Sitting of 23 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—East India Finance [No. 327].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 22] reported—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Countess of Mayo's Annuity* [268].
Ordered—First Reading—Royal Military Canal Act Amendment* [270].
First Reading—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment* [269].
Second Reading—Military Forces Localisation (Expenses) [222], debate adjourned.
Committee—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) [198]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) (re-comm.) [138]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental* [238]; Law Officers (England) Fees* [257]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862 Amendment* [250]; Factories (Steam Whistles)* [263].
Considered as amended—Local Government Board (Ireland)* [90]; Parish Constables Abolition* [255].
Third Reading—Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [248], and passed.
Withdrawn—Building Societies (re-comm.)* [153]; Defamation of Private Character* [99].
The House met at Two of the clock.

FRANCE—DEPORTATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have, as the result of the instructions sent on the 11th of July to Lord Lyons, received from the French Government an explanation of the transmission from Dieppe to Newhaven by the French police of seven men who in the night of June 29 were shipped on board the steamer "Marseilles," in the custody of or under the escort of the police; and what is the explanation, if any afforded?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Lord Lyons brought the cases alluded to by my right hon. Friend at once under the notice of the French Government, and M. de Rémusat promised an inquiry into the circumstances and an explanation. Up to this morning no such reply had been received at the Foreign Office. I may inform my right hon. Friend and the House that instructions have been sent to our Consuls at the various Channel ports to watch the departure of the steamers, and to report at once, both to the Home Government and to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, every case that may recur of foreigners being placed on board these steamers under the superintendence of the French police authorities.
MR. DODSON: When the answer is received from Lord Lyons will the noble Lord communicate it to the House?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I will communicate privately with my right hon. Friend when the answer is received, and will then inform him whether I can make it public or not.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question springing out of that which has just been answered by the noble Lord. It will be in the recollection of the House, that during the course of the present Session many questions have been asked respecting the influx of Communists into this country. We understand that the Government have instructed Lord Lyons to use his best exertions to prevent this influx. No doubt, the Communists are a very criminal class; but in many cases they are misguided, and the victims of circumstances. The Question I have to put refers to an equally dangerous and obnoxious class. I refer to the Order of the Jesuits. My Question has reference to recent acts of spiritual power exercised in Ireland. ["Order."]
MR. MAGUIRE: I rise to Order. Is the right hon. Baronet in Order in indulging in these remarks?
MR. SPEAKER: I trust that the right hon. Baronet will not transgress the Rules of Order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask, Whether any and what steps have been taken, in compliance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, to prevent the influx of Jesuits into this country, which dangerous Order, as well as monks, have been banished by the Parliament of

1623
Germany, by a large majority for "plotting," in the language of Prince Bismarck and the Parliament of Germany, under the direction of Rome, against the safety of the German State, and attempting to impair and imperil the civil rights and status of the subjects of that Realm. I wish to know, Whether, if the Government is not taking any steps in the matter, they will be prepared to introduce a short Act to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1829, so as to enable that class of Jesuits and monks to exercise freely their principles in this country?
MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend must be conscious that he has put to me at a moment's Notice a Question of a very arduous and serious character—not at all one, I think, to be received except with great gravity; and I should wish, whenever it is mentioned, to treat it myself in the same manner. He can hardly expect me to announce the results of any recent deliberations on the subject. It is quite true that in Germany affairs have tended to bring to a crisis the question of the presence of the Order of Jesuits in that country: but there have been no affairs of that kind in England which have tended to impress upon the question at the present moment any character other than that which it ordinarily bears. We must consider, therefore, what that character is. It is perfectly true there are provisions of the law which are directed against certain Orders of the Roman Church. But, as my right hon. Friend is perfectly aware, that is the law of 1829, and now 43 years old; and at no period since it was enacted, to my knowledge, has any step whatever been taken to give effect to that particular provision of that law. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Oh, yes!] I speak subject to correction; but I am not aware of any steps that have been taken at any period to enforce that provision of the Act. Under these circumstances, without denying the right of the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member to raise any question upon the provisions of that law, and to challenge the Government to consider whether they will act upon that law or repeal it—which is a very fair question to raise—I am not prepared to place myself on either horn of the dilemma without further consideration. I think that that which has endured for 43 years without occasioning any fatal mis-
1624
chief to the country, may, so far as I am concerned, endure a little longer. In saying that, my right hon. Friend must not suppose that I think lightly of the the matter; because I admit that the question is one of a very grave and serious order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to say, in explanation of the Question——
MR. O'REILLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in saying anything in explanation of his Question after it has been answered?
MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman has any Question to ask the Prime Minister arising out of his answer, he will be in Order.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: The reason I put the Question is this—I read the other day in The Times newspaper——
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in entering into a discussion.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I wish to give a Notice. I introduced a Bill this Session with respect to Monastic and Conventual Institutions, which would promote an inquiry into the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Question—that is, the influx of Jesuits and monks into this country. There seems, however, to be little chance of the Bill passing this Session. I beg to give Notice, therefore, that it is my intention, in that event, to introduce a Bill for a similar purpose early next Session; and I hope that the Government will give me fair opportunities for proceeding with it.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I also give Notice, that early next Session I shall call the attention of the House and of the country to the state of the law respecting those classes of persons.

PARLIAMENT—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the hon. Member for Walsall, Whether he intends to take any further steps with reference to the Petition presented to the House from Manchester against certain provisions in the Government Licensing Bill?
  MR. C. FORSTER: My hon. Friend must excuse me for not giving an answer to the Question until after the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on Thursday. If he will put the

  1625
  Question on that day I shall be able to give him an answer.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORDONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Lords' Amendments on the Education (Scotland) Bill, appointed to be considered upon Thursday next, will be placed upon the Paper as the first Order of the Day; and, if not, after what hour these Amendments will not be taken into consideration upon Thursday; and, whether the Amendments will, in that case, be considered on the morning sitting of Friday?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it would not be in the power of the Government to proceed with the Lords' Amendments on Thursday as the first Business, because they had engaged to give the House an opportunity of raising a discussion on another subject on that day. He was not aware, however, of any impediment of placing the Bill as the first Order of the Day, but these Amendments would not be taken after 12 o'clock; but any time before that he hoped the House would be prepared to consider them.

  IRELAND—CASE OF WILLIAM JAMES GRAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CLUREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he would state to the House under what circumstances a remission of the sentence passed by the Recorder of Belfast upon William James Gray for an assault on Dr. Dill was granted when he had been only three months confined?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that a short time ago a memorial was received by the Lord Lieutenant, numerously signed from Befast, by respectable inhabitants of the town, praying for a remission of the sentence passed by the Recorder on William James Gray. The Lord Lieutenant, according to the usual practice, referred the memorial to the Recorder. The Recorder in his reply recapitulated the circumstances of the case, and said that though he remained of opinion that it was a grave and serious case of assult, yet he was of opinion that it had been committed under the influence of drink, and that it was not premeditated. He added that considering the previous
  1626
  character of the young man, and also the fact that he had been in prison for six weeks previous to his trial, he was of opinion that it would be expedient to remit the remainder of his sentence. The young man had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, three of which had expired, and he therefore recommended that the remainder of the sentence should be remitted, which recommendation was acted upon. The prisoner was released on entering into substantial security for his good behaviour for 12 months.

  IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REPORTED PERSONS.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): Sir, in pursuance of the understanding given by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, that the Attorney General should state the course intended to be taken with reference to the persons reported guilty of undue influence and intimidation at the Galway county election by Mr. Justice Keogh, I now rise to state the course which we intend to adopt on that subject. I may, perhaps, be allowed, before I go into any details, to state some preliminary matters which the House had better understand, in order that they may more thoroughly comprehend the explanation of the action that I am about, on the part of the Government, to take. The House is aware that a Petition was presented by Captain the Hon. William le Poer Trench against the return of Captain John Philip Nolan for the county of Galway. That Petition was heard during several days during this year, and Captain John Philip Nolan was unseated, the learned Judge reserving the question for the consideration of the Court of Common Pleas whether the learned Judge was warranted in giving the seat to Captain Trench. That question was decided in the affirmative, and the learned Judge issued his Certificate to that effect, which was accompanied by the Report and Evidence now in the hands of the House. In that Report, at page 3, in the first part of the Evidence, I find this statement—
  "I further certify that the persons whose names I have set forth in the Schedule number "One" to this Certificate annexed, were guilty, at and

  1627
  previous to said Election, of undue influence within the meaning of the provisions of said Act."
  In referring to Schedule No. 1 we find 36 persons reported guilty of undue influence and intimidation. These include the Member who was unseated, Captain John Philip Nolan; his brother, Sebastian Nolan, Esq.; the Most Rev. John MacHale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam; the Most Rev. Patrick Duggan, Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert; the Most Rev. John McEvilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway; the Rev. Patrick Loftus, the Rev. Bartholomew Quin, the Rev. James Staunton, and a number of other clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, making in all 36 persons. The learned Judge goes on to state in his Report—
  "And I do further report to Mr. Speaker that the Roman Catholic clergymen whose names have been set forth in Schedule number "Two" to this Certificate annexed, being the persons of the same name included in Schedule "One," by threats and denunciations of temporal injury, and spiritual punishment, uttered during or immediately after Divine Service, and from the altars of their respective places of worship, and otherwise, as detailed in the evidence, intimidated and unduly influenced great numbers of the Roman Catholic electors of such County to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting against him. And further, it was proved that numbers of such electors who had promised to vote for the said William le Poer Trench afterwards had been compelled to vote for the said John Philip Nolan, or to refrain from voting for said William le Poer Trench, and had avowed they were so compelled by said intimidation and undue influence."
  On turning to Schedule No. 2, I find it contains the names of 22 clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, all of whose names are included in Schedule No. 1, so that there are 36 persons reported against altogether. All the names in the second Schedule are the names of Roman Catholic clergymen, and there is no Bishop included among them. Then I find that the learned Judge goes on to say—
  "And I further report that, although I have found and reported that the Most Reverend John MacHale, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and the Most Reverend John McEvilly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, were guilty of undue influence, it was not proved that the said Most Reverend John MacHale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, or that the said Most Reverend John McEvilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway, sanctioned or had taken part in such denunciations as before-mentioned. And the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway proved that any such denunciations in a Roman Catholic chapel, and more especially if made
  1628
  against any person by name, are in direct violation of the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church in force in Ireland, as enjoined by certain Synodical decrees furnished to the Court, and which are placed upon the Notes of Evidence."
  The learned Judge further states—
  "And I have further to report that the Reverend Patrick J. O'Brien, parish priest in the archdiocese of Tuam, who was the proposer of the said John Philip Nolan at said Election, publicly announced on the morning of the polling, at the polling-place in Tuam, to a gentleman of the Protestant persuasion, who had there voted for the said William le Poer Trench, that 'there would not be a hair of his head disturbed'—that nothing would be done to him—'that they were all renegade Roman Catholics, who would be excoriated.'"
  That is all I think it necessary to state at the present time with reference to the Report. Now, Sir, under these circumstances, this Report having been presented to the House and the Evidence, and these having been printed, it was my duty, as Attorney General for Ireland, quite irrespective of any authority or action of the House, to consider what I should do in the premises. I have looked—I need hardly say with the greatest care—into all the evidence; I have read it with the closest attention and the greatest accuracy, and I trust that no Member of this House will think there has been any unnecessary delay in bringing forward my course of action. As a Member of this House, of course I have to attend to my duties in that capacity. As Attorney General for Ireland—as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Dr. Ball) knows, perhaps better than most others—I had to supervise all the prosecutions at the pending Assizes, and I had besides to read and carefully consider all this evidence. Not one moment was lost; but time was taken which, perhaps, might more judiciously have been spent in other ways. I found, Sir, that the statute which imposed a duty upon me in connection with this case was the 26 and 27 of the Queen, c. 29, s. 9. That section, taken in conjunction with the 16th section of the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, which substituted the Report of a Judge for that of a Committee of this House, imposed the duty upon me of considering this matter, and I will read to the House the words imposing that duty—
  "Such Report and the Evidence shall be laid before the Attorney General, with a view to his instituting a prosecution against such persons, if the evidence should, in his opinion, be sufficient to support such a prosecution."

  1629
  Now, the duty, it is plain, is imposed on me irrespective of any Order of this House. No Order has been passed by this House to prosecute any Member for corrupt practices since June, 1863, when, on the Motion of the then hon. Member for Knaresborough, who is now Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), a prosecution was ordered by the House of Mr. Barbour, who was the Member for Lisburn; but the then Attorney General for Ireland, who is now Lord Chancellor, stated that the Report had been laid on the Table before the Act had received the Royal Assent, and therefore he did not think it necessary or right to introduce any change in the practice of the House. Since then this Act has passed, and the duty is cast on the Attorney General, in his official capacity, to consider whether the prosecution should be instituted or not. From the earliest moment I had the evidence before me—and it being my business to ascertain the position I occupied with respect to this matter, and considering the case was one of such gravity and importance, involving so much not only to the persons concerned, but to the well-being not alone of Ireland, but of the whole Empire—I thought myself justified in obtaining every assistance I could in arriving at a sound and legitimate conclusion upon this matter. I have had the assistance of my learned Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland, who came over here for the purpose; but I have also had the opportunity of conferring with my hon. and learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General for England, and what I have now to state as the result of such consultations I am authorized to say is the result of our common opinion. I do not, Sir, put that forward for the purpose of freeing myself from responsibility. I take the responsibility upon my own shoulders to the fullest extent. I share that responsibility with no person; but I think I was entitled to ask for that assistance, more especially as on some of the matters before me I arrived at a different conclusion from that of the learned Judge who tried the case, and out of respect to him, as well as from an earnest desire to arrive at a right conclusion, I availed myself of that assistance, which was freely given. But the responsibility is mine, and mine alone. I will now, Sir, state the conclusion at which I have
  1630
  arrived. I have arrived at the conclusion that—in the words of this section—"the evidence be laid before me and considered by me," that there is evidence, in my opinion, sufficient to support a prosecution of a number of persons who are referred to in these Schedules. I will state the names of these persons. There are 36 names in all mentioned in the Schedules. The names are common to both Schedules. The Rev. Peter Conway, whose name appears in both Schedules, is since dead, so that only 35 remain—namely, 35 in the first Schedule, and 21 in the second Schedule. I have arrived at the conclusion that there are grounds for prosecuting 24 of these persons; that there are grounds for prosecuting the Most Rev. Patrick Duggan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, for undue influence; that there are grounds for prosecuting Captain John Philip Nolan, and Sebastian Nolan, Esq., his brother; and that there are grounds for proscuting 19 Roman Catholic clergymen, whose names are contained in Schedule No. 2, being all the clergymen mentioned in that Schedule except three—one being the Rev. Peter Conway, deceased; another being the Rev. Timothy Keevil; and the third being the Rev. Francis Kenny. The following are those against whom prosecutions are to be instituted:—The Bishop of Clonfert, Captain P. Nolan, Mr. S. Nolan, the Rev. Patrick Loftus, the Rev. Bartholomew Quin, the Rev. James Staunton, the Rev. Thomas Considine, the Rev. John O'Grady, the Rev. Jerome Fahy, the Rev. James Furlong, the Rev. Patrick Cannon, the Rev. Coleman Galvin, the Rev. Michael Byrne, the Rev. Eugene White, the Rev. Thomas Walsh, the Rev. James Madden, the Rev. William Manning, the Rev. Malachi Greene, the Rev. Patrick Coen, the Rev. Francis Forde, the Rev. William McGauran or McGovern, the Rev. John McKeague or McKeirgue, the Rev. John Kemmy, and the Rev. P. J. O'Brien. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for subjecting the Rev. Timothy Keevil or the Rev. Francis Kenny to a trial before a jury. The House must know that very different considerations influence a case when presented before a jury on a criminal prosecution to those which influence the mind of a Judge in trying an Election Petition. The prosecutions in this case must be instituted under the

  1631
  section of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854, which declares that if any person, directly or indirectly, by himself or through any other person acting on his behalf, is guilty of a misdemeanour, he shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by the law. There is a section in the same Act, providing, in the same terms, that a Member shall be unseated if, through himself or his agent, he is found guilty of corrupt practices; but to unseat a Member is one thing, and to convict him of a misdemeanour is another. In the case of "Cooper and Slade," which came before the House of Lords, a different construction was put upon the Act—that the agent was a special agent, and that there must be some knowledge in the mind of the person employing him that he was about to be guilty of corrupt practices; or otherwise it would be a fearful thing that a man, by the doctrine of constructive agency, should be held to commit a misdemeanour. Now, having regard to these circumstances, and to the fact that it was not proved before the learned Judge that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Galway had sanctioned or taken part in the denunciations which had taken place, I am not able to satisfy myself that there are sufficient grounds for putting those Prelates on their trial. The conclusion I have therefore come to is—that 24 of the persons mentioned in these Schedules must be put on their trial: 19 out of Schedule No. 2, and 5 out of Schedule No. 1—namely, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, Captain Nolan, Mr. Sebastian Nolan, the Rev. John Kemmy, and the Rev. Patrick J. O'Brien. I need not state that in the discharge of this duty I have felt it to be a most painful act to arrive at this conclusion, and I do not think that any well-judging or right-thinking man would differ from me in that respect. It is the most painful duty I was ever called upon to discharge, and I trust that I may never again be called upon to discharge one so painful. Nevertheless, it was my duty, and I could not shrink from it. The satisfaction I have is this—that what I have done is approved by my own conscience in the discharge of the solemn duty of the high office which I hold, and, looking solely to the discharge of that duty, I have nothing to apologize for, and nothing to regret.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Mr. Speaker, with a view to put myself in Order, I intend to conclude with a Motion. I do not wish to enter in the least degree into any controversy on this subject; but I desire to take this, the first opportunity which has presented itself to me, to state that I have the honour to number amongst my constituents that right rev. Prelate who is about to be prosecuted by the Attorney General for Ireland. I have also the honour of numbering amongst my constituents a number of the priests whose names are contained in the Schedules which have been referred to. But, Sir, amongst the names which have been inserted by the learned Judge in these Schedules are the names of two other Bishops in the county of Galway—the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishop of Galway. These three Bishops—the Bishop of Clonfert, and the other two whose names I have mentioned—have all petitioned this House that justice might be done them. The only mode in which justice can be done to them, is by submitting their cases to the decision of a Judge and a jury. They have petitioned this House to be tried by their Peers, and by the verdict which may be given they will stand or fall. But I protest, with all the energy of which I am capable, against the injustice of selecting one of those three Bishops, when the learned Judge himself draws no distinction between them as regards their guilt in having exercised undue influence, and as being properly subject, as he states, to severe and personal and degrading penalties under the Act of Parliament. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN: I do not wish to enter into any discussion upon this subject at the present moment. The Attorney General for Ireland has stated the case with great fairness; but I want to know whether, in consequence of that statement, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any other course on Thursday next than that of allowing the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), which stands first on the Paper, and on which there are two Amendments—to be proceeded with? I beg to ask my right

  1633
  hon. Friend whether he intends to leave the matter as it now stands, or whether the Government will take any other steps in the matter than they have already announced?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answering the Question of my right hon. Friend opposite I would venture to express a hope that, although the adjournment of the House has been moved, it will not be supposed that this is a fitting occasion for a general discussion of the question. I trust the House has at once comprehended the purpose with which the very clear, and, I think, dispassionate, statement of my right hon. and learned Friend was made. It was stated by him to be only just to the House, which has been invited by Notices of Motion to a discussion of the general question of the Galway Election, that the House should be placed some time before that discussion came on, and at the earliest possible moment compatible with the discharge of his arduous duties, in complete possession of the view that he took as to the important and arduous duty imposed on him by the Act of Parliament. It was for that purpose, and to place the House in possession of certain information material for the cognizance of this House, that this statement was made. Then my right hon. Friend opposite naturally asked me whether, in conjunction with the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps which they have not as yet announced to the House? My answer to my right hon. Friend will be that Her Majesty's Government have before them with perfect clearness the course which it will be their duty to pursue; but they have to recollect that there are other parties in this case, and especially there are hon. Gentlemen who have given Notice of Motions, and the Government, wish to place these Gentlemen particularly in possession of the intentions of the Attorney General for Ireland. But the only question as to which the Government wish to be informed is, what course those Gentlemen severally intended to pursue. If we understand—and I do not ask for an answer at this moment, because they may wish for a few hours to meditate upon the statement which has just been made—if we understand that they intend to persevere in the precise course that they have
  1634
  marked out for themselves, we shall immediately announce the course which we intend to take. But I think it is better that we should wait and give them the course of the day to consider what has been stated, and if they see cause to alter the Notices they have given, or to take the course they have announced, it will be our duty to take the circumstances into consideration. There will be no delay on our part, and the moment we know what is intended to be done by those Gentlemen—whether the Motions are to be altered or not—we will at once state the course we shall pursue.
  MR. BUTT: As far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to go on with the Motion which stands in my name. I think the time has come when the House should have a distinct answer as to whether I shall be permitted to bring on that Motion on Thursday or not? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes.] I thought there was some reservation. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] There is another matter that in some respects affects the privileges of the House. I understood the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the provision which existed in the old Corrupt Practices Act, by which the evidence was to be laid before him for his sole determination, was contained in the Election Petitions Act. I am not prepared to acquiesce in that view. So far as I can judge of the Election Petitions Act, I am disposed to think that provision does not apply to the Report of a Judge that these parties are guilty of under influence under that Act. I do not give that as a definite opinion; but I think it ought to be looked into before any final determination is arrived at: because, if the 9th section of the Corrupt Practices Act does not apply to the Report of a Judge under the Election Petitions Act, then I apprehend that, according to invariable practice, the Attorney General ought not to originate a prosecution unless ordered to do so by this House. I am by no means prepared to say that I acquiesce in the interpretation that has been put upon the Election Petitions Act, and I reserve to myself any course of action which I may think proper to take hereafter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): What I stated was, that, according to my opinion, the 9th section of 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29, coupled

