Sitting of 1 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [199].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature [154]—R.P.
Committee—Report—National Debt Commissioners (Annuities)* [201]; Public Works Loan Commissioners (School and Sanitary Loans)* [203]; Blackwater Bridge (re-comm.)* [213].
Third Reading—Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [142], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—HONORARY COLONELS OF CAVALRY REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the alterations in the pay of the Honorary Colonels recently appointed to Cavalry regiments under the Royal Warrant of 27th December, 1870, is legal, no Royal Warrant having since been issued authorizing the change?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, that the Question did not supply him with sufficient materials for forming a judgment upon the point. But even if all the facts were before him he doubted whether it would be his duty to answer the Question, because it was one upon which the opinion of the Law Officers might be taken by the Government, and it was to the Government that their answer should be given.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL—(Lords).— [BILL 154.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (Constitution of High Court of Justice).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the word "one," to the word "mentioned," in line 18, inclusive.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  DR. BALLsaid, this was a question of very considerable importance. It was neither more nor less than whether there should be an additional Judge in the
  1624
  Equity Division. He distrusted judicial statistics. Twenty ordinary causes might not be equal to one such case as was now before Lord Westbury and Lord Cairns. Was it proposed to maintain these exceptional tribunals, with Judges exceptionally paid to deal with exceptional cases, referred to them by special legislation? The worst economy in a public point of view was economy in judical power; and he preferred on this question the opinion of the Equity lawyers. He was not of opinion that a Common Law Judge was incompetent to deal with Equity cases. In Ireland, the Bar practised in all the Courts, without detriment to the suitors; but this was not the question before the Committee, for there was not even a Common Law Judge to spare. He feared that on this point of additional Judges the Law Officers of the Crown spoke from their briefs rather than their convictions. Like "the power behind the Throne," the influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was felt, though he himself was absent, and it was his views which led to the Amendment in the Bill on this question.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDwas not convinced by the Solicitor General's argument of the previous evening, that an additional Vice Chancellor was not required in order that the business of the Court of Chancery might be satisfactorily disposed of. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) however, had not risen for the purpose of further arguing this point—which, in his opinion, had been already sufficiently discussed—but to give an entirely distinct reason for retaining the words on the omission of which the Committee was about to vote. Even if the additional Judge was not wanted as Vice Chancellor, he would be most useful in helping the Common Law Judges who were now for the first time to be, not merely authorized, but required, to decide on equitable matters. It would be remembered that on the second reading, the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), had most ably argued for the necessity of adding a Judge instructed in Equity to each of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, and that the Attorney General had admitted that the Judges of those Courts themselves recognized the need of such assistance,

  1625
  and desired that it might be given; and although he had added that this could not be done at once, he had intimated that advantage would be taken of the first vacancy in each Court, to supply the aid required. But now this hope was to be indefinitely postponed. Having, in order to strengthen the equitable element in the Court of Appeal, given up the idea of transferring three Common Law Judges to that Court, he was left with 15 Puisne Judges instead of 12, and therefore proposed to add, at the end of the clause now under discussion, a Proviso that there should be no fresh appointment until after four vacancies. Thus the Courts of Common Law, when for the first time required to administer Equity, would, during that very period of transition which involved the principal difficulty, be left without the equitable aid which the Attorney General admitted that they needed and desired. Now, although we did not regard the Common Law Judges as heaven-born geniuses, who were able to decide equitable questions to which they were not accustomed, as satisfactorily as if they had studied them all their lives, we did consider them to be extremely learned, intelligent, honourable, and estimable individuals. Were we then to make by this Bill such arrangements that we should be compelled to look upon the early deaths or resignations of four of these highly esteemed personages, as events to be anxiously desired for the benefit of the public, and even for the ease of mind of their own colleagues? Hon. Members would doubt-loss recollect that in narratives of shipwrecks, of returns from unsuccessful voyages to the Polar regions, or of the adventures of men lost in pathless deserts, they had been horrified by reading that the unfortunate adventurers had sometimes been driven by approaching starvation to decide by lot which of their number should be sacrificed in order to save the rest from perishing by hunger. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) was not without apprehension that this measure would lead to some calamity of an analogous character. He almost feared that on some gloomy morning—not of Michaelmas Term, for Terms would have been abolished—but of that dull season which we had hitherto designated as Michaelmas Term, our feelings would be harrowed
  1626
  up by the intelligence that Her Majesty's 15 Puisne Judges, unable any longer to bear the burden of deciding equitable questions without the help of an Equity colleague, had met and determined by lot, not which four of them should be put to death, but which four should undergo that official extinction which we term resignation, in order to obtain for the rest the aid which all of them already felt to be absolutely indispensable. Supposing them not to be capable of such an act of desperate heroism, most serious impediments to the administration of justice during the transitional period must be the result of the ill-judged parsimony of the Government. If, then, the Attorney General meant inexorably to insist on his Proviso prohibiting the filling up of any vacancy until four vacancies should have occurred, let him at least consent to retain the words on the omission of which the Committee was now about to vote, so that there might be one Judge trained to Equity, who might be kept en disponibilité, and whose assistance a Court of Law before which an equitable point should arise might be entitled to require.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked how the bankruptcy business was to be managed under the new arrangement? At present it was, to a great extent, blocked, owing to the condition of business in the Court of Chancery. The present position of the Chamber business in that Court was also most unsatisfactory. Were the Judges to be relieved from this business? The Committee ought to know how this was to be arranged before deciding against the appointment of an additional Judge. A vast increase of work and of the time absorbed in the work done in the Courts of Chancery would certainly ensue if vivâ voce evidence were to be largely taken there, and this fact would increase the necessity for an additional Equity Judge. The present mode of examination of witnesses in Chancery had been treated with contempt on all sides, but the proposed change could not be made with the present staff of Judges. He would oppose the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if on an Amendment like that which was moved to appoint an additional Judge, the provisions of the

