Sitting of 20 June 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Rating (Liability and Value) [146]—R.P.
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3)* [183]; Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* [193], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

CROWN SALMON FISHINGS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. ELLICEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is not the usual practice, where salmon fishings on the sea coast belong to the Crown, to offer the refusal of the lease of such fishings to parties interested in the property immediately adjoining; whether the lease of salmon fishings on the sea coast ex adverso of the burgh of Crail is not at present, or has not until lately been in accordance with the said practice, vested in the hands of the municipal authorities of that burgh; whether an application for the renewal of such lease has been peremptorily refused to the said municipality; if so, whether he will state the reason for such refusal, and whether and to whom such fishings have been otherwise privately disposed of; and, whether he has any objection to produce the Correspondence upon this subject?
  MR. BAXTER: It has been, Sir, the usual practice, as a matter of courtesy to individuals and of convenience to the Department, where salmon fishings on the sea coast belong to the Crown, to offer the refusal of the lease of such fishings to the ex adverse proprietors, but not, as stated in the Question, to parties merely interested in the property immediately adjoining. The salmon fishings on the sea coast, ex adverso of the burgh of Crail, are at present under lease to the municipal authorities. An application, however, for the renewal of the lease to the municipality has been declined, because it was considered that it would be better for the interests of the Crown and the public to let the fishings, with other adjoining fishings extending for some miles along the coast, to a practical salmon-fisher, the sea frontage within the limits of the burgh of Crail
  1228
  being too narrow to admit of a separate fishery being established there to advantage. The fishings along a considerable extent of coast have accordingly been let to Messrs. Johnston and Sons, salmon-fishers, who at present rent the fishings from the sub-tenant, to whom the burgh let them. It would be quite unusual to produce Correspondence on such a subject.
  MR. ELLICE: I want to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that, as a general rule, proprietors of land ex adverso of the seashore, ought to have the refusal of the salmon fishing belonging to the Crown on such shore, and that where a different course is proposed to be taken, due notice should be given to such proprietors, in order that they might have full opportunity for representing their cases to the proper Department?
  MR. BAXTER: I am not prepared to answer the Question at this moment, though I may say I consider that in this ease, ample justice has been done to all parties.

  LOCOMOTIVE ACT, 1861—INSPECTION OF BRIDGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOWARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state to the House the reasons why a request, made on 21st of April last, in conformity with Clause 6 of the Act of 24 & 25 Vic. c. 70, for an Inspector to be sent to report upon the capabilities of certain bridges in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire to carry locomotive engines, remained unnoticed for seven weeks; and, on what grounds, or under the provisions of what Act, the person making the request was required by the Under Secretary to give an undertaking to the Home Department to pay all expenses incurred by such Inspector?
  MR. BRUCE: Although, Sir, the Act has been in operation since 1861, this is the first case which has arisen under the section referred to. The delay has arisen from the necessity of ascertaining the facts from the surveyor of the bridges in the first instance, and then of communicating with the Board of Trade as to the appointment of a person to make the inspection. So much time, however, would not have been spent if the applicant had correctly stated the names and addresses of the surveyors against whose notices

  1229
  he appealed. As to the second part of the Question the Act provides, with the view of securing an impartial arbitrator, that the question shall be determined by an officer to be appointed, on the application of either party, by the Secretary of State; but it makes no provision as to the payment of the officer's expenses. The matter is one of purely local concern, and the costs ought to be paid by the parties interested.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. AGAR-ELLISasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is owing to the financial difficulties in the Post Office this year that telegraph works in rural districts which had been sanctioned and promised have been stopped; and, if so, when the public may expect them to be resumed?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, pending the consideration of the questions now before the Committee on Public Accounts, the telegraph extensions in rural districts have been suspended. It cannot at present be stated when they will be resumed.

  THE CHANNEL ISLANDS—PLATTE BONE ROCK—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the buoy which was formerly placed on the Platte Bone Rock, near the Island of Guernsey, has been removed, and, if so, when, and by whose orders; whether the said buoy still appears in the latest editions of the Admiralty Charts; and, whether any notification of the removal of the said buoy was issued by the Admiralty previous to the loss on the Platte Bone Rock of the steamer "Waverley," on the night of the 4th of June?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREin reply, said, that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction over buoys, except in the ease of the dockyards. The buoy in question had been removed at the suggestion of the local authorities, inasmuch as it had so frequently been washed away, that there was no reliance to be placed on it. The removal of the buoy was notified to the Admiralty on the 26th of May, before the loss of the Waverley, and it had been replaced by beacons, and that was all the information he was possessed of on the subject. Notice of the change had been given to the channel pilotage.

