws the whole thing into confusion, keeping open the discussion and controversy about it for years; for that must be the effect of leaving it to be fought over from time to time in either House of Parliament, where, as long as different parties exist, there must be constant contests upon each of these rules. I say this is a cowardly proceeding—a proceeding unworthy of a Government which takes upon itself to legislate on such a subject. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) has taken his line, and other hon. Members have taken theirs. On a former occasion I took the line that I thought right, and I did not shrink from it either as a Member of the Government or as a Member of the Opposition; but I came here to vote for a Bill for the carrying out of which the Ministry was to be responsible; and now I find that I am asked to vote for a Bill which casts the responsibility on either House of Parliament. This is a new way of dealing with the other House which we have already seen dealt with in so unpleasant a way by those who profess to respect it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) told us, in a proper and consistent manner, that the Minister would be answerable for the rules which the Ranger made. That is a proposition which Parliament may accept, because we should have a responsible Minister to deal with. But now the Secretary of State for the Home Department says—"We will leave this House to deal with any rules that may be framed." I say that such a proposal ought not to be introduced at this period of the discussion, and I say further that it is neither a satisfactory nor an honest way of treating the question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: On a former night I ventured to observe that this was not a question that required the heroic style of speaking. I then thought that character applied more or less to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt); but to-night we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman opposite a magnificent specimen of the heroic style. And I must say that if there be any man in this House who can contrive—if our object is to find the man who can contrive to import into the plainest practical matter of business and common sense the acid and venomous spirit of party—it is the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Of that spirit I have never known a more wanton or more extravagant manifestation than he has just given us. The right hon. Gentleman is here as our supporter, and of course, Sir, we are very grateful for the kind support tendered on this occasion. But let us descend a little from these higher flights. In discussing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman protests against the introduction of irrelevant matters; he pins us to the 3rd clause and the duties of the park-keepers, and having done that he brings a charge against me without the slightest foundation, and without attempting to say a word to justify it, about my conduct in respect to a Parks Bill some five or six years ago. That is the way in which he observes his own rule of speaking closely to the precise language of the 3rd clause. I challenge him to bring forward, if he likes, my conduct in regard to that former Parks Bill. I tell him that on that Bill I did all I could—with reference to the feebleness and the bungling of the Government of that day—to make the best that the circumstances permitted of the unfortunate position in which they placed the power and authority of the Legislature and of the Crown at the mercy of the populace of London. That was their exploit, and from their blundering have resulted all the difficulties in which subsequent Governments have been placed in regard to the Parks. Now, what is the charge against me? I have been betrayed for a moment into the heroic style. I found the speech of the right hon. Gentleman so attractive that I could not help making an attempt at a humble imitation of, although, while using my best efforts, I must always re-

  931
  main far below his lofty flight. The right hon. Gentleman says it is improper to refer to any other portion of the Bill when we are dealing with the 3rd clause. I know that, according to the strict rule of the Committee, it is desirable, as far as possible, to discuss the matter of the clause, and nothing but the matters of the clause; but it was pointed out very justly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford that in the 3rd clause, which treats of the duties of park-keepers, we were really dealing with the basis of the Bill. Now, why do we define the duties of the park-keepers in this clause except it be with reference to the ulterior purpose of assigning to them certain functions and powers? The right hon. Gentleman, in the midst of all his fume and fire which he has poured forth, and of which he has a stock so abundant that he can dispense it on any occasion without notice and in any quantity, has preferred one intelligible charge in the vague declamation with which he has flooded us; and his intelligible charge is that we are shirking responsibility. Those are plain words. How, then, are we shirking responsibility? Is it by providing that, instead of framing regulations hereafter, and leaving it to the House or any hon. Member to call over the coals my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, we are willing to accede to the proposal that my right hon. Friend's regulations shall be laid upon the Table and shall not become law until they have been laid upon the Table for a certain time? Is not my right hon. Friend to be responsible for the regulations he may lay upon the Table? The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be so blinded by a determination to convert into a polemical discussion that which ought to have been one of the most prosaic discussions in which we were ever engaged, that he entirely forgets we are not proposing to alter the initiative. We propose that the regulations shall be made by the proper officers of the Government, and that after being made they shall be laid upon the Table, so as to give a more convenient opportunity to Parliament of doing that which is the proper function of Parliament—namely, of challenging the acts of the Government and of intercepting them, if it thinks fit, before they have taken full effect. I hope and entreat if that we
  932
  are to maintain our reputation as an Assembly which meets for the purposes of business, we may on an occasion when the subject under discussion is strictly a matter of business, be allowed to return to this humble 3rd clause.