  1627
  whole Bill were to be discussed, they should never be able to get through with it. Both his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt that where well-grounded complaints were made as to the construction of the Court, considerations of expense should not be allowed to stand in the way. Nor was there any pretence for saying there was "a power behind" the Law Officers of the Crown which prevented necessary appointments on economical grounds. But he altogether denied that the large appointment of Equity Judges which had been suggested was necessary; the staff of Common Law Judges was quite sufficient to do the work that had to be done without the necessity of three other Equitable Judges to help them. The question now before the Committee, however, was as to the necessity for appointing an additional Vice Chancellor. On this point the figures quoted yesterday by the Solicitor General clearly showed that whatever arrears of business in Chancery now existed were due to melancholy personal causes of an exceptional character. This charge was one which the Government thought would impose a wholly unnecessary burden upon the public. He must, therefore, oppose it.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that having many years since left the Bar, he would not be suspected of being biassed by any personal interest, and that he was convinced that he was furthering the interests of justice and therefore of true economy in voting for the Amendment.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought there was no case whatever for the appointment of an additional Equity Judge. What was wanted was not greater judicial force but a better distribution of it. As the Common Law Judges were hereafter to decide equitable points, it must follow that pro tanto the Equity Judges would have less to do than they now had. Yet there was upon the Paper an Amendment that the Courts of Equity were to be at liberty to send an action to be tried elsewhere—a power which seemed fatal to the principle that suitors were to receive complete justice in the one Court in which their case was first heard. He should vote for the proposal of the Attorney General.
  Question put, "That the words 'one other Judge to be appointed by Her Majesty' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 141: Majority 68.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed the first of three Amendments, which was the insertion, in line 22, after "such," of "if any," the others being in line 23, to leave out "transferred to," and insert "appointed ordinary Judges of." Same line, after "appeal," to leave out to end of clause.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT,who had given Notice of his intention to move, in line 22, to leave out from "except such," to "this Act," in line 24, contended that the proposed Amendments of the Government would give them power to create three additional Judges and to incur an annual expenditure of £15,000 for which there was no justification. This was the result of the original error of the Government in introducing their divisional system. The demand was not made in the House of Lords, which was not likely to have overlooked the alleged claims of Equity jurisprudence, which it was professedly designed to meet. He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon this Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought that nothing could be more inconvenient than, when they were discussing the constitution of the Court below, they should he called upon to debate questions relating to the Court of Appeal. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) would wait until they came to the 6th clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained the scheme as it originally stood and as it was now submitted, contending that there was a difficulty which could be solved only by the temporary appointment of three Judges, and referring to a later Amendment which would limit the total number of Judges, and which would bind the Government in the future against the abuse which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harcourt) contemplated in the permanent appointment of three additional Judges. The temporary difficulty was that of finding the requisite number of Equity Judges for the Court of Appeal.
  DR. BALLsaid, he understood that the Government merely proposed to extend

  1629
  the range of the power of selection. He was in favour of extending the area of selection, and therefore would support the Amendment of the Attorney General. The necessity for any such Amendment showed that the Lords had been rather slovenly, and that misunderstanding further evinced how requisite it was to exercise vigilance in reviewing their Lordships' work.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the point of his objection to the Attorney General's Amendment appeared to have been somewhat misunderstood. What he took exception to was not that the area of selection should be extended, but that the number of the Judges should be increased. There was one point in reference to the Appellate Court to which the Attorney General had not alluded, and that was with regard to the Law Lords and the ex-Lord Chancellors. The Committee was called upon to vote £15,000 more money because the the Law Lords were not to do any work in the new Court of Appeal. The Amendment to which the Government had consented the day before absolutely denuded these Lords of any judicial occupation. How was the Government to justify this demand for an additional expenditure of £15,000 on the assumption that five noble Lords, each receiving £5,000 a-year, were to do no work in the Appellate Court? If Lord Cairns, Lord Westbury, and Lord Hatherley sat in the Court of Appeal there would be six Judges of the highest character and competence to do the Equity work, and he could not therefore see the necessity for empowering the Government to appoint three additional Judges. For his own part, he would never admit the principle that men in the prime of life, and in full possession of their faculties, should receive pensions and not serve their country. He did not mean to say that these noble Lords would refuse to serve; but their work was to be abolished. This was an extraordinary proposal, a departure from the original intention, acquiesced in by the House of Lords, that no additional Judges should be appointed, and the Government had not till now given any indication that they would make such a proposal. On these grounds he maintained that this claim for additional Judges failed altogether.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was true the Government were asking the House of Commons to give them a very considerable extension of their discretionary power. Whereas the Bill as it now stood, in providing for the addition of three members of the High Court of Appeal, bound the Government to choose those three members from the existing Common Law Judges, and precluded them from putting any one into the place of the three Judges so transplanted, the Government were asking power to select them on the responsibility of the Crown from any quarter, subject only to this limitation—that the reduction of the number of Common Law Judges which was now contemplated to take place immediately must, by the Bill as proposed to be amended, take place upon the termination of three existing Judgeships. That was a very great responsibility, no doubt, which the Government proposed to undertake; but they were not asking Parliament positively to enact that these three additional Judgeships should be created for the moment. They were asking Parliament to give them power which might for a time entail the maintenance of one, two, or three additional Judges; but they were not thereby relieving themselves from responsibility with respect to the appointment of those additional Judges. If arrangements were made after this Bill became law, the effect of which was to add to the number of Judges, it would be in the power of the Government to say to Parliament not that the Legislature had directed them to make such addition, but that Parliament had placed it in their power to do so if they should find it necessary; and so far only as they found it necessary would it be competent for them to make such additional appointments. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Harcourt) asked why the Government should seek to assume that discretion. For two reasons. One had been referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball)—namely, with the view of enlarging the area of of selection. The Attorney General had given additional force to the proposition by pointing out the necessity of having a sufficient amount of Equity power in the High Court of Judicature to be created under the Bill. He (Mr. Gladstone) quite admitted that the services of ex-Lord Chancellors should be available

  1631
  for the country, and he had a strong expectation, from the high position of those noble and learned Lords, that they would be ready to give the public the benefit of their valuable professional assistance; but he doubted very much whether they would be more likely to obtain that assistance by asserting in too positive a form their title to receive it. They could not give legislative form to their expectation, because they could not assure Parliament that it would be fulfilled. The only course they could take was to ask Parliament to invest the Government with a discretion, to be used upon their responsibility and in the face of proved necessity, which would enable them to make sure of having a sufficiency of Equity power. But there was another and very sufficient reason for the Amendment. It was intended to constitute one High Court of Appeal for the three kingdoms, and he did not think the just claim to have Irish and Scotch Judges upon the Court would be adequately met by the simple addition of ex officio Judges; it would therefore not be wise to make it binding to transfer all the three Judges at the moment into the Court of Appeal from among the Common Law Judges. He did not say what proposal it might be the duty of the Government to make as to the number of persons to be put into the Appeal Court; but the earliest opportunity would be taken of announcing their decision upon that matter to the House.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was desirous to know whether the transference of Vice Chancellors to the High Court of Appeal would leave vacancies to be filled up, or whether the judicial representation of the Court of Chancery was to be reduced as a result of appointments to the High Court of Appeal?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at page 19 of the. Amendments he would see an Amendment which provided that any deficiency in the number of Judges in the three Vice Chancellors' Courts that might be caused for the purposes of this Act might be supplied by the appointment of new Judges—that was to say, whenever the office of a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice became vacant a new Judge would be appointed. He would remind the Committee that when these Amendments were put upon the
  1632
  Paper they had no right to expect that the ex-Lord Chancellors would serve regularly upon the Court of Appeal, because Irish and Scotch appeals were at that time reserved to the House of Lords. Now, however, that the Government had acceded to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), there would be no necessity for having Law Lords in the House of Lords at all; and if, as there was a reasonable expectation, some of them would agree to serve in the Court of Appeal to that extent, the deficiency of Equity power could be supplied. Of the five ex-Chancellors who received among them pensions amounting to £25,000 a-year, one, Lord St. Leonards, was over 90 years of age. His health was remarkably good, but he was not able to hear well, and therefore was not in a state to assist in the Court of Appeal. Thus there was one of those alleged available Judges disposed of. The next ex-Chancellor, a very wonderful man for his age, was in his 80th year. He might serve if he pleased, but you could not reckon upon the continued service of a man of that age. Another Law Lord was 73; he very much feared he would not be able to serve by reason of ill-health. The next was 72 years old. He was entitled certainly, if he thought fit, to enjoy his pension without any further service. He had served for 15 years as a Judge, and was fairly entitled to enjoy his pension without longer service. The list was, therefore, reduced to one. That noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) was in the vigour of health and intellect; but they had no right to call upon him for continued service, although he might, if he chose, gracefully accede to what he must know was the general wish. They had no right to speculate on his services merely in consequence of the public wish or expectation. Besides, in case of a change of Government, Lord Cairns might be called on to occupy his former position; but in that case they would doubtless have the services of the present Lord Chancellor. The Government, therefore, must take the power to provide additional Judges for the administration of justice if it should be necessary. They were not, however, guilty of any needless extravagance. Their proposal, with a view to strengthen the Equity department of the Court of Appeal, was very moderate indeed. Two

