Sitting of 27 June 1873

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [June 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 4, 5, and 6) * [208, 209, 210]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 4 and 5)* [211, 212].
Committee—Juries [35]—R.P.
Third Reading—Canada Loan Guarantee* [159]; Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* [198], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS OF MILITIA—RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate the establishment of a better system of retirement allowances for Adjutants of Militia, especially for those who were appointed before February 22, 1871?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (for Mr. CARDWELL)said: No general change is in contemplation with regard to the position of Adjutants of the Militia appointed before February 22, 1871. It is not intended in any way to disturb their position so long as they continue to discharge their duties. Under the Pay and Clothing Act, no adjutant under 60 years of ago is entitled
1496
to a retiring allowance unless he is invalided. An adjutant who has attained that age is entitled to a retiring allowance varying from three shillings to six shillings a-day, according to his length of service in Army and Militia. This is an addition to any half-pay to which he may be entitled.

METROPOLIS—CHAPTER-HOUSE, WESTMINSTER ABBEY—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE-COCHRANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury in the absence of the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended to complete the Chapter House at Westminster, and to carry out the original design of filling the windows with stained glass, and restoring some of the paintings on the walls?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he could not at the present time give a complete answer to the Question of his hon. Friend. He could not say whether the representation implied in the question of the original design was a perfectly accurate one or not; but he would certainly admit that the present state of the Chapter House was incomplete, and therefore so far not satisfactory. But the question of the Chapter House, although the obligation of Parliament towards it might be considered distinct, was not altogether inseparable from that of the Abbey. The Dean of Westminster had recently made an explanation to him upon the subject of the Abbey in general, and all he could say to his hon. Friend was that when the Dean had sufficient time to make known to him the whole of his views the subject would receive the careful attention of the Government.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—OVER-LOADING—THE "WESTDALE."

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTER (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the "Westdale," a large vessel which left West Hartlepool recently for Stockholm so excessively overloaded with railway iron that her scuppers were rather less than six inches only above the surface of the water as she was lying in the dock; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEin reply, said, that the Board of Trade had received no information respecting the vessel to which the hon. Member's Question alluded. It appeared that the crew did not make any complaint with regard to her being overloaded. Had they chosen to make any such complaint, they would have had a right to demand a survey; but, as they had omitted to do so, the Board of Trade had no power to stop the ship.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS—THE "DRUID."

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTER (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to prosecute the owners of the "Druid" for sending that vessel to sea in a state which drew from the Court of Inquiry two expressions of their opinion that the owners were guilty of culpable neglect; and, if not, on what grounds they refrained from a prosecution?
  MR. BRUCEin reply, said, that some time ago he had received from the Board of Trade a statement with reference to the Druid, and acting upon that statement, he had written to the Solicitor of the Treasury on the 11th of June last to direct that a prosecution should be instituted.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE FOLKESTONE MAGISTRATES—CASE OF "COLEMAN v. SMITHSON."—QUESTION.
  MR. F. S. POWELL (for Lord CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a recent decision of three of the magistrates of Folkestone in the case of James Coleman versus Olive Smithson and her mother; and whether, considering the apparent miscarriage of justice involved in their decision, he purposes calling the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, that he had received various coommunications on this subject, including the depositions and reports of the magistrates, and it certainly did not appear to him that any case for his making a representation to the Lord Chancellor in respect to it
  1498
  had been made out. The magistrates, in deciding the case, had merely exercised the discretion which they undoubtedly possessed, and he was not prepared to say that they had exercised that discretion unwisely. If the inhabitants of Folkestone believed that the magistrates had acted unjustly or had shown partiality or gross ignorance in the matter, they could themselves make a representation on the subject to the Lord Chancellor.

  DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1873—DRAINAGE OF THE RIVERS SUCK AND SHANNON—QUESTION.
  MAJOR TRENCHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that an application from proprietors and others, in the country traversed by the River Suck, to form the districts liable to inundation from that river into drainage districts under the Drainage Act of 1863, has been refused by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, acting under the direction of the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury; and, if such is the case, whether he will state to the House on what grounds this application by parties to be permitted to improve their river and drain their lands, at their own expense, has been refused?
  THE CHANCELLOR OE THE EXCHEQUERin reply, said, that the application referred to had been refused, upon the ground that the proprietors of the River Suck could only drain their land into the River Shannon, which could not be permitted until some scheme for the drainage of the River Shannon itself had been determined upon.

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

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to enter his protest against the mode adopted by Her Majesty's Government in reference to the Public Business of the House. One of the most important functions that House had to discharge was the voting of public money, and he had always understood the practice to be that Supply should be taken at those

  1499
  times only when there was likely to be a good attendance of Members. Indeed, when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, it rarely happened that Supply was put down for consideration at a morning sitting, and he felt satisfied that if the late Mr. Joseph Hume were now in the House, his voice would have been heard condemning the practice. The result of the present innovation was, that the ancient constitutional right of hon. Members to bring forward grievances on going into Committee of Supply had been altogether abrogated on Monday nights. He wished to have an explanation of the reasons which had led to the adoption of a plan, whereby the power of independent Members to bring forward questions of public interest on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply had been so considerably curtailed. He protested against the practice of putting Supply upon the Paper at a morning sitting, and doing so without giving reasonable notice. He appealed to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) and other hon. Members below the gangway, who professed to be the economists of the present day, whether they approved the plan of discussing questions of Supply in a thin House, many hon. Members being prevented attending morning sittings by professional and commercial engagements. At the present time, taking into consideration the decrepitude of Parliament, he did not think it necessary to take the opinion of the House on the subject, but he must enter his protest against a most objectionable practice.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that whatever might be the decrepitude of Parliament, he was glad to see that there were no signs of decrepitude in the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and who seemed to regard the question which he had brought up as a very great grievance. A brief explanation would, however, put the matter in a light different from that in which the hon. Gentleman had presented it to the House. Much that the hon. Gentleman had said, he had heard with great satisfaction. For instance, he had expressed the deep feeling of regret, longing, and reverence with which he looked back upon the memory of Mr. Joseph Hume, and he (Mr. Gladstone) recognized the debt they all owed to Mr. Hume for the patient and valuable, though irksome, work
  1500
  which he most ably and honourably performed in the service of the public. The hon. Gentleman then said there used to be no Order to take Supply at morning sittings, one possible reason for that being that at the time of which the hon. Member spoke there were no such sittings. The reason why Supply had been put upon the Paper was, that the Votes last night had not been taken after a certain hour, and had been postponed. The necessity for taking the Vote at present arose from the fact that the payment of money would be required at the beginning of next week, and it had been thought desirable that the money should be voted and paid regularly. The particular Vote was that relating to the Post Office Packet Service, from which would be omitted the item relating to the Zanzibar service, which had been referred to a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—POST OFFICE PACKET SERVICE.

  SUPPLY— considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,105,348, for the Post Office Packet Service; no part of which sum is to be applicable or applied in or towards making any payment in respect of any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863 to Mr. Joseph George Churchward, or to any person claiming through or under him by virtue of a certain Contract, bearing date the 26th day of April 1859, made between the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Admiralty (for and on behalf of Her Majesty) of the first part, and the said Joseph George Church-ward of the second part, or in or towards the satisfaction of any claim whatsoever of the said Joseph George Churchward, by virtue of that Contract, so far as relates to any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863.
  MR. BOWRINGasked, Whether it was not high time that the Notice which appeared on the Estimates, providing that no part of the Vote should be applicable to any claims which Mr. Church-ward might have in regard to the con-tract entered into with him for the conveyance of mails, and bearing date the 26th of April, 1859, should no longer be printed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was necessary to keep the Notice on the Estimates so long as the action which had been commenced by Mr. Church-ward was pending in the Exchequer Chamber. It was a precaution which

  1501
  was needed for the protection of the Executive Government and the public interest.
  MR. WHITEthought the House was indebted to Mr. Churchward for not withdrawing his action, as the continuance of the Proviso was a formal declaration of the undoubted right of the House to exercise its constitutional control over the Post Office Mail Contracts—a control which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently thought fit to treat with contempt. It was notorious that those contracts had been the occasion of much jobbery, much corruption, and needless expenditure. A part of the Vote—namely, £105,000, they were now asked to grant—that relating to the Cunard and Inman contracts, both of which were improvident contracts, made by the last Conservative Government—had been condemned by a Committee of the House, but retained for eight years in consequence of a technical difficulty due to a lack of vigilance and effective control by the House. He wished to know, whether the Postmaster General had given clue Notice to the contractors of the termination of several of these contracts, with the view of rendering our ocean mail communication self-supporting; instead of, as now, carried on at a cost in excess of receipts of quite £500,000 per annum
  MR. MONSELLsaid, it would be possible to a large extent, to get rid of the subsidies for ocean postage upon the termination of existing contracts; and to that end the Post Office had been steadily working, so that within the last two years a gross reduction had been effected to the amount of £45,000 and a net reduction to the amount of £34,000. With regard to pending contracts, notice had been given for the termination of the service between Point de Gallo and Sydney, costing £13,000. Notice also had been given with regard to the Brazil and River Plate service amounting to £33,500 a-year; the West India service, amounting to £172,914 a-year; St. Thomas and Puerto Rico, amounting to£1,000 a-year. It was also intended to give notice to terminate the following contracts:—The United States service (Cunard line), which cost £70,000 a-year; the Inman line, £35,000, though neither of those could terminate before December 31, 1876; St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat, £490; and other smaller
  1502
  services. In point of fact, what was aimed at was to get rid of all postal subsidies except for the service to the East, with which it was impossible to dispense altogether. He thought, therefore, he had shown not only that he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) as to the principles he had laid down, but that the Department had succeeded in effecting a considerable reduction, and would hereafter be able to make a much larger reduction.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he objected altogether to the restriction contained in the words with which the House of Commons accompanied that Vote. It amounted to a declaration that, whatever might be the decision of a Court of Law upon a certain action brought against the Government, the House of Commons would prevent the Government from paying any compensation which might be awarded to the plaintiff. Such a Resolution was most objectionable. If the Government had a good defence, why not make it?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had announced that the Post Office expected to make a considerable saving on contracts for the conveyance of foreign mails, he hoped that seine of those savings would be devoted to the improvement of the inland postage service in remote districts, some of which in Ireland were now very ill-served.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member for Galway county (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that the question before the House was the Vote for the Post Office Packet services.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), said, the House of Commons:, which voted the money, was perfectly justified in passing that annual Resolution, directing that the money should not be applied to that particular purpose. He knew nothing of the merits of the Churchward contract, but could not advise the Government to dispense with the condition.
  Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