  1635
  with the 16th section of 31 & 32 of the Queen, c. 125, imposes upon me the duty which I have undertaken to discharge. I can only form an opinion for myself. I may, however, state that my learned Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland is of the same opinion, and that the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England agree in that opinion. The four Law Officers of the two countries are, therefore, all of one mind, and I intend to act upon that united opinion.
  DR. BALL: The Attorney Generals have conducted several prosecutions in the North of England for bribery, without any orders from the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I may mention that when I was Solicitor General under the late Attorney General, Sir Robert Collier, all our prosecutions of this description were instituted when the House was not sitting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may perhaps be allowed to explain what I thought I had made clear before—that is, that we do not intend to interfere with respect to the order of Motions on Thursday, but simply to open a day for the discussion of the Galway Election, either on an original Motion ourselves, or else not to interfere with the constituted Orders of the House. We shall, therefore, propose, I apprehend, in the ordinary course, that the Orders of the Day on Thursday should be postponed until after the Notices of Motion relating to the Galway Election have been disposed of. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick is prepared to go on with his Motion. [Mr. BUTT: Hear, hear!] If so, we shall certainly not interfere, or attempt to deprive him of his right to priority
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MILITARY FORCES LOCALISATION (EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 222.]
  (Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Storks, Mr. Campbell.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HOLMS MR. HOLMS moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said he had from the first opposed
  1636
  the scheme, because he believed it to be based on an unsound principle, and entirely opposed to the principles which the Government urged upon the House in 1870 and 1871, but which they had now deliberately abandoned. He did not blame the Government for having so long delayed the introduction of the Bill, although he had from time to time, along with other hon. Members, endeavoured to obtain from Government an earlier period for its introduction and discussion. It appeared to him that the House should consider well before it put the country to the vast expenditure of £3,500,000. The scheme of the Government was preceded by a Memorandum drawn up by a Committee appointed to consider the organization of the military forces of the country. That Memorandum was dated on the 22nd of February last, from which time the question remained dormant until the 15th of July, when the present Bill came on for a second reading, although only a week previously a supplementary Report from the same Committee had been circulated among hon. Members. The supplementary Report showed very clearly that the Committee had not yet made up its mind as to what the scheme ought to be in its entirety. He thought the House was greatly indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) for drawing the attention of the House the other night to the importance and magnitude of this question; and, for his own part, having the strongest conviction that this was not a measure adapted to this country, he rejoiced to see that the Members of the House had at last risen to a full conception of the vastness and importance of the subject. He had always said—and would say again—that the more this measure was understood by the country and the House, the less it would be liked. Nor had he been without witnesses continually coming forward to show that that was the case; and one of the last and most important was the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), who had at first accepted the scheme, but who did not now believe that it stood so well with the country as it had done at first. He had asserted what he would now venture to repeat, that a large number, if not the majority of the military men in this country were dissatisfied with the scheme

  1637
  of the Government. ["No, no!"] He repeated that he had evidence in his possession to show that was the fact. ["No, no!"] Among the numerous letters which he had received on the subject was one from Major General Sir John Lintorn A. Symonds, dated the 10th of July, and he expressed apprehensions that the new depôt centres about to be established at a cost of £3,500,000 would have a serious and damaging effect in postponing the real reform of the Army, which he believed could only be brought about by placing trained soldiers in the Reserve. The question, he said, hung altogether on the time that was necessary to make a soldier, and he asserted that 99 out of 100 officers were of opinion that three months' annual training of the Militia would not answer the purpose. The same officer expressed his conviction that the depôt centres would prove a failure, and that the system would lead to idleness and inefficiency among the officers and non-commissioned officers. For his own part, he believed that if the tongues of the officers of the British Army were let loose for one day, or if they were asked to vote by Ballot as to whether they were for or against the scheme of the Government, they would decidedly declare against it. Such an expression of opinion coming from an officer of such high standing was in itself a reason, among many other reasons, why the House ought to pause before agreeing to this Bill. But there was another strong reason for delay, and that was because the Committee was not up to that moment ready to declare that this was the right measure. The supplementary Report, which was presented at a most fortunate moment, made it perfectly clear that certain counties wherein depôt centres were not to be established did not wish their men to go to the centres which it was intended to establish in other counties. Therefore, the Committee proposed to leave the Militia battalions at their existing headquarters, at least in the first instance. They stated in their first Report that they desired to buy the Militia headquarters, stores, and barracks; but now they said they would not purchase them, in the first instance, at all events. Then, as regards Ireland, it was stated that complaints had been received from certain places in that country to the effect that barracks existing there were not
  1638
  occupied by the regular troops; and it was expected that one result of taking a number of barracks on creating depôt centres for the accommodation of the Militia battalions would be to cause the Government to station regular troops at those places where barracks existed. There was a further reason why the House should ask for a short delay. In counties where it was not proposed to introduce depôt centres, the Militia authorities and the county interest generally were in favour of such depôts; whereas most of the large towns objected to depôt centres being established among them. ["No!"] He adhered to the statement he had just made. For these reasons, the House would, in his judgment, do well if they left the measure unpassed in the present Session. The Organization Committee had, no doubt, considered this question for four or five months; but they had not yet decided what was the best scheme. If the present measure were not passed, they would have seven months longer to complete the scheme; and if it were a wise and a sound one it would live and be strong in February next, when it would pass without difficulty. On the contrary, if it were weak and a sham, as he believed it was, it would die as quiet and as natural a death as its best friends could wish. In reference to the first Report of the Committee, two points struck him forcibly. One was, that although £3,500,000 might be the maximum cost in relation to the 66 depôt centres, it would not be the entire cost in relation to the scheme, because the counties where it was not proposed to locate depôt centres would ask to have them established there. Besides, every depôt centre would become a spending centre, adding every year to our enormous Army Estimates. It would be found by-and-by that this measure was intended to do little beyond extending the Militia, and establishing certain recruiting depôts. The Committee in their supplementary Report spoke of this as a system devised expressly for the benefit of the Militia; but if the Militia was the force on which the Government intended to rely, the House should have been told so before voting the money for the abolition of purchase. The Government in this Bill completely abandoned the principles which they had laid down in 1870 and 1871. On the second reading of the Army Enlist-

  1639
  ment Bill, the Secretary of State for War expressed his own concurrence with the opinion that "the system of short service lay at the root of Army reform," and defeated by a majority of 66 an Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) to extend the period of three years' service to five. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, speaking upon the Army Estimates last year, and referring to the scheme of the Secretary of State for War, said—
  "The mind and judgment of the country is set upon carrying forward with rapidity of execution the plan which has been formed for the efficient introduction of the system of short service …. and for the formation of those Army Reserves which we must hereafter look to."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 489.]
  He had supported the Government loyally through the whole of the abolition of purchase controversy, believing that the officers of the Army would be really professional in the future, more thoroughly under the control of the War Office, and therefore men who would more quickly bring up the Army and its Reserves to a proper standard of efficiency in drill and discipline. If he for a moment had thought that by taking this course he was encouraging and intensifying the Militia force, he should have voted against the Government obtaining one penny for the abolition of purchase. And what had been the "rapidity of execution" with which the formation of an Army Reserve had been pushed on? According to the Army Estimates now on the Table the Reserve Force number one—the only one on which they could rely—only showed 1,000 of an increase
  MR. CARDWELLwas sure the hon. Member wished to be accurate; but he did not know what he could mean by saying that the increase in the Army Reserve only numbered 1,000 men.
  MR. HOLMSrepeated his statement. Last year the Estimates made provision for 9,000 men of the Army Reserve; this year the number stood at 10,000, showing that this "rapidity of execution" of which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had laid such stress consisted in adding in 12 months 1,000 men to the Army Reserve. He believed he was right in stating that on the question of short service the Army practically stood very
  1640
  much where it did 25 years ago. There were many Members present better acquainted with the facts than himself. [Mr. CARDWELL: Hear, hear!] He had said that the term of enlistment now was really the same as 20 years ago—for an army must consist of a fair proportion of the various branches of the service, and enlistment in the Cavalry, Artillery, and Engineers was still, as heretofore, for a period of 12 years. He did not think the Secretary of State for War would contradict that statement. Accordingly, the Government, even yet, were hardly upon the road to a short-service system, though the country were asked by this Bill to expend £3,500,000. He could not go as far as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), who desired to have no Army at all; but he was sincerely desirous of doing anything he could to diminish the evils attending a celibate Army. By a Report dated the 13th of July, 1871—the latest which he could find—it appeared that out of 180,000 men in the Army, 57,000 were over 30 years of age, 20,000 were over 35, and a considerable number over 40. He looked upon the formation of an Army Reserve as the opening of a door by which these men might be allowed to go back to their own homes and to the ordinary occupations of life. Was there any Gentleman in the House who could tell, after all the discussions which had taken place, what the constitution of the Army would be in three or four years? The position of things at the present time could scarcely be considered sound, because it was clear that Englishmen were in a better position to predict the probable state of the armies of Europe in any given number of years than they were to foretell the probable condition of their own armaments. Was there anyone who would show where the economy was to come from? It cast a stigma and discredit upon England as a nation of business men, able in their private concerns to conduct enormous undertakings with profit, that she should at the present moment, in time of peace, be expending upon her Army a sum of money so frightful as that which appeared upon the Estimates. So far from economy being likely to result from the scheme now under consideration, he believed that if it were adopted they would in a very few years see the

  1641
  largest Estimates ever known in England in time of peace. If the scheme had been proposed by the party now sitting in opposition it would have been so pulled to pieces in that House that there would have been no chance of its adoption by Parliament. Even if they were then on the right road, many years must elapse before a sound system of Army administration could grow up, because much required to be done in the way of decentralization, and the scheme proposed was not a step in that direction. He could not admit that the establishment of depôt centres, such as were contemplated by the Bill, would tend to increase the efficiency of the Reserve Forces. That could only be done by increasing the area of the centres, and planting them in districts where the men composing the Reserves could, when not in actual training, easily obtain employment suited to them. There were already in existence over 100 barracks, conveniently seated in different parts of the country, and he would suggest that they should be used in order to ascertain the practicability of some such plan as he had shadowed forth. It was proposed to establish recruiting depôts—recruiting traps he would prefer to call them—in different parts of the country; but he did not think they would be of any use as long as the present mode of treating soldiers remained in existence. Let the men be better treated and have greater inducements offered to them to join, and then it would not be necessary to do more than to advertise in the newspapers in order to obtain as many recruits as were required. He wished to see England strong in her peace; but no nation would, in his opinion, be likely to regard her as occupying a sound position for defence if they judged her by the present scheme of reorganization. The present Administration had done much good work of late years; but if they persisted in a scheme such as was now under consideration—increasing the Militia and neglecting the Reserve of trained soldiers—they would inevitably impair the defensive service of the country, and inflict injury, if not disaster, upon the Liberal party. What had occurred in the Navy ought to be a warning to them in dealing with the Army. They had thought that all was right at the Admiralty; but it turned out that much was wrong. A ship was lost, inquiry was made, and
  1642
  then the system was exposed. If it were found that our Army system was equally unsound, we might have to lament more than the loss of a ship. He complained that the House had not had an oppornity for the full discussion of this question. Great responsibility would attach to them if they adopted a plan of that kind without a free and full discussion. If this measure should pass it would retard our attainment of a sound military system. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Holms.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was desirous to add a few words to what had been said by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, because the House now approached the subject-matter of the Bill under circumstances totally different from those which existed when the Bill was last before them. He agreed with the hon. Member in regretting that the Government had left this important discussion till so very late a period of the Session. It was to be lamented that a matter of such great importance, which had been opened to them in February, should have remained so long without attention. Now, the hon. Member had said that he would divide against the second reading, and, therefore, hon. Members must make up their minds as to whether they would support Her Majesty's Government. He (Sir John Pakington) did not feel it his special duty to support the Government; but it was his duty to give an honest vote, and he could not make up his mind that it was his duty to say "No" to the second reading of the Bill. The change proposed was of great magnitude, and the Government had brought it forward on their own responsibility, and the House had before them the anxious question whether they would be justified in attempting to stop the Government in proceeding with a measure which they thought calculated to give stability and efficiency to our military forces to a degree which they never before possessed. He regretted the change of

  1643
  policy on the part of the Government, which had centred 70 battalions in this country where they were not immediately required; and, although that was not the question now, the battalions being here, we had to adopt such arrangements as would make them most efficient, and such as would, above all, aid the Government in carrying out that portion of their plan, in which he, for one, most cordially concurred, which was designed to bring together in harmonious action the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces of the country. This was one of the main objects of the Government, and to that he subscribed as cordially as any Member of the Government. He always thought the Government were right in bringing the Militia more directly under the Crown, and, differing in this respect from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), he would give greater efficiency and discipline to the Militia, in the hope that it would long continue to be the main Reserve of the Army of England. The hon. Member for Hackney, who had evidently devoted great attention to that subject, seemed to wish to do away with the Militia altogether.
  MR. HOLMS: By degrees.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: That is only a question of time.
  MR. HOLMSsaid, though he was decidedly against the maintenance of a Militia force trained for 28 days, or even for three months, he should not object to a Reserve Force which might pass into another force, which might be called the Militia if Parliament liked. That force would then consist of men who had been three years with the colours, and four with the First Reserve.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was clear that on that point no two men could be more widely separated in opinion than the hon. Member and himself. He looked to the Militia as their main Reserve, though he thought the Government were right in trying to form another Reserve. Still, he believed that for all military purposes in this country we must look to the old constitutional Militia as our main Reserve. He should give his vote with reference to the general objects proposed by Her Majesty's Government. In the difficulty in which they were involved by having so large a force as 70 battalions in this country, some plan must be adopted for the disposition, training, and discipline of that
  1644
  large force. He was not prepared to say that this was the best plan that human ingenuity could devise, but it was the plan before them; it was a practicable plan, involving certain obvious advantages, both directly and in connection with the Militia, and therefore he should not feel justified in opposing the Bill. He thought explanations were needed, especially as to the financial arrangements proposed, and he hoped to hear more on that subject, as well as with reference to the barrack accommodation to be provided, from the Secretary for War. He wished to know what was to be done in a county where there was not now any military establishment?
  MR. CARDWELLremarked that in such a case barracks would be built for the depôt companies.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONalso wished to hear something more about the disposition of the second battalions, especially during the winter months, and he should like to hear some explanations with respect to the camps at Shorncliffe and at Colchester.
  MR. GLADSTONE, who rose with several hon. Members, said, he was very desirous not to usurp any portion of the duty of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who would in due time answer the perfectly legitimate inquiries which had just been made, but to call the attention of the House to its general position with reference to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) might observe that he (Mr. Gladstone) smiled when reference was made to the late period of the Session when this important subject was brought forward, and the reason why he smiled was that he had heard the same remark made with reference to almost every important measure which the House had recently been called upon to discuss. The exigencies of the public interests rendered it impossible, consistently with the limits of human time and strength, to bring all important questions under the consideration of the House with due regard to those conditions of time and convenience which it would be most desirable, if we could, to observe. There was, however, less difficulty in approaching the Bill now than there had been with regard to several other important measures; because, although the House had never yet given a direct vote on the general principle of

  1645
  the Bill, yet it had given other votes on which the general principle of the Bill was distinctly understood to be involved. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very properly observed that it would not be a legitimate use of the time of the House if they were now to discuss the policy according to which the present Government had acted. Though the right hon. Gentleman conscientiously objected to the concentration of a large portion of the military force at home, he had given his frank approval to the principle of the present Bill. He would, therefore, come to the speech of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Holms), and he asked himself what distinct idea the House could gather as to the grounds on which it was called upon by him to reject the Bill. He did not intend to say that the hon. Gentleman had not stated objections to the measure. Undoubtedly he had stated all manner of objections; he had stated objections of such a nature, and in such number, that his speech could only be fairly described as a general and hostile review of the military policy and military administration of the country. As regards the military administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, the House had not shown any desire to interfere with it or to pass a censure upon it. And as regards the military policy of the country, so far as represented in the principle of the Bill, the House had discussed it, considered it, and approved of it. His right hon. Friend in his statement in the month of February last had not kept back any of his intentions. As far as time permitted he went into unusual detail, and with no small clearness and perspicacity he laid before the House the intentions of the Government as regards a distinct local plan of military organization for the country. The House was aware of the plan, discussed the principal Vote of the Estimates for several nights, and after several nights' debate it was pleased to grant its approval of the general plan of the Government by a majority of 234 to 63. The hon. Gentleman had said that this Bill showed some retrocession from the policy adverted to by the Government in the early part of the year, and he had also supported the principle of having no Militia in this country. He had certainly explained in what sense he was willing to have a Militia; but his expla-
  1646
  nation made it obvious that his use of the word Militia reduced the question to one of terms, and terms alone, while in respect of substance he sought to abolish the Militia. Now, this Bill, as regarded concentration, and as regarded the maintenance of the Militia, proceeded on the idea that there was to be concentration of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, and of the Militia in particular. No wonder, then, that the hon. Gentleman, who was opposed to the Militia, was opposed to the Bill, and the Government had not the slightest title to complain of his having moved the rejection of the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman should have moved the rejection of the Bill on the express ground that he was opposed to the Militia, and challenged the judgment of the House on that express ground. That point he had not placed in the forefront of the battle. The hon. Member said that the large towns objected to having depôt centres; but when he made that statement he was met with immediate manifestations of dissent from official and non-official Members. [Mr. HOLMS explained that what he said was that large towns in many instances objected.] "Many" was a word which would be estimated differently, by different persons; but the statement would be totally inaccurate if it described a general rule. The concurrence in the scheme was general, and the objections were isolated and few. With reference to the other complaint that the right hon. Gentleman had not carried into effect all the plans he had sketched out, the hon. Gentleman had made allusion to morality in the standing Army, and lamented that the attention of Parliament had not been sufficiently given to the moral aspects of the question. But the Secretary of State for War was entitled to contend that the policy of localisation, on which this Bill was founded, along with the policy of short service, was a policy which among its other advantages, among its more direct military advantages, went to reduce to a minimum whatever evil there might be attended with the institution of a standing Army with regard to the temptations to immorality of those who belonged to it. The House ought to be reminded of another of the resources of this Bill. On 19th June, 1871, it had been contended by the noble Lord opposite, the Member for Middlesex (Lord

  1647
  George Hamilton), that the places for storing the arms of the Militia ought not to be provided by the Justices of the Peace at the expense of the counties; but it was contended by him and others that that was a charge which it was fair enough to maintain as a local charge so long as the Auxiliary Forces were not under the direct control of the Crown, and that the change about to be made in the military organization required that the charge should be transferred to the public. Well, the Government did not dispute the principle of the Motion; all they pleaded for was that time ought to be given to them, and they promised they would not lose time; but so strong was the conviction of the House in favour of the principle of the Motion, that Government only succeeded in getting rid of it by a very narrow majority. To give effect to that scheme was one of the purposes for which the Minister of War had introduced this Bill. The hon. Member for Hackney, with all his regard for morality, nevertheless refused to give to the Secretary for War the means for abolishing billetting, which every one else thought it desirable to get rid of. The hon. Gentleman, when speaking of the abolition of the Militia, said he would take time to bring it about. It would take a great deal of time. The objects which the Secretary of State for War had proposed were—first, the policy of short service; second, the policy of a system of large and efficient Reserves, with a view to render it necessary only to maintain a very moderate force in this country with the colours; and third, the policy of combination of the Regular with the Auxiliary Force. These three principles had been fully discussed, and accepted by a large majority of the House; some of them had met with the unanimous and enthusiastic approbation of the House, and to the giving effect of the whole of these three principles this Bill was directly addressed. Was it possible that any Member of the House could forget that the Bill was only a sequel and corollary of a series of measures which had already passed the House? It would be hardly fair, after the House had approved of the principle, to make this Bill a means of reopening the entire question of the military policy which had been brought forward by the Secretary of State for War. His hon. Friend's (Mr. Holms') ground plan was that it
  1648
  was quite impossible for them to know what would be the strength of the Army some years hence.
  MR. HOLMS: What the constitution of the Army would be.
  MR. GLADSTONEbegged pardon. That statement, if meant to correct him——
  MR. HOLMS: It was the composition and constitution of the Army to which I referred. I said that no man would be able to tell how it was to be composed; whether mainly by Militia, and how large the standing Army would be, and how large the Reserve would be. I said that no man could tell—and I think no man can.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if no man could tell, it was not from want of copiousness and clearness in the expositions of the policy of the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Gentleman had argued that it was easier to predict what would take place in a foreign country than in our own, and he considered that a matter of hardship. In some respects that was true; but it surely ought to be taken into account that there was a greater degree of freedom among the people and a greater degree of power in the Parliament of this country. It would be, indeed, strange if his right hon. Friend, who had to deal with the free will of the free men he brought into the Army, could predict with the same certainty as a man who could send forth an edict and call upon a man and make use of his services within the conditions of the law as he pleased. What his right hon. Friend had planned and propounded he had planned and propounded with deference to the freedom of the subject and the authority of Parliament. The measure proposed by the Secretary of State for War, although it differed from our former system in making arrangements for a regular, uniform, and systematic application of the resources of the country for military purposes, was yet perfectly elastic and perfectly free, in so far as it left it with the House of Commons in future years to adopt whatever propositions it might think fit with regard to the amount of force, and the composition of the force which might be required by the public interest. The Bill, so far as the principle was concerned—and he admitted that it opened legitimately various

