Sitting of 6 August 1874

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

THE CAPE COLONY—THE BOUNDARY AT DELAGOA BAY.—QUESTION.
MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the question of the disputed Boundary at Delagoa Bay, which the English and Portuguese Government have agreed to refer to the President of the French Republic, will proceed to arbitration; whether he is aware that the Portuguese Government have published a series of Despatches in which their claims are set forth in considerable detail; and, whether, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the complete Correspondence?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, the Protocol by which it was agreed to refer to the President of the French Republic the question of the disputed Boundary at Delagoa Bay was signed on the 25th of September, 1872, and it stipulated that the cases were to be presented within 12
1404
months from that time, and the counter cases within the next succeeding 12 months. The British case was presented on the 15th of September last, and the counter case will have to be presented by the 15th of next month. The Arbiter is then to give his award "as early as convenient." Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Portuguese Government have recently published any Despatches on the subject; and until the award of the Arbiter has been given, Her Majesty's Government do not think it would be proper to lay on the Table any Papers on the subject.

THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL, BATH.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will state to the House to whom he referred when, in answer to a Question by the honourable and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Hayter) he stated that his predecessors were responsible for the Clause in the Scheme for the regulation of St. John's Hospital, Bath, which would confine the governing body of that charity to persons signing a declaration of membership of the Church of England? The scheme was very objectionable, and hon. many Members were anxious to know whether anyone on that (the Opposition) side of the House was answerable for it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, he was sorry his hon. Friend had thought it consistent with his duty to repeat to-day in a formal manner the Question which he put on Friday last in an informal manner, and which he (the Attorney General) had then declined to answer; lest, however, his motive in declining to answer should be misunderstood, he now proposed to reply to the Question. But, before doing so, he would, with the permission of the House, make a brief statement relative to the position of the Attorney General in regard to matters of this kind, because he did not think it desirable that popular opinion should be brought to bear on a Law Officer of the Crown, with the view of influencing him, when he had under his consideration matters on which he had to give a quasi judicial decision. In all matters relating to charities, the Attorney General was in a quasi judicial position, and this was particularly the case in ex officio proceedings like those

1405
at present under consideration. In such cases the Attorney General was put in motion by the Charity Commissioners, and it became his duty to ascertain, as far as he could, what was the Law applicable to the circumstances placed before him. There was no doubt that in many cases a discretion was to be exercised by the Attorney General, but that discretion was not to be exercised according to party bias or political views, but in a judicial spirit. The Question of his hon. Friend implied that the Attorney General, who was responsible for the scheme, had been influenced by his political opinions, and what the hon. Gentleman had just stated bore out that view, for he had fairly enough stated that his reason for putting it was the anxiety felt by many hon. Members sitting on his side of the House lest a Liberal Attorney General was responsible for the scheme. The proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred were commenced while Lord Selborne was Attorney General, and they had been under the consideration of every Attorney General since, the Papers being very voluminous. When he answered the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath the other clay, he did not know who the Attorney General was when the particular question with reference to the trustees was first brought under consideration; but he had since found that it was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir John Karslake). He was in error, however, in stating, the other day, that the matter had been under discussion in Judges' Chambers. It had not got so far as that. The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, after giving the best consideration he could to the authorities bearing upon the question, directed the scheme to be prepared in the form in which it now was; but he at the same time gave directions that it should be sent down to Bath and published there, in order that the municipal trustees and every person interested in the matter might have a full opportunity of considering and discussing it. It had been discussed at a public meeting, at which objections were raised to the trustee clauses; but up to this moment it had not been taken to the Judges' Chambers, and would not be until October or November next, at which time it would be his duty, if he
1406
continued to be Attorney General, to give full consideration to all the circumstances of the case, and particularly to the objections which had been raised; and he should not hesitate either to differ from, or to adhere to, the views of his hon. and learned Predecessor according to the view which he should then take of them, a course which he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would adopt were he then in office.

CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCE ON A CABMAN.—QUESTION.
COLONEL LEARMONTHasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, If his attention has been called to the case of the cabman, who was recently sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for running over a boy while crossing St. Martin's Lane, and, whether, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, he is of opinion that the sentence is too severe?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, no information of any sort had been submitted to the Home Secretary on this case, and until it was he was not in a position to say anything on the subject.

ARMY—KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Local Government Board, Ireland, received any report from the medical or other officers of the Kilmainham Hospital, Dublin, respecting the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in that institution; and, if not, will he, as President of the Board, cause an inquiry to be instituted, and a report to be made, as to the number of cases of typhoid fever that occurred in the hospital this year, the class of residences in which they occurred, the opinion of the medical officer, Dr. Carte, and of the medical gentlemen who were consulted as to the immediate cause of the outbreak, and place such report upon the Table of this House for the information of the sanitary authorities of the kingdom; and if, having regard to the fact that hygiene is not made a necessary part of the education of medical officers licensed for the Civil Service, the Local Government Board intends to adopt any means of en-