LAW OF HOMICIDE—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Law of Homicide in general, or that portion of it which relates to Infanticide?
  MR. BRUCEin reply, said, that a Bill on the subject was prepared and he should be very glad to introduce it. It would not be well to do so, however, he thought, unless there was some probability of passing it, and as to that he could say nothing with certainty in the present state of Public Business.

FRANCE AND BELGIUM—EXAMINATION OF TRAVELLERS' LUGGAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNTZasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the recent Convention between Austria, Italy, and Germany, abolishing the visitation of passengers' luggage at their respective frontiers; and if Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of extending this convenience by similar Conventions with France and Belgium?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I believe, Sir, that a notification has appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that a Convention has been made between Austria, Italy, and Germany, abolishing the visitation of passengers' luggage at their respective frontiers; but no communication has been made on the subject to Her Majesty Government from the Governments of the countries in question with respect to its provisions. Under those circumstances I could not undertake to say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make any proposals on this point to the Governments of France and Belgium.

  PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move that the House do adjourn this day at the close of the Morning Sitting, said, it might be convenient, as some portion of the House might desire to attend on Monday and Tuesday next, that he should state what was the Business which it was proposed to take on those days. It was proposed to proceed with

  1231
  Committee of Supply, taking the Army Estimates first on Monday, and secondly, the Education Vote; after that, if there was time, with the Lords' Amendments to the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and the Valuation (Ireland) Bill. On Tuesday morning it was proposed that they should proceed with the Intestacy Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), the principle of which had been already sanctioned by the House, and which now stood for Second Reading; then with the Canada Loan Bill the Valuation (Ireland) Bill, if not disposed of on Monday night, and the Juries Bill.
  Moved, "That this House do adjourn this day at the close of the Morning Sitting.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had shown every desire to suit the convenience of the House; but he thought it would be well not to take the Army Estimates on Monday, as many hon. Members who would wish to discuss them would not be able conveniently to attend on that day. He would also put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would not reconsider his proposal to take a Bill of such importance as the Intestacy Bill on Tuesday morning?
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked when the Judicature Bill would be again submitted to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) that it was a choice of evils on the part of the Government, who would be very sorry to inflict inconvenience on any hon. Gentleman in the discussion on the Army Estimates. But as the greatest happiness of the greatest number was the rule of action generally, so the smallest unhappiness of the smallest number was the rule which the Government endeavoured to adopt on this occasion. It was on that ground that they had come to the conclusion that the Army Estimates would be best discussed on Monday. With regard to Tuesday, there was the Judicature Bill, which might go into Committee, and the Juries Bill, the Committee on which might be continued, but with respect to which he was confident that the difficulty raised the other night with respect to local taxation had boon removed out of the
  1232
  way. The observation of the Government had been, that both these Bills were measures in which a large number of the House took an interest, and the discussion of which they would desire to attend; and the Government had endeavoured to arrive at the best judgment they could.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONagain expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with the Army Estimates on Monday.
  MR. MONKsaid, he trusted that the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill would not be brought on after 12 o'clock, or at an hour when it could not be discussed.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to bring on the Bill at such a time as would enable the House to discuss it.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he did not object to the Order of Business on Monday, but he objected to the arrangement which had been made for Tuesday.