  1649
  questions of detail—was addressed to the purpose of giving effect to the military policy heretofore announced by the Government. That military policy, in its main features and details, had already received the adhesion of the House. Under these circumstances, it was scarcely necessary at the close of the month of July to cripple the War Office, and intercept the active exercise of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and his coadjutors, by withholding from them at the last moment the means of giving effect to purposes which had already received the deliberate sanction of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had laid a good deal of stress upon this being the 23rd of July; but two years ago, on the 2nd of August, the Secretary of State for War came down to the House and proposed a change in his Estimates amounting to £2,000,000, and involving 20,000 additional men. Surely if such a change as that were proposed two years ago on the 2nd of August, they were now entitled to go closely into the policy of the Government on the 23rd of July. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had got over this Motion in a very nice way by leaving the responsibility of this Vote upon Government, and casting it off from his own shoulders. There were some, however, who could not do that, and who, representing the people who had sent them thither, must speak a word as to the dangerous course Government was entering upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had on a former occasion described his policy as intended to blend the Army into one harmonious whole. This Bill, however, would do anything but blend the Liberal party into one harmonious whole. [Sir HENRY HOARE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Minister had argued in favour of the Bill by saying that the House had already sanctioned the policy of Government. But both the Vote and the Bill appeared to be extraordinary when they considered the time when the Bill was brought forward, who it was that proposed it, and the arguments by which it was defended. During the last 10 years they had spent upwards of £260,000,000 upon the Army and Navy; and here was another grand scheme for organizing the whole
  1650
  thing afresh. There was no threatening aspect of affairs in Europe, and Her Majesty's Government had now adopted the glorious policy of arbitration which they had reason to believe would be successful; and, nevertheless, the War Minister came down and asked the House to consent to a larger force than had ever been maintained in a time of peace. Then as to the person who proposed this policy, they should remember that at the last General Election he raised the great cry of the "Abolition of the Irish Church." But the Government rode a second horse—"Retrenchment." They all remembered the eloquent and telling speeches made by the Prime Minister in Lancashire in favour of retrenchment, and the conduct of the Government in bringing forward this large expenditure after their declarations before the country had done very much to shake the confidence of the public out-of-doors in their declarations. One of the most distinguished of the Premier's late Colleagues (Mr. John Bright) had declared that a Ministry which could not govern this country for less than £70,000,000 a-year was not worth supporting. As to that policy, he had listened during the present Session to find out any reason for having such an exorbitant Army, and the only statement he had heard was that, in the face of the enormous military powers on the Continent, the force asked by the Government was not disproportionate or absurd. Who was it that Government wished to protect us from? There was no need for this large Army if Government did not mean to interfere with foreign complications—and as for panic-mongers, they were quite unappeasable. The people of the country towns were afraid of the invasion of vice and immorality to which this new scheme would expose them, and a Petition presented on the subject by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) stated that the young people who gathered there from all parts of the country should not be exposed to the temptations arising from the presence of such a class of the population. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War must not suppose that he had the support of the whole Liberal party in the policy which he now proposed. On a former occasion when his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) moved the reduction of the

  1651
  whole Vote for the Army by £10,000, only 97 Liberal Members could be got to vote for the Government proposals, and they were not supported by a single Member for one of the great towns, such as Liverpool, Glasgow, or Sheffield, unless it were by the minority Tory Member for Leeds. Under the circumstances, he felt that those with whom he was connected were bound to protest against this measure, and to fight the question out, even at the cost of delaying the business of the Session. If the House endorsed the policy of the Government, they must be prepared for a permanent charge of £15,000,000 per annum, and for keeping up a military force amounting to 500,000. That was a policy to which he, for one, was strongly opposed; and if it were carried into effect—as he had no doubt it would be—it would only be by the agreement of the Leaders on both sides of the House; both of whom, however, when out of office, were inclined to speak in condemnation of "bloated armaments." The Bill, if it passed, would pass by the aid of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as had been the case in so many other instances; but he had confidence that the time would come when public opinion would endorse the view which he sought to impress on the House, and which in season and out of season he would maintain, because he believed the policy of the Government was as dangerous as the expenditure was reckless.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would, as an independent Member, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) and the moral essay of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), vote for the second reading of the Bill. The latter hon. Gentleman had, he thought, hardly done justice to the Army and the Navy. He stated, on a former occasion, that their moral condition was simply appalling, and that a military station, wherever it was located, was a corrupting and demoralising influence. Now, against the justice of that statement he, for one, most strongly protested. The Army and Navy were, to say the least, no worse than their neighbours; and he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he had never heard of any appalling vice and immorality among the mining population of Wales? It was true that his right hon. Friend the
  1652
  Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had very eloquently declaimed against Oxford being made a depôt; and he was surprised when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that when the Oxford Militia were being trained in that city, the discipline of the University could hardly be preserved. Now, as a rule, that Militia had not been trained in Oxford of late years at all, and last year and the year before they had been trained at Aldershot, and it was the wish of the colonel that they should be so trained, he probably being as much alarmed at their being exposed to the example of the students as his right hon. Friend that the students should be exposed to theirs. He had yet to learn, he might add, that when the Militia were not trained at Oxford, the proctors or the Castle could be dispensed with. As to the hon. Member for Hackney, he would remind him, when he spoke of the necessity of drilling a soldier for only three years, that the opinion of such men as the Duke of Wellington and Sir John Burgoyne was that the old soldier was the bone and sinew of the Army. He was aware that Major General Sir J. Lintorn Symonds wrote to the newspapers a letter in reference to the Militia; but he (Colonel Gilpin) doubted whether the knowledge of the writer was more than superficial. Further, he did not know what latitude was given to general officers in reference to their corresponding with editors of newspapers; but he could say that if regimental officers on full pay had written such letters to a newspaper, they would not only have been guilty of great indiscretion, but would have acted in a manner that would have been altogether contrary to the rules of the service. He was, he might add, entirely opposed to the scheme of the Government on the ground of expense; for, notwithstanding what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about its coming out of the balances, it must fall on the taxpayer. He was opposed to the scheme, in the second place, because nothing could be done under it which could not have been equally well done under the old system, and because it gave dissatisfaction in the Army altogether without parallel. The scheme, however, had been sanctioned by a large majority, and under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty to vote—although he did

  1653
  so with reluctance—for the second reading of the Bill under discussion.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he did not know why it was he sat on the benches below the gangway. He entirely differed on subjects involving patriotic feeling from many hon. Members who sat immediately behind him; but he would remain where he was, thinking it desirable that those benches should be leavened by some solid patriotism. Three peaceful shepherds had already tuned their pipes behind him. The House had listened to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and rev. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). ["Order!"]
  MR. HADFIELDappealed to the Speaker to say whether such language was Parliamentary.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not a becoming expression, and the hon. Member would, no doubt, withdraw it.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he would do so at once, and at the same time apologize to the House for having used it, in consequence of a slip of the tongue. The House had also heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who would no doubt be followed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). Now, their reasons for voting against the second reading of the Bill amounted, when analyzed, to this—"We wish to see this country disarmed, because it was stated in the Speech from the Throne that we were on terms of amity with all European nations." Indeed, it had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that the only foe we had to fear was now prostrate. He, however, deplored the prostration of France, who was our nearest neighbour, our best friend, and our truest ally. Still, the circumstance of France being prostrate was no reason why England should not be in a position to withhold her assent to whatever the new military Power of the Continent might endeavour to dictate to her. Two years ago the Military Estimates were increased by 20,000 men and £2,000,000; but that increase was made in order to enable them to defend Belgium in the event of that country being attacked. But were they not as much bound now to defend Belgium against Germany as they were formerly to defend her against France? Again, were they to connive at the connivance of Prussia
  1654
  with the policy of Russia in the East? They should be armed because they ought to be in a position to resist aggression on their part. It had been stated that the ultimate result of the adoption of this scheme would be to double the Military Estimates, and to throw a vast burden on the finances of the nation. That, however, he denied. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had brought forward a scheme which would ultimately much diminish the military burdens of the country. If they could put their Reserve Forces into a state of real preparation and discipline, and if, in a few years' time, they could pass short-service men into their First-class Reserve, they might ultimately diminish largely the numbers of their standing Army. There were behind him many Gentlemen of the "Peace at any price" party, who would rather not have a standing Army; but he was sure the vast majority of Members of that House, and the great mass of the citizens of their great towns, would not like to see England rendered defenceless against any aggression or invasion. Some of the Gentlemen he had just referred to entertained so profound a horror of war that they would lead a hostile force into Woolwich or Plymouth rather than draw the sword in defence of the country. But he was sure the large constituencies of this country were quite willing to pay the price of its insurance, and the Gentlemen behind him would find themselves mistaken at a General Election if anything happened to affect the honour of this country, which the working classes, above all other classes, held dear, for they were as true patriots as any of the Gentlemen connected with the Army who sat on the other side of the House.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTagreed that the Army was by no means so moral as they could wish; but, at the same time, it should be remembered that the morality of large masses of the population could certainly not be held up as being superior to that which prevailed at our military establishments. There was this difference, however—that what took place in the latter localities was patent and open to view. The hon. Members (Mr. Holms and Sir Wilfrid Lawson) spoke of the position which they were now considering as being one which was likely to break up the Liberal

  1655
  party; but was the existence of the Liberal party to be preferred to the national defence? He did not believe that the two things were inconsistent; and he believed that the breaking up of the Liberal party would be a national misfortune, because the carrying on of Constitutional Government required the existence of two great parties. Shortly before the last General Election, in consequence of the pressure brought to bear on the Government by Members of Parliament, a stop was put to the extension of the system of regimental canteens, which were most beneficial for the improvement of the soldiers, not only because they retailed brewers' beer instead of public-house beer, but because they afforded to the men a well-ordered house, and thus prevented them from going into low company. The hon. Member for Carlisle's reference to the Premier's Lancashire speeches showed the simplicity of the Liberal party, who could not distinguish between speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman when in opposition and those delivered by him while he was a responsible Minister of the Crown. Lancashire was not, however, quite so credulous. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) no doubt brought great fairness and knowledge to bear upon this subject. He preferred a Regular Army Reserve to any Militia that ever existed. A foreign officer of European celebrity remarked to him (Sir Percy Herbert) last year at Aldershot—"Don't trust to your Militia." He replied—"That's all very well, but we have nothing else to trust to." The same answer might be given to the hon. Member for Hackney. No doubt, a Reserve such as the Prussian Army was able to bring into the field, composed, not of raw recruits and Militiamen trained only for a short period, but of men who had been three years in the ranks and who were from 24 to 27 years of age, constituted a very different body from anything we could turn out by means of our Militia. The Landwehr, too, were equally trained for the whole of their three years, and the oldest of these men were only 30 or 32 years of age. It was, indeed, a very discouraging thing to find that there were 57,000 men in our Army over 30 years old. The soldier who had a few years' experience of training and discipline, and had served through a couple of campaigns,
  1656
  was the most valuable old soldier that could be got. To carry out the objects which had been advocated so ably by the hon. Member for Hackney, it would be necessary to have a conscription; but as there was no prospect of this course being adopted by the Government, the only other alternative was a large increase of pay. Judging from the rapid rise of wages, an increase in the pay of the soldier was a question that must soon be faced. It was useless to compare the outlay on the British Army with that upon foreign armies, for in these the soldier was not paid a fair day's wages for a fair day's work, and men were taken from their families to serve whether they liked it or not. Universal liability to serve in the ranks was not compatible with our views at present; but it was possible that when we had undergone the misery of foreign conquest, we might come to look upon the conscription as necessary. Comparisons, again, with the Estimates of former years must always be fallacious, for the state of Europe and the strength and state of preparation of foreign armies did not remain the same. As regards the Navy, persons were never tired of saying that we ought to have a fleet capable at least of meeting the fleets of any two other nations in the world. But without an Army, of what use would our fleet be, unless it was to remain glued to our shores for the purposes of defence. He did not say that our Army should be large enough to meet two, or even one of the Continental armies; but it ought, at all events, to be large enough to meet any force it was likely to contend with. Invasion was not as impossible as it was sometimes deemed. With those who shut their eyes and went into a fool's paradise, argument was impossible; but those who discussed the matter with foreign officers, and persons who had studied the question, would see that surrounded as the prospect of a successful invasion might be with improbabilities, those would cease to be improbabilities if we went to sleep and neglected to take proper measures. Entirely as he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Holms) as to the superiority of an Army Reserve, he did not see any such prospect of its being established as to lead him to throw away the substance of the Reserve which already existed in the Militia for the

  1657
  shadow of a mythical Army Reserve. The belief confessed by the hon. Member that he had voted for the abolition of purchase because he believed it would give the country an Army Reserve was another proof of the simplicity of the great Liberal party. And he warned them fairly that they would not have seen the end of last year's Bill when they had expended the sum of £8,000,000.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he heard with regret and with pain, which he could hardly express, such expressions on the part of hon. Members around him, as that this Bill would diminish the political power of the Liberal party. There was something higher than party ends or party advantages, and he thought it greatly to the honour of the Secretary of State for War that he was one of those who set the good of his country above the good of his party. The great objection to the present measure was, that it was a panic expenditure. Now, in his opinion it was the crowning and concluding measure of a comprehensive course of policy. The first step was laid down by the Recruiting Commission, when they recommended localisation, and step by step that policy had been pursued. The abolition of purchase as a necessary step in that direction was opposed by many hon. Gentlemen; but they did not object to the localisation of the Army and its connection with the Reserve forces. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), he was disposed to admit that it might be desirable to have an Army consisting of three years' service men, and numbering from 150,000 to 200,000; but what chance was there of obtaining such a Reserve? It was quite manifest that we could never obtain that large number of recruits for short service. There were one or two difficulties of detail to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the organization of depôt centres. They were to consist of depôt companies of the two line battalions connected with them. No doubt the officers placed over them would be men of a certain age and inactive habits; but it would be a great mistake if these depôt companies were allowed to settle into a sedentary service. Another point was this—that if the battalion regiments were to have a real connection with the counties, each
  1658
  should be quartered in the county with which it was connected. He supported the present Bill because it had been introduced for the purpose of completing a policy which had been growing up for the last 10 or 12 years, and which had been accepted by the country.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was all very well to urge that Parliament ought not to go back upon its decisions; but he maintained that an expenditure of £15,000,000 upon the Army in time of peace was both unnecessary and unwarranted. Holding that opinion, he could not vote for a measure which would render necessary in the future what he almost felt called upon to describe as a profligate expenditure. In the Army itself there seemed to exist what was, to say the least of it, a considerable difference of opinion as to what was proceeding in the way of attempts to increase its efficiency. A great difference of opinion also existed as to the proposition for bringing the irregular and the Regular forces together—whether the irregular forces were to pull the Regular forces down, or whether the Regular forces were to lift up the irregular. When brandy and water were mixed together, the brandy became weaker, and the water sometimes only had just a taste of the brandy. He hoped that such would not be the effect of the present measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in moving the second reading of this Bill endeavoured to console the House by proclaiming his moderation. He said the scheme was founded upon the Prussian system, but he had only taken a small portion of it, and that if he had adopted the whole system he should have had to ask not for £3,500,000, but for £12,000,000. He was afraid they had poor security against being called upon at some future time to pay the residue of the larger sum. [Mr. CARDWELL dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and it was very likely that he would not be called upon to make the demand; but if the scheme as it now stood did not answer, it might be said that the larger expenditure was alone necessary to secure success. This scheme was said to have been based upon the Prussian system; but the circumstances of the two countries were entirely different. The Prussian Army was concentrated at home. Draughts from the

  1659
  English Army had to be constantly detached to the assistance of her dependencies. The present Government, to their shame be it spoken, had cast off the colonies of England; but if any of those colonies were attacked, no Government could stand which refused to render such assistance as was necessary. With respect to India, who could say that in the course of a few years 15,000 or 20,000 men might not be required? In such an event what would become of the present scheme, and what would become of those places from which they were taken. He could not support the present scheme, because he believed it was not necessary to incur such an enormously increasing expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to console the House by stating that a saving of £20,000 a-year would be effected with regard to the country. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend to relieve them from the debt which they were obliged to incur a few years ago for the provision of suitable buildings. And, besides, what security was there that the £3,500,000 would not be left a dead weight upon the country? Believing the scheme contained in the Bill would in a few years prove utterly worthless, he intended to vote against the second reading of the measure.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was one of those who agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a permanent peace establishment of £15,000,000 was greater than this country required. He accordingly moved an Amendment to reduce the number of men and the amount asked for; but having been defeated by a majority of four to one he felt bound to accept the decision as the opinion of the House upon the subject. The Bill under discussion had been brought in to complete the system then laid down, and in considering its provisions they had discussed the principle of great military establishments—amongst others, the Prussian system; but after all they must come back to the common-sense view of the question involved in the Bill—that of military forces localisation. He never knew an instance where the elements of discord were so combined together as in this discussion. The Reserve principle as adopted in Prussia was based upon conscription, and as so much had been said in its favour he would ask, were hon.
  1660
  Members ready to adopt it in this country? The men were registered at their births everywhere in Prussia, and when wanted for military service they must report themselves or produce a valid excuse. But if we had a body of Militia Reserve they would be living in all parts of the world, and when wanted on an emergency would it be so certain that they would be found? The Secretary of State for War had gone as far as he dared go in imitation of the Prussian system. His plan would bring about the working together of the various forces, and he asked whether that would be worth nothing? The best recruits would come from the Militia, and in the course of a few years the regiments would be more or less localised. The interest of the money required to carry out the scheme would amount to £118,000 a-year, and if the £70,000 now paid for the billeting system were deducted from that amount there would remain some £40,000 or £50,000 a-year to be raised by additional taxation. But he would be disappointed if ten times that amount could not be saved by the proper management of the depôts and the judicious execution of the various details of the scheme. He would not refer to the pretended demoralization that it was said the system would produce; for if they took any 133,000 young men in the prime of life, with time to enjoy themselves, he was afraid they would not find that they would act so wisely as it might be wished they should do; but if the House abolished the billeting system, would not that be a glorious gain in the path of morality? And then, again, the establishment of separate dormitories for married soldiers, would not that add to morality, decency, and honour, from their being treated as human beings? It was said that the country very much disliked the establishment of depôt centres; but he had heard nothing of the kind in his part of it. On the contrary, in certain localities the people had expressed their delight and satisfaction at the system. The new system as propounded would no doubt at first cause a considerable outlay; but believing that, on the whole, it would tend ultimately to a reduction of expenditure, and that it would work well, he should support the second reading of the Bill.
  CAPTAIN BEAUMONTsaid, he regretted that the Bill had been brought in at so late a period of the Session as to preclude the possibility of the proposed scheme being fully considered and discussed. He deprecated the statement of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), that it must be looked upon as a scheme which must necessarily result in dividing the Liberal party. It was essential that every Member should vote in reference to it according to his conviction, otherwise the Army would be looked upon as a means for keeping the Liberal party in power. The Bill appeared to him to foster a dual state of affairs—that of making the Militia a Reserve for the Army, and, at the same time, forming another Reserve by men who had passed through the ranks of the Regular Army. Such a state of affairs as that could not be right. Either they must look for the defence of the country to the Militia, or to the Reserves that had passed through the Regular Army; but the Bill appeared to countenance the two, with the view of afterwards arranging our policy with regard to them. The system proposed failed in two important particulars. First, as to economy. The country must be thoroughly and efficiently protected, and the question was, what military organization would effect that object for the least amount of money? The Liberal party came into power pledged to economy; but there was not the least shadow of a statement that had recently been made by the Government upon which the country could base any hope of future economy in respect of the Army. The scheme before the House would not be efficient because it did not recognize the necessity of having the corps d'armée as the tactical unit comprising in itself all the various departments of the service; and it was not an unjust criticism on the Bill to state that it was more of a recruiting Bill than anything else, and in that sense it might or it might not be a good Bill. In reorganizing a system sound principles should be recognized. The view held by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) was clear and distinct, and he was happy to see that it was gaining ground in the country. When he brought forward a Motion last year, that the Reserves should be formed of men who had passed through the Regular Army, he was met by the Secre-
  1662
  tary of State for War to the effect that the principle might be good, but that it was perfectly inapplicable to the country. It could not be said it was impossible to carry out the Prussian system without conscription, because the only difference between a free Army and conscription was a matter of pay—the price a country was prepared to give for its soldiers. If the pay of the Reserve were increased, the men could be more surely counted on, and the larger and better the Reserve the fewer need be the number of the Regular Army, so that a large well paid Reserve would certainly in the end be more economical than an underpaid Reserve and a large Regular Army. One defect of the scheme was the excessive number of depôt centres, which would detract from efficiency and yet increase the expense. A large tactical station in the North of England ought to be accompanied with a central Arsenal, and it could be established without an increased expenditure upon that head. The two ought to be considered together. The Bill was exceedingly crude, and showed that the details of the scheme had not received sufficient attention to warrant the outlay of a large sum of money. In conclusion, he expressed his determination to vote with the hon. Member for Hackney.
  COLONEL C. LINDSAYsaid, he, for one, was anxious that the Bill should pass without delay, and he said so for two or three reasons. In the first place, because it was a Bill which purposed to carry into effect a scheme for military reorganization, which was fully explained by the Secretary of State for War when he introduced the Army Estimates, and, if he mistook not, it found considerable favour on both sides of the House; also because the money which was asked for was for the purpose of putting the necessary machinery into motion in order to work out the various specifications which were contained in the schedule of the Bill; also because barrack accommodation and store-houses were obviously necessary for the purposes of localisation; and also because no hon. Member had been able to produce a counter-scheme, which was proved by the dead silence which had prevailed on the subject during the last four or five months, which was equivalent to consent, and consequently there should be no opposition or delay in passing the

  1663
  second reading. The question, therefore, resolved itself within a very limited though important compass, and that was the speedy establishment of depôt centres throughout the country. No doubt there were, and would be, conflicting opinions upon the judicious selection of those centres—opinions which were guided by various local interests and influences. But it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently fortified by the opinions of his military advisers not to be defeated by any undue and unnecessary pressure that might be put upon him; and as the responsibility of this new scheme, which was consequent upon the abolition of purchase, rested upon the Government and the Liberal party, the sooner it was put into active operation the better. Under these circumstances, he was inclined rather to leave the details in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who, be it remembered, forced on a great military revolution last year in spite of the opinions of all the leading and most distinguished officers of the Army; and who had assumed the responsibility of managing the Army in his own peculiar way. He was inclined to saddle the responsibility upon him and the Liberal party, rather than throw obstacles in the way of a measure which was not only inevitable and pressing, but which had been so well considered, and decided to be the best means of carrying out the intentions of the scheme. Now, there was no doubt that an improved organization in the Army was much required before purchase was abolished. But since that event, the Army was, as it were, in a chrysalis state, and would be, and must be, more or less, until the new scheme was actually in operation. For goodness then let the trial be made without delay; and let the attempt to advance the present efficiency of the Army and Reserve forces be assisted to the fullest extent; and, above all, let no false economy be allowed to step in, as was so often the case on these occasions, and like too many cooks, spoil the broth. Now, no doubt the working out of this scheme would be surrounded by various difficulties, which would crop up at every turn, which was generally the case with any new undertaking; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would go forward in spite of them, and endeavour to realize without delay the great object
  1664
  which he had in view of drawing the whole of his forces—bar one—the right hon. Gentleman knew what he meant—into his magic circle of harmony, and when he had got them there, through the instrumentality of the depôt centres, let him prove that his scheme was feasible, and let him and his party bear the responsibility and discredit if it was not. For now that the Army had been deprived of its ancestral character, and was passing through a significant crisis, it was only natural to suppose that the future action of the Government would be of a practical nature, and therefore a step in the right direction. He was, therefore, inclined to assist the object in view, which the Government was bound in its own responsibilities to realize without delay; and he trusted the Secretary of State might succeed in realizing a better state of things than at present existed, which was neither one thing nor the other. It was a great mistake to bring on a Bill such as this at so late a period of the Session, and at so late an hour in the night, as was the case last Monday, for it irritated hon. Members and tended to prejudice its passage by unnecessary argument and consequent delay, especially as most of the argument would have been better discussed in Committee, which would probably be rechauffé when the Bill was in Committee. He did not think that the views which had been expressed the other night by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) were likely to be endorsed by a majority in the House; for they simply came to this—that England would be demoralized if she became a military nation—that the Army was a hot-bed of everything that was vicious and abominable, consequent upon what he called "laborious idleness"—and that therefore for the sake of the morality of the country there ought to be no Army at all. He thought the best answer he could give him was—"Let those who live in glass houses beware lest they throw stones." And when he was on this subject, he hoped that the hon. Member for Merthyr, and those who agreed with him, had read the admirable and unanswerable letter which was addressed to The Times last week by an officer commanding a cavalry regiment, in reference to the remarks which that hon. Member had made against the soldiers of our Army. No doubt they had