    VOTE 11, PUBLIC EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
    (2.) £452,222, to complete the sum for the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in moving the sum necessary to complete the Vote for National Education in Ireland, said, the House last year had assented to an increase in the Vote, which would amount eventually to £100,000 for increased payments to Irish school teachers, chiefly determined by payments for results. Upon the whole, the increase had given great satisfaction to the teachers, and though he had not yet been able to lay on the Table the Report of the Commissioners of National Education for the past year, which would show the working of the new system, yet he thought he might say that, in the opinion of all the officers of the Board, the results so far had proved highly satisfactory. One difficulty had been experienced in applying the new system. Parliament thought that, while improving the pecuniary position of the teachers, it would be well to put them in a position of greater independence, and greater security of tenure. The grant to a manager of a school was, therefore, made conditional upon his entering into an agreement with the teacher, whereby the latter could only be dismissed after three months' notice or payment of three months' salary, unless upon sufficient cause shown; and the sufficiency of the cause was to be decided by the National Board. Considerable hesitation, however, was shown by school managers in signing that agreement. It was represented to the Government, and with much force, that the National Board were not a body calculated for the exercise of judicial functions, and that their decision must depend mainly upon the report of the Inspectors, who themselves were hardly competent to exercise such functions, not being able to examine witnesses on oath or compel their attendance. An alternative form of agreement was therefore agreed to by the Government, omitting all reference to the National Board, and leaving the teacher, in case of dispute, to his ordinary legal remedy, which would be before the Civil Bills Court, in
    1504
    which the procedure was extremely rapid and cheap. Cases of summary dismissal of teachers were extremely rare in Ireland; but where they did occur, he thought the protection which was meant to be given to the teachers would not be in any degree impaired by the new form of agreement. This alternative agreement had been almost universally accepted by the managers, and the additional salaries payable to the teachers had therefore come into operation in almost every school in Ireland. The progress which had been observed for many years past in the number of schools brought into connection with the Board was still observable, the number now under the Board being 7,060, which was an increase of 130 for the year. There was one circumstance which interfered considerably last year with the efficiency of school instruction in Ireland. In the early part of 1872 the small-pox and other epidemics were very prevalent in Ireland, and many schools had to be temporarily closed, while in others there was a great falling off in the attendance. An unusually inclement season had also diminished the attendance of children. In spite of these influences, however, the decrease in the number of children on the roll was not very serious, amounting only to 11,000 out of 1,010,000, while the average attendance had been reduced by 8,000 out of an average attendance of 335,000.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked, whether any steps had been taken to provide the masters with a superannuation allowance when they became too old and too feeble to discharge their onerous duties and with suitable residences? The noble Marquess, in bringing forward the Estimate last year, promised that it should be taken into consideration, and he hoped something had been done to promote so good and beneficent an object.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was necessary to be cautious, in making another appeal to the liberality of the House of Commons, but he had not lost sight of the points mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The increased grant for the benefit of the teachers had been voted for a term of three years, and would cost £100,000 a-year, and the Government had expressed a hope that at the expiration of that time a larger contribution would

    1505
    be forthcoming from local resources in aid of national education. When that time came, the questions now raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman might properly be considered.
    SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEthanked the noble Marquess and the Government for doing an act of justice to a deserving body of men, who would thereby be made more comfortable and more contented with their position. The diminished attendance referred to by the noble Marquess, in his opinion, was not only due to the causes mentioned, but in some degree to the decrease which had taken place in the population. He complained of the difficulty of properly considering the vote in the absence of the annual Report of the Board, and expressed his opinion that hereafter it would be impossible in Ireland to do without compulsory education.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.)£555, to complete the sum for the Office of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
    Committee to sit again this day.

  JURIES BILL— [BILL 35.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  JURIES BILL— [BILL 35.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 45 (Overseers and vestry clerks to present their accounts to the courts of revision.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 6, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the clause.—(Mr. Magniac.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that the matter under discussion had been fully considered in the Select Committee, the large majority being of opinion that the amount being very small it would be better to leave it in this way —if these charges were removed from the local rates this should go with them, and if they remained local burdens, it should remain with them. He did not in the least complain of the discussion
    1506
    which had been raised, nor did he wish to commit the House to the expression of any opinion on a matter which might be said to be sub judice. What he proposed was, to follow the precedent set in the 63rd section of the Irish Land Act, where a number of duties were imposed on existing officers, and it was provided that any additional expense incurred should be paid by the Treasury "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for that purpose." If that proposal were assented to, and if the Committee would pass the clause in its present form, he would take care on the Report to bring up another clause carrying out that view.
    MR. LOPESthought the hon. and learned Gentleman's present proposal was very satisfactory, and certainly much better than the original proposal to throw the expense upon the rates.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Clause 50 struck out of the Bill.
    Clause 51 agreed to.
    Clause 52 (Jury in trials for murder to be of twelve).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that was the only matter on which he thought he should have occasion to trouble the Committee with any remarks. He proposed to amend the clause by adding, in line 28, after "jurors," these words, "of whom four shall be special and eight shall be common jurors." He would take that opportunity of remarking that the Bill, as it left the Select Committee, was, in his view, defective in one respect, and made certain alterations in the composition of juries in others. It did not provide what he had exceedingly at heart, that was, to ascertain the relative proportions of common and special jurors upon every ordinary jury. The Bill, as it left the Select Committee, did make this considerable alteration—it provided that so far as treason and murder were concerned there should be 12 jurors to try a case, but in other cases the number of jurors should be reduced to seven, and there were also some Amendments inserted on the subject of unanimity. He had not altered his own judgment

    1507
    as to having the number of jurors fixed at seven in ordinary cases. He believed that that number would in general be quite sufficient, and the labour of jurors would be much lessened by reducing the number to seven. Twelve might be an ancient number, and people were fond of old associations and traditions; and it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen in that House, and for Judges, to say that they preferred that the number should be 12; but then those Gentlemen had not the liability to serve on juries. To his mind it was of great importance that juries should consist only of persons who were willing to undertake the duty, and that it should not be so burdensome that they would try to escape from it. He had, however, received so many communications from different quarters against any change in the number of 12 that he was disposed to give way. He had also solicited the opinion of the Common Law Judges, and had received from the Lord Chief Justice a statement that they were unanimously of opinion, and strongly so, that there was no cause for diminishing the number of jurors constituting a jury, and, further, that there would be an objection to having 12 for one kind of jury and seven for the others. That being so, and having also heard strong opinions expressed to the same effect from various other quarters, he had thought it better to yield the point, and therefore he should himself move to amend the Bill by striking out that part of it which proposed to reduce the number of jurors to seven. It was with considerable reluctance he had yielded this point, because he knew how irksome it was under the present system for so many jurors to be required to attend. He had, however, thought it better to give way in reference to this matter, which was not of itself of vital importance, rather than to risk the success of the measure. He had also communicated with the learned Common Law Judges on the subject of the unanimity now required of jurors in finding their verdicts, and he had ascertained that although they were themselves unanimous with regard to retaining the present number of jurymen on the jury, they were divided on the subject of the necessity of unanimity on the part of the jurors in finding their verdict. He did not disguise his opinion that the
    1508
    time for requiring absolute unanimity on the part of jurors had gone by, and that it would be more reasonable to accept the verdict of a certain definite majority. It was not right that some unreasonable or ill-conditioned juryman should have the power, by standing out against his 11 colleagues, to cause the whole expense of a protracted trial to be thrown away, or to enable a notorious criminal to escape from justice. Holding that view, therefore, he should take the opinion of the Committee upon the point, which, however, he did not regard either as being of vital importance to the Bill. He now came to a point which he had very greatly at heart, and on which, in his opinion, the value of the Bill very largely depended. In his view, it was most desirable that the special jury and the common jury elements should be represented in a certain definite and ascertained proportion on all juries. The main objections that he had heard raised against his proposition were these—that the different classes in this country would not like to be fused together in a jury-box; that there was a want of constitutional precedent for the proposed change; that the influence of the special jurors would dominate and overcome the freedom of will of the common jurors; that the result would be to create class antipathies in the jury-box, and that difference in the amounts paid to the jurymen would be to create an invidious distinction between them. The last objection he proposed to meet by rendering the payment to all jurors on each jury the same. As a matter of history, it was well known to every lawyer that up to 100 years ago all classes were fused together in cases where the sheriff was instructed to summon a "good jury," an expression that was equivalent to our present "special jury." The technical distinction between common and special jurors was a thing of yesterday, and during the last two or three years since the Act of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) had come into operation, both classes of jurors had been placed on the same list, and in fact he had been informed by Mr. Erle, that on a recent occasion, in the Court of Common Pleas, for several days common-jury cases had been tried wholly, or almost wholly, by gentlemen who were special jurors. There was very high

    1509
    authority in favour of the fusion of the two classes upon juries. The Common Law Commissioners reported in that direction in 1853; there was a similar Report in 1860; and the Judicature Commission in 1869 approved what had been said in the two previous Reports. It was true that those bodies had expressed themselves in favour of an indiscriminate admixture of both classes of jurors, but it would be found to work much better if a definite and ascertained proportion of each class were placed on the jury. In fact, it would be almost impossible to insure that there should be a fair proportion of each class on every jury, unless something else than mere chance were to be relied upon. For instance, in Kent there were 15,200 common jurymen and only 400 special jurymen; and how was it possible under such circumstances that the presence of even one special juryman could be insured in each jury if the jurors were taken by chance from a general list? In St. Pancras the proportion of special jurors was still less. On the other hand, in the City of London, the greater proportion of the jurymen consisted of merchants, whose time would be utterly wasted if 12 of them were required to determine some small common jury cause. In order that the tribunal should be one which would be most likely to do justice between persons of all classes and engaged in every variety of business who might appeal to juries in order to the settlement of questions at issue between them, it was of great importance that there should be a definite proportion of jurors in civil and criminal cases, and in some criminal cases—cases of felony—it was necessary that they should, as far as possible, have the higher class of mind to investigate and discriminate on the evidence. The prisoner, in cases of felony, had the right to challenge any man being placed upon the jury to try him for such reasons as he might be supposed to entertain. It might be thought that in some cases prisoners should be tried by a particular class of men, but in a butcher's case it would not be desirable to have a jury of butchers. He could not think how there could be any objection to making the standard of the jury certain and definite, instead of taking the jury haphazard. It had been said there were objections to his proposal. Now, what were they?
    1510
    It was not impossible to have definite proportions in the composition of the jury. A jury composed of classes it was said would be discordant; but why should it be supposed that men going into a jury-box should enter into it with discordant feelings? He thought that class tests should be given up. If they would look at the jury list of the parish of St. Pancras, they would see that juries were indiscriminately entered in that list. He found in a page which he now opened haphazard the name of a photographer, that of a butcher, that of an artist, and those of men of the grade of society from which special juries were drawn. It was generally agreed, he believed, that it would be desirable to have a mixture of classes in the ranks of jurors, and he wished to know, therefore, why the relative proportions of the different classes should not be definitely fixed so that there might be one regular standard, as far as that was possible of attainment. He did not for a moment believe in the assertion that the fusion of classes would tend to discord in the jury-box, for it was a general aspersion upon all society to suggest that a jury would fail to do justice between litigants simply because they belonged to different ranks in society. The experience of three years had shown that none of the evils anticipated from the course he suggested were in the least likely to arise, and therefore he moved to amend the section by inserting words to provide that in all trials of civil or criminal issues the jury should consist of 12 persons, of whom four should be "special" and eight "common" jurors.
    Amendment proposed, in line 28, after "jurors," insert "of whom four shall he special and eight shall be common jurors."— (Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. LOPESsaid, the question now before the Committee, as he understood it was, whether there should be composite juries, that was to say juries composed of mixed classes. Now, that was a most important question, and a proposal to which he was most decidedly opposed. The Bill had been most carefully discussed in a Committee upstairs, of which he had the honour to be a Member, and a division was taken on this question; and in his recollection of that division the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who new brought forward

