Sitting of 1 June 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Friendly Societies (re-comm.) [169]—R.P.; Infanticide* [43]—R. p.
Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [165].
Report—Dover Pier and Harbour* [84–192].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * [158]; Surrey (Great Britain) Acts Continuance* [181]; Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* [183], and. passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POST OFFICE—POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS—LEWES AND EASTBOURNE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware of the inconvenience sustained by the inhabitants of Lewes and Eastbourne, and of the vicinity of those towns, in consequence of the distance of the point from which their letters are delivered; and, whether he would consider what more convenient postal arrangements could be made for those towns and the neighbourhood of them?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he was happy to say that arrangements had been made by which he hoped that no further inconvenience similar to that referred to in the Question of the
  1234
  hon. Member would be experienced in those places.

FISHERY HARBOURS AND STATIONS (IRELAND)—ARDGLASS.—QUESTION.
LORD ARTHUR HILL-TREVORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If a Memorial has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to Ardglass Harbour in the county of Down, and the necessity for improving that Harbour as a Fishery Station and Harbour of Refuge; and, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps for the restoration of the Harbour and Lighthouse, and on what terms?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the Memorial in question had been for some time under the consideration of the Government. There had also been much correspondence on the subject between the Irish Government and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. He was happy to be able to inform his noble Friend that the Treasury had consented to include the Harbour at Ardglass in the three next harbours of importance which would be benefited by Government aid, and that the terms on which that aid would be given would be that a free grant would be made of three-fourths of the sum necessary for the construction of the harbour, provided that the remaining fourth—namely, £5,000 in that case—was raised from local sources.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—MEETING AT CASTLEBAR,—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is aware that on Sunday and Monday of last week the police at Castlebar tore down two sets of placards which were posted in that town, calling a public meeting; and, if so, whether the police acted in this instance on the authority of the Government; and, if not, whether he can state to the House on whose authority the police acted; and, whether the meeting referred to has since been held; and, if so, whether it was conducted in a peaceable and orderly manner?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that on the 22nd of May placards were posted in the town of Castlebar, calling on the men of Mayo

1235
to assemble in their thousands to prove that they were not degenerate descendants of the men of '98, and announcing that a meeting would be held to decide on the form of a monument to be erected to the memory of the gallant Frenchmen who fell in that neighbourhood in '98, fighting for the independence of Ireland. It occurred to the local authorities that some offence might be given to the loyal inhabitants of Castlebar by placards calling a meeting in honour of French invaders who defeated a force mainly consisting of Irish Militia. Therefore, directions were given by the local constabulary authorities, and some of those placards were taken down. The matter was reported to him, and on considering the circumstance it seemed to him that the meeting was an unimportant one, and not likely to provoke a breach of the peace. On further consideration, the same opinion was entertained by the local constabulary authorities. The meeting was in no way interfered with, and it passed off in a very peaceful and orderly manner; but he was sure the hon. Member would be sorry to learn, according to the information which he had received, that neither from the number of persons present, nor from their position in society, could much hope be formed that sufficient funds would be raised to effect the object of the meeting.

ORDER—INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAYS) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. FIELDENasked the hon. Member for Hull, If he intends to move the Second Beading of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sundays) Bill on Wednesday the 2nd June?
MR. WILSON: So far as I am able, Sir, I feel anxious to afford every facility for the resumption to-morrow of the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Bill to restrain the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland on Sundays. Therefore, I propose to ask permission to postpone the second reading of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sundays) Bill from to-morrow, the 2nd of June, to Wednesday, the 30th of June.
MR. FIELDEN: In accordance with the Notice I have given, I beg to move that the Order for the second reading be discharged.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member submits that Motion I think it right to point out to him the extreme inconvenience of the course he proposes to take. It is the ordinary practice for Members who have charge of Bills to postpone the second or third reading to a more distant period, and great inconvenience would arise if Motions of this kind were interposed among the ordinary business set down for discussion.
MR. FIELDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman rule that I cannot make the Motion after the other questions are disposed of?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to do that; but I think it my duty to point out to the House the extreme inconvenience and obstruction of Business that will ensue if Motions of this kind are to be opposed.
MR. FIELDEN: Then I withdraw the Motion, and beg to give Notice that I intend to renew it on the 30th, when the Bill comes on.

METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT—HUNGERFORD SWIMMING BATH.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE JENKLNSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, If it is with the approval and consent of Her Majesty's Government that the structure erected exactly opposite the opening to the Embankment from Charing Cross has been put up, entirely obstructing the view of the river; and, if so, on what conditions, and whether it is to be a permanent erection, and if any more such erections are to be permitted to be built on the Embankment, or along the parapet of it?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, the Question put to me by my hon. Friend consists of three distinct heads. First, my hon. Friend wishes to know if a certain structure now rising on the Thames Embankment was erected with the approval and consent of Her Majesty's Government? To that I may reply that no such consent was asked for, inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government have no jurisdiction over the Thames Embankment. The second part refers to the conditions under which this structure has been erected, and it is unnecessary for me to point out to my hon. Friend that this part of the Question would have been more conveniently addressed to the

1237
hon. and gallant Member who is Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James Hogg); but he, being unable to be present, has, with his usual courtesy, authorized me to inform my hon. Friend that the licence for the erection of the structure in question was restricted to a period of one year, and the agreement provides that the Metropolitan Board have power at any time to revoke the licence, especially if it should prove a nuisance or injury to the Embankment. With regard to the third part of the Question, whether any more such erections are to be permitted to be built on the Embankment or along the parapet of it, my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board does not feel himself justified in dealing in such a spirit of prophecy as would enable me to give any definite assurance on this subject to the House of Commons.

PARLIAMENT—NORWICH NEW WRIT.
MR. WHALLEY, in rising to move—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to servo in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, whose election has been determined to be void,"
said, he might explain that he was anxious to act with full deference to the views and wishes of the Attorney General as to any action that was to be taken in regard to the Report of the learned Judge who recently tried the Petition against the return for the City of Norwich. He might, however, state that many earnest communications had been made to himself personally; but he refrained from taking action until he was satisfied that there was good reason to believe that the interests of the constituents were likely to be prejudiced and compromised by the suspicion hanging over them of general corrupt practices. There was also another reason—namely, that a number of the honest and respectable inhabitants of Norwich were exceedingly anxious to give their verdict, on a certain question, and he presumed the House might infer what question it was from the circumstance of their having communicated their wishes to him. At all events, he thought it was a most serious thing to keep the issue of the Writ suspended when a Report had been made by the Judge who tried the
1238
case, which was utterly inadequate to justify a general statement that extensive corruption existed. The case of Norwich was entirely different from the case of Boston. The gentleman in possession of the seat gave up the contest at an early period in the inquiry, and he (Mr. Whalley) did not see how he could be charged with general corruption, treating, and bribery. He had the highest authority for stating that there was no analogy between the case of Norwich and that of Boston. In the latter case the whole borough was examined; whereas in Norwich only two wards were gone into, and those not exhaustively. Therefore, he hoped a lenient view would be taken by the Attorney General, and that he would not enforce strictly any power or discretion he might have in the matter, so as to disfranchise an important constituency. Under those circumstances, he had ventured to place this Notice upon the Paper; but, at the same time, he was ready to acquiesce in any suggestion which the Attorney General, having regard to the convenience of the House, might make in the matter. The evidence, which was ordered to be printed, had only, he believed, been issued that morning.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a Now Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, whoso election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Whalley.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I must express my great surprise that the hon. Member should have brought this Motion under the consideration of the House; for, Sir, after you had taken the Chair this evening, the hon. Member came across the House to me and expressed his intention to postpone his Motion until Thursday. I left the House under the impression that he would act according to his promise; but to my surprise I was informed a few minutes ago in the Lobby that the hon. Member was rising to move the Motion which he had promised he would postpone until Thursday.
MR. WHALLEY: I rise to explain. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is quite correct, but it has no application to what I did. I stated that I

1239
wanted to make an application on a former occasion, when you, Sir, intimated that I must not rise to address the House without concluding with a Motion, and I stated that I would make the Motion with the intention of postponing it till Thursday if the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a wish to that effect.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House that soon after the Report was made by the learned Judge I moved that all the evidence taken in the case should be printed and laid upon the Table, in order that every Member should have the opportunity of forming an opinion upon the evidence. That evidence was only delivered to hon. Members this morning, and I am bound to admit that up to the present time I have not had an opportunity of reading it through; but it will be one of the first duties I shall have to discharge, and I apprehend that certain duties in connection with this matter will then devolve upon me as Attorney General, and I shall be prepared at the earliest possible moment to state the course which I propose to pursue.
MR. WHALLEY: May I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion. ["No!"] for the purpose of bringing it forward on Thursday? ["No!"] Then, if there is a wish that it shall not be withdrawn it shall not be withdrawn.
DR. KENEALYsaid, he had heard the decision which the Government had come to with great surprise, and, he must add, alarm. He could hardly conceive a more flagrant violation of the Constitution and of the rights of the people than that an important constituency like Norwich should be disfranchised, even for 24 hours, without good cause assigned. He appeared as the exponent of the views of a great number of the citizens of that borough, who felt most bitterly that they had been treated unjustly by the Government, or, at all events, by the party in whose ordinary duties it would fall to move for a new Writ. An order was made by the House on the 13th of May that the evidence in the case should be printed; yet, for some reason which had not been explained, it was not placed in the hands of Members till the 1st of June. Now, considering what The Times newspaper and other great public establishments
1240
could do, he could not imagine that any good reasons could be alleged for the printing and publishing of that Re-port occupying from the 13th May to 1st June, and he must say he thought it unfair to the great constituency of Norwich, considering the serious imputation that was cast upon some of the electors by the Report of the learned Judge, that greater expedition should not have been shown in the presentation of the Report to the House. He could, of course, hardly hold the Government responsible for what appeared in what was called "the usual channels of information;" but undoubtedly a fortnight ago it was alleged in some of those Delphic Oracles which were supposed to be inspired by high authority that it was not the intention of the Government to move for a Royal Commission in this case. If he had had the slightest intimation from the Attorney General of the intention of the Government to move for a Royal Commission he should not have said a single word. For his own part, he should be extremely glad if a Royal Commission were issued, because he believed it would expose the practices of both sides in the constituency of Norwich, Whigs and Tories alike, and it would have a most salutary effect in furnishing a very great example to the world that no matter what offices certain Members might obtain by corrupt practices, a Royal Commission would unmask those practices and necessitate the removal of those Members from their offices. He should be extremely glad to hear that a Royal Commission was to be issued, but he believed no such intimation would be made; and he must therefore put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman—than whom no man stood higher in the profession—whether he was asking for a postponement and opposing this Motion with a bonâ fide intention of having a Royal Commission, or whether he was doing so to gain some Party end? He could hardly imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman had such a purpose as that; but after the strong pressure which had been put upon the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and himself by the constituency of Norwich they could not rest until this matter was settled, as it must be within a very short time. It should be clearly understood that the citizens of Norwich, as a body, did not dread a

