Sitting of 21 May 1874

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry Brinsley Sheridan, esquire, for Dudley.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure * [122]; Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment* [123]; Hosiery Manufacture (Wages)* [124].
Second Reading—Valuation of Property [98]; Public Health (Ireland) [53]; Herring Fishery Barrels* [107]; Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) [108]; Bar Admission Stamp [109]; Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction* [111]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* [106]; Magistrates (Ireland) and Commissioners of Dublin Police Salaries* [117]; Pines, Pees, and Penalties [59].
Committee—Juries [18]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Marriages Legalization (St. John the Evangelist's Chapel, in the parish of Shustock)* [101]; Holyhead Old Harbour Road (re-comm.) * [51].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue [88]; Bishop of Calcutta (Leave of Absence) * [93]; Marriages Legalization (St. Paul's Church at Pooley Bridge* [102], and passed.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ANIMALS ACT, PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCK (for Sir ROBERT BUXTON)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as there appears no prospect of the cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland being slaughtered and compensated for, the
614
Lord President will rescind the Order in Council which enforces such slaughter in Great Britain?
VISCOUNT SANDON: The Order in Council, Sir, referred to by my hon. Friend was issued in consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat last Session. The Lord President is of opinion that that Order has not been in operation for a sufficiently long period to show whether it can be rescinded with safety.

IRISH CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE BODY.—QUESTION.
MR. E. JENKINSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Irish Representative Body, in relation to the process of commuting and compounding; whether it is true, as stated in the "Belfast News Letter," of Saturday, May 9, that "between advances and composition nearly £2,000,000 sterling has been paid to clergymen who are carrying out this process;" whether any similar sum has been paid to Presbyterian Ministers; and, whether he will consent to obtain and lay upon the Table of the House, a Return of the payments made under this process, and of the names, livings, and residences of clergymen who have commuted and compounded?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the Irish Church Representative Body is a body elected by the Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church. It is incorporated by Charter, under the provisions of the Irish Church Act—I think the 22nd section. It is an independent body, and is not in any way responsible to Parliament. With regard to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman as to the advances and composition, amounting to a large sum, which has been paid to those who are carrying on this process, the only connection that subsists between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Church Fund is, I think, confined to one section of the Irish Church Disabilities Act, and that is, I think, Section 23. That regulates that certain payments are to take place. But after the Commissioners under that Act pay to each annuitant the value of his annuity all responsibility on their part ceases, and it is in the power of the Irish Church Representative Body to make any arrangement

615
with these annuitants which may be considered desirable, either by way of composition and commutation or otherwise. With respect to the further inquiry of the hon. Gentleman whether the Irish Church Commissioners paid any sum by way of commutation to the Presbyterian Ministers, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see upon reflection it would be impossible for the Commissioners, in making payments to the Irish Church Body, to include in that any sum that would be received in the way of commutation by Presbyterians; but if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Irish Church Act he will find in one section—I think Section 39—the special provisions that were made with regard to the commutation which may be effected by Presbyterian Ministers. If the hon. Member will pardon the suggestion, I would say that all information with respect to the Irish Church Body may be most conveniently obtained by referring to the Report of that Body, which gives all the particulars connected with their transactions. I do not see any objection to giving the Return asked for, if it is in our power to give it; perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make the inquiry.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. WATNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the representations made by the Officers of Her Majesty's Convict Service as to the hours of duty they are called upon to perform will be taken into consideration by the Commission upon the Civil Service; and, what arrangements have been made for taking their evidence upon the subject?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that so far as he was aware no formal representations had been' made. A representation had been made with reference to certain regulations which were laid down by the late Government by some association; but so far as he was aware no formal complaint had been made on the subject.

HONDURAS—THE MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether during the various changes in
616
the Government of the Republic of Honduras, owing to revolutionary causes, the Presidents of that State have from time to time renewed the Credentials of Don Carlos Gutierrez as Minister to this country, and if it is necessary that they should be so renewed; and, whether Don Carlos Gutierrez has been and is still acting upon his Credentials, dated the 13th December 1859?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, M. Gutierrez has been and still is acting upon his credentials as Minister Plenipotentiary from the Republic of Honduras, dated the 13th December 1859. The Foreign Office has received no credentials from any President of that Republic since that time, nor any letter recalling M. Gutierrez. It is not necessary, according to diplomatic usage, that they should be renewed.

OFFICERS OF CONVICT PRISONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true as stated in an evening paper, that the allowance for lodgings for Officers of Convict Prisons having been raised in July last, the rent of the officers who reside in Government quarters has been raised by precisely the same amount, whence the gain is, in these cases to the men nothing, and the extra concession by the Government also nothing; if he would state to the House what rate of lodging allowance was paid to subordinate officers in the Convict Service, not living in Government Quarters before July 1873, and what has been paid since that date; what rent was paid by officers who live in Government quarters before July 1873, and what has been paid since that date; what extra charge has been thrown on the public this year by the increase in the lodging allowance to Officers in the Convict Service; what were the rates of pay of Warders in the Convict Service before July 1873, and what since that date; and, what was the allowance for rations before July 1873, and what since that date?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had made inquiry of the Director of Convict Prisons, and he found that the allowance for officers who resided in Government quarters had not been

  617
  raised either before or since July last, nor had the officers in Government quarters paid any rent at all. The amount charged for the current year would show an increase of £3,500.

ARMY-MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee on Small Arms from which he read an extract on Thursday last the 14th May, as to their opinion of the Martini-Henry Rifle; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commanding Officers of the two Battalions of Infantry who have had the Martini-Henry rifle in use for the last year or more; and any other Reports of the Rifle from Commanding Officers of regiments; and, if the Return in the Library of the House is correct, that the 62,023 Martini-Henry Rifles delivered in 1873 cost £4 3s. 11 d. without the bayonet, and without the intended alterations?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, my hon. and gallant Friend is in error when he speaks of my having read an extract on Thursday last, the 14th May, from a Report of a Committee. What I read from was a private Report from the Director of Artillery upon his question, and it is not in accordance with the usual custom to produce it. I shall, however, be very happy to produce the Reports of the two battalions of Infantry, with the Minutes of the Conference relative to the minor alterations recommended, if moved for in the usual manner. The Return presented to Parliament of the cost of the Martini-Henry arms produced in 1872–3 at Enfield is correct, the difference—£1 3s. 6d.—between the original estimate of £3 0s. 5d. and £4 3s. 11 d. being accounted for by the price of wages and materials having risen considerably meanwhile, and by the fact of the cost of plant being contained in the £4 3s. 11 d. I may add that from savings in wages, materials, and machinery subsequently, the arm is now being produced at En-held at less than the original estimate of £30 s. 5d.

POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT— SALARIES.—QUESTION.
MR. FORSYTHasked the Postmaster General, If he can inform the House within what period it is likely that definite arrangements will be made as to the pay of the persons employed in the minor establishments of the Post Office?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that much time, care, and attention were required before definite arrangements could be made. He trusted, however, that he should be in a position to bring under the notice of the House a definite scheme shortly after Whitsuntide.

NATAL—THE RECENT OUTBREAK OF NATIVE TRIBES.—QUESTION.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House the latest information as to the recent outbreak among certain native tribes in the Colony of Natal, especially as to the means taken to suppress that outbreak, and the measures adopted since its termination; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers upon the subject?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the latest information as to the recent outbreak in Natal is to the effect that tranquillity has been completely restored. Papers are now in course of preparation which will show the means taken to suppress the disturbances, and the measures which have since been adopted. These Papers will shortly be completed by the addition of some further despatches which are being awaited, and will then be presented without delay.

GOLD COAST—TILE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
MR. JOHN HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. Whether with the Supplementary Estimates which he proposes to introduce after Whitsuntide, relating to the expenditure of the Gold Coast, he will also give an estimate of the annual amount proposed to be expended on account of our Military Forces in the Settlement?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Supplementary Estimates referred to by the hon. Member will not include any expen-

619
diture in respect of our military forces upon the Gold Coast, but they will contain a provision for the maintenance of a force of armed police. Without anticipating the statement I shall have to make to the House, I may mention that the substitution to a considerable extent of police for a military force will form an important feature in the plan about to be adopted.

THE STAMP ACTS—RAILWAY STOCKS AND DEBENTURES.—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the unequal pressure of the Stamp Acts in their incidence on the transfer of Railway Ordinary and Preference Stock, Debenture Bonds, and Debenture Stock respectively?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject. To some extent these duties were a compromise, and it must be admitted they were somewhat confused. He was not able, however, at present to give his hon. Friend any further information.

IRISH FISHERIES—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he will bring in a Bill on the subject of appropriating a fund to the purposes of the Irish Fisheries?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he was in communication with the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and hoped to be able to bring in a Bill shortly after Whitsuntide.

MERCANTILE MARINE—STEERING AND SAILING RULES.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, To lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Report of the Conseil d'Amirauté to the French Minister of Marine on "the Steering and Sailing Rules," presented to the Foreign Office on the 15th day of May 1874?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Report has only just been received by the Board of Trade, and should not
620
be presented without some observations upon it from the Board, who would wish to consult the Trinity House and Admiralty first. I will then present it; or the hon. Gentleman might move for it as an unopposed Return, adding the words, "with further Papers."

FRANCE—REFINED SUGAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps have been taken to induce the French Government to suppress the bounties at present existing on the export of refined sugar, by putting in force the system of refining in bond, at an earlier date than that fixed, viz. at July 1875?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Government had made a Report to the French Government, and Lord Lyons had been instructed to impress upon them the necessity of putting an end to the bounties at present existing on the export of refined sugar by putting in force the system of refining in bond. He believed that the French Government had directed inquiries to be made, and the matter was still under their consideration.

THE IRISH LAND ACT, 1872—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYN (for Mr. SEELY)asked the hon. Member for Tralee, If it is his intention to proceed with his Bill for the extension of the provisions of the Irish Land Act of 1872 to England and Scotland?
THE O'DONOGHUE, in reply, said, that it was his intention to proceed with his Bill if he could find a day on which it would be fully discussed and a division taken. He feared, however, that he should be unable to find such a day this Session.

FORESHORES (IRELAND)—RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Return, ordered by the House on the 23rd of July 1873—
  "Of all Leases, Grants, or Charters of any rights of the Crown along the sea shores, or to the beds or shores of tidal rivers, of the county of Louth, from Clogher Head to the River Newry at Omeath, made previous to the year 1827. distinguishing such rights, to whom and

  621
  for what consideration granted, date of grant, name of grantee, and name of place whereof such grant has been made,"
  will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, from what cause has arisen this delay, now extending over a period of ten months?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the hon. Member's Question must be put to the Secretary to the Treasury, as the management of the rights of the Crown in such foreshores dealt with before 1827 was not transferred to the Board of Trade by the Crown Lands Act, 1866.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsubsequently stated that upon search among the enrolments of grants from the Crown in the Public Record Office of Ireland, it did not appear, in the absence of extrinsic evidence, that any lease, grant, or charter, containing any grant of the right of the Crown to "foreshores," or of any right of the Crown "along the sea-shores," or "to the beds or shores of tidal rivers" of the county of Louth between Clogher Head and the River Newry at Omeath, had been made prior to the year 1827.

INDIA—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is able to name the day when he will bring forward the Indian Budget?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that in the present position of Public Business, he was unable to name the exact day when it would be brought forward, but that the intention of the Government was to submit it on a day considerably earlier than had been the habit during the last five years.

EPPING DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, What amount of money has been expended on the Water and Drainage Works of the Epping Special Drainage District, and what arrangements have been made, or are intended to be made, in respect to its repayment; whether the President is aware of the fact that more than two-thirds of the houses in the said district are entirely devoid of a water supply and drainage, and that the mortality in the district last year was not less than
  622
  thirty per thousand; and, whether any steps are being taken towards the completion of the works; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to cause the Rural Sanitary Authority of Epping to do its duty in the matter?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, the sum spent on the Epping Water and Drainage Works amounts to about £11,500. I am aware that the Drainage and Water Supply of the district are defective, and that the rate of mortality is very high. With regard to the Question what steps are proposed to be taken with a view to the completion of the works, and to secure the repayment of the money, I received only yesterday a deputation from Epping, and would prefer to defer giving an answer till after Whitsuntide.

NEWFOUNDLAND—TELEGRAPH MONOPOLY.—QUESTION.
MR. E. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether any steps have been taken by the Secretary of State to induce the Government of Newfoundland, in the interest of Europe and America, to terminate the Telegraph monopoly in that Island; and, whether, in view of the importance of the subject, there is any objection to lay before Parliament at an early day any Correspondence that may have passed between the late or present Secretary of State and the Governor of Newfoundland and other persons on this subject?
MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, there had been some confidential Correspondence on the subject between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Newfoundland; but, owing to the recent change of Administration in that Colony, there had been no opportunity for the views of the present Ministers to be laid before the Secretary of State. The latest information received was, however, to the effect that the subject was engaging their attention. It would, therefore, not be convenient to produce any Correspondence at present.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When certain Returns to

  623
  which he had referred in the course of the Debate on the Government Intoxicating Liquors Bill, and on which in a great degree the Bill itself was understood to be founded, will he laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, they were laid by him on the Table of the House on the following-day. He believed they would be printed and in the hands of hon. Members before the House separated for Whitsuntide; but, if not, hon. Members would receive them during the Whitsuntide Recess.
  Orders of the Day postponed till after the Notice of Motion relative to the Army (Lord Sandhurst).—(Mr. Disraeli.)

ARMY—(LORD SANDHURST.)

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ANDERSON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Lord Sandhurst, the Commander in Chief of the Forces in Ireland and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, his having been absent from duty for seventeen months out of thirty-four, his making repeated erroneous Returns to the War Office as to his absences from duty, misleading the Accountant General, and thereby receiving Public Money to which he was not entitled, involves such dereliction of duty as calls for some stronger mark of censure than the mere return of the money wrongly received."
  said, that the Motion had more importance than it deserved bestowed upon it in consequence of a statement which fell the other day from the Prime Minister, who described the Motion as a charge of corruption against a Peer of the Realm. He had, however, made no charge of corruption against that Peer of the Realm. ["Oh, oh!"] He entirely disclaimed such an accusation. His Notice of Motion was very carefully worded. It detailed certain facts concerning the absence of Lord Sandhurst from duty for 17 months out of 30, the making of erroneous Returns relating to this absence, and it stated that those erroneous Returns misled the Accountant General, and that, owing to the Accountant General being misled, the noble Lord obtained public money to which he was not entitled. But all those statements were simply undeniable facts shown by the Papers before the House. They
  624
  were no charges of his making. The Motion simply charged that these facts amounted to a dereliction of duty, and that they did so amount to a dereliction of duty was what it was incumbent upon him to prove to the House. They did not involve any charge of corruption, and he had never said so either publicly or privately. Whether an act was corrupt or not depended upon the motive with which it was committed, and if there was no corrupt motive there could be no corruption in the act, and in this case he did not allege any corrupt motive. He might, perhaps, be permitted to refer to a matter somewhat personal to himself. He had been informed that this Motion had within the last few days been discussed in a party consisting of four or five Members of the House, and that one of these Gentlemen stated openly that there were wheels within wheels, and that he was attacking Lord Sandhurst from private animus because the noble Lord had cashiered a relative of his in India. He did not know who the Member was; but he desired to give the statement itself the most unqualified contradiction which the usages of Parliament permitted. He was not aware what was really the strongest word which he might be permitted to use; but, whatever the word might be, he desired the hon. Member to consider that word used towards him. He felt a little warm on this subject because he had had very near relatives in both services; but not one of them had been cashiered or censured by Lord Sandhurst or any one else. Indeed, he was not aware that he had a friend or acquaintance who had been cashiered or censured. He know that there had been an officer whose case had been brought forward in that House; but it was so long since that he had forgotten even the officer's name. He had taken up the case purely on public grounds, and he had continued it solely from the same motives. He might, perhaps, as well tell the House how he came to take the matter up. Ireland, they were told, was a turbulent country, requiring a strong military force to keep it in order, and that being the case he was somewhat astonished to find that the Commander-in-Chief was absent from his duty for more than half his time, and that he drew full pay and allowances just as if his office was a sinecure. So much was he surprised that, at one time