  MR. DISRAELI: There may have been a great deal of heroic talking, but what we should like to see would be a little more heroic acting. We should like to see the Government stick to their colours. They do not even surrender at discretion. For a greater want of discretion than to give up the whole point which they have now been contesting for two nights, I never before witnessed. The defence made by the right hon. Gentleman is singular. We do charge the Government with shirking the responsibility they had engaged to incur. The right hon. Gentleman says—"What foundation have you for this charge? True it is that we are no longer prepared under the conditions of the Act of Parliament to propose and adopt regulations for the Parks; but we will devise regulations and place them on the Table, and thus give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them." But how are the Parks to be regulated in the interval? Judging from the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and the exposition of the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us, there must be an interval of anarchy. ["Oh, oh!"] If I have misunderstood the matter, that is only an additional proof that when so considerable a change is suddenly brought forward in a Ministerial measure we ought to have an opportunity of understanding more intelligibly the proposition. That the proposition is contrary to their original one nobody can for a moment doubt. As to the attack which has been made upon my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) with reference to what occurred six years ago, no doubt a great deal has occurred in those six years, and one ought to have notice in order to collect one's memory as to the circumstances. I think, however, I can remember this—that under the difficult circumstances in which my right hon. Friend was placed with reference to legislating in regard to the Parks, the course he took on the occasion was a direct course, which he professed without circumlocution and supported with spirit. I remember that a right hon. Gentle

  933
  man opposite, who had occupied the post of Secretary of State in a Government which also dealt with this matter, did feel it consistent with his honour as a Member of Parliament, as a former Minister, and as a gentleman, to come forward and give a manly and straightforward support to the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, who had been a Member of the same Cabinet, sat night after night in sullen silence, and never spoke with reference to the proceedings that took place in the Park, except, I believe, when he addressed a tumultuous multitude from the balcony of his own private residence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's imagination should have led him astray; but, as Mr. Sheridan has remarked, there have been former occasions when a Gentleman has drawn on his memory for his jokes and on his imagination for his facts. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into that error. In regard to the one intelligible sentence in his remarks, I can only say that there is not a single shred, syllable, or shadow of truth in it. ["Order!"] I mean to say there is no foundation of fact in it whatever. The right hon. Gentleman says that after the lapse of six years it is necessary to rub up one's recollection by reference to what really occurred, and I strongly recommend him to practice the doctrine he has preached, and to improve his memory of those things before he ventures to make such extraordinary statements.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would not draw on his imagination, but state a notorious fact. When his right hon. Friend sitting near him (Mr. S. Walpole), then Secretary of State for the Home Department, issued a notice forbidding a meeting in the Park, a Motion was made in that House by a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman opposite'(Mr. Gladstone), the then Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Neate), to the effect that the country was indebted to his right hon. Friend for having issued the notice. But the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion walked up to Mr. Neate and asked him to withdraw his Notice, and the hon. Gentleman did withdraw it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not think that the imagination which prevails on the front bench had extended so far as the third. It is impossible to answer
  934
  charges of this kind which are extemporized from time to time, without dates or particulars. I can only say that I have no recollection whatever of any accuracy or any foundation of fact for the statement just made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped he might be permitted amid this wrath of chiefs to say a few words of calm mediation between such great allies. The grand alliance seemed to have been broken up; and a state of things had arisen which reminded him of the picture which represented bandits quarrelling over their plunder, and by means of which the rightful owners came by their own. He hoped that by the quarrel that had now taken place the country would come by its own. Now that a certain state of things had arisen, in all probability the people of London would again have the right of enjoying the Parks as they used formerly to do, without these restrictions. He should never feel ashamed at being called "heroic;" but nothing that he could say could bear that interpretation, in comparison with what had been said on both sides of the House. When the First Commissioner of Works charged him with addressing the House in a style fit for the base of the Nelson Column, what did he think of what he had just heard? The Members below the gangway could not rise to anything like that level; but after they had been in office 25 years they might hope to reach to something like it. He would now suggest that hon. Members should confine themselves to the transaction of the business before them, which at present was the 3rd clause. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), who rushed somewhat suddenly into the fray, had not, he believed, heard what was said on the subject. They wanted to divide upon the 3rd clause in order to assert the principle that the management of the Parks should be in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, and not in the hands of the Ranger. If his proposal to give to the police the regulation of the Parks were agreed to, the difficulty would be removed, the grand quarrel which had dissolved the temporary alliance between the two parties would cease, and they might once more kiss and be friends.