1241
Royal Commission, and that the Report of the learned Judge applied only to a small, contemptible, and disgraceful minority in the city. He had recently had an opportunity of experiencing what the feeling of the citizens of Norwich was. [Laughter.] He was pleased to afford some hon. Gentlemen an opportunity for mirth; but it would not deter him from continuing his observations, and he was assured, upon the highest authority, that no fewer than 4,000 honourable electors abstained from voting at the last election in consequence of the prevalence of corrupt practices among a small minority. He believed that corrupt practices were confined to that small minority; and it was a most serious thing to deprive a great city of the right of returning a Member to Parliament upon the mere supposition or idea that a Royal Commission was going to be issued. He repeated that he did not believe there would be a Royal Commission, and if there should not be it was a most serious tampering with the Constitution and with the rights of the people—a tampering which he was sorry to see carried on by the Ministerial side of the House, because he believed that they were more sincere guardians of the old Constitution of the country than their political opponents. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough would renew this subject, and he hoped the Attorney General would be prepared then to state whether there would be a Royal Commission or not.
MR. COLMANsaid, that was not a fitting time for him to enter into the question of the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Petition, and he therefore rose simply to state that, knowing, as he believed he did, as much of the views of all classes of the constituency of Norwich as the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, or as the hon. Member for Peterborough, he had not received from any one of them any intimation of a desire to forestall in any way the decision which Her Majesty's Government might feel it their duty to arrive at.
MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he scarcely thought when he saw the Notice of the hon. Member for Peterborough upon the Paper, that he was in earnest upon the subject; because after such a Report as that presented by the learned Judge, it was difficult to understand how he could
1242
be serious, and more difficult still to understand how he could move the issue of the Writ without further comment. It must be borne in mind that the Report in one of its paragraphs concluded by the expression of opinion that there was reason to believe corrupt practices did prevail at the last election. That was the reason why the evidence was laid before the Attorney General, and why the House had ordered it to be printed, and he (Mr. Yorke) gave Notice of an Amendment because he did not think that a "Writ should be issued before the House had had time to consider that evidence. The Amendment of which he gave Notice was as follows:—
"That the Writ for the election of a new Member for the city of Norwich he suspended until after the Report of the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts has been received by the House."
He thought it important that, inasmuch as they had at the present time a Committee investigating those questions who were about to Report, they should have the benefit of that Report before any further action was taken upon the matter. He found, however, that that Report had that day been laid upon the Table, and with the permission of the House he would amend his proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "until after the Report of the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts has been received," and substituting the words, "Until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House." Inasmuch as the evidence had only been printed that morning he thought it would be better the matter should stand over for a few days, and then no doubt the Attorney General would be able to do his duty when the proper time should arrive.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ for the election of a new Member for the City of Norwich he suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House,"—(Mr. Yorke,)
—instead thereof.
MR. INGRAMcomplained that Boston had been introduced into this question, and said it was unfair of the hon. Mem

1243
ber for Peterborough to insinuate that he had the authority of one of the Commissioners for saying it stood in a worse position than Norwich. [Mr. WHALLEY said, he did not name his authority.] He (Mr. Ingram) understood he had said one of the Commissioners. The words in the Report on the Boston inquiry were precisely the same as in the present case, and then he was given to understand that the Government had no option but to move an Address for an inquiry. The constituency of Boston were perfectly prepared to undergo the ordeal of a Royal Commission.
MR. HERSCHELLsaid, he thought it was greatly to be deprecated that, while the question of issuing a Royal Commission with reference to Corrupt Practices at Norwich was still under consideration, Members of the House should come forward and take the course which had been pursued by the Members for Peterborough and Stoke-on-Trent for reasons which were perfectly obvious. The action of those Members had been taken for the purposes of an electioneering move and in order to gain a certain amount of popularity with a section of the electors by appearing to be the only people who were the guardians of the constitutional rights of such electors. He ventured to say that not only the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman), but every Member of that House, was as anxious to preserve the constitutional rights of the electors in general and of the electors of Norwich in particular as the Member who had brought forward this Motion. It was an abuse of the position of a Member of the House to make a Motion which was obviously not made, and could not be made, in the interest of any true and just cause, but was intended solely for the purpose of furthering the fortunes of a particular candidate.
DR. KENEALY: I rise to Order, Sir. ["Order, order!"] I have always understood that it is contrary to the practice of this House to impute undue or dishonourable motives to Members, and I submit that the hon. and learned Member is now imputing such motives.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has made no charge of dishonour, and is in Order in the remarks he is making.
MR. HERSCHELLsaid, he had no desire to say anything more upon the
1244
point. Every hon. Member in the House knew what had been done in this matter, and he should leave them each to form his own opinion. He must, however, at least enter his protest against the time of the House being taken up with the suggestion that particular Members, and only those Members forsooth, cared for the Constitution and the constitutional rights of electors.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished it to be understood that the House by assenting to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) was not prejudging the question of whether the Writ should or should not issue when the proper time came for considering the question.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Speaker had decided that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was perfectly in Order in imputing to another Member that he had made a Motion without true and just cause. The hon. and learned Member for Durham said he had simply risen to make a protest; but he could surely have made that protest without imputing wrong motives to others. He (Mr. Whalley), for his part, would content himself with a protest and with standing upon his own character and position. He protested against the hon. and learned Member's imputation of unworthy motives, and also, as far as the Forms of the House would allow him, against the rule which had enabled him to make it. He begged to declare that he had not acted from any unworthy motives. The electors of Norwich had written to him.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the hon. Member has the right to make another speech?
MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was in Order.
MR. WHALLEYfelt bound to say that from the communication he had received it was plain that upon a particular question the electors of Norwich had no confidence in their present Representative. Those electors desired that their own views upon this particular question should be laid before the country. Surely, then, in laying this point before the House it was too much to impute to him (Mr. Whalley) the motive of acting for electioneering purposes. The electors of Norwich had a perfect right to express their opinion upon the question referred

1245
to in their own way. He hoped the Attorney General would be quick in coming to a decision, for if there were more needless delay, as there had been, or if the law were strained by the Attorney General in order to get a Royal Commission, it might be said that the object was to prevent the citizens of Norwich from exercising their privileges in a manner not in accordance with the feelings of the majority of Members of that House. He again ventured to offer his protest against the language that had been used. He should not condescend to say any more. He maintained that he had not been actuated by any motive which was inconsistent with his position as a Member of that House.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
"Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Writ for the election of a new Member for the City of Norwich be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith.) [BILL 169.]
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (re-committed) BILL.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 31st May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10 (The registry office.)
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 5, line 4, to leave out "an assistant," and insert "a." He said, the Amendment he proposed involved a most important question—namely, whether Ireland, for the first time with reference to the registration of Friendly Societies, was to be treated in every respect as if it was an English county. The Friendly Societies in England which sought to extend their business to Ireland were not solvent societies or societies which did a large amount of business here. It was the insolvent societies which, having exhausted their credit in this country, sought to extend their business to Ireland, and extract contributions from the working and poorer classes. He thought this Bill ought to guard most carefully the interests of the Irish people, The
  1246
  proposal of the Bill was, that any society being registered in England was entitled to be registered under similar circumstances in Ireland, so that a society in Kerry wishing to get registered had only to come to England, and then it would be registered in Ireland as a matter of course. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was from no wish whatever to centralize in England or to disregard the interest or feelings of the people of Ireland that this clause had been inserted in the Bill. On the contrary, this proposal was made mainly in the interests of the Irish themselves. It had been represented to the Government by the Assistant Registrar of Societies in Ireland, and by others, that no complaint on the part of a subscriber in Ireland to a society which was registered in England or Scotland only, and had extended its business to Ireland could be entertained, because the society had not been registered in Ireland. To remedy that grievance it was proposed by this clause that in the case of such societies separate registration in Ireland should not be necessary.
  MR. MELDONobjected that the right hon. Gentleman's the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments did not apply to the present Bill, but only to the old system. What he wanted was a separate registration for Ireland, so that Societies might sue and be sued in the country in which the monies were collected and the head office situate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the object of the Bill was to protect the poorer subscribers. If a company registered in England failed to get registered in Ireland, then the subscribers would have no remedy against the society.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SALTsaid, at present one at least of the Assistant Registrars must be a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing. He thought it would be well to leave the matter entirely open, as many persons connected with the great Friendly Societies would be very suitable for this office, and yet were not barristers. He moved, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "one at least of the Assistant Registrars for England."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was thougth desirable to have a man with legal training as one of the two Assistant Registrars.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, in page 5, line 14, after "standing," to insert the following sub-section:—
  "The central office may also, with the approval of the Treasury, comprise such assistants skilled in the business of an actuary and an accountant as shall from time to time he required for discharging the duties imposed on the office by this Act."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERaccepted the Amendment, with the substitution of the words, "have attached to it" for "comprise."
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of strengthening the office, as the work was in arrear.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, in page 5, line 30, after "district," to insert "or otherwise make known." The object was to give such information as might be thought necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. HOLMSmoved, in page 5, line 36, section 5, sub-section (b), after "fit," to insert the following sub-section:—
  "(c.) Cause to be constructed and published tables for the payment of sums of money on death, in sickness, or old age, or on any other contingency forming the subject of an assurance authorized under this Act which may appear to be calculable: Provided, nevertheless, That the adoption of such tables by any society shall be optional."
  The hon. Gentleman said, he thought, in looking over the Report of the Royal Commissioners, that there was nothing more clearly brought out than the fact—that one of the principal, if not the main cause, of the wide-spread insolvency of Friendly Societies was the want of information, especially in reference to the amount of premiums to be paid in proportion to the benefits to be received. The Commissioners emphatically declared the necessity of having clear tables for the benefit and guidance of societies.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he attached very much importance to the publication of tables, and it was a matter greatly insisted upon
  1248
  in the Report of the Commission. It had been omitted from this Bill because it did not appear to be actually necessary, and because there seemed to be some misapprehension on the part of members of Friendly Societies as to the animus of the Government in placing a proviso to the same effect in the Bill of last year. As the Amendment had been moved, however, he would not object to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASHBURYmoved, in page 5, line 40, after "preceding," to insert—
  "He shall also within six months after each quinquennial period lay before Parliament a copy of every valuation made under this Act, and in Conformity with Clause 14, sub-section (f)."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was some misapprehension on the question referred to by these Amendments. The Bill provided that the societies should make returns once in five years, but it would be impossible for the societies to lay before Parliament a copy of every valuation, as proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton. He thought that so heavy a duty ought not to be imposed upon the office. He would, however, consider whether suitable words might not be inserted on the bringing up of the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 5, sub-section 6, after line 40, to add the following sub-section:—
  "The registrar for Ireland shall exercise all the functions and powers by any existing Act of Parliament vested in the registrar of friendly Societies or of Building Societies for Ireland, or in the barrister or person appointed to certify the rules of Friendly Societies in Ireland, and shall be entitled to receive all fees payable to such registrar, barrister, or person, and so that all provisions in such Acts relating to such registrar, barrister, or person shall be construed as applying to such registrar, and such registrar shall exercise all the functions and powers in Ireland by this Act given to the central office or chief registrar, which such central office or chief registrar may exercise in England."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid the words proposed by the hon. Member would cause some confusion. The hon. Member would see that there was a provision in the Bill by which the Registrar would exercise all the functions required in reference to the societies in the United,