  1665
  had the opportunity if they chose to take it; but as other Members might not have noticed it, he would, with the permission of the House, extract two or three sentences in defence of the British soldier whose moral character was so unjustly assailed, and in refutation of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr. That officer said, in reference to what was called laborious idleness—"My men, on an average, are at work, and hard work too, from 5.30 A.M. to 6.45 daily, and now we hear of laborious idleness." And in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts, he said—
  "Is it too much to require that, because we are anxious to preserve the lives of our soldiers from the deadly effect of disease, contracted among the civil population, the soldier should not be branded as an outcast from all society? They are unable to defend themselves, and, in their behalf, you must permit me to protest against the attacks which have been wantonly made on their good name."
  And he concluded—
  "I unhesitatingly assert that the morality of the Army is infinitely higher than that of the civil population, and it is to me a matter of painful surprise, as doubtless it is to many others, that Mr. Richard should have been allowed, unchallenged, to so recklessly malign the character of the English Army."
  The adjournment of the debate between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and not having commenced till past 11 o'clock at night, was ample reason, and he hoped would be satisfactory to the cavalry officer for not challenging the hon. Member for Merthyr there and then. He had taken the earliest opportunity since then, and he hoped that other hon. and gallant Members would do likewise. Now, with respect to this laborious idleness, as remarked upon by the hon. Member for Merthyr, he recommended him to read, mark, and digest the replies, which the Secretary of State for War gave to the hon. Member for the Montgomery Burghs (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) last Thursday, in reference to the industrial training of soldiers, when he told him that—
  "Pioneers of the following trades—namely, carpenters, bricklayers, smiths, masons, painters and glaziers, plumbers, and gas-fitters—have been selected and appointed in each regiment at home. These men, assisted by others who had learnt trades prior to enlistment, have performed a portion of the barrack repairs, and have worked for the Royal Engineer Depart-
  1666
  ment. Regimental workshops have been established at some stations by the re-appropriation of accommodation where it could be spared. …. Endeavours will be made to utilize military labour as far as possible."
  He held in his hand the Army Military Labour Return on the Employment of Soldiers in Trades and Industry during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1871, which was issued that morning to hon. Members; and he thought the hon. Member for Merthyr would do well to analyze it, for it would show him how the system was working in every regiment on the Home station, also the working pay that was earned, and it contained remarks from every commanding officer, together with results, and it summarized the total saving to the public. Now, laborious idleness was a very plausible expression, and it was one which might tickle the ears of those who shut their eyes and opened their mouths like little children who were told to do so, and see what they would get. But to those who—unlike the hon. Member for Merthyr—did know something about the life and occupations of the British soldier, such a description was as worthless as it was contrary to fact, for he had yet to learn that the habits, and inclinations, and intrigues of the civil population of our provincial towns was less vicious and abominable and demoralizing than the habits of the soldier. No; for if the comparative test of morality was to be applied by the hon. Member for Merthyr to the civilian as well as the soldier, he would find there was little or no difference between the gauges. Had the hon. Member condescended to visit a soldier's barrack and acquaint himself with the daily routine of barrack life and its obligations? Not he, for if he had he would have found that the frequent and almost hourly calls which discipline and duty imposed upon the soldiers, must effectually break the monotony of a laborious idleness which might otherwise exist; and he would also have informed himself that there were other compulsory employments unseen, and therefore unknown to those who, like the hon. Member, were not familiar with the mysteries of barrack life, and which at once refuted such an ill-applied expression. The hon. Member for Merthyr had written a long letter that morning to The Times, in corroboration of the sentiments which he had expressed on

  1667
  a previous occasion, and he quoted his brother's (Sir James Lindsay's) evidence before a Royal Commission some years ago in reference to the monotony and idleness of the soldiers' life, and its bad effects, which was quite true at that time. But the hon. Member forgot that since that evidence was given the industrial training of the soldiers and the attention that had been paid to their recreation and reading occupations, which were now in full force, had become matters of fact, and that everything was done to give the soldier an interest in his time, when on duty or off. He could not agree with what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Captain Beaumont) when he inferred that every town protested against the placing of a depôt centre into it, because, from what he could make out, the feeling was very much the reverse, in corroboration of which, he believed, he was correct in saying that deputation after deputation had waited on the Secretary of State in favour of these centres being established in particular localities other than those that had been decided upon; and he had yet to learn that the establishment of troops in various parts of the country was unpopular. His experience, on the contrary, told him that in former years, before Aldershot, Shorncliffe, and Colchester were constituted into camp and training centres, the quarters of troops in provincial towns was most popular, and an advantage in many ways, for it circulated a considerable amount of money in the localities, gave a tone and a spirit throughout the district, and made the Army popular, and consequently encouraged recruiting. But the hon. Member for Durham joined in the cry that there were too many soldiers in the country; so there were. But, he asked, who was it that supported the policy of withdrawing our regiments from the colonies? The party to which the hon. Members for Merthyr and Durham belonged. And, now that the colonial service had been concentrated, as it must be somewhere in the limited area of the British isles, there was a sort of panic for fear of the swarms of these essences of vice and abomination forming permanent settlements all over the country. He confessed that he was surprised at such a paltry feeling of alarm; but as our small Army could not be reduced, the majority of the electors
  1668
  of England, Scotland, and Ireland, whose feelings were so well represented in the present Parliament, must grin and bear it, as the result of the policy of their party. Now he thought that the following explanatory remarks which the Secretary of State made the other evening were such as to commend the principle of localization to the favourable judgment of the House of Commons and the country. He said—
  "The scheme laid on the Table would enable every colonel in every district, when called upon by instructions from the central authority, to arm and equip all the Regular Forces, and to call together the Reserves and to place them under arms without any reference to the War Office, or to any depôt other than that which he commanded."
  Now, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon this clear and businesslike explanation, as also upon the first blow that had really been struck at that detestable though hitherto unavoidable red tapeism of the War Office—a system that had always interfered with the responsibilities of those in command, and which had been such a drag-chain upon simultaneous action, which was one of the great attributes of organization. No doubt this scheme was far from perfect; but they must be grateful for any improvement, if it be so. Now, all must be agreed that the odious system of billeting for the Militia, when out for training, being abolished, was a step in advance; for it was distasteful both to the landlord and the tenant, and it was a decided interference with the liberty of the subject, and subversive of the maxim that every Englishman's house was his castle. It was a happy result of the new scheme of organization, and would, no doubt, be fully appreciated. It must be borne in mind, however, that the right of billeting, when absolutely necessary, still existed in order to provide for movements on emergency; but as far as the training of the Militia was concerned it was abolished. Now, before he went to another subject, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions were with respect to the metropolitan training-ground for Volunteers—for instance, where he proposed it to be established in the town; and what would be the principle upon which it was to be used by all? It was a question of considerable importance to the Volunteers, but until he knew the right hon. Gentleman's

  1669
  views upon the subject he would not take up the time of the House by raising the question; but he wished to know for what purpose it was intended—was it for the Brigade of Guards, the Militia, or the Metropolitan Volunteers, or for all conjointly? He did not think it could be intended for the Guards, as they had their own training grounds already, nor for the Volunteers at the West-end of London as they had the entreé to the various barrack squares, by the kind permission of officers commanding, besides Hyde Park, Regent's Park, and Battersea Park, to all of which they repaired when convenient to themselves. He concluded, therefore, that this training ground must be chiefly intended for the Militia of the district; but as they were only out for so short a time it appeared to be throwing away money to make such a training ground, unless it was at all times available for the East-end Volunteer Corps, who had, he believed, no convenient ground at hand for training purposes. It would not suit the Volunteers of the West-end if the ground was in the East-end, or vice versâ. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would throw some light upon the subject. And now having said this much, he must, before he concluded, refer to one question, and one only—and it was rather an important one—and that was, whether the selection of the depôt centres had been made with a due regard to the health of those who were to inhabit them? He had no doubt they had been, but as a great responsibility and a considerable expense was involved in the matter, the House ought to be reassured of the fact. Now, he mentioned this in consequence of the reply which he received from the Secretary of State a few days ago, when he asked him if the depôt centre of the counties of Oxford and Bucks, which had been fixed for High Wycombe, was to be established in or about Oxford, and, if so, where would be the situation? He was not satisfied with the reply, because the right hon. Gentleman was either unable or unwilling to tell him. He said that if General MacDougal's Committee were to decide upon Oxford, inquiries would be made as to where the most eligible situation could be got at a moderate cost. He was not satisfied at not getting a simple answer to a simple question, considering that the Bill had been on
  1670
  the Paper for the second reading for many days. Far was it from him to imply that Oxford was not the best spot in the two counties for a depôt centre. He believed it was, in a military point of view, owing to its railway and other advantages; but as he did not know on what side of Oxford the establishment would be, and as he did not know that any eligible site could be obtained at a moderate cost, he felt it his duty to point out that a considerable portion of the neighbourhood of Oxford was by no means healthy. For instance, there was everything to be said against the selection of ground in the neighbourhood of Cripley and Portmeadows, inasmuch as those localities were about 18 inches under water for four or five months in the year, and the soil was composed of such a chronic description of soaked matter that no foundation could be made for building purposes under a very costly outlay. Now, in corroboration of what he said, he made it his business a few years ago to inquire into the sanitary condition of this particular locality, having undertaken to oppose the establishment of the Great Western Carriage Works, the directors having been tempted to go there owing to the liberal offer which the Corporation had made of the ground in question. He succeeded in preventing, at the last moment, the job which it was; and the reasons were because of the unhealthy locality, and the enormous outlay that the making foundations would entail before a single brick could be laid. With respect to the objection that had been made to the selection of Oxford on the part of the University, there was no doubt much to be said; but as there were other University towns in the kingdom which possessed their barracks and garrisons, and which got on very well together, he thought that military requirements and convenience, in reference to a great scheme such as this, should be equally consulted, whichever way it might be ultimately decided. Under those circumstances, and being in ignorance as to the intended site for the depôt centre in the neighbourhood of Oxford, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept any offer of ground in that locality without a medical assurance of its having a clean bill of health. He would be glad to hear what his intentions might be, bearing in mind that if a palace were

  1671
  built on the ground alluded to, with all the latest improvements in drainage and sewerage, and concrete foundation, nothing would be gained, for the surrounding country would still be impregnated with damp and malaria and effervescence of obnoxious vapour which would be most injurious. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, but if he went to a division he should certainly vote against him.
  MR. BROWNasked the right hon. Gentleman to state what precautions he proposed to take in order to prevent the Estimates being exceeded? He also wished for some information as to what was to be done for the Scotch soldiers.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked for some explanation as to the relative proportions of depôt centres in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, since this was a measure which concerned the public business of the year, it could not conveniently be postponed; and he hoped he should be able in a few remarks to bring the discussion upon it to a close. ["No, no!"] Well, sometimes one succeeded beyond his hopes. In answer to his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington), with regard to the second battalion, he might say that the plan laid down in the scheme was this. Every two battalions would be divided into three, and the third or depôt battalion, would be quartered in the locality. With reference to the other two, one would almost always be abroad, and the other must be at Aldershot or some other garrison. As to the data on which the various financial calculations had been made, as they appeared in the last page of the Report, he had taken the maximum sum; and if he were to state the precise sums in every case, that would of course tend to bring the expenditure up to that maximum, which he was desirous to avoid. Everyone of the calculations had been based on past experience and the estimates of the most competent officers. He was not quite aware of the exact proportion of Scotch and Irish soldiers in the Army, but proposed by adding nine regiments to make them up to sixteen, and that a sufficient number of the regiments would be sent to Ireland, so as to make them fully equivalent to the proportion of recruiting in Ireland.
  In reply to Captain BEAUMONT,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that provision was made for the building of barracks where none were now available. He believed that a Reserve composed of men who had passed through the Army was essential to the moral discipline of the Army and to the protection and safety of the country. He did not, at the same time, at all differ from the view of the Recruiting Commission, that it was to the Militia we must look for our great constitutional means of defence.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished in a few words to state his objections to this measure. He objected to so large an expenditure of the public money under this Bill in the teeth of the economical professions on the part of the Government, and such uncertainty as to the ultimate cost, especially having regard to the present aspect of the labour market and the rising price of materials of all sorts. Another evil of the measure was, in his opinion, that it would lead to familiarizing the whole of the country with a military system, and what the Army would gain by being located in military depôts in various parts of the kingdom, the civilian population would lose. He cared very little for the military system; but he, nevertheless, claimed to be as good a patriot as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare). The civilian population had, he believed, a great repugnance to the Bill, and there would, he felt sure, be a greater outcry against it when it was more generally understood. If even the measure were a good one—and great fault had been found with some of its provisions from a military point of view—there could be no harm in giving more time for its consideration. He was one of those who regretted that the Government had yielded to the panic of 1870, and he thought the Prime Minister must now regret that he had so yielded. It was said at one time that if we had only adequate fortifications we should be perfectly secure; then it was contended that we must have an iron Navy; and, again, our glorious Volunteers, it was supposed, would save the country from the risk of panic. The result of every step, however, had been to increase our difficulties in controlling the military power and expenditure of the country. There could, he was sure, be no more honourable or conscientious man than the Secretary of

  1673
  State for War; but he was, he believed, the victim in dealing with the subjects of a delusion. The great commercial towns who were so deeply interested in the question of our security, had no feeling of panic. At the time of the Crimean War those who opposed it were regarded as being unpatriotic, in the same way as the opponents of the present Bill were; but they had lived to see that war acknowledged to have been a blunder by the very men who were most strongly in its favour.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till this day.
  In answer to Lord EUSTACE CECIL,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Bill would be proceeded with at the Evening Sitting, after the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill had been disposed of.
  SIR WILFRED LAWSONasked what was the latest hour at which the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with it?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Government were under a pledge to proceed with the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill that evening first; and they would take the other Bill at any hour before half-past 12 o'clock.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. Leeman, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Goldney, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Dodds.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHappealed to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) not to insist on the 6th clause. In that case he would assent to the passage of the Bill through Committee.
  MR. HIBBERTremarked that there was no chance of the Bill passing this Session unless Clause 6 were withdrawn.
  MR. LEEMAN, though extremely loth to part with the 6th clause, would withdraw it in order to insure the passing of the measure.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  And it being now Seven of the clock the House supended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL (Lords)— [BILL 198.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no desire whatever by interposing that any delay should take place in discussing most carefully and completely the provisions of this Bill; but in justice to those who had supported him in the measure which he introduced this Session, and which stood for second reading, he desired to say a few words. No doubt quite unintentionally, the promise made some time ago by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—namely, that his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) Bill should, after second reading, proceed pari passu with the Government Bill—had not been carried out. Many people who supported him were much disappointed at the results which had taken place, inasmuch as his Bill, to all intents and purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman himself must be aware, was now a dead letter. He felt, under those circumstances, that the only course left open to him was to attempt to move some of the principle clauses of his Bill as Amendments on the Government measure. He had taken that course and given Notice of those Amendments, which he hoped he would be allowed to state his reasons for pressing, and for which he bespoke fair consideration. He repeated that he only made those remarks to set himself right with those who approved his Bill and gave him their support. He trusted that in the discussion upon which they were about entering time would not be wasted—that criticism would be confined to two or three great principles, and that these would be fully debated.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Preamble postponed.
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
On Motion of the Marquess of HARTINGTON, the words "or Ireland" were omitted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Illicit Sales.
Clause 3 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license) agreed to.
Clause 4 (Occupier of unlicensed premises liable for sale of liquor) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Seller liable for drinking on premises contrary to license).
MR. WATNEYsaid, that by this clause the holder of a license for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises was liable to a penalty if the liquor sold was drunk on any highway adjoining or near his premises. Such a provision was open to great abuse, the penalty attached was excessive, and he begged, therefore, to move, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, to omit the words "or on any highway adjoining or near such premises."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that this provision was taken from the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and it had been found to work well. Besides, it should be borne in mind that the drinking on the highway adjoining the unlicensed vendor's premises must be with the privity or consent of the unlicensed seller of intoxicating liquor.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONalso defended this provision of the clause. It had been found necessary to make the Bill of 1869 more stringent in this respect. It was pointed out to him that until the second Act was passed, in all the beerhouses throughout the country benches were put outside the door, pots of beer were passed out, and the liquor being taken a little distance was drunk. There were several beerhouses in his own immediate neighbourhood which were doing an illegal trade in this way, and when the occupiers came for a renewal of the licenses he asked the chairman to explain to them this provision of the new Act, upon which, out of 11 applicants, nine immediately quitted the room when they found that they could no longer carry on this illicit trade.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WATNEYsaid, the clause imposed on the seller for drinking on his premises, or on any highway adjoining, the maximum penalty of £10 for the first offence, and £20 for the second offence, any conviction for an offence under this section to be recorded on the
1676
license of the person convicted. Now, whatever might be thought as to the advisability of imposing a penalty on the seller, he contended that for the first offence the conviction should not be recorded on the license, because, in point of fact, it would affect him to the extent of one-third of the value of his license. He begged to move, in page 3, line 3, after "section," to insert "other than a first offence."
MR. BRUCEobserved that it must be assumed that in all the cases against which the clause was directed there would be evasions of the license. For the protection of the Revenue, and for the preservation of good order, it was desirable that, as regarded limited licenses, there should be such a provision as that in the clause.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the clause was an important one, and ought not to be hurried over, but fairly discussed. As regarded the convictions, he had an Amendment on the Paper respective cumulative penalties, and when the proper time arrived should certainly move it. He would, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and introduce it, if necessary, on the bringing up of the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOCKEobserved that there was one thing he wished to prevent, and that was that no arbitrary rule should be laid down whereby magistrates should be obliged to endorse the license. He should therefore move, in page 3, line 4, at end, to add "if the convicting justice shall so order." There might be many cases where offences would be committed in the house of licensed victuallers without their knowledge or consent, and it would be a hard case to visit them with the penalties proposed by this Bill. All he asked was that in case of every offence the justices shall have an opportunity of exercising their judgment as to whether it ought to be inserted on the license.
MR. COLLINSthought the Amendment wholly unnecessary. There would be no offence if the liquor was drunk on the premises with the consent and privity of the landlord.
MR. LOCKEonly meant it to be understood that he simply wished to leave a certain discretion with the magistrates.