  1633
  Equity Judges in one Division would probably be sufficient. They did not propose of necessity to appoint more than one, but they wished to be unfettered for this reason—that they might reckon on having to appoint members of the Scotch and Irish Bench or Bar, not with the view of increasing the charge on the public, but simply to provide for carrying out fairly the plan proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and accepted by the Government. It was quite possible that changes might occur in the constitution of the Courts before the Bill came into operation, and by reason of these changes they might find more Equity Judges available than there were at present. If that should happen, it might be in the power of the Government to avail themselves of the services of those Judges without increasing the charge to the public.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the question was whether they were bound to make the appointments from the present Judges, or to make them from members of the Bar. He should say, while they had Equity Judges, they should not make new appointments; that was, if the Equity Judges were willing to serve. As the Bill now stood, there were to be nine Judges, seven of them of the Common Law Bar, and two of the Equity Bar; and anyone who knew the barrier between the Common Law Bar and the Equity Bar must be aware of the distinctions between them. He regarded the Amendment of the Government, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, as a very moderate one, and he hoped the House would support it.
  MR. MATTHEWSdiffered from those hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken as if the public had a right to the services of ex-Chancellors. The public had no such right. When an eminent lawyer was made a Lord Chancellor he received a fixed salary for a precarious office, and gave up a professional income far exceeding that salary. The pension he afterwards obtained was to be considered, not as the wages of his leisure time, but rather as part of the price we paid for the most distinguished eminent men we could find to preside over the legal system; and unless the prospect of the pension were held out to him the services of the most prosperous
  1634
  lawyer could not be secured. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he should support the Government.
  MR. WESTsaid, the Amendment of the Attorney General altered one of the most important promises held out at the introduction of the Bill—namely, that there should be no increase in the expense of the judicial staff to be created under this Bill, and as the arguments at present stood he was not prepared to vote for the Amendment of the Attorney General if the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) insisted upon a division. He would, however, suggest to the hon. and learned Member that the present was not the most favourable opportunity for taking a division upon this question, as Irish and Scotch Judges would have to be appointed to the Court of Appeal.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, that after the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Government would not put this power which they asked for into operation unless they failed to get sufficient assistance on the Equity side from the present members of the highest Court of Appeal, he considered the proposition a just and reasonable one, and he could not vote with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt). He was entirely opposed also to the suggestion that Judges should be appointed in the Court of Appeal who had not been Judges in Courts of First Instance.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he had very little expectation of support from hon. and learned Members of the bar in his opposition to the contemplated appointment of three new Judges, whose united salaries were to amount to £15,000. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), for instance, made anxious inquiries as to the time when the Bill would come into operation, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) in his innocence supposed, if the Government got the discretionary power which they asked—a power which would place at their disposal salaries amounting to £15,000—that they would not exercise it in appointing new Judges and conferring high salaries upon them. He (Mr. Harcourt) protested against the doctrine that Law Lords were to receive pensions, which were not superannuations, without being