  1407
  suring that all medical officers hereafter to be appointed medical officers of dispensaries, and as such, sanitary officers of their dispensary districts, shall produce satisfactory evidence of their knowledge of hygiene as a requisite qualification for such appointment?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHSir, I have communicated by telegraph with Dublin, and find that the Local Government Board have no official relations with Kilmainham Hospital or with Dr. Carte, the medical officer, the hospital being under the War Department in Ireland. I understand, however, that the water supply of that establishment was not very good, and that there has been an outbreak of typhoid fever there. I am further given to understand that in consequence of this outbreak, provision was made to obtain a supply from the Vartry River. I believe that the works necessary are at present proceeding. There is no special hygienic qualification required for medical dispensary officers in Ireland, but all such officers are either "physicians and surgeons" or "surgeons and apothecaries," and must have been educated and examined in subjects which relate to what is called "hygiene," and as the legislation of the present Session has imposed important sanitary duties on these officers, this branch of medical knowledge will doubtless receive from them more careful attention than they may have hitherto bestowed upon it.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—WOOLWICH AND PLUMSTEAD NUISANCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOORDasked the President of the Local Government Board, If any Correspondence has taken place between that Department and the War Office in reference to the nuisances arising from certain factories in the neighbourhood of Woolwich and Plumstead; and, if so, if he would have any objection to lay Copies of such Correspondence upon the Table of the House; and, if the attention of the Local Government Board is being directed to the subject?
  MR. SCLATER BOOTH, in reply, said, there had been some Correspondence between the War Office and the Local Government Board upon the subject of these nuisances, but as the Correspondence was not yet completed it was
  1408
  not usual to have Copies of it laid upon the Table. The matter was still receiving the attention of the Local Government Board. He had received a letter only two or three days ago to the effect that the factories which had been the subject of the most grievous complaints were now taking steps to remedy the evil, and he trusted in a short time some progress in that direction would be made.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can give any assurance that the Irish Government will revise the Rules and Regulations for the Government of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, under the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 107, s. 9, with a view "to alter or revoke" the rule in relation to tenders that has given offence to some Governors of Lunatic Asylums in that country?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the Rules and Regulations of the Irish Lunatic Asylums had recently been most carefully revised by a Committee of the Irish Privy Council, specially appointed for the purpose. An objection had been made by the Governors of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum to one of the Rules relating to tenders, and on inquiry it was found that the view of the Governors of other Lunatic Asylums in Ireland was not the same as that of the Governors of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum. He was informed that some of the Governors of the latter had resigned and others were likely to follow their example; and, therefore, he would consider whether it was in any way possible to alter the Rule in accordance with their wishes. It was evident, however, that there must be one uniform Rule for the whole of Ireland.

CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS—RULES OF MILITARY WARFARE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, looking to the great anxiety that exists in the country on the subject of the Brussels Conference, it will be possible to issue during the Recess any Papers bearing upon the proceedings of that Conference?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that great interest was felt by the people of this country in the proceedings of the Brussels Congress, but he did not think that any anxiety was felt. He held in his hand the second part of the Correspondence, relating to the Rules that were proposed to govern military warfare, which he intended to lay on the Table. Should any other Correspondence take place during the Recess which the Secretary of State might think it desirable to publish it would be made public through the columns of The London Gazette.

IRELAND—THE KILREA RIOTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the trials of the Kilrea riots at the Londonderry Assizes, and to the observations of the learned judge (Barry), who said—
  "In one part of your remarks I agree with you, Mr. May—that this collateral issue has been fully developed, yet I am hound to say that Mr. Rea has opened up for my consideration one of the most startling events in my professional career—namely, that a number of men, armed with bludgeons, were allowed, by magistrates and police, to go here and there through the town, and commit two audacious acts of violence, while they were well known to the police;"
  and who in charging the Jury observed—
  "It is the wildest nonsense to think for a moment that an attack was not premeditated, or that the party armed with sticks and bludgeons would not have attempted to stop the processionists had the police not been there. So much for that; and now we come to 'another branch of the case which I wish to dispose of at once. I may say that this, the most unpleasant part of the case, consists in the fact that only four persons of the bludgeon party are for trial, although we have the fact proved that a body of bludgeon men, armed with weapons, prepared with sticks, not accidentally—that this organised party, well described as organised ruffians, committed under the eyes of two magistrates present, and in the presence of a large party of police, two distinct acts of riot, and we have it in evidence that a list of the names of the parties was taken down by an active and intelligent policeman at the time. That policeman is enabled to name not five, or six, or seven, or eight, but a whole string of names—I do not know how many—of these ruffians who were rioting in the town that day, and it is a lamentable thing that more of these men have not been sent for trial."
  Were 74 Catholics, the party attacked, made amenable to law, and only 11 of
  1410
  the Orange party; and who were the magistrates referred to; and would the Executive institute an inquiry into their conduct?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that as the hon. Gentleman's Question had been laid on the Table only that morning, he had been unable to obtain the necessary information to answer it fully. The observations which were attributed to Mr. Justice Barry on the occasion which was referred to were quoted from a newspaper, and must be received with considerable doubt, and he had no official Report. He was afraid that both parties in these unfortunate riots were equally to blame. They had been dealt with with perfect impartiality, and a great many of the offenders had been committed for trial, Mr. May, the Law Adviser of the Castle, having been sent especially to conduct the case. The Attorney General for Ireland, he might add, would shortly have an opportunity of communicating with Mr. May on the subject.

ARMY—PLUMSTEAD COMMON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House why, if the use of Plumstead Common for Artillery exercise is defended on grounds of prescriptive use, the War Office has, since the date of the determination of the suits against the lords of the manor, taken a lease of the manorial rights from the Lords?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it appeared from the Question put to him by the hon. Baronet that there was some dispute with regard to the title, but he disclaimed having rested the rights of the War Office on the grounds stated by the hon. Baronet. In the Answer he had already given, he said the War Office had used the Common since 1745, and continued still to do so. In view of further proceedings being taken, he must decline to make any further statement on the subject of title.

EXCISE (IRELAND)—CORN STORES, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What reasons, if any, exist for subjecting the stores of corn

  1411
  merchants in Ireland to the visits and inspection at all hours of the Officers of Excise; whether any such regulations are in force in England; and, if not, why Irish merchants should be subjected to regulations which do not exist in England; and, whether under the circumstances instructions will be given to have the necessary steps taken to remove this anomaly?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is not stores, but mills and kilns, which are under Excise inspection in Ireland, the object being to prevent the malting or preparation of corn for illicit distillation. The power of inspection and the reason for it is contained in the Act 1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 55. Similar regulations are not in force in England, as it does not appear that the practice of illicit malting ever prevailed in that part of the United Kingdom. The duty of inspecting mills and kilns in Ireland is both troublesome and expensive to the revenue, and will be gladly given up whenever it shall appear practicable without encouraging the demoralizing practice of illicit distillation, which, happily, for the country, is rapidly decreasing.