  625
  he had it in contemplation to move the abolition of an office which appeared to be so useless. When these irregularities afterwards came out he was as much surprised as was the War Office itself. On the 12th of June, 1873, he had asked in that House how long Lord Sandhurst had been absent from his duties during the preceding 12 months, and whether during his absence he had drawn his pay and allowances. In reply, Sir Henry Storks said that during that time Lord Sandhurst had been absent three months on sick leave. Knowing that answer to be erroneous, and having had considerable experience of the erroneousness of War Office replies—[laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but he did not believe that he was the only Member who had felt that some Departments of Government regarded a questioner as if he were a mortal enemy, and thought that the last thing in the world they ought to do was to give a correct reply to Questions that were asked. He knew that the answer was not correct, and he got a friend to write to Dublin to make inquiry. The result was that he found Lord Sandhurst was away for very nearly double the time, and he learnt, too, that if he carried the inquiry further back he would find it was still worse. He then repeated his Question, extending it to the 30 months previously, and he found that Lord Sandhurst had been absent 15 months out of that time; but he was told in the official reply that such absence was due partly to professional duty in England, partly to his duty of attending Parliament, and partly to sick leave. He was told, moreover, that the noble Lord during that time had drawn his pay and allowances; but that the Accountant General had raised objections, and that the matter was being inquired into. On the 31st of July, 1873, he had asked whether the Correspondence on the subject was complete, and whether the decision arrived at involved any censure to anyone, or any repayment of pay and allowances for the time of the noble Lord's absence from Ireland, and in that case how much the repayment would amount to. The reply was that the Accountant General's objections had been sustained by the War Office; that Lord Sandhurst's absences had not been entered in his pay lists; that £753 11 s. had been returned; that
  626
  the Question had led to the discovery, but that even if he had not asked the Question the discovery would probably have been made. That was the history of the circumstances which had led to the production of these Papers. He had thought it desirable that the House should know the nature of the objections which had been raised to Lord Sandhurst's accounts, seeing that they were of such a nature as had led to his having to repay the sum of £753, and therefore he had moved for these Papers last Session, when a part of them were laid upon the Table of the House. The remainder of the Papers having been laid upon the Table this Session, he was anxious that they should be printed; because he felt the great inconvenience of their being simply placed in the Library without being distributed among hon. Members. The reason why they had not been printed was because no mode of printing which the House recognized would bring out the real points in the case, which were to be found not so much in the Correspondence as in the accounts. It was necessary that the War Office forms, Lord Sandhurst's mode of filling them up—his explanation being scrawled across them, instead of being written on a separate piece of paper, and his mode of attaching his signature to some of the accounts by gumming it on them, should be brought under the notice of the House. The form issued by the War Office, in which absences were to be recorded, was attached to the pay list, and contained two columns, one in which absences with leave during the current month were to be recorded, and one in which the total absences during each month since the previous 5th of April were to be entered. There was a foot-note attached to this form which stated that these columns must in all cases be filled up, and that when there had been no absence the word "nil" was to be entered in them. Of the 29 monthly forms which Lord Sandhurst had filled up, no less than 20 of them should have contained entries of absence for a certain number of days, but only two of them contained such entries. In the absence columns of the remainder the word "nil" had been filled in, indicating that Lord Sandhurst had not been absent during the 27 months to which they referred. There were two sets of accounts for each month, each.

  627
  separately made and each separately signed, so that there were altogether no fewer than 36 erroneous accounts sent in by Lord Sandhurst. In the case of two of these accounts Lord Sandhurst's signature had been attached by means of gum, having been written on a separate piece of paper. That occurred when the noble Lord was in the South of France. He supposed the noble Lord thought that the accounts would look better if they had his signature in some form or other; but he did not suppose the noble Lord would like his bankers to pay cheques which had his signature attached to them in such a manner. It was only fair to Lord Sandhurst to say that his explanation for putting "nil" in the absence columns when he was away from Ireland was that these columns were headed "absence with leave," whereas he was absent without leave. The view of the War Office, however, was that if he were absent it should have been either with leave from that Department or from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, those columns should have been filled up properly. The noble Lord, however, was not consistent in his statement, because while he stated that he was absent from February to May, 1873, with leave, he had entered "nil" in the forms for those months also. Moreover, in the forms for January and February, 1872, the entry in the former was "28 days absence," and in the latter "five days absence," making out that he was only absent for 33 days, when, in reality, those 33 days were only part of an absence which really extended to six months. Lord Sandhurst acknowledged that he had signed the accounts in a perfunctory manner; but it appeared to him that an officer dealing with money accounts, especially with money accounts involving his own pay, was called upon by every consideration not to deal with them in a perfunctory manner, and that to deal with them so was to commit an official sin of which the War Office was bound to take cognizance, and to set down their foot upon such a practice most firmly. He did not say that Lord Sandhurst had made these errors in his accounts for the purpose of concealment—there was no evidence of that; but he should wish to draw the attention of the Judge Advocate General to the 85th, 86th, and 89th sections of the Articles of War, which
  628
  treated omissions by an officer in his accounts and returns as severely as actual falsifications, for which an officer was liable to be cashiered. He was afraid that if a junior officer had made erroneous returns which would have the effect of putting money into his own pocket, when the case came to be considered by the War Office it would go very hard with him. He had endeavoured to make a short abstract of the letters which were in the Library, which he would read to the House. The first, which was dated the 26th of June, 1873, was from the "War Office to Lord Sandhurst, asking as to his absences during the past 30 months. The next was Lord Sandhurst's reply, in which he stated that his first absence was for four months on duty; the second was for three months on Parliamentary affairs; the third was for six months for ill-health, during which time he did not go much into society, but was able occasionally to attend Parliament; the fourth was for three weeks in London on duty; and the fifth was for four months in the South of France for ill-health. The noble Lord added that it would be as reasonable for him to claim a portion of the salary of the Lord Lieutenant during his absence, as that he should give up any portion of his own salary during the time he was away from Ireland. The noble Lord further stated that he had accepted the Irish command with sincere reluctance, having shortly before declined to stay longer in India, whore for 15 years he had not known what it was to be relieved from the cares of high office for a single day, and that the duties connected with the Army and the general administration of India had been for the greater part of that time of the most arduous and laborious description. The next letter, dated 2nd of July, was from the War Office to Lord Sandhurst, and pointed out that his Returns for the last 30 months did not disclose any absence on his part beyond the usual period of leave, and that circumstance, taken in connection with his present letter admitting absences, raised questions which required explanation. The fourth letter was dated the 7th of July, and was from Lord Sandhurst. In it be said that as regarded his absences he had followed the course which had always prevailed during the time of his predecessors; that it had not been customary

  629
  for the Commander of the Forces in Ireland to obtain leave of absence; and and that it had been considered sufficient to acquaint the Adjutant General of the fact in a private form, and that the Commander of the Forces in Ireland had not been in the habit of demanding official leave of absence, as was the case with subordinate officers; that he had ascertained that to be the custom on taking; the command in 1870, and had adhered to it as established by long prescription and precedent; that in February, 1873, he had applied formally for leave, but that was an exceptional case, as he was going abroad; and these facts, he said, accounted for the non-record of his absences. The next letter was dated the 8th of July, and was from the War Office to Lord Sandhurst, stating that the Returns had been prepared in a manner different from those of his predecessors, and that it was necessary they should be corrected, so as to make them consistent with the facts of the case. The Report of the Adjutant General of the 8th of July stated that it had been the practice of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland to report his absences from command in the pay lists, and he gave instances of this. To this letter Lord Sandhurst replied on the 9th of July, stating that the accounts would be corrected, but that there would be little to correct, as he had verified his statement by reference to the head clerk, who was a person of 37 years' experience; that there was no column for absence on duty, and that consequently that did not appear on the Returns, and that he only did as his predecessors had done. The War Office wrote to Lord Sandhurst on the 10th of July, stating that the intention of the Return had been misunderstood, as it had been designed to show the actual fact of the presence or absence of each officer; that in the case of absence on professional or Parliamentary duty a statement that such was the cause of the absence ought to have been given; that the Secretary of State did not understand the Commander of the Forces to be absent without leave of His Royal Highness, although leave had not been obtained in a formal manner, and that on those points the Returns must be corrected, when they would be again examined. Letter 8 was from Lord Sandhurst to the War Office, and was dated July 11. In it he maintained his
  630
  former opinion, and returned the accounts with remarks written on them. He said that the form of accounts was deficient; that he carried his command with him wherever he might happen to be, and suggested the implied sanction of his conduct by the authorities; and he added that the action of the Accountant General in such a matter was irrelevant. The next letter, which was from the War Office to Lord Sandhurst, stated that the noble Lord had misunderstood the pay list form, and pointed out that it was shown by a foot-note to be a record of actual absences, adding that His Royal Highness was not aware of the misunderstanding, could not have given any implied sanction, and did not admit the view that discharge of duty out of Ireland was acknowledged by superior authority, and was consistent with the practice of his predecessors. Letter 11 sent the pay lists, and then came a letter from Lord Sandhurst to the War Office, dated July 17, stating that no deductions were to be made for absences in 1871, when he was away on diary, but that in 1872 he appeared to have been away 88 days more than were admissible, and 92 days in 1873 more than were admissible—that was, more than the 61 which were allowed to staff officers in every year; and it mentioned the amount of the retrenchment as £753 11 s. The next letter was dated July 19, and was from Lord Sandhurst to the War Office, arguing against the retrenchment on the grounds previously given, and suggesting that as regarded his Parliamentary absences, they might have been modified if he had understood the consequences, adding that he would not have accepted the command if he had conceived it possible that such an interpretation would have been laid down, and that his absence in Parliament was with the full knowledge of the War Department. Then he gave instances of Lord Strathnairn's absence, which he said had not been recorded. This was followed by a letter from the War Office, dated the 29th of July, stating that they could not adopt the view that high office was an exception to the rule as to absence, which governed all Staff appointments, or that the holders of high office should be judged by special rules; that, on the contrary, they were subject to all the ordinary rules; that although leave of absence

  631
  had been applied for in a less formal way in this case, still that the absence must be with the leave of His Royal Highness; that the Secretary of State agreed with His "Royal Highness as to the manner in which the Returns ought to have been filled up, and if that had been correctly done, no misunderstanding would have arisen; that Staff pay and allowances were strictly remuneration for local services; that the Accountant General thought table money should be similarly disallowed; but as it had not been customary to make deductions for table money, no such deduction would be made, but that a new rule would be made on the subject. They denied that the example of his predecessors to which he had referred, or any excess above 61 days, had ever been sanctioned by the War Office, and added that the 61 days' leave was only allowed at the end of 10 months' service. The next letter was from Lord Sandhurst, and was dated the 2nd of August. In it he again urged his claim for exemption from stringent rules, admitted his too perfunctory signature to the pay lists, as he had considered them mere receipts; and he submitted that even if his absences from ill health were to be deducted, those for attendance to Parliamentary duty ought not to be, as he had been all along in constant consultation with the War Office while the Army Bill was before the Houses; that if there was to be a change of system it ought not to be retrospective, and that there had been a tacit acquiescence on the part of the War Office. The reply of the War Office controverted all the noble Lord's arguments, and referred to the obligations of the Royal Warrant, adding that absence on military duty under the sanction of superior authority was the only exception allowed beyond the 61 days, and that there was no occasion for Lord Sandhurst's residence in London after the 3rd of April. They denied that there had been any tacit assent on their part to absence beyond the 61 days, but stated that the absences in excess of the rule were not noticed by the Accountant General, only because not recorded in the pay lists, and that when the Accountant General became aware of such absences he raised the objections. On the 7th of August Lord Sandhurst wrote to the War Office repeating all his old arguments, and claimed to have been of such service to the Government in
  632
  respect of the Army Bill that if he had not been in London it would have been necessary to have sent for him. The War Office replied on the 8th, saying that the Secretary of State was governed by the regulations of his Department, and did not accept Lord Sandhurst's account of the indispensable nature of his services, especially in the latter portion of the Session of 1871; that he had acknowledged in Parliament the value of those services, but that no such consideration would justify his straining or violating the Royal Warrant in respect of pay and allowances. Such was the Correspondence that had taken place. But it was fair to Lord Sandhurst to go a little further. A new series of letters commenced, and Lord Sandhurst wrote to the War Office, expressing his profound regret that certain formal Orders had only then come to his knowledge, which he had omitted to mention at the time he gave his explanations of his absence; that he found his memory had been altogether at fault, and that in his explanation he had erred considerably with respect to absences which he found had been greater than those he had acknowledged. He expressed very great regret at this, naturally enough; and the consequence was that the War Office sent him in a new bill for further retrenchment, amounting to £127 14 s. It certainly seemed to be an extraordinary thing that Lord Sandhurst, in explaining his absences in so formal a way to the War Office, did not appear to have referred to the documents in his own office, to ascertain what really those absences were. The Orders were dated the 30th of December, 1870, handing over the command to the officer next in rank; 10th of May, 1871, on leaving Ireland; 2nd of August, on returning; 4th of January, 1872, on leaving Ireland; 17th of July, on returning; 2nd of October, on leaving again; 24th of the same month, on returning; 9th of February, 1873, on leaving; and 2nd of June, on returning. Those Orders were simply handing over or resuming the command. He had now dealt with Lord Sandhurst's letters, and in a perfectly fair and impartial way, and had stated his own arguments in his favour, along with the arguments of the War Office in reply. He had proved, he thought, that there was 17 months' absences from duty out of 34, that the Returns were erroneous as

  633
  regarded those absences, as stated in the Motion; that those erroneous Returns misled the Accountant General, as stated in many of the letters from the War Office; that Lord Sandhurst did receive public money to which he was not entitled—that fact being proved by his having had to repay it. The remaining point—the only one which he required to prove was—that there was on the part of Lord Sandhurst, "such a dereliction of duty as called for some stronger mark of censure than the mere return of the money wrongly received." To prove dereliction of duty, it was not necessary to prove corruption; he simply said Lord Sandhurst had made an erroneous Return, and he believed Lord Sandhurst had done it principally through entertaining a very undue estimate of the importance of the position he occupied; that he supposed it was outside and above the Royal Warrant relating to Staff appointments, that he was not obliged to ask for leave of the Commander-in-Chief of this country, of the War Office, or anybody else, but that he was entitled to go where he pleased and when he pleased. He acted in ignorance of his position as defined by the Royal Warrant; but ignorance of the law was never allowed to justify a breach of it in any other rank of life, and he did not believe it would in the Army either, in any subordinate post. Lord Sandhurst said he only did as his predecessor Lord Strathnairn had done; but the War Office denied that altogether; and, if it were true, two wrongs did not make a right; it would not justify him in acting in contravention of the Royal Warrant and of the Articles of War. If this plea was to be admitted there was an end to all discipline and good order in the Army. Lord Sandhurst admitted in the fullest manner that he had been too perfunctory in the signing of his accounts, and that he held to be a grave offence. The sending of signatures on pieces of paper to be gummed on to the accounts was more than a perfunctory act, and he did not see how it could be passed over or excused. It was necessary for the maintenance of discipline and order in the Army, for an example to all other officers, and necessary for the War Office itself, to enable it consistently to punish similar offences, that such an offence as this should be visited with strong censure. Some might
  634
  think the repayment of the money was punishment enough; but that was no punishment at all, it was simply a question of accounting. It was no punishment to him to restore money which came into his hands wrongly, or by accident, and which he ought never to have had; and he could be punished only by some form of censure. So far as he knew neither the late War Office nor the present War Office had passed such censure. A lesson to be learnt from the incident was that there must be something wrong in the auditing of the War Office accounts when these errors could go on for three years without being checked. Until he happened to ask a Question in this House, nothing was known of these irregularities, the discovery of which was purely accidental. They might be going on in other quarters, and they might have existed for a long time in this, as Lord Sandhurst affirmed, though the War Office denied it. The moral seemed to be that there should be an outside audit for the accounts of the War Office and of other Departments. He had not agitated this case against Lord Sandhurst; but having moved for Papers, he thought he ought to allow the House to pass some judgment upon the matter. He hoped he had brought the matter forward in as fair a manner as possible to Lord Sandhurst, and he had not even provided a Seconder; he left it to any hon. Member who thought he had made out a ease to second the Motion by lifting his hat so as to put the matter before the House. He was entirely indifferent to the decision of the House; he had no personal animus against Lord Sandhurst, whom he had never seen to his knowledge, and of whom he knew nothing more than the public knew. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Lord Sandhurst, the Commander in Chief of the Forces in Ireland, having been absent from duty for seventeen months out of thirty-four, his making repeated erroneous Returns to the War Office as to his absences from duty, misleading the Accountant General, and thereby receiving Public Money to which he was not entitled, involves such dereliction of duty as calls for some stronger mark of censure than the mere return of the money wrongly received."—(Mr. Anderson)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The hon. Member, to whom I shall not impute any motive such as he has assumed might be ascribed to him, has brought before the House a question which he considers of vast importance, but which, in the mode in which he has stated it, seems to me to be of less importance than he has attributed to it. Any hon. Member, taking this Motion in his hand, without any prejudice and feeling on the subject, would consider it was meant to bring a grievous censure upon the officer against whom it is directed—if, indeed, it be directed against him, and not rather against the Government which kept him still in the position of Commander of the Forces in Ireland. From the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member anyone would suppose that the censure he invites the House to pass is to be passed, not upon Lord Sandhurst, but upon the War Office, which had condoned his neglect, and had only required him to return the money. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he has most carefully endeavoured to bring no charge of corruption against Lord Sandhurst, and yet as he proceeded he apparently found it impossible to abstain from coupling his statement of facts with remarks implying that money considerations materially affected the question. I think he quoted the letters with the most perfect fairness, though there are in them one or two things I should have wished him to bring more prominently forward. Now, what would a gentleman of honour, integrity, and high feeling say if he found a charge of so grave a nature imputed but not directly preferred? What would he say if on the part of the gentleman against whom the charge was made, there was no concealment—no attempt to disguise any of the facts? Surely that would, at all events, be evidence in his favour. Well, Lord Sandhurst has from the beginning to the end of this matter contended that, as Commander of the Forces in Ireland, he occupied a different position from that of subordinate Staff officers, and has acted upon that assumption. The use of detached signatures occurred when he was in the South of France. He did not wish the pay-sheets to be sent out to be attached to them at home, and he sent home signatures on a piece of paper. ["Oh, oh!"] Gentlemen may cry "oh, oh!" but
  636
  I am keeping back nothing; Lord Sandhurst kept back nothing. I am not standing here as his advocate: I am here merely to represent my own Department; and my duty is, as far as I can, to hold the balance in such cases as this; and, so far as I can, to see that Parliament does not take upon itself a function which it is ill-calculated, generally, to discharge, and which in most instances it refuses to discharge. With respect to the gummed signatures, so far as he was concerned, they might have been attached to any document which prejudiced him just as much as to any document in his favour. He gave no instructions; he gave no single direction as to what pay and emoluments he should receive; and he put his signature to the pay-sheets, believing, no doubt, he was entitled to the pay, just as he believed he was entitled to the table money, which it was intended to take from him, but which it was found he was authorized to receive in accordance with the custom which had prevailed. What was his position? It was a very high one. He believed that he was entitled to, and did, practically, command the Army in Ireland as long as he remained in the United Kingdom; and during all the time he was in England all matters of importance were referred to him. That may be seen from the details of the correspondence carried on while he was in England. I will now call attention to the circumstances which are made the grounds of the charge. Lord Sandhurst came home from India about three months prior to August, 1870, after occupying one of our highest commands for 12½ years; and he expressed reluctance to take any command whatever. He had been absent from this country 15 years, and though I am sorry to say his health has lately been extremely bad, he could say, what probably no other officer could say, that until he went to Dublin he had never since 1836 had sick leave at all. During his whole service in India he had not once been home on sick leave or furlough. On coming to England, therefore, he was told by his medical advisers, as stated in his letters, that rest was very desirable for him, and that he had far better take no command. He says again and again that he did not know what sort of command it was, and that had he known it was not the inde-