1677
If three separate convictions be recorded on a man's license, it was taken from him, and he himself probably ruined for ever. Now, that was a most severe and arbitrary proceeding, and he wished to put as many checks upon it as possible.
MR. WHEELHOUSEreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill made it necessary to have every conviction inserted on the back of the license; but certainly if the justices were to be the parties—as they were intended to be—in granting licenses, he saw no reason whatever why they should not be at liberty to exercise a discretion. That, in his opinion, was not only necessary, but just and fair to all parties.
MR. BRUCEpointed out that the clause applied only to persons holding a limited license for the sale of liquor off the premises; for such a man to allow it to be drunk on the premises would be a deliberate and serious offence; and if it was repeated three times in the course of five years the forfeiture of the license would be deserved, for the offence would be a scandalous fraud. He reminded the Committee that in cases of this description no magistrate would convict without the clearest evidence.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwas of opinion the clause effected the deepest interests of the trade. He wished to know if a licensed victualler carrying on a lawful trade and keeping a respectable house was led or involuntarily committed an offence against this Bill by means of his servants or otherwise, was he to suffer the extreme hardship of having convictions marked on the back of his license, which might ultimately destroy his prospects and ruin his business? What his hon. and learned Friend wished to secure by his Amendment was to give the magistrates a discretionary power in every case, so that they might act justly and fairly between all parties.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark entirely opposed to the principles of the Bill. He confessed that, much as he should like to see a discretionary power allowed to magistrates in cases where the offence was accidental, he could not see the justice of extending the benefit of it to persons who knowingly carried on trade in violation of the conditions on which they had undertaken it.
MR. F. S. POWELLbelieved there were many cases in which it would be proper and necessary to give discretion to the magistrate. He hoped, however, the Amendment would be withdrawn, and afterwards brought up again at the proper place.
MR. LOCKE, said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment in deference to the wish of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises contrary to license).
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved, in page 3, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "with intent to evade the conditions of his license," as the object of those words would be sufficiently attained by the final section of the clause.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert "out of or" after "liquor," in line 8. He said that in his Bill, passed in 1869, it was found that the clause was not sufficiently stringent to prevent large evasions of the Act. The words he now moved were part of those introduced into the Bill of 1870.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved, in page 3, line 18, at end, add "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member observed, that he hoped the Amendment would be allowed to pass in that form, as he believed it to be most essential to fair and effective working of the Bill.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert, "or place or places," after "premises" in line 20; and in line 23 to insert "as therein," after "thereon."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Sale of spirits to children. See 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47., s. 43).
MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 3, line 26, after "description of" insert "malt liquor, wine, or."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not consent to the insertion of these words. If a man went into a public-house with his children, and gave one of them a sip

1679
of beer out of his own glass, the publican would become liable to the penalty under the Amendment.
MR. COLLINS: Every boy at Eton or Harrow would be sent to prison.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved, in page 3, line 27, after "sixteen years," insert—
"Or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years."
He thought that 14 years was a proper limit, and one which the Committee might safely accept, as it would certainly prevent very young children being made to drink in public-houses.
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 27, after the words "sixteen years," to insert the words "or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he approved of the Amendment, and would strongly advise the Committee to adopt it. Its object was to prevent very young children from hanging about public-houses. It was not desirable that children should booze about public-houses, and the Amendment would prevent that, while it would not prevent a child having proper refreshment.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the advice just offered to him, as the Amendment would only serve to entrap the respectable tradesman carrying on an honest business. A person carrying on a legitimate business ought to be subject to clear and explicit rules. If a clear rule were laid down on this subject, well and good; but nothing could be more absurd than to expect that a licensed victualler should be a judge of whether a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age. Children of the same age differed very much in their apparent age; and it was well known that young Spanish ladies of 14 were more advanced than English ladies of 16. How, then, could a person in trade be expected to know that a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age? Teetotallers had their own views and a right to support them;
1680
but they had no right to put down those who advocated different views, and any efforts in that direction would not succeed. The Amendment before the Committee was monstrous, and he hoped it would be rejected. He was glad the hon and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had resolved on a division, for the result of it would show whether the intention of hon. Members was to extinguish the business of licensed victuallers or give them fair play.
MR. T. E. SMITHreferred to the police reports as evidence of the evil that resulted from young people frequenting public-houses. It was only the other day that four boys had to be expelled from a Sunday school for being drunk. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to this Amendment.
MR. COLLINSjoined in the wish to have the words proposed inserted, for it was practically a question whether children of the age of 13 should be allowed to go and drink at public-houses.
MR. GREGORYthought the Bill was quite strong enough without the words now proposed to be inserted in the clause. Many a boy at the age of 14 had been glad to get a glass of beer after rowing on the river or similar exercise, and he had done so himself at that age without being any the worse for it.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the question was not whether there were occasionally deplorable instances of boys drinking in public-houses, but whether Parliament could reasonably refuse to allow young persons the indulgence of obtaining innocent refreshment. The clause as it stood provided that spirits should not be sold to children under 16 years of ago; but in addition to that were they to say that if a boy took a walk into the country and procured a glass of beer at a public-house the person who supplied him should be fined 40 s.?
MR. CANDLISHasked whether anything could be more unseemly than that boys and girls of 12 and 14 years of age should sit in a public-house, and make jolly and carouse there. That really did happen, he said, in the manufacturing districts.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the picture just drawn by hon. Member for Sunderland was very much exaggerated. The clause, which struck at the really vicious part of the thing—

1681
the supply of spirits to children under a certain age—quite met what was wanted. If hon. Members wished to pass a fair and honest measure, they should not attempt to provide against such extreme cases as those which had been cited.
MR. BRUCEreminded the Committee that an enactment similar to that of the present clause was in operation in the metropolitan district, and that it was now sought simply to extend its operation to the country. Most of the mischief which had been referred to by hon. Members had been occasioned by spirits being supplied to children.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) must be aware that children worked at a very early age—certainly below 14—and that they must have their luncheons or dinners. Why should they not be allowed to have beer with their meals? The House of Commons seemed to deny everything to everybody but themselves; selfishness was creeping over those benches, which could not be put down too soon.
MR. H. B. SAMUELSONproposed to split the difference by modifying the Amendment, so that it would read "apparently under the age of 15 years of age."
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the Amendment applied to children and to children only, and that the Committee had no idea how strong the feeling was on the subject in some parts of the country.
MR. DIMSDALEwished for some definition of the phrase "apparently under a certain age."
MR. BRUCEremarked that a similar clause had been in force for 30 years, and that he had never heard any complaint respecting it.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, the Amendment would not prevent boys taking beer with them in their cans for their lunc-heons or dinners.
MR. FOTHERGILLobjected to any boy under 14 being allowed to drink in a public-house.
MR. DODSONsaid, that unless the hon. Member who had just sat down was prepared to prove that no boy of 13 could be thirsty his remarks could have little weight. As the right hon. Gentleman had explained, it was sought by the Bill to extend to the country a clause in regard to the drinking of spirits by children which had been tried in the
1682
metropolis. Beyond this it was not desirable to go. He had heard an observation to the effect that the present House of Commons consisted of men who were considerably advanced in life, and he could not but think that the discussion on the proposed Amendment was good evidence of it. It was so long ago since some hon. Members were 14 years of age, that they could not recollect what their condition and feelings were at that time. He asked the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to cast himself back, if he could, to the days when he was a boy in a public school, and recollect whether at that time, after handling a cricket-bat or pulling an oar, he never wanted to go to a public-house for a glass of beer.
MR. DIXONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that what was objected to was, not a boy taking a glass of beer, but taking it at a public-house, where he might fall into dangerous habits. He did not think that beer was necessary or useful to children of that age, and he did not believe that any child of his ever took beer at that age.
MR. HARVEY LEWISthanked God he was not one of the sons of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was afraid they would not be much credit to him in the future. It must be tantalizing to the poor lads when the hon. Gentleman entertained his friends at his hospitable board, to find that they were not allowed to have any share in the good things which were served there. It was generally found that boys who were placed under such restrictions sought after that which was denied them, and obtained it by some means or other.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 129: Majority 69.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 (Sale to be by standard measure) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved in page 3, line 41, after "every," to insert "licensed," for otherwise the bricklayer who made the intercommunication would be liable to the penalty, which ought to attach to a licensed person solely.
MR. BRUCEexplained that such had been the law in respect to public-houses in the metropolis for years past. The penalty would only attach to the licensed person.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was perfectly correct; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this clause was retrospective, and he would suggest to him if he could not so modify it as to render it prospective, else it would harshly affect a large number of houses in the country which had halls of entertainment built out from them upon garden ground.
Amendment negatived.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the clause as it stood dealt a heavy blow at vested interests in any communications that existed at the present moment.
MR. LOCKEproposed to insert the words "after the passing of this Act."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that would not have any effect, because the words would not have any practical operation until after the Act was passed.
MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, he knew plenty of rooms attached to and forming part of public-houses in the country in which audits and meetings of benefit societies had been held for the last 30 years. Were they now, he was desirous to know, to be held illegal?
MR. BRUCE: By no means. They are part of the licensed premises.
Amendment negatived.
MR. T. HUGHES MR. T. HUGHES moved in page 3, line 43, after "and," to insert "a music-hall or dancing-room, or," with a view of assimilating the law as regards music and dancing-halls in the country to the law on that subject in the metropolitan districts. Music and dancing were very good things in themselves; but attached to public-houses, experience had proved that they were highly objectionable. No harm could arise from compelling those establishments to take out a separate license.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he entertained very serious doubts as to the working of the proposed Amendment. What, for instance, would happen in the case of the large hotels at Leamington or Cheltenham, where dancing went on every night? But strangers were not admitted.
MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member who had proposed the Amend-
1684
ment in the clause could hardly have given much consideration to the place at which he proposed to insert it. The clause, if amended as proposed, would render it absolutely penal to make or keep open a communication between the licensed premises and the music-hall, even though a special license might have been obtained for the purpose.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he was willing to meet the suggestion by striking out "and" and inserting "or."
MR. DENTsaid, that in the large hotels in the town which he represented (Scarborough) dancing probably took place every evening. If for so doing it was suggested that they should take out special licenses, the proposition would, in his opinion, prove inconvenient and unreasonable.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the question raised by the Amendment were dealt with at all, it would require very full and careful handling, and not a mere passing reference in a clause. In the metropolis persons who wished to see music and dancing could easily go to buildings licensed for those special purposes. But the question was whether, if in a country place or small village, a harper struck up a tune, or a man sang a song and took money for doing so, he and a man in the room were to be punished. In towns liberty might easily degenerate into license, and it was right and proper to impose restrictions; but it was another thing to interfere in the country with the simple amusements of the people.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEasked whether the hon. Member intended his Amendment to extend to Masonic halls? If so, in the interests of the noble craft, he protested against it. He should unquestionably vote against any provision which would hinder the brethren from passing from labour to refreshments.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that one branch of this controversy—Music Halls v. Theatres—had occupied a Committee for six months. He deprecated the reopening of the question at 10.30 P.M. on the 23rd of July.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he had no wish to interfere with the "free and accepted Masons;" but wherever music and dancing formed part of a recognized entertainment, then, he contended, there ought to be a license.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was prepared to support the view of the hon. Member as far as dancing was concerned, and he had introduced a clause on the subject in his own Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member seemed to be desirous of attempting to set up a new system of licensing music and dancing rooms all over the country, which, if carried, would, in fact, interfere with the homely and innocent enjoyments of life. If when a party were met together in a friendly way they wished to have a dance or a song, why should they not have it? Why, he, for one, should be very sorry to see such an arbitrary and wholly uncalled for interference by Act of Parliament with the social pleasures and relaxations of the public. Would such an interference be tolerated in other classes who were in the habit of giving concerts and dancing parties in their own houses or grounds? He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should have lent his sanction to such a proposal, and for his own part he should, if it were pressed to a division, give an unhesitating vote against it.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to completely misapprehend what he had stated. In the metropolitan area, and for 25 miles round it, there were at present legal regulations for the opening of music and dancing halls, and by his Bill he had sought to make these regulations applicable to the whole country. [Mr. HENLEY: It would be a great curse.] The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a great curse; but for his part he could not see why the regulations applicable to the area he had mentioned should not be made general. [Mr. HENLEY: Why not propose to do so at once?] That proposal would have necessitated a fuller consideration of many questions than could now be given, and though he sympathized with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), he did not think at the end of July, and with so many more important questions before them, they could satisfactorily deal with the subject. He should, therefore, recommend the withdrawal of the Amendment.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, that in his own borough (Salford) they had an Act which was precisely similar to that for the metropolis, and, so far as he knew, it worked satisfactorily; but he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member that if his Amendment were agreed to the effect would be to compel the application for a special license in every case; whereas at present there was no such necessity in the case of licensed houses for general purposes, and the practical effect would be to exclude houses which were now licensed.
MR. FOTHERGILLstrongly objected to the Amendment. In North Wales, with which he was connected, it was the custom, both in public-houses and beer-shops, to call in a harper. They were very fond of a little music and a dance, and it would be felt as a very great grievance indeed, if every landlord of a public-house were compelled to take out a 12 months' license before he could allow his customers to have their songs accompanied by a harp or an impromptu dance by the music of the country.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERconfessed that his sympathies were with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Hughes); but looking at the many important questions it involved, he should advise his hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment.
MR. T. HUGHES, under the circumstances, said he would not ask the Committee to divide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Illicit storing of liquor) agreed to.
Clause 11 (Publication of names of licensed persons) agreed to.
Offences against public order.
Clause 12 (Penalty on persons found drunk).
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that he thought 10 s. was not enough. He moved, as an Amendment, that the penalty be 40 s., and that the imprisonment be a month instead of 10 days.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwould like to ask against whom this clause was particularly directed? To some people a fine of 10 s. would be as nothing, and a penalty of 40 s. would be equally unfelt. But it should be recollected that

1687
this Bill was directed more particularly against the working classes. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not suppose that the hon. Baronet who moved the increase of the penalty, or Members of that House, were likely to be found drunk on the highway; but it was very evident that a fine of 10 s. imposed upon some persons would bear heavier than a fine of £100 upon a higher and wealthier class. In 99 cases out of 100, if working men were fined 10 s. they would be sent to prison on account of being unable to pay.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, after the experience he had had in the county of Durham, where the penalty had been increased from 5s. to 10 s., he must say that he had never known the slightest difficulty in the persons fined raising the 10 s. In fact, the workmen were now earning £4 a week, and 10 s. was a penalty they found no difficulty in paying. For that reason, he proposed the higher amount and the longer period of imprisonment.
SIR HENRY HOAREobjected to the proposal that a working man should be called upon to pay 400 per cent more than was now imposed in the case provided for by the clause. In fact, the Amendment was beside the direct object of the Bill, which was not so much aimed at the prevention of individual drunkenness as the suppression of a system to which they all objected. The working classes were not the only persons who over-indulged occasionally. If they took too much beer there were others who drank claret and stronger drinks and if these heavy penalties were to be imposed, he suggested that they should be confined to those who paid income tax.
MR. ASSHETONthought that while 5s. was an inadequate fine, 40 s. was too much, and suggested that 10 s. was a fair medium.
MR. CANDLISHsuggested as a compromise that the maximum penalty should be 20 s., instead of 40 s., as proposed.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that a fine of 10 s. in the agricultural districts would absorb, in many cases, a whole week's wages, and the lengthened period of imprisonment would inflict a great hardship. At the same time, there were reasons for thinking that 5s. was an inadequate penalty. If they were to have an Amendment in the
1688
clause, it ought to take the form of the alternative of imprisonment. Very often a fine of 5s. was no penalty at all, and the stocks had disappeared from their punishments. They had evidence that in Edinburgh, where the alternative of a day's imprisonment had been introduced, drunkenness had steadily decreased, and that was a strong reason in favour of introducing the alternative punishment of imprisonment.
SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be led away by the idea that they could prevent drunkenness by severe penalties. No man went to a public-house deliberately to get drunk. Drunkenness was an accident; and it was not, therefore, by increasing the penalty that they could do away with it. Moral means were necessary to prevent men becoming drunk. He also wished to point out that the penalty with the costs varied. In London it was 5s., but in Tunbridge Wells it was 10 s., and in the county of Sussex generally it was 12 s. He believed they would do no good by increasing the penalties.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would stick to his proposition. It was an admirable one. The magistrates were not bound to inflict the full penalty; but it was very important that they should have power to inflict the heavier penalty of 40 s. There was an Act whereby a man could now be fined 40 s. if he was drunk and obstructing the highway.
MR. BRUCEobserved that one of the most difficult questions on which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion was this question of repressing drunkenness by penalties. He was very far from saying that this clause was a satisfactory solution of the whole question, and that heavier penalties for repeated offences might not be followed by good results. He did not agree with the worthy Alderman behind him (Sir David Salomons) that these penalties produced no good. If he would read the evidence of the stipendiary magistrate at Sheffield, and other magistrates, given before the Committee which sat during this Session, he would find that the opinion at which they had arrived was that short terms of imprisonment would be deterrent. He thought, however, that for the first

1689
offence of the nature to which this section applied 10 s. was sufficient. It was intended that this section should apply to persons found drunk on licensed premises, and therefore the great majority of persons on whom it would be inflicted would belong to the poorer—he would not say the working—classes. To them 10 s., if they were to pay costs, would be a sufficient penalty. It was a subject for the consideration of the House whether in the case of repeated offences it would not be right to give the power to inflict a heavier punishment. He was bound to say, however, that he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) went too far.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he would not have risen if the hon. Baronet near him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had not referred to the stocks. He was bound to say that as a magistrate he had applied that punishment many times in the past, and he hoped to apply it many times again. He had himself offered persons their choice, and advised them that it was far better to stand in the stocks for two hours than to pay the penalty of 5s. He thought the fine proposed in the clause was quite enough, especially when in the next section it was proposed that persons, if guilty of riotous and disorderly conduct, should be liable to a fine of 40 s.
MR. DODDSsaid, that he came from the same county as the hon. Member for Boston, and he should like to know where the punishment of the stocks was inflicted. He himself did not know where it had been inflicted in recent years.
COLONEL GILPINconcurred with the observations of the Home Secretary, and believed that, under the circumstances, 10 s. was an amply sufficient penalty. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he had understood that the stocks, like the pillory, were excluded from the laws of the country.
MR. BROWNsuggested that for the first offence the penalty should be 10 s.; for the second, 20 s.; and for the third, 30 s.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYshould like to know from the hon. Member for Boston where the punishment of the stocks had been inflicted? ["Oh!"] It is all very well to cry "Oh, oh!" but they should see whether the old statute was still in force when the hon. Member
1690
declared so ostentatiously that he had inflicted this penalty.
MR. R. N. FOWLERdid not think the question before the Committee was the question of stocks. The question was whether for the future the penalty for drunkenness should be 10 s. instead of 5s.; he himself thought it was quite a sufficient change to make in the law to raise the penalty to 10 s.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the question before the Committee was what ought to be the maximum penalty. They all knew very well that, as maximum penalties were very seldom imposed, if the maximum penalty was to be 10 s., there would be very few cases in which it would be inflicted; and therefore when it was said that 10 s. was the penalty imposed by this Bill, the statement was not accurate. They ought to give such a maximum as would be felt by any person on whom it was likely to be imposed, being well assured that it would be always reduced in proportion to the means of the person convicted. He thought that in dealing with a question of this sort it was better to adopt some reasonable penalty which magistrates might inflict at their discretion; and if the hon. Baronet (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) divided he should certainly support him. Penalties ought to be apportioned to the condition of the persons on whom they were inflicted. A fine of 10 s. was a severe penalty on agricultural laborers; but there were classes above them who got drunk. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Hoare) said that "our class" got drunk. ["No!"]
SIR HENRY HOARE: I beg pardon. I did not say that our class was in the habit of getting drunk. What I said was that the working classes were not more guilty of drinking to excess than other classes.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the hon. Baronet made the remark that we drank too much claret and champagne. There were classes who could well afford to pay a penalty of 20 s., and if they wished to check drunkenness by this means they should have penalties appreciable by those on whom they were inflicted. A penalty of 10 s. was nothing to an artizan who was making £2 or £3 a-week, because it was well known that these fines were paid by communities who combined for the defence of one another. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite

1691
seemed to desire to cram this Bill, like some other Bills, down their throats; but though he supported the Bill he would not permit it to be hustled through Committee without proper consideration. He thought that they should have a reasonable maximum penalty.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it might shorten time if he put before the Committee the views of the Government with regard to the various Amendments on this clause. After considering all the evidence on the subject, he was of opinion that there would be an advantage in having a scale of punishment increasing with the increased number of offences At the same time, he could not go the length of the extreme severity of the Amendment; but he thought that they might so far adopt it as to provide an increased penalty for the second and third offences. He would propose to modify the Amendment of the hon. Baronet by introducing words imposing a penalty of 20 s. for the second offence, and for the third offence, if committed within 12 months of the second, one month's imprisonment, with or without hard labour.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would allow magistrates some discretion.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that his experience convinced him that a penalty of 10 s. would be quite sufficient to meet the justice of the case. When penalties were too heavy it often happened that they were not imposed. He was glad the Home Secretary stood by the 10 s. penalty for the first offence.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that the statement of the Home Secretary took away his breath, and he stood aghast at the proposition that a man should be sent to prison for taking a glass too much three times a year. When the Bill was introduced, he thought it would be very difficult to make men moral by Act of Parliament; but after this discussion he considered it hopeless. The first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was reasonable enough, and he implored him not to go further, pointing out that the effect of putting a drunkard in prison for a month would be to throw his wife and children on the parish for that time, and thus punish the innocent ratepayers. The Bill was a mild and moderate one, and was acceptable to the trade and the public; but he was surprised that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins)
1692
should propose to revive the odious and barbarous punishment of the stocks. They ought not to treat men who took a glass too much like convicted thieves.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he was anxious not to be misunderstood. As regarded the punishment of the ratepayers, if the Bill would not prevent drunkenness it would do nothing, and if it did it would certainly diminish the rates. Whether drunkenness was a crime or not, undoubtedly it was a grave offence, and one for which the wives and children of drunkards now suffered the penalty. It was a fearful parent of vice and crime, and he thought that if a man were three times convicted for such an offence it was a proof that fining him was no good, and that he should be sent to prison. His belief was that that the infliction of such a penalty would diminish rather than increase the rates, put an end to a great deal of human suffering, and raise the tone of public morality.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreferred to the experience of Scotland, where an Act passed in 1862, imposing a fine of 5s., or 24 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness in the streets, produced a steady decrease in the number of convictions.
MR. DENTthought the views of the Government deserved approval.
MR. HENLEYasked what would be the result of making the penalties too heavy? By increasing the penalties they would have fewer convictions. "Being drunk" was a very elastic term, indeed; and witnesses would give very different evidence with regard to offences visited by a low penalty from what they would give where the penalty was heavy. And where the penalties had a high range, there must be an appeal, in which the Judges would have to decide what was "being drunk." Again, how were the repeated convictions to be proved? He wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these points.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it must be recollected that all these penalties were optional; the magistrate was not bound to inflict them, but had the power to do so if he thought the case required it. The offences must take place within the year; they would be in the same locality; and the justices would have full knowledge of all the circumstances.
MR. HARVEY LEWISwished to call the attention of the Committee to the point they were discussing. The Bill imposed a penalty not exceeding 10 s. on any person found drunk, upon which an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) to make it 40 s. In addition to that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed various cumulative penalties: A man shall be fined for being drunk, and on the second offence that fine shall be doubled. But that was not all, for on a conviction for a third offence the party shall be liable to be sent to prison for a given period, with or without hard labour. Now, such a penalty as that was, in his opinion, too severe. ["Question!"]
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That 10 s. stand part of the clause."
COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Home Secretary, whether he would not allow an alternative of seven days with a fine instead of 14 days' imprisonment? It might be a positive kindness to a working man to have seven days' imprisonment with a fine of 10 s., instead of 14 days without a fine.
Amendment (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) negatived.
MR. DENTthen proposed, page 4, line 34, to insert—
"Every person who shall be convicted of drunkenness under this section within a period of 12 months, shall on the second conviction be liable to a penalty of 20 s., and for a third or subsequent offence to a penalty of 40 s., or at the discretion of the magistrate to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE moved to insert the words "and including costs." Now, it so happened that in the City of London no costs were ever added to penalties; and it was for the purpose of determining what they were that he wished to have these words inserted.
MR. LOCKEwas surprised to hear the proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to add imprisonment to the penalties inflicted by the Bill. When they saw the sentences which were frequently passed he certainly objected to give to magistrates the power of sending a man who might be in every regard respectable to gaol,
1694
and giving him a month's hard labour because he happened to be intemperate. It was quite possible, too, that the magistrate might be a man of a peculiar nature. He could pick out many in that House—men whom he would not trust to look after the character of a cat, much less of a human being. And it was to such men that it was proposed to give the power of sending a man to prison with hard labour, and to mix with the greatest vagabonds in the country, for a trivial offence which was altogether disproportioned to such punishment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the laxity he had displayed in yielding to suggestions, and not bind himself up in this proposal of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). Ten shillings was a large fine for a poor man, and he hoped it would be rejected. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by his first intentions and discountenances those cruel and fantastical propositions.
MR. DENTthought that no magistrate would send a man to prison with hard labour for a month without the option of a fine unless he believed that the accused was a confirmed drunkard.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that this was a serious matter. By thus sending a man to prison and giving him a month's hard labour they might be, in fact, ruining him for life. They knew there were men who took peculiar views on the subject of drinking, and that such men, if armed with the power, would be too ready to convict and send to prison a man brought before them on such a charge. It did not follow, moreover, if the charge were proved, that the man was not a good father, and otherwise respectable. The Committee should remember, too, that the poor man's stomach was too frequently not in a state to enable him to withstand the effect of strong drink. He went through a great deal of toil, and a little drink took great effect on him. He hoped such a law would not be passed.
MR. FOTHERGILLobjected most strenuously to the proposition that a man should be imprisoned for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He knew a man for whom he had the highest respect, and to whom he would have entrusted his life. That man, however, unfortunately gave way occasionally to intemperance, and to