ARMY—MILITARY OUTRAGE AT ALDERSHOT.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a report which has appeared in the newspapers of a ruffianly outrage which is said to have been committed on defenceless women by a party of armed soldiers from the North Camp at Aldershot; and, what steps the Military Authorities propose to take in the matter?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he had ordered a telegram to be sent at once to Aldershot to ascertain the truth of the report, but he had not received a reply before coming down to the House. He had therefore no special information to give the hon. Gentleman on the subject. If such an offence had been committed, the offenders would, it was perfectly clear, be proceeded against in the Criminal Courts of the country, and it would not be till subsequently that any steps would be taken by the military authorities.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BIGGAR, in whose name a Notice stood on the Paper that he would move for a Copy of Correspondence between the Irish Executive, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and The O'Donoghue, M.P., with reference to his removal from the Magistracy of Ireland and the Kerry Militia in 1862, and his re-appointment to the Magistracy in 1873, not being in the House when his name was called by the Speaker,
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that as personal reference was made to him in this Notice, he asked permission of the House to make an explanation on the subject. The proposed Motion contained a serious charge, if not directly, at least inferentially, that ought not to have been put forward by an hon. Member who absented himself. It was stated in the Notice that he was removed from his commission in the Kerry Militia. There was, however, no foundation for such a statement. He resigned the commission which he held in the Kerry Militia because, the regiment being quartered in England, he found it inconvenient at the end of a Session not to be able to return to Ireland for a few months. The Notice also insinuated, with reference to his restoration to the commission of the peace, that he had carried on some correspondence with the Executive in Ireland and the Lord Chancellor. He begged, however, to state that he never carried on a correspondence directly or indirectly with the Irish Executive, the Lord Chancellor, or any other official, with respect, to his restoration to the commission of the peace.

JURIES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. RESOLUTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention had been drawn to this case tried before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald at the late Assizes for Down, and to the fact that four persons had been excluded from the jury because they were Roman Catholics?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have received a telegram from the Crown Solicitor of the County Down (Mr. Murland), which is as follows:—
  "I did not exclude any person from the jury because of his religion. I directed four jurors to stand aside, two of whom were from the

  1413
  locality where the occurrence took place and the remaining two were publicans. The accused was acquitted."
  MR. CALLANthen proceeded, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the exclusion by the Crown of Catholics from the Jury in the case of Mr. Arthur Donnelly at the late Assizes for the county of Down; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the ordering to 'stand by' of Catholic jurors by the Crown Solicitor, more especially in the North of Ireland, and in eases of a party character, is a course of proceeding not calculated to enhance confidence in the impartial administration of the Law, and demands the serious attention of the Irish Executive."
  He wished to point out that more than one person who lived nearer the locality than the Roman Catholics who had been set aside had been allowed to sit on the jury. He would not press his Motion to a Division; but he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would state to the House that a full inquiry would be made into all the circumstances of the case.
  [The Motion not being seconded, was not put.]

IRELAND—THE KILREA RIOTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcalled attention to the trials of the Kilrea riot cases at the Londonderry Assizes, and to the observations of Mr. Justice Barry thereon; and moved—
  "That this House is of opinion that an investigation into the conduct of the Magistrates referred to by the learned Judge is necessary in the interests of impartial justice, of peace, and good order in Ireland."
  MR. SYNANseconded the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL), stated that the object of the Irish Government in sending Mr. May to Londonderry, where the rioters were tried, was to ascertain the real truth in relation to this matter. That gentleman, who was selected for his well-known impartiality, had returned to Dublin; but he had not yet had an opportunity of communicating with him. Until he received full and accurate information he could not undertake to say what course the Government would pursue. Discussion on the subject was not desirable at present as further summonses on which proceedings would be necessary had been taken out in regard to the riots. The only reports yet sent in stated that justice had been
  1414
  vindicated in those cases which were tried.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOLD COAST (HONOURS FOR SERVICES).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to confer a clasp as well as a medal on those Officers and Men in Her Majesty's Service who took part in engagements with the Ashantees south of the River Prah, after the late War broke out, and before the arrival of the European Troops, especially at Elmina, Essaman, Abra Krampa, and Donquah, and who thereby materially caused the retreat of the enemy from the Protectorate into his own Country: and, to call attention to the decoration of the Victoria Cross,"
  said, he was sorry he had been more more than once prevented from bringing this subject before the House at an earlier period of the Session. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to advert to the Royal Warrant, which conferred the clasp usually given to officers and men under fire upon those troops only who went north of the River Prah, while the medal alone was distributed to the troops engaged south of the Prah, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance * (212); Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police* (221); Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * (216); Post Office Savings Bank* (219); Great Seal Offices* (217); Fines Act (Ireland) Amendment * (218); Expiring Laws Continuance* (220); Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Suspension (231); Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings * (232); Irish Reproductive Loan Fund* (233), and passed.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) SUSPENSION BILL— [No. 231.]
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) SUSPENSION BILL— [No. 231.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the third reading of the Bill, but he was compelled to confess his extreme disappointment at the failure of the expectations which they were led to entertain in the early part of the present Session as to the legislation which might take place on subjects closely connected with this Bill. When they knew that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had the opportunity of exercising his great powers and his great influence in the promotion of valuable and useful measures of legal reform; and when they reflected on the perfect concord which existed between a considerable majority in their Lordships' House and a considerable majority in the other House, it seemed that the time had come when they might look forward with confidence to the successful prosecution of that kind of legislation to which he referred. He was aware that the present Government acceded to office without being able to prepare measures in prospect of the Session, and that thus a considerable part of an important period of the Session was lost. He was willing to take that circumstance into account. His noble and learned Friend had, however, brought forward the legal Bills to which he (Lord Selborne) alluded at an early period of the Session, and in doing so spoke in very kind terms of the communication made by him to his noble and learned Friend on the subject of one of those measures at the time of the change of Government. His noble and learned Friend had not at all disappointed the expectations which had been formed respecting his anxiety and ability in the cause of Law Reform; for, after giving full consideration to the subject, he did introduce two important measures for facilitating the transfer of land and two Judicature Bills. Both the former Bills were considered in their Lordships' House, though they did not undergo any very great amount of discussion in consequence of the general concurrence in
  1384
  their various provisions. The Judicature Bills, however, did undergo discussion in their Lordships' House on several occasions—both the Bill relating to Ireland and the Bill to amend the English Act of last Session; and he should have thought that they went down from their Lordships' House in sufficient time to pass the other House in the present Session. Indeed, there was no doubt they would have become law, if it had been considered worth while to press them forward. Under those circumstances, and with the advantage arising from the concurrence of that and the other House of Parliament in supporting a powerful Administration, if time could not be found for the discussion of such measures sent down under such circumstances and under such auspices, until the last fortnight of the Session, he utterly despaired of seeing justice ever done to such Bills. There were no Bills of greater importance, or more desired, so far as their objects were concerned, by the public at large. On the other hand, from the technical character of their details, they would be always outside of the category of those measures which excited great Parliamentary and public attention, and therefore the mere exigencies of party would not be likely to push them forward; but if there was any use in a Government strong in both Houses, surely it was that measures of this kind might have a fair chance of being sufficiently and properly considered, and that they should not be thrust aside for measures which as compared with them were really of no more than ephemeral importance. He was unable to appreciate the reasons which prevented those Bills receiving due consideration in the House of Commons. It might be that there had been a prospect of much more discussion in the other House of Parliament on the Bills relating to the transfer of land than he should have anticipated, and that, as to those Bills, which were not immediately pressing as to time, the Government might have exercised a wise discretion; but as regarded the Judicature Bills, which he believed had proceeded to almost the last stage—the English one having passed half through Committee—he could not but express his opinion that if there was everywhere the same zeal in the cause of law reform which he knew to be pos-