  637
  pendent position he supposed, he would never have taken the command. His sick leave, which I think no one will grudge him, was no doubt a long period altogether; but it was not a long period in comparison with the services he rendered without any such leave. Certain things have since come out which tend to show how his sickness was so severe—for I am told that his house in Dublin has been found to have been in an extremely unhealthy condition. Both winters he was seized with severe illness and had to leave for a time. In 1871 he came over by invitation of the Secretary of State for War to take part in the preparation of the Bill which was about to be introduced with respect to Army Reform, and it is admitted that from January till the 3rd of April—Lord Sandhurst fancied at one time it was for a longer period—he was really here on duty. Those services were very heartily acknowledged by Mr. Cardwell on more than one occasion. Lord Sandhurst afterwards came over when the Bill was before the House of Lords on his Parliamentary duties, and, as he believed, with a view also to assisting the War Office in conducting that measure through Parliament, and in many difficulties which arose his advice was no doubt at times taken, and he was in communication with the War Office. I am bound to say that, according to what the Under Secretary wrote to him, his services were not considered so indispensable as he had thought; but he was rendering services, and, as he supposed, real and beneficial services. It appears admitted, moreover, on all hands that, as regarded his attendance in Parliament, though he might not be entitled to Staff pay and allowances, he thought he had a right to be absent for Parliamentary duties, and that he was entitled to the pay and allowances which he had always claimed. In the winter he had to go away on sick leave, and came over to England. It is admitted that no formal leave had been asked by the Commander of the Forces; but he had communicated with the Field Marshal the General Commanding-in-Chief in a comparatively informal way, and had come over. Lord Sandhurst was ill for some time while in England; but, as appears from his letters, he conducted the business of his Department and was able to exercise the command in all important particulars, though he
  638
  left a Major General who could do all the routine work and could communicate with him on all special occasions. He was again engaged in Parliament that year. In the winter his illness became so severe that he had to leave the United Kingdom and repaired to France, under the advice not only of his medical attendants in Ireland, but of the best physician he could find in England. Now, not one of those absences is inconsistent with his right to absence, for he always sent intimation of his coming over, or was here to attend to his Parliamentary duties, which he did not think it necessary to communicate, deeming he had a right so to attend. I believe either a Peer or a Member of this House has a right to discharge his Parliamentary duties in that way. Let me add that, though there has been this large deduction from his pay and allowances, Lord Sandhurst was summoned during those three years to attend before Committees of this House. In 1871 he was summoned as a witness on a matter as to the India Establishment, and he also gave evidence before Committees on the Euphrates Valley Railway and on the health of the Army in garrison towns. Now, after the statement of the hon. Member that what he imputes to Lord Sandhurst is an error of judgment and a mistake as to his rights, should the great powers of this House be put in force in order to censure him? Upon a question where it is the right of the Crown to deal absolutely, as is the case with the Army, should this House, without inquiry upon oath—without court-martial—inflict an ineffaceable stigma upon the character of Lord Sandhurst? The House is asked to undertake a duty which properly belongs only to the Crown, and though I have searched for a similar case I have been unable to find one. The cases which have been brought forward are of a totally different character, and in those the House has almost invariably hold that it is not a tribunal to entertain such questions, but that they should be left to the Crown. This matter, however, having been brought forward, there is no alternative but for the House to come to a vote and a decision upon it. I trust that in doing so the House will remember the real state of the case, that throughout the Correspondence there is no imputation of the slightest

  639
  fraud or concealment, and that the strongest expression used by the War Office is, that had a certain course been taken the "misunderstandings" which have arisen would not have happened. Last Session the hon. Member put a Question to my noble Predecessor as to whether he meant to censure anyone upon these transactions, and the answer was that no censure was to be imposed. I will not go into the question as to whether or not the War Office has a good system of accounts, because, as the hon. Member admits, that is not before us; but I know that, irrespective of the hon. Member's Question, the very first of these Papers which came in with the signature attached by gum attracted the attention of the Accountant General, and would have led to an investigation without any Question being asked. The other Papers, of course, are on a different footing. Lord Sandhurst did nothing by concealment, but came over openly, believing that his absences were fully known, and that he had a right to come over. When the House is called on to censure anyone who acts in that way, whether a Commander of the Forces or one in an inferior position, I must say that no assembly of gentlemen, wishing to be just, but would consider not only the admissions he makes, but the explanation with which they are accompanied. Now, the hon. Gentleman, though he tells us he has carefully considered the terms of the Motion, with a view to impute nothing fraudulent, improper, or corrupt, has used terms which are one-sided. He accepts the admissions which are frank and free—and though Lord Sandhurst did not consider his view erroneous, I quite admit that it was erroneous—and he declares his conduct a dereliction of duty, without saying anything of the explanations which Lord Sandhurst tendered with those admissions, thus giving a one-sided statement of the case. Were the Resolution to be carried, whatever the hon. Member may think, it would drive Lord Sandhurst from the position he occupies, because it would be a stain on his character, and would give pain and grief to everybody connected with him. As we are practically agreed upon the facts—which have never been denied by Lord Sandhurst—it is unnecessary to go further into them, and I am not this evening physically capable of doing so. I rather wish to draw
  640
  the attention of the House to what is the practical issue. Here is an officer who has served his country in all climates and under all conditions, who has risen to the highest rank in India, and is appointed to one of the most important commands in the United Kingdom. He tells you as an honourable gentleman that in making these erroneous claims he acted in the belief that he was doing what he had a perfect right—and on many points still thinks he had a perfect right—to do. He has never attempted any fraud or concealment on the public, and though he may have misled the Accountant General, there was nothing wilful or dishonest on his part. He asks this Assembly—and I hope that without any long discussion we shall come to a conclusion—to give him, once and for all, an acquittal upon these transactions with the War Office. Do not condemn him whom the Crown has not condemned, but leave him in the position which, by favour of the Crown, he now occupies.
  MR. HORSMAN: No one can have listened to the speeches we have just heard without sharing the regret I have felt from the first, that all the Papers relating to this matter have not been printed and circulated among us. Had that been done, the House would see that the question is a much larger and graver one than might be supposed from the speech of my hon. Friend or from the answer, given under difficulties not of his own creation, of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. This cannot be treated as a mere personal question, beginning and ending with Lord Sandhurst. When so serious a charge is made against one in his high position—a charge which every man in the Army feels as a reflection on the profession in which he takes a pride; when it has been the occasion of controversy for many months between Lord Sandhurst and the War Department, raising the whole question of the relations between the Commander of the Forces in Ireland and the Horse Guards, and between the Horse Guards and the Secretary of State; when that Correspondence has resulted in Lord Sandhurst being coerced into refunding money which he has received, thereby implying an admission against which his whole nature revolts that he received it improperly; and when, moreover, it has

  641
  been almost suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor that that question, which the right hon. Gentleman now thinks is not one for the consideration of Parliament, should be brought before Parliament and submitted to its decision, it becomes a Question of importance to every Member of the House, far more interesting than nine-tenths of the Blue Books which are distributed among us without any regard to their importance. I had not read that Correspondence when I first saw this Motion on the Paper, but knowing the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) and his business habits and his love of justice, I assumed that he had good grounds for what he stated in it. I therefore did not wish to see more of what appeared to be a very painful subject, but after the tone and manner of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in offering to give precedence to the hon. Member, I went to the Library and read the Papers most carefully, and, I must say, a more painful Correspondence, as regards an individual, or a more important Correspondence, as regards public interests, it has seldom been my fortune to peruse. The Motion to-day is one of the very gravest accusations I have ever known put on the Notice Paper of the House. Besides, the hon. Member for Glasgow does not do this of his own motion or on his own responsibility. He does it as the mouthpiece of the War Department.
  MR. ANDERSON: I rise to Order. I beg to give that an unqualified contradiction.
  MR. HORSMAN: My hon. Friend has quite mistaken what I have said, and he need not have applied to me the strongest language within the rules of Parliament. What I mean is this—that this inquiry was originated by the War Office. The charge against Lord Sandhurst was originated in the office of the Secretary of State for War. The judgment pronounced against Lord Sandhurst was pronounced by the War Department. The penalty exacted from him was exacted by the War Department, and my hon. Friend merely follows in the wake of the War Department in bringing the matter before the House. He has stated the charges and the grounds on which they rest; but, he adds a hope that Parliament will go a great
  642
  deal further and "mark with a stronger censure than the mere return of money wrongly received." I say these are the severest charges which, in my Parliamentary experience, I have known placed on the Notice Papers of this House. I quite believe, from the tone of the speech of my hon. Friend, that he did not intend to imply more than is stated; but I know what was conveyed to my mind, and I believe to the mind of every Member who first read the Notice. The hon. Member has shown from his own conviction of the merits of the case that it was quite certain to imply more than is expressed. What is really meant to be conveyed to everybody's mind by this Motion? It speaks of "an absence from duty for 17 months out of 34." That is a truth; is it the whole truth? That "absence from duty" implies that the absence was voluntary and avoidable—absence on pleasure, neglect of duty. That is what is implied. Then there is "his making repeated erroneous Returns to the War Office"—that conveys to my mind that he made false Returns. The words of the Motion are that he had "misled the Accountant General." It was not intended, but surely it is implied, that he had wilfully deceived the Accountant General, and I think that will be convoyed to the minds of Lord Sandhurst's friends. Then it is said "he received public money to which he was not entitled." After "misleading the Accountant General" these words certainly conveyed to my mind that he had fraudulently and dishonourably received it, and when the Motion adds that the mere return of the money was not a sufficient amende, I certainly thought-it implied that Lord Sandhurst had admitted himself in the wrong; that he returned the money, and hoped that his fault would be condoned. All this I know was not intended by my hon. Friend; but it was conveyed to my mind and to the minds of many other Members of the House. Now, what are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said there were 17 months of absence, but four months in the first year Lord Sandhurst came over, by order of the War Office, to assist the Secretary of State for War in completing and carrying through the scheme for the re-organization of the Army. We were told that he was the "friend, philosopher and guide" of

  643
  the Secretary of State. In fact, he "coached" the Secretary for "War. Lord Sandhurst was ordered to remain in London, and not a day did he not give to the Secretary of State. He was never absent from his post—his presence was absolutely indispensable while the Bill was passing through this House. Well, the Bill passed through this House, but what happened in the other House? The Government had no friend in the other House, and Lord Sandhurst was made a Peer, giving up all to servo them. He made speeches to order in the other House, and gave them every assistance, as he had done in this House. His whole time during the Session of Parliament was given to assist the Government to frame and to pass that measure. When he returns to Ireland his health breaks down—no wonder, after such hard work—and he goes on sick leave. Then what becomes of the imputation—I admit not made in terms—that Lord Sandhurst was improperly absent from his post? He was absent, but for three reasons—first, to assist the Government in framing their scheme of Army Reform and carrying it through this House; next, he accepted the Peerage and helped them carry it through the House of Lords; lastly, his health broke down, and he was ordered by his physicians to get leave and address himself to the restoration of his health. Is not his absence, then, accounted for? Was his absence in any respect voluntary or avoidable? His absence was on important public duty, for which those who sit on the front Opposition Bench of all others ought to thank him; and so every generous mind in this House will consider it. I have no knowledge or interest in this case but what I gather from the Correspondence; and that Correspondence tells me, so far as I can gather it, that there are two grave charges against Lord Sandhurst. I must say I never heard a question of a painful nature brought forward with better feeling than by my hon. Friend. It was impossible not to feel that he was acting in the discharge of a public duty, and not prompted by any personal feeling. There was no concealment of his (Lord Sandhurst's) absence—it was impossible he could be absent from his post for six months without the knowledge of the War Office or the Horse Guards. There was no concealment
  644
  in reference to the Accountant General. One charge, however, is that he had received public money to which he was not entitled. That is a charge which Lord Sandhurst denies, and I will give the House the means of judging of its truth. But before doing so, I will say one word as to the last point—that the mere return of money wrongly received is not a sufficient reparation. "The mere return of money!" That is a statement more than any other calculated to mislead the House and the public. My hon. Friend says he returned the money wrongly received. Did he return the money? If you put a pistol to a man's head and say, "Your money or your life," and he gives you his purse, is that making you a present of his money? But that is precisely what was done with Lord Sandhurst. The War Office said, "Refund this money." Lord Sandhurst in effect, though not in words, said, "I will not. That money is my right, and I will keep it." The War Office insisted. Lord Sandhurst had no choice. He was at the mercy of the War Department. They could stop it out of his pay; they could dismiss him from his command; and Lord Sandhurst returned the money. It was extorted from him, with a strong protest on his part against the injustice and tyranny of the proceeding. Then, is there one of these charges that is not disproved? Has it not been shown that there was no voluntary or avoidable absence?—that there was no deception of the Accountant General, and no voluntary return of the money? But I now come to the most important part of the whole question. Did Lord Sandhurst receive public money, in the terms of the Motion, to which he was not entitled? What are the facts? A military officer of high rank and position is appointed to command in Ireland. He has certain pay and allowances. The pay is £3 15 s. 10 d. a-day, £1,000 a-year for table-money, an allowance for servants, forage for six horses, and some small additional allowances for lights and fuel. The question is, whether he was entitled to draw his allowances while he held the office of Commander-in-Chief though he happened not to be in Ireland? Had he a right to draw this money when he was not at his post? The question of table-money was raised in the War Office, and