    1511
    this proposal, stood alone, every single Member of that Committee voting against him. Those Gentlemen were almost all of them lawyers, who had had much professional experience of the working of the law and its administration in Courts of Justice. The Judges, too, had had some parts of the Bill submitted to them for the expression of their opinions. Why had they not been asked to pronounce upon that particular part of it? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the Bill was submitted generally to the Judges, but they had not expressed an opinion on this part of it.] With regard to the question of "unanimity" in the verdict of the jury, the hon. and learned Gentleman said the opinion of the Judges had been taken, and that the majority of the Judges were opposed to any alteration. The number of which the jury should consist, and whether the jury should be unanimous were questions of great importance. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he had abandoned his desire to reduce the number of juries. Now, on that question he might say that he had often himself, in that House, expressed his opinion that while in criminal cases the number should be 12; in civil cases it would be more convenient both to the jurors themselves and the public generally that the number should be seven. They had precedents for the smaller number in the constitution of County Court juries which consisted of five members; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had abandoned his proposal to reduce the existing number of jurors he (Mr. Lopes) should not say anything more on that part of the Bill. He came now to the question of "unanimity" of juries in their verdicts, and he, for one, was in favour of unanimity, because he believed that its abolition would never give satisfaction. With regard to a single juror standing out and no verdict in consequence being come to, he believed it to be a very rare case, and there were occasions when the single juror was right. But of this he was quite certain, the necesssity for that "unanimity" led to a thorough investigation and consideration of the case by all the jurors, which its abandonment would fail to secure. He was aware that it was said that unanimity was not required in the Scotch jury system; but in Scotland there was an intermediate
    1512
    verdict of "not proven," which destroyed the analogy. With regard to the proposal of "composite" juries, he held that it was impossible that such a composition in a jury could give satisfaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, in his opinion, such a composition as he advocated would not cause discord among jurors, but he (Mr. Lopes) believed the contrary. And he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he himself had not seen cases where a tales had been prayed, and common jurors called into the box to make up a special jury, in which discord was manifested in their deliberations, the special jurymen taking one side the common jurymen the other? Take the case of an action to enforce farming covenants in a lease; was it likely the special juryman and the common would entertain the same opinion? They might take other cases—that, for instance, of a gentleman and his tenant serving on the same jury. Was it not likely that the gentleman might exercise an influence on his tenant; that a good customer sitting on the same jury with his tradesman might also exercise some influence? He maintained that in the composition of such a jury they would have the elements of discord, and in many cases no verdict at all; and he was bound to say that, all through the profession the feeling was generally against the proposal of the Attorney General, which he hoped the Committee would reject.
    Mr. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, composite juries were an innovation upon the constitutional doctrine that a man should be tried by his peers. If two classes were expressly empanelled upon a jury, in certain proportions, and if the four special jurymen were ticketed as men of superior intelligence, who were to enlighten the rest of the jury, the result must be antagonism between the two classes; nor would rating at £100 a-year be any sufficient test of the higher qualification which a special juryman was supposed to possess. The real question was, did the present system of 12 men indiscriminately selected give confidence to the people that they would have a fair trial according to the laws of the country? He maintained that it did. In the case of the gas stokers, for instance, though there were complaints of the severity of the Judge and of the

    1513
    state of the law, there was no complaint of the verdict of the jury. But if we did anything to weaken the confidence of the people in trial by jury we would damage the law itself. He hoped that the Committee would reject the proposal by so large a majority as to show that these theoretical or speculative opinions of professional men had no influence on the House of Commons.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed not to be content with the lawyers, even when they agreed with him. With respect to the retention of 12 jurors, he (Mr. G. Hardy) agreed in it, because it was a tribunal that had given satisfaction to the people. He thought the principle of unanimity should be retained, because in criminal cases there was no appeal; but if that unanimity was abolished, the right of appeal must be established. It would be far better to retain unanimity than to introduce the difficulties that must arise in the establishment of majorities. In civil cases the parties were able by consent to try with a less number than twelve, and that right should be retained. As to the composition of the jury, what be understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to propose was, that they should have two lists from which to select the juries—namely a common and a special list, and that eight should. be taken from the common jury list and four from the special jury list.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that there would be but one jury list; but that the special jurors would be distinguished from the others by having the letter S attached to their names, or in some similar way.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that was practically having two lists. But see what enormous hardships would arise from such a system. According to his hon. and learned Friend, in Kent there were 15,200 common, and only 400 special jurors; in other words, the special jurors were only in the proportion of one in 38 to the common jurors. Therefore, if four special jurors were chosen for eight common jurors, the former would have to serve 19 times oftener than the latter. Now, that was a great hardship, and very unfair. If a distinction such as that proposed were made, it would shake confidence in the
    1514
    mind of the people in the tribunal. He quite agreed that the more mixed the general jury list the better, but the selection of the jury should be left to chance, and not to the officer of the Court; otherwise, if there was a division of eight to four it would be said that the four were the gentlemen's jury and the eight the common men's jury. We all knew what "good juries," meant in former times, and if the attempt was made now to get "good juries," it would be said that it was done in order to get "good verdicts," which very often would be far from satisfactory to the people.
    MR. WESTwas of opinion that if they were to have a jury selected from the different classes, the effect would be to shake all confidence in trial by jury. He was unable to understand hew the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General's proposal could be carried out, if the right of challenge was retained; because the four specials selected by the officer of the Court would in all probability be continually challenged. They were embarking by that Bill on a most dangerous course, and the Committee should well consider the proposition, before they adopted that which would destroy the confidence which now existed in trial by jury. They were trying to raise the standard of the jury; but in his opinion they were going too far. He had heard observations made about the poor man's feelings; one thing he would remark, that the poor man would not be "tried by his peers," but by a class above him; and if they did not take care in their legislation they would cause great injury. He wanted to know what was the object of this proposed change. Were the people of this country dissatisfied with the existing system of the trial by jury? He did not believe that they were, and he warned the House not to give way to such a proposed change as that now under consideration. It was already observed that the principle that the poor man should be tried by his peers was violated at present, and care should be taken lest dissatisfaction should be created in the poorer classes because they were tried by persons superior to them in wealth.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there could be no doubt they had arrived at a very important part of the Bill, and they should give it their most serious consideration.

    1515
    With regard to criminal cases the feeling of the country was that the number of the jury should continue 12, as at present. He very much regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had departed from his original proposal, for with regard to civil cases, he (Mr. Gregory) was of opinion that a jury of "seven" would give satisfaction, and what the reason was for maintaining the number 12 he really could not understand. There was no doubt that there had been great scandals in the administration' of justice from requiring unanimity in juries, the effect being to enable one or two obstinate men to stand out, and either to prevent a verdict being returned or enforce a compromise. He was of opinion that a jury of seven with a verdict of six would give general satisfaction as regarded the plan of mixed juries. With all respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not think that this scheme would work satisfactorily. He (Mr. Gregory) was in favour of maintaining the distinction between special and common jurymen, and he could not help thinking that in mixing the two classes together they would create feelings of jealousy, and that in many cases the higher class of jurors might use influence to induce the humbler class of jurymen to give a larger amount of damages than they might otherwise be disposed to award. There was another point connected with the subject which he wished to refer to. He was of opinion that in cases of murder the jurors should be selected from the special jury list. It need be remembered that there could be no reversal of the sentence in these cases after execution, and that they frequently turned upon circumstantial or scientific evidence of much nicety, and requiring much discrimination. The result was that an ignorant or incompetent jury was obliged to rely altogether upon the direction of the Judge, and the verdict became his instead of theirs.
    MR. GOLDSMIDthought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would do well to consider the suggestions made as to the composition of his proposed jury class, and the method of selection of the jurors; for, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had pointed out, if the mixed system were adopted special jurors would in Kent be called
    1516
    upon to serve 19 times for every once that a common juror had to serve. This would aggravate many times the unfairness which was now complained of. Moreover, he (Mr. Goldsmid) saw no reason to alter the composition of the jury, for the tendency in this country at present was to raise the standard of education in the class from which common juries were selected; and that being so, there did not appear to him to be any occasion to change the form and character of the tribunal of trial by jury. He was inclined also to think it was often more through the fault of counsel than of the jurymen that the latter did not understand a case. He knew that in the county of Kent, common jurymen had shown that they understood the questions they had to try, and as to the hon. and learned Gentleman's remedy, it would be worse than the disease he spoke of. He felt that they would by the Bill create a class distinction which would produce bad effects, and he hoped for those reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) and consent to the clause being withdrawn.
    MR. FLOYERwas of opinion that if the clause were carried out it would be productive of great dissatisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had given special reasons why the clause should not be accepted, and his suggestions were worthy of the serious consideration of the Committee. He (Mr. Floyer) did not see any necessity for raising the character of the jurors. His experience in quarter sessions had led him to the conclusion that the present juries were on the whole satisfactory. He took exception to the proposed change in the composition of juries, and considered that the hardship which the fixing of definite proportions of each class must impose on the special jurors would be intolerable, while the line of distinction which it was proposed to draw between the two classes must prove seriously detrimental to the interests of justice.
    MR. WALTERwas in favour of the standard of juries being improved, but not through the artificial method proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman

    1517
    the Attorney General. He would put the matter to his hon. and learned Friend in this way. There was a great demand among certain classes of the people for the introduction of "working men" into the House. Nobody, he thought, would object to the presence of one or two working men in the House; but if it were proposed that a definite number, say 40 working men, should be Members of that House, could anything more fatal to such a scheme be proposed? Or suppose it was proposed that so many country gentlemen, lawyers, doctors, and merchants should be Members of that House, could anything be suggested more condemnatory of such a plan? He, therefore, hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the clause, which would force upon the Committee to say that there should be an artificial proportion of what was called the more educated class to the ordinary class of jurors.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could answer the objections which had been made to the clause, but he would give way and not trouble the Committee. His fate before the Select Committee was to stand alone on the question, and it would seem that his fate had pursued him into the House itself.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JAMESpointed out that since the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not insist on the point, the object of the clause otherwise was already provided for by the Common Law, and he would therefore suggest that the clause, being superfluous, should be struck out.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause struck out accordingly.
    Clauses 53 and 54 negatived.
    Clause 55 (Special juries to be of special jurors only).
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSmoved at the end of the clause the insertion of the words—
    "Provided also, That the existing right of either party to pray a tales shall not be affected by this clause."
    MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, since Clause 93 of the Bill already effected the same thing.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved its omission altogether, as its insertion would simply leave the law exactly where it was at present.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, but for some clause of the kind the law would not stand as it did now.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that an inconsistency would arise if the clause were passed, since the Committee had already decided that there should not be a composite jury of special jurors with common jurors without the consent of both parties. Supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General himself were to try the question with that Bill before him, and one of the parties prayed a tales. His hon. and learned Friend might then turn to the former part of the Bill and say—" You have no right to a special jury with a common juror upon it, without the consent of both parties. I, for one of the parties, do not consent."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Bill enacted for the first time that the ordinary common jury should consist of both common and special jurors. That being the case, he had thought that it might be said—now that special and common jurors were to serve in turn together on the same jury, that the old special jury was abolished; and therefore the present clause was required.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 110: Majority 55.
    Clause 56 struck out.
    Clause 57 (Courts empowered to order the attendance of jurors).
    MR. WESTpointed out that the plan of selecting jurors from the list alphabetically would in large counties like Yorkshire and Lancashire have the effect of causing great inconvenience. The present plan was the best, as it enabled jurors to be drawn from the neighbourhoods in which the cases were to be tried, instead of absolute strangers being drawn from distant points at great and unnecessary personal inconvenience.
    MR. STANHOPEagreed with the last speaker, and pointed out that in Yorkshire, the county from which he came, the operation of the hon. and

    1519
    learned Gentleman the Attorney General's proposal would produce endless confusion and inconvenience.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that even in large counties like Lancashire and Yorkshire there was but one Sheriff and one jury list, and. he presumed that if his proposal was acceded to the particular jurisdictions would, as now, be carefully attended to.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had dropped out of the Bill almost all of its provisions as far as they had gone, and in order to enable the Government to consider the propriety of dropping the measure altogether, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Anderson.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Motion.
    MR. LOPEShoped the Motion would not be pressed. There yet remained in the Bill excellent machinery for regulating the incidence of service upon jurors, and he hoped it would be proceeded with.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), that, under the Bill as it stood, considerable hardship might be inflicted on jurors in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
    MR. LOPESexpressed a hope that the machinery to be used in summoning jurors would be so constructed that the anticipated hardship might be avoided.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALreminded the Committee that the question did not arise under the clause they were considering.
    MR. WESTsaid, that when he drew attention to the subject the other evening, he was told by the Attorney General that the question could be best considered under the present clause.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that if better machinery than that proposed by the Bill were not provided, there would be so much dissatisfaction
    1520
    created by the measure that it would have to be amended next year.
    MR. PHILIPShoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take the suggestion thrown out by hon. Members into consideration.
    MR. STANHOPEsaid, that under the Bill the three Ridings of Yorkshire would be treated as one county.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that such was certainly not intended to be the case. He would take the entire question raised into consideration so as to secure that the system of rotation might not in operation involve the hardship or inconvenience which hon. Members seemed to apprehend, but which he failed to see that it could. If any plan could be devised by which the issues to be tried at a particular place should be tried by juries drawn from around that place he should be glad to accept it.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked that the entirely new system introduced by the Bill would be felt most onerous in its application to that part of the country with which he was connected, and would make the Government very unpopular.
    MR. FLOYERcalled attention to the fact that this question would be naturally raised on the 65th section, which provided that the summoning officers should take the names as they appeared in rotation on the list. If the Committee discussed subsequent clauses beforehand, and then discussed them afterwards all over again, the House might sit till next year.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 58 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 61 (Cause may be made triable by special jury by order).
    MR. GREGORYmoved in page 17, line 29, at end add—
    "and further, that the court or a judge in such case as they or he may think fit, may order that a special jury be struck according to the practice in force before the passing of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1852,' and such order shall be a sufficient warrant for striking such special jury and making a panel thereof for the trial of the particular cause."
    A case of considerable importance might arise in which it might be desirable to have some commercial men upon the jury, and there might be no such men in the panel, and a discretionary power ought to be given to the Judge to strike

    1521
    a special jury under the old system in such an event.
    MR. LOPEShoped the Amendment would be agreed to. The old process was preserved in the Act of 1870, and there could be no objection raised to it, as it could only be carried out, under the proposed Amendment, by leave of the Judge.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought it would be useful to preserve the power and therefore had no objection to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to
    Clause 64 (Jurors to serve in other courts than those for which they were summoned).
    MR. GREGORYmoved in page 18, line 15, before "Every," insert—
    "No juror summoned in any civil cause shall be required to attend upon his summons for more than two consecutive days unless he shall have been sworn and empannelled upon some jury for the trial of a cause."
    He was not anxious to keep to the two days; they might be two or three; but he thought a man ought not to be kept day after day without being empannelled. Unless he was empannelled within a reasonable time the juror should be discharged.
    MR. LOPESthought such an Amendment would be very desirable, if it could be carried out, but there would be great difficulties in its way. If the Amendment were adopted and the first case in the list lasted for two whole days the Judge might find himself without a single juror left to try the remaining cases. The question was one which ought to be left to the discretion of the Judge and the associate.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 65 (All jurors to be summoned by the sheriff only).
    Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again;"—(Mr. Assheton), put and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
    The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

  CHURCH RATES (SCOTLAND).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. M'LAREN,in rising to move—
    "That the levying of local rates and assessments on lands and houses for the erection and repair of Churches and Manses in Scotland, for the supposed benefit of a minority of the population, is unjust in principle, and the cause of great dissatisfaction amongst the people; and looking to the hopes held out by the Government on the subject, this House is of opinion that a Bill should be introduced by the Government during the present Session of Parliament, to remove the existing grievance."
    said, that the Motion of which he had given Notice was to the effect, that the House was of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should during the present Session introduce a Bill for the abolition of rates for the building and repair of churches and manses in Scotland. He should like the House to understand that the people of Scotland were asking no peculiar privileges. Similar rates were abolished in Ireland a very long time ago, and in England they were abolished within the last few years. In England, the rates were not exactly abolished out and out, but the power of distraint in order to compel their payment was taken from the Church. In like manner, all the people of Scotland desired was to be placed on a footing of equality with their English brethren; not that church rates should be peremptorily abolished by Act of Parliament, but that the power of distraining for church rates should be abolished. The people of Scotland thought that in all parts of the Empire equal justice should be done, and that what was found a good law for England could not possibly be found other than a good law for Scotland. There was a distinction to be drawn between the church rates as they were levied in England and church rates levied in Scotland—namely, that although in England the burden of

    1523
    the church rates fell upon land, yet they were, in the first instance, paid by the occupiers. In Scotland, the rate was not disguised in that manner, because it was directly payable by the landowner. The hon. Member having read a Petition of the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, was proceeding, 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 till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Petitions of Right (Ireland)* (180).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (170).
Report—Thames Embankment (Land)* (137–179); Canonries* (169); Admission to Benefices and Church wardenships, &c.* (176–181).

ORDER OF MERIT.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL STANHOPE,in proposing an Address, praying Her Majesty to take into her gracious consideration the institution of an Order of Merit, by which Her Majesty would be enabled to bestow a sign of her royal approbation on men who have deserved well of their country in science, literature, and art, said, that when in February last a proposal to allow British subjects to wear foreign decorations was made to the House by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Houghton), he expressed his concurrence in the answer given by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (Earl Stanhope) then said that he deemed it of great importance to maintain the principle that the Queen alone was the fountain of honour; but at the same time he expressed his great regret that no means appeared to exist among us of distinguishing the men who had deserved well of their country, or who had attained eminence in other walks of life than civil or military service. That was no new opinion of his, arising only out of that debate. For many years past he had felt the same regret, and awaited only what he thought a favourable opportunity of submitting that question to the judgment of the House. Orders of Knighthood in their earliest origin were, it might be said, confederacies for military objects, arising from the wars in the East between the Christians and the Saracens. One of those early institutions—the Knights of Malta—continued, as their Lordships knew, to live, or at least to linger, until nearly their own times. Subsequently there arose other Orders of Knighthood rewarding military services in wars between the divers Christian States. Civil services were for the most part only by slow degrees acknowledged. Still more tardy had. been the recognition by any State of

  1467
  merit in literature, art, or science, which, indeed, in a less civilized state of society, were held of small account. Poets, for example, in this country were for some time regarded as an inferior rhyming race, whose principal distinction was the Poet Laureateship, and their principal employment to extol in birthday odes the virtues of the reigning King and Queen. Only by degrees had juster ideas on these points prevailed, and at present there was scarcely a State of any importance on the Continent which had not admitted the right to decorations to the men of eminence in art, science, and literature. England only, he believed, among the nations of Europe was on these points, he must say, discreditably lagging in the rear. As regarded those foreign nations, he would not weary the House by going over the States of small extent or more recent formation, but would confine himself to those four which, in conjunction with England, used to be surnamed the Five Great Powers. First, as to France. There, as was well known, the Legion of Honour was in its very nature comprehensive. There, an artist like Delaroche, or a man of science like Cuvier, was decorated with the same riband that rewarded a diplomatist like Talleyrand or a statesman such as Thiers. There, as he would venture to assert, a most healthful spirit of emulation was engendered by a distinction which was open to all, and which required no passport of birth, but only the proof of merit. Passing to Austria, he had received much information from that most accomplished statesman, Count Beust, who now so worthily represented the Court of Vienna in this country. He learnt from him that of the various Austrian Orders only one, that of Maria Theresa, was strictly confined to military service. To the others, men of literature and science were freely admissible. As instances might be mentioned, Professor Mittermeyer, of Heidelberg, and a poet at Vienna of great fame throughout Germany, and less known in England than perhaps he deserved to be, Grillparzer, who had attained old age, and was celebrating the anniversary of his birth with his friends, when, by a graceful attention of the Emperor, he was gladdened by receiving the Grand Cross of the Francis Joseph. Much the same, as far as he could learn, was the case in Russia. No Order was
  1468
  specially reserved for men of art and science, but they could find a place in others side by side with the men who had served the State in administration and in warfare. In Prussia of late years the greatest zeal in this cause had been shown. There was an Order entitled Pour le Mérite, founded by Frederick the Great, who had appropriated it to military service in the field; but the late King of Prussia, by a decree, dated May 31, 1842, extended the Order, or rather formed a new class in it, for men who had attained eminence in any branch of knowledge or of art. The number of these, exclusive of honorary members from foreign countries, was fixed at 30, and it was added in the decree—"The study of theology is in accordance with its spirit excluded from this Order." Here, perhaps, there was much to be said on both sides. On the one hand it might seem hard that eminence in theology should not be rewarded as eminence in different branches of study; on the other hand, it was certain that, wherever religious jealousies were rife, a minister would be exposed to constant misconstruction, as if he sought to promote a particular doctrine, while he ought only to consider the claims of eloquence and learning. He was not concerned, however, at present to argue that particular point one way or other; he had mentioned it only as part of the information which he was desirous of affording. He now came to the case of England, and here he would venture to assert that, so far as concerned the recognition of literature, science, and art, we, far from advancing, had actually retrograded. He would go through our different stars and crosses. The Order of the Garter was, as their Lordships' knew, confined to Peers. The instances of Commoners holding it since the Revolution—Sir Robert Walpole, who received it before he was created a Peer —Lord North and Lord Castlereagh, as eldest sons of Peers—were very few. It had been refused by both Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel. The same might be said of the Orders of the Thistle in Scotland, and St. Patrick in Ireland. As to the Bath, originally the reward of naval and military services, it had been extended to diplomatists and statesmen, but was not now extended to men in other walks of life. That had not been always so, for a red riband was formerly granted