  1635
  required to render the country some service, if they were able to do so. He would not waste time by dividing upon the Amendment; but when the question of the pensions of the Law Lords arose upon an Amendment of the Attorney General, he would certainly ask the opinion of the Committee as to whether or not the public had a right to expect and ask the services of the Law Lords in the Appellate Court in consideration of their pensions. If the Committee came to an affirmative conclusion, then he thought these three additional Judges might be got rid of.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreminded the Committee that the late Lord Kings-down and the late Lord Devon had given the country the benefit of their competent professional knowledge without pension or remuneration, in discharge of their duty, not only to their order, but to the Sovereign and the country. When it was proposed to abolish the connection which had hitherto existed between the House of Lords and the appellate jurisdiction of the country, then the position of ex-Chancellors qua the appellate jurisdiction was entirely changed. This was one of the many inconveniences which would arise from the hasty and precipitate decision of the Lords as to the abolition of their appellate jurisdiction. He regretted that decision; but, as far as this House was concerned, he did not regard the debate on the interpolated Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) as finally settling the question of their Lordships' appellate jurisdiction. The more the Bill was discussed the more did we exhibit our helplessness in the formation of an Appellate Tribunal, which was to be a substitute for the House of Lords. When they came to discuss the clauses which dealt more particularly with the formation and constitution of the proposed substitute for the Court of Appeal, they would find themselves in inextricable confusion.
  Amendments (Mr. Attorney General) agreed to.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN,with the object of securing the appointment in each Common Law division of the Court of at least one Judge practically conversant with the practice and principles of Equity, moved, in page 2, line 24, after "this Act," to add—
  1636
  "And so many other judges, to be appointed by Her Majesty by letters patent, as may be required to constitute the several divisions of the court as hereinafter provided; and such other judges may be appointed by Her Majesty, and assigned to their respective divisions by letters patent, either before, at, or after the time appointed for the commencement of this Act: Provided always, That no such appointment shall come into operation before the time appointed for the commencement of this Act."
  He disclaimed any intention to stereotype the distinctions between Law and Equity; but said the distinctions existed and could not be ignored. He provided by a subsequent Amendment that the offices he proposed to create should not be filled up unless, by death or retirement, the number of Judges in each division fell below five. The object of the Amendment was to provide for a transitional period, and could not cost more than £15,000 altogether.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, not on the ground of economy, because if it could be shown that even a greater outlay would facilitate the administration of justice, he would support it; but here the Court did not require that additional strength which it was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment to confer upon it.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that of course it was quite useless to go to a division in which he would be out-voted at once, and he would therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTmoved, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "all persons," to "as heretofore," in line 33. As the divisions of the Common Law Courts were to be removed it was not too much to ask for the omission of all statements which regarded the existence of these divisions as permanent matters. Suppose the Queen in Council determined that, the transitional period having passed, the time had come to abolish the divisions in the Courts. What would then be the position of these great officers? The Courts would be abolished, yet the Chief Judges would be perpetuated under their present titles, which could not be affected by an Order in Council, having been created by statute. This would not be the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out; it would be the part of Hamlet with the play itself omitted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought there was no necessity for the omission of these words. The power given to the Queen in the Bill to abolish the divisions would equally give her power to abolish the titles of the Judges composing the divisions. If there was any doubt on this point, he was quite ready to introduce words in clause 29 which would make it clear that the offices would not survive the divisions.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved, in page 2, line 38, at end add—
  "Provided always, That if at the commencement of this Act the number of puisne justices and junior barons who shall become judges of the said. High Court shall exceed twelve in the whole, no new judge of the said High Court shall be appointed in the place of any such puisne justice or junior baron who shall die or resign while such whole number shall exceed twelve, it being intended that the permanent number of judges of the said High Court shall not exceed twenty-two."
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Constitution of Court of Appeal).
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought that what had occurred to-day placed the Committee in greater difficulty than ever, for the Government had not only not made up their minds what they would do with the Scotch and Irish appeals, but were equally in doubt what they would do with regard to the additional Judges. The Prime Minister had reserved to himself a discretion as to the extra Judges who were to constitute the Appellate Court. The Committee did not know who they were to be, where they were to come from, or whether they were to be appointed at all. The Appellate Court, therefore, of which we had any certain information consisted of the two Lords Justices and the four Judges of the Privy Council. If that were to be the new Appellate Court which was to supersede the House of Lords, he was sorry he had voted for the abolition of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Before the House proceeded further with the matter, he thought the Attorney General should state what was to be the constitution of the Court. He had already stated his objections to classify these Judges as ex officio, ordinary, and additional Judges, and he would therefore move in page 3,
  1638
  line 5, to leave out from "there shall be," to "ex-officio Judges," in line 7, and insert "the first Judges thereof."
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, if the Committee went into the clause at all they could not postpone it. He did not think the clause could be properly dealt with until the Committee knew exactly what the scheme of the Government should be, and therefore moved that the clause should be postponed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as there had already been an Amendment moved upon the clause, he could not receive the Motion for postponement unless the Amendment were withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Government could not accede to the proposal that the clause should be postponed. It was true they had acceded to certain changes; but these would not affect the constitution of the Court of Appeal as far as it was now under discussion, and the Committee were substantially in possession of the views of the Government upon the subject. He denied that the transfer of Scotch and Irish business to the new Court rendered necessary a postponement of the discussion. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had stated that there would probably be some judicial representation of Scotland and Ireland in the Court; but that introduced no uncertainty. All the Committee had to do was to consider the constitution of of the Court as an English Appellate Court, and any Scotch and Irish element hereafter introduced would not make the constitution of the tribunal to any extent uncertain.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill; but he contended that until the Committee knew from what source the Scotch and Irish Judges would come they could not legislate with certainty in constituting the Court of Appeal. The number of the Court would also be materially affected by the future proposals of the Government. It would be easier to go on with the other clauses than to prolong a discussion upon the future constitution of the Court.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved that the postponement of the clause would not gain the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view, which could only be attained by an Instruction of the House. Under that Instruction

  1639
  the clause might be modified, and the House would not be in a position to consider that matter until the Report was brought up. He thought the most convenient course would be to pass the clause conditionally, on the understanding that it should be re-considered and committed.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he thought a discussion of the clause at present would be a waste of time, since it was not the clause which the Government would ultimately propose. He quite understood yesterday that when the Committee came to Clause 6 the Government would state to the Committee the Amendments they proposed, or that some indication would be given of them; but they had not done so. This was one of the most important questions in the Bill. He thought the question of the Appellate Court had been too hastily decided by the House of Lords, and he hoped it would be reconsidered. The Scotch Members who met yesterday were of opinion that, at any rate, there should be a proper representation of Scotland upon the new tribunal. He suggested that the question of the Appellate Court should be postponed for another Session, when the House of Lords and the House of Commons might consider whether the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords should be abolished, and, if so, how it should be replaced.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the real meaning of the objection taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon) was to postpone to another year the discussion of the question of appellate jurisdiction. Such at least was the practical meaning to be attached to his words. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not apprehend, however, that was by any means the object of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer Walpole) who had brought forward this Motion, who had doubtless stated his entire purpose, and whose proposal he would treat upon its merits. He was not aware that there was any embarrassment, and oven if this clause were postponed, the same difficulty would present itself when the clause came on again for discussion, because it might be said that the title of the Bill would still prevent the Committee from including Ireland and Scotland within its provisions. There was but one thing the Government could do towards smoothing the path of the Com-
  1640
  mittee, and that was to make known the substance of the Amendments they would have to propose. One of these, as to which there was no difficulty, would extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal; but the difficulty which was felt by those hon. Gentlemen who felt any difficulty at all, had relation to the composition of that Court, which, as the Bill stood, consisted of five ex officio members and nine ordinary members, of whom three were to be found by means of new appointments. The Government thought it would be necessary to introduce into the Court of Appeal one ordinary member from the legal profession in Ireland and one ordinary member from the legal profession in Scotland. Together with the ordinary members so appointed it would be right to make an addition to the ex officio members of the Court of Appeal, and this addition would consist of not fewer than one from Scotland and one from Ireland. He was not able, however, yet to say whether it would or would not be expedient to proceed beyond that. This, he thought, comprised the whole substance of the case except as to one point in respect to which the Government had not yet arrived at a conclusion—namely, whether the arrangement he had just sketched out with reference to ordinary members chosen from the legal profession in Ireland and Scotland would or would not require any addition to the number of Judges. This, however, was not a question which need lead to embarrassment, because if there were any addition whatever, it would be the smallest possible addition. His right hon. Friend would now perceive what was the nature of the plan the Government intended to propose, and would probably admit that there could be no advantage in the postponement of the clause on the ground that the Committee would be better able to deal with it at a future period. He saw no reason why time should be lost. It would be necessary to re-commit the Bill; but before then the Government would be able to put the Committee in possession of the exact terms they proposed, and, under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would proceed at once with the clause.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEfeared that question after question would arise as to the constitution of the Appellate Court as the matter at present stood, and