  645
  it would appear from what the then Secretary of War said that there was some obscurity as to the practice. He took some credit for not having pressed for repayment. But what is "table-money?" It is intended for the entertainment of the officers; but does it mean merely the expense of inviting a certain number of guests and giving them meat and wine? It is £1,000 a-year given to a Commander-in-Chief to entertain the officers in Ireland. I am addressing Gentlemen who are in the habit of entertaining, and I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) how far £3 would go in entertaining one of his parties at which I have been happy to be present. When the Commander-in-Chief goes to Ireland entertainment is obligatory upon him. He has no choice about it, and he has £1,000 for the 12 months' entertainment! But it should be remembered that he has to purchase plate, table linen, and to invest a considerable sum in purchasing other articles, and he relies upon being repaid during the five years for which he takes the office. He necessarily passes a portion of that time out of Ireland. He has a large establishment imposed upon him in virtue of the duties of his office, and when he comes to England is he to dismiss his servants, turn off his cook, and sell his horses, when he may return to Ireland in a month or six weeks? Is he to dismiss his establishment, and are his table allowances to be cut off, and is he to have no income but his regimental pay to keep up the large establishment which he is compelled to maintain? Then he has forage allowance for six horses. Was he to keep them, or sell them and buy other six horses when he returned to Ireland? If he kept them they would cost some portion of the £1,000. What is he to do? The fair thing would have been for the Secretary of War to say—"You have been absent from a cause with which all must sympathize. We hope you will be soon restored to health, and we shall not insist upon your dismissing your establishment and selling your horses. You may go back any day, and we hope you will go back soon." Lord Sandhurst acted on the belief that he was to return. He drew his allowances, and never imagined that they would be withdrawn. But he was mistaken. On the 17th of July, 1873, he received this letter, stating—"In
  646
  1872 you were absent 149 days." The right hon. Gentleman said that no one could grudge Lord Sandhurst his allowance during illness, but his predecessor took a different view. He said—
  "For the year ending 31st March, 1872, during which it is now shown that your Lordship was absent for 149 days—namely, 61 days on Parliamentary duty and 88 on account of ill-health. Staff-pay and allowances would appear to be inadmissible for 88 days, being the number in excess of the regulated period of 61 days for which staff pay and allowances are granted during absence from staff duties."
  Was not that to withdraw his staff-pay and allowances during the period which my right hon. Friend has said our sympathies with the invalid Commander-in-Chief would lead us to wish them to be continued? The letter went on—
  "For the year ending 31st March, 1873, during which it is now shown that your Lordship was absent for 153 days—in addition to 10 days on military duty in England—namely, 71 days on Parliamentary duty, 75 days on account of ill-health, and 7 days on ordinary absence on private affairs. Staff-pay and allowances would appear to be inadmissible for 92 days, being the number in excess of the regulated period of 61 days, for which staff-pay and allowances are granted during absence from staff duties."
  A question of principle has been raised on this. A military officer of high rank and antecedents—of high honour and trust, or he would not be appointed—goes to Ireland to command the Army there. He makes his financial arrangements, which are necessarily expensive; and what is the basis on which he makes them? He is to have a salary and so much per annum, upon which he supposes he may rely; but it appears that a sum of £3 15 s. 10 d. a-day may be cutoff at any moment. There are accounts kept of where he is and what he receives, and he appears to have been watched as suspiciously as if he were a clerk who was shirking his duty. Every one of his movements was chronicled as accurately as if he were a returned ticket-of-leave man. Now, was that the position in which a General who was Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland ought to be placed? Take the special case of Lord Sandhurst as an individual. He earned distinction in the Crimea. He was for 12 years in high commands in India. When he returned to this country he became the adviser of the Secretary of State for War in the most important political change ever made in the constitution of the Army. Political and professional

  647
  honours were heaped upon him, and he was finally sent to Ireland in a position of great honour and trust. And what is the matter in dispute? The whole question is about the construction of a Royal Warrant. Lord Sandhurst put one construction on the Warrant regarding leave of absence, and the War Office another. Lord Sandhurst maintained that he was right, and the War Office said he was wrong. The Secretary of State did not refer to one witness whose evidence might he adduced. The head clerk of a department, who had been 37 years in the War Office, stated that Lord Sandhurst's views were in accordance with the practice which had existed ever since he came to that office.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: He was not a clerk in the War Office, but in the Pay Office, Dublin.
  MR. HORSMAN: Well, he had been for 37 years in the Service. The question was one of pay and allowances during absence, and he supported the view taken by Lord Sandhurst. In this case there was might on one side and right on the other. Lord Sandhurst complained, but he succumbed, because there were on one side law and the technicalities of law, and equity and common sense on the side of Lord Sandhurst. Every military officer would be guided by the judgment of equity and common sense in preference to the quibbles of law. Well, Lord Sandhurst did not pay when called upon to do so. He resisted, remonstrated, and gave his reasons. He said—"I ought to have been informed that such a change was applicable to me. I claim the protection of the Secretary of State." And what said the Secretary of State? He stated that he had no power to concede at his own discretion pay and allowances which were not included in the Royal Warrant. Lord Sandhurst replied—
  "I had always understood that it lay in the power of the Secretary of State, as a Ministerial officer, to interpret the Warrant according to equity, and not according to the mere letter. It appears, however, that the latitude formerly exercised was now denied to the Secretary of State."
  That shows that the whole question at issue was the construction of a Warrant, and did not imply any concealment on the part of Lord Sandhurst. Well, Lord Sandhurst paid the money, and I can well understand the reluctance and humiliation
  648
  with which the military authorities must have signed the Order for the re-payment of that money. The Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief must have known that there was no precedent for withdrawing the pay and allowances from a general officer in the position of Lord Sandhurst when he was absent from ill health. Still more, he must have known that there was no precedent for compelling the re-payment of the money when there was no imputation upon the honour of the recipient. The money was paid, and so far there was an end of the matter. But there was this anomaly—that, according to this interpretation, there was no Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and no one entitled to receive the money payable to him. Lord Sandhurst was still discharging, by correspondence, many of the duties of Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and was still responsible, and yet he was drawing no salary. His salary was, in fact, forfeited to the State, and came into the Imperial Exchequer. Lord Sandhurst appealed to the Secretary of State for protection. Protection for what? Not for his pocket or his purse—it is not through the purse that you wound the feelings of a soldier—but for his honour. He appeals for protection for his honour; for protection to the honour of the Army to prevent its being tarnished in his hands. But he appealed in vain—the Secretary of State was inexorable. He was a Member of an economical Government, of a Government which strongly sympathized with the Peace Society, and which, no doubt, intended that any money repaid should go towards decreasing the Estimates and swelling the surplus. He thought probably that with the re-payment of the money all the consequences to Lord Sandhurst were at an end. But the military authorities must have known better. They must have known that to Lord Sandhurst it was not a question of money. I think that the compelling Lord Sandhurst to refund this money was the shabbiest, the dirtiest proceeding ever committed by any public Department. But the military authorities—men brought up in the Army—must have known that the re-payment, of this money carried consequences with it. It enabled those who were not friendly to the Army to say that Lord Sandhurst would not have repaid the money if he

  649
  had not known that he had wrongly received it, and that it had been fraudulently and dishonestly acquired. It was an impeachment on his honour which must have flushed the cheek of every military man who takes pride in his profession. It is not a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. It is for these reasons that I feel that Lord Sandhurst has been a very ill-used man. He has not, however, been hardly used by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who has ably discharged, with good fooling and perfect taste, a very invidious and painful duty. He has been ill-used by those who had not the courage to face the House of Commons—by those who, though they know that an attack was made against an officer whoso honour was unimpeachable, have, either through weakness or timidity, behaved in a manner for which they will receive neither the thanks of the country nor the respect and confidence of the Army.
  MR. J. R. YORKEobserved that the charge made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) affected not only Lord Sandhurst, but also the late Government, and those who had permitted what he had complained of. He trusted that the House would permit him to bring under their attention a few facts in defence of Lord Sandhurst, which had not been referred to in the course of the debate. Lord Sandhurst's reply to the charge, that no Return of his showed any absence beyond the usual time for which pay and allowances could be drawn, was that on taking the command in Ireland he had ordered that no deviation from the practice which had up to that time obtained should be made, and that he gave no orders whatever upon this particular point. He had himself made inquiry into the practice under Lord Strathnairn, Lord Sandhurst's predecessor. The hon. Member was proceeding to compare the Returns furnished during successive years while Lord Strathnairn was in command with the noble Lord's absences from duty during the same period, when—
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYrose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was referring to matters not before the House, and was, moreover, quoting figures which other Returns in the possession of the War Office showed to be erroneous.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he would not continue the subject further. He would content himself with appealing to the hon. Gentleman, who had no doubt brought this question forward solely from a sense of public duty, to withdraw the Motion, and to acknowledge that he had been misled. It was evident that the feeling of the House was whether the money refunded by Lord Sandhurst ought not to be repaid him, rather than whether Lord Sandhurst himself had improperly obtained it in the first instance.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANtrusted that the House would permit him to make a few observations in answer to the very forcible attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) upon the late War Administration, on whose behalf he might claim to speak, inasmuch as he was principally responsible, being at the period when this occurred at the head of its financial branch. The right hon. Gentleman had represented the whole proceeding as the mean act of a parsimonious Government, whose sole object was to swell the balance at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House might, however, as well be informed that if that was the object of the Secretary of State for War, that consideration must have equally weighed with the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General of the Forces, for not a letter was written or a step taken in this matter without the entire concurrence of those gallant and distinguished officers, who probably had the interests of the service quite as much at heart as had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard. Lest the right hon. Gentleman should feel alarmed at the prospect of money being saved to the country by this transaction, he might add that the money being thus undisposed of—having been voted for the General commanding the Forces in Ireland, and not spent upon Lord Sandhurst—the War Office had paid to Major General Newton and Sir Thomas Steele, who successively commanded the Dublin District, the difference between the pay of a Major General and that of a Lieutenant General, for the days on which Lord Sandhurst's pay had been retrenched, they having discharged the higher duties in his absence. He was glad that the hon. Member for

  651
  Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had repudiated any idea of imputing fraudulent motives to Lord Sandhurst. The view that had been taken of the matter by the late Secretary of State for War agreed precisely with with that expressed by his right hon. Successor, and the unanimous opinion of all whose opinion it had been proper to take was that Lord Sandhurst had a mistaken and exaggerated notion of the rights and privileges belonging to his high office, but that there had been no mala fides whatever in his conduct. Everything had been perfectly open and above-board, and if any proof of this were wanted it would be amply found in the fact that he had sent signatures to be gummed on to the papers in question, and this he would not have done if he had been anxious to hide the fact of his absence. The hon. Member for Glasgow had said that the irregularity would not have been noticed but for the fact that he put a Question on the subject in the House; but the circumstance of the signatures being gummed on would have at once brought it, and did, as a fact, bring it, to the notice of those at the War Office whose duty it was to cheek such Returns, and this led to a disclosure of the whole of the proceedings. The right hon. Member for Liskeard had alluded to the fact that Lord Sandhurst had spent a portion of his time in London in assisting in the deliberations connected with the passing of the Army Bill. It was quite true that Lord Sandhurst had been summoned to the War Office on that account, and there were few men who in such a matter had a better right to be summoned. He was an officer of great distinction, and had an experience of the Army in India such as Jew soldiers possessed. It had, therefore, been thought, both by the Duke of Cambridge and by Mr. Cardwell, that his advice and assistance would be most valuable, and so it proved to be. For that period—he being on duty under orders from headquarters—his pay had been allowed. But when the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that assistance had been continued in Parliament, and that Lord Sandhurst had been sent to the House of Peers as the only man who would support the Bill—thereby implying that he delivered speeches there in favour of the measure, which were very much made to the order of the War Office—the right hon. Grentleman seemed to forget that the general im-
  652
  pression at the time was that Lord Sandhurst was not entirely in favour of themilitary policy of the late Government. Now, the duty of the Secretary of State in this question had been perfectly plain. It was much to be regretted that the Correspondence had not been printed, because it would have enabled hon. Members to judge better of the arguments which had been used on both sides. The truth was—and it had been brought out already by a quotation from one of the letters—that the Secretary of State for War had no power to go beyond the limits of the Royal Warrant. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) said he thought that the War Office "should be guided by common sense and equity"—meaning, of course, the most lavish liberality, giving to everyone what he chose to ask,—"instead of quibbles and legal technicalities"—meaning that the Warrant which governed the payment of all the officers and men of the British Army should be set aside.
  MR. HORSMAN: When I said "common sense and equity" I was alluding to the opinion of a clerk who had been in the Office 37 years; and he said that that had been the practice ever since he had been there.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANunderstood, therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be that it was not the Secretary of State, but a clerk in the Pay Office at Dublin, who was to interpret the Royal Warrant. There was a passage in the Royal Warrant which stated as plainly as possible that Staff Pay was solely a remuneration for services locally rendered. That applied to every officer in the service, from the highest to the lowest; and Lord Sandhurst's argument, which was perfectly untenable, was that his office was so high that it raised him above the law. The same course would be taken with the youngest officer in the service as had been taken with Lord Sandhurst, and the hon. Member for Glasgow was wrong in implying that this was a case in winch the big fish got out of the net, while the small fish were caught. When, any Return sent in by an officer was found to be inaccurate, the officer was called upon to correct it, and if he had claimed too much, and the money had been paid to him, he was called upon to refund it. The case occurred every day,

  653
  and no further step was taken against the officer unless there was reason to believe that his conduct had arisen from some evil motive. If there had been a mere misapprehension, or mere misinterpretation of the Royal Warrant, there would certainly be no further step taken. That was precisely what had happened in the case of Lord Sandhurst. With regard to Lord Strathnairn—who had been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Gloucester (Mr. J. R. Yorke)—it had been ascertained from him that he had never during the time he was in Ireland acted on the principle adopted by Lord Sandhurst. It was true, as had been said, that Lord Sandhurst, during a part of the period of his absence, had been in attendance in Parliament as a Member of the House of Peers, and that military officers who were Members of Parliament were always allowed leave from their military duties in order that they might discharge their Parliamentary functions. But to continue under these circumstances pay and allowances that were intended exclusively for local services was quite another matter. There was no precedent for doing that, and therefore the plea on the ground of attendance on Parliament fell to the ground. Believing that Lord Sandhurst's conduct had been altogether innocent and honest, he hoped the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that he thought he had performed his duty—which was a very disagreeable one—sufficiently by bringing this matter before the House, and that it would not be well to divide the House upon the Motion. He would, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw it. ["No, no!"]
  Question put, and negatived.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 88.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William, Henry Smith.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 88.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. ROEBUCKmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed with the view of introducing into it Amendments for the purpose of relaxing the
  654
  conditions which it imposed on brewers in respect of the collection of the licence duty, and which they said hampered them in the process of manufacture to a more serious extent than was the case in any other trade. He had no wish, he said, in making the Motion to embarrass the Government by stopping the progress of the Bill, and he should be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hold out some hope that he would propose a relaxation of the regulations to which he referred.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. Roebuck,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no wish whatever to complain of the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken; at the same time, if it were carried out, it would place the Government at this moment in a somewhat embarrassing position. If the Bill were re-committed they would then have to go into the restrictions which were contained in the Bill as it stood. He did not understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to repeal the brewers' licence duty, but to take off some of the regulations and restrictions which, according to his view, were imposed for the purpose of enforcing that duty. But these regulations were not imposed for that purpose; and even if the licence duty were out of the question, most, if not the whole, of these restrictions would have to be enforced and continued. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not, as he understood it, to embarrass the proceedings of the House at this stage of the Bill, but rather to call attention to the matter, and to obtain some information upon it. The objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be two-fold. He objected, first, that the licence duty was a tax of a peculiar character, that it fell upon the brewing interest in a manner in which no other interest was taxed, and that therefore it was not fair, and ought to be taken off. His next objection was that the tax was not only peculiar, but that it was quite dissimilar to that borne