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he well remembered the occasion when the present Prime Minister, then sitting on the front Opposition bench, preserved a significant silence during the debate on the meeting in the Parks, and while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was speaking, took up his hat, walked out of the House, and did not return.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was great inconvenience in recalling suddenly what occurred so long ago, because you could not always recall it with precision. The charge against him was a charge of silence on a particular occasion. He, perhaps, ran some risk in meeting the charge from memory—a memory which was overloaded, and which, as time passed, did not improve; but he thought that he was able to supply a rational explanation of the charge. If he remembered rightly, the intentions of the Government of that day was to prohibit the meeting in the Park. He knew perfectly well, and wished them to have the benefit of the admission, that in their intention to prohibit that meeting as an illegal meeting they were supported by Gentlemen of high authority sitting on his side. But he himself never regarded that meeting as illegal; he was not prepared to concur in proceedings against it as illegal; he believed that they did end in the breakdown, and the rather discouraging breakdown, in which they did end; and under these circum-stances he thought he did not pursue an indiscreet course when, not being able to support the Government of the day in the measures they proposed, no doubt with the best intentions, for the preservation of order, he left the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, as a Member of the Committee of last year upon this Bill, did not regard the Home Secretary's Amendment as so important that the Committee need report Progress. He thought the spirit of the measure would not be destroyed even if the Amendment were adopted. The Committee could not do better than devote themselves to the consideration of the clauses, in the course of which, no doubt, the warmth of feeling which had arisen would calm down. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear!]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 225: Majority 188.
  COLONEL GILPINasked permission to make an explanation. He did not wish to make a statement that was not perfectly accurate, and in order to confirm what he had said he now called the attention of the Committee to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, made on the 3rd of May, 1867, when the following Resolution was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr Neate):—
  "That Her Majesty's Government in refusing the use of Hyde Park for the purpose of holding a Political Meeting, have asserted the legal right of the Crown, and deserve the support of this House in so doing."
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite said on that occasion that on questions of this kind but one sentiment could prevail on both sides of the House with regard to the propriety of preserving public order; and conformably to that sentiment he made an appeal to his hon. Fiend (Mr. Neate) not to ask the House to go to a vote, which would, no doubt, be misconceived and misunderstood.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. He frankly owned, however, that when the hon. and gallant Member stated that he had spoken to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), and made a suggestion to him, he did so in a private manner. There was not a word now read which he did not own and avow.
  MR VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he wished the Committee to understand that they were now about to divide on the 3rd clause, and he wished to negative it because it proposed to place the Parks under park-keepers appointed by the Rangers, instead of placing them under the Metropolitan Police.
  Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 66: Majority 140.
  Clause 4 (Penalty on violating regulations in schedule).
  MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved, in line 25, to leave out "five pounds," and insert "forty shillings." One of the offences for which a £5 penalty was to be imposed was that of driving or riding furiously, so as to endanger the safety of people; but the same offence, if committed in the streets, where furiously driving and riding were more likely to

  937
  endanger persons, was at present only liable to a penalty of 40 s.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the words "five pounds," in order to insert the words "forty shillings,"—(Mr. Rylands,)—instead thereof.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in every Act passed for maintaining good order in Parks the penalty imposed for this offence was £5 or under, at the discretion of the magistrates, and if it were deemed a heavy penalty the riders and drivers in the Royal Parks were the very persons who could afford to pay it.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that the Bill of 1867, which was the Bill of a Conservative Government, imposed a penalty of 40 s. That Bill was opposed by the Liberal party, and by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, in order, perhaps, that he might afterwards introduce a Bill with a heavier penalty. One of the offences which were to be punished by arrest without warrant in the case of common people had, in respect to another person, been rewarded with a County Court Judgeship and a salary of £1,500 a-year. It was not correct to say that on the introduction of the Bill of 1867 the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government was silent, for he expressed his views very clearly. Speaking of meetings in Hyde Park the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It is undesirable to forbid these things. In these meetings there is a certain desire of demonstration which I believe to be perfectly innocent and entirely devoid of any ulterior intention of the use of force.…. I am apprehensive of a measure the effect of which will be to limit the power of holding open-air meetings.… If the people wish to make a demonstration they may hold meetings in the streets, in Trafalgar Square, and in the open spaces within the metropolis, other than the Parks, which will be more inconvenient to the public than the holding of such meetings in the Parks."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 394.]