  1249
  Kingdom, and as it was better that there should be only one system, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. MELDONexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and consented to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHRQUERmoved, in page 6, line 6, subsection (a), to leave out from "powers" to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "Now vested in the registrars of Friendly or Building Societies for Scotland and Ireland respectively, or as respects Benefit Building Societies and societies instituted for purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts, vested in Scotland in the Lord Advocate or his depute appointed to certify the rules of Friendly Societies there, or in Ireland in the barrister appointed to certify the rules of Friendly Societies there, and shall be entitled to receive all fees payable to such registrar. Lord Advocate, or his depute or barrister respectively, and so that all provisions in any Acts of Parliament not hereby repealed relating to such registrar, Lord Advocate, or his depute or barrister respectively, shall be construed as applying to the assistant registrar respectively."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 6, line 31, at end, to add the following sub-section:—
  "10. All notices, requisitions, certificates, acknowledgments, returns, and documents which by this Act are required to be served, made, given, furnished upon, by, or to the central office or chief registrar shall, in the ease of Societies registered in Ireland, be served, made, given, and furnished to the registrar for Ireland."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would look into the clause, and, if possible, amend it in a manner to meet the suggestions of the hon. Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Registry of societies.)
  MR. COWEN (for Mr. SALT)moved, in page 7, line 2, after "public," to insert—"and no society shall change its name without sanction of the registrar."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SALTmoved to leave out subsection (4), which provided that—
  "A society (other than a benevolent society or working men's club) should not be disentitled to registry by reason of any rule for or practice of dividing any part of the funds thereof."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfeared that the omission of this sub-section would exclude from registry many of the small agricultural societies. He did not say that the dividing societies were the best; but the object of the Government was, as far as possible, to leave those interested to work out their views in their own way.
  MR. SALTsaid, that he had only brought forward the matter that those interested should know that the whole subject had been considered in all its bearings.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. HOLMSmoved, in page 7, section 4, at end, to add—
  "Provided that a separate fund, supported by a separate contribution, shall be kept for that purpose, and no division shall be allowed from any funds subscribed for any other purpose named in the objects of the society, unless upon an actuarial examination there is proved to be a surplus of assets over liabilities."
  The hon. Member explained that the object of the Amendment was to prevent Societies from dividing their funds without keeping in hand a sufficient amount to meet existing liabilities; and such a provision was necessary for Societies which were dividing Societies and Friendly Societies at the same time.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would show great kindness if he would accept the words of the hon. Member for Paisley, and allow them to be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. E. STANHOPEopposed the proposal on the ground that an increase in the number of dividing Societies would prove an evil rather than a good, particularly in the rural districts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept it.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDproposed to omit from the Amendment the words "unless upon an actuarial examination there is proved to be a surplus of assets over liabilities "so as to leave it open to distribute any separate fund.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that by the proposed Amendment the Government would be incurring a greater amount of respon-

  1251
  sibility than it was desirable they should incur. The spirit of the proposed legislation was to set these Societies as free as possible to manage their own affairs.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, an objection to the Amendment was that there would be three or four separate funds, and that it was possible that a division might take place from the fund set apart for that purpose, at a time when the benefit funds were quite unable to meet the claims upon them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that in the case of dividing Societies there was great danger that sufficient funds would not be left for the benefit of those who might require assistance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, such Societies would be formed upon a principle that would prevent danger.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought an Amendment of this sort was necessary, because it frequently happened that in consequence of the funds of a Society having been distributed among its members, a person who had contributed to it for many years could not get a farthing from it in his old age. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the point, and bring an Amendment on the Report.
  MR. DODSONsuggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn in favour of the next, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—namely,
  "Provided the rules thereof, in the judgment of the registrar, contain satisfactory provisions for meeting all claims upon such society existing at the time of division before any such division takes place."
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWopposed the Amendment. Many of these Societies did a great deal of good by dividing their funds among the members. After a division of its funds, it was open to a Society to begin business again.
  MR. W. HOLMS, in replying, contended that if the keeping of a separate fund to meet demands on a Society In respect of sick members and for funeral payments were not made compulsory, the evils which had occurred from want of funds for those purposes would occur again. A large portion of the members of Friendly Societies throughout the country were desirous that his Amendment should be adopted. They wished that all Societies which
  1252
  were registered should be made as safe as it was possible to make them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that after having listened to this discussion, he was of opinion that it would be most dangerous to attempt to lay down any restrictions and regulations on the subject, which, after all, might not be found to fit many cases. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Holms) that it was desirable these Societies should be safe; but it was not the business of Parliament to make them safe.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the words "a separate fund" to the word "and," inclusive.—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Question put,
  "That the words 'Provided that a separate fund, supported by a separate contribution, shall be kept for that purpose, and no division shall be allowed from any funds subscribed for any other purpose named in the objects of the society, unless upon an actuarial examination there is proved to be a surplus of assets over liabilities,' be added after the word 'thereof,' in page 7, line 5."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 200: Majority 45.
  MR. E. STANHOPE, who had a Notice of Amendment on the Paper—namely, in page 7, line 5, at end, to add—
  "Provided the rules thereof, in the judgment of the registrar, contain satisfactory provisions for meeting all claims upon such society existing at the time of division before any such division takes place,"
  said, that after the discussion which had taken place, he was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would, he hoped, bring up words on the Report to secure the object which he had in view.
  MR. COWENsaid, if the hon. Member declined moving his Amendment, he would do so, and accordingly moved the insertion of the words.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to renew the discussion, as he had nothing further to say on the subject.
  LORD ESLINGTONrepresented the division as taking place at the very time when there was the greatest demand

  1253
  upon the sick fund, and with the object of excluding them from participating in it. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Amendment was taken from a Bill of his own, which he had withdrawn, because it introduced a principle which he did not wish to see introduced into legislation upon the subject. He wished, however, to meet the general feeling of the House, and although he could not accept the Amendment, he would endeavour to provide that the rules of each Society should contain a distinct provision, showing in what way the division should be effected, and what provision should be made with respect to other claims, and that the accounts should be kept in such a manner as to show how the division of profits had operated.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the words of the Amendment were open to the objection that they suggested something like a Government guarantee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SALTmoved, in page 7, line 12, after "registry," to insert—
  "And within five years after the passing of this Act every registered Society shall adopt tables for payments in sickness or on death, certified by an actuary approved by the registrar."
  His object was that all registered Societies should, within five years, be compelled to adopt tables certified by some competent actuary—a provision which, as far as it went, would be an assurance that the Society was founded on sound principles, and a provision also which would inflict no hardship, as its adoption was one of the first steps which must be taken by any Society that was trying to emerge from its difficulties.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not accept that Amendment without altogether departing from the principles on which they had proceeded in regard to that Bill. If they adopted the Amendment, they would be giving something very much in the nature of a Government guarantee to Societies registered under the Act. All previous experience was against such attempts. It might be said they were doing that in respect to a particular class—namely, annuitants, by obliging the Societies to submit tables certified
  1254
  by a competent actuary. But annuities were easy matters to reduce to actuarial calculation, and so also were death-rates; whereas, in regard to sickness tables the case was different, and experience showed that they were not in a position to devise tables which they might force the Societies to adopt, or which they could hold out as giving what might be called an absolute security.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 7, line 29, to add—"If the registrar for Ireland refuses to register the Court of Queen's Bench at Dublin." The Amendment, he said, did not interfere with the principle of the Bill; but he thought the proposal he made was very much better than sending the appeals from Ireland to the Chief Registrar in England and then to the Queen's Bench in England.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that in the case of Scotland he was in favour of the appeal being made to the Court of Session instead of to a Law Court in London, because it would save expense.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it would be a pity to break up the system provided in the Bill, the object of which was to secure uniformity of decision in these cases throughout the United Kingdom. If the first appeal was left to the local Courts there might be conflicting decisions. In special cases an appeal would be in Scotland and Ireland to the tribunals of those countries.
  MR. MELDONrejoined that if that argument was worth anything it meant that the Courts of Ireland should be abolished in favour of the English Courts, in order to secure uniformity of decisions. If that were proper as regarded these Societies, it was also proper as regarded more important questions. The issue between the two countries being thus directly raised he must divide the Committee upon it.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsupported the Amendment, and thought that if the Bill passed as it stood they would be purchasing uniformity at too high a rate.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, he was impressed with the value of uniformity; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would in this case gain that uni-