  DR. BALLsaid, he strongly objected to proceeding with so important a Bill as the Intestacy Bill on Tuesday morning.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should be glad to receive any suggestions from hon. Members. Perhaps it would be more agreeable to the House if he were to propose to take the Canada Loan Bill first on Tuesday and the Valuation (Ireland) Bill second, and if the two measures did not consume the whole day they might then perhaps proceed with the Juries Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House do adjourn this day at the close of the Morning Sitting.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hibbert).
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 13 (Exemption of stock in trade).
  Question again proposed, "That the words
  'and all machines and machinery other than that by means of which motive power is generated or transmitted, shall be deemed to be stock in trade and included in the provisions of the said Act,"—(Mr. Cawley,)
  —be added at end of clause."
  MR. F. S. POWELLrose to move, as an addition to the Amendment, the following words:—"In the case of any mill or manufactory or building used for any such purpose." He said the Amendment would bring the law of England into harmony with that of Ireland, and that was a thing which was extremely desirable.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  After the word "and," to insert the words "in the case of any mill or manufactory or building erected or used for any such purpose."—(Mr. Francis S. Powell.)
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Committee should know exactly their position upon the question immediately at issue. There seemed to be an impression in some minds that the 13th clause altered the law, and in some respects narrowed the exemption of stock in trade. The simple effect of Clause 13, however, was to repeal the 2 & 3 Vict., c. 87, s. 2, which made the exemption of stock in trade temporary, thus leaving it a permanent exemption. The result was, as he contended, that the Bill before the House did not alter the present law of rating machinery, while the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), modified, as it would be, to some extent by that of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell), would really alter the law and introduce changes the results of which could not be foreseen at present. He would be very sorry indeed to vote against the Amendment, because he wished to be in no way committed against its object; but it was surrounded at present with difficulties which would require the most careful consideration, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he would be compelled on the part of the Government to oppose it, because he could not pledge the Government to the terms suggested, though at another time his mind would be open on the subject. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would be content for the present to leave the question an open one. He urged that more especially, because the Amendment was really foreign to the immediate object of this Bill.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he could not consent to withdraw his Amendment, which he considered to be directly ger-
  1234
  mane to the object of the Bill, and. if the question was to be settled at all that was the proper time to do so. His Amendment was nothing more than an attempt to define what was and what was not stock in trade, and to explain an apparent contradiction of the law. A man was rated in respect of his occupation of an hereditament, and the Courts had held that the hereditament was to include whatever was attached to the freehold. The exigencies of commerce, however, had introduced machines which required attachment in order to give them stability, and hereupon the Courts held that machinery affixed to the hereditament by a large bolt was rateable, while a loom screwed to the floor was not an attachment to the freehold, and was not rateable. He did not wish to throw obstacles in the way of the progress of the Bill, but unless it was distinctly understood that the whole question should be fully considered, and a discussion allowed on the Amendment, or addition to the clause on the bringing up of the Report, he felt bound, in honour to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to take a division at the present stage.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALbelieved that the effect of the Amendment, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) if carried, would be to introduce great confusion in the administration of the law instead of to simplify matters. As the law now stood, it was not the machinery that was rated, but the whole of the property as enhanced in value by the machinery—the fixed machinery. The Amendment proposed to get rid of all that. ["No, no!"] It was proposed by the Amendment to rate "all machines by which motive power was generated or transmitted." It was said that the object of the Amendment was to make clear what machinery or portions of machinery should be rated; but it was difficult, if not impossible, to lay down any distinct rules on the subject. The question was one not so much of law as of fact, which must be decided on its merits in each case.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLthought some better rule should be laid down as to what machinery was and what was not rateable. It was not fair towards either the Courts or the ratepayers that matters should be left as they were, for the present state of the law was as bad as it