  He would read, with reference to this offence liable to a penalty of £5, a passage from the speech of one whose absence they all regretted, and those below the gangway especially regretted, because had he been present they would not be brooding over the broken fortunes of a shattered and disheartened party. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) laughed. They—the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway—did not laugh. They had too much to swal-
  938
  low. The sentiments of that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright), who was once a Member of the present Government—and if he had still been one this Bill would never have been introduced; and if he had still been in his place in the House the Bill would have met with his severest opposition—were worth attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "But if these great meetings have not been attended with any evil results, is it worth while, or statesmanlike (there were statesmen in those days), or sagacious (there were sagacious men, too, in those days), to introduce such a measure at this moment.…. I believe, moreover, that the Bill will fail in times of excitement. Your 40s, fine, your £10 fine, your police magistrate, all will go down in a period of great excitement among a great population."—[Ibid. 401.]
  Mr. GLADSTONEmade an observation which was not heard.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that was a higher fine, no doubt, than the present Bill proposed; but as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had once already that evening requested that he might be allowed to finish his sentence without interruption, he would, perhaps, extend the same courtesy even to an hon. Member below the gangway. No doubt the £10 fine was more severe in the Bill of the Conservative Government than the present one; but in all other respects the penalties were lighter. The Conservative Government had been content, in other respects, with a penalty of 40 s., and it had not sanctioned arrests without warrant. These were discoveries reserved for a Liberal Administration. But it was an age of progress, and they were a party of progress. The right hon. Member for Birmingham continued—
  "The effect of your passing this Bill now, when you are sending to the House what may possibly be a more liberally elected Parliament (that now sitting), will be that this Parliament will leave behind it a grievance which, in my opinion, will rather stimulate the minds of 100,000 people in the metropolis, and will make them long rather to go to the Park in order to show their resentment against such a measure. I suppose it will not be possible, even after this Bill has passed, if, unfortunately, it should pass, to prevent 100,000 people going into Hyde Park.…. I do not object to the Parks being kept with great care for the free enjoyment of the people, but I hold that there is no enjoyment, there is no duty, there is no assemblage more becoming a free people to take part in than such meetings. …. I think the House will feel that unless there be a very strong, urgent, and unanswerable necessity, it is not our duty, or our interest, to make more stringent laws with regard

  939
  to the holding of public meetings ….Trust the people then in the future as you hare in the past. Make no new laws on the matter. Ought we to shut the gates of the Park in order that the nerves of certain genteel classes may not be shaken by the ungenteel presence of the people? I would not bolt the doors of the Park, and say to the millions who are not of the genteel class that they shall not come into the Park because they are apt to disturb the nerves of those who are more genteel."—[Ibid. 401–2.]
  No doubt these were strong words; but the nerves of the unreformed Parliament were stronger than the nerves of the Parliament of to-day. The House should remember that under this Bill the question as to whether any given public meeting was or was not to be held in the Park would depend, not upon the strict interpretation of the law of the land, but upon the will of two officials—the Commissioner of Works, who might be a Member of this or that party, and the Ranger, who might represent neither side of the House. It was most unjust, whether with respect to public meetings or the various offences included in the schedule, to impose a penalty such as no Government had ever before ventured to impose. The Bill of the late Government did not, except in the case of public meetings, include the power of summary arrest for breach of regulations. He should therefore support the proposal of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) to reduce the penalties to that which every borough magistrate knew to be the maximum fine for moderate offences—namely, 40 s.; and he trusted the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) would support this view of the matter also.