  1641
  there would be other questions consequent upon the proposed addition to the duties of the Appellate Court. If his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government could undertake to put into shape the clause of which he had given Notice and the Amendments that he would introduce in reference to the Court of Appeal, so that they would be able to go into the question on Thursday next, he saw no reason why they should not postpone the clause now under consideration, and go on with the other clauses.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the impression on his mind was that the Government never intended to include Ireland and Scotland; because why should the Committee be left labouring to fit up an appeal clause which would suit for England alone, and would be very unsuited to appeals from Ireland and Scotland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that when the Prime Minister said that he would accept the proposition in good faith, it would be taken that he meant what he said. He would undertake to place the Amendments on the Paper, so that they would be in the hands of hon. Members by Thursday morning, and he trusted that under the circumstances there would be no difficulty in proceeding with the discussion of the clause.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsaid, he thought the better course to adopt now would be simply to report Progress. It was impossible to proceed with this part of the clause without knowing not only how many additional Judges the Government meant to appoint, but also how they meant to deal with the Lord Justice General or the Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland, or the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland. He hoped the Government would consent to reporting Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he could not accept the principle that they ought to report Progress at a quarter-past 6; but understanding that there would be some difficulty in dealing with the clause without the Amendment of the Government being before the Committee, he was willing to move that the Chairman should report Progress.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped that to-morrow afternoon they would be made acquainted with the final
  1642
  decision of the Government relative to the precise number of the Court, otherwise they might find it necessary to alter the provision they had already passed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was impossible in a Bill of this kind absolutely to declare the amount of judicial strength they might find it their duty to recommend; but they would come as near as they could towards informing the House either precisely what was intended, or that the question left open should be brought within the narrowest possible limits.
  MR. MATTHEWSobserved that it would not be possible to introduce these Amendments until the Bill had gone through Committee; and how could they discuss properly the existing clauses with the Amendments hanging over their heads? The Bill had better be re-committed and the matter then discussed, so that there would be no necessity for going over it twice.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL— [BILL 199.]
  (Mr. Herbert, Mr. Stansfeld.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR R. N. FOWLERsaid, that a noble Friend of his (Lord Henry Thynne) had an Amendment on the Paper that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, and that as he was absent, being obliged to leave town to attend quarter sessions, he would appeal to his hon. Friend to postpone the discussion. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 218: Majority 76.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
  The House suspended its Sitting at a quarter to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

EPPING DRAINAGE.

  OBSERVATIONS. RESOLUTIONS.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONrose to call attention to the way in which the Local Government Board are dealing with the Drainage and Water Supply of the town of Epping, and their proposal to raise an additional rate on the inhabitants for further experiments; and, to move—
  "That it is inexpedient that any such further rate should be raised in the present unsatisfactory state of the works, and whilst the uncertainty still exists of obtaining a sufficient water supply to justify their expenditure of such a large sum of money,"
  when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Slave Trade (East African Courts)* (187); Slave Trade (Consolidation)* (188).
Second Reading—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment (171); Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property* (140).
Committee—Thames Embankment (Land)* (179).
Committee—Report—Crown Private Estates* (179).
Third Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (177), and passed.

TITHE COMMUTATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 171.)
(The Earl Fortescue.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
EARL FORTESCUE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the provisions of the measure, which had come up from the other House, had been approved of by a Select Committee of that House. There were 32,937 acres of market gardens in the kingdom, the increase of tithes upon which would amount to £333. The necessity for the measure had been occasioned by the attempt in seven cases to impose an additional tithe rent-charge on land newly cultivated as market-gardens—an attempt which had been viewed with much odium and apprehension, while it had been attended with very slight advantage to the tithe-owners compared with the costs of the litigation it had involved. The Bill directed that the powers of the Tithe Commissioners in this respect only to a parish in which an extraordinary charge for market-gardens was distinguished at the time of the commutation.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Fortescue.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the other House, and that there had been a difference of opinion respecting the Bill by the Committee, it would be as well, after the second reading, to postpone its Committee stage till after their Lordships had an opportunity of looking over and considering the Report of the Committee of the other House.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not understand why the Bill should make a distinction between hop-gardens and market-gardens. The Bill applied to market-gardens but not to hop-gardens. He failed to see why that should be so.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there was a marked distinction between land cultivated for hops and land cultivated as market-gardens. There was no difficulty with regard to land cultivated for hops; but it was sometimes difficult to distinguish, and more especially so as regarded farms in the
1608
vicinity of the metropolis, and large towns where vegetables, &c., were grown, between high farming and market-gardening, so that a question might arise as to whether a field was a market-garden or not.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he could confirm the statement of the most rev. Primate, and intimated that he had no objection to delaying the Committee as suggested by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond).
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY RECRUITING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND,in rising to call attention to the Return as to Chest Measurement of Recruits (presented to the House on the 28th of April last), and to the state of the Army as regards recruiting generally, said, he would not discuss the details of the Return for which he moved some time since, respecting the measurement of recruits, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had admitted it to be inaccurate, and on the part of the Government had undertaken to present another, in which the error should be corrected. There were, however, one or two points which deserved attention in reference to it. That Return, which had achieved some little notoriety, had thus been commented upon by an hon. and gallant Member of the other House—
  "The Returns in some cases disclosed the fact that a certain laxity existed somewhere, and that men had been enlisted under regulation measurement. Where this was found to be the case, the Returns were sent back from the War Office with orders to the commanding officers to transfer the men enlisted under the regulation measurement from a column in the Return noting that fact to a column which showed them to be over the regulation measurement, and in such altered form was the Return presented."
  It was not surprising that such a letter, appearing in The Times, and signed by his hon. and gallant Friend, was not allowed to pass unnoticed. Accordingly, Sir John Pakington put a Question, in answer to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said—
  "When the Duke of Richmond's Return was moved for, it appeared that in some regiments recruits had been accepted, without any application for that special permission, who were below the regulation measurement. When this became known at the Horse Guards, the following memorandum was issued:—
  Horse Guards, War Office.
  April 16, 1873.
  'His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief directs that the accompanying Return be amended in the following way—viz., all the men shown therein as under 33 inches chest-measurement to whom no objection was raised by you or by the officer commanding at the time being, on their being finally passed into the service, must be accounted for as of the regulated chest-measurement of 33 inches.
  'C. A. EDWARDS.'
  "It cannot be disputed that this was a grave error. The matter in question was the preparation of a Parliamentary Return, and the actual fact alone ought to have been looked to. Directions have been given which will prevent a recurrence, and for the amendment of the Return."
  Now, that language was, to say the least, most unfortunate; for though he did not impute to the right hon. Gentleman any intention of casting an imputation on the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, the answer conveyed to himself, and he believed to many others, the impression that it was His Royal Highness by whom the fact had not been looked to in the preparation of the Return. He was therefore extremely glad that His Royal Highness took the earliest opportunity of explaining in that House his part in the transaction, and of showing beyond all question that though as the head of the Department he was responsible for everything that went on in it, he could not be held responsible for that Memorandum. His Royal Highness said last night—
  "I never saw the Return or the Circular that went out in my name on the subject, and I never intended any Circular to go out. I thought it was a mere ordinary correction, which must frequently occur in an office. Had I been aware how the Return was prepared, I should not have authorized what has been done."
  That was only consistent with His Royal Highness's conduct upon all occasions. It was obvious that a great deal must be left to subordinates, and that it was impossible for any one at the head of a Department dealing with a multiplicity of details to go into the minutiœ daily dealt with. His Royal Highness added that he considered it merely a breach of discipline on the part of officers commanding regiments, that he understood the number of men in question was very
  1610
  small; and that he dismissed the subject from his mind, as one not requiring further thought. Now, he desired to know whether the Returns sent in to the War Department were confined to those of officers who had accepted the men under-measurement, and had thus as it were condoned the offence; or whether the Department had not Returns, showing that a great number of men in certain regiments, of 31 and 32 inches chest-measurement, had been objected to, in some cases by commanding officers, and in others by generals commanding districts. If the Department, as he believed, possessed such knowledge, they ought not only to have refrained from issuing the Memorandum, but to have communicated the information to the House. His Royal Highness having proved that he was not answerable for the error acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman to have been committed, some one in the War Department must be, responsible for it. The recruiting department was the department which must have had the information at the time the Return was made, and the Inspector General of Recruiting was responsible for all these Returns. That was shown by the 25th section of the Queen's Regulations, No. 1,330, which was in these terms—
  "The Inspector General of Recruiting is charged with carrying out all orders and regulations on subjects connected with the recruiting service, and attending to the details of that department."
  He would ask, therefore, whether within the knowledge of the Inspector General, and within reach of the Department, there were not the names of men undoubtedly under the prescribed chest-measurement? He would now pass on to the larger and higher subject of recruiting generally, as it was now carried out; and respecting which it could not be denied that anything that tended to deteriorate the high character of the personnel of the Army was a thing to be deprecated and stopped. In an earlier part of his political life he (the Duke of Richmond) used to hear a great deal about "the sliding scale;" the sliding scale, however, so much talked of in former days, vanished into empty air compared with that adopted of late years in recruiting. On the 1st of February, 1868, the recruits were 5 feet 6 inches to