  655
  by any other manufacturer, and that it was of a singularly vexatious character, inasmuch as it imposed restrictions which hampered the trade. With regard to the first of these objections, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) freely admitted that the tax was undoubtedly one of a somewhat peculiar character. At the same time, he did not think it was quite fair to compare it with a tax which might possibly be imagined as being placed upon other classes of manufactures. For instance, they could not tax a cotton manufacturer in the same way. They did not tax the product calico, but they did tax the product beer. Something must be taxed, and so long as that were the case there must be exceptions. In former times they taxed not the beer itself, but the ingredients of the beer, by the malt tax and the hop duty. Subsequently the hop duty was removed, and the brewers' licence was—he would not say imposed, because there was a brewers' licence before—but altered and increased, and put on a different footing. There was, no doubt, something to be said on the side of the brewers with respect to the additional burden imposed upon them at that period, though he did not think their case was so strong as they seemed to think. It might be argued that, as the revenue was more prosperous now than it was in 1862, the duty ought now to be repealed at the expense of the revenue. In his Budget speech he said he considered the brewers had some ground of complaint. But he would not enter into any of the differences of opinion which prevailed upon the question on this occasion. He was quite ready to consider the matter over again at any time if it were desired, and that without prejudice to any parties, but this was not a convenient or proper time for doing it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's second point was that the regulations which were occasioned by the necessity of collecting this duty were annoying to the brewers. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not deny that the brewers were subject, as all persons who were carrying on any trade affected by the Excise must be, to regulations and restrictions which were annoying. That could not be helped. The main object of the regulations, however, was not to protect the brewers' licence duty, but the malt duty. The aim was to prevent
  656
  fraud, and to secure an equivalent duty on the large quantity of sugar used in brewing, which but for these regulations could not be ascertained. The sugar disappeared entirely in the process of manufacture, and as it might be possible for a large quantity to be used without detection, it was necessary that the Excise officers should have the power at all times of making inspection. In the case of malt, the quantity could be ascertained by the amount of the grain. Another object of the regulations was to prevent the use of adulterating substances. When, a short time ago, a deputation of brewers waited upon him upon the subject, he asked them whether they could suggest any improvement in the mode of carrying on the business, and they did not seem prepared with a reply, but they objected to the hardship of being responsible for what might be accidental carelessness on the part of their servants. There was no desire whatever to press unfairly or severely upon the brewing trade, but merely to protect the revenue. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with having called attention to the subject. It would be a difficult position to be placed in if, at the last stage of the Budget arrangements, the House were suddenly thrown back and obliged to revise the whole of their proceedings, and it would be impossible to take off these restrictions or regulations unless they entirely recast the whole of their financial measures.
  MR. M. T. BASSremarked that when the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1862, proposed the brewers' licence duty as a substitute for the hop duty, that right hon. Gentleman repeatedly declared that it would be most unjust were the public brewers to be subject to that impost while the private brewers were exempt. That injustice, however, now existed, and had been in no way redressed. So far from the brewers being compensated by a reduction in the price of hops, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich anticipated that they would, they had actually paid more than an addition of 20 per cent on the price of hops since the licence duty was imposed. The duty on wine was reduced from 5s. 6d. to 1s., yet the right hon. Gentleman did not increase the duty on wine licences. There had been a reduction in the duty on brandy,

  657
  yet the licence duty was unaltered. As to the suggestion that the brewers might recoup themselves from their customers, it was practically impossible. How could they divide 3d. among 36 gallons? That tax was a gross injustice inflicted on a particular trade on account of the prejudice entertained against those who pursued it. He (Mr. Bass) had conversed with many Members of Parliament on the subject, and they were of opinion that the imposition of nearly £500,000 a-year upon brewers of beer was a most unjust tax. He had to pay £750 every day for malt duty, yet the right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with that, imposed a tax upon every barrel of beer, which now subjected him to an imposition of£14,000a-year. When the right hon. Gentleman was freed from the trammels which in some measure bound him to the acts of his Predecessors, he would see that his high character required him to remedy that injustice.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that having taken much interest in this matter, he would beg to offer a few remarks. In his opinion, beer was a necessary of life to an Englishman, and it seemed to him that the Government might just as well send the Exciseman into the butcher's shop to demand what number of calves, sheep, &c., he killed; or into the baker's shop, to ascertain what number of loaves he put into his oven, as into the cellars of the dealers in beer to discover what quantity of that necessary beverage they were supplied with. At the same time, it would be utterly impossible for the Government now to introduce a fresh Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was sure, took a great interest in that subject; and if between this financial year and the beginning of the next another deputation waited upon him, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter that consideration which the importance of the subject demanded. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) would not, at the present time, press his Motion to a division.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield would not withdraw his Motion, unless he obtained an explicit promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would render justice in
  658
  this matter. He objected to exacting a licence duty from anyone carrying on a lawful trade. Were the Government, or were they not, in favour of taxing a man's right to earn his living? If the manufacture of beer was not necessary, why let it be put down; but, if necessary, why should the beer manufacturer have to pay for the right of manufacture, when no other manufacturer was taxed by licence? He hoped the hon. and learned Member would persist in his Motion.
  MR. ROEBUCKfelt that it would be better for the interests of the brewing trade that he should not at present go to a division; and he accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation as a good omen for the future.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Read.)
VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.

  [BILL 98.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its name was erroneously given in the Orders of the Pay, and that its proper title should be the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Budget, informed the House that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill which would provide for the rating of three classes of property. Neither on the part of the Government nor on his own part did he put forward any claim to originality in this measure. Three of its main proposals were included in the Bill of last year, which formed such an important feature in their discussions; and they embraced the three most urgent points which remained to be dealt with in connection with the law of rating. He hoped he might assume that in no part of the House would objection be taken to the principle on which they proposed to proceed—namely, that those three classes of property ought no longer to be exempt from rating. The first of those three classes was woods. According to the statute of Elizabeth, underwoods were now subject to rating. It was proposed by the present Bill to repeal that liability under the statute of

  659
  Elizabeth, and to enact, not that the woods themselves, but that all land occupied by plantations and woods of various descriptions should be subject to rates. In the existing state of the law, the fact that underwood was rated was supposed to imply that woods of other descriptions were not to be rated. It might be questioned whether it was more expedient to lay down in the Bill detailed provisions under which the rating of woodland should be effected, or whether it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the assessment committees throughout the country, which had shown themselves capable of dealing with difficult and complicated questions of rating. He did not say that no objection had been raised to the action of those committees; but they had acquired considerable experience and authority in the discharge of their functions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld), therefore, in introducing his Bill last year, thought it enough simply to provide for the rating of these properties; but the House took a different view, and, after much discussion, provisions were adopted with regard to the mode in which they should be rated. The provisions of the present measure were substantially the same as those inserted by the House itself last year, but somewhat improved, he hoped, in their form. It was proposed that—
  "If the land was used only for a plantation or a wood, the value should he estimated as if the land instead of being a plantation or wood were let and occupied in its natural and unimproved state."
  There was a provision that underwoods should be rated as woods were under the statute of Elizabeth. The 5th clause provided that the rates levied upon the occupiers of woodlands should be repaid by the owner. The second object of the Bill was to render the right of sporting, when separated from the land, rateable. This was a vexed question, and probably many hon. Members would be of opinion that such rights were of too vague a character for their rateable value to be ascertained, but, in his opinion, that value could be easily ascertained by the assessment committee; and, although it involved but a small amount of money, the question was one which it was far too late to go back upon after all that had been said upon both sides of the House with regard to it. The sub-section
  660
  of this clause provided for the exceptionally rare case where the owner possessed the right of free warren. He then came to by far the most important subject dealt with by this measure—that of the rating of metallic mines. Hon. Members were aware that, coal mines alone being referred to in the statute of Elizabeth, it had been held that all other mines were exempt from rates; but it had also been decided that where dues and royalties were reserved in kind they were subject to rates. The clause at the end of the Bill left the dues and royalties liable to be rated as at present, their rateable value being assessed by the assessment committee. These were all the provisions of the Bill, and it would really be a pity if, during this Session of Parliament, when the House was not overwhelmed with legislative business, as in recent Sessions, it should not pass this measure, and so settle a question which had been for so long a matter of controversy, now that all parties were agreed respecting it. Since 1857 as many as four Bills had been introduced into that House with regard to the rating of mines, and if they were rendered liable to assessment on a fair basis it would be a substantial boon to many parishes, in which the most valuable description of property had hitherto been exempted from rates. Under the provisions of the measure all metallic mines, or mines other than coal mines, were made subject to rates. With regard to lead, tin, and copper mines, however, they had not, as an experienced authority on the subject had laid down, the same rateable value, owing to the great risk and uncertainty in working them. It was accordingly agreed by the Government of last year to insert two clauses in their Bill relating to the rating of tin and copper mines, and the same clauses would be found in the present Bill. As a general rule, metallic mines were to be assessed by the assessment committee, and he had received an assurance from many hon. Members who were interested in this class of property that this would be a satisfactory mode of settling the question. He had been informed that the difficulties that formerly prevailed with respect to the rating of coal mines had been satisfactorily overcome, and therefore there could be no doubt that the local value of metallic mines could be ascertained with equal ease. There

  661
  was a provision in the Bill that whore mines were held upon leases the owners should repay the occupiers the sums they paid for rates until the expiration of the leases. The rating of Government property was not dealt with, because his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with that question. It had been proposed last year to abolish the exemption from rates now enjoyed by scientific and literary institutions; but that exemption had been made so recently that he did not propose to touch the question in this Bill. The third exemption related to certain municipal property held by corporations; but he thought that that was a question which might very fairly be dealt with by an amendment of the Poor Law, and he hoped to be able to introduce another Bill which would settle that matter. The Bill might, perhaps, be criticized because it dealt with a small portion only of a large subject. He could only say that if the Government had proposed to deal with the entire subject of rating in a comprehensive scheme they could not have given effect to their proposal during the present Session. The greater question would, however, if the present Bill became law, be cleared of some of its complications, so far as the rating of mines, woods, and game was concerned, and, therefore, although in itself an unpretending measure, he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  MR. STANSFELD, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, acknowledged the fair and even handsome manner in which his right hon. Friend had referred to the measure which he (Mr. Stansfeld) had, on the part of the late Government, introduced last year. That Bill had undergone much discussion, and had been amended in accordance with valuable practical suggestions which were made during the consideration of its provisions. His right hon. Friend was, therefore, perfectly justified in adopting the principles upon which mines, plantations, and game rights should be rated of which the late House of Commons had approved, and which, for the most part, had emanated from the House itself. Then, with respect to the rate-ability of Government property, he had
  662
  called for a statement or scheme from the Treasury as to the property which they considered rateable, and proposed to leave the subject to be dealt with by the House in the form of a Confirming Bill. The present Bill embodied most of the Amendments made in Committee in last year's Bill; but as to the rating of Government property, it proposed a simpler method, and he should be glad if that plan gave equal satisfaction. The clause respecting the exemption of certain corporate property was omitted; but these cases were not numerous, and his right hon. Friend hoped to introduce it in another measure. The Bill differed also from last year's in not making permanent the exemption of stock-in-trade from rating, which was now done by an annual Act, and which property he was sure would never again be rated. The repeal of the exemption enjoyed by literary and scientific institutions had also been omitted, though that clause was supported by his right hon. Friend and many Members of the present Government, and opposed by only two of them. He might deem it right in Committee to move the insertion of the clause. Any faults which the Bill might have were faults of omission, and, introduced as it was under more favourable auspices than his own measure, he wished it success. So far as he was concerned it should have his support.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTcongratulated his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) on seeing his pet project re-introduced this year, shorn, no doubt, of some of those clauses which he and others might think ought in. Committee to be re-inserted in the Bill. His right hon. Friend said last year that it was only "the fringe" of a great question he proposed to deal with, and the Opposition naturally desired to be allowed to see the whole garment. But they were now on a different side of the House from what they were then, and yet his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had nothing better to produce than the réchauffé measure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Bill of last year went to "another place," where it was summarily rejected, and it must be supposed for good reasons. He presumed the present Bill, if it went out of this House, would receive different treatment. A strong Government, such as they now had, might have been ex-

  663
  pected to deal with the question in a more complete manner. Then, as to woods and woodlands, whore the owner was not entitled to cut the timber, he ought to be allowed to cut down sufficient to pay all the rates and taxes. With regard to shooting, one principle ought to be kept in view—namely, that that only should be paid for which was worth something. There was a vast amount of shooting in this country which was worth absolutely nothing. He trusted that when the Bill was in Committee the Amendments which might be placed on the Paper would receive the careful consideration of the Government.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he would have been better satisfied if the Preamble had contained a statement that Government property was to be rated. He was glad to see that stock-in-trade was not to be perpetually exempted from rating, because it was a dangerous thing to stereotype exemptions. As far as it went, however, the present Bill was an improvement upon that of last year. For his own part, he would have preferred a more comprehensive measure, and he did not see any reason for pressing the Bill forward at the present time.
  MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERsaid, he was glad the Bill had been brought forward this Session, for among his constituents frequent complaints were made in reference to the exemption of mines. There was a general opinion in the West of England that if mines were rated the rates should be paid on the royalty. In his own neighbourhood in Devonshire, an important copper mine, called the "Devon Great Consols Mining Company," had been rated on that principle for the last 30 years, owing to the fact that a stipulation had been inserted in the lease under which the mine was held, that the lessees of the mine should pay all rates and taxes except the Landlords Property Tax: in consequence of this stipulation, nearly £1,000 a-year had been contributed to the rates of the parish of Tavistock for many years by the lessees of this mine. Last year the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) clearly pointed out the difference between tin and copper mines and other mines; and he was glad to perceive that the resolution of last Session was embodied in the Bill.
  MR. BEACHsaid, that the Bill proposed to rate woods and plantations in a very objectionable manner. They were to be rated as if the land were let and occupied in its natural and unimproved state. This was, in his opinion, unsatisfactory, as the term was vague and unmeaning. He thought it ought to be rated on the value which might naturally be expected to be realized therefrom. That was the principle which the Parochial Assessment Act laid down with regard to rating, and it was applied by this Bill to mines, and he did not see why it should not be applied to woods also. He thought the Bill dealt, in some respects, satisfactorily with the right of shooting, where there was any value received for shooting, it ought to be rated. The Bill had one advantage over that introduced last year, for some substantial relief in aid of local taxation had been actually granted. He hoped that was only a prelude to a further grant, which, in common fairness, was required in the interest of town and country.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Bill as it now stood a very imperfect one, especially as regarded game. It assumed that game increased the value of every acre of land in the country. He believed a more erroneous opinion than that could not be formed. A large proportion of the land in this country could not under any circumstances acquire any increased value for the purpose of game. Therefore, he thought the proposed mode of assessing land with reference to game would require some consideration. Then, again, it was taken for granted that nothing could be done in the way of assessing personal property. That might be so; but as the Bill proposed to deal with woods, he should like to know how 100 trees standing in a wood could be assessed or valued. It was proposed to assess them on the value of the adjacent land, but that was not a just principle. In his own county, for example, there was a great deal of woods on the hills; but the valleys, which were highly cultivated, were of far greater value, and it would not be just to rate the woods on the value of the adjoining valleys.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Bill did not propose that woodland should be assessed on that principle. Lands on which timber grew would be rated on their unimproved state.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that was a very refined distinction. He thought anyone reading the Bill would be very much inclined to suppose that woodlands were to be rated according to the value of the adjoining lands. The question of dealing with woods, and assessing them justly and properly, was one of great difficulty, and should be more carefully considered than it appeared to have been in this Bill.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONobjected to the Bill as extending the present area of local taxation to a class of property which was already over-taxed, while it made no attempt to bring in personal property which was exempt. He thought that it would be better to leave out plantations, woods, and game until the whole question of local taxation had been considered in a comprehensive spirit next year. It was to be regretted that the Prime Minister, after having used such strong expressions with regard to rating, should have done so little in the desired direction. The late Government, he believed, was prepared to have gone further than the present Government proposed to do in affording relief to local ratepayers.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he hoped the question of rating and the larger question of local taxation would not become subjects of party discussion in this House. Government had been taunted with having adopted, in a great measure, the Bill brought forward last year by their Predecessors; but as many provisions of that Bill had been derived from measures introduced in earlier Sessions by himself and other Conservative Members, it could not be said to have belonged to one side more than another. One great objection to the Bill of last year had been that it was not just to extend the rating to exempted parts of real property until real property had received some little relief, and he hoped that the provisions of the Budget were such as to disarm some of the opposition that had been raised on that ground. It was not the case that the House of Lords had rejected the former Bill, because it was not thought "fit to live." They rejected it because it stood in need of certain Amendments which they had not the time, and perhaps not the power, to make. It had been said, in the course of the present discussion, that it would be impossible to rate trees growing in a
  666
  wood. That was quite true, and all that it was proposed to do was to find out what the land would be reasonably worth to lot for from year to year. It had, moreover, been said, that it would be unjust to rate woodlands as one would rate land on the exterior of a wood, the value of which was greatly enhanced by reason of the houses, roads, and other improvements made upon it. An endeavour was made to avoid this error by using the words "natural and unimproved value," which occurred in the Scotch Act. With regard to game, where the right of shooting was of no appreciable value, it would not be assessed. It had been urged against the Bill that it was very incomplete in not dealing with the rating of Government property and with the general relief of local taxation. These were matters which were too large to be dealt with in a measure of this kind, which, in his opinion, most satisfactorily settled the exemption of real property, and was therefore deserving the support of both sides of the House, which it had already received.
  MR. BRISTOWEdesired, as a Member of the late Parliament who took an active interest in the passing of the measure of last year, to express his satisfaction that the President of the Local Government Board had brought in a measure framed on the Bill which passed the House of Commons during the last Session, though it failed to pass the House of Lords. That Bill, he believed, embodied the feeling of the last House of Commons, which dealt with the subject on both sides in no party spirit. He hoped, however, that as regarded museums, literary institutions, and property of that sort, the Government would be prepared to make some alterations when the House came to consider the Bill in Committee.
  SIR EDWAED WATKINsaid, the House ought to be distinctly informed whether it was intended to rate stock-in-trade, in favour of which he understood the Under Secretary to express himself. He also hoped that in Committee the Government would consider the case of poor clergymen living on tithes. They were rated to the poor on the whole gross amount of their tithes, from which they had often to make largo deductions to pay their curates, without any allowance being made in the rating for such deductions; in fact, they were