  1469
  to men of science, and it added to the dignity with which Sir Joseph Banks used to preside over the Royal Society. No similar instance could be given at the present time, and it was this fact which justified him in saying that in this respect, far from advancing, we had, in truth, gone back. The inequality of the present system had also been strikingly shown by the decoration of the Bath being conferred only a few weeks since on Professor Owen, a man, he need not say, of the greatest eminence in the science of Palæontology, but who was eligible only as the holder of an office in the Civil Service—namely, at the British Museum. Now suppose that a man of equal eminence in the kindred study of Geology, Sir Charles Lyell, had been marked out for the like honour from the Crown; then as not holding an office he would not be eligible. Was not this single fact sufficient to make out the case against the present rules? Here were two men equally great in science; the one eligible for distinction because he filled an office, the other not eligible because without place or salary he had laboured in the same cause as an independent man. His object would be equally attained by the foundation of a new Order, or by the creation of a new class of the existing Order of the Bath, conferable upon distinguished men of literature, science, and art; and it would be for the advisers of the Crown to consider which course was preferable. He could not see why one or other of these courses should not be pursued. If done, he believed, the effect would be to give a great encouragement to the progress of literature, science, and art in this country, and that a befitting means would be thereby supplied to the State to reward distinguished men who had hitherto been neglected by it. In the debate referred to, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) spoke slightly of the value of Orders, and cited the remark made of Lord Castlereagh by Prince Metternich at the Congress of Vienna, undecorated in the midst of diplomatists brilliant with stars and ribands—"Mafoi! c'est bien distinguâ." But from whom did the disparagement of Orders in that debate proceed? Who was the noble Earl who spoke so slightingly of them? Why, a Knight of the ancient and illustrious Order of the Garter. Was it then seemly in a Knight of that
  1470
  illustrious Order, in a man who had attained the highest distinction that Order could confer, to blame other men who, in reward of honourable labour, sought in a lesser field a like distinction? For the noble Earl to adopt such a tone was something like one of the merchant princes of London—a Rothschild, say, or a Baring—holding forth on the worthlessness of wealth. Members of this House were ambitious of earning a red or blue riband by public service; and why should it be discreditable for the poet or artist to nourish a similar ambition? To condemn Orders altogether would partake too much of that utilitarian spirit which, unhappily, was only too characteristic of the present age. If admitted in this case it might be applied to other cases also. Why might not the standard of England itself be described as only a piece of silk, red or blue, with some devices embroidered upon it and stuck at the end of a pole? Yet, this was the standard which had never waved without affording protection to all entitled to it, and which thousands had died for in battle rather than surrender. Much had been said out-of-doors of the difficulty there would be in selecting men for this distinction. He admitted that there would be a difficulty; but the First Lord of the Admiralty had to select lieutenants from cadets, and captains of ships from lieutenants, while the abolition of purchase in the Army had increased the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief with regard to appointments. The difficulty of selection would not be greater in that than in other cases, and he might add that both the late Prime Minister and the present, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone, both men of literary attainments and corresponding reputation, would be peculiarly qualified to select the proper men. In the establishment of such an Order three rules, however, would be essential, and those would lessen the difficulty of selection. It might be right in already established Orders, as in the Garter, to consider political partizanship or party fidelity, but the new Order of Merit should be open to all parties and to all or nearly all professions and ranks, while the person admitted must be left quite free to vote against the Minister who had recommended him. Next, the number, whether confined to a single class, or, as he would rather advise, extended to

  1471
  two, should, as in Prussia, be limited; for otherwise there would be constant solicitation to add one more, instead of, when once filled, leaving only vacancies to be supplied. Thirdly, the Order should not carry with it any change of title, as distinct from the name of the recipient. In some cases knighthood would be welcomed; but not unfrequently men who had attained great celebrity by a particular name were unwilling to change it, however slightly. This was the case with Mr. Hallam, when offered a Baronetcy by Sir Robert Peel, and was one of the motives, though not the only one, which led Mr. Grote to decline the peerage offered him by Mr. Gladstone. The change of title might, when consistent with the merits of the case, and agreeable to the feelings of the person concerned, be effected by a separate act of favour from the Crown. With these rulers he had no fear as to the working of the measure. Such was the case which he desired to lay before the House. Whatever might be thought of the manner in which he had treated it, he was sure that the object itself would receive careful consideration from the advisers of the Crown. In the course of his public life he bad been greatly struck by the contrast between the contempt and disdain often felt for literature and science by underlings in office, and the respect and attention almost invariably shown them by those men of higher mark at the head of public affairs. He was sure that the Ministers of Her Majesty would carefully consider this object, and he should rejoice if they felt it within their sphere of duty to concede it. If not, he would appeal to the House at large to put an end to that feeling of dissatisfaction, that chafing at unequal right which existed to a large extent in the literary, artistic, and learned classes in England. He appealed to the House—and these should be his last words—to seek to do honour to those men who had done honour to their country.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be pleased to take into her gracious consideration the institution of an Order of Merit by which Her Majesty would be enabled to bestow a sign of her royal approbation upon men who have deserved well of their country in science, literature, and art.—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  EARL GRANVILLEadmitted the force of the arguments so clearly urged by his noble Friend, and felt that in urging any arguments on the other side it was rather difficult to do so in the present Assembly; he, however, did not think sufficient reason had been shown for acceding to the Motion. He fully agreed in all that had been said respecting the deservings of distinguished men of science, literature, and art, of whom the country had good reason to be proud, and that he should be glad to see his way to doing something towards satisfying the aspirations of the noble Earl; but he feared that the difficulties of dispensing a new Order of Merit such as that suggested were by far greater than the noble Earl seemed to think. One of the existing Orders, that of the Garter, had been remarkable for the distinguished persons who had possessed it, yet one of the things which gave it its charm was its mediaeval character, and nobody would think of proposing that such an Order should now for the first time be created for the purpose of being distributed in the manner in which it was now generally done. No doubt there might be some advantage for a time in the creation of new Orders by despotic Sovereigns. For instance, no one could doubt that when the despotic head of an Empire like Napoleon I., with his great military genius, instituted the Lâgion d' Honneur, it inspired his troops with a spirit of emulation which facilitated his achievements; but the importance of these Orders somewhat diminished as time went on. It was some years since he lived in France, but he found the Lâgion d' Honneur much depreciated, not when given for eminent services, but because almost every third or fourth person one met in the streets displayed that red riband. He did not mean to say that that would be the case if the Order the noble Earl desired were established; but he thought that the creation of such Orders and their too free distribution might have the same effect. He agreed with his noble Friend that if an Order of Merit were established it must be irrespective of political opinions, and open to every profession in which distinction was sought, leaving the recipient thoroughly independent of the influence of party; but he saw difficulties in the practical working of it, and he was not sure that they

  1473
  were not greater in a country having the inestimable advantage of representative institutions than in one of a more despotic character. Their Lordships would all admit that the Prime Minister was overworked to a very great degree, and he doubted the wisdom of adding to his duties and obligations; yet it appeared to him impossible for any other person, with regard to an Order of Merit distributed among every class of the community, to assume the duty of administering it. In other countries it might be all very well for those who had already received honours to recommend those to whom they should be given; but in this country that would be a sort of close corporation which would infallibly break down. Literary pensions had given rise in innumerable cases to criticism and dissatisfaction, and promotion in the Admiralty was not an analogous ease, for the First Lord was bound to acquaint himself with the merits of the officers under him. His noble Friend had mentioned Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli as men of literary eminence themselves entitled to distinction, but all Prime Ministers, though good Prime Ministers, were not equally competent judges. Sir Robert Walpole had a supreme contempt for the whole class of literary men, yet under the Motion he would have had to decide who was the best poet, the best historian, and the best jurist. He (Earl Granville) believed a Prime Minister would be above political considerations; but in the working of our institutions he was not sure whether, out of two men of equal attainments, the one who had written ably and successfully on the Ministerial side would not have the preference, unless the case were a very glaring one. The difficulties of instituting new Orders of this kind were enormous. He agreed to a certain extent with his noble Friend that it was illogical to confine rewards to servants of the Crown; but it should be remembered that it was the object of the State to tempt the best men into the public service, and that a certain number of rewards distributed among them increased the consideration in which they were held. It was a very different thing for the head of a representative Government to select virtuous, eminent, and distinguished persons from the whole community. He knew that many were anxious
  1474
  to obtain some such recognition of great services to the public, but he doubted whether men like Lord Macaulay and Sir Charles Lyell would derive the slightest increased consideration from an Order of that character; while, if mistakes were made, as was certain to happen in comparing different walks in life, there would be outcry and dissatisfaction. He did not complain of the noble Earl having brought the subject forward, or of the manner in which he had treated it. It was a matter, of course, quite open to discussion, and that House was perfectly qualified to express their opinion upon it. All he could say at present on the subject was that the Government saw no means of giving practical effect to the noble Earl's views, and therefore he could not agree to the Motion.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that as one who had taken some interest in the question of foreign decorations, he desired to say a few words on the question. He approached the consideration of the question with great diffidence, and although he admitted the existence of many objections could not withhold his support from the Motion of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope). The discussion raised by himself (Lord Houghton) on a former occasion was useful, as having elicited the fact that the objection to wearing foreign decorations rested simply on the order of one of the Departments of the State, not countersigned by the Sovereign or even by the Prime Minister, and that there existed no legal penalty or disqualification on the subject. The matter under discussion, however, was a perfectly distinct question, and he must urge that it was advisable to keep the noble Earl's proposition altogether distinct from the question of the acceptance by Englishmen of foreign orders. The objections just urged by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were very obvious, and it was doubtless easier to reward public servants than to select men distinguished in art, science, and literature; but if the proposal of the noble Earl were carried out, he believed the advantages that would accrue would considerably outweigh the defects comprised in those objections. Were such an Order established, probably the men who had most influenced the minds of their countrymen would