  1611
  5 feet 8 inches in height, and 33 inches chest-measurement, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches, and 34 inches, and 5 feet 10 inches and over, and 35 inches, the minimum height thus being 5 feet 6 inches. In March, 1869, when reductions were made in the Army, the height was raised to 5 feet 8 inches. In June, 1869, it was reduced to 5 feet 6 inches. In October, 1869, the chest-measurement was altered, it being taken with the arms hanging down instead of raised. In February, 1870, when there were again reductions, the height was raised to 5 feet 8 inches. In March, 1870, all recruiting was suspended. In July of that year, with prospects of war on the Continent, the minimum height was reduced to 5 feet 6 inches, while in September it was further reduced to 5 feet 51 inches, and by special authority to 5 feet 5 inches. In December, 1870, an order was issued directing that the measuring tape should not be drawn so tight as to compress the surface, and in July, 1871, the minimum height was reduced to 5 feet 5 inches. Thus, since July, 1868, a uniform standard had scarcely been maintained for four consecutive months. The fact was, that the system of short service without pensions was distasteful to the people of the country, and was obliging them to take what men they could get, and those who were of little use to them after they had got them. That was shown by the only accessible authority, the Reports of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1871 and 1872, which set up one set of theories and arguments on one page and contradicted them on the next. The only conclusion, however, which he (the Duke of Richmond)—and he thought anybody else—could come to, who examined the Reports independently, was that the whole recruiting service of the country was in a most unsatisfactory state. In 1871, there was a deficit of 1,783 men—the deficiency in 1872 was nearly the same—on which the Inspector General remarked—
  "The number shown proves that at present the supply of men has not been quite sufficient, and the time possibly may not be far distant, if the increased rate of wages, the demand for labour, with the lessened number of working hours continue to affect the labour-market, that the present inducements to voluntary enlistment will be found to be insufficient. There is good reason to believe that the physique of the recruits taken during the last year gives promise of these men becoming very effective soldiers."
  He would ask whether these were men of 33 inches, or 32 inches. The Report continued—
  "In nearly every case commanding officers have expressed themselves satisfied with the description of recruits sent to join their regiments."
  That was quite at variance with what he had understood to be the case, and he should like to know to whom such satisfaction had been expressed, and whether there was any objection to produce these letters. As to the working of the system, the Report remarked—
  "There is a fear that short service without a claim to pension, may become distasteful, and that men should give up six years of their lives, with only the prospect of 7l. a year for six years afterwards, while serving in the reserve force, is a condition that cannot be generally expected. Recruits still look to and inquire what pension they will get, whilst they see the majority of discharged soldiers enjoying such retiring allowances. Although against this uncertainty as to pension the recruit may feel the advantage in some cases that he is only bound for six years instead of a much longer period."
  Now, in the face of that Report he wanted to know whether the noble Lord meant to go on with short service without pensions? He believed that if they were to issue a Circular to competent persons throughout the country, inviting them to express an opinion on the present system of service, it would be found that it was one that could not long be carried out consistently with the interests of the country. He wanted to know whether they intended to go on with the system of short service without pensions? He did not think that the system could be carried on practically for any length of time. In an extraordinary paragraph the Inspector General went on to say—
  "The standard in height has been nearly all the year 5 ft. 5 in., and great attention has been paid to chest measurement, and careful medical examination before approval, so that the reports of the physique of the men are most favourable. As short service becomes more general, it may be questioned whether this stringency of medical examination may not be a little relaxed, as a man having slight blemishes, which now disqualify, will be fit for home service, and afterwards well qualified for service in the Reserve forces, and quite capable of meeting the exigences of any emergency that may then be required of him."
  If that observation meant anything it meant this—that in the present system of recruiting for short service they were recruiting under the idea that the men would never be called upon to serve

  1613
  abroad, and therefore they might take an inferior class of men—first, for short service with the flag, and afterwards, to use a railway expression, in effect to shunt them into the Reserve force. It had often been said that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had been very lenient with foreign Powers on more than one occasion, when he ought to have sent an army abroad. That might be accounted for if the Army was recruited on the assumption of its services never being required abroad. The Report went on to say—
  "it may be fairly surmised that the present inducements to enlist on these conditions will not hereafter be sufficient to meet the increasing demand, and in face of the constant rising of the rate of wages in the labour market."
  That was precisely his own view, that unless there was long service with pension there would not be sufficient inducement to enter the Army for the class of men such as had for years been our pride. Turning to the Report for 1873, he found a remarkable paragraph—
  "The Autumn Manœuvres of 1871 and 1872 have elicited the fact that the physique of the Royal Artillery and cavalry has been such as to excite unqualified approbation; and, by a careful observer, it has been remarked that the nation may be assured that the infantry are such as could be desired, and have maintained their long-established character of efficiency."
  A distinction was thus drawn between the artillery and cavalry and the infantry, conveying a suspicion that the physique of the latter was not such as should be desired. The "careful observer" clearly was not His Royal Highness, whose Reports, to use a Scotch expression, did not condescend to these particulars, but dealt in more general terms. He understood the Secretary of State for War was out in the Manœuvres, and took as prominent a part as a civilian could do in them. It had occurred to him that he might be the "careful observer." If so, that right hon. Gentleman had shown his care not to praise the infantry except in the most qualified terms, whilst he placed the artillery and the cavalry in the from for his emphatic eulogy. The Report also contained a paragraph in which the Inspector General of Recruiting took this modest view of his position—
  "The appointment of Inspector-General of Recruiting, as recommended by the Commission of 1867, has been attended with the great advan-
  1614
  tage of allowing every circumstance connected with the recruiting service throughout the kingdom to be minutely and carefully inquired into."
  He suspected that in the next Report, after the disclosures as to recruiting and the preparation of Returns, there would be some ground for modifying that opinion. The Report gave the number of recruits passed into the service last year as 17,371, and the casualties as 18,779. There must be something wrong in the system which produced such results. It would appear that our forces were diminishing in numbers year after year, and that, so far as he knew, no steps had been as yet taken to remedy such an unsatisfactory state of affairs. According to the Report—
  "The casualties for the year 1872 have been increased above the average by a greater number of invalids, an increased discharge of men of bad character, by a facility of obtaining discharge by purchase and free, and by many desertions—the two last having been occasioned by the great demand for labour."
  That fact might lead to the inference that those had been enlisted who were unfit for the service, and ought never to have been enlisted—an inference which was further borne out by the statement of the increased number of men of bad character who had been discharged. In reference to that subject, a report was current in military circles that a confidential Circular had been issued to courts-martial, directing them to dismiss with ignominy men found guilty of desertion or absence without leave, if physically unfit for the service. In other words, every opportunity was to be taken of dismissing as of bad character men who had been improperly enlisted. He now came to the last paragraph, which the Government ought to regard with considerable apprehension—
  "contemplating the greatly increased number of men which will be required in the year 1876, and subsequent years, when the discharge of men enlisted for short service will affect materially the number of men required to be raised to replace them, and knowing that all these men must be taken by a system of purely voluntary enlistment, the increased inducements to enlist are for the consideration of statesmen; and, without such increased inducements, it is more than probable that the present system of the recruiting service will fail to supply the necessary demand."
  He knew that he had wearied the House by the length at which he had addressed them, but he trusted that their Lord