  1255
  formity at the expense of so much complexity and confusion that he would do well to re-consider the point, inasmuch as it would often be a matter of doubt whether the appeal should be to the Chief Registrar or to the Court at Dublin.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MACDONALDmoved the insertion of words, appointing the Court of Session in Scotland the Court of Appeal.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was very much struck with the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), and that had induced him to accept the last Amendment. The present Amendment followed as a matter of course, but the clause would require rearrangement on Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Cancelling and suspension of registry).
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 8, line 12, after "registrar," to insert—"Or, in case of a society registered in Ireland, the registrar for Ireland."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the power of cancellation of certificates should remain only in the hands of the highest authority. He would re-consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEEMANmoved, in page 8, line 14, after "fit," to leave out to end of clause, and insert—"Upon the application of one-fifth of the whole number of the members of a Society." His object was that the application of one-fifth of the members should be necessary in order to put the Registrar in motion for the purpose of bringing about the cancellation of a society.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the clause was to allow a Society, as a whole, to obtain cancellation with the approval of the Registrar. It would apply to a cluster of affiliated Societies which desired to be registered as a whole.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought the clause provided a greater safeguard than the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

NAVY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

  RESOLUTI0N.
  SIR JOHN HAY, in rising to call attention to the subject of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy, said: Mr. Speaker—I ought, perhaps, to apologize to the House for venturing to intrude upon it this evening with reference to the subject which I propose to discuss when we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had a Motion which perhaps would have been of more general importance and more general interest. The subject which I venture to introduce to the House is one of no inconsiderable importance to the country. When I put my Notice on the Paper I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for the Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) would have placed the Amendment on the Paper which he has done, and which renders it incumbent upon me to detain the House longer than I would otherwise have done in addressing myself to this subject. The question which I propose to discuss is the present condition of Her Majesty's Navy with reference to Promotion and Retirement. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has on two occasions in the present Parliament called attention to the subject, and has stated to the House that he has found it not exactly in a satisfactory condition; and I am sure that he will forgive me if I offer to point out to the House the arrangements which I think have caused that unsatisfactory condition. I perhaps may be excused for doing so when I tell the House that the correspondence which has been addressed to me by naval officers both on the retired and active lists, and of all classes and ranks, has imposed upon me the duty which I am compelled reluctantly to undertake—I say reluctantly because I feel that the management of the Navy in the hands of my right hon. Friend is sure to receive all the consideration which his experience and love of the Service may suggest. Although he has

  1257
  now for a considerable time been in office, I feel that it would perhaps be unfair to him if I pushed him into a corner and asked him to declare the arrangements which he proposes to make for the advantage of the profession. I wish to strengthen his hands in making the changes which he must feel are necessary; and if the form of the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, for the appointment of a Committee—be inconvenient at this period of the Session, or, indeed, if the appointment of a Committee should at any time be inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, I should be the last person to urge it, after I have stated to the House and to my right hon. Friend the wishes, the hopes, and the aspirations of the noble profession of which he is at present the head. I am happy to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) in his place. The right hon. Gentleman will quite understand that in discussing this question, I wish to discuss the effect not only of the retirement in 1870 which he persuaded the House most liberally to vote, but also the various schemes of retirement which were antecedent to that of the right hon. Gentleman which was pecuniarily very liberal to the service. In 1870 certain changes were made at great expense to the public Exchequer which have neither met the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, nor the wishes nor the hopes of the Service and the country. The right hon. Gentleman did at that time propose to the House a measure which was a very large measure and pecuniarily a very liberal measure; but I think that even he himself will have ascertained by this time that those hopes and promises, both financially and in regard to promotion which he then held out, have—I will not say signally failed—but have not met the hopes and anticipations which he shadowed forth to the country. In the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced that great measure to the House, he proposed that efficiency, economy, and contentment—three most desirable objects—should be advanced and, I may say, rendered perpetual in the naval profession. I am quite sure that if he has failed, it is because wrong calculations Were placed before him by the authorities whom he consulted, and that he had
  1258
  himself a most earnest desire to attain these most desirable ends. The hope which he held out with regard to this proposal was to render the service contented. He said—I quote from his most excellent speech on the 28th of February, 1870—
  "Our third object was to render the service contented. So long as we had a large number of officers unemployed, and while some of the questions which I have mentioned were unsettled, no one can wonder at a certain uneasiness and want of contentment in parts of the service. We believe, however, that the proposal I have made to-night ought to remove these feelings; and, if that prove so, we shall have succeeded in our third object. Efficiency, economy, and contentment are, then, the main basis of our naval policy."—[3 Hansard, cxix. 938.]
  No more honourable effort could have been made by any statesman than the right hon. Gentleman; but so far from resulting in contentment, I believe it will be shown by hon. and gallant Members of this House who have had more recent experience of the Navy than I have, and is certainly shown by the mass of Correspondence to which I have alluded, and which I must apologize to many gentlemen for not answering, except now, in acknowledging the information they have afforded me—that the condition of naval officers at this moment is one of dismay and dissatisfaction. I do not want to put it too strongly; but I do wish to point out to the House that the present condition of the service—of every class of the service, from the sub-lieutenant to the flag officer—is, as I have endeavoured to express it, a condition of dismay and dissatisfaction. Now I cannot think that that feeling is at all unreasonable; and if the House will bear with me for a short time, I will endeavour to point out the reasons why that dissatisfaction and dismay exist. In the year 1863 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider this subject; and over it my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) presided. That is the very last occasion on which this House has had an opportunity of inquiring into the method of promotion, and into the way in which economy and contentment are to be produced in the profession. Before that Committee in 1863, there had been a Commission over which the famous Duke of Wellington presided in

  1259
  1848. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: 1840.] I am corrected by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. From the year 1840 to the year 1863 no examination was made on the subject of promotion and retirement in the Navy; and since 1863 no public examination, no examination by Committee or Commission, has taken place with regard to the subject. The changes which took place in 1866, when the Duke of Somerset was at the head of the Admiralty, were based upon the recommendations of the Committee of 1863. They did not go exactly in the direction of the Report of the Committee, and if they had gone more in the direction of that Report, they would have been more to the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, in 1870, made changes which were far from being in the direction of the Report of the Committee. They were in the direction of a proposal which was laid before the Committee, and which was rejected by it. The only proposition which was at all analogous to the arrangement made in 1870 was, what is called Proposition 4. Proposition 4 went under the name of the humble Member who now has the honour of addressing the House. It was put forward by me on behalf of a Committee of naval officers for examination, and having been examined by the committee, it was entirely rejected. It was submitted to a most careful analysis, which hon. Members will find in the Blue Book containing the report of the evidence of the Committee. They will find the report of Mr. Finlayson, one of the most able and accomplished actuaries who undertook to consider these matters for the Committee. He and another eminent actuary, Mr. Which, went into the matter, and proved not only to the unanimous satisfaction of the Committee, but to the unanimous satisfaction of the naval Service, that the proposals submitted to the Committee were not proposals which would result in the most satisfactory arrangements either for rapid promotion or economical administration. That Committee was a very strong Committee. My right hen. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge presided over it, and upon it were Sir Francis Baring, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir John Pakington (now Lord Hampton), who had also been First Lord of the Admiralty,
  1260
  and the gallant Admiral (Lord Clarence Paget), who was then Secretary to the Admiralty. Many witnesses were examined before that Committee, and amongst them many gallant officers most competent to advise the Committee upon the question. There were examined not only the Duke of Somerset, then First Lord of the Admiralty, but his private secretary (Captain Moore), Sir James Sullivan, Admiral Elliot, Sir Rodney Mundy, Sir James Hope, Lord Lauderdale, and others, who were perfectly competent to give the opinion of the profession on questions such as those submitted to the Committee. The Report of that Committee was unanimously agreed to, and it contained the lines upon which any proposal which should be made to the House or the country should be framed. It must be evident that the foundation and substance of any system of officering Her Majesty's Navy must be based upon the lieutenants' list. The lieutenants' list must be considerable. It must be so considerable that it is impossible that any person who rises to the rank of lieutenant can hope to rise to the rank beyond it. One of the most distinguished officers in the Navy (Sir James Hope) was examined before the Committee. He stated that it would be unsafe to reduce the lieutenants' list below 1,200. That seemed to the Committee to be an exaggerated proposal, and the proposal which I had the honour to make had been for 700, or little more than half. That number of 700, as proposed by me on behalf of a committee of naval officers, is about 100 more than the number provided for by the existing Order in Council. That proposal was scouted by every person who had been First Lord of the Admiralty; by officers of great knowledge and distinction, who put it at 1,000; by the Duke of Somerset, and by a number of other officers, whose names I will not at present detail to the House, but who were officers of distinction and of experience. The Committee, in consequence of the evidence given before it, reported that it would not be safe for the Navy to reduce the number of lieutenants below the number of 1,000. At this moment, we have placed upon the retired list, at an increased rate of pay, a large number of lieutenants, and other officers, who are paid a higher rate of pay than officers who are retained upon half-