  1475
  hardly come under the cognizance of those who distributed decorations. Three men in the lifetime of their Lordships had guided and influenced the mind of England. The generation from which he came was under the moral and philosophical influence of Coleridge, under whose genius the literature of the time was almost transformed. The following generation, perhaps, not so patently, but in a great degree, was under the influence of Mr. Thomas Carlyle, whose writings had influenced not only the philosophy, but the practical statesmanship, of our time, and had even affected the structure of the English language. There had since been the influence of Mr. John Stuart Mill. He would not say that no one of these three men would in all probability have been offered or accepted any decoration; but it was not by these high superiorities that the question must be tried, but by the ordinary eminences in science, literature, and art. In addition to the arguments for the Motion urged by the noble Earl opposite, he would urge the evil to both parties of isolating literature from our political and social system, and the importance of bringing literary men into brotherhood with men of different conditions and ranks, thereby doing much to secure the maintenance of the orders of society and a community of interests among all classes. It was also desirable to take a step which would indicate the importance of art and literature, and would show that the well-being of a nation did not depend on active pursuits alone. Moreover, if by any recognition of the merits of science and art they could keep more prominently before the nation those qualities upon which the dignity, prosperity, the power and the mind of the nation depended for their development, a great good would be effected. The noble Earl said that he would be equally satisfied with the institution of a new Order, or with the extension of some existing Order for the purpose; but he (Lord Houghton) would, for his part, much prefer the latter, one effect of which would be to bring men of literature and science to a position of greater social dignity, and tend to put them upon a greater degree of equality with their Lordships than at present. The Order of the Bath had been extended to all civil officers under the
  1476
  Crown, and that measure though denounced at the time, as exercised in an unscrupulous manner and to lessen the dignity of the Order, had been received with public favour. Many men of political distinction had received decorations, but the fact that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli went about the world entirely undecorated argued caprices and inconsistencies in the distribution of Orders such as could hardly be equalled if they were extended to literature and science. He had had the honour of being present at the dinner given by the late King of Prussia to the Ordre de Mérite, which had maintained the French name it derived from its founder's Gallican proclivities, and he was much impressed at seeing an academy, as it were, of every kind of mental distinction gathered round an intellectual Sovereign. He believed the difficulty of selection would be less than in the distribution of rewards in the public service, for the Minister, though he might make mistakes, which attended the distribution of all honours and rewards, would be guided, not only by his own opinion, but by the distinct affirmation of the public, which would point out the men fit to receive the distinction; and, overworked as Mr. Gladstone was, he was sure his own classical mind and love of literature could have no more grateful task than the recognition of intellectual eminence. If, as his noble Friend seemed to think, these Orders were declining in estimation, why had the Order of the Star of India and that of the Victoria Cross been created? The diffusion of education and the general system of competitive examination had laid the foundation for a great intellectual hierarchy, of which the institution proposed would be the proper consummation. A considerable amount of knowledge and capacity had been made a requisite, perhaps in an exaggerated form, for the public service. If that were a sound policy, why should there not be a distinct recognition of mental eminence?
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he must contend that the recognition of literary and scientific men as a separate class was undesirable. To attach them to the institutions of their country they required no special honours or rewards as a class, as had been attempted by foreign countries, and with very poor

  1477
  success. He had no wish to create in them a class feeling, which would tend to diminish their feeling themselves to be fellow-citizens who were doing good work in their country, and resting their reputation on their merits alone. The Victoria Cross was the reward of an act of bravery as to which there could be no dispute; but a selection of literary and scientific men would be much more difficult; while the limitation of the number would involve serious heart-burnings, and temporary popularity instead of solid merit would be likely to gain the distinctions. The wisest course was, he thought, to leave matters in their present position, and instead of attempting to give to literary and scientific, men a new distinction of doubtful value, to allow them to enjoy, as they had hitherto done, that unbought honour which sprang from the admiration and gratitude of their countrymen.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was of opinion that if the object which it was proposed by the Motion to attain were to be effected at all, it would be better done by the extension of the Order of the Bath, than by the creation of any new Order. The Order of the Bath, he might add, was with a very few exceptions, given only as a reward for distinguished naval and military services; but in 1846, when the Government of his noble Friend Earl Russell came into office, the question of extending the Order to civilians eminent in literature and art was very carefully considered, and it was determined that it would not be expedient to take that course. He was at the time at the Head of the Colonial Department, and he could state that, in company with himself, some of the most distinguished literary men concurred in that view. The Government of Sir Robert Peel had, he believed, previously arrived at a similar conclusion. The reasons given by his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in opposition to the Motion, were in his opinion quite sound. The practical difficulties in the way of giving distinctions, such as those under discussion, to literary men in our existing state of society would, he had no doubt, be found to be most formidable, and he must, therefore, express his satisfaction at the decision which the Government had come to on the subject.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS FOR SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether in compiling the Agricultural Returns for Scotland in future years they will be enabled to introduce the following returns:—

  "1. A return of the number of acres of land now under cultivation which would be susceptible of remunerative improvement by underground. drainage:

  "2. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land susceptible of profitable reclamation and improvement in connection with underground drainage:

  "3. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land appropriated exclusively to the support of deer:

  "4. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land incapable of cultivation and unsuitable for the support of live stock of any description other than deer:"

  And, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the Agricultural Returns for Scotland to be compiled in Scotland, and to be published in a separate volume with a distinct report? The noble Lord said, he trusted he might claim their Lordships' indulgence, while he explained the reasons which had influenced him in putting these Questions. The increase which had taken place in the price of provisions, and the great extent to which we had become dependent upon foreign countries for our supply of food, made it extremely important to ascertain, if possible, in what degree the productive powers of our own kingdom could be developed. Great difference of opinion existed upon this subject among even the most competent judges, and it was very desirable that there should be established, if the information could be arrived at, a more certain basis upon which opinion could be founded on this important subject. It was with a view of eliciting as much information as he could on the subject, that he had put these questions upon the Paper. He had limited his inquiries to Scotland, inasmuch as that portion of the kingdom appeared to be peculiarly open to the sort of improvement they suggested, and should the information be furnished, and the results found to be of a character that would demand further inquiries as to other portions of Great Britain, similar Returns might be obtained from the rest of the kingdom. If their Lordships would

  1479
  refer to the Agricultural Returns which were already in their possession, as coming from Scotland, they would find that the acreage of that country was set down as 19,639,000 acres. Under the head of arable and improved pasture land, there were stated to be 4,538,000 acres; and upwards of 15,000,000 acres were put down as heath and mountain land. In endeavouring to ascertain what was the margin of increase that could be obtained in the productive power of the country, attention should be first turned to the character of the arable and pasture land capable of improvement by drainage and in other ways; and it seemed to be the opinion of those who were best acquainted with the subject, that great results might be obtained from the improvement of this description of land already more or less under cultivation. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would give a promise that in future the number of acres of land which would come within the particular category of land capable of further improvement would be given. He had no doubt that that part of the information required could be obtained with tolerable correctness. It was within his own knowledge, that in the part of the country in which he lived, every farmer, land agent, and proprietor was well acquainted with the quantity of arable land to which the system of tile drainage could be profitably applied. It was also important in making these Returns that they should have as accurate figures as could be obtained as to the quantity of land that came within the category of non-pasturage or waste. It was found in the Returns that had been published, that by far the greater portion of the country was returned as heath and mountain land, and that Return had led in various parts of the country to a good deal of misapprehension as to the real character of the soil. Among the agricultural classes there was the strongest apprehension that a very large portion of the soil was purposely retained in an unproductive state, simply for the sport and entertainment of the upper classes; and he thought it important that some notice should be taken of the Return; that it should be analyzed and distinctly characterized, so that in some degree the different uses to which that large area of land was devoted might be known. The Returns he asked for also included the
  1480
  number of acres that were capable of being reclaimed and rendered productive to the extent of paying 5 per cent on the outlay which such reclamation would involve. There was no doubt that such a Return would hardly be a very accurate one in the first instance, but every year would help to make it more reliable and authentic. Then, again, he asked for Returns as to the quantity of land that was exclusively appropriated to the support of deer. Such a Return would be a very valuable one in the agricultural statistics of Scotland under any circumstances; but it appeared to him that the information was more than ever desirable at the present time with reference to a controversy which had lately risen on this subject—a controversy that had been pursued with considerable heat on both sides—on the part of those who were the votaries of sport and the owners of deer forests, and also on the side of those who thought that those deer forests involved an unjustifiable use of property. It was stated on the one hand, that the maintenance of these deer forests involved a depopulation of the country to a certain extent, and the substitution of an inferior and unprofitable class of the community for a more industrious and intelligent class; that it also involved to some extent a limitation of area of agricultural produce, and a consequent limitation of the profitable employment of capital; that it was in some degree an unjustifiable abuse of the rights of property, tending to produce dissent and dissatisfaction between the various classes of the community; and that the abuse was so great that it ought to be restrained. Their Lordships were aware that these arguments had been vigorously met by arguments on the other side. Those who were in favour of the appropriation of land in the way under discussion, denied that it produced any diminution of population whatever, and affirmed that the order of people, gamekeepers and others, whom it substituted for the previous inhabitants, were as respectable in their social position as the shepherd was in his. They also said, that although there might be a diminution of the meat supply in one form, there was a substitution of another description of animal food; and that, even if there were some loss at home under that head, the production of meat coming