1695
have to give such a man a month's hard labour would to him be most revolting. And he had known many such cases. The proposed legislation was all a mistake and he should vote against it if it was persisted in.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that the question of imprisonment was not then before them.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the Committee were now legislating upon a weakness of human nature, and not upon a crime. He was old enough to remember the time when it was fashionable for gentlemen to get drunk in the afternoon, and he thought it would be monstrous to make a man associate with felons, thieves, and vagabonds for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he observed that, following these clauses, three pages were devoted to clauses against adulteration, and in the schedule the ingredients were set forth which would have the property of causing or increasing intoxication. Now, until they had settled those clauses it seemed to him that they should not set about enforcing penalties against a person for an offence which perhaps was not his own, but was due to liquor which, they admitted, might be very bad and deleterious, because they took so many precautions to endeavour to ensure its being wholesome. He thought they would limit the penalty in the first instance to 10 s., as in the Bill, and afterwards, when it was in full operation in all its parts, they might visit offenders with the full penalty.
MR. BRUCEobserved that, presuming the House to be desirous of passing a Licensing Bill, he must ask the Committee to deal only with the Amendment. He sympathized with his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) in the objection he took as to the levying of costs; but next year he hoped to offer for the acceptance of the House a measure for paying the clerks of Justices by salaries, and not by fees. If his hon. Friend objected to 20 s., he had better try to reduce the amount.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the Bill as originally framed, and would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr.
1696
Dent). He should press his Amendment to a division and whether it was accepted or not, he should oppose the original Amendment, because he objected to a cumulative penalty.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member for the City would not divide the Committee, and urged upon the Committee the great inconvenience of legislating upon a very general subject for one particular case. Having acted many years as a magistrate, he felt quite as much as the hon. Alderman opposite the injustice of inflicting a much heavier penalty by way of costs than the magistrate desired to inflict.
MR. HARVEY LEWIShoped the Committee would not allow such an Amendment as that before the Committee to disfigure the Bill. It was totally at variance with all that had been done in the other House, and yet he understood that Government would accept it. If it were carried it would make a conference with the other House necessary, and that House might disagree with it. It would subject a man to penal servitude for a month for the simple fact of getting drunk. Such conduct would bring contempt on the legislation of Parliament, and lead the people to believe that the Government could not make up their mind. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) negatived.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he understood that the Government were prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). If that were so, he thought the Committee ought at once to report Progress. He was surprised at their assenting to such a proposal after the Bill had passed through the other House in a milder shape. The proposed change in the penalty for drunkenness would be repugnant to the feelings of the country. Surely they would not put a drunken man in the position of a convicted felon? As it had been pointed out, a drunken man was now doubly liable—both for being drunk, and for any mischief he might cause whilst in that state.
MR. COLLINS MR. COLLINS moved to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Dent) by striking out the words relating to imprisonment, and confining it to the cumulative penalties.
MR. DENTexpressed his readiness to accept that modification of the Amendment.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to adhere to the terms of the Bill. It was not so very long since it was a gentlemanly thing to get drunk at least once or twice a-week, and, therefore, he thought they should not bear so very hard upon the lower classes, who, of late years, had manifested much improvement. He would wish to see the Government rely more on the good sense of the people themselves than on a system of cumulative fines for the repression of drunkenness, and he hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the Bill.
LORD JOHN MANNERSthought it was sound advice to adhere to the Bill as passed through the other House by the Government. The reasons which induced the Committee, half an hour ago, to reject the Amendment of the junior Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would justify the Committee in rejecting the Amendment now proposed by the senior Member (Mr. Dent). They would do well to reject the Amendment even in the mitigated form in which the hon. Member now proposed to submit it.
MR. COLLINSprotested against the doctrine that they were to accept én bloc whatever was sent down from "another place" without giving it any consideration.
MR. HARVEY LEWISobserved that that was not the question at all. It was, whether the Government having passed the Bill through the House of Lords in a form acceptable to themselves should now alter it?
Words relating to imprisonment struck out of the Amendment.
Amendment, as amended, proposed,
In page 4, line 34, after the words "ten shillings," to add the words "and on a second conviction within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, and on a third or subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 141: Majority 41.
COLONEL GILPIN, seeing that the Government had adopted a very important Amendment and that there was
1698
other important business on the Paper, considered it his duty to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
MR. BRUCEhoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not press a Motion which would interfere with and mar the progress of the Bill. The Government had adopted the Amendment because it was not an unreasonable one. Was it, he asked, to be understood that under no circumstances whatever the Government was to accept an Amendment? Surely, if a Bill of this importance was to be conducted in a manner that would be satisfactory to the Committee of the House, it was the duty of the Government to give the proposals of hon. Members fair consideration.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsupported the Motion for reporting Progress, and complained of the Government for having essentially departed from the arrangement of the Bill as originally prepared by the Home Office.
MR. WHITBREADexpressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion. He was quite sure that if they were to go on with Motions to report Progress, that they would make but very little progress indeed with the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the adoption of the Amendment referred to by the hon. and gallant Member made no change in the structure or character of the Bill. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion to report Progress, and that he would allow the Bill to be proceeded with. The hon. and gallant Member was probably influenced by his strong sympathy for another Bill—the Military Forces Localization (Expenses); but if they were now to report Progress, it would not be possible to proceed with that Bill that night.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had an Amendment relating to persons in a state of drunkenness on the highway and in possession of firearms. He, on reflection, considered the term "highway" not sufficiently large, and he therefore moved after the word "highway," page 4, line 37, to insert "road or thoroughfare;" and in line 38, after the word "engine," to insert—

1699
"or who is drank when in possession of any firearms or other dangerous weapons, shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness and ma be apprehended, and."
MR. BRUCEadmitted that a person drunk and in possession of firearms might be regarded as dangerous, and if the Amendment, were in possession of "loaded" firearms, he should have no objection to it.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked how it was possible for any person to know whether the firearms were loaded or not?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, penalties had been provided years ago to meet such a case, and had been imposed. He thought the Committee ought to reject much that was in the Bill.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the proposition now made a second time was that the Government were bound to produce a Bill which should be altogether incapable of amendment. He could not concur in that. Nor could he altogether oppose the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), since he was in the habit of receiving constant communications from the Judges of the dangers resulting from drunken persons carrying firearms.
MR. GREGORYwas at a loss to know what the incidence of drunkenness was, and particularly of "aggravated" drunkenness.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he certainly did not know what "aggravated drunkenness" was. He could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in his idea that the Committee ought to reject some of the clauses én bloc. In his (Mr. Collins's) opinion the Committee might leave out all the words after "aggravated drunkenness."
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, the Bill had come down from the other House, and it was in all respects a very strong measure. The complainst against the Government was, not that they pressed it, but that they really did not appear to know their own minds, and particularly upon this monstrous clause.
After a few words from Mr. BRUCE,
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and omit from his Amendment the words "or other dangerous weapons shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness."
Words omitted.
MR. HENLEYobserved that the words "or other dangerous weapons" were a very wide description indeed to entail the penalty for what was called "aggravated drunkenness."
Amendment amended, and agreed to, as follows:—"Or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearm may be apprehended, and."
MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in line 39, after "shilling," to leave out to end of clause. As the clause stood, he said any man riding home might be liable, on the information of a policeman, at the discretion of the magistrate to be sent to the House of Correction for a month. The object of his Amendment was to do away with that discretion.
MR. BRUCEdefended the clause. There might occasionally be cases in which magistrates might not use discreetly the powers entrusted to them; but the clause was intended broadly to deal with a class of serious offences, and it was right to take ample power for dealing with them.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHhoped the Committee would support the proposal of the Government, as the Amendment was entirely framed in favour of the rich man.
MR. MUNTZsaid, it was not in favour of the rich man; but, on the contrary, was in favour of the poor one.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that many accidents arose from persons driving vehicles while drunk, and he therefore supported the clause as it stood.
Amendment negatived.
On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
MR. KNIGHTsaid, that he must take the sense of the Committee upon this clause. He regarded it as one of the most tyrannical ever inserted in an Act of Parliament. Any man who was driving, and was said to be in the slightest degree drunk, was liable to be put in prison for a month. He could not see anything that would work more hardly on the poorer classes, and he could not allow it to pass.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsupported the views of the hon. Member, and said that he regarded the clause as unnecessarily severe.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 49: Majority 170.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 5, line 10, after "or," to insert "knowingly."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved, in page 5, line 10, after "section," insert "other than a first offence."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he considered the offence dealt with in the clause one of the most serious nature, and he could not in any degree permit its severity to be relaxed.
Amendment negatived.
MR. BARCLAY MR. BARCLAY moved, in line 11, after "convicted," to insert "if the convicting justice shall so order." He thought the time had come when some discretion should be given to the magistrates. If the power which he advocated were not granted, their dignity would, in his opinion, be much lowered. He was anxious that full penalties should be imposed; but unless they were anxious to ruin the licensed victuallers some liberty of action ought to be left in the hands of the magistrates. This endorsement of licenses was a very serious matter. If the magistrates were armed with discretionary powers he believed they would most carefully exercise them.
MR. RATHBONEhoped the Government would not consent to any relaxation of the clause as it stood in the Bill. They were sanctioning an extension of enormously increased powers to the licensed victuallers, and the only excuse for giving them any monopoly was security for public order and morality. Nothing should he left to the discretion of magistrates in matters of this kind. In the earlier clauses of the Bill they had been heaping penalties on poor drunkards, giving the magistrates no discretion; but when they came to deal with a powerful body of men a different principle was endeavoured to be introduced. He looked upon the record of all convictions on the license for offences connected with drunkenness as one of
1702
the vital points of the Bill, and he sincerely hoped it would not be surrendered.
MR. LOCKE, after calling the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause, which he had given Notice of his intention to amend in the same manner as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay), said, that in a case of this kind it was quite obvious there ought to be power in the magistrates to act as they thought best according to circumstances. It was sometimes impossible to prevent drunken people entering a man's house—a policeman might enter, and a disturbance occur, the "licensed person" doing all he could to preserve order, and yet he might be unable to convince the magistrate that there was no blame on his part. A great deal was left in the Bill to the magistrates as regarded the measure of punishment to be inflicted, and he maintained that there ought to be similar discretionary power in respect of the recording of convictions on licenses. The words proposed to be inserted in the clause were only right and proper, and he should vote for their insertion.
MR. MELLYthought that if a man knowingly permitted drunkenness or violence in his house, he would commit a very grave offence, and there ought to be no discretion in the case.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the offence named in the clause might be proved against a publican though he was in no degree to blame. That was one reason why he favoured giving magistrates power to act discretionally in connection with the record of convictions. Then, again, they must all see that when the penalty was increased to the extent of endorsement on the license, conviction would become more difficult. It was well known that, generally speaking, the duties of licensed victuallers in the proper management of their houses were very severe indeed. Did any hon. Gentleman really know the trials and temptations to which a licensed victualler was often exposed? He must have a good temper; he must exercise the severest self-control, or he might peril his property at any moment. Take a man, or a parcel of men walking into his house, already mischievously drunk, and they demand to be served. If he refuse—and most probably he will—his barman, or barmaid, or himself is

1703
assaulted probably; and if what is called a "row" takes place the police come in, and it will be a most difficult thing for him to prove that he was not guilty of riotous behaviour. That was one of the cases where the discretion of a magistrate would be properly exercised, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend's Amendment would be adopted by the Committee.
MR. BRUCEregarded this as one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and hoped the Committee would support the Bill as it stood. The object was to secure improved order, and the great cause of disorder was knowingly permitting drunkenness. The publican did not run any risk of unjust conviction, and the public had a right to insist that every necessary security should be taken for the proper conduct of a business which was undoubtedly a valuable monopoly.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in view of the heavy nature of the penalties, it would be far better to give the justices discretion as to whether, on a conviction, they would take the first step towards the canceling of the licenses.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEwished to know if a licensed person was to be answerable for the acts or conduct of his servants? Because, if not, all he had to do was to go away from his house and allow them to do what they pleased. It seemed to him, looking at the whole case, that the magistrates ought to have discretion in such cases, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. STRAIGHThad some experience in matters of this description, and believed there would be found the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining a conviction at all. He thought there would be the greatest difficulty in getting magistrates to convict if the penalty were made so heavy, especially in very numerous cases in which they would feel that the evidence was just sufficient to warrant a conviction. He hoped the Amendment would be pushed to a division.
MR. FOTHERGILLpointed out that a landlord was liable to be convicted for suffering quarrelsome conduct; but what was "quarrelsome conduct?" He thought he had witnessed scenes in the House in which the occupants of the Treasury bench might be charged with quarrelsome conduct. And then, on whose evidence were parties to be con-
1704
victed? Nothing had been said about the police as yet; but he knew a great deal about policemen in reference to public-houses. It was known to many others that many policemen never paid for the drink they swallowed, and that publicans who insisted on policemen paying for their drink were always in hot water. Yet it was upon the evidence of the police that magistrates were to decide. Now, that was a very serious state of circumstances; but all that was asked was, that the magistrates should be allowed the option of not recording offences under that section.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to call attention to the effect of recording the offence a certain number of times. As regarded the tenant, he would not have his license for five years. The consequence to the landlord was much more serious, because if those convictions were recorded the premises might lose their license for two years—"if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so think fit to order." Then, if magistrates were to have discretion in a great matter like that, why should it be refused to them in trifling ones?
MR. RATHBONEexpressed his belief that the House would insist upon it that the owner of premises who had not taken proper pains to ensure that his house should be regularly conducted should be punished. The hon. Member for London had hit a great blot in the Bill, and that was the word "knowingly." If after having brought the fact of conviction home two or three times to a person, it was not to tell against him for serious punishment, they might as well throw the Bill into the fire.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsuggested that the provision of the clause should be "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the provision in the Bill was necessary from the peculiar nature of the monopoly which had been created for this trade. Magistrates hesitated to exercise the power with which they were armed by several Acts for taking away a license on a third offence. It was rarely they did exercise the power, and therefore, in the interests of society, they were justified in selecting a few offences under the Bill, and saying that in such cases the action of the magistrates should be compulsory.
MR. J. G. TALBOTthen moved to substitute "unless" for "if."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he could not allow the last statement of the Home Secretary to pass unchallenged. He could himself speak for the magistrates of Middlesex and of the City of London that they had never shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses when necessary, and afterwards application to obtain the licenses so refused had been made to the Lord Chamberlain, and by him granted. He should support the Amendment, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the statement of the Home Secretary was strong, and he believed unjustifiable. The magistrates had not shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses, but the truth was they were rarely called upon to do so. It was against beerhouses and not against houses licensed by the magistrates that they had to proceed in that manner.
MR. BRUCEhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kent would be withdrawn in order that the Committee might divide on the main question.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he felt so strongly on this point that he must press his Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought these words were necessary in order to make the Bill consistent with itself. It gave the magistrates discretion with respect to the period during which the House might be deprived of a license, and they ought also to have discretion with respect to the penalty to be inflicted.
MR. R. N. FOWLERhoped the hon. Member for Kent would proceed with his Amendment, for he feared the Government were going so far that the magistrates would not convict.
Amendment, as amended, proposed, in page 5, line 11, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 123: Majority 30.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

COUNTESS OF MAYO'S ANNUITY BILL.
Resolution [July 22] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAMCARTER, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]

ROYAL MILITARY CANAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, Bill to amend the Royal Military Canal Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL and Sir HENRY STORKS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Waldegrave, after the death of his grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2)* (240); Basses Lights (Ceylon)* (241); Judges Salaries* (242); Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (243); Bastardy Laws Amendment* (244).
Second Reading—Metalliferous Mines Regulation (229); Mines (Coal) Regulation (224); Elementary Education (Elections)* (231), negatived; Masters and Workmen (Arbitration) (234); Grand Juries, Middlesex* (235); Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225); Victoria Park* (227).
Report of Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (202–239).
Committee—Report—Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* (217); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* (220).
Report—Petroleum* (193); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (145).
Third Reading—Summary Jurisdiction* (200); Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment* (233), and passed.

METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION BILL (No. 229)—AND—MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)

(NO. 224.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I feel that I shall be consulting the convenience of your Lordships if I make the two Bills which deal with the regulation of mines the subject of comment in one and the same speech, because the matters to be treated of in connection with both are almost identical. And, my Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to express a hope that, on this occasion, I may be more successful than I have been in two or three recent instances in obtaining the co-operation of the noble Lords opposite. I need not dilate on the importance of these Bills. Manifestly they are of great importance, if we have regard to the number of mines and the number of people employed in them, for not fewer than 500,000 persons engaged in mines will come under the operation of these Bills. At present there are 3,142 mines under the regulation of the existing law, and in these 350,849 miners are employed. The number of new mines which will be included by the two Bills now before your Lordships will be 1,849, and the number of miner 92,565; so that there will be a total of 4,991 mines, and nearly 500,000 miners under the operation of these Bills. My Lords, the attention of Parliament was first called to the condition of the persons employed in mines by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whose name has been associated with this kind of legislation for nearly half-a-century, and who, assisted by others, succeeded in obtaining an Act of Parliament 30 years ago, which, supplemented as it has been since by several other Acts of a similar character, has wrought a great change in the moral and physical condition of the miners, and has thus shown that the noble Earl

1591
and those who acted with him were amply justified in the course they took so long a time back. If your Lordships turn to the Report of the Commission, over which the noble Earl presided, you will find that sometimes children of five years were employed underground; that at similar employment women occupied a position which was physically and morally degrading; and that the moral darkness of the miners—men, women, and children—rivalled the physical darkness of the regions in which they worked. The Mines Act at present in force is one passed in 1860 by Sir George Lewis; but however beneficial that measure may have been—and that it was beneficial it is needless to say—yet the present state of things calls for some attempt to be made to remedy the existing state of affairs, for since the passing of that Act there has been a large increase in the number of metalliferous mines and coal mines. In 1864 a Royal Commission was issued for inquiring into metalliferous mines. That Commission was presided over by Lord Kinnaird. The Commissioners drew up a very careful Report, on which was based the Metalliferous Mines Bill, on which one of the Bills now before your Lordships is founded. In 1867 a Petition was presented to the House of Commons by the coal miners of the country; that Petition was referred to a Select Committee, and on examination of the statements of the petitioners, it was found that they drew attention to a vast number of points in the present state of the law, which, it must be admitted, were well worthy of the consideration of Parliament. The petitioners suggested certain alterations in the law, some of which were accepted, and some of which were rejected by the Select Committee. Your Lordships will find that many of the improvements recommended at that time are embodied in the Bills now before the House. I shall say one word as to the history of the Bills which have been introduced since the Act of 1860. The noble Lord to whom I have already alluded (Lord Kinnaird) introduced his Metalliferous Bill two years ago, but withdrew it on the understanding that it should be amalgamated with a Bill extending to coal mines. It was, however, found subsequently that the two classes of mines were so different that the regulations applicable to the one would be to-
1592
tally inapplicable to the other; and consequently the Government have this year endeavoured to deal with the subject in two distinct Bills. At the same time, I think the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) will recognize features of his own child in the Metalliferous Mines Bill, though I hope it will be found that we have improved on the noble Lord's effort. The subject of mines we divide in three great divisions. First, we deal with the employment of women and children; secondly, with the question of inspection; and, thirdly, with the question of safety. I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to describe in each case what is the present state of the law, and what is the amendment we propose. In the first place, as to women and children, your Lordships are aware that no woman is now allowed to work underground. As to children, no child of less than 10 years of age is allowed to work underground, and children between 10 and 12 are not allowed to go underground unless on a certificate that they can read and write; or unless on the condition that they are to attend school for six hours each week during their employment in the mine. After the age of 12 there is no restriction whatever; neither is there any restriction in the case of children who work aboveground. Now, that is felt by the miners—and I think it will be felt by your Lordships—to be utterly inadequate, though in cases like this it is hopeless to lay down any iron rule. The present system as regards children is inadequate, because, in the first place, there was no security that the certificate came from a competent person. The examination of a child might be the merest farce. Then, in case the boy cannot read and write, attendance at school twice a-week for three hours each time is not sufficient to enable him to obtain any usual amount of education. Now, this Bill proposes to amend the law in this manner. It proposes that no child under the age of 12 should be employed in a mine. The Select Committee on Metalliferous Mines thought that was the earliest age at which children should be allowed down in mines. There will be only one exception, and this will be in the case of thin seam mines, but not as a rule even in these. The exception is made in consequence of a Petition, signed by thousands of miners, which states their opinion—after-