  1261
  pay on the active list; and, although they have beseeched that they may have the credit and honour of remaining in the service, we cannot, because the pay which they receive is not a retaining pay, call upon them to serve at any moment that they might be asked. This very Session my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with, I am sure, the approbation of the House, proposed in the Navy Estimates that a large number of seamen, about 18,000 in number, should be paid a considerable retaining fee, in order that if they are required we may call upon them to serve the country in war. In addition to the seamen, there are a number of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants in the Royal Naval Reserve who are, no doubt, quite competent to render the country good and advantageous service in the event of war, and who are retained to serve the country in case they should be required. At the same moment something like 3,000 officers are on the retired list of the Navy, and of these I am right in saying that there are from 400 to 500 of the junior ranks under 40 years of age who are paid more than those who remain on the list, who would wish to serve you, and who are paid more that they may not bother the First Lord of the Admiralty in asking for employment. The only advantage which the country gains, therefore, is that a certain number of gentlemen abstain from asking the First Lord of the Admiralty for liberty to serve the country Although they are skilled and trained men; although, at great expense to the country, they have been reared up from the age of 14 to the age of 40, they are not allowed to serve the Crown, and they are debarred from going to the First Lord of the Admiralty when war breaks out, and saying that they are ready to serve. No doubt, if an emergency occurred, they might be impelled to offer their services; but during all this time they have had the degradation—and that it is felt as a degradation the letters which I have received from many officers show—of being told that, in spite of their ability, and in spite of their service, their names shall not be printed on the active list, and that, although they are sound horses, they shall be driven into the knacker's yard. No more impolitic arrangement can be made by any country. I would venture
  1262
  to quote the evidence of a distinguished officer, now no more—an officer of great ability—who gave evidence before the Committee to which I have already alluded, and who was private secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We know that the First Lord of the Admiralty will always select an officer of distinction to advise him in that particular position. That officer was Captain John Moore, and any Member who knew Captain Moore, and the distinguished service which he rendered, will bear me out in saying that any evidence which he gave is worthy of the attention and recognition of this House. At any rate, it was attended to and recognized by the Committee, and is crystallized in their Report. With regard to the lieutenants' lists, he says—
  "I think it is absolutely necessary that a much larger number of lieutenants should he employed than can possibly he provided for by promotion."
  Captain Moore stated that with reference to the number of 1,000 lieutenants which he thought it was necessary to employ. The principal fault which I find with the present system is the enormous and growing expense which it is entailing upon the country, and the want of adjustment in the numbers of the respective lists, so that a due flow of promotion may take place at the proper time, and so that a young officer may rise to the higher rank of his profession. The Order of Council in 1870 proposed that the list of lieutenants should be reduced to 600. I thought at the time, and still think, that is too small a number. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen)—I do not know whether it was because 600 was too small a number—promoted a large number of sub-lieutenants at once, and increased the number of lieutenants to 700. The number on the list now is 701. They have not been increased by my right hon. Friend, and they remain at the numbers which were considered necessary by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. In reply to a Question from me, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London made some excuse for that increase, and said it was rendered necessary by the proposal that lieutenants should under take navigating duties, and that, therefore, it was necessary to increase the numbers in order to meet

  1263
  that necessity, Which had not been intended when the first Order in Council was issued. Now, it seems to me that, in order to regulate and guide a self-acting scheme, which, is I believe, what my right hon. Friend desires, it would be necessary to provide for the retirement in each year of a certain number of lieutenants. If you can provide for the retirement of a certain number of lieutenants, you can regulate the entries to the profession; you can regulate the number on the upper list; you can then see how many lieutenants you can promote to be commanders, how many commanders to be captains, and how many captains to the flag list. Assuming that you are to have 700 lieutenants, it would be a fair proportion to make that 70 lieutenants should be provided for in each year, because I think it would be wrong that the average time of lieutenants on the list should exceed 10 years. I am sure that no gallant officer would consider that as an illiberal proposal as to the time which lieutenants should remain on the list. Supposing that 25 or 30 lieutenants can be promoted to the rank of commander, you would have to arrange for the retirement of 40 officers from the ranks of the lieutenants at an age at which they might hope to obtain service in the command of our mail steamers and the Merchant Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) has pointed out the mode in which these gentlemen could obtain employment; and I have no doubt, from the statement which he made—though I have not been able to verify it—that officers of that age and standing would find ample employment in a congenial profession. If that were done the upper ranks could easily be regulated. At present, there is no arrangement—the different ranks of the service are not adjusted to each other—and the cost to the country is enormously increasing. I wish to call attention to the present condition of Vote 15, which bears upon this question, and I would venture again to quote from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, on the 28th of February, 1870, to show how much his anticipations and calculations have been disappointed. No doubt, the calculations were made for him by others, and I do not at all mean to suggest that he had not paid proper attention to the subject. The calcula-
  1264
  tions would naturally fall into the hands of other persons; but, I think, he must acknowledge himself that they have misled him. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The House may wish to know what will be the future financial effect of these changes. In the first year, there will he an addition of £54,111. In the second year the amount of increase will he reduced to £42,499. It may he assumed that all the compulsory retirements will he in the first year, and two-thirds of the optional retirements; in the second year, there will he half of the remaining third of the optional retirements and half of further reduction to bring down the number to those proposed. In the third year, the numbers being fully reduced, the increase of charge will be diminished to £30,886. In the 4th year, instead of an increase of expense, there Will be a saving of £7,552. In the fifth year, there will be a saving of £45,990. A steady saving will then go on for twenty or twenty-five years until all the lists will be in what may be called their normal condition."—[3 Mansard, cxcix. 937.]
  In reference to this statement I have made allowance for the fact that the right hon. Member for the City of London added £15,000 to the Estimates in a given year for a special purpose to which will allude. In 1868–9 the Vote for Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay was £700,000, this year it is £888,000, which is an increase in that time of £188,000. These figures include, not only the half-pay on the active list, but of the Marines; but the figures which I am now about to give are figures in which all the charges are omitted, except the charge for reserved or retired pay. In the year 1869–70 the charge for reserved and retired pay was £432,899; in the year 1870–71, which was the year when the right hon. Member for Pontefract introduced the present plan it was £584,812; in 1871–2 it was £602,204; in 1872–3 it was £604,056; in 1873–4, which was the year in which a large reduction was anticipated, and in which £15,000 was added to it by the right hon. Member for the City of London, it was £619,625; in the year 1874–5, in which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated a reduction of £45,990, it was £696,086; and in the year 1875–6 it amounts to £712,929. It is, therefore, now just £713,000, or very nearly £300,000, more than in the year 1869–70. I do not wish to say that the whole of that increase is injudicious. What I want to point out is that a large proportion of that increase is injudicious. It is given to men who do not want it. I do not say that their

  1265
  circumstances are such that they do not require it; but they would rather have a lower amount of pay and remain on. the active list than be placed on the retired list at an increased rate of pay. They complain that they are forced off the list—that they are bribed to go off the list—although they are persons who are capable of serving the country with advantage. The country is deprived of the service which they may render it; and no greater slur can be east upon a man than to kick him out of the Navy, and then when the country has need of his services to say—"Well, if you like to ask you may get employment." You say at present that you will rather employ men in the Merchant Service, and the whole profession is naturally disgusted at an arrangement of that sort. I think I have put before the House the financial operation of the so he MR. I will now speak of the commander's list. The last Board of Admiralty made a change which was inexplicable, both to the Naval Service and to anybody outside the Admiralty. The opinion of the Committee to which I have referred was that the commanders' list should not be reduced below 400. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London having, I suppose, an extremely anxious desire to carry out the Order in Council determined to take violent measures to cut down the list to the number. It is one thing for naval officers to desire that there shall be a system of retirement if that system is to conduce to more rapid promotion—if men who are incompetent, or from their age are ineffcient, or who from various other reasons may be desirable persons to get rid of are retired, and other persons are promoted to their places. But this operation involved an expenditure of £15,000 a-year to buy out 47 gentlemen about the age of 40 years, all of them anxious to serve; you simply gave them more pay to get them off the list and place them on the retired list. There are 164 commanders now serving, and 201 are on the list; and I challenge my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to state whether he has commanders enough fit to perform the duties. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend below me will see that we have the number necessary for the Service. You have reduced the lieutenants' list to 700 by buying out
  1266
  at a largely increased pay; but those who have remained are not superior to those who have gone. The 47 commanders would gladly come to my right hon. Friend and say—"Put us back upon the active list—reduce the amount of pay—take us back on the half-pay list, and give us our chance of employment and serving the country, and our chance of promotion. "Many of these gentlemen are under 40 years of age, and is it an advantage to the country that it should be deprived of their services? I have several letters from gallant gentlemen, which I would read if they would not weary the House. ["Read!"] Well, the following is one of the letters which I have received:—
  "As yon have kindly undertaken to bring the case of commanders before Parliament—those who retired in 1873 and were not given an additional step in rank—may I ask if yon will allow me to supplement their case with that of my own, which will show how cruelly and unjustly the Admiralty have dealt with those officers who have so faithfully served them during the best years of their lives. I will first remark that I with many others accepted this retirement with the greatest reluctance and pain—as none but those who have experienced it can judge of one's feelings in having to give up a service to which one has been trained from a boy, and on which all one's hopes, pride, and devotion are fixed. This retirement was proposed not for any individual benefit, but for the immediate benefit of the Service and those who remained in it—my age (38) and the poor prospect I had of gaining promotion before 41, was the cause of my accepting it. The Admiralty was responsible for this state of things, and not the officers, and therefore being forced to retire in consequence, it is doubly hard that they should be denied what it is considered they are entitled to. My own ease is, that after 11 years service as lieutenant I was promoted commander—served for 3 years as commander of Black prince, 1st Reserve ship in the Clyde—appointed to command Ringdove in China Station in March, 1873—on 1st October accepted retirement, and was not relieved until the following 10th April, 1875. During the latter part of this time I was employed on important duties in conducting (on board the Ringdove) a diplomatic mission up the unsurveyed waters of the Poyang Lake to the city of Man-chang-fu, which is 800 miles in the interior of China; and also in protecting British interests during the rebellion in Japan. On my arrival in England I was informed that my service in the Ringdove, subsequent to the retirement (6½ months), would not be allowed to count as sea time for a step in rank; and furthermore that I should have to refund £60 out of £110 I had drawn to defray expenses of my passage to England—al-though I was kept out there this additional time on public service, and from no expressed wish of my own. I have applied on three different occasions for this time to be allowed to count, and