  1235
  could be. The rule proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would be a great improvement. No less machinery would be rated under it than was rated at present.
  MR. WHITWELLhoped the question would be deferred till the Report, in order that some better definition might be introduced.
  MR. LOPESwould vote against the Amendment. If the words proposed by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) were merely intended to define stock in trade, they were wholly unnecessary; but if it were intended by these words to exclude machinery fixed to the soil, which, although it was not rateable per se, was rateable indirectly, because it enhanced the valuation of the soil, then it was a most objectionable proceeding, seeing that the main object of the Bill was to extend the area of rateability.
  MR. BRISTOWEhoped the Government would not under any circumstances listen to the suggested Amendment, which, instead of simplifying the Bill, would complicate matters ten times over, and land them in insuperable difficulties. He could not see how the generating or motive and transmitting power was always to be determined with a view to rating as in the case of steam power, waterwheels, windmills, and so forth. If the proposal were unfortunately sanctioned, it could not be worked or carried out by any human being.
  MR. HERMONsuggested that the Bill should be proceeded with with caution, and not hurriedly, for as it was a money Bill, it could not undergo revision in the other House. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment which was now before them. He was quite prepared to admit that certain kinds of machinery should be rated, but the power to rate machinery ought not to be carried to such an extent as was contemplated, which would include every little thing down to the minutest points of detail.
  MR. ANDERSONsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford as being calculated to assist the operations of assessment committees.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that having carefully considered the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) and the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell),
  1236
  and remembering that the object of the Bill was to extend and not to decrease the area of rating, he was opposed to both of those Amendments. Though he had voted for exempting Sunday and ragged schools, he almost regretted having done so, as he thought it would be much better that the Bill should contain no exemption whatever.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, looking largely at the question, the great motive which had impelled the movement for a change in regard to local taxation had been the complaints of the owners of real property with respect to realty being rated as against the vast personal property of the country which was not rated. Undoubtedly it was a most extraordinary application of the doctrine advocated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) to say that when the complaint was that the range of rateable property was too narrow, they should proceed to narrow it further. They could not narrow the range further consistently with justice to the owners of real property. The strength of the Amendments consisted in this—that there was a great difficulty in the application of the law as it now stood; but would those Amendments answer the purpose of removing that difficulty? In his opinion, the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salford and of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell) did not even touch the case, and would create a great deal of confusion and difficulty in the application of the present law. There was no doubt great difficulty in drawing a line of demarcation between fixed machinery which was rateable, and machinery which was not fixed and which was not rateable. The difficulty was one, however, which could not be settled by the present Bill. Moreover, he contended that it was an entire mistake in conjunction with this Bill to endeavour to supply a clearer definition. They had declared that Sunday and ragged schools should be exempted from rating, but they had not attempted to define a ragged school, and he was informed that the question as to what constituted a ragged school had been made the subject of a contest in a Court of Law. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford assumed that stock-in-trade was exempted because it was a proper subject for exemption. That was not the ground of its exemption. The

  1237
  Government had exempted stock-in-trade, because it was impossible to catch it; and if the Amendment touched a description of machinery which it was possible to catch—and it had been proved that it was possible to catch it, because it was already rated—in what sense could they contend that it ought now to be exempted? That being so, the Government would give to the Amendment the most decided opposition.
  MR. PEASEpointed out several anomalies which existed in the present system of rating, and said they must be dealt with by the Government sooner or later, and he thought the sooner they were dealt with the better it would be.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he was strongly in favour some days ago of sending the Bill to a Select Committee, and what was now happening convinced him, that that course ought to have been adopted. Points such as those which had been recently raised were not of a nature to be decided by a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it would be a fortunate thing for everybody but the members of the legal profession if the clause and all the Amendments were got rid of together. The Judges had lately been paying Parliament very handsome compliments for the manner in which they carried on the work of legislation, and it seemed to him that that clause would form another blessed example. In his opinion, they could have gone on quite well with an annual Continuance Bill, and then this question would not leave arisen. He certainly should decline to vote for either of the Amendments, because he believed that if they were adopted, they would only make confusion worse confounded.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, assessment committees appeared to act on the principle that all machinery was rateable, and urged that it would be well if a remedy were provided for the evils of the system.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question put, "That the words
  'and in the case of any mill or manufactory or building erected or used for any such purpose, all machines and machinery other than that by means of which motive power is generated or transmitted, shall be deemed to be stock
  1238
  in trade and included in the provisions of the said Act,'
  be added at the end of Clause 13."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 227: Majority 150.
  MR. PELLsaid, that as he understood there was to be no passage through Temple Bar after half-past 8 o'clock, and as his bon. Friend behind him (Mr. Corrance), who had an Amendment on the Paper, had informed him that if he went on, he must speak for an hour, he thought the best thing he could do would be to move that they report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."—(Mr. Pell.)
  MR. GLADSTONEtrusted the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion, because the Committee had at present a very good and sufficient attendance of hon. Members. If the number should be much reduced, the Government would consent to report Progress.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 13, after "perpetual," to insert—"in so far as it applies to stock in trade only, but not to any other description of property." Its object was to limit the perpetual exemption from rating to stock in trade, and not extend it to other descriptions of personal property.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had looked carefully into the Acts, and could not accept the Amendment, which would have a different operation from that which the hon. Baronet intended. The House had already decided not to render personalty or the general ability of parishioners liable to rating; and it was not desirable to go back to this already decided question.
  MR. LOPESsaid, the Amendment would impose a liability to rating upon every description of personality other than stock in trade. He could not therefore support the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONdid not want the Committee to say affirmatively that any kind of personalty should be subject to rating, but only to say that the rating of personalty other than stock in trade should not be perpetual.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Amendment, if carried, would necessi-