  667
  rated on a different principle from any other body of men.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 8th June.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 53.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving that the Bill he now read a second time, said, at present there was a great want of provision for sanitary regulations in Ireland, in both the towns and the country, and the Bill was framed on the lines of the Act for England and Wales of 1872, in order to meet that want. Owing to the different circumstances of Ireland, this measure was more likely to be successful in that country than the Act of 1872 had been in this. In Ireland there were units of areas which did not exist in England—namely, townlands, electoral divisions, and dispensary districts, and therefore uniformity of area for the districts of sanitary officers would be secured in that country which it was impossible to obtain in this country. The first four clauses provided for the establishment of urban and rural sanitary authorities, the urban being municipalities or places having analogous powers to municipalities, the rural sanitary authorities being the Boards of Guardians. The 5th clause contained a power to the local governing Board to change rural sanitary districts to urban sanitary districts, and vice versâ. The 8th clause provided for vesting in the new authorities the power relating to the treatment of diseases which were contained in various Acts of Parliament. The 9th clause provided for the transfer of property to these new sanitary authorities. In the 10th, provision was taken for the appointment of the sanitary officers of the districts, and for their salaries, half of which would be paid out of the means provided by Parliament, and the other half by the local rates. It was proposed to take compulsory powers under proper restrictions for the purchase of land for burial-grounds where they were necessary, and also for providing intercepting hospitals at Irish ports of call, with a view to prevent the
  668
  introduction of cholera or other diseases. The Bill likewise contained provisions as to the formation of united districts for the purposes of water supply and drainage; and, as in the case of the English Act, there was a clause enabling the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money at 3½ per cent to local authorities for sanitary improvements. He could have wished to combine the consolidation of the sanitary laws of Ireland with a measure for improving its sanitary condition, but as that was now impracticable, he thought it better to defer the task of consolidation till a future occasion, when it could be considered in conjunction with a like work for England, and to introduce at once a useful measure of social reform. That was no party question. He had endeavoured to consider it fairly, with the aid of the best advice he could obtain, and he now invited the co-operation of Irish Members, whose suggestions for the Amendment of the Bill should receive his fullest attention.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcongratulated the right hon. Baronet on having the good fortune to bring in that measure. In order, however, that they might ascertain the feeling of the people of Ireland on the subject, he hoped that the Committee on the measure would be fixed for as late a day as possible.
  MR. BRUENalso hoped that time would be given to those in Ireland who took an interest in the subject to consider the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that the measure was sadly wanted in Ireland, and he knew that it would be gladly welcomed.
  MR. R. SMYTHthought the provisions of the Bill were of a most valuable character, and he was sure they would give the greatest satisfaction.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that as he wished to give ample time for the full consideration of the measure, he would fix the Committee for Monday, the 15th June.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 15th June.

CHURCHES AND CHAPELS EXEMPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
CHURCHES AND CHAPELS EXEMPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 108.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it was a Bill for the exemption of churches and chapels from the liability to pay local rates. By the Valuation Act, all subjects required to be entered on the valuation roll, and certain local Acts had been passed which did not exempt churches and chapels. The object of the present Bill was to extend the exemption so as to make it applicable to all local rates. This, he submitted, was a proper object, and had the approval generally of the Scotch people.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 4th June.

BAR ADMISSION STAMP BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
BAR ADMISSION STAMP BILL.

  [BILL 109.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a measure for enabling Scotch advocates to practise in England, and English barristers to practise in Scotland, without their being required to pay an additional stamp duty. There was an Act at present by which Irish barristers could practise in England, and English barristers in Ireland, and the object of this Bill was to put Scotland in the same position.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time; and committed for Thursday, 4th June.

FINES, FEES, AND PENALTIES BILL.
(Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr. Melly, Mr. Charley, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Gourley.)
FINES, FEES, AND PENALTIES BILL.

  [BILL 59.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that under a statute passed in the 11th year of the present reign, known as "Jervis's Act," it was enacted that
  670
  all penalties inflicted by certain local statutes under which summary convictions were had, if there was no special direction for their application, should be paid to "the treasurer of the county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place," where such convictions occurred. Accordingly, when a person was brought up, for instance, under the Beer House Act or the Pedlars Act, the fines levied had been paid into the borough fund. In 1868, however, the meaning of the term "borough or place" was questioned, and in a case which occurred at Reigate the matter was submitted to the Court of Queen's Bench, which decided that the term "borough or place" applied only to boroughs having separate Courts of Quarter Sessions. The boroughs which had no separate Courts, but had their own police and their own magistracy, still continued paying these fines, fees, and penalties into the borough fund; but in a case of the borough of Bradford, which occurred in 1869, the question was submitted to the Court of Exchequer, when the same decision pronounced in the Reigate case was also pronounced in that case. By this Bill he was merely asking the House to restore what had been the practice before these decisions were given. He believed there were no less than 60 boroughs concerned in this matter, boroughs not having separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, but having their own police and magistracy paid and supported out of their rates. Those boroughs paid county rates, and they alleged that the fines, fees, and penalties recovered under summary convictions far exceeded the amount of the cost and maintenance of the prisoners committed in default of payment; and in addition to that they asserted that the county rates were more than sufficient to cover all the costs and charges of those prisoners. The hon. and learned Member having referred to a Return presented to the House, which showed that certain boroughs paid over to the counties larger sums than the prisoners of those boroughs cost the counties, said, he would submit that the boroughs should be allowed to receive all their fees, fines, and penalties into the borough funds.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was anxious that the question should not assume the proportion of one between the counties and boroughs, and he did not think that the county Members had any desire to put their hands into the pockets of the boroughs. He would remind the hon. and learned Member that the sum paid by boroughs in contribution to the county rate, embraced a large area over which that money was spread, and the maintenance of these short time prisoners was but a very small item. He would suggest, as a practical solution of the question, that the boroughs should retain their fees, fines, and penalties, and pay to the counties the actual cost of maintenance for the prisoners they sent into the county gaol. If the boroughs were prepared to accept such a solution, the Government would not oppose the second reading, with the understanding that a clause in Committee would be inserted to that effect.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he thought that the proposition was a fair one, and ought to be accepted by the House.
  MR. MELLORcontended that the alteration now proposed would operate to the detriment of some boroughs, and that the ratepayers of his borough—Ashton-under-Lyne—would have to pay higher rates.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONaccepted the proposition of the hon. Baronet.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 1st June.

JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]
(Mr. Lopes, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Goldney.)
JURIES BILL— [BILL 18.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 53 (Verdicts to be unanimous).
  MR. YOUNGmoved to insert the word "not" after the word "shall," and said he did so in order to raise the question whether juries should be required to give unanimous verdicts in all civil cases, and in case this Amendment should be carried he would subsequently move to add a proviso that—
  "An unanimous verdict shall be required in all criminal cases, and in all civil cases the verdict of not less than nine shall he taken as the verdict of the whole, and in trials in a county court the verdict of not less than four shall he so likewise taken, provided that such
  672
  verdict of a loss number than the whole shall not be taken until the jury shall have been three hours in deliberation."
  In ancient times it was not required that verdicts should be unanimous. As one of the public, he took issue with many of his hon. and learned Friends on the allegation that the system of requiring the whole twelve to agree had worked well. There were a great number of cases in which, in consequence of the twelve not agreeing, the parties had to incur the expense of a trial over again—in fact, in endeavouring to compel agreement, they were trying to do that in the jury-box which they could not do anywhere else. His proposal was that if a jury in a civil cause did not agree after three hours' deliberation, the verdict of nine should be taken as the verdict of the whole; but he was not prejudiced in favour of that particular number, and if the Committee thought that the verdict of ten should be required, he would accept that number. There was nothing new to English jurisprudence in thus permitting the opinion of a part to be taken as the verdict of the whole. In a coroner's jury 23 jurymen were summoned, and if twelve agreed, their verdict was the verdict of the jury. That was more like the kind of unanimity which was striven for by our ancestors. So again in grand juries unanimity was not required. Upon this matter, therefore, the law was not in accord with itself. He did not, however, propose to interfere with the present system in relation to criminal trials; but he thought there was no use in striving after a practical impossibility in civil causes.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 23, after the word "shall," to insert the word "not."—(Mr. Young.)
  MR. LOPESregretted that his proposal to limit the number of jurors with the consent of the parties was rejected by the Committee the other night, although his regret was mingled with pleasure at hearing such thoroughly Conservative views expressed by some of his hon. and learned Friends opposite, who wished to retain the number of 12 because it was good and ancient. For himself, he strongly objected to the proposed alteration. It was well known that the Judge had great influence over the jurors—sometimes too much; now the introduction

  673
  of the verdict by a majority would nullify the influence of any firm and independent juror, who might, if unanimity continued the rule, induce his fellow-jurymen to give a careful consideration to the case. That principle, moreover, assured that the case should be conscientiously considered by every individual juryman. It must further be remembered that jurymen were not coerced into a verdict now as they were formerly—they were allowed refreshments, and ample time for deliberation. With regard to the proposal before the Committee, he did not see why unanimity should be right in criminal cases and not right in civil cases. If they introduced that distinction, there would be serious anomalies occasioned—in cases of slander, for example, where it was permissible to bring either an action or an indictment.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDreminded hon. Members that in dispensing with unanimity they would be returning to the ancient system. It was not proposed to do away with the necessity for deliberation on the part of the jury. A verdict arrived at without unanimity would not be received from them till they had been for a certain number of hours in consultation—it was for the Committee to fix the number; the lowest number suggested was three, and the highest six. All that was required was to keep the jury in deliberation long enough to secure full consideration of the question in issue by every juryman. It often happened under the present system that jurymen gave in after a certain time without being convinced: in such cases it would be far better that the real feeling and the real opinion of the jury should be known, and in the event of any application for a new trial the fact should be stated, and might fairly be taken into consideration. There was a manifest distinction between civil and criminal cases, and it might be well to require unanimity in the latter by way of an exception in favour of life and liberty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he could not concur in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. Lopes). He must remind them that the Committee had already decided, the other evening, in favour of the ancient, traditional, and constitutional number of 12 instead of any lesser num-
  674
  ber to form the jury, and his opinion was entirely in accord with that decision. The question now was, whether unanimity should be required in the verdict of those 12 or not; and he was certainly in favour of unanimity. It had been said that in requiring unanimity on the part of the jury they were requiring an impossibility; but in point of fact the number of cases in which juries had to be discharged without a verdict was extremely small, amounting, in fact, to only 1½ per cent. He had great respect for the members of the Bench, but on a question of fact he would prefer to have the opinion of the jury rather than of the Judge, who often formed a very strong opinion on the case, and very often a wrong one: yet that opinion would certainly have great weight with a portion of the jury, who probably were the men best able to form an independent opinion. He thought that if they did not hold to unanimity, they would have a great increase in the number of motions for new trials.
  MR. WADDYsaid, he strongly objected both to the reduction of the number of the jury below 12 and to any change in the ancient practice of requiring unanimity. An old-established principle ought not to be disturbed without some cogent reason for the change, and no such reason had been shown for the alteration proposed by the Amendment. Further, he thought that to introduce the practice of taking the verdict of the majority would greatly tend to promote the practice of compromises among themselves. Under the present system the public placed confidence in the verdicts given, but he did not think that would be the case when it was known that the verdict was the verdict of a majority only.
  MR. FORSYTHdiffered entirely from the remarks of the last two speakers. He was, however, willing to admit that the burden of proof rested with those in favour of the change. For his part, he was prepared to contend that unanimity in a jury did not always result in a satisfactory verdict. It was not right that it should be in the power of one foolish man to overpower the collective good sense of 11 right-thinking jurors, and it was absurd to think that the finding of nine men out of 12 would not give satisfaction. He wished to ask the Committee whether, if such a thing as unanimity of the verdict of juries had

  675
  not been found established, any one in the 19th century would have made such a proposition—would not every one have been perfectly satisfied to accept the verdict of the majority? There was no doubt of this—that in their origin jurymen were witnesses and nothing more. What was proposed was merely that nine out of the 12 should agree, but that the verdict of the nine should not be taken as the verdict of the jury until they had been five or six hours in de-liberation without having arrived at unanimity. Surely, that would secure a proper degree of consideration.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that in his opinion unanimity of verdict was required in the interests of the suitors. There had occurred an instance within his own experience in which one dissentient juror, after a deliberation of three days, had brought round the other 11 to his view, and in which the verdict then delivered was right. There were cases of frequent occurrence in which not property only, but character, was at stake. Then—as he had known in the course of his professional experience—the only chance, the only hope for a suitor, was in the unbiassed judgment of one or two jurors, who had not come from the locality in which the litigation had arisen. He was, on the whole, therefore, in favour of retaining the present system.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the arguments in favour of the Amendment were so strong that he could not refuse to give it his support. It was his opinion that under the present system, in civil trials, a great many verdicts were returned in which there was no real unanimity, and in which was a great straining of the conscience of jurors in order to avoid the inconvenience which would result from their being locked up for a long time. He knew of an instance in which, when the usher of the Court was asked how he had got the jury to agree to a verdict so quickly, the reply was that he had a very efficacious plan in such cases, which was to take a beefsteak and onions to the keyhole of the room in which they were and let the steam go through. They were then sure to come to an agreement in a few minutes. It was said that the Judges were all in favour of unanimity. But it seemed to be forgotten that there had been Judges who were of a different opinion. There
  676
  was a Commission not long ago, of which, among other distinguished men, Baron Alderson, and one whose name he could never mention without reverence, Mr. Justice Patteson, were members, and they recommended that after a certain time, if three-fourths of the jury agreed, a verdict should be recorded. That he held to be the most reasonable course.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmaintained the principle of unanimity both in civil and in criminal cases, and reminded his right hon. Friend who had last spoken that one of the alternatives recommended by the Commission to which he had referred was, that if after a certain time the jury did not agree they should be discharged.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, his experience was that the public of this country were perfectly satisfied with the law as it stood, and that any alteration in the direction proposed would create in the public mind not only dissatisfaction but even distrust in the administration of justice.
  MR. STORERexpressed his belief that if the country were polled on this question, it would be found in favour of retaining unanimity.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that the subject was one of so much importance that the Committee would not grudge the time necessary for its due consideration. He thought that no good reason had been adduced even by so high an authority as the right hon. and learned Recorder of London for altering the law in regard to the unanimity of juries in civil cases. The arguments he had brought forward in favour of that change were speculative rather than practical. No practical evil had been shown to arise from the present system which would justify so grave a departure from it as was now proposed. Let the Committee consider what the effect of this proposal would be. Suppose that out of 12 jurymen who went to the retiring-room to consider their verdict there were nine weak men who said "ay" and three strong men who said "no." Under the present system the three strong men would in all probability be able to prevail by argument against the nine weak ones; but under the proposed new system the nine would simply look at their watches and hold out against time instead of against argument. It would

  677
  thus become a question not of reason but of time. The learned Recorder himself shrank from interfering with the rule that required juries to be unanimous in criminal cases, because he wished their verdicts to be treated with respect. But if they were to insist-that a pickpocket could not be rightly convicted without the unanimous verdict of 12 men being given against him, why should a man's character or his property be taken away from him without the unanimous finding of a jury? How would the verdicts of a majority only be treated with respect in civil cases any more than in criminal cases? The Committee should be guided in that question by the consideration of what would be most beneficial for the administration of justice.
  Question put, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 144: Majority 99.

  AYES.

  Anderson, G.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Assheton, R.

  Jones, J.

  Baring, T. C.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E.

  Cameron, C.

  Carter, R. M.

  Leith, J. F.

  Cobbold, J. P.

  Macgregor, D.

  Cole, H. T.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Coope, O. E.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Cowan, J.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Crawford, J. S.