  1267
  also that my passage money home may be defrayed by the Admiralty (my case being exceptional), but have met with a refusal each time. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of stating my case to you, with the hope that you may consider it of sufficient importance to make use of to illustrate the manner in which the Admiralty have acted towards those who have served them well, but who are now (from necessity) forced to retire."
  I have letters from Captain Luttrell, Captain England, and other officers, and they have assured me that they are perfectly ready to serve the country; and many of them are perfectly ready to give up this additional sum, if you will only allow their names to be printed on the active list. They, no doubt, will trouble my right hon. Friend occasionally by asking him to employ them. I believe he has once a year the honour of meeting a number of officers who offer their services to him, and I believe that in that particular class it would be an advantage if he had a larger list to select from than at present exists.
  I will go now to the next rank, the rank of captain. The present order in council has reduced the list of captains to 150. There are 164 posts for them to fill. At the present moment some of them are phantom ships; but I hope they will be replaced. There are 164 posts in which captains can be employed; and I ask if it is wise or desirable to reduce the list of captains absolutely below that number, which may be necessary to be commissioned in case of the outbreak of war. When in addition to that I find that the Committee and Commission both recommended a very considerable list of captains, in order to give a flow of promotion, it seems unreasonable to me to reduce their number to 150. It is perfectly impossible, with a list of 150 captains, that you can promote commanders in the way that it is desirable to do. The House will remember that the change which I advocate is cheaper than the present system. It is merely a transfer of names. You give a captain when you retire him the most liberal provision of £600 a-year, but if you retained his name on the active list as a rear-admiral you would only give him £450 a-year. You therefore would have the advantage of his services and save the country £150 a-year by the mere transfer of names. I will take the year 1860. In that year there were 356 captains on the active
  1268
  list and 377 upon the retired and reserved list, and 128 captains were employed. At the present moment there are 174 captains upon the active list, for you have not been able to reduce them to 150, and 458 upon the retired and reserved list, so that there are 622 captains in all, of whom 90 are now employed. These 458 officers are most liberlly provided for; you are giving them a large excess of pay from which the country gets no benefit. It cannot call upon these men to serve. I may be told that if the necessity arose their patriotism would cause them to come forward and offer their services; but during all these years there has been the burning sore in their hearts of having been kept out of the profession to which they wished to belong. Instead of being in a position when they come up to the Queen's levee of calling upon my right hon. Friend and placing their services at his disposal, all that they can now say, is—"We have been driven into the knacker's yard and however desirous we may be of serving we have no opportunity of doing it." I want to point out to the House the condition of the captains list. Captain William Arthur is an officer who has devoted a great deal of time attention to this subject. He is an officer on the active list, and has just returned as flag captain from China, where he has been serving. He was kind enough, on seeing the Notice which I had given, to place before me certain calculations, which he informed me had been placed in the hands of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering them. These calculations with reference to the conditions of the captains' list show the ages of the various officers and the time at which they may be promoted. My gallant Friend was so kind as to give me a whole folio of these calculations; but I could not think of trespassing on the House with reference to this question at any length. I simply wish to point out two or three facts in reference to the captains' list, which in any consideration of this subject by my right hon. Friend are, I am sure, worthy of his attention. The list is headed by Captain Richards, and the next officer to him is the illustrous Duke, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who, I trust, by the grace and favour of his

  1269
  Sovereign, if not by his age, will be allowed to hoist his flag. These names will show that I have taken a fair sample as to age. There are 65 captains on the list, and I believe that they are all young and able officers. What will happen to these officers of the 65, 39 must retire before they can become admirals. Of the remainder, 26 will become rear-admirals, but their average ages will be 54, so that they can only hope for five years' service and then they must retire altogether. Of the whole of these 65 individuals you will not have the service of one as vice-admiral. That is a singular result, and I do not think it is a result which the country will desire to pay for. Among the names of the captains on this list you will find the name of Captain Morgan Singer. He is well known to many hon. Members as the great Torpedo captain—as the man who has instructed us in this particular class of gunnery—as the man, who, of all others, is teaching us, when we shall have no ships at all, how we shall be able to blow up the German or any other fleet. He can never be a rear-admiral. He may go on instructing us in this great branch of naval science; but at the age of 54, his promotion under the arrangements which now exists, will be cut off. There is another gallant and distinguished officer whom I had the honour of seeing last Thursday, and who has now sailed from this country under circumstances which have secured for him the good wishes not only of every Member of this House, but of every man, woman, and child in this country—I mean Captain Nares. Captain Nares may hoist the flag of England on the North Pole but he can never hoist his flag as an admiral. He is to to be retired when he comes back from the North Pole at £600 a-year and allowed to go about his business. Captain Arthur, whose authority is recognized by the right hon. Gentleman, shows in addition to the facts which I have stated that of the last 100 captains on the active list, 55 will be retired for age before attaining the rank of rear-admiral. That is that more than half the young officers whom you are now promoting can never be admirals, although the object of reducing the captains' list to 150 was in order that they might be constantly employed, and become full admirals after. The consequence is that you will dis
  1270
  charge all but 29, and that of the last 100 captains on the list 55 will go, whatever their services and claims may be. Is that wise or prudent? I would venture to say that the recommendations of the Committee of 1863 should be the guide of my right hon. Friend in making the arrangements which he has to propose. I am not going to propose my Motion in regard to the appointment of a Committee. I am well aware that in the month of June it would be absurd to ask hon. Members to engage in such an inquiry, and I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend; I believe that he will consider this subject, and I believe his hands will be strengthened by this discussion. It is of the greatest consequence to the country that it should be known what can be said on behalf of the existing scheme which the right hon. Gentleman opposite with the best intentions placed before the country in that Order in Council. What I would recommend is that we should offer to every officer, no matter what his rank or standing, the opportunity of going back on the active list, if he will forego the pecuniary advantages which he at present enjoys. According to my view it would save the country £25,000 a-year. As cutting down the lists on various arbitrary principles has failed, I think we should go back to the recommendations of the Commission of 1840 which says that the upper ranks should not be limited. My right hon. Friend has 65 officers to select from; but if the recommendations of that Commission were adopted he would have a larger list to choose from consisting of young and willing officers of equal experience. I know that of the officers on the active list, even at the age at which they can serve many are not at all anxious to serve; and if he adds to the number preferred to serve, all the officers who are willing to come back from the retired list and so increase the number, the only additional trouble that he gives himself is that he has a larger number to select from and has consequently a larger number to refuse. Now, when you have to select between two men, you are sure to offend one, but when you select one out of a dozen, you do not offend all the rest. You would have a more extended field to select from, and though it might be a little more inconvenient to the First Lord, it would not

  1271
  be so invidious to those officers who are rejected. I wish the House clearly to understand that the results which the right hon. Member for Pontefract anticipated from the liberal scheme of retirement which he introduced have not been attained. I admit that he had the very best intentions in carrying out the views which had been indicated by many naval officers, although they had been exploded by the examination before the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. His object was to make the flag list younger; but, in this respect, he has entirely failed. The list of 187S is older than the list of 1870. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) has more than once referred in the House to the position of Admirals of the Fleet; I have no desire to misinterpret his feelings or to think that he would do anything that would be inconvenient to those very gallant officers at the head of the Navy. My hon. Friend has suggested that these distinguished officers should be retired, in order that the flow of promotion should be accelerated. My hon. Friend is quite right if the numbers on the list are to be confined to the numbers as they are at present; but I have never concurred with that view since the report of the Committee to which I have alluded. The Admirals of the Fleet are officers of great distinction. They rank with Field Marshals in the Army; the Navy desires to see officers of that rank at its head; and with all respect to my hon. Friend, it would be an absurdity to place upon the retired list Admirals of the Fleet. We have all observed with very great satisfaction that, along with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—whom we are all glad to see in the highest rank of the Army—two distinguished officers have been promoted to the rank of Field Marshal—General Sir John Fitzgerald and the Marquess of Tweed-dale. One of these officers, I am informed, is 89 and the other is 90 years of age, and I want to know why the Navy should be deprived of the corresponding rank. It is but very seldom that an Admiral of the Fleet has hoisted his flag. The last occasions were when Lord St. Vincent, at the age of 90, hoisted his flag on the occasion of the visit of the Allied Sovereigns to this
  1272
  country; and before that, Lord Howe on this anniversary—the memorable victory of the 1st of June. Except in the case of these two officers, it is a purely honorary distinction, but one which all naval officers covet, and I am sure that its abolition would cause a feeling of dissatisfaction which the hon. Member would be the last person to desire. The ages of these distinguished officers have naturally increased. The ages of the three Admirals of the Fleet were, in 1870, 246 years; in 1875 they are 248. The ages of 13 admirals were, in 1870, 844 years; in 1875, 866; the ages of 15 vice-admirals in 1870 were 888 years; in 1875, 899 years; the ages of 25 rear-admirals in 1870 were 1,291 years, and in 1875 1,355. In 1870 there were five flag officers under 50 years of age. There are now only three. These figures show that the scheme cannot be any great advantage to the profession or to the country, and it seems that, in a short time, no admiral will be promoted under the age of 54 years. I have detained the House at great length; but I must venture to ask their kind indulgence with reference to another class of officers on the retired list. The House will remember the case of the F. G. Reserve captains, who, 10 years ago had their claims introduced to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth and other Members. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did them fair and reasonable justice in the proposal which he made. There are others whom he passed over, whose wrongs he neglected, and to the remedy of which I am going to allude. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derbyshire will confirm the statement I am about to make. A few years ago my hon. and gallant Friend came to the Admiralty and got all but a promise of justice to these excellent officers. The only thing that interfered with the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend were the F. G. captains, whose wrongs had been redressed. The wrongs of the H. I. K. captains remain. These officers ask for no money. It is unfair to say that the House of Commons would not give them everything that is just and reasonable; but these officers do not ask for money. They served, many of them with great distinction as commanders, and they accepted their promotion to the retired list, many of them with great