  1239
  tate the passing of an annual Bill for the exemption of all personalty except stock in trade.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CORRANCE,in rising, according to Notice, to leave out the clause altogether, said, he believed it to be vexatious to certain classes and unnecessary. By the Bill, law and custom were strained in order to bring things into taxation that had always been exempted. The question must become a class question at the ensuing Elections, and he urged on the Government to let it stand over until the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to introduce a general measure on the subject.
  MR. STANSFELDdefended the clause, which was necessary to prevent the absurdity of an annual Bill dealing with exemptions.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 77: Majority 51.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (170).
Second Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (115); Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 5 and 6)* (154, 157).
Select Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1)* (68) [No. 166]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (110); Canonries* (83) [No. 168].
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 4, 5, and 6)* (149, 151, 152); Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland)* (158).
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1)* (68–167); Canonries* (83–169).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 2, 3, and 4)* (135, 142, 143), and passed.

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA. THE REVIEW IN WINDSOR PARK.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwished to know, Whether it was intended that their Lordships should sit on Tuesday next? The Review at Windsor on that day would not commence till 5 o'clock, and those of their Lordships who intended to be present could not possibly attend the meeting of the House. He wished to know if the Government had considered the probability of their having a poor attendance in the House on that evening, and whether it would not be as well to decide that there should be no sitting?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he could not answer the Question, but his noble Friend (Earl Granville) would be present before their Lordships adjourned, and would be able to give the desired information.
  LORD REDESDALEsuggested that there should be no sitting on Monday. Many of their Lordships desired to be present at the Naval Review on that day, which would prevent them attending the House. He should be glad to be informed on that point.
  At the close of the sitting,

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA—NAVAL REVIEW AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORDinquired whether it was the intention of the Govern-

  1217
  ment to move an adjournment over Monday next, on which day the Naval Review in honour of the Shah would be held.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that there was but one Motion of importance on the Paper for that day. He did not know whether his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) intended to bring it forward.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should certainly do so in the event of the House meeting.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the matter was in the hands of their Lordships. He should be guided by the opinions that might be expressed in reference to it.
  No noble Lord rising,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should make the usual Motion for adjourning till Monday.