  Perkins, Sir F.

  Davies, D.

  Ramsay, J.

  Dodds, J.

  Rathbone, W.

  Evans, T. W.

  Ripley, H. W.

  Ferguson, R.

  Robertson, H.

  Forsyth, W.

  Sanderson, T. K.

  Gardner, J. T. Agg-

  Sandford, G. M. W.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Smyth, B.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Turnor, E.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  Wait, W. K.

  Hankey, T.

  Yeaman, J.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Holms, J.

  TELLERS.

  Holms, W.

  Lloyd, M.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Young, A. W.

  NOES.

  Agnew, R. V.

  Bousfield, Major

  Allsopp, S. C.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Baggallay, Sir R.

  Bristowe, S. B.

  Ball, rt. hon. J. T.

  Bruen, H.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Butt, I.

  Bates, E.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Birley, H.

  Chadwick, D.

  Boord, T. W.

  Charley, W. T.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Cholmeley, Sir H.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Clarke, J. C.

  678

  Close, M. C.

  Lowther, J.

  Conyngham, Lord F

  Lush, Dr.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Mahon, Viscount

  Cross, rt. hon. R. A.

  Maitland, J.

  Cust, H. C.

  Majendie, L. A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Marten, A. G.

  Davies, R.

  Martin, P. W.

  Dick, F.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Douglas, Sir G.

  Montgomerie, R.

  Downing, M'C.

  Naghten, A. R.

  Dunbar, J.

  Nevill, C. W.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Earp, T.

  Nolan, Captain

  Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Edwards, H.

  Onslow, D.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  O'Shaughnessy, R.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Pell, A.

  Elliot, Admiral

  Peploe, Major

  Eslington, Lord

  Percy, Earl

  Estcourt, G. B.

  Plunket, hon. D. R.

  Fawcett, H.

  Read, C. S.

  Fielden, J.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Fellowes, E.

  Salt, T.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

  Scott, M. D.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Floyer, J.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Shute, General

  Galway, Viscount

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Goldney, G.

  Simonds, W. B.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Smith, F. C.

  Grantham, W.

  Smith, W. H.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Somerset, Lord H. R. C.

  Hamilton, hon. R. B.

  Spinks, Mr. Serjeant

  Hardcastle, E.

  Stanford, V. F. Benett-

  Hayter, A. D.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Heath, R.

  Starkey, L. R.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Storer, G.

  Hill, A. S.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Taylor, rt. hn. Colonel

  Hogg, Sir J. M.

  Tennant, R.

  Holford, J. P. G.

  Tollemache, W. F.

  Holker, J.

  Tremayne, J.

  Huddleston, J. W.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-

  Isaac, S.

  Turner, C.

  James, W. H.

  Vivian, A. P.

  James, Sir H.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Johnstone, Sir F.

  Watney, J.

  Jolliffe, hon. Captain

  Whitelaw, A.

  Kavanagh, A. MacM.

  Whitwell, J.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Williams, W.

  Knowles, T.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Laverton, A.

  Winn, R.

  Lee, Major V.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Legard, Sir C.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Lindsay, Lord

  Lloyd, T. E.

  TELLERS.

  Locke, J.

  Lopes, H. C.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  MR. ANDERSONmoved an Amendment that the verdict of "Not proven" be introduced. The verdict had worked well in Scotland. All the Judges of the Court of Session were highly in favour of it, and he had letters in support of it

  679
  from the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk—the latter a gentleman whose opinion would have great weight in that House.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONrose to a point of Order. He submitted that as the Preamble set forth that the Bill was one "to consolidate and amend the laws relating to jurors and juries," the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member did not come within its scope.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not think the Amendment was foreign to a Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to juries.
  MR. ANDERSONproceeded to say that the Scotch verdict of "not guilty" gave a more complete acquittal than the corresponding English verdict, which meant no more than "not proven." His object was to raise the status of the "not guilty" verdict, so that it might mean in England as it now meant in Scotland—a clear acquittal. He was aware that in England an erroneous impression prevailed that after the verdict of "not proven" there could be a new trial, but that was not so, the only advantage of that verdict was to give the jury an alternative in cases of great doubt, where they felt they could not conscientiously give a clear acquittal.
  Amendment moved, page 16, line 23, after "required" to insert—
  "And in all criminal cases a jury may return a verdict of 'not proven,' in which event the prisoner shall at once be discharged."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALappealed to the hon. and learned Member not to press the Amendment. It did not follow because a principle was applicable to Scotland, and worked well there, that it would be applicable and work well in England. The question was not whether the Scotch Judges, but whether the English Judges approved of the verdict.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERobjected to the verdict of "not proven."
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, as the Committee seemed so averse to the change, he would not put it to the trouble of a division. He hoped at some future time a Committee of this House would see the advantages of the verdict of "not proven."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)then pointed out that the three previous clauses having been withdrawn and the Committee having decided that a jury should be unanimous, the clause under discussion was unnecessary. It had better therefore, be withdrawn, allowing the question of unanimity to depend on the Common Law.
  MR. LOPESconcurred in the suggestion.
  Clause negatived.
  Clauses 54 to 61 agreed to.
  Clause 62 (All jurors to be summoned by the Sheriff only).
  MR. GOLDNEYproposed to add to the end of the clause—
  "Provided always, that in every trial at a county court the jurors shall be summoned from the parishes within that county court division or district, and that in every borough in and for which a separate court of quarter sessions shall be holden, the jurors shall be summoned from the parishes within the said borough; and that in cases where the court of quarter sessions for any county, riding, or division is held at more than one place in and for such county, riding, or division, the jurors shall be summoned from such parishes as may reasonably be considered within the district in which the said court of quarter sessions is for the time being held, having due regard to a fair and impartial apportionment of the service among the whole number of jurors within that district."
  After a short discussion,
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 63 to 70 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 71 (Fines when to be levied).
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved, in line 31, after "fined," to insert—
  "But in the City of London such fines shall be paid in the same manner as other fines levied in the said City are now payable."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 72 (Notice to jurors fined) agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 1st June.

  BETTING BILL- [BILL 78.]
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid: The Lords have only made one Amendment, the nature of it being to change the date of

  681
  its coming into operation from May, 1875, to the 31st July, 1874. I understand the Government approve of the Amendment, and so do I. Therefore I move that it be agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.

  INCLOSURE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to authorise the Inclosure of certain lands in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSOX and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]

  METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BOORD, Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BOORD, Mr. MILLS, Mr. COOPE, and Mr. GORDON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  HOSIERY MANUFACTURE (WAGES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PELT., Bill to provide for the payment of Wages without stoppages in the Hosiery Manufacture, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PELL, Mr. CLOWES, Mr. HEYGATE, and Mr. MACDONALB.
  Bill presented, and read the first lime. [Bill 124.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Landed Property (Ireland) (No. 2)* (75); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation * (76); Statute Law Revision* (77).
Committer—Report—Courts (Straits Settlements) * (60).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation * (36); East India Annuity Funds * (51), and passed.
Withdrawn—Landed Property (Ireland) * (53).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£13,000,000) [37 Vict. c. 10]; Cattle Disease (Ireland) [37 Viet. c. 6]; Middlesex Sessions [37 Vict. c. 7]; Harbour Dues (Isle of Man) [37 Vict. c. 8]; Public Works Loan Commissioners (Loans to School Boards) [37 Vict. c. 9]; Game Birds (Ireland) [37 Vict. c. 11]; Local Government Provisional Orders [37 Vict. c. i.].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Moved that Standing Order No. 179. sect. 1. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess: Agreed to.
MALAY PENINSULA—SIR HARRY ORD.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I think it right to make an explanation with regard to some observations addressed to your Lordships on Tuesday evening by the noble Lord who sits at the Table (Lord Stanley of Alderley), and which were of a somewhat personal nature. The noble Lord, speaking of the Straits Settlements, made statements not only against myself, but also against my noble Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), against the Duke of Buckingham, and against everyone who has held the seals of the Colonial Office in late years. His allusions to a Governor of the Straits Settlements were, however, more pointed. I quote from the noble Lord's speech—
  "The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had the ill-luck to appoint this Governor, who disorganized the public service, squandered the revenues of the colony on building a house for himself—and for that purpose seized the bricks which the municipality had provided for waterworks and drainage, and on their remonstrating threatened to suppress them—a Governor who had left behind him a reputation which could only be compared to that of a Roman Proconsul of the time of Cicero."
  598
  Now, my Lords, there is no doubt as to whom that sentence was pointed. There is no doubt that the noble Lord alluded to Sir Harry Ord, and to no one else. Now, my Lords, I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships at any length with reference to those charges. I will only say that I believe that charges of somewhat the same nature were made in a colonial newspaper, but on being investigated were found to be totally unworthy of credit. The paper containing them was sent to the Foreign Office during the time my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) held the Seals, and he came to the conclusion that there was no ground for them. I fully agree with my noble Friend, and therefore as regards those charges I think I should be only wasting the time of the House if I said anything more about those allegations. But the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) went on to make this further charge—and, as it is rather more definite, I think it seems to require some explanation. The noble Lord said—
  "The noble Earl had neglected to renew or enforce the salutary rule of the East India Company, forbidding their officials to accept presents. The consequence was, that the acceptance of presents by the Governor and other officials became so general as to be commented upon by the Singapore Press."
  Now, my Lords, if that means anything—if there is anything whatever in the words—it means this,—that Sir Harry Ord accepted presents in an illegitimate way, and was guilty of corruption. I ought to say why I did not notice this the other evening. The truth is, I failed to catch the noble Lord's words; but if I had heard him I should not have been in a position to contradict the charge categorically. Since, then, however, I have received an explanation from Sir Harry Ord, and I will state it to your Lordships. In 1868, the first year of his government, the King of Siam presented him with a dagger embellished with chasing, and he sent home a printed statement about that present. Subsequently one or two other arms were presented to him by independent Rajahs. It never entered into his mind at the time that he was guilty of any breach of rule in accepting them—in fact, he would have thought himself guilty of rather discourteous conduct if he had not accepted them. I beg your Lordships to observe that the persons

  599
  from whom he received those presents were a King and independent Rajahs. It is quite true that before those territories became the Straits Settlements the Governor of them would have been subject to the Indian rule, and at the time when my noble Friend opposite left the Colonial Office he was extending that rule to the Colonies, and I am carrying out what he began. But when Sir Harry Ord was Governor he was acting under the rule then applying to the Colonies and under the Indian rule. The Colonial rule has hitherto been that no Governor shall accept presents, pecuniary or otherwise, from any inhabitant of a Colony over which he presides; and these presents having come from independent Rajahs, Sir Harry Ord has not committed any violation of the rules. I have further to state, my Lords, that there was not the slightest desire on the part of Sir Harry Ord for those presents. They are of no pecuniary value. He has several times exhibited them, and I believe they are now being exhibited among the Ashantee spoils. The noble Lord concluded with a censure not only on Sir Harry Ord, but on the Attorney General. He said—
  "Under the auspices of the noble Earl, an Attorney General was appointed who had no knowledge of law, and who had been specially passed through Gray's Inn within one year, as he was only to practise in a colony."
  My Lords, the official antecedents of the learned Gentleman thus censured, date back to 1849, and it was in 1867 he was made Attorney General. I believe that, either as regards personal character or professional attainments, there is not a word to be said against him. I know him to be very able. In conclusion, I will venture to give this advice to the noble Lord. Everything that any Member of this House says in the course of our debates goes far and wide; and, therefore, if a noble Lord speaks of the character of another person—especially if that person is outside the walls of this House, and has no opportunity of replying—he incurs a grave responsibility. The character of Sir Harry Ord is as precious to him as the character of the noble Lord is to himself. I regret, therefore, that without warrant, but on a mere colouring of facts, the noble Lord should have made a statement which has deeply wounded Sir Harry Ord, and which will be read far and
  600
  wide, and, perhaps, where the contradiction will not reach. I feel that I have only done my duty in vindicating an absent man from the effect of the ill-advised words of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) has referred to something that occurred when I held the seals of the Colonial Office, I beg to express my concurrence in what he has said as to the facts. After an inquiry which I caused to be made in the Straits Settlements as to the allegations concerning the building of the house, I arrived at the conclusion that Sir Harry Ord was not open to any blame. I regret very much that my noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) should have made against Sir Harry Ord one of the most grave acccusations that can be put forward against a Governor—that he accepted gifts in a corrupt manner. The Colonial rule has been, as stated by my noble Friend opposite, that no Governor shall accept gifts from any of the inhabitants of the Colony. That did not quite meet the case of the Straits Settlements, and when I saw this case in the Colonial paper, I desired that the Indian rule should be acted on there. I did not lay down the Indian rules in terms, because I required some details with respect to it; but the noble Earl will have found, by papers which I left in the Colonial Office, that I was arranging for its adoption. However, that rule not being in operation in the Straits Settlements, Sir Harry Ord accepted two or three gifts under the circumstances stated by the noble Earl. But there was no imputation on him arising out of his acceptance of those gifts. Had there been, a grave imputation would have lain on me also, because, I ought to have taken serious steps in the matter. I did not do so because I did not think they were called for. I concur with my noble Friend opposite—nothing can be more unjust or more ungenerous than to make personal charges which have not been proved, except it be for the purpose of showing that there is ground for an investigation. Sir Harry Ord has served the Crown for many years. He was placed in a position of great difficulty when having to conduct the government of this Colony after it was handed over by the Government of India. If he did not succeed in giving

  601
  complete satisfaction to every one, he did good service and managed the affairs of the Colony to the best of his ability. He does not deserve censure, because every one will admit that during his official career he faithfully discharged the duties which devolved upon him. As to the Attorney General, I must say that I never before heard a syllable disparaging to him. I never heard a question of his professional competency. I blame myself for not having replied to those accusations on Tuesday evening immediately after they were made; but I did not hear every word spoken by my noble Friend, and until I read his speech next morning I was not aware of the gravity of the charges.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had not made those charges recklessly, and he would withdraw nothing that he had said. What the two noble Earls had just said had shifted the responsibility from the late Governor to the Colonial Office. The statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) showed grounds for inquiry, and he thought that if the Colonial Office did not institute the fullest investigation they would neglect their duty. The speech just made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) would not promote purity of administration in the Colonies, and if the same state of things continued in the Straits Settlements Her Majesty's Government would receive petitions for the transfer of that Colony to the India Office.