  1481
  within the class referred to was stimulated elsewhere, for they asserted that the farmers and shepherds who left the Highlands of Scotland carried their capital and their industry to Canada and Australia, where the identical commodities which they formerly produced in their own country were produced by them and sent to our markets in increased quantities, and to some extent of better quality, so that in reality there was no limitation of this sort of produce. Moreover, they affirmed that while the introduction of deer did no substantial harm, it led to a great deal of money being spent in the country that would not otherwise have circulated there, on the part of those who hired the deer forests, and that it led to society being sustained in remote parts of the Highlands which would otherwise remain unvisited and desolate. What was remarkable in the controversy was, that it proceeded from a very slight knowledge of the fact. It was not his purpose to express any opinion on the subject one way or the other. He was asking for information, and it would be inconsistent and illogical for him to offer an opinion; but he might be permitted to say that, in his humble judgment, that part of the question which had reference to the extent of the deer forests was a very important one, and that without a knowledge of the area of the land so occupied, it would be impossible to arrive at any very sound conclusion on the subject. It might be doubted whether it would be easy to make such a Return in the case of land occupied as deer forests as could be made as to the arable and pasture land; but he thought that the Return might be easily obtained on application to the proprietors and agents of the land. If the area were ascertained, there would be no difficulty in also getting at its productive powers, and the difference that would be made by the substitution of one class of produce for another. He also desired Returns of the amount of land absolutely unavailable for any productive purpose, and that Return was absolutely necessary in order to get at the future productive capacity of the whole country. It would probably be found that a very considerable area of the Highlands of Scotland came under that category. In the existing Returns upwards of 4,000,000 acres were set down as altogether unused for any
  1482
  agricultural purpose. He hoped that the Government, if these Returns were granted, would order that they should be printed in a separate and distinct form. It was undesirable that the Agricultural Returns for Scotland should be mixed up with those of England. The land in Scotland was held in a different manner from that of England—it was transferred in a different way; the inhabitants' customs of tenancies were all different from those of England. He also thought that the Returns should be accompanied by a Preface or Report, composed by some distinguished and intelligent Scottish agricultural authority, a task which might with great propriety be entrusted to the Secretary of the Highland Society, who would be enabled to frame such a Report as might be thought highly interesting, popular, and instructive.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in reply, said, he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Napier) would not think him an enemy to the progress of knowledge, and that he would excuse him, if he ventured to suggest that there were very serious difficulties involved in getting the Returns, so that they might be inserted in the manner wished by his noble Friend. He entirely agreed in the desirability of enlightening the public mind on the facts in respect to the tenure of land and the occupation and improvement of the soil, and also believed that many of the arguments used on both sides of those vexed questions implied the most entire ignorance of the whole state of those facts as regarded Scotland. He was anxious to supply such further information and knowledge as would be useful on that subject; but he would point out to his noble Friend that it must be knowledge of facts, and not knowledge of opinion. The noble Lord asked that in compiling the Agricultural Statistics of Scotland, they would introduce certain Returns, which he specified, but a Return in the Parliamentary sense of the term meant a Return of clear definite facts, easily ascertainable, and not of matters of opinion. Now, of the four heads included in his noble Friend's Question, only one referred strictly to a matter of fact, and he did not think the answer to it would be of much use to him. His noble Friend wanted—

  1483
  "A return of the number of acres of land now under cultivation, which would be susceptible of remunerative improvement by underground drainage."
  That involved all sorts of speculative opinions. Why, there was hardly a field belonging to any of their Lordships which would not be the better for being re-drained. Some drains got choked up, and some spots got damp, and there were a variety of circumstances to be considered. But his noble Friend not only said "susceptible of improvement," but susceptible of remunerative improvement." That was another thing, and involved another whole set of hypotheses. The question of remuneration or non-remuneration of agricultural lands was entirely a matter of local circumstances and demands, and depended upon the question of locality and markets. His noble Friend might as well ask for a Return of the number of acres of land in England capable of being turned into market gardens. Almost every acre would be capable of being so converted. Market gardens gave the maximum rate of rent—from £20 to £30 per acre—and its produce might amount to £40 or£50 or even £60. No, doubt, a large portion would be capable of being converted into a market garden; and perhaps at some future time, it would all be turned into market gardens; but it would be an absurd question to put, as to how much was capable of being turned into market gardens. That entirely depended upon the circumstances under which the land was let; and equally so, with the question of land being capable of remunerative drainage, that was entirely a question of opinion depending upon the local circumstances and local requirements. That was a Return that the Government were not prepared to make, and which no Government ought to be required to give, being one which to a great degree must be based upon speculative opinion. The next Return desired by his noble Friend was—
  "A. return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land susceptible of profitable reclamation and improvement in connection with underground drainage."
  He (the Duke of Argyll) had not the slightest doubt, that at some future period a very large part of the heath and mountain lands of Scotland which were not now occupied, would be reclaimed,
  1484
  but that would depend upon the progress of society. But it was a speculative question how, when, and where the land could be remunerative. He could not see how such Returns could be given. The agricultural people of Scotland were intelligent persons, and very much alive to their own interests, and they were the best judges of when and where these lands were to be converted into arable lands. The process of reclamation was going on rapidly in the Highlands of Scotland, and wherever those interested locally were convinced that it would be profitable to so convert the land, it was done. He never went to the Highlands without seeing that such was the ease; but he doubted whether information received from a Government officer on the subject would be a safe guide for public opinion in reference to it. Moreover, it would be absolutely impossible for any Government to say when a slope of mountain was to be reclaimed, and how it was to be done. As to the third question, namely—
  "A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land appropriated exclusively to the support of deer,"
  that was the only question of a matter of fact, and even that could not be given without some expression of opinion. No doubt when the surveys for Scotland were complete, they would get with more accuracy the acreage of the deer forests of Scotland; but what information would the public get from that? The land differed vastly in quality, and the number of acres would be wholly illusory as to the profitable occupation of the soil. There were thousands of square acres that would not support a sheep; therefore the Returns would be a fallacious indication of the real value of the land. If a Return were made of the number of acres of all the pleasure grounds and flower gardens in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the vicinity of large towns, he believed its value would exceed that of the whole deer forests of Scotland. He then came to Question No. 4—
  "A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land, incapable of cultivation and unsuitable for the support of live stock of any description other than deer."
  That Return, too, would necessarily be based upon speculative opinion. There were few spots, with the exception of stony ridges and peaks, on which an

  1485
  animal of some description—a goat, for instance—could not find something to live upon. Under all those circumstances, it was impossible to grant the Returns asked for, the duty of the Government being to furnish facts and not opinions. If they placed the obtaining of the Returns in the hands of one person, as suggested, it might prove to be a formidable engine for the dissemination of particular opinions. Their Lordships, doubtless, remembered that in one of his public speeches last winter, his noble Friend Lord Derby made a statement as to the occupation and cultivation of land in which there was, no doubt, a great deal of truth; but that statement had been seized upon by all sorts of persons, and twisted in the effort to make it support views wholly different from those which it was meant to illustrate. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be imposing upon them a task which they ought not to be called upon to perform, for if the Government were to place a duty in the hands of an officer, involving questions as to how land should be used here and there all over the country, it would be illusory in its nature and would inevitably lead to interminable controversies and misleading data. Under those circumstances, he could not hold out any hope of the Returns being furnished in the manner suggested in the Question of his noble Friend.

  INDIA—DESTRUCTION OF LIFE BY WILD BEASTS.—QUESTION.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the Government of India had under its consideration any measure for the prevention of the destruction of life and property in India by wild beasts?—said, the question was one which concerned the welfare and safety of a numerous, remote and defenceless order of Her Majesty's subjects, and he need, therefore, he felt, make no apology for bringing it under the consideration of their Lordships' House. The outlines of the Question had been furnished in a paper recently read in the Society for the Promotion of Social Science by a meritorious officer of the Bengal Service —Captain Rogers —who was favourably known by his services in connection with penal institutions in India. That paper
  1486
  had, he believed, been forwarded to many of their Lordships. While he did not adopt all the assertions made and conclusions drawn by Captain Rogers, he could not but recognize and acknowledge the service he had rendered in dealing with that subject. The evil was not general, but it was very serious where it existed; and it existed in its worst form in Bengal, the North-Western Provinces, and in central India. It appeared from a Return for three years, that the average loss of human life in the British provinces from the cause referred to was 4,138. The reports for those provinces were, however, in themselves, incomplete, and did not extend to the native states, and it was, in fact, calculated that the number did not fall far short of 10,000. The Returns as to the loss of live stock were far more complete. They showed that in Madras 60 live stock were killed for one human being. There were no Returns for six districts, but he thought he might say that 100 live stock were killed for one human being. So that if 10,000 human beings were killed, the number of live stock destroyed would amount to 500,000. The value of those domesticated animals was uncertain, but might be set down as between £250,000 and £500,000. But that was not all—the sufferings and losses were not confined to the actual destruction of human and animal life, for still greater loss and suffering were caused by the loss of labour and produce by the limitation of culture, the interruption of traffic, and the habitual terror produced by these animals. Everyone, therefore, would admit the importance of the subject, and the Government were bound in honour and in duty to do something more than had hitherto been attempted. The sufferings of the people from wild animals, moreover, were much aggravated by the disarmament which followed upon the Indian Mutiny, for in consequence of that step being taken, the Government had deprived the people of the arms which they were formerly allowed to possess, and there could be no doubt that the want of arms had made them more submissive to the ravages of wild beasts. The extension of culture in the woods and the protection of woods were also causes that had contributed to the increase of the evil. The Indian Government were bound as far as possible to protect the lives and property of

  1487
  Her Majesty's subjects, and he would recommend that the whole question should be placed in the hands of the police. They should continue to make full and accurate Returns of the loss of life and property from wild beasts, and there should also be a continuance of the system of offering rewards for their destruction. In India, where everything was hereditary, there was a class of hereditary huntsmen. The native shikarries might be intrusted with a certain number of arms, for which they should be held responsible, and a special service might be organized in connection with these native huntsmen under English officers, such service adopting the use of a familiar name, but with an object in no way so atrocious as that applying to the former, might be appropriately termed "Tiger Thugs." He did not propose a settled general establishment; but experience had now shown, that to expect the wild animals of India to be destroyed by spontaneous efforts and under the existing system was hopeless. It might be supposed that in a matter affecting their lives and property, the natives might be trusted to defend themselves; but those who held such an opinion were little acquainted with the actual condition and character of the people of India. The people were incapable of undertaking the destruction of wild beasts, without the intervention of the Government; and they would go on for years, submitting to the infliction of their present sufferings. The active interference of the Government was not without example in India; and it was justified by the practice in France. In remote ages, the only method of preventing the multiplication of noxious animals was to offer rewards for the capture and destruction of wild beasts, and in France a regular department used to be kept up for the extinction of wolves and other destructive animals. The same question must be settled in India, and he trusted that the subject was either now occupying the attention of the Government of India, or that it would be brought under its consideration by the Secretary of State.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Napier) had done a public service by directing attention to the loss of life among the natives of India by wild beasts. It was a matter of the greatest public importance
  1488
  and he regretted that he was unable to assure his noble Friend that any particular or special means of preventing these losses and sufferings were at present under the consideration of the Government of India. According to the latest Returns, the number of persons who lost their lives by wild beasts was alarming and extraordinary, and the casualties were of such a nature as to make it almost imperative on the part of that Government to turn their earnest attention to the subject. As long ago as 1864 a despatch was sent to India requesting, the Government to look into the question, but no answer had been received to that despatch up to the present time. He proposed sending out another despatch, calling the attention of the Government of India to the first one, and urging the necessity of seeing after the matter. These Returns, however, for the future, would be systematically made, so that the subject would be kept in view. The last Return, which was that of 1871, showed that the extraordinary number of between 18,000 and 20,000 human beings in India lost their lives from wild beasts and snake bites, and that of these a very large proportion owed their deaths to tigers. It also appeared that there were extensive districts where cultivation was seriously impeded, and almost at a standstill, in consequence of the ravages of man-eating tigers. No doubt, the responsibility of the Government had been increased by the native disarmament which had followed the Indian Mutiny, but it was, notwithstanding, extraordinary that the people had not sufficient energy to go out and destroy these creatures. His noble Friend had made a suggestion that as there was a caste in India devoted to hunting, they should be formed into a corps who might be called Tiger Thugs. He was quite certain that if the Government announced its intention to form a hunting corps, for the destruction of wild beasts in India, they would be besieged with applications for enrolment in it. His noble Friend's suggestion, which was new to him, might be applicable to certain parts of India, and he would request the Viceroy to take the whole subject into his consideration.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that the Government of India had, of course; been aware that great numbers of human beings—men, women, and children were