  ARMY—CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD VIVIANasked, What steps are taken to ascertain the character of gentlemen who apply to be examined for direct commissions in the Army; and whether any, and, if so, what means are taken to prevent those who have been expelled from public institutions from entering into competition? He feared that the system of examination would exclude many excellent men from the Army; but while it did exist he thought it was for the Government to give a pledge that at least it should be so carried out as to insure the best men being obtained. He understood that in a recent examination there were 600 candidates for 80 commissions. Some of the persons who presented themselves were, he was told, very "rough diamonds," who, no doubt, might be knocked into shape in the service. Two of them, he was told, had been dismissed from the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. He hoped that this last statement was incorrect, for it would be strange that gentlemen dismissed—probably for drunkenness or grave insubordination—from that institution, and consequently excluded from the Artillery, should be allowed to serve in the Line. For Line service, men of high moral character, energy, and determination were required; but he feared that such were not the men who were coming in for examination under the existing arrangement. The best thing, he be-
  1218
  lieved, would be to revert to the Commander-in-Chief's List, and to let the responsibility fall on him. He feared that if anybody were allowed to compete, the Army would eventually become unfit for any gentleman to enter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, in reply to the noble and gallant Lord's first Question, that paragraph 13 of the regulations for first appointments required a certificate of good moral character from the clergyman of the parish in which the candidate had recently resided, or from the head of the College or school where he had been educated during the two preceding years, or some other satisfactory proof of good moral character. As to the second Question, the phrase "public institutions" was ambiguous—he presumed it referred to public military institutions. With respect to them, it had always been the practice to report every case of expulsion from Woolwich to the Commander-in-Chief—in fact, the expulsion could not take place without his authority. Cases of removal, which had always been distinct from expulsion, being the result of some minor irregularity or possibly of inability to comply with the educational requirements of the place, should be similarly reported, and were also dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief. In the two cases referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, the Office papers did not show that any such notification was made at the time—an omission which would not occur again. As to public institutions of a non-military character, His Royal Highness's opportunities of obtaining information were not equally good; but it was in contemplation to insert a rule requiring a candidate to mention the school or place of instruction which he had attended since the age of 12; so that should His Royal Highness think further inquiries into the antecedents of any candidate necessary, he might have full opportunities of doing so. His Royal Highness was now—as he had always been—the arbiter of the fitness of any gentleman for a commission in the Queen's forces, and his facilities for determining it had not been diminished by the changes recently made.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked, Whether His Royal Highness had the option of refusing permission to go up to be examined?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied, that if His Royal Highness deemed any candidate unfit to serve the Queen, no one could question his right to withdraw him from the competition.
  LORD VIVIANbelieved the two gentlemen referred to had passed the examination among the first candidates. Would they get their commissions, or could His Royal Highness refuse them as unfit?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, both cases, neither of which were cases of expulsion, were now under the consideration of His Royal Highness.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked, Whether the Commander-in-Chief could object to a man who had passed the examination as one of the first 80?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEapprehended His Royal Highness had such a right.
  EARL GREYsaid, that since the responsibility of selecting candidates had ceased to rest directly with the Commander-in-Chief, there was reason to fear that lees care than formerly had been exercised. He deprecated the lowering of the high character hitherto borne by British officers, and hoped that in any revision of the Rules it would be distinctly laid down that no man had a right to go up for these competitive examinations who could not satisfy the Commander-in-Chief that he was in all respects an eligible person for admission into the British Army. A written certificate was often of small value, being written very often by a man with little knowledge of the candidates.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, it was a duty of the military authorities to ascertain beforehand, as far as possible, the moral character and general acquirements of a candidate; and he had the power, which he exercised with every discretion, of rejecting any unfit man. It was, however, an extremely difficult and delicate matter to find out the exact character of young gentlemen; and in the two cases referred to by his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Vivian), anything more perfect than they were represented to be could not be conceived. This showed the necessity of great care; and if by accident a candidate's unfitness occasionally escaped discovery, it would be no fault of the authorities, if they could help it, but would be one of the accidents attending competitive examina-
  1220
  tions. Removal and expulsion were frequently confounded—but, in fact, they were very different things, for the former might be necessary in the interests of discipline for a very trivial offence, and it would be hard to exclude a man whose subsequent behaviour was good from the public service. In other cases removal almost amounted to expulsion and ought to be a disqualification. He regretted the occurrence of these cases, and trusted that in any future case of removal a repetition of this unfortunate error would be avoided.

ARMY—CONTROL DEPARTMENT—AUTUMN MANŒUVRES, 1872—REPORTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the War Department Whether any Reports were made by Lieutenant General Sir Robert Walpole, Lieutenant General Sir John Michel, and the Generals commanding Divisions, upon the working of the Control Department during the last Autumn Manœuvres; and, if so, to move an Address for their production. As had been stated at the time they were proposed, the Autumn Manœuvres were designed to serve as schools of instruction and to test the efficiency of every arm of the service. It therefore was important to know whether the Control Department—an important feature in Mr. Cardwell's re-organization of the Army—had proved efficient at at present constituted. What he desired to ascertain was the working of the Department, and whether it was likely to be efficient in time of war as proved by its efficiency in time of peace. The Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, in his interesting Report on the last Manœuvres, had spoken of the whole arrangements as more or less tentative, and had commended the zeal and attention of the officers of the Control Department. But without disparaging His Royal Highness's opportunities of seeing what occurred—he had himself said he frequently knew no more of what was going on than a casual spectator—it was obvious that the Generals commanding the various forces and their Brigadiers could give a more detailed account of the working of the