  1385
  sessed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, those Bills would have passed through the House of Commons. What was the consequence? One which must be regretted by his noble and learned Friend himself. The Bill which passed last year, and which the whole of the legal profession had expected would come into operation this year, was, by the measure now before their Lordships, proposed to be kept in suspense for a whole year from November next. He must say that he could not see that there was a necessity for such a postponement. Even if, in the judgment of his noble and learned Friend, some postponement was necessary—if it were desired that there should be a longer period than the interval between this and November for the consideration of the new Orders and Rules—would not a short postponement to the beginning of next year have been sufficient? He admitted the advantage of having that Act itself and the Amendment of it proposed by his noble and learned Friend this Session come into operation simultaneously; but he could not think that it was at all so considerable as to counterbalance the disadvantage arising from the doubts to which the postponement of the Act for another year would, he apprehended, give rise in the minds of many persons. The principles of that measure would again become topics in the arena of discussion, and surmises would get abroad that there was an intention on the part of the Government and Parliament to reconsider these principles and the whole of the plan which had been already sanctioned by both Houses and had become law. That idea would give encouragement to those who were opposed to the change so decided upon by Parliament, and the result might be that at the beginning of next Session they might find themselves further off than ever from the reform which they had expected to see effected before the close of the present year. He was sure that in the mind of his noble and learned Friend there was no intention to depart from the principles on which that legislation had proceeded last Session, and in their Lordships' House during the present year; but, for the reasons he had referred to, it would give him great satisfaction to hear from his noble and learned Friend that his views were unchanged, and that their Lord-
  1386
  ships might look forward to a serious and earnest attempt next Session to pass the measures he had introduced this year, and that the Act of last year would be brought into operation without any further delay than was now absolutely necessary.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he also regretted the postponement of the Act—an unfortunate circumstance arising from the delay in the constitution of the New Supreme Court of Appeal was that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would continue to hear ecclesiastical appeals, and that, as Judges, the two most reverend Prelates would continue to assist in the hearing of those appeals. It was most unfortunate that the public should have any reason for not accepting the decisions on those appeals, as being decided on purely legal grounds on account of the presence of persons who could not be said to be entirely free from prejudice in the matter.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was glad the delay took place, and was glad of it for the reasons which made the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) regret it. In his opinion, the decision already come to by Parliament with reference to the Supreme Tribunal of Appeal was not the best which could be come to. He said that because he believed the tribunal proposed did not meet with the entire approbation of the legal profession in this country, and he hoped that during the Recess, there would be a fuller expression of their opinion on the matter. It certainly did not meet with approval in Scotland and Ireland, in both of which countries the profession had had the courage to speak out. He hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would not by any statement commit himself further than he was already committed to the transfer of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not surprised that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne), even at this stage of the Bill, should have called your Lordships' attention to the subject to which he has referred. The only thing in the discussion which has caused me some regret is the reference by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) to questions which deeply agitate the public mind. I can conceive