  1489
  annually destroyed by wild animals, and that the evil had, to a certain extent, increased since the general disarmament of the population consequent upon the Mutiny, but he did not know that in any sense the Government of India could be said to be much to blame in the matter. For many years, handsome rewards had been allowed by the Government for the destruction of tigers, bears, wolves, &c.; but from some cause, which at present was not satisfactorily explained, it was clear that these animals were increasing in number. One point, however, deserved the attention of the Government. It was said, although he could hardly believe it, that in some cases English officers discouraged the extirpation of wild animals with the view of keeping the destruction of them in their own hands.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION.—MILITARY DEPOT AT OXFORD.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving for an Address for the production of Correspondence between the War Office and the Corporation of Oxford, or any other persons, concerning the purchase of a site for a Military Depôt, said, that at the end of last Session he pressed strongly upon the Government that a military centre should not be established at Oxford until the Tutors and Professors had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject, and he understood the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to agree that the decision of the Government should be put off until such an opinion had been expressed. In the autumn, as soon as the Tutors and Professors assembled, they drew up a Memorial, deprecating in the strongest terms the establishment of a military centre at Oxford, on the ground that it would interfere seriously with their work and increase the difficulty of maintaining efficient discipline. That Memorial, he presumed, the noble Marquess had seen. The signatures were headed by the names of Dr. Pusey and Dr. Jowett, and included those of eminent men of every school of thought in religion and politics, and probably so many men of such widely divergent views never before signed the same document, it being signed by 24 University Professors and 89 Tutors. When the question
  1490
  was last before the House, it was treated as if it were a comparison between the respective merits of military and academical men. He never desired to put it in that light, or to oppose the Government in any spirit derogatory to the excellence of the discipline or morality of Her Majesty's Forces. Their barracks might be monasteries; association with them might be the one thing needed to stimulate study; and the population surrounding barracks might be distinguished by all the virtues, and, above all, by chastity; but the authorities of the University were judges of what was beneficial and what injurious to it, and for the War Office to oppose its opinion, was like an Archbishop quoting the opinion of Convocation on a question of military discipline. He should have thought no Administration would wish to incur the unpopularity of setting at naught the opinion of the great national University; and the Secretary of State for War had other reasons for refraining from this course. The Inspector General had reported against the eligibility of the site, which would jam up the centre in an extreme corner of the district. It was also curious to observe how the War Office had met another class of objectors. There was local opposition to barracks being built near two roads containing villas; and that local opposition prevailed, while the authorities of the University were disregarded. When he (the Marquess of Salisbury) suggested last year that Oxford had been selected as a military centre because Mr. Cardwell was Member for the City, the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) warmly repelled the suggestion. Last winter, however, Mr. Cardwell went clown to the meeting of the Druids, and delivered his annual electioneering speech, and he actually put forward as one of the grounds for claiming the confidence of his constituents, that he had selected Oxford as a military centre, because of the connection of the regiment to be located there with the City of Oxford. It was done by the right hon. Member for Oxford in order to please the City of Oxford, and his Colleagues seemed to think that it was quite natural that an administrative power should be employed to purchase a constituency. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if noble Lords opposite objected to purchase, he would say to conciliate a constituency.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The regiment is connected with Oxford.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did the noble Lord mean to say that the 52nd Regiment cared about going to Oxford? However, that might be, he could not otherwise account for more importance being attached to the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, to which he had referred, than to the united opposition of all the teaching authority of that great University. Some years ago, it was said—whether truly or falsely no matter, but falsely he believed—that a contract was given to conciliate the electors of Dover. A change of Ministry followed, and, by a strong departure from the ordinary practice, which was for a Ministry to regard the administrative Acts of its predecessors as sacred, the contract was revoked. On the same principle he believed that act of selecting Oxford as a military centre would not be respected by another Secretary for War, should there by any chance be a change of Government; and he for one should not deem himself precluded from asking the new Government to reverse the act of its predecessors. The University was, he thought, perfectly right in keeping the question open, and if any further opportunity should be afforded hereafter for obtaining a reversal of the policy from some future Minister of War, he wished it to be understood that he should not feel himself precluded from availing himself of it, by reason of his not taking further action under the existing Government.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of correspondence between the War Office and the Corporation of Oxford, or any other persons, concerning the purchase of a site for a Military Depôt.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) appeared to have forgotten that the War Office, in selecting sites for these depôt centres, was bound to search for certain conditions which were requisite to the carrying out of the scheme—conditions which were not easily found within a limited area. It was, in the first place, necessary that the site selected as a depot centre should be central in respect of the population from which the troops attached to the district were to be recruited;
  1492
  secondly, that the railway communication between it and the rest of the country should be ample; thirdly, that the locality itself should be healthy, and generally suitable; fourthly, that it should if possible be a place in which the head-quarters of a Militia regiment had already been established. In Oxford every one of those conditions had been satisfied. It was upon those grounds that it had been selected, and it was not until the arrangements of the War Office in the matter had been somewhat matured that the opposition of the University had to be encountered, for it was late last year when the Memorial quoted by the noble Marquess had reached the Government. Nothing could be further from his intention than to say a word which was disrespectful towards those who had signed the Memorial, but it was a fact that, out of 25 Heads of Houses, only five had appended their signatures to it; and he might besides add that if, as the noble Marquess said, a military officer could not be a good judge as to what was suitable to academic discipline, a Professor of Moral Philosophy would be likely to have very crude ideas as to the result of the establishment of a military depôt under a system of which no experience existed, in a particular locality. As to the Report of Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, although he had pointed out various difficulties with respect to obtaining a good site within two miles of Oxford, yet he had said nothing against the selection of Oxford as a depôt centre on general grounds, and the difficulties which had been raised in anticipation in the Report, with respect to the water supply and other matters, had been satisfactorily overcome, for the most part by arrangement with the Corporation of Oxford. He would remind the noble Marquess, too, that he had made no alternative suggestion as to where a depot centre for the district might be established on the present occasion, as he did on a former one, and that while disapproving Oxford he had not suggested to their Lordships another place in which the requisite qualifications were to be found. He had, he might add, no objection to the production of the Correspondence.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDremarked that Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar had not to discharge the duty of reporting whether Oxford was or was not,

  1493
  in his opinion, a suitable site for a depôt centre, but whether a suitable place for the purpose could be found in the neighbourhood, and he found himself unable to recommend any site in the vicinity of that city except one at Woodstock. As to the objections raised on account of the want of a proper supply of gas, water, and the absence of an outflow for sewage, he found that "provisional" arrangements were to be made to meet those objections; but provisional arrangements, when the case was one concerning a large body of men, were most unsatisfactory, and he hoped the negotiations on the subject would end in their being of a more complete character.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he felt it his duty to declare that there was no foundation whatever for the odious imputation which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had made upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—that in his selection of Oxford he had been actuated by a desire to conciliate his constituents at Oxford, and that when a Conservative Ministry should be in office he would endeavour to obtain a reversal of the policy.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that his meaning was, that whenever a Conservative Minister of War should be in office he should humbly approach him on this subject precisely as he would the present Minister for War. As to the odious motives spoken of by the noble Earl, they existed only in his own imagination. He did not impute any. Politicians did not generally regard it as an odious thing to conciliate their constituents. At the same time, he thought that a certain degree of reserve should be imposed in such a matter on a War Minister who also happened to be Member for the City of Oxford.
  EARL GRANVILLErepeated his opinion that an odious and disgraceful imputation had been made on his right hon. Friend, in suggesting that it was to curry favour with his constituents, and unmindful of the duties of his position, he had made a selection of Oxford as a military centre.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was of opinion that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had taken his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury)
  1494
  to task with undue severity. He understood his noble Friend to have spoken of that, which, after all, was not an uncommon practice—namely, the natural interchange of what were termed good offices between a constituency and the person who represented them. However, he deprecated a question of that kind, so important to the University, being diverted into that channel. Even assuming Oxford to be the best military centre, the Government were also bound to take into account the representations of those who were responsible for the teaching and the discipline of the University. There never was a Memorial, in which men representing so many different departments of learning concurred in expressing with one voice a more decided opinion, than that in which the conviction was stated that the establishment of a military centre at Oxford was calculated to interfere with the discipline and conduct of the University.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD,as a near resident, must say that the proposed military centre was a subject on which there existed the most complete unanimity, as far as he knew, among the University authorities against fixing its site so near to that great institution. He regretted that no pains appeared to have been taken to answer the objections made on behalf of the University. As a matter of common sense and ordinary experience, he thought the immediate proximity of a military centre was not, on the whole, favourable to morality, or to those interests which a great educational body had at heart.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEexplained that the opposition to the establishment of that military centre seemed to be based on the idea that Oxford was about to be turned into a garrison town, whereas in fact there would be there only some 15 officers, 50 or 60 old soldiers, and about 200 recruits under severe training.
  LORD REDESDALEheld that a representation coming from either of two such great national institutions as Oxford or Cambridge ought to have received the utmost attention from the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that there were other Universities in the kingdom besides those of Oxford and Cambridge, which were near military centres, and no harm had come of the connection. He had never heard that

  1495
  Trinity College, Dublin, had suffered from the presence in the Irish capital of a garrison of even some 4,000 or 5,000. A more fantastic notion had never entered the head of any man than the misapprehension entertained by the learned Professors who had signed that Memorial, and he would remind their Lordships that not very many years ago the University of Oxford had an extreme objection to the making of a railway to that city, being persuaded that it would put an end to the discipline of the University.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.