  1273
  indignation. AU that they ask is that that should be done for them which was done for the reserve captains of the F. G. class, and that they may be raised pari passû to the honorary rank of rear-admiral. I cannot see any objection to that plan. These gentlemen have served long and well in all ranks, and all they ask for is, now that the F. G. captains have got their claims fairly recognized, that they should have the same opportunity of rising pari passû to the rank of rear-admiral. I would call upon my right hon. Friend to look into this case, and consider whether this boon of honorary rank, which will offend nobody, which will cost the country nothing, and which will gratify these gentlemen, should not be conceded. Then there are the retired lieutenants with the rank of commander, who are upon the M. N. list. These gentlemen—I really do not know why, because they are called captains already—would like to have the honorary rank of captain; and if this small gratification could be given to these gentlemen, it mould give them great satisfaction. I cannot conceive where the objection is to making this concession, which was conceded, and very properly and justly conceded, in the case of the reserve captains on the F. G. list. I will now refer to the case of the 93 naval chaplains, one of whom has been kind enough to write to me asking me to tell my right hon. Friend that they are extremely grieved on an altogether different subject. They are grieved with reference to the Expedition which has just now left our shores. In obedience to the general wish of the House and the country my right hon. Friend thought fit to appoint two chaplains to accompany the Expedition. One of the gentlemen whom he selected is not a Naval chaplain, and as each one of them is anxious to be employed in that service, they thought that my right hon. Friend, in bringing in an outsider, had not sufficient ground for the course which he took, and that they have suffered an indignity which requires some explanation. It is quite true that with the exception of the gallant officer at the head of the Expedition, my right hon. Friend required that the general body of officers and men should not be over 35 years of age, and that they should have certain physical qualifications which made it neces-
  1274
  sary to be exact in the selection of those who were to be employed. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend inquired into the ages and qualifications of the Naval chaplains. Be that as it may, I have received a letter signed by one of the reverend gentlemen, who has put before me the facts of the case. They are extremely aggrieved that of the two gentlemen who have gone, only one should be an officer of Her Majesty's Navy. My right hon. Friend will, perhaps, be kind enough to reply upon that subject, and I can assure him that a considerable amount of grievance exists upon the score. The Petition which the chaplains have placed in my hand and in the hand of my right hon. Friend also prays for certain changes rather of a pecuniary character; but as the Naval Estimates for the year have been introduced, and as the suggestions I am making are for the economy and efficiency of the Naval service and for the reduction of cost to the country, I shall not trespass upon the indulgence of the House by asking any increase of the public charge with reference to these reverend gentlemen. I have though it right to refer to that portion of the Petition which affects their honour, and to lay it before the House and my right hon. Friend. I will only allude to the case of the engineers. Had I an opportunity of bringing their case before a Committee, I should have urged the necessity of improving their position; but as my right hon. Friend lately stated in reply to a Question, that he had that subject under his consideration, it would be unfair in me to urge the matter upon the House, further than to say that there is no class of officers whom it is more desirable to encourage than the engineers of the Royal Navy. Were a war to break out, the necessity for employing a larger number of engineers would entail upon us the need of taking the engineers from the Mercantile Marine, and therefore, the engineers of the Royal Navy should be encouraged as much as possible. I trust that the consideration which my right hon. Friend has given to this subject will result in the amendment of the position of this most useful class of officers. I am anxious to say that I had intended to introduce before the Committee the position of the warrant officers of Her Majesty's Navy. I am informed by those

  1275
  who understand this subject that there is no great ambition on the part of petty officers to accept warrants, and I think that the position of the warrant officer is not that which you would desire it to be. The warrant officers, the boatswain, the gunner, and the carpenter of the ship, are men who have great responsibility. They are selected from the seamen of the Navy having been trained up as boys in that profession. A certain number of petty officers are promoted to be warrant officers, but a considerable number of the men abandon their engagements, and are forced out of the Navy by the feeling of the lower deck. They are engaged to serve till 28 years of age; but the younger men, who are coming after them say—"We will make your life a burden to you if you don't be off." I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the engagement of the lads who are trained for the Navy should be raised from 10 to 15 years. If that were done, it would get over the difficulty, they would have reached an age at which they would remain in the Service, and they would become petty and warrant officers. I think that would be a reasonable and safe solution of the difficulty which exists, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will consider the necessity of making the pay of the warrant officers larger than it now is. They are a most valuable class of seamen in the Navy and may enable my right hon. Friend to reduce the number of naval cadets, because they may perform the functions of the subordinate officers, and thus aid us in the great difficulty with regard to the flow of promotion. There is another class of officers to whom I would venture to allude. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has already called the attention of the House to the condition of the Marine officers. I confess I heard with surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, when that subject was under discussion, make the proposal to delay to do that justice to the Marine officers which was asked by my hon. Friend, because a Commission was at present sitting to consider the question of the promotion of the officers of the Army. There is no Marine officer upon that Commission; there is no person representing the Admiralty upon that Commission; and I find that not a single
  1276
  Marine officer has been examined before that Commission. The Marines are an integral part of the Royal Navy. They have nothing to do with the Army; they are provided for in the Navy Estimates, and they serve under the Marine Mutiny Act. They are an integral and one of the most valuable parts of the Navy. The 14,000 Marines form the most formidable part of your Naval Reserve. If we are ever to have mastless ships—and that is a point upon which I give no opinion at present—but if we are to have mastless ships, I cannot conceive any persons more competent to work those mastless ships than the Marine Artillery and the Marines. Yet, what has happened? Some two or three years ago, this subject was introduced to the notice of the House. At that time the War Office thought it right to restore or create the rank of Major in the corps of Royal Engineers and in the corps of Royal Artillery. I immediately asked the right hon. Member for the City of London whether he was prepared to restore the rank of major in the Royal Marines. They had been deprived of the rank of major in order to assimilate them with the other two corps, and when it is given back to the Royal Artillery and Engineers, I want to know why it is not given back to the Marines. The Marines were deprived of their just birthright; and, because forsooth, the military authorities who, with all respect to them, have nothing to do with it, interfere in the matter and object to the restoration of the rank of major on the ground that it would be unsatisfactory to the Army, the Admiralty have not restored it. I call upon my right hon. Friend to do justice to these Marines whatever the War Office may say. I, at least, ask that they should be heard on the subject of these grievances, and should have some hopes of redress. I am confident that when in the Royal Marines, there are captains who have been 29 years captain and subaltern, the present state of matters cannot be allowed to go on. I am quite sure that if captains of 16 years standing were made majors there would be very little increase of cost, because a great many of them have already the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel and major. I have now to thank the House for the attention with which they have heard MR. Nothing could have induced me to ad-

  1277
  dress the House upon this occasion except the urgency of the complaints which were addressed to MR. The officers of the Navy naturally turn to one who may be supposed to understand their case and to sympathize with them. I wish to say that I do sympathize with that noble profession, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend sympathizes with it. I have ventured to urge upon him the necessity of expediting the consideration which he told the House he was giving to this subject. My right hon. Friend hopes to improve the position of the Service, to benefit the condition of the officers, to encourage their aspirations for advancement, and to do away with the dismay and disappointment under which they are now suffering; and I am sure he will forgive me for urging upon him the different points which I have brought under his notice. I will not propose the Motion for a Committee of which I have given Notice, but will move—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the present system of Retirement of Officers in Her Majesty's Navy, whilst continuously adding to the charge for ineffective Officers, has failed to give a due flow of promotion."—(Sir John Hay)
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, in reference to the Amendment of which he had given Notice, he might state he had paid great attention to the subject, and if the right hon. and gallant Member had moved for the appointment of a Committee in order to ascertain what steps should be taken in reference to an improved plan for promotion and retire-menthe would have supported him; but in reference to the course taken by the right hon. and gallant Member, he was sorry he could not support his Motion. The right hon. and gallant Member was prejudiced against the scheme of 1871, and therefore was unwilling to give it fair play. He (Mr. Tracy) believed that this scheme, when properly brought into operation, would prove one of the greatest benefits to the Navy, and would give fair promotion and retirement throughout all ranks of the service. The right hon. and gallant Member had stated, in somewhat exaggerated language, that the Navy was discontented and disappointed. [Sir JOHN HAY: No; dismayed and disappointed.] Well,
  1278
  dismayed and disappointed. But if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would cast back his eyes to the state of the Navy in 1870 he would admit that the discontent and dissatisfaction which then prevailed were infinitely greater than at present. In 1870 they had on the Navy List an enormous number of officers clamouring day after day for employment, but to whom no employment whatever could be assigned. A new kind of vessel had been introduced which required a smaller number of officers, and discontent prevailed throughout the active service. They had also large Retired Lists formed without any definite principle, lists under every letter of the alphabet, all on somewhat different schemes, and with somewhat different arrangements. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) came to the Admiralty and took up the question; he looked at the schemes of retirement of 1866 and some years previously, and saw that though aged and long-service retirements had been introduced, they had been employed very partially, there had been enormous exceptions, and there was the greatest dissatisfaction. The object of the retirement scheme of 1870, and also of the further scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) in 1873, was to make the Active List thoroughly efficient. No less than 350 naval officers had written to him stating distinctly that the result had been an immense boon not only to retired officers, but also to those on the Active List. Whatever else was now done must be done on the broad principles laid down in 1870. It was out of the question to ask retired officers to come back on the Active List. The result of that course would simply be that the Active List would be composed in a large measure of inefficient officers; because an officer must be inefficient if he was not kept more or less employed. In 1870 there were 89 captains employed, and 199 on half-pay unemployed. Now there were 90 employed, and only 84 on half-pay. The number of commanders employed in 1870 was 171, and on half-pay 231. At present the corresponding numbers were respectively 163 and 38. What these figures meant was that now there was a very efficient list. As to lieutenants, there were, in 1870, 509 employed