1593
wards confirmed by the Reports of the Inspectors—that if the rule were enforced in the case of thin-seam mines the working of many of them must be retarded, and that working in these mines does not lead to physical deformity or injure the health of children. By permission of the Secretary of State, therefore, children will be permitted to work in thin-seam mines, even if only between the ages of 10 and 12; but the half-time system and educational conditions similar to those imposed by the Workshops Act will apply to the case of such children. They may work six hours for six days a-week, or 10 hours for three days, and their attendance for education must be at least 20 hours per fortnight. The regulation for boys above the age of 12 and under 16—the age at which they are commonly called young persons—will be that they shall not work beyond 10 hours a-day or 54 hours a-week, and the hours are to be counted from the time of leaving to the time of returning to the bank. Those are the main changes as regards employment, and they are mainly three—firstly, the limit of age for mining underground is raised from 10 years to 12 years; secondly, new regulations are laid down for boys between 12 and 16 years; and, thirdly, the provisions of the Workshops and Factories Acts are extended to miners working aboveground. The second division of the subject is inspection. In this no material change is contemplated by the Bill now before your Lordships. At present the number of Inspectors is 12. Ten years ago it was only six, and 30 years ago, when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) moved in the matter, it was only one. No doubt, it will be necessary, in consequence of the additional number of mines and miners which will come under the operation of the law, to increase the number of Inspectors, though I cannot at present state to what extent; provision has however been made for some increase. It has been pressed on the Home Secretary that it would be dedesirable to have a more extended system of inspection. The present duties of an Inspector are to have a general knowledge of the mines; to give warning to the owner if he knows of danger; to make inquiry into accidents; to attend accidents; and to make an annual Report as to the state of the mines in
1594
his district. Well, it was proposed by mine owners themselves, and by many other persons, that this inspection should be very much increased. The arguments against this proposition are that it would be inexpedient to relieve owners of their responsibility; that quarterly inspections of mines would be impossible without, at least, 200 Inspectors; and that even with such an inspecting staff the reports would be fallacious. In some cases mines are 80 or 90 miles in extent, and a certificate of safety given by a Government Inspector must be fallacious in such cases. Therefore, my Lords, the Bill proposes no change in the general system of Inspection; but under Clause 52 miners may appoint two of themselves to inspect the mines at least once a month. This system is pursued in Lord Vane's mine; it is one of mutual confidence, and it has been found to answer better than any Government inspection. Next under the Bill, certificated managers will be appointed in coal mines. This question has been discussed at considerable length in the other House. Accidents often occur from the ignorance of viewers; and the experience of Belgium and other countries proves that improved education of the miners and those over them would cure many dangers. The proposal to give certificates to managers has been objected to on the ground that it would take away the responsibility of the owners; but it will be remembered that the choice of the manager will still be with the owner. The only difference will be that he will choose a person who has received a certificate. Your Lordships know that at present masters of ships must obtain a certificate before they are allowed to go to sea in charge of a vessel, as must colonels of a regiment before they assume the command of men; and though I do not say the cases are quite analogous, there is sufficient analogy between them to make the argument drawn from the certificated masters of ships a sound one in the case before your Lordships, because it would seem only natural that managers of mines, who have the lives of so vast a number of persons in their care, should have certificates of some kind. It has also been urged as an objection, that experience is more valuable than science in the case of the management of a mine, Now, I do not

1595
wish to undervalue experience, or what is called "the rule of thumb;" but I do not see why experience and science should not go together in this affair of the management of mines. It is an acknowledged fact that many of the accidents which now occur are due to the ignorance of managers of mines. My Lords, various proposals have been made as to the mode of examination. There have been schemes for the nomination of examiners by the Secretary of State, and schemes for the election of examiners by different classes of persons. These plans have been much discussed, and as a result a mixed plan has been adopted in the Bill. This plan is that the Home Secretary should, nominate three owners, three miners, and three engineers, who will form a Board of nine, and this Board, in conjunction with the Inspector of the district, will choose the examiners. The general rule in future will be that all managers must obtain a certificate by examination; but if such a system were carried into operation at once, one of its effects would be to throw out of employment a number of valuable men, who, though unable to pass an examination, are perfectly competent for their posts by reason of long practical experience. The way in which this difficulty is met is by a certificate granted for service of 12 months as managers of a mine at some time within the last five years. My Lords, I venture to think this system will increase the securities for safety without unduly diminishing the responsibilities which ought always to rest with the owners and occupiers of mines. My Lords, I now come to the third division of the subject. It is the most important one, because it has to do directly with the safety of the miners; and, therefore, the Bill contains a variety of provisions calculated to effect the desired object. The first part of this branch of the Bill is a re-enactment of the measure passed in consequence of the Hartley Colliery accident—namely, the necessity of having in all cases the advantages of a double shaft in order to provide another means of exit in case of accident; while the second contains a code of general rules that will henceforth have to be observed. The effect of past legislation has been to cause a decrease in the number of accidents, though, unfortunately, the number is still large. From 1850
1596
to 1860 one life was lost to every 67,000 tons of coal raised; from 1864 to 1868 the loss was one life to every 98,000 tons; in 1870 the loss was one life to 113,900. The deaths in 1870 were 991, whereas if the proportion of one life to 67,000 tons of coal had been maintained, the deaths in 1870 would have been nearly 1,685. The number of persons employed per life lost in that year was 356. Part of the improvement, I must repeat, may fairly be attributed to the effect of legislation, though much is doubtless owing to the increased anxiety of owners of mines to extend protection to the men in their employ. It must also be remembered that, if the average number of deaths per annum is now 1,000, that by no means covers all the disastrous consequences of colliery accidents, because a large number of men are maimed by them, though not killed, and their names do not appear in the Return; but your Lordships can well understand that those accidents represent a vast amount of suffering and distress. Now, while on this point, I think it is important we should inquire into the causes of accidents, because there is an erroneous impression that by far the larger number are caused by fire-damp, though that is not the case. With regard to the causes of these accidents, they may be divided into four classes—explosions by firedamp, falls of roof, shaft accidents, and miscellaneous ones. Now, in the year 1870, the proportion of deaths resulting from these causes is thus—fire-damp, 185; fall of roof, 411; shaft accidents and miscellaneous, 400; so that firedamp only occasioned one-fifth of the casualties, whereas the fall of roofs caused two-fifths of them. The same result is brought out if an average of 10 years before the year 1866 is taken. Within that period, 9,916 lives were lost; 2,019 being from fire-damp, nearly 4,000 from falls of roof, and the remainder from miscellaneous causes. Setting that aside, however, proper ventilation in mines is, of course, a matter of the very greatest importance. The gas becomes dangerous when mixed with four times as much atmospheric air, and it ceases to be dangerous when it mixes with 14 times as much atmospheric air; and hence, my Lords, the necessity for the ample ventilation which the Bill consider necessary. Now, my Lords, in the existing law, the words under

1597
"ordinary circumstances" occur in relation to the regulations for ventilation. We omit them in this Bill, because they were almost valueless. How can the prosecutor prove that the circumstances were ordinary? The owner is considered primâ facie liable. An accident occurs which proves that the ventilation was indifferent, and the owner may exonerate himself by proving that he took reasonable precaution. But, my Lords, accidents do not occur in ordinary circumstances, they occur in extraordinary circumstances, though in many cases these may be foreseen to some extent; and any well-conducted system of ventilation should be intended to serve its purposes under extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Brough, one of the Inspectors, mentions the case of a blower of gas which gave off 130,000 cubic feet of gas in 10 minutes. When he first came to the pit, only 12,000 cubic feet of air per minute passed through the pit. He caused it to be increased to 80,000 cubic feet per minute. An accident then occurred, which, under the conditions in which the Inspector found the mine when he first visited it, would have caused the death of 500 men and 70 horses, but as it was, in consequence of the remedial measures taken, no life was lost. Every well-conducted mine has a great deal more ventilation than is necessary in ordinary circumstances; the object is to guard against bad management. I now come to the provisions for preventing accidents caused by the falling of roof or coal, and the custom regarding which varies in different localities. I have shown that this is the most frequent cause of death. The men are careless, and in their anxiety to make the largest wages they are careless in the matter of propping. In Durham and Northumberland there is a rule in force under which the miners are not allowed to prop their own work. The propping is done by different men from the miner, under the superintendence of the managers. What has been the result? In Durham the deaths from falls are 1·95 per 1,000,000 of tons of coal raised; in Northumberland the number is 2·75. In North and East Lancashire it is 4·70; in West Lancashire 5·81; and in South Wales 6·57 per 1,000,000 tons. In the last three places, the propping is done by the men who work out the coal, Of course, my Lords, when looking at
1598
these figures, we must remember that there are other causes to be taken into consideration—such as the hardness or softness of the strata, &c.; but, at the same time, the figures are so striking that they are well worthy of our attention. This part of the Bill proceeds, therefore, on the rule which has worked so well in Durham and Northumberland, but it does not go so far. It does not prevent the miners from propping for themselves, but it provides that this work must be under the superintendence of an overseer appointed specially for the purpose. Passing from that branch of the subject, I may mention, my Lords, as the law stands, coal can be weighed, measured, or gauged, at the owner's option, when brought to the pit mouth. The Bill before your Lordships, however, provides that coal shall be weighed only, and by standard measure. It is objected that the provision is an interference with contract. I admit that, but the interference is not further than is necessary. Various weights are at present customary, and the uncertainty of the capacity of the measures is a constant source of dispute. We think, therefore, that the provision has such advantages, that it ought to form a portion of the Bill. As coals are sold by weight, there would not seem to be any good reason why they should not be raised by weight, and it would be pushing the doctrines of political economy too far to reject the clause on the ground of its interference with contract. In order to meet an objection raised on the ground of the expense of providing weighing machines, the Secretary of State is to have the power of exempting particular mines from the operation of this clause. The last question with which I have to deal is the liability of owners. Our object in this Bill is to throw the responsibility on the owner, if he cannot prove due diligence. Under the Factory Acts of 1844 the occupier is primâ facie liable, but can exonerate himself if he can prove due diligence, and can point out the culpable person. We do not propose in the Bill to enact this condition. The owner will be primâ facie liable; but all that will be necessary for him to prove is that he had used all due diligence—that he had taken all reasonable means by publication and enforcement of rules to prevent contravention or non-compliance

1599
with them. As to the institution of prosecutions, it is provided by the Bill that the Inspector only can prosecute an owner or agent, unless with the consent of the Secretary of State. This latter provision is intended to meet cases in which the Home Secretary does not think the prosecution ought to be undertaken on behalf of the Government. Some apprehension has been expressed as to the provision for penalties; but I think your Lordships will find that the penalties are rendered more fair and just towards the employers and the employed. For a breach of the law owners will be liable to a penalty of £20 and £1 a-day during the continuance of the offence. The miners for a breach of the law will be liable to a penalty of £2. This is the same as at present, but the Bill gives an alternative of three months' imprisonment. Either an owner or miner may be imprisoned; but that would be only for a personal act—for personal default or negligence by which the safety of persons lives was endangered. Considering that hundreds of lives may be lost by one of these accidents, I do not think Parliament will be acting too stringently in giving the tribunal before which an offender is brought, the alternative of imprisonment in such cases as I have stated. There will be a power of appeal, and there is none under the existing law. There are many other matters of detail; but I will not trouble your Lordships with them upon this occasion, as I think I have touched on the principal provisions of the Bill. It has, moreover, been carefully drawn and carefully sifted in "another place." Many of its provisions are the result of mutual concessions between the various parties concerned; but, as a whole, the Bill follows the legislation of the last 30 years, and I ask your Lordships to read it a second time, in the hope that it will, even more than the other Mining Bills which have preceded it, succeed in diminishing the risks to which work-people engaged in mining operations are, by the nature of their calling, so much exposed. I have to apologize to your Lordships for the length at which I have addressed you, and which I feel could only have been excused by the great importance of the subject. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Metalliferous Mines Bill.
Moved, "That the Metalliferous Mines Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
LORD DE ROSsaid, he could confirm the statement made by the noble Earl who had moved the second reading, that the rule with respect to propping now existing in Northumberland and Durham had been attended with the best effects, and he would recommend the Government to make the clause relating to that subject more stringent by inserting in it a prohibition against miners propping their own work, and that care should be taken that only experienced persons were allowed to undertake it.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that when he moved his Bill in the House of Commons in 1842, Parliament and the country were not ripe for the legislation that was required on this subject, consequently he had been obliged to confine himself to less than ought to have been done. What he and those acting with him at the time, however, did accomplish was a prohibition against the employment of women underground, and one against the employment in that way of any child under 10. In the same manner, the Bill now before their Lordships did not go so far as he could wish, but he thanked the Government for it, being very glad to take what was offered; more especially when he considered that what had already been done in the way of legislation had effected a considerable improvement in the moral and physical condition of the miners. He was not prepared to move any Amendments, because he knew that, in those matters, Parliament must proceed tentatively; but he thought that all the educational benefits of the Factory Act should be extended to mining children up to the age of 13. There was another subject to which he would refer, and which was, that in 1844 it was found that the engines for hauling things up and down the mouths of pits were in charge of boys of 10 or 12, and that as a matter of course many accidents were the result. He succeeded in limiting the employment to persons not under 15. This Bill brought the limit up to 18. He was glad of that, and should be glad to see the limit still higher, for young lads had not that sense of responsibility which persons ought to possess before they were employed at such a post. He was also happy to ob-

1601
serve that something was done in the Bill for the women employed on the banks of the mine, by limiting their employment to 12 hours a-day and giving them Sunday; and he trusted those changes in their hours of labour would have a beneficial effect, for some of these poor women were very degraded, and their appearance as seen in photographs showed it, and there was great room for improvement in their moral condition. He must also say that he was much against the employment of young boys in mines. In some countries—Prussia, for instance—no youth under 16 was allowed to be employed down a mine. One must consider what it was for a boy of 10 or 12 years of age to be for a number of hours beneath the earth in darkness. It must produce a serious effect on his mind, and the mental depression to which it necessarily gave rise must prevent the child from having much inclination for education. He could produce statistics to show how difficult it was to get such boys to go to an evening school, whatever the inducements held out to them. In conclusion, he must again express his obligation to the Government for what he trusted the Bill would do in elevating the character and improving the condition of a class who, with all their faults, were amongst the most generous, honest, and single-minded of our people.
Motion agreed, to; Bill read 2a.
Then the Mines (Coal) Regulation Bill read a second time; and both Bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ELECTIONS) BILL—(No. 231.)—SECOND READING.
(The Lord President.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was one to confirm certain Orders of the Education Department, and also to make provision with respect to the election of school boards. It was necessary for Parliament to do something in the matter during the present Session, because the Orders made by the Department in 1870 and 1871 would not have any force after next September, and the Orders in question would be confirmed by the Bill. The
1602
Bill further proposed to establish a uniform system of election, by extending to the country districts the principle which had been already adopted in the election of the School Board for the metropolis—namely, that of Ballot, and which had been found to work well. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his objections to the Bill were founded partly on its substance, and partly on the procedure proposed. He thought it wrong that an ordinary Continuance Bill, introduced at that period of the Session, should be made to carry with it so important a principle as the introduction of the Ballot for the first time into the school-board elections in the country districts. Even if he were not an opponent of the Ballot, he should think this a very unwise precedent, for there was no ground for such an extension of the Ballot, and there were several reasons against it. In the first place, he denied that the Ballot had been admitted as a recognized system in Parliamentary and municipal elections. The Ballot was on its trial there. That was the compromise made between the two Houses. Secret voting was allowed a trial, but had not been definitely accepted. Why, then, should their Lordships adopt the Ballot, as was now proposed, without any limitation as to time, in the school-board elections? When the trial of secret voting was over, and the success of the system assured, there would be no objection to extend it to the school-board as well as to other elections. School-board elections were not, however, analogous to Parliamentary and municipal elections. They belonged rather to the class of elections for Poor Law Guardians, Highway Boards, and vestries, forming part of the local government of the country districts, and there was no reason why the new system of voting adopted for Parliamentary and municipal elections should be brought into the management of parochial affairs. Almost all their Lordships who were acquainted with the country districts would admit that such an innovation would be exceedingly distasteful. A noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) admitted the other day that there was a strong reluctance

1603
among the country clergy, amounting almost to aversion, towards the Education Act. The change now proposed would make the Act more distasteful than ever, and was it wise to load a system which was already disliked, with additional elements of unpopularity? One great danger, moreover, in the Ballot was, that it would deprive the people of all interest in Parliamentary elections, and if so, by equal reasoning the same would happen in the case of municipal and school-board elections. In fact, that had been eminently the case at a recent School-Board election in Lambeth, where, though considerable feeling was aroused by the fact that the denominational and secular systems were pitted against each other, only 7 per cent of the whole constituency could be induced to come to the poll. That was the result of the Ballot, which the noble Marquess said had succeeded very well in London. In the country districts, too, the Ballot was disliked still more than in London, and was regarded as especially un-English; and the result there would be, that large numbers of the electors would stay away from the poll and the elections would be discredited. He had not spoken of the penalties of the Bill, for the simple reason that he considered this was no mere formal enactment, and that it raised a distinct and important question of policy and of principle which the circumstances of the country districts made extremely undesirable there, and which ought not to be introduced at that period of the Session, above all in the form of a mere Continuance Bill. Their Lordships, moreover, must not be asked to read the Bill a second time and make alterations in Committee. They knew by experience the result of adopting such a course, and were not going to fall into such a snare again, and the better course would be to throw out the Bill. No inconvenience could possibly arise from their taking such a course, since the Government could immediately introduce another Bill, simply continuing the present powers of the Education Department. As to the present measure, he asked their Lordships to resist an innovation which would endanger the progress of education in the country districts, and he would, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought that when the Ballot applied both to Parliamentary and municipal Elections, it would be absurd to make a distinction in the mode of taking elections for school boards. The Ballot was already in use for the election of the London School Board, and he could see nothing unwise or inconsistent in endeavouring by the Bill under discussion to extend the system through the country.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Contents 46: Majority 4:—Resolved, in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

MASTERS AND WORKMEN (ARBITRATION) BILL—(No. 234.)
(The Lord Kinnaird.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD KINNAIRD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to give greater facilities than now existed to masters and workmen for the purpose of settling their disputes by arbitration. In bringing it forward as he had done, he regretted that he was deprived of the advantage of very valuable assistance, in consequence of the absence of a noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards), who took a great interest in the question, but who, owing to age and infirmity, was not able to be present on this occasion. In 1866 or 1867 Lord St. Leonards had introduced a measure called the Conciliation Act, the object of which was to enable masters and workmen to submit their differences to arbitration; but that Bill provided more for the present and the past, and its machinery was so complicated that it had not been found to confer those benefits which otherwise would have arisen from its operation. Lord St. Leonards, however, had seen the present amended Bill and approved of it, and it would make better provision for the future than the Bill of the noble and learned Lord had done. Its object was to enable masters and workmen to agree to go before a Court of Arbitration, and

1605
when they had so agreed they were to be bound afterwards by the decision of the arbitrator. In 1869 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of Trades Unions, and that Commission recommended a Court of Arbitration, but that it should be voluntary. This Bill carried out that recommendation, because it was altogether permissive; and every precaution was adopted to ensure that neither masters nor men should be taken by surprise. It was accordingly provided that the conditions upon which the parties should go to arbitration should be placed in the hands of every man concerned, and he was to have 48 hours to make up his mind on the subject. The question of wages was not touched by the Bill of Lord St. Leonards; but under this Bill both the hours of labour and the wages to be paid—questions which were now exciting so much public attention—might be arranged. In short, any subject of difference might come before the arbitrator, and when he had settled it by this Bill, the parties on both sides would be bound. In the ironworks in the North of England the greatest benefits had arisen from Courts of Arbitration, both to masters and workmen; questions of wages had been amicably settled, and no strike had occurred for a long time. The men themselves were most anxious for a measure of this kind to enable them to meet their masters upon equal terms, without resorting to a strike, and at a very large meeting of Cleveland miners at Nottingham, a resolution was passed declaring that Boards of Arbitration and Conciliation were the only reasonable way of settling the disputes that inevitably arose between capital and labour, and they most earnestly urged on the Cleveland mine-owners the desirability of establishing these Boards. In short, he firmly believed that if their Lordships passed this measure it would tend to put an end to strikes. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD REDESDALErose to call the attention of the House to the fact that
    1606
    in the Argument or Summary showing the points relied on by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, in the 116th and 117th sections, it is stated that—
    "The relation actually held towards the United States by the people of the Confederate States, who were the active agents in inflicting the losses complained of, and by whom, according to the reasoning of the States themselves, the neutrality of Great Britain was violated or eluded, is itself an argument against these demands. Those States are part of the Union, and would share in any benefit which would accrue to its public revenue from whatever the Arbitrators might award to be paid by Great Britain. On what principle of international equity can a Federal Government so composed seek to throw upon a neutral, assumed at most to have been guilty of some negligence, liabilities which belonged in the first degree to its own citizens, with whom it has now re-entered into relations of political unity, and from which it has wholly absolved these citizens;"
    and in the Counter Case, after these objections had been stated to the American Claims on general principle, at page 133 were the following words:—
    "The British Government, however, while deeming it right to present these considerations to the notice of the Arbitrators will not omit to deal with the ulterior questions which must arise in the event of the Arbitrators being of opinion that claims of this nature are not absolutely inadmissible, should the United States succeed in establishing any failure of duty sufficient to support them in the judgment of the Tribunal;"
    He would therefore ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Why this preliminary objection to the Claims on general principle, which in the Counter Case is thus declared ought to be properly determined before the several Claims are investigated, and which, if admitted to be good by the Arbitrators would render a lengthy inquiry into these Claims unnecessary, is not so placed in "the Argument or Summary" lately presented to the Arbitators, and when and in what manner it would be brought before the Tribunal at Geneva? The noble Lord explained that he had on several occasions drawn attention to the subject, and that he did not receive much countenance from the Government at first, although they eventually dealt with the question in their Counter Case. The matter, however, was an important one, and he begged to put the Question of which he had given Notice.
    EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Lord has certainly shown great constancy in regard to this particular argument, and he always refers to it in terms of reproach to the Government. He says that

    1607
    he received no encouragement from me when he first brought it forward last year. I believe that on that occasion I did what was perfectly right on my part; I gave him no encouragement and no discouragement. The noble Lord, however, must not think that he has a sole property in that argument. It has been considered by Her Majesty's Legal Advisers; and not only by them, for I have had letters from different persons—some of great authority, and some of no particular authority—suggesting the use of that very argument. But with regard to all, I have pursued the same course. I stated to my noble Friend the other day, that the reason why this argument did not appear in our Case, was that the Case was a mere statement of facts. Our Counter Case, however, was a statement of arguments, and that of my noble Friend formed part of it. In our Summary of Arguments it also finds a place; but it is not put at the commencement for this obvious reason—that the Treaty expressly provides that the Tribunal should begin by determining, with regard to each vessel, whether this country has been guilty of any act or omission contrary to the three rules laid down in the Treaty, or to any international law not inconsistent with those rules. The question of pecuniary reparation will thus only arise in case of a decision in regard to any vessel being given against Her Majesty's Government. That is the opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer, and therefore it was proper that the Argument should follow the course prescribed by the Treaty itself. I would rather not add anything to what I stated on previous occasions, beyond giving this sort of explanation to my noble Friend. The Tribunal at Geneva is now sitting. I cannot answer to the House for what they may think it discreet and wise to do; but I am sure there are two things that would be very inexpedient. On the one hand, it would be unwise for me to enter into any discussion as the comparative value of particular arguments, or as to the mode of conducting our case before the Arbitrators; and on the other hand, it would also be very unwise for me, unless under very exceptional circumstances indeed, to interfere with the conduct of a Case which has been committed to hands we think so thoroughly competent to deal with it.