  MR. AYRTONregretted his hon. and learned Friend was not content with discussing the clause before the Committee, and submitted that it would be better to take the clauses in their order. If the hon. and learned Member did this, he might read all Hansard through if he liked. The present question was that, assuming the propriety of making regulations for the general use and enjoyment of the Parks and the prevention of mischief and destruction of property therein, what regulations should be made? His hon. and learned Friend sought to protect the poor and put them on an equality with the rich; with this object in view be suggested a small penalty; but surely this would not do, because a man with a good coat on his back would not feel a fine of
  940
  40 s., and if a maximum fine of £5 were named in the Act, a fine which was taken from the general clauses of the Metropolitan Police Act, it did not follow that the full penalty would be imposed in the case of offenders whose means were small. He referred the hon. and learned Member to the Act of last Session, passed on the recommendation of his Committee.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was totally unacquainted even with the title of the Bill referred to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was extremely unfortunate; but his hon. and learned. Friend was ostensibly the Chairman of the Committee to secure Open Spaces for the enjoyment of the people, and notwithstanding he had attended public meetings and addressed large audiences, expatiating on the demerits of every one who opposed him, yet when he was looked up to for instruction he denied all knowledge of matters in which he had taken this leading part. He found that last year a series of by-laws, enforceable by penalties of £5, had been passed for regulating a common within the limits of the metropolis by a body of Conservators, persons as horrible even as a Ranger, since they were not directly responsible to the House. In fact, they were, if anything, worse, for a Ranger could be removed on the advice of Her Majesty's Government, whereas he knew of no human power which could remove a whole body of Conservators. Notwithstanding the disclaimer of his hon. and learned Friend, he must repeat that the Bill had been passed under his auspices—he might say, under his patronage. But his hon. Friend, like other great patrons, did not know what was done in his name.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) were very convincing. In point of fact, the penalty was £5, but "not exceeding £5," and he thought they might well trust to the discretion of the magistrates to discriminate between rich and poor.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had again made a statement which he felt bound to point out was wholly incorrect. Section 54 of the public Act which had been referred to, imposed a penalty, not of £5, but of 40 s. [Mr. AYRTON rose to make an ob-

  941
  servation.] His right hon. Friend would have an opportunity of correcting him by-and-by. [Interruptions.] But perhaps the Prime Minister would wish to correct him at once.
  MR. GLADSTONErose to Order, and requested his hon. and learned Friend would not make remarks on persons around him. For his own part, he had been entirely and absolutely silent.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that perhaps he had been mistaken as to the quarter from which the interruption proceeded. There was, at all events, one hon. Member who was not "entirely and absolutely silent." The question was, what was the ordinary rule in cases of the kind as to penalties of the sort. The 54th section imposed a penalty of 40 s., and that included a case in which the Commissioners of Police were allowed to act, which led back to the wretched precedents of former days.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend impugned his accuracy, but had himself abstained from reading the further clause, which declared that "for every offence for which no special penalty was imposed a penalty not exceeding £5," might be recovered.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it monstrous that penalties "not exceeding £5" should be imposed on persons walking on any shrubbery or flower-bed, or plucking a flower or leaf. It amounted to persecution.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, the First Commissioner of Works appeared to be exceedingly disingenuous in his explanations; and, for his own part, he must apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for not being able to change his opinions as quickly as he had done. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to distinguish between the man with a good coat on his back and the man with a bad one, why did he not confine the penalty of £5 to persons riding furiously, and why did he visit with the heaviest fine persons playing at games or playing music in the Parks? A worse or more mischievously drawn Bill, or part of a Bill, than Schedule 1 he had never seen—unless, indeed, it was Schedule 2. He remembered that in 1867, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was opposing with great earnestness the Parks Bill, brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was always said—"Why do you come to Hyde Paris? Why not go to Prim-
  942
  rose Hill, or Hampstead Heath, or other open spaces?" By this Bill neither Primrose Hill nor Hampstead Heath would be any longer an open space, and Primrose Hill was brought within the provisions of the schedule. He would not use towards the right hon. Gentleman language which he had used towards the Royal Family—giving them "notice to quit," and saying that they must be out of St. James's Palace within one year, but he would ask how he proposed to deal with any unhappy foreigners with exaggerated notions of the right of public meetings, but without the sum of £5 in their pockets, who might happen to be brought up for violating the provisions of this Act? [Question!"] He could not conceal his regret at finding Gentlemen on the Treasury bench bringing in a Bill far more stringent and far more offensive than had over been brought in by the party opposite.