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION—THE CHURCH FUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked Her Majesty's Government by what method it was intended to realize the capitalized value of the terminable annuities into which the tithe rent charges and three-fourths of the head rents belonging to the late Established Church in Ireland may have been converted in those cases in which they may have been sold by the Church Temporalities Commissioners on the system of payment by instalments extending over a lengthened period, in accordance with the terms of the Irish Church Act, 1869?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Irish Church Commissioners were in
  602
  debt to the National Debt Commissioners to the amount of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. As he understood, it would be between 16 and 17 years before that debt could be paid off. The Government had not before them any proposal of the Church Commissioners for realizing the capitalized value of the annuities payable by the landowners; and with these engagements upon the Commissioners there did not seem to be any object in pushing forward any scheme for the realization of those annuities.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the noble Viscount (Viscount Monck), who is a Member of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission, "Whether he could give the House any information as to the progress made in carrying out the objects of the Commission? He believed that under the Irish Church Act the Commission was appointed for 10 years, and that half of that time—five years—had now elapsed. His object was to ascertain how much had been paid off under the Act, and also what might be the surplus in future time. The property of the Irish Church, as he understood, was about £400,000 a-year; and he was not aware that any steps had been taken to convert that, and apply it to the extinction of tithe rent-charges. He was anxious to hear from the noble Viscount opposite what progress had been made in the matter, in reference to 22½ years' purchase of the liability.
  VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, in rising to reply to the Question just put to me by my noble Friend, I must commence by bespeaking your Lordships' forbearance, because, in order to answer it intelligibly, I shall be obliged to trespass at considerable length on the indulgence of the House, and, I am afraid, to make a dry statement of facts and figures. I wish to commence by dividing what I shall have to say under three heads—first, the amount of work done by the Commission; secondly, the cost of that work; and, thirdly, as far as is in my power, to state the present condition and future financial prospects of the Commission. My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that the Irish Church Act received the Royal Assent on the 26th of July, 1869, but it did not come into full operation—that is, the property of the Church was not vested in the Commissioners till the 1st of January,

  603
  1871. Those two dates naturally divide the business entrusted to the Commission into two classes. The first, the business done between the date at which the Act received the Royal Assent, and that at which the Commissioners got possession of the property, was partly of a temporary character—that is, it was not directly connected with the object and scope of the Act. The second is business directly connected with the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. Now, with respect to the first class. The Commissioners were obliged to execute necessary repairs of ecclesiastical structures, and to provide all articles necessary for the carrying on of Divine Worship. We had to carry into effect, within certain limits, engagements for the building and enlargement of churches entered into by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I need not trouble you with details of those duties; but I may say in the discharging them we made 4,547 orders, each of which necessitated a minute examination of facts in order to ascertain whether the claim made came within the terms of the Act, and the total of which entailed an expenditure of £162,469. I hope I have succeeded in conveying to your Lordships that this work was only of a temporary character. It was, so to speak, the work necessary for maintaining the fabric of the churches, from the time of the passing of the Act till the vesting of the Church property in the Commissioners, and had nothing to do with the disestablishment and disendowment. The subsequent and principal work of the Commissioners naturally divided itself under three heads. First, the ascertaining and, by order, declaring the amount of compensation to be awarded to the different classes of persons whose interests were to be affected by the Act; secondly, the commuting for a fixed sum of money the compensation of those persons to whom compensation was given by way of annuity, and also the life interests of the clergy in the glebe lands; thirdly, the selling and otherwise disposing of the property of the Church and the realizing of the surplus. I wish here to mention to your Lordships that these operations, both by the tenor of the Act and the requirements of the case, must have been taken up in succession and in the order I have stated them. One process could not have been engaged
  604
  in until the preceding one had been completed. I make this observation because, from comments which have appeared in a portion of the Press, it might be supposed possible to have carried them on simultaneously. But it is obvious that annuities could not have been commuted until they had been ascertained. They had to be ascertained and fixed before the 1st of January, 1871, because on that day it was competent to any clergyman to come into the office of the Commissioners and claim that his annuity should be commuted. If we were not prepared to comply with his claim an injustice would be done him, because as time advanced the amount to which he would be entitled would be getting less. In the next place, sales of land could not be made until commutation had been effected; because lands were vested in the Commissioners subject to the life interests of the clergy, which could be determined only by death or commutation, and the Commissioners were prohibited from selling land subject to life interests. The first operation we had to perform was that of fixing the annuities, and I have already stated the reason why that had to be done by the 1st of January, 1871. Every annuity was fixed by that day. To ecclesiastical persons other than curates they numbered 1,459; to curates, 921; to diocesan schoolmasters, 14; to clerks and sextons, 3,189; to Nonconformist ministers on account of the Regium Donun, 579; to vicars-general, 42—making a total of 6,204. By another provision of the Act we were directed to give gratuities to curates and certain other persons who were not to be compensated by annuity. We made 494 orders in respect of them. Another class of persons who had to be compensated were the owners of advowsons, but the compensation in their case was made at a later date, because they had three years from the passing of the Act within which to make their claims. In the case of these persons, 351 claims have been received, and 291 disposed of, so that there remain 60 still to be disposed of. The delay in this case does not, however, he with the Commissioners. It arises from some legal difficulty. It will be seen then, my Lords, that with this slight exception we have performed the whole of the duty of ascertaining the compensations for those whose pecu-

  605
  niary interests are affected by the Act. I now come to the second great head of work, which consisted in commuting for a fixed sum the compensation to those to whom, by the Act, compensation was given by way of annuity. When we came to this we were met by an obstacle which I, at least, had not anticipated. Looking at the large amount of money which in this country is every year risked on the probable duration of human life, I had imagined that the power of calculating that probability under any given conditions, would be as easy as the calculation of the interest of money; but when we came to inquire we discovered that the conditions of human life are so various, and each slight change of condition affects those probabilities in such sensible degree, that we had to prepare tables of our own in order to measure the amounts which should be paid for commutations of annuities under the Act. I think it was the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) who, during the discussion of the Irish Church Bill in your Lordships' House, proposed that the lives of the clergy should be valued at a uniform term of 14 years. I voted against that proposition; but, as one of the Commissioners, I have often felt inclined, as far as my personal ease was concerned, to repent of my vote, because we found it most difficult to obtain a basis satisfactory to the clergy. We could not commute a single annuity against the will of the clergyman entitled to it; and therefore if we could not have obtained tables satisfactory to them we should have had no commutation at all. Having got over that difficulty, we proceeded to deal with the applications for commutation. We had to commute not only the annuities granted by us to the clergy, but also their life interests in glebe lands. They could have remained in possession of those glebe lands, but that would have been very undesirable. We succeeded in overcoming the difficulties of the case, and I have to tell your Lordships that out of 6,204 annuitants, whose annuities were fixed as I have already mentioned, 5,765 have commuted, leaving a balance of only 439 uncommuted. There are only 66 incumbents who have not commuted, 13 curates, 3 diocesan schoolmasters, 314 clerks and sextons, whose annuities are but small, 29 Nonconformist ministers,
  606
  and 14 vicars-general. Of these, 41 have lately desired to commute. That finishes the second great head of business to which I have proposed to draw your Lordships' attention. I will now state very shortly the cost of this commutation. The sum paid or secured to the members of the Disestablished Church was £8,090,559; to Nonconformist ministers on account of the Regium Donum, £695,434; and the annuities still outstanding to complete commutation are valued to the Church at £461,907, to Nonconformist ministers at £38,460; the total cost of commutation of the annuities being £9,286,360. That may seem a large sum; but I can state to your Lordships two facts which, I think, taken together, show that the Commissioners were enabled to hit on the happy medium between too strict an interpretation of the terms of the Act against the interests of the annuitants, and too lax a reading in their favour. One fact to which I have already alluded is, that the whole of the annuitants who have commuted have commuted of their own accord, which shows that they did not consider the terms offered too unfavourable to them. The other circumstance is this. Everyone having a life interest in the land, if discontented with the value attached to that life interest by the Commissioners, had the right to appeal to arbitration. Several persons exercised that right, and in every case the decision was against the Commissioners, which showed that we had not been too lax in our dealings, and had not given more than men of intelligence and integrity thought the annuitants entitled to. Incidental to the work there were other matters with which we had to deal. Your Lordships are probably aware that if an incumbent in Ireland built a glebe house out of his own funds he was entitled to charge the outlay for that purpose on his successor, and that successor on the person who succeeded him. These were charges on the glebe houses which we were authorized to pay off, and that has formed a considerable item of work which is now all but completed. We have paid £225,288 on account of those building charges, and there remains still an estimated balance of about £16,166 to complete the work. For the purpose of extinguishing the tithes, we were authorized to purchase leases of the tithe rent-

  607
  charges, where such existed; and on that account we have paid £54,438, the estimated balance to complete the purchase being £135,421. The payment of other charges and encumbrances affecting property amounted to £96,015, leaving an estimated balance to complete the work of £98,278. I come now to the third division of business—namely, the sale and other disposition of the property of the Church. I will take the lands first. The lands resolved themselves into two classes. The first class consisted of mensal lands, hitherto occupied by the clergy. The second class comprises the Bishops' lands and glebe estates, occupied by tenants. By the Act of 1869 the Church Representative Body was entitled to the offer of the glebe houses on certain conditions, with as much mensal land as, in the opinion of the Commissioners, was necessary for the convenient enjoyment of each house. To arrive at a decision on that question, we were obliged to have very minute and accurate surveys and maps made of all glebes in Ireland. The number of glebe houses and mensal lands in Ireland is 970, the annual value of which is £35,377. Orders have already been made ascertaining the quantity of land to be attached to each of these houses in the case of 458, or about half the total number, and there have been actually vested in the Church Representative Body 134. I now come to the lands held by tenants. These lands resolve themselves into three classes—first, those held in perpetuity; secondly, those held on renewable leases; and thirdly, those held by yearly and other tenure. In the case of the perpetuity holders, the price charged for their holdings was fixed by Act of Parliament at 25 years' purchase. In the case of renewable leaseholders a different provision was made. These renewable leaseholders really had perpetuities, for they could compel the renewal of their leases whenever they expired. They had, by the Church Act, three years from the 1st of January, 1871, within which it was competent for them to convert their renewable leaseholds into perpetuities. After that time the power ceased. It is, therefore, obvious that we could not sell any renewable leaseholds to the public until the 1st day of January, 1874. The number of holdings in perpetuity is 1,626; of renewable
  608
  leases, 505; of yearly and other tenures, 8,432, making a total of 10,563; and before we could offer any lands of the second and third classes to the public, we were compelled to offer them to the tenants at a rate to be fixed by the Commission. We have already offered 3,914 of those holdings to the present occupiers, and the number who have accepted and completed the transaction by paying their portion of ready money and securing the remainder by mortgage is 1,335. There are 363 other holders who have accepted our terms, but whose purchases are not yet completed; and there are a considerable number of offers which have been only recently made, and the time for accepting which has not yet expired. I am told that the acceptances of the offers are coming in so fast that by the 1st of July, 2,000 out of the above number of 3,914 will probably have been received. I wish here to explain that considerable responsibility was thrown on the Commissioners in respect of these offers. The solo right of fixing the price was with the Commissioners. If we fixed the price too low we should have been sacrificing public money with which we were intrusted; whereas if we fixed it at a reasonably high but not extravagant rate, the tenant would not in reality be injured; because, if he considered the sum asked too much, he had only to refuse, and afterwards when the land was sold by public sale, he, as one of the public, would have as good a chance of buying it as anyone else. That concludes what I have to say about the sale of the lands. I now come to the tithe rent-charges, which are dealt with in two ways. We are enabled the Act to sell the tithe rent-charge for ready money to the payer of the tithe rent-charge at 22½ years' purchase. The effect of the other mode was that, by entering into a prescribed arrangement with the Commissioners, the payer of a tithe rent-charge paying the rent-charge to which he was otherwise liable in perpetuity, would at the end of 52 years extinguish the charge. We had no power to compel persons either to buy for ready money or to enter into the arrangement under which the tithe rent-charge was to be extinguished. The number of sales for ready money have been 1,110, and the annual amount has been £11,883 3s. 8d. The number of commutations by the other method

  609
  was 6,321, and the annual value £144,396 2s. 7d., being about two-fifths of the entire amount I have mentioned. My Lords, I have now concluded my statement of what has been done in giving effect to the provisions of the Act; but before I sit down I wish to say a few words concerning the other duties which devolved on the Commissioners. We have been since the 1st of January, 1871, the managers of a very extensive property in Ireland. In addition to the duties already adverted to, the Commissioners have had the management and collection of the revenue of landed property held by 10,563 tenants, and yielding a revenue of £225,622. The tithe rent-charge consists of about 40,000 items—I use the word designedly—and yields £406,815 per annum. The total number of payers of both classes is 50,563, while the total amount collected annually is £632,437. Besides this, the sales during the three years which have elapsed since the Act came into operation have produced in ready money an average of nearly £250,000. Therefore, the whole amount collected in our office has been £882,437. That finishes my statement of the work which has been accomplished, and I have now to call your Lordships' attention to the consideration of the second head, into which, when I began, I said I would divide the observations I proposed to address to your Lordships. I mean the pecuniary cost of this work. The entire expenditure of the Commission during the three years ending in December, 1873—including the whole cost of collecting its revenue, and managing the property intrusted to the care of the Commissioners—was, in 1871, £27,723; in 1872, £29,673; and in 1873, £28,701, the average of the three years being £28,699, or about 3¼ per cent on the amount collected and administered—a sum which I venture to say could not be considered unreasonable if it had been the charge for collecting the revenue alone. I must now briefly allude to the third division of my subject, in giving your Lordships' a statement of the present financial condition and future prospects of the Commission, and I would here call your Lordships' attention to two provisions of the Church Act, which materially delay the realization of the surplus. Your Lordships are aware, from what I have already stated, that the property of the Commission consists,
  610
  in round numbers, of about two-thirds tithe rent-charges and one-third land. I have already mentioned to your Lordships the two modes provided by the Act for disposing of the tithe rent-charge—namely, by sale for ready money, and by the process by which the tithe rent-charge is converted into an annuity which extinguishes itself in 52 years. Your Lordships have seen that no large sales for ready money can be expected of this sort of property, and that the effect of the Act will be to convert almost the whole of the tithe rent-charge into a terminable annuity. A similar result is produced in reference to the land by the provision which enables purchasers of land to leave three-fourths of their purchase money on mortgage, repayable in 64 half-yearly instalments. Having premised so much as to the powers we possess for realizing the property, I now come to our actual condition and prospects. The capital liabilities ascertained are £10,711,303, and those estimated are £845,604, making a total of £11,556,907. Of that sum we have paid out of the current receipts £1,001,335, leaving a balance of £10,555,572. Of this, £8,400,000 is due to the Commissioners for the Seduction of the National Debt, and £1,309,968 to the Representative Church Body. The estimated sum still required is £845,604. It is estimated that the debt to the Church Representative Body will be paid off in July, 1876, by moans partly of a further advance from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt of £500,000, and partly from current receipts. The Church Representative Body will be paid, including interest, £892,079 in 1874; £626,000 in 1875; and £106,000 in 1876. The regular liquidation of the debt to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt cannot begin until the debt to the Church Representative Body shall have been discharged. The calculation that this debt will be paid in about 17½ years from the present time is based on the assumption that the Commissioners will be able to devote out of the current receipts, including sales, £800,000 a-year to that purpose. There will then remain—first, the residue of the terminable annuities into which any portion of the tithe rent-charge may have been commuted; secondly, the tithe rent-charge in perpetuity, subject to the right to buy or com-

  611
  mute it, as regards such portion as may not have been bought or commuted; and, thirdly, the outstanding balances of the instalments payable on the purchase money of land sold. It is, of course, very difficult to say what will be the capitalized value of these different items; but, according to the best estimate we have been able to form—and I do not think it exaggerated—we put the capital value of tithe rent at £9,621,914; of landed property, at £6,626,948; and from other sources—trust funds, glebe house, mortgages, &c.—at £494,504, making a total of £16,743,366. Deducting from this the sum of £11,556,907 for liabilities, there will be a probable surplus of £5,186,459. My Lords, a Question was asked early in the evening by a noble Friend of mine who sits opposite, as to the possibility of realizing this surplus at an earlier date than that at which it will become available by the collection of the terminable annuities, into which I have shown you the bulk of the property will, by the operation of the Act, be converted. It is not my province to devise plans for this purpose; but it does appear to me that when the Government shall have become, by the liquidation of the debt to the Representative Church. Body, sole creditor of the Church property, the operation of capitalizing and making available the surplus, ought not to be a very difficult process, or one beyond the powers of an enterprising financier. I have to thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you have listened to, I am afraid, a rather tedious statement. I cannot sit down without doing justice to the staff of the office with which I am connected, and having had some little experience of official life, I must state I have never known a body of public servants who performed their duty with greater zeal and efficiency. In justice to them, I am happy to have been enabled to lay before your Lordships this evening a statement of the large amount of work which has been transacted by the Commissioners at a comparatively small cost.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have listened with great interest to the statement of the noble Viscount; but, in spite of the ability with which it has been made, it must, I think, be obvious to your Lordships that such a statement would have been more satisfactory if it
  612
  had been put into print. It is impossible to follow all the details of a spoken statement. I would venture to suggest that a yearly statement should be made of the proceedings of the Commissioners.
  VISCOUNT MONCK: I entirely concur with my noble Friend that it would be better to make what I may term an annual historical Report. We are only bound by the Act to make a mere financial Return.

IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY OF TIPPERARY.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT LISMOREasked the Lord President of the Council the reason why two gentlemen recommended by him, as Lieutenant of the county of Tipperary, for the Commission of the Peace had been refused the Commission by the Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland. He had been Lord Lieutenant of the county since 1857, and no previous recommendation of his had ever been passed by.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Viscount having, according to his own statement, held the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Tipperary for 16 or 17 years, must know that it was not the practice of the Executive Government to interfere with the Lord Chancellor or with the Commissioners of the Great Seal in the Exercise of their undoubted duty to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of magistrates in various localities. That would apply in this country as well as in Ireland. The reason why only one of two gentlemen recommended by the noble Viscount as fit to be appointed magistrates of a particular Petty Session in Ireland had been appointed was that the Commissioners of the Great Seal thought it was not necessary to appoint more than one. With regard to the other gentleman whom the noble Viscount recommended as fit to be appointed magistrate of another Petty Session, the Commissioners of the Great Seal declined to add to the number of magistrates upon the Petty Sessions, because they believed that number to be sufficient.

IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY OF TIPPERARY.—QUESTION.
  LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Order for the Second Reading on Tuesday the 2nd of June next discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) (NO. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts facilitating the Improvement of Landed Property in Ireland—Was presented by The Earl of BANDON; read 1a. (No. 75.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the City of Dublin—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 76.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 77.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.