  1615
  ships would think that the statement he had made would justify him in their opinion for having brought this subject under consideration. He believed that the present system was radically wrong, and that, practically, it was an utter failure; and that it could only be improved by increasing the inducements to men to enlist, and he maintained that the responsibility for this failure rested, as it ought to rest, upon Her Majesty's Government. He was satisfied that Her Majesty's Government would be assisted in everything that could conduce to the improvement of the service by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had hoped that when His Royal Highness the illustrious Duke on the cross benches closed last night a statement which the noble Duke opposite himself characterized as satisfactory, the last had been heard of the unfortunate mistake as to the measurement of recruits. He thought that, under the circumstances, the supplementary defence of the illustrious Duke which had been undertaken by the noble Duke opposite might have been dispensed with upon the present occasion. What was the reason which had been assigned by the noble Duke for undertaking that supplementary defence of the illustrious Duke? The noble Duke said that he had felt compelled to undertake it, because he regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War's statement in the other House as casting blame upon the illustrious Duke. He begged to protest against that interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. His statement was a mere recapitulation of the facts of the case.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was anxious that he should not be misunderstood in this matter. He had made no imputation whatever against the Secretary of State for War. What he said was, that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in words that might convey the impression out-of-doors that blame was to be attached to the Commander-in-Chief in the matter. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in perfect good faith.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had in no way misapprehended the meaning of the noble Duke, who had complained of the Secretary of State for
  1616
  War's statement as calculated to give rise to the impression out-of-doors that blame was to be attached to the illustrious Duke. The right hon. Gentleman could not do otherwise than read the exact words of the document which had been sent out by the Adjutant General's department, and the illustrious Duke himself had not detracted in the least from the responsibility attaching to that department. The noble Duke had asked whether it was within his personal knowledge that there were in the department of the Adjutant General other Returns from officers commanding regiments which disclosed the fact that there were in their regiments men whose measurements did not come up to the regulation standard. All he could say was, that if Returns meriting this description existed anywhere, he had no personal knowledge whatever of their existence, although he believed that there was one regiment in which some doubt had arisen as to the sufficiency of the chest measurements of the men. In that case, an officer had been sent down to examine and report upon the case. The noble Duke had proceeded to speak of the position of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and perhaps the House would permit him to point out that Colonel Anson, in his letter which had appeared in The Times, and several other of our military critics, seemed to be under a misapprehension with regard to the position of that officer. It was clearly indicated in the Regulations with respect to recruiting, that far from being a mere War Office official, the Inspector General of Recruits was an independent officer. The present tenant of the office was moreover appointed by the Commander-in-Chief before the present Government came into office, and therefore there was no excuse whatever for supposing him to be the screen of the present Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDremarked that he had made no such statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that this was at all events the impression produced on the mind of the House by the noble Duke's observations. The noble Duke having dealt with the Inspector General of Recruits, passed on to consider the subject of recruiting generally. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was anxious to say a few words with regard to the effect

  1617
  of the changes which had been introduced into the recruiting system by the present Government. The noble Duke said that any deterioration which had occurred in the quality of the recruits was traceable to the system of short service, which he most severely condemned. He was not about to discuss the relative merits of long and short service upon the present occasion; but he was convinced that, in a country where neither compulsory service nor the cost of a large standing Army would be endured, a system of short service with Reserves was the only one that could be carried out. With regard to the quality of the recruits who had enlisted under the short-service system, he wished to point out to the noble Duke one or two facts which appeared in the Report to the Adjutant General by the Inspector General of Recruits, dated January, 1872, on the recruiting for the year 1871. The Report stated that commanding officers had expressed themselves satisfied with the description of recruits sent to join their regiments. The noble Duke challenged that statement in the Report, and desired to know what means the Department had of ascertaining whether this satisfaction was the case. The noble Duke had placed him in a rather embarrassing position, because he must know that the Reports of the commanding officers were confidential, but he could assure the noble Duke that before the Inspector General of Recruiting had made his Report, he had access to authentic information furnished by commanding officers themselves. Further on, in the Report appeared a statement founded on medical statistics, which was of considerable importance. It was as follows—
  "Inquiry has been made to ascertain how many of these men have not completed their first year's service, and it is found that the number invalided in that period is 13·19 per 1,000; which, allowing for such diseases as develop themselves at that age, for the change of life on first joining, and the necessary drill, is very small, and will bear favourable comparison with the corresponding state of health of men in civil life of that age…. as far as can be ascertained, the recruits of this augmentation have not, after one year's trial, proved less efficient than those taken in former years, at the ordinary rate of recruiting, to supply the usual casualties."
  Considering that it was necessary to have recourse to the lower stratum of the population for recruits, the best
  1618
  authorities believed that they were likely to find more healthy men, and therefore men who were likely to make the most efficient soldiers, among those from 18 to 19 years of age, than among older men, who would join the Army probably because they found themselves unfit for any other profession or trade. That opinion was well expressed in the Report of General Edwards, who said—
  "Between the ages of 18 and 19 years many youths have not acquired regular employment. If these men enlist, they are at once well clothed and cared for, and by the time they have acquired the age of 20, there can be no doubt are worth in physique in strength of constitution more than the man who though enlisted above that age, had till then existed on very uncertain means."
  There were also passages in the Report with respect to recruiting in 1872, the tenor of which was very similar, but he would not trouble the House by quoting them. He wished, however, to be allowed to add that the noble Duke was under a misapprehension, when he stated that the standard of height was lower than it had ever been before. He could assure him that at different times in 1864, and, he believed, again in 1868, the height was not greater than 5ft. 5in., which was the present standard. Having said thus much with respect to the quality of the recruits, he would add a few words with reference to their quantity. The noble Duke was not perhaps aware that we had now between 2,000 and 3,000 over our full establishment, and it was therefore obvious that it was not necessary that we should obtain the full number of recruits. The real working of the system could not possibly be tested before 1876, by which time the short-service men would begin to pass into the Army Reserve. He was far from wishing to convey to the House that the Government regarded the problem to be solved as one which was certain or easy of solution. The views of General Edwards on the subject were very clear, and the War Department were perfectly alive to the possibility that the inducements now held out might in the face of the continually increasing competition of the trade at no distant day be found inadequate to obtain the necessary supply of men. But something, it must be borne in mind, had been done to increase these inducements. The pay of the Army had not long ago been increased; and it was