  MR. HENLEYobjected to many parts of this Bill, and he considered £50 as a penalty was not too much for rich people who committed the offences mentioned, and knew at the same time that they were breaking the law. One of the regulations of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was the offence of disturbing anything grazing. Had he inserted the word "wilfully" it would have exempted children running about from being subjected to such a penalty.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was astonished to find Gentlemen unconnected with the metropolis raising objections to a Bill, which, in the Select Committee, metropolitan Members had allowed to make very considerable progress before any division was taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), had no right to assume, as he did, that all the persons punished under this Bill would belong to the working class, or that they would be fined in the full penalty of £5. The hon. Member (Mr. Otway) had stated that he had not changed his opinion so rapidly as certain other hon. Members; but in glancing through the pages of Hansard he found that in 1867 the hon. Member spoke thus in reference to the Parks—
  "He had already expressed an opinion that Hyde Park was not at all a suitable plane for holding political meetings; and he therefore had no sympathy with those who intended to hold a

  943
  political meeting in that place."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 1981.]
  MR. MACFIEsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down, had stated that this Bill was interesting only to metropolitan Members; but he must have forgotten that Holyrood Park was included in the schedule of the Bill. The people in the Northern part of the island were not accustomed to such large fines as £5.
  Question put, "That the words 'fire pounds' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 59: Majority 124.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the subject of the Amalgamation of Railway Companies, with special reference to the Bills for that purpose now before Parliament, and to consider whether any and what Regulations should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such Amalgamations being sanctioned, said, that proposals of amalgamation among railway companies of a most important and unusual kind had been made in the present Session. Twenty years ago a Committee had reported against the system of amalgamation; but since that Committee reported amalgamation had gone on as merrily as before—the fact being that 5,000milesof railway had been added to the greater railways since that time. Applications had been made by a great many towns in the North of England—and from Liverpool in particular—against committing these Bills to the ordinary course of Parliamentary procedure, and in favour of such a Parliamentary Inquiry as was now proposed. He thought that great advantage would result from an inquiry into this subject by a limited number of distinguished Members of both Houses of Parliament. It must not be supposed that in proposing this course the Go-
  944
  vernment in the slightest degree wished to avoid responsibility in this matter. The proposed inquiry would bring Parliament and the public face to face with the difficulties of the question. The result might have an important bearing on the relations between the State and the railway companies.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the Government had taken a very wise course, though some hon. Members of high authority distrusted the prudence of the course. He hoped the proposed number of the Members of the Committee would be stated.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: The number will be 12.
  MR. NORWOODrejoiced that the Government had taken this step, but added that the amalgamation of canal, harbour, and dock companies should also be considered.
  MR. PRICEsupported the Motion, and said that the railway companies would concur in this—that there should be no direct representation of their interest upon the Committee; but, at the same time, he thought that the representation of all antagonistic interests should be also excluded. He concurred that canal companies amalgamation should be considered, and thought that "trucking" arrangements should be likewise taken into consideration. He hoped that the Committee would succeed in laying down definite rules for their future guidance.
  MR. GLADSTONEassured the House that the Government would enter into the inquiry without any bias whatever; but when these great bodies came to Parliament for an enlargement of their powers, it was but fair that Parliament should affix to the arrangement such conditions as they should see fit. With regard to representation, he admitted that it was desirable to exclude from the Committee, as far as possible, direct and positive sympathies of a professional kind; but it was absolutely impossible to exclude what might be a perfectly real and very important interest in railways, in the shape of shareholders.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped that canals, docks, and harbours would be in terms the subject of reference to the Committee.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not consent to alter the terms of reference; but the interests

  945
  referred to would naturally come before the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the subject of the Amalgamation of Railway Companies, with special reference to the Bills for that purpose now before Parliament, and to consider whether any and what Regulations should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such Amalgamations being sanctioned."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
  And, on February 26, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Mr. HUNT, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. DODSON, and Mr. CROSS:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  MASTER AND SERVANT (WAGES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the payment of Wages to Workmen in certain Trades, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

  THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL.