  1387
  nothing more unfortunate—I hope the noble Earl will excuse me if I say more unseemly—than that there should be in this House any reference to matters which may become the subject of legal discussion and decision—that it should be suggested by any Member of your Lordships' House that two Members of the Episcopal Bench, who must, as Judges or assessors be concerned in cases to which he refers—that it should be suggested they cannot discharge that duty with unbiassed minds, I leave the noble Earl to consider whether a suggestion of that kind made in your Lordships' House is in furtherance of the best interests of justice. I turn to the remarks made by my noble and learned Friend on this Bill, and I must say I entirely agree with him as to the course which the Bills he alluded to took in this House. I feel, and have felt throughout this Session, deep gratitude for the earnest consideration given in this House to all of those Bills. Even by those of your Lordships who did not agree with the proposals which they were intended to carry out, the various questions arising on them were fully discussed, and those questions were distinctly decided by the judgment of the House. I should be very ungrateful, also, if I did not take this opportunity of recognizing the great and valuable assistance I received from my noble and learned Friend in presenting and forwarding those measures; and I think I need not apologize for taking this public opportunity of returning my thanks in another quarter. The country is deeply indebted to the learned Judges, who, though having to discharge important and laborious duties more immediately connected with their office, gave during the year a great deal of their valuable time to the preparation of those Rules and Orders in connection with the Judicature Bill which have been recently laid before Parliament. With regard to the course taken in "another place" in respect of the Bills to which my noble and learned Friend has referred, the history of it, though it did not come under my own eyes, appears to me to be extremely simple. When those Bills wont down from this House, the Government had every reason to suppose that they would meet with very general approval in the other House of Parliament, and being Bills which had been
  1388
  brought down from this House, that course was taken with them which, in every Session within my experience, has been taken with Bills under similar circumstances. Precedence before them was given to Bills which had originated in the House of Commons, and had not boon brought down from this House. That course, if not carried too far, appears to me to be a convenient and wise course. But after a time it was found that a number of Amendments were to be proposed to the Land Transfer Bill; that as regarded the Judicature Act Amendment Bill some opposition would arise, not on the main principle, but on questions of detail; and that as regarded the new Tribunal of Appeal, certain questions would be raised as to judicial appointments for Scotland and Ireland. But, notwithstanding all that, I have not the least doubt that those Bills would have passed through the other House, if towards the close of the Session, and during the few days when they could have been forwarded, there did not come before the House of Commons a Bill, which, though not a Government measure, was one of great public interest, and which occupied the energies and attention of that House to such an extent that the Government found that any opposition sustained by however limited a number of hon. Members, would, at that period of the Session, have prevented the passing of the Bills to which my noble and learned Friend has referred. But my noble and learned Friend says that, oven suppose we could not have passed the Irish Judicature Bill and the Judicature Act Amendment Bill, he cannot see why the English Act of last year should not have been allowed to take its course and come into operation at the time originally fixed. He asks why that could not have been done? For this simple reason—In order to bring it into operation, it would have been necessary to complete the constitution of the Appellate Court, and in order to complete the constitution of the Appellate Court, it would have become necessary to consider the questions raised in respect of the representation of Ireland and Scotland. It was with the greatest regret—regret on the part of the whole of the Cabinet, but I need not say particular regret on my part—that we arrived at the conclusion that it was useless to attempt to proceed with those Bills this Session. In reply

  1389
  to what my noble and learned Friend has said as to our intentions, on the part of Her Majesty's Government I can say that Her Majesty's Government have no such intention as that which he has mentioned as one likely to he attributed to us by some persons. We have no intention to present those Bills in a different form to this or the other House of Parliament. The Bills in their present shape embody the intentions of the Government on the great questions to which my noble and learned Friend refers, and in that shape, or substantially in that shape, they will be again brought before Parliament. It is true that the Bill now before your Lordships suspends till the month of November, 1875, the coming into operation of the Act of last year. As the Bill was introduced in the other House, it was to suspend it till November of next year, or such other time as Her Majesty by Order in Council might appoint. That last Proviso was objected to as being irregular in a matter of such importance, and it was accordingly omitted. But it is the intention of the Government to present those Bills at a very early period of the next Session, and if Parliament will address itself to them without delay, there is no reason why the Act of last year may not come into operation long before November—may be by the 1st of May—and it will be entirely competent to Parliament to alter the date in the Bill before your Lordships, and decide on a much earlier one.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

ARMY—FIRST COMMISSIONS—ROYAL WARRANT, 1871.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he rose to move an Address for a Paper, and to ask the following Question:—Whether a commission can now be withhold from a candidate who, having applied to the Horse Guards for a commission early in 1870, has qualified under the regulations then in force as a university candidate for a commission? Although the Question was of personal character, it was likewise one of public importance, and the reason why he brought it under their Lordships' notice was that in the year 1870 he applied for a nomination for a commission for his son. His Royal
  1390
  Highness the Commander-in-Chief referred him to Major General Forster, the Military Secretary, for the regulations, and that gallant officer put in his hand a Memorandum, dated the 1st of June, 1867, which laid down that within certain limits of age, young gentlemen who had obtained a nomination and had obtained a University degree would receive their commission. His son obtained the nomination, and, having spent the necessary time and passed the required examinations, obtained his degree at Cambridge. When he presented himself for his commission in 1872, he was informed that, by a Warrant issued in 1871, the conditions were changed, and thus he could not obtain his commission. He complained that such a Warrant should have a retrospective effect. If his son had not proceeded on the faith of the conditions shown to him by Major General Forster when the nomination was obtained, be need not have gone to Cambridge, and might have secured his commission by passing the ordinary examination required of candidates for commissions who had not a university degree.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Royal Warrant or Regulations issued before the 1st November, 1871, respecting the appointment of candidates from the Universities for first commissions in the Army."—(The Earl Fitzwilliam.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he was glad the noble Earl had brought the matter forward, because much vexation and disappointment had been caused to candidates for commissions and their friends by the want of a timely notice of the change made by the Warrant of 1871 and of other similar Warrants. When changes of that kind were made it should be done in such a manner that the public could not be retrospectively affected by them. He would admit that in making them, there was no desire on the part of the Department to inflict injustice on anyone; but he had heard complaints from several friends in the country of the serious loss and injustice which had been done by unexpected changes in the conditions for examinations, and for appointments to commissions, and he suggested that in future the regulations should be made with such notice as to be intelligible to all persons. The young gentleman in this case had followed the instructions given to him by the autho-