  1221
  Department than the Commander-in-Chief. The only subordinate officer, however, who in the published Report had been allowed to give his version of the proceedings was Mr. Maturin, a subordinate officer of the Control Department, who, alluding to reports that there had been inconvenient delays on the part of his Department in the supply of provisions and forage said, he had made inquiries which had shown that they were unfounded, and that he had much satisfaction in referring to the "favourable opinion expressed by the General Officers of Divisions, &c., as to the proceedings of this Department." Now, what might satisfy Mr. Controller Maturin might fail to satisfy their Lordships, and it would create a bad precedent to allow a public officer to refer to the opinions of other officers and to refuse the production of those opinions. He hoped, therefore, these Reports would be laid on the Table.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, Sir Robert Walpole and Sir John Michel had reported to His Royal Highness on a great number of subjects, including the working of the Control Department. The Generals of Divisions had also reported to those two Generals, whose Reports, indeed, were founded on those of the General Officers. The object of the Manœuvres—the testing in time of peace the efficiency of our arrangements for war—rendered it necessary that everything should be freely reported upon by the General Officers in command of corps d'armée; but it would be impossible for this to be done with the requisite freedom if it were known to those by whom the Reports were prepared that they would be circulated as public documents. He believed the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief would support him in this view. With regard to the published Report of Mr. Controller Maturin, had he (Mr. Maturin) specially referred to the General Officers' Reports as expressing approval or disapproval of the system of the Control Department, he could not have objected to their production; but this was not the case, for Mr. Maturin's reference was to the efficiency of the Control officers, whose exertions had been spoken of with commendation by His Royal Highness in his Report. Indeed, Mr. Maturin's Report had, in the first instance been appended to that of His
  1222
  Royal Highness and had been published as an integral part of the latter.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthen moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the above Reports.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked that according to this doctrine, Controller Maturin had more power than the Members of Parliament, for no Minister of the Crown could state the purport of a document in the possession of the Government without producing it.
  EARL GRANVILLEcontended that as a Member of the Government he was at liberty to state that diplomatic Correspondence was in a certain direction without being bound to produce the whole of that Correspondence.
  LORD VIVIANhoped the noble Duke would press his Motion.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEapproved the principle of concentrating the great departments of supply; and remarked that many of the difficulties encountered by the Control Department, such as railways and horses, would not arise in time of war. He had heard various complaints showing that the Control Department had not always worked satisfactorily, and he could not see that any disadvantage would accrue to the public service if certain extracts from the Reports of General Michel and General Walpole, and from the Reports of Brigadiers if necessary, were laid before Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEhoped the Motion would not be pressed, for it was impossible to expect that officers would report frankly and unreservedly if their Reports were to be published; and, moreover, complaints really trifling would be supposed by the general public, lacking the knowledge necessary to to judge such points, to be important. He might have been in fault in publishing Mr. Controller Maturin's Report—and there was clearly no more reason for publishing this than the Reports of General Officers. The conduct of the officers of the Control Department was admirable, and no men could have shown more zeal; but there were, no doubt, shortcomings in the system, and many points would require amendment. It was important the shortcomings should be ascertained, in order that they might be remedied, and he believed the Control Department would by degrees be

  1223
  brought into such a position that it would not encounter so many detractors as it certainly did at present.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that after what had fallen from the illustrious Duke he did not think he should be justified in pressing for the production of the Papers; but he was satisfied, from the course of the discussion, that he was quite justified in drawing their Lordships' attention to the subject—particularly as he found it required a great deal of persuasion to induce the Control Department to believe there was any possibility of their having any shortcomings. He had heard that the Control Department had not been a complete success during the Manœuvres, and that statement seemed to be confirmed by the fact, that the Under Secretary for War had declined to produce the Reports upon the subjects—if these Reports had been of a favourable character there would have been no difficulty about producing them. He hoped that for the future any document referred to in a published Report would be produced.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, that half the difficulties of the Control Department were attributable to the want of draught horses, and to the absurd and wasteful plan of converting cavalry horses into draught horses. This was like using blood horses in farming. It was unwise to attempt to save expense in such a way.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that the impression produced on his mind was that great care and efficiency had been shown by the Control Department in connection with the Autumn Manœuvres, both in the preparations beforehand and in the actual practice in the field.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEexplained that the objection he had taken was to the principle of the production of the Papers—an objection entirely borne out by what had fallen from the illustrious Duke.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn).