  Mr. Secretary Bruce informed the House, that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify Her desire that Mr. Speaker should join in Her Majesty's Procession to St. Paul's Cathedral on the 27th instant.
  Resolved, That this House doth agree to Mr. Speaker's attendance in Her Majesty's Procession to St. Paul's on the 27th instant.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Kenmare, after the death of his father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—Thanksgiving in the Metropolitan Cathedral.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—"ALABAMA" CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPE: I wish to put a Question to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. When on a former occasion my noble Friend was asked whether there was
862
any objection to the production of the English Case and the American Case, he said it might be regarded as a breach of etiquette if the American Case were produced here before it was laid before Congress. Undoubtedly, my Lords, I think there was some weight in that objection; but we have now received intelligence that the American Case has been laid before the American Legislature. Under these circumstances, I beg to ask my noble Friend, Whether there is any longer an objection to the production of the American Case? If there be not, I would move for it as an unopposed Return.
EARL GRANVILLE: In reply to my noble Friend I have to state that the presentation of the American Case to the Senate is not the same as its presentation to Parliament, because the Senate is a department of the Administration; but, as General Schenck, the American Minister, has stated to me that he sees no objection to its production here, it will be laid on the Table if my noble Friend moves for it.
Moved, An Address for Case presented on behalf of the Government of the United States to the Tribunal of Arbitration.—(Earl Stanhope.)
Motion agreed to.

VACCINATION LAWS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD BUCKHURST, in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation and efficiency of the Vaccination Acts, said, the question was one of great importance. The Report of the Registrar General showed that last year there was a very alarming increase in the number of deaths from small-pox; and although it had abated in some districts it was still very prevalent in others. The same Report attributed the increase to defective administration in respect of the Vaccination Laws, and if that were so it was clear that some amendment of the law was required. The Poor Law medical officers had no longer anything to do with public vaccination. A Poor Law medical officer could not now ask the parents of a child to have it vaccinated, or if he vaccinated it he could not demand a fee. The registration of births was defective, and until it was

  863
  made compulsory the Vaccination Laws would not be efficiently carried out. Considerable care had been taken with the Act of last Session, but he believed it was susceptible of improvement. These were some of the reasons why he asked for the appointment of this Committee, in order that inquiry might be made into the subject, and a good basis formed for legislation.
  Moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation and efficiency of the Vaccination Laws.—(The Lord Buckhurst.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that while agreeing with the noble Lord that the subject which he had brought under their Lordships' notice was one of much importance, he did not know that the course proposed by the noble Lord was advisable under existing circumstances. Some of the defects to which the noble Lord had alluded had been cured by the Act of last year. A Select Committee of the House of Commons had spent three months in considering the subject before that Act was passed; and as the statute itself had only been in operation since January last, it was rather soon to judge of its effects and go into another inquiry such as that which had for so long a period engaged the attention of a Committee of the House of Commons. Great changes had been made since last year in the constitution of the Local Boards, and it was hoped that those changes would be attended with very beneficial effects in the administration of the law. He concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that the registration of births was in a very unsatisfactory state. The Committee of last year recommended that such registration should be made compulsory, and the question was at this moment under the consideration of the Government. Under these circumstances, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he very much concurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl. While he felt that their Lordships were indebted to his noble Friend (Lord Buckhurst) for having brought the question under the notice of the House, he agreed with the noble Earl that after the recent amendments in the Vaccination Laws, it would, perhaps, be premature to refer the subject to another Committee until the country had had more experience of the
  864
  working of the Act of last year, especially as some further amendments were under the consideration of the Government.
  LORD BUCKHURSTsaid, that after the observations of the noble Duke, he would withdraw his Motion; but, at the same time, he hoped the Government would not lose sight of the subject.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL.
  Second Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed.
  The Lord Chamberlain acquainted the House, That Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the Lord Chancellor preceding Her Majesty in the Royal Procession to St. Paul's Cathedral on the occasion of the Thanksgiving Ceremony on the 27th instant.
  Resolved, That this House having been informed by the Lord Chamberlain that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the Lord Chancellor preceding Her Majesty in the Royal Procession to St. Paul's Cathedral on the occasion of the Thanksgiving Ceremony on the 27th instant, do authorize the Lord Chancellor, as representing this House, to attend Her Majesty accordingly.—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  Ordered, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Lord Chamberlain.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.