  1391
  rities, had qualified himself for a commission exactly as he was told to qualify himself, and then he was informed after a considerable time that the regulations had been altered. There could not be many persons affected by the particular change now under notice, and he thought that in this case the whole loss should not fall upon one individual, but be shared by the public Department which had issued the new regulations. The Department might do the gracious act of conferring a commission upon a gentleman who might fairly suppose that he had earned it.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, he did not for a moment wish to deny that the candidate whoso case had been brought under the notice of their Lordships had suffered some disadvantage; but, on the other hand, he could not admit that a nomination gave the candidate for the Army a vested interest in the conditions of admission existing at the time he obtained the nomination. Every case of this kind must be decided on grounds of expediency and common sense. Major General Forster showed the noble Earl the regulations existing at the time; but he did not say that by the time the noble Earl's son was qualified, he would come in under those regulations. He would come in under the regulations in force at the time he presented himself, and applying to candidates in his position. In 1871, the Warrant was issued which limited the list of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and limited the candidates. That Warrant was published in The Times.
  EARL FITZWILLIAM: Was it published officially?
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: The Times was not in the habit of publishing matters for its own amusement. It was published in The Gazette and copied into The Times, and therefore, without intending that there should be any offensive comparison, he could not help saying that pleading ignorance of the Warrant was very much as if a garotter on being sentenced to be whipped pleaded ignorance of the law which authorized that species of punishment in his case. After the Warrant of 1871, candidates for commissions who had gone through a University course were required to stand a competitive examination, but competitive only so far as a competition with other University candidates. When the
  1392
  Warrant came in force, all qualified candidates had to get commissions, and it took two years to get rid of those qualified candidates. It would have been impossible, as the number of the total admissions had been reduced by a reduction in the number of subalterns, to admit in addition those who were not qualified. It could not be denied that the noble Earl's son had been placed at a disadvantage by the change, but it was a disadvantage which had been shared in by many other young men who were on the Commander-in-Chief's list.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that ample notice ought to be given of any alteration of such a Warrant, in order that no one might be prejudiced by the change. There were many young men whose time and outlay in preparing themselves for examination might be found to have been entirely thrown away in consequence of the new regulation. That was a hardship bordering on an injustice, and sufficient time should be given to all persons coming under its provisions to enable them to prepare for the changes it effected.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he had no hesitation in condemning the course pursued. Warrants ought not to be altered until after a certain period had elapsed, and due notice had been given; and if that were not done, the want of confidence resulting was likely to act injuriously to the public service. These sudden and sensational changes, however, were not altogether confined to the Army; but he hoped in future, Government would not fail to give adequate notice of all alterations it intended to effect.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he would urge the greatest caution in making alterations, seeing that the pecuniary loss in many cases might be such as the persons were little able to bear. Such an alteration was very hard in the case of the son of a person not in the position of the noble Earl who introduced the subject, because it might be that a man who was poor sent his son to the University for the purpose of enabling him to obtain a commission, and after he had been at all the expense, he suddenly found that a now Warrant shut the door in his face, and all the money so spent was thrown away.
  LORD PENRHYNsaid, he should like to know why, when the Royal War-

  1393
  rant came out making the alteration, those interested were not made acquainted with the change, and an explanation given to them that it would not affect them? He maintained that there had, in effect, been a promise given that if a certain University course was gone through and a degree obtained, there would be a commission given without examination.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: Before going further, I beg to express my dissent from the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl, the Representative of the War Office, that the promises in the Memorandum of the 1st June 1867, were not entitled to be always respected.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: I beg to say that I did not say that. What I said was, that there were so many candidates, that it was not possible to give them commissions.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: My Lords, I cannot agree that the number of aggrieved Army candidates justifies the breach of promise of which they are victims. On the contrary, it appears to me to increase the amount of right of complaint. And this accumulation of passed candidates is entirely owing to the want of foresight and great mismanagement of the A War Office, whose special duty it was to have regulated the flow of these candidates from the different branches of military test education sources. I regret, my Lords, that regard for the interests of the Army compels me to submit to your Lordship's notice a War Office case which some noble Lords have designated as hard, some as un-just, others as a breach of faith. That regret is increased by the present War Officers having associated themselves with the principal features of the ever-changing, constantly failing policy of their Predecessors—particularly the short service without pension—which were so disapproved by the Leader of the late Opposition; and by their having adopted the question before the House, which is the retractation of a promise contained in the Memorandum, dated Horse Guards, 1st January 1867, to the youth of their country, their parents and relatives, that if a candidate for the Army passed the University test, he could be qualified for, and entitled to, a first commission. My noble Relative's statement makes the facts of the case
  1394
  so clear, that to say anything on that subject would be waste of time. But I should observe that the transmission of the Memorandum of 1867 to Earl Fitzwilliam as a guide or instruction, in June 1870, and the insertion of his son's name in the list of Horse Guards candidates for the Army, both by order of His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, strengthen, if they do not guarantee the promise in that Memorandum. Under these circumstances, I must think that it was a heartless and unjustifiable use of power, on the part of the War Office, to annul their promises, and to inform Earl Fitzwilliam by a letter from the Military Secretary, of the 7th August 1873—that is, three years afterwards, and without a word of warning, that his son's throe years' study for the qualifying test at Cambridge were thrown away, and that he must now embark in a totally different, far more difficult course of study, less certain of success; and besides, be ready in three or four months for the trying and unpopular competitive examination—the consequence of all of which was that the three best, the really only, years for study for a career, of this young gentleman's life were wasted, irrevocably gone, and he himself left without a profession. I say, my Lords, that conduct such as this towards a candidate for the Army and his Father is directly opposed to the spirit of the Queen's Regulations which enjoin that superior officers are to temper the exorcise of their authority with a scrupulous regard for the feelings and interests of their subordinates; and that conciliation and courtesy are to mark all their relations with persons with whom their duties bring them in relation. The narrative of this case induces the belief that the late head of the War Office could never have penned these Instructions. It would not be worthy of this case to adduce, as a grievance, the pecuniary loss which Earl Fitzwilliam sustained by the three years' fruitless education of his son at the University, and by his having to provide another career for him. But, on the other hand, this would be a grievous loss to a poor parent, an ill-paid curate, a retired officer, who had deprived himself and his family of almost the means of existence to place his son in the Army by means of the University test. And the loss to all parents is equal, whether

  1395
  of high or humble degree, of the most valuable years of their sons' existence, and of the mortification of a blighted career. It is misuse of administrative power, such as has been described in this debate, and disregard of an axiom, which the Duke of Wellington so often declared should never be lost sight of in political or Army affairs, that "any sacrifice is better than that of good faith," which has weakened the influence and respect which it is desirable the War Office should enjoy in this country, especially amongst the recruiting classes.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that candidates would gain nothing, in respect of their admission to the Army, by the University course they had passed through. If there were six commissions to be given away and 20 candidates, there would have to be a competitive examination among themselves as to the best qualified.
  Motion agreed to.