ARMY—ABOLITION OF PURCHASE—MEMORIALS OF OFFICERS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND rose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return of the number of officers
  1224
  of the army who have memorialised His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief with reference to their position and prospects consequent upon the abolition of purchase; and for, Copies of all letters from the generals commanding districts forwarding the said memorials."
  He had, he said, on a former occasion called attention to the existence of a feeling of discontent among officers of the Army resulting from the manner in which the abolition of purchase had been carried out. He believed, indeed, that he had rather under-stated than over-stated the extent of that feeling. He believed that a feeling of discontent now pervaded the whole Army, arising from the position in which they were placed by that great change. There was not a mess-room in the entire service in which the position of the officers was not freely criticized, and the conduct of the Government commented upon in no very flattering terms. In such an important body as the officers of the Army, it was a most unsatisfactory state of things that that feeling should exist. When he previously brought the subject under the notice of the House, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief pointed out how the grievances of the officers were to be brought under his consideration. He believed the number of those who had sent in their claims was very large; and it was in justification of what he had stated on a former occasion that he had put his present Motion on the Paper. He did not ask for what the officers said, nor for their specific complaints; but, in the first instance, for the number of those who deemed themselves aggrieved by the alteration of the law. He must observe that there was not a single Member of the Government connected with the War Department during the passage of that Bill who did not, on more occasions than one, point out that the position of the officers was to be no worse than it was before purchase was abolished. Therefore it was but natural, when purchase was abolished and officers found their position was now really worse, that discontent should prevail in the Army. He did not ask how it was proposed to deal with that question; but of this he was perfectly certain that a departmental inquiry would not satisfy the officers of the Army. He ventured to say that nothing would satisfy the officers or the country unless Her Majesty was gra-

  1225
  ciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission of inquiry into the subject, composed of thoroughly impartial and competent persons in whom both the service and the public would have confidence. If a Royal Commission so constituted were appointed, and their decision was adverse in many cases to the officers, still the officers would feel that they had had a fair inquiry, and that, however much they might dislike the result, they were bound to be satisfied with it. On these grounds he hoped the Government would recommend Her Majesty to issue such a Commission.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the number of officers of the army who have memorialised His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief with reference to their position and prospects consequent upon the abolition of purchase; and for, Copies of all letters from the generals commanding districts forwarding the said memorials.—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that he was anxious not to withhold from the noble Duke the information which could be legitimately given to him that he would not resist his Motion for the Return.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, he had never in the whole course of his long service seen anything like the feeling of discomfort and dissatisfaction which now existed among the officers of the Army. There prevailed a strong distrust of the War Office, not of the Horse Guards, for they respect the Commander-in-Chief and were as well inclined as ever to obey all military authority. When last year Lord Abinger moved in the most temperate manner for an Address to the Crown praying for a Commission to inquire into the case of 600 old captains, who were to be superseded by Artillery and Engineer officers, there was a majority—though he admitted a small one—on that occasion. Nevertheless, the Government ignored that majority entirely, and the warrant came out superseding those 600 old captains. The War Office have now restored 200—or one-third—of those old officers to their proper places exactly in the way the noble and gallant Lord asked to be done—and though it was true that even one-third of a loaf was better than no bread, the officers naturally felt much annoyed and disgusted with the inconsiderate conduct of the Se-
  1226
  cretary of State. Another small incident which lately occurred also showed what was being done, and how the Army was being taken out of the hands of the Horse Guards and placed under civilians. On the 1st of March last the official Army List was expected. What must have been the feelings of the officers when, on opening The Army List, they saw at its head, instead of the venerated name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, the name of the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell, Secretary of State! He could only say that his blood boiled to see it, and that feeling, he believed, was participated in by a great part of the Army. Colonel Hart, with the true feeling of a soldier, put the name of Her Majesty as commanding Her own Army, and he hoped that example would in future be followed in official Army Lists. He had no feeling against the Secretary for War. On the contrary, he had a great admiration of many of his qualities, knowing the pains he had taken to make himself acquainted with the Army and to grapple with many difficulties; still he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman was very ignorant and regardless of the feelings of the officers. The Government would, he trusted, very soon grant a Royal Commission, for he was convinced that nothing short of that would be satisfactory to either the officers or the men of the Army.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDexpressed a hope that the Return would soon be laid on the Table. The Session was passing away, and it was very desirable to ascertain without delay the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEassured the noble Duke that the Returns would soon be in their Lordships' hands, and that a full opportunity would be given them of considering the intentions of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Acts 1840 and 1850, and for other purposes—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 170.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.