  1619
  proposed in the present year, to make a change with reference to the pay of the soldier which would it was hoped have the effect of increasing the attractions of the Army to the class of men who were likely to join it as recruits. He need only add that he shared the opinions of the noble Duke as to the great importance of recruiting, and that the Government had no intention whatsoever of looking upon the existing system as incapable of improvement.
  LORD DE ROSthought there was no good reason for regarding the Reports as to the number of recruits as confidential as the noble Marquess seemed to suppose; consequently, all the Reports which had been referred to might be laid on the Table of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that if the illustrious Duke on the cross benches thought there was no objection to the production of the Reports in question, he should not be disposed to throw any obstacle in the way.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was sure their Lordships and the country would feel that they were under a deep obligation to the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) for having brought the subject under their consideration. It was a subject of extreme importance, and no one could have listened to the statement which had been made with respect to it without coming to the same conclusion as he had—that the state of things connected with the Army was altogether unsatisfactory. Many years would, he was convinced, not have elapsed before we should have come to lament the ill consequences which would flow from the virtual abolition of the system of pensions in the service. It was true pensions were not nominally done away with, but practically such was the case, and soldiers enlisting for a very short term had now no means of winning a provision for their old age. How could it then, he would ask, be expected that men would give up the six or seven best years of their lives to military employment, and give up the opportunity of obtaining the skill necessary for civil employment, if at the end of that period they found themselves without the means of obtaining a livelihood, and turned adrift to make what provision they could for old age? It was unreasonable to expect men to enter freely into the Army
  1620
  under conditions so discouraging, and he was happy to hear his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War say that the Government were not entirely satisfied with the present system, and that they contemplated the probability of having to revise it. What was wanted was not so much increase of pay, as that the soldier should be placed in a position in which he could make tolerably sure of a provision for life. By that means, too, would success in the policy of creating an Army of Reserve be best attained. Hitherto the Army of Reserve had been a failure, it could not be relied upon to come up when required; and the best course to pursue, he maintained, was to let the men serve for a short time in the active Army, to take the utmost pains during that time to give them the highest training, and having done that, to encourage them to enter the Reserve, allowing them to count their service as a means of ultimately obtaining a pension. The consequence in troublous times of the course which was now being pursued might be serious. If they trained large numbers of men to arms and then turned them adrift with no assured means of subsistence, they might in troublous times become a serious danger to the country, whereas the system of pensions had this advantage—that when they dismissed pensioned soldiers they continued to have a hold over them, and knew they were not likely under any circumstances to be arrayed against the established authorities of the State.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmaintained that the observations of the noble Earl who had just spoken could not be sustained by the facts. The plan of the Army Reserve must necessarily take some years to come into full operation. The new scheme of short service could not come into full operation until 1876; so that when the noble Earl spoke of it as a failure, his opinion could only be regarded in the light of a prophecy, which might or might not be fulfilled. As to the present system of recruiting, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) had quoted from the Reports only those passages which told in favour of his arguments, while he had omitted those which were opposed to them. That the present system of recruiting did not lead to complete failure as to the physical qualities of the men enlisted was

  1621
  shown by the last Report of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, in which the power of marching and of bearing fatigue displayed by the infantry, the mainstay of the Army, was spoken of very highly.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEmaintained that the short service system had fairly broken down. When the system was first proposed in the House of Commons, the difficulties that would attend it were pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Among them was this one—that after the expiration of the first period of service, the men would go back to their parishes, and, being selected from a low stratum of society, they would have the greatest difficulty in finding employment. In answer to that, the right hon. Gentleman said he would get quite a different and superior class of men, such as village tradesmen and persons who could easily turn their hands to profitable industry when they went back to their parishes. Now, from all the information he could collect, that anticipation had not been realized. Under the short service system they still got the waifs and strays of society, and as far as getting a superior class of men went, it was all moonshine. He hoped the amended Return of chest measurements would be produced, and also the letters from the officers commanding regiments. They were much indebted to the noble Duke for bringing that question forward; for the more the short service system was discussed, the more its difficulties would become apparent.
  EARL FORTESCUEfound, from the Army Medical Report presented in 1872, that about 6,000 out of every 10,000 men examined were under the age of 20, and of the recruits about two-thirds were between 18 and 21. When the short service system became the rule a great proportion of the Army would consist of boys instead of seasoned soldiers.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he could not help regarding the system of chest measurement now adopted as very fallacious. A high authority in gymnastic matters, whom he knew when a young man, used to hold that the circumference of a man's chest measured with a tape did not give a fair idea of what his constitutional powers and his amount of wind might be, because a man with a narrow and a flat
  1622
  chest, if he had a very great deal of muscle in his chest, would measure many inches in circumference, whereas a man with a deep round chest, although he had not the same quantity of muscle, and measured fewer inches, would be the stronger man of the two. The depth and not the mere circumference of the chest should be taken with callipers with which the diameter of trees was measured, if they wished to test a man's strength of constitution and power of bearing fatigue.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the course of the debate; but he wished to point out one thing to the noble Duke who sat opposite (the Duke of Argyll). The noble Duke took the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) to task for having ventured to prophesy on this subject, and in a manner, he said, which was not unfrequent with him. The noble Earl did not indulge in a spirit of prophesy, but merely followed the example of the Inspector General of Recruiting, who said—
  "Without such increased inducements, it is more than probable that the present system of Recruiting Service will fail to supply the necessary demand."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmaintained that the scheme of founding the Army of Reserve on short service had not been sufficiently tried to entitle anyone to say that it had failed. There was a disposition manifested by some noble Lords to regard the result yet to be attained as a foregone conclusion, instead of looking upon the system in a philosophic spirit and as an experiment in course of trial, and one which had certainly not failed.

  SLAVE TRADE (EAST AFRICAN COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for regulating and extending the jurisdiction in matters connected with the Slave Trade of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Aden, and of Her Majesty's Consuls under Treaties with the Zemingers of Zanzibar, Muscat, and Madagascar, and under future Treaties—Was presented by The Earl of CAMPERDOWN; read 1a. (No. 187.)

  SLAVE TRADE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for consolidating with amendments the Acts for carrying into effect Treaties for the more effectual suppression of the Slave Trade—Was presented by The Earl of CAMPERDOWN read 1a. (No. 188.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.