  SLAVE TRADE (EAST AFRICAN COAST).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that such measures as are necessary to assist the cruisers employed in the repression of the Slave Trade on the Eastern Coast of Africa may be adopted,"—
    said: At so late a period both of the Session and the evening, I shall not attempt to do justice to the question, but I ought perhaps to state that the Motion has been twice adjourned in order to secure the presence of the right rev. Prelate, who bears the honoured name of Wilberforce, amongst us. In spite of that delay the annual Reports upon the Slave Trade have not been delivered; and it is generally thought to be more proper that a question of the kind should be debated after they appear. Should the Address be carried, as I trust it will be, by the spontaneous action of the House, more good will be effected than by any statement, however cogent in its details. The question has assumed a form which tends to give the interference of the House a greater practical utility than could have formerly belonged to it. It has become a struggle between the Foreign Office and the Treasury, in which the side espoused by Parliament is nearly certain to prevail. The Foreign Office have displayed a creditable zeal to bring to a legitimate conclusion the labours and the sacrifices of Great Britain in East Africa. The Treasury—as it is clear from evidence presented to the other House of Parliament—are not disposed to second the exertion. To overcome by the opinion of the House, and the opinion of the country, the obstacles created by an arrogant, although perhaps, a well-meaning Department, which of late years has been inclined to usurp the powers of the State, is the single object of the Motion. As 10 years have elapsed since the subject of the Eastern Slave Trade came before the House, it may be worth while to glance at the general position which it seems to have arrived. My Lords, the policy began in 1815, and narrowly preserved in 1850, of blockading the sea-board of Africa, in order to arrest the Slave Trade, and so to pave the way for the improvement of the Continent and the

    1609
    development of its resources, within the last few years has had upon the Western Coast a triumph little hoped for. On that coast the Slave Trade which formerly involved the annual export of 80,000 Africans, has been put an end to. A large and growing commerce in the natural productions of the country has succeeded to it. It is no longer necessary to cruise upon the Western Coast, or keep up the mixed tribunals for adjudicating upon slavers. The Eastern traffic, on the contrary, has baffled our exertions to repress it. It has two distinct lines from Zanzibar to Arabia; from the Portuguese dominion of Mozambique to Madagascar. It would cease if the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the authorities of Portugal saw the question in the light in which it is regarded in this country. It would cease if the Treasury could be induced by Parliament to give effect to the convictions of the Foreign Office. In that event the whole Continent of Africa would be exposed to the civilizing influences which, as Dr. Livingstone has shown, are now disastrously obstructed. My Lords, these statements do not rest upon assertion. The Slave Trade from Zanzibar was thoroughly investigated by a Committee of the Foreign Office, who sat under the direction of Lord Clarendon, and whose Report is before Parliament, dated 1870. It has been more recently explored by a Committee of the other House, whose views and whose researches may be found in our Library. There is a great coincidence in the opinions formed by these inquiring Bodies. They concur as to the prevalence of the Slave Trade from Zanzibar to the Bed Sea. They concur as to the desolation it produces for many hundred miles in the interior of Africa, the loss of life, the sacrifice of wealth, the encouragement of strife, of cruelty, of barbarism, which results from it. They both point to certain measures for extinguishing it. According to their judgment the treaties with the Sultan ought to be revised; the transport of domestic slaves along the coast to be restrained; and the gradual extinction of domestic slavery to be provided for. As these measures would involve the Sultan in pecuniary loss, indemnity for his annual payment to the Government of Muscat has been suggested. It is also pointed out that the system of cruising should be materially strengthened. Among the
    1610
    most important of the conclusions to which the Committee of the Foreign Office and the Committee of the House of Commons has arrived is—that Zanzibar should be a depôt of liberated slaves, with a view to the supply of labour to meet its wants under a renovated system. Those who wish to understand more fully the case of Zanzibar may refer to the evidence of Mr. Vivian, who appeared as the representative of the Foreign Office; of Sir Bartle Frere, the late Governor of Bombay; of General Rigby, for many years the British Consul at Zanzibar itself; of Mr. Waller, the companion of Dr. Livingstone in Africa; of Sir Leopold Heath, who commanded the Squadron on the Eastern Coast, before the House of Commons. It is still more essential to refer to the evidence of Sir John Kaye, as it substantiates by documents the assertion, with which I set out, on the struggle of the Foreign Office and the Treasury. Neither the Committee of Lord Clarendon nor the Committee of the Foreign Office throw much light upon the Slave Trade to the South of Zanzibar, from Cape Delgardo to Delagoa Bay—the territory claimed by Portugal. They may have thought that Dr. Livingstone, in his last work on the Zambezi and its tributories, sufficiently exhausted that part of the subject. Dr. Livingstone is, no doubt, a most effective witness against Portugal. From him, too, we learn to realize the Slave Trade at its fountain head. He gives the ancient pictures of the Slave Trade a reality which did not formerly belong to them. By his aid we are convinced that it really is a bar to the development of Africa, although not a force sufficient to eradicate the present race and leave the country open to another one. From him also we learn the vanity and folly of counting on Portugal as an ally, unless British agents are assisting, and in some degree directing her. For the last 10 years there has been no British representative on that extensive sea-board. Dr. Livingstone himself had the nominal appointment of Consul at Quilimane; but his instructions and his mission led him to a distance from the coast. Against that striking want, Lord Brougham, the right rev. Prelate I have mentioned, Major General Rigby, the late Mr. Buxton, and this House itself, have equally protested. Its consequences—

    1611
    some of them at least—are easy to appreciate. The cruisers—for we do profess to cruise upon those waters—are left in hesitation and obscurity as to the mode of operating against the Slave Trade. The Portuguese authorities are deprived of all encouragement on the one hand, of all restraint on the other. The Cabinet of Lisbon, from the absence of any witness to be cited by our Government, may give whatever version they desire to anything which happens in that region. The Sultan of Zanzibar, who cannot overlook the vacancy in question, is led to think that he may safely disregard the class of obligations which Portugal is lured to violate, and yet exhorted to fulfill. A position so derogatory to the pride and fatal to the object of this country can only be ascribed to the enthusiasm of financiers. The cynical may think that all Departments are unscrupulous; but none will go out of their way to court humiliation and give the States, whom they habitually admonish, a locus standi to expose and to refute them. Such, however, will be the conduct of the Foreign Office, if it desires to perpetuate the vacancy. The same force which is known to render the Committee of Lord Clarendon inoperative, maybe fairly held responsible for every deficiency.
    My Lords, as I am told, a certain doctrine has been thrown out to extenuate this policy. It is not devoid of plausibility and subtlety, and seems to emanate from minds indifferent to great objects, but too much controlled by popular opinion to decry them altogether. It is that the ambition of the country ought to be contented with what it has effected on the Western Coast of Africa; that as that trade had been directed for many years to the West Indies, and her own possessions in them, Great Britain was under a peculiar obligation to eradicate it; but that as she had no hand in the creation of the Eastern Slave Trade, and derived no profit from it, she has not any duty in contending with it. The answer to this doctrine will suggest itself as soon as we inquire into the object for which the Slave Trade has been met by so long and costly a resistance. My Lords, it has not been resisted by this country only with a view to save life or diminish pain, or mitigate atrocity—although those are laudable pursuits, but for the great political result of civilizing
    1612
    Africa. In 1792, Mr. Pitt, speaking with the approbation of both parties, in that sense with splendid power, defined and enforced the object of Great Britain. But the existence of the Eastern Slave Trade is as fatal to that object as the existence of the Western. The great lesson Mr. Waller and Dr. Livingstone have taught from their experience is, that population, industry, and commerce vanish before the advancing Slave Trade like wood before advancing fire; and that the dealers year by year are carried further from the sea-board they have quitted. By this process they are brought at last to the middle region of the Continent, and work the very countries which the extinction of the Western trade has lifted to comparative prosperity. We thus see, without a deep investigation, that the triumph of Great Britain and the Powers which have acted with her, is useless until it is complete. While the Indian Ocean is ineffectually watched it is an idle toil to guard against this destructive traffic the Coast of Guinea and the waves of the Atlantic. Transactions, compromises, middle-terms, are frequently desirable; but in this particular pursuit, until you grasp the whole the half is certain to elude you. But if the doctrine were more admissible and cogent than it is, the moment for applying it has vanished. For 30 years we have committed ourselves to exertion against the Eastern Slave Trade. The Treaties by which Portugal and Zanzibar are bound down recoil on us with double obligation. The long series of despatches in which we have remonstrated with both those Powers are pledges to the world of an implacable hostility to the Slave Trade on the Eastern Coast of Africa. Noble Lords who can recall the period of 1858 and 1859, must be aware that in our resistance to that Slave Trade we endangered for a time our harmony with France, and nearly lighted up the flames of war in Europe. Whether the policy is bad or good, we are now irrevocably bound to it. At least £1,000,000 sterling must have been expended in pursuing it. Brave men who form the ornament of the naval service have been detained in unwholesome climes and hazardous exertions to advance it. Before the great success which we commanded on the Western Coast, and which is made the pretext of the language I am combating, such language would

    1613
    have been more respectable and less specious than it is at present. It might have then been urged that opinion being divided—as it really was, upon the efficacy of our system, nothing should be hazarded upon the Eastern Coast until the experiment had justified itself upon the Western. The position now would be that because the Slave Trade has been arrested from Cape Verde to the southern point of Africa, it ought to be permitted to rage from the Straits of Babel Mandeb to the mouths of the Zambezi, while we possess the demonstrable power to control it. Such a mode of thinking will hardly satisfy the classes by whom the Slave Trade was originally held up to indignation in the country. It will not even suffice for the colder and more balanced politicians who doubt whether we ought to have originally gone to the East Coast of Africa in order to protect it. Such minds are ready to admit that many things which ought not to be begun, if once begun can never be relinquished with propriety. Even they habitually accept Aut non tentaris, aut perfice for a maxim which applies to modern as well as ancient times; which bears upon the dignity of States as well as on the fame of individuals. As regards the Address which merely urges Government to take the necessary measures for supporting cruisers they do not venture to withdraw, there is not a motive for resisting it, beyond that comic and traditionary hatred with which all Governments look upon all Motions. If the Foreign Office are entitled to the credit I have given them the Motion cannot be repugnant to them. If they are not it would appear to be the indispensable and urgent duty of your Lordships to adopt it. These observations may suffice to uphold the proposition I submit, although not to exhaust a question of such variety and moment.
    Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that such measures as are necessary to assist the cruisers employed in the repression of the Slave Trade on the Eastern Coast of Africa may be adopted."—(The Lord Stratheden.)
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, in seconding the Motion, said, that he did so, on the ground that he believed Great Britain had thoroughly determined to do whatever was right and was in her power to put an end to this cursed traffic. There was very great igno-
    1614
    rance in England at that moment as to the amount of the Slave Trade on the Eastern Coast of Africa; but as far as he could ascertain from the best evidence he could obtain, 90,000 slaves were exported from that coast annually, and as each slave exported cost the lives of from five to ten natives, no less than from 350,000 to 500,000 persons were yearly carried of by the man-hunters who carried on this trade, in order to supply the materials of this system of slavery. He thought if the country were to realize what that grievous evil really represented, it would not rest without taking more active measures to remedy, if not at once to put an end to it. It was not, however, merely the misery of those who were thus sentenced to slavery or death, but it was far more to the desolation which the system carried into Africa itself to which he referred. Dr. Livingstone, a thoroughly trustworthy witness, said that when in 1851 he first went to the shores of Lake Nyanza he found cultivation carried to a high degree. He heard cotton mills at work on every side, and saw the flourishing products of man's labour everywhere. But 10 years after, when the Slave Trade had been driven, by the necessity of finding fresh victims, to the lake, all that remained was a handful of people who fled at the sight of any strangers, fearing they might be man-hunters seeking for fresh victims. If we neglected to check this Slave Trade on the Eastern Coast we should abandon the work which our fathers had done, and to a great extent make useless the sacrifices they made. He was convinced that the people of England were by no means ready to do that. After reading carefully through the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons and before the Foreign Office Committee, it appeared to him that a hearty determination on our part would enable us in a short time to sweep away this great evil from the earth. Both the Committees to which he had referred had recommended that we should use the great influence we possessed with the Sultans of Muscat and of Zanzibar, to place this trade upon a different footing from that which it at present occupied. Under the existing Treaties we were bound not to interfere with the home Slave Trade of Zanzibar, nor with the slave ships within certain limits which carried on the trade with

    1615
    Arabia, Persia, and Madagascar. The great evil of that arrangement, however, was that the owners of slavers were tempted by it to run the gauntlet of our cruisers beyond the prescribed limits, and that the slaves confined on board those ships endured most dreadful sufferings. In his opinion this country ought to enter into fresh treaties with the Sultans of Zanzibar and Muscat, under which provision should be made for the immediate extincion of the export trade, and for the speedy termination of the home trade in slaves. The Sultan of Zanzibar would soon find out that, by relinquishing that part of his revenue derived from this miserable traffic, his income would not be diminished, because it would be enormously increased by the enlargement of legitimate trade. During the past six years the ligitimate trade of Zanzibar had increased from £245,981 to £487,693, and if the Slave Trade were abolished, and the legitimate resources of the country developed, in a short time the advantage to the Sultan's revenue would be enormous. It was proposed in the Committee of the House of Commons that we should for the time take upon ourselves, charging one-half to ourselves here and one-half to the Indian Revenue—which would be greatly benefitted by the arrangement—a sum of £8,000 a-year; and by making the Sultan of Zanzibar clear from the payment of that £8,000 a-year we could obtain his assent to a Treaty that would enable us in a short and ascertainable time to do away with that great abomination from the face of the earth. What, however, was necessary for carrying out any Treaty—even the Treaty which we had at this moment—was a very slight addition to the expense that we incurred now; and with regard to that point, there was no economy so bad as the spending of a large sum and yet leaving that large sum just below what was requisite to do the thing for which the money was spent at all. What was wanted was a small increase to our Consular establishment on the Coast of Zanzibar itself—where that traffic prevailed, and also a very small addition to our cruising force, so as to make it effectual for its object. It was proved in evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, that the whole increase of force that would be necessary to stop that traffic would be to have permanently
    1616
    three cruisers and one launch, with power for the Consul to employ occasionally at certain times of the year, one additional cruiser. In the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons of last year, it was stated that a proposal had been made by which the cost of the maintenance of the Consular Agency at Zanzibar should be divided between the Imperial and the Indian Revenues, as the duties of that Agency were partly of an Imperial and partly of an Indian character; but the proposal was negatived by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and, in consequence of that refusal, matters had been brought to an entire dead-lock. That was not a satisfactory state in which to leave things; and he, therefore, hoped to hear from the Foreign Secretary that that dead-lock was no longer to continue; and unless something were soon done, he believed that a public feeling would arise in this country which would demand some further action on the subject. That further action ought, he thought, first of all to consist of an earnest endeavour to bring the European Powers to co-operate with us, for there was manifested in France a considerable desire to join with us in that matter. A remarkable book had lately appeared in France, in which the writer boldly charged the English people with a want of honesty and truth in their efforts to put down the Slave Trade, asserting that we wished to maintain it as an excuse for keeping a certain force on that coast in order to keep down French influence there. Nothing more ridiculous could hardly be put forward by a French writer of reputation than the idea that England was actuated by such motives; but, at the same time, he thought that that fact marked the readiness of the French mind to unite with us in earnest exertions to extirpate that abominable traffic. He also thought that Germany and America, who were both interested in the extinction of that traffic and the opening of legitimate trade, might in like manner be induced to join with us in such efforts; and he felt assured that the mind and will of Europe expressed on that point would deliver those regions of the globe from groaning under such grievous wrongs. Their Lordships would, perhaps, pardon him if he spoke strongly on that question, because he felt that if in any degree this generation shrank back from

    1617
    that which their fathers had undertaken, or suffered from inertness or any other cause an evil which they had pledged this country to put down to spring up again without using every means in our power to stay it, we should be in danger of bringing again upon this land those curses the entail of which he trusted might have been cut off. The best examination that could be made into the origin of the cholera in 1869, when that plague made its appearance in Europe, traced it to the regions of the Red Sea, and to the caravans of those very wretched slaves who were left dead and dying in every part of their course; and it would seem as if in that way these unhappy creatures avenged the cruelties which they suffered by leaving that curse in the air where their bodies perished. He ventured, then, to express his firm belief that the country did expect and would require that everything which could justly and honestly be done should be done to suppress that evil traffic.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he trusted that the right rev. Prelate would not think him wanting in either respect or sympathy, if he opposed the Motion. He had not had the advantage of seeing the Slave Trade Blue Book or the Report of the Commission; but he had been informed that the Report of that Commission, which had been appointed by the late Lord Clarendon, in consequence of his observations upon abuses committed by some of Her Majesty's cruisers in the Mozambique Channel, and which he had made to their Lordships when he had had the honour of addressing them for the first time, had justified some of the observations which he had then made. He would not now again repeat arguments upon the great difference between the traffic in negroes on the West Coast of Africa, and that carried on on the East or Mozambique Coast, but he thought that the noble Lord (the Lord Stratheden) had made his Motion at an inopportune moment, and appeared not to have heard or read the debate that occurred a few nights ago on the kidnapping of the Fiji Islanders, when it was stated that the South Sea Islands extended over many degrees of latitude, and that there were not enough of Her Majesty's ships to watch over the proceedings of our Australian fellow-sub-
    1618
    jects in those seas. Now, responsibility, like charity, began at home, and while we were not responsible for the doings of the Portuguese or the Arabs on the East Coast of Africa, it would not be disputed that this country and Her Majesty's Government were responsible for all the atrocities now committed in the South Sea Islands by our own subjects. He had been informed that the cruisers belonging to the China Station did not come sufficiently to the South, and that the cruisers belonging to the Australian Station did not go enough to the North; so that there was a gap between those stations which was not visited by Her Majesty's ships, and which would have to be filled up; so that it was more probable that ships of war would have to be despatched from the East Coast of Africa to look after the new and far worse Slave Trade of the Fiji Islands than that more ships could be sent to the Mozambique Channel. The noble Lord had complained that the Portuguese authorities in Mozambique did not efficiently co-operate to put down the Slave Trade; but those who made those complaints chose to forget the way in which the Portuguese authorities, in 1857, at the request and with the approbation of Her Majesty's Government took measures to prevent the traffic in negroes, and captured the French vessel Charles and George, which was carrying away negroes from Mozambique, and how England left Portugal unsupported and allowed the French to carry off the Charles and George from the Tagus with a high hand, after that vessel had been condemned by regularly-constituted tribunals, and found guilty of carrying away negroes against their will, and after the exportation of negroes had been prohibited, and that prohibition made known at Paris and in the Island of Bourbon. The Government, he thought, might be trusted to do that which was just and necessary without further instigation on the part of the House.
    EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he thought that the very short statement he had to make would induce the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion. The accounts which had been published of the horrors of the particular Slave Trade in question might be regarded by persons ignorant of the subject as sensational; but judging from the Reports of the Royal Commission, and of the Parliamentary

    1619
    Committee, as well as from Reports which Her Majesty's Government had received from other quarters, he believed that those descriptions were not in the least exaggerated. The noble Lord, however, had failed to distinguish between the Slave Trade on the East and West Coast, although there were many points which showed the trade on the West to be much less horrible than that on the East Coast. Admitting, then, that it was expedient we should take a leading part in the suppression of this horrible traffic, he said it was also necessary that we should do so in conjunction with other Powers, and with this in view he had communicated with France, the United States, Germany, and Portugal, stating the facts and asking for co-operation. A most cordial reply had come from the United States, and a very similar answer had come from France; Portugal at first desired to make inquiries on the subject, but had since, within the last few days, expressed a desire to co-operate, and finally, the German Government wished to consult certain Chambers of Commerce interested in general trade with the district, but he had little doubt that a favourable response would eventually be received from Germany. The recommendation that a line of steamers should be provided, securing monthly communication with the Coast had also been favourably considered by the Government, and he was happy to say that two great companies had made a joint offer to undertake a monthly steam communication with the East Coast. That offer was at this moment before the Board of Trade and the Treasury, and there was every reason to believe that it would be accepted. If such a communication were established, he believed that it would have an important influence in developing legitimate traffic and in collecting information. Her Majesty's Government had likewise come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to place a Resident at Zanzibar, his salary to be defrayed, one-half by the Revenues of India, and the other by the Imperial Exchequer. Under the circumstances, therefore, seeing the Government were doing their best with the question, he hoped his noble Friend would withdraw his Motion.
    LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had listened with anxiety to the noble Earl
    1620
    the Secretary of State, with a view to ascertain whether there was any ground for the withdrawal of the Motion. The noble Earl had neither controverted the position that the Treasury had offered obstacles to the repression of the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa, nor had he alleged that those obstacles were in the course of being surmounted; the good intentions of the Foreign Office had not been disputed, and were indeed the very basis of the Motion. If the noble Earl refused to accept the Motion—a proceeding for which no reason had been given—he must take upon himself the responsibility of its being negatived, as the Government appeared to have a majority in the House. The subject excited interest beyond the walls of Parliament. On Thursday the Lord Mayor was about to preside over a meeting on it in the City. Under these circumstances he (Lord Campbell) did not feel entitled to withdraw the Motion.
    EARL GRANVILLE, as a middle course, suggested that the Previous Question should be carried.
    LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that to that course he could not offer any opposition.
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that having seconded the Motion, he would appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw it, lest the fact of the previous question having been moved should give rise to an impression out-of-doors that a difference of opinion existed in the House on the subject. He would add that to insist on the Address would be construed into a touch of the spur to an unwilling and lingering horse when the horse was actually willing and active.
    LORD CAMPBELLregretted to differ for a moment from his right rev. Friend. However willing the horse, there might be an obstacle in front of him, which, without the aid of Parliament he could not possibly get over. He would not detain the House, but accept the proposal of the noble Earl as to the Previous Question.
    Then a Question being stated thereupon, the Question was put, Whether the Question shall be now put? Resolved in the Negative.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ELECTIONS (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to amend paragraph three of the Second Schedule of The Elementary Education Act, 1870—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 240.)
    House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.