IRISH CHURCH ACT—NATIONAL MONUMENTS—ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CARLINGFORDcalled the attention of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council to the provisions of the Irish Church Act under which certain ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland might be handed over to the Board of Works in that country, to be preserved as national monuments, and asked, Whether the Government intends to appoint a competent person in connection with the Board of Works in Ireland to take charge of those ecclesiastical buildings which have been or may be handed over to that Board by the Irish Church Commissioners as national monuments, to see that the duty of keeping them in a proper state of repair was satisfactorily performed? A considerable number of these buildings had already been handed over to the Board of Works by the Commissioners, and he hoped that many more would be handed over, because the list which had been published in the Papers did not by any means include all the ancient ecclesiastical buildings, monuments, and ruins in Ireland. The question was one in which a great many people in Ireland took a deep interest, and an impression pre-
  1396
  vailed among them that the Board of Works was scarcely competent with its present staff to maintain in proper condition those venerable buildings. Indeed, they could scarcely be dealt with satisfactorily unless some skilled person with archaeological tastes and knowledge were appointed to look after them.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the buildings in question were in ruins, and the 25th section of the Irish Church Act applied to them. It seemed to him that they were not to be restored or repaired, but preserved, and the duty of preserving these ruins did not require a largo amount of architectural skill. He thought that it would be best that they should not be restored, but simply preserved in their integrity; and that duty of preservation could be discharged by a surveyor better than by a person who was possessed of architectural taste. If, however, anything in the nature of archæology should arise, rendering it necessary to call in the assistance of any person, the Board of Works would seek the best advice that could be obtained.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he wished to avoid the appointment of an architect, preferring an archaeologist, who would give sound advice in this matter.

BRITISH CEMETERIES IN THE CRIMEA.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether arrangements have been made to repair and to maintain in future, the British Cemeteries in the Crimea? The noble Earl said, that no action had yet been taken to carry out the good intentions expressed by the late and previous Governments. Commissioners sent out by the War Office had reported how the cemeteries could be maintained. An English gentleman resident in the Crimea was willing to undertake the superintendence, if authorized to do so, and the Russian authorities had given a willing consent. Other nations had acted differently in the matter. The Russian cemetery was a noble military monument; the French cemetery was equally well maintained. The graves of the British soldiers were abandoned to the beasts of the field, and their monuments broken and destroyed. It could not be the wish of the Government, or of the people of this country that that state of neglect should

1397
longer continuo. He therefore made the inquiry according to his Notice.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, the subject had been for some time under the consideration of the Secretary of State for War, and that a Vote for the repair and maintenance of the English cemetery in the Crimea would be submitted to Parliament next Session. The Government were also in correspondence with the Russian Government on the subject, and had to thank them for what they had hitherto done in the matter.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to be allowed, before the House rises, to make a few observations on a personal matter. I am told that the other House of Parliament has been occupying itself with the exciting, but somewhat irregular, pastime of discussing the discussions in this House. I do not propose to imitate a practice which appears to me inconvenient, and to bring before your Lordships in general anything which has been there said; but I would observe that if the practice of discussing elsewhere what has been said here is to prevail, it is very desirable that there should be some authorized form of reporting what takes place in each House of Parliament, which can be distributed to the Members of the other House, so that at least they may know what they are talking about. But my reason for rising is, that the most extraordinary language has been imputed to me—I believe, among others, by persons or by a person in the other House of Parliament, who was evidently wholly unacquainted with the matter of which he was speaking. It has been said that I was guilty of using with respect to the House of Commons the phrase "a blustering majority." That was said with the greatest confidence, and it was apparently accepted as absolutely true; and for two hours, I am told, the House of Commons went on discussing the interesting thesis whether it was "a blustering majority" or not. I am sorry, my Lords, to dispel the illusion which was the cause of so much effective speaking; but in justice to myself, I do not like it to remain on record that I made use of such an observation. I
  1398
  do not know who invented the idea, but it is a simple and absolute fabrication. I never said anything of the kind. I never said anything of the kind, in the first place, because it would be wholly untrue. There has never been of late years anything in the conduct of the majority in the other House to justify anybody in using such language with regard to it. The majority in the House of Commons possesses great power, but it has always exercised that power with self-restraint and dignity. Another reason why I did not use such language in regard to the other House is, because this is not the place where such language ought to be used. It appears to me to be the basis of our Constitutional system that the two Houses of Parliament should in their discussions always observe that profound respect for each other which I am sure as regards the vast majority of the Members of both Houses is generally felt. I have, therefore, to deny, in the most formal and positive manner, that I ever used the phrase "blustering majority" with regard to the other House of Parliament. I did use the word "bluster," but with this reference—It had been argued by somebody in this House—I do not enter into any further indication of who the person was—that we were bound so take a particular course because the House of Commons was very resolved, and because, if we did not take that course, this Bill would be lost. My Lords, I have always objected to the argument, when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses, that it is the privilege of the House of Commons always to insist, and the duty of the House of Lords always to yield. It is not uncommon to use that argument when we come to the last discussions in conflicts of that kind, and I venture to think it is an argument of a nature which may be justly designated by the term "bluster." But, whether that be the case or not, what I am now concerned to say is, that it never entered my head to use a term in the least degree disrespectful to the other House of Parliament. I regret that the statement should have been made, because I should exceedingly dislike to have it attached to my name, and by such distinguished authorities, or to have it thought that I could be guilty of such an offence at all. There has been a

  1399
  good deal of excited language used; but I do not think it my duty to refer to that. It is very natural that those whose opinions are overruled should feel irritation. My only object is to clear myself of this imputation, and to express my hope that we may never again see the renewal of so great an irregularity as the discussion in one House of Parliament of the debates in the other.
  LORD CARLINGFOED: My Lords, as I was not present in the House the other night at the debate to which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) refers, and as I was in the same position as the Members of the other House in having to trust mainly to the report in the papers for what was said by the noble Marquess, perhaps I may be allowed to state, by way of evidence as to the effect of that report on ordinary minds, that the sense it conveyed to my mind was precisely the same as that which the noble Marquess has just described; and that I was much surprised to find that the other interpretation—which I should not have thought possible—which attributes to the noble Marquess the use of the term "blustering majority" to the House of Commons itself had apparently been adopted—almost by common consent—by the persons who took part in the debate in the other House yesterday; and, among-them especially, as I observed, by the Prime Minister himself. I certainly gathered from the report that whatever "bluster" there was went on in this House, and I understood that the person who had raised "the bugbear" was the noble Marquess's Colleague the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) has referred to this subject, and I hope that those who may hereafter discuss in the one House what has been said in the other will be induced by what has happened in this case to bear in mind two things—first, the importance of ascertaining accurately what has been said before they proceed to comment upon it; and, in the next place, what an immense difference the misquotation of a single word may make on a grave subject. Unlike the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Carlingford), I was present at the discussion in this House the other night, and heard what
  1400
  my noble Friend said, and also took a great interest in it, because my noble Friend followed the observations which I had made, and he was expressing his view, as he always does, with great clearness and point. And, in the first place, I join with my noble Friend in utterly denying that any such expression as that of "a blustering majority" ever fell from the mouth of my noble Friend. In the next place, I say that there was not a word said by my noble Friend which had reference to anything that had been said or done, or threatened to be done inside the House of Commons. Everything that my noble Friend said had, in the most legitimate way, reference to what had been said in this House, and in no place else. And I agree further with the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Carlingford), that when my noble Friend adverted to the "bugbear" of a majority in the other House, he was alluding to the remarks of no more important a person than he who now addresses your Lordships. That was my impression. I have refreshed my memory with the report of the discussion which appeared in The Times, and I find that it concurs entirely with my own recollection of what passed. This was the observation made by my noble Friend, as given in The Times:—"Much has been said of the majority in 'another place'"—I myself had said something about it—
  "Much had been said of the majority in 'another place', and of the peril in which the Bill would be if the clause under discussion were rejected."
  I think, my Lords, these were the very words that I used. My noble Friend then went on—
  "There was a great deal of that kind of bluster when any particular course had been taken by the other House of Parliament."
  I certainly thought that referred to what I had said; and, with the attachment and regard that I have for my noble Friend, if he had used expressions twice as strong I should not have felt the least discomposed or annoyed by them. I am told, however, by my noble Friend that he did not refer to me, but still to what had been said in this House; and it was perfectly legitimate for him to refer to anything that was said in this House. Then my noble Friend added—
  "It was absurd to suppose that if the clause were rejected, there would not be found 12 men

  1401
  with sufficient common sense to accept the Bill rather than lose it altogether. He, for one, therefore, utterly repudiated the bugbear of a majority in the House of Commons "—
  that is to say, the bugbear that was presented to this House in the course of what was said in discussion. Then, my Lords, what happened? A Gentleman of great distinction rose elsewhere, and, upon information which turns out to be entirely erroneous, represented that my noble Friend had spoken about a "blustering majority" of the House of Commons. There was no time for any correction, because the other House met at 12 o'clock on the day after the discussion in this House. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, accepted the statement made as to what had occurred here, and the other House proceeded with its discussion on that assumption; whereas, if there had been an opportunity of informing the House that that statement was inaccurate, the whole of what afterwards transpired might have been spared. I am glad, my Lords, that my noble Friend has referred to this matter; because I am sure nothing could be more unlike my noble Friend, or more unworthy of a Member of your Lordships' House than the use of any such expression as that which has been wrongly imputed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to say that I did not, in what I said, at all refer to anything that had fallen from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack in debate.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had not lost a word of the whole of the discussion, and he begged to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he had never had any misapprehension as to the fact that no reference had been made to him by the noble Marquess.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—THE NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES—KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD REDESDALEwished to be informed as to the course intended to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in reference to the property on the west side of Parliament Street and adjacent to the new Government Offices. He urged that it would be advantageous on many grounds, for the Government to acquire the property and erect upon
  1402
  the sites additional offices. In the first place, it would add greatly to the appearance of the neighbourhood in an architectural point of view; and, in the second, it would have the effect of concentrating the Government Offices, which at the present time were scattered about in Parliament Street, Whitehall Gardens, Pall Mall, St. James's Square, and other places. In a financial point of view, again, it would be advantageous to deal with the matter at once. The price of the property would go up year by year, and in the course of time it would be necessary to pay for it a much larger sum than would be necessary for its purchase at the present time. He hoped to receive some assurance that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and also that the authorities of the War Office had not lost sight of the proposals which had been made for the removal of Knightsbridge Barracks. He confessed, he was opposed to the removal, and on the whole, saw no sufficient reason for it. It should be borne in mind that the houses in the neighbourhood had come to the barracks, not the barracks to the houses. Although, therefore, the inhabitants of the latter might be subjected to certain annoyances in consequence of their proximity to a military establishment, the Government ought to consider that if any alteration was made, another neighbourhood and other houses would be subjected to the annoyance instead of the fashionable locality in question. If it was necessary to widen the road near the barracks, it would, he thought, be best to do so on the side opposite, by the removal of the public-houses and other places whose existence in the neighbourhood had made the barracks objectionable. Under the circumstances he trusted the Government would not interfere in the matter.
  EARL FORTESCUEagreed with his noble Friend that there was no hardship inflicted on those who resided in the immediate neighbourhood of Knightsbridge, and especially those who had built houses there, though their property was of course depreciated by the proximity of those barracks. Their removal would, of course, be looked on as a great boon to that neighbourhood; but he was entirely opposed to it: only, if done, he hoped it would be done in such a way as not unfairly to depreciate

  1403
  the value of other property in some other neighbourhood.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that with regard to the question of Knights-bridge Barracks, the Secretary of State for War had listened to a great number of proposals, but he had not as yet come to any definite conclusion with regard to them.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that as regarded that part of the Question of the noble Lord which referred to the western side of Parliament Street, no conclusion had been resolved upon. As the new block of buildings had been completed, fresh opportunities of accommodation would be afforded in the old buildings; and when that was exhausted occasion might arise for deciding whether it would be necessary to acquire the site now occupied by the block of houses in Parliament Street.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Five o'clock, till tomorrow, Three o'clock.