  1279
  and 206 on half-pay. At present there were 521 employed, and 201 on half-pay. In fact, with the exception of the captains' lists, there were now virtually the number which had been desired by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract in 1870, and it would not be difficult to get rid in a couple of months of that exception. Until the number of captains had been reduced to the extent contemplated in 1870 the promotion could not be satisfactory. In 1860 the percentage of officers employed, including flag officers, commanders, and lieutenants, was 46; in 1870 it was 50; and in 1875 the percentage had risen, through the operation of the retirement schemes, to 70. As to promotion, it had been undoubtedly going on more actively in the upper ranks since 1870 than it had been doing before. This was not the case, however, with regard to the lieutenants, and among that class there was great dissatisfaction in consequence. It was to be hoped that steps would be taken to remedy that evil. In connection with the financial part of the question, it appeared that in 1870 the full-pay, half-pay, and retired pay amounted to £1,851,000; and that in 1876 it was reduced to £1,804,000, showing a clear saving of £47,000. He sincerely hoped that, whatever was done would be done on the lines of the scheme of 1870, and he felt sure that if that were allowed fair play, it would in a short time bring efficiency and contentment to the service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed.
  To leave out from the word "Navy" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "under the Order in Council of the 22nd day of February 1870, and of subsequent dates, has been inevitably hampered in its operation by the great reductions which it has been deemed necessary to make in the number of officers of all ranks; and that until the effect of those reductions has passed away, some of the special provisions of the Orders in Council require amendment or extension,"—(Mr. Hanbury Tracy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would endeavour to state to the House, as briefly as possible, what was the real history of
  1280
  the important question under discussion; at what point it had arrived when he deemed it to be his duty to deal with it, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had stated, in a bold and comprehensive manner; in what respects the arrangements then made might have been somewhat incomplete, but yet sound in principle, and could not be departed from without creating confusion and dismay in the Naval Service. The history of the question might be given in a very few words. Ever since the Great War of 1815 the state of the Navy with regard to promotion and employment had been one of the most difficult subjects which exercised the thought of the Board of Admiralty, or had come under the consideration of that House. There had always been complaints similar to those which had been brought forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that evening. As far back as the Parliament of 1833 the question had been discussed and examined at very considerable length, and the difficulties by which it was surrounded were to some extent surmounted by a scheme of promotion and retirement, more or less pointing to the state of things at which we had arrived. But what were the facts with respect to the employment and promotion of officers during those years? He had before him a statement showing the state of the case as to the years 1835, 1850, 1860, and later years, and the House would, he thought, be surprised to learn that in 1835, of the whole body of lieutenants only 2 per cent were employed; of the commanders, only 12 per cent; of the captains, only 7; and of the admirals and flag officers, only 8 per cent. In 1850, after the effect of the Commission presided over by the Duke of Wellington, which entered very fully into that question, had been fairly ascertained, the numbers increased very little. Of flag officers, no fewer than 92 per cent were unemployed; of captains, 88 per cent; of commanders, 83 per cent; and of lieutenants, 68 per cent. Shortly afterwards the Crimean War occurred, and that led, for the first time since the Great War, to a very considerable employment of officers over several years. At the end of the Crimean War, and when it was no longer possible to employ anything like so many officers, a large number of officers were placed on half-pay, and the

  1281
  same difficulty as before arose, aggravated by the circumstance that, instead of a steady improvement in that respect, there was a steady retrogression. In 1859, a few years afterwards, the present Lord Hampton, then First Lord of the Admiralty, took up the question with very great care, and just before he left office he prepared and brought forward a scheme for increasing employment by the retirement of officers of all ranks in the Navy. That led, in 1860, to something being done, although not on a large scale, by the Board of Admiralty, of which the Duke of Somerset was the head. The effect was, that the proportion of officers who were employed to the whole number of officers was somewhat raised. In 1860 there were unemployed, of flag officers, 84 per cent; captains, 69 per cent; commanders, 59 per cent; and lieutenants, 28 per cent. a certain improvement, but still a very far from satisfactory state of things. The scheme of 1860 was treated by the Navy as a practical settlement of the question; but a large number of naval officers, acting together matured and placed in the hands of the right hon. and gallant Baronet who made the present Motion, a scheme of considerable magnitude, the main points of which were how to provide for a larger percentage of employment for officers on the Active List, and to otherwise provide for the improvement of their position in other respects. In 1863 the right hon. and gallant Baronet, not as representing his own views only, but those of the Navy generally, first wrote a long letter on the subject to the Duke of Somerset, and then brought before Parliament, in a speech of great detail and wonderfully like the one he had delivered that night, a complete scheme for remedying the state of things in the Navy, arising from the insufficient employment of officers in proportion to the number on the Active List. The first main feature of that proposal was that there should be a compulsory age of retirement for all ranks, and an earlier age of optional retirement; the next feature was that there should be a longer minimum period of sea service for officers in their respective ranks; another was that there should be an improved scale of retired pay, another that there should be such a reduction of the numbers on the Active List as might ensure the efficiency of the officers by frequent em
  1282
  ployment A further proposal was that the entry of cadets should be regulated. and it was also suggested that the position of warrant officers should be improved. Then came a statement of the number of officers which ought to be reduced. It was proposed that 37 flag officers, 100 captains, 150 commanders, and 153 lieutenants should be reduced, bringing down the number to 1,313 from 1,753, the point at which they stood at the time—namely, 12 years ago. Well, a Committee had recommended a totally different course, and that the number of lieutenants, instead of being brought down, should be much increased. The Committee went on diametrically opposite lines to those which were proposed by the body of the naval officers, and which were advocated in Parliament by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. In 1866, a few weeks before the change of Government, the Duke of Somerset's Admiralty laid a scheme before Parliament for settling the matter, but both the Navy and the public regarded it as unsatisfactory. Whatever merits that scheme had, it was certainly thought by all parties to be inadequate to meet the difficulties of the case. A strong opposition was offered to it in the House, and it was only carried by a majority of 18. The Government of Lord Russell went out of office, and were succeeded by that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which continued for two and a-half years. In 1867, he (Mr. Childers) brought this matter before the consideration of Parliament on the Navy Estimates, when it was admitted that the state of promotion and employment was most unsatisfactory, and he showed that unless something was done it would become still worse. At that time he tendered his assistance to the then Admiralty, if they would devise and carry out a scheme to increase employment and promotion; but during the two and a-half years in which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were in power they absolutely did nothing in the matter. When the conduct of the Admiralty was entrusted to him in 1868, the question which he found it his duty to study to the bottom, on the application and complaint of the naval officers was, whether he was prepared to carry some scheme like that shadowed forth by him in 1867, which went very much on the line of the scheme of 1866. The

  1283
  state of promotion was, in 1870, still more unsatisfactory than before. Of flag officers no less than 85 per cent were unemployed; captains, 69 per cent; commanders, 58 per cent; and lieutenants, 34 per cent. Complaints of want of employment went up from all parts of the Service, and the unanimous wish appeared to be for shorter lists and nearly as possible continuous employment. During the years preceding the change these were the percentages—From 1828 to 1848—including the eight years after the Duke of Wellington's Commission was supposed to have settled this question—the percentages of promotion of captains to the rank of flag officers were only 1¼ per annum; of commanders, 2 2–3; lieutenants, 1½. In the year immediately preceding 1870 the percentage of captains was 2¾; commanders 6; and lieutenants 6. Such was the state of things when he set about dealing with the question. Some years ago it was not looked upon as the right—it certainly was not the expectation—of everybody to get promotion to the top of the list. In those days promotion, to a large extent, went by favour; but as years rolled on, the officers began to feel themselves on a footing of equality with each other. Officers who failed to get the promotion to which they considered themselves entitled resigned on the ground that they had as much right to promotion as those more fortunate officers who were preferred to them. From year to year that feeling grew more intense, and he maintained that the right to promotion, in the absence of evidence to prove inefficiency, was the only sound doctrine to be laid down on the subject. The result had been that there now remained no aristocratic or select class in the Navy, and that all officers considered themselves equally entitled to the promotion which they had in the first place been told that they would get. Again, the position of naval officers had materially altered of late years. Twenty or 30 years ago an officer might be on half-pay, and then, after a few weeks or months of service, again become thoroughly efficient. It was not at that time necessary to keep the officers constantly at sea. But in the present day it was absolutely essential that officers should be constantly employed on active service in order that their efficiency might be maintained. Uninter-
  1284
  rupted employment at sea was needed in order to render the officers thoroughly familiar with armour-plated ships, the novelties of the engines which were being yearly introduced, and, above all, with the science of gunnery. Well, when he came into office in 1868 this was pointed out to him very strongly by his naval Advisers, and the urgency of reform was pressed upon him. The only mode of remedying the difficulty was to keep the proportion of cadets entered nearer to the numbers actually required for service. On looking into the figures, he found that in the years between 1859 and 1868 between 800 and 1,000 more officers were entered than were actually required, and this involved an increased expenditure of not less than £4,000,000. Adding the number (500) of officers below the rank of lieutenant in excess of the number wanted, the redundant officers amounted altogether to about 1,500. It was absolutely necessary, in the opinion of his naval Advisers, that these lists should be reduced very largely. The right hon. Gentleman had said that one of the effects of the reduction which he (Mr. Childers) had made was that we had already got a list of admirals who were older than the list he found in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to prove that by an unfair comparison. The right hon. Gentleman compared the juniors on the former list with the whole list, and because the juniors compared with the whole list gave an average younger age than the present list, therefore the age of the admirals on the list in 1870 was younger than that of the admirals on the present list. The way to make a fair comparison was to compare the average age of all on the two lists, and the average age of the whole list now was considerably younger than the average age of all on the list in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman said that Captain Nares, who was a very popular man at this moment, and deservedly so, would retire when he came from the North Pole, and that he could never be an admiral. He (Mr. Childers) promoted Captain Nares, to the great surprise of some people, and he rejoiced that he did so, considering how well Captain Nares had turned out. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman about Captain Nares merely came to this—that Captain Nares would have to wait 10 years after his return from the

  1285
  North. Pole before he reached a certain position on the list. In dealing with the excess of 1,000 officers, the late Government applied the system of retirement to all ranks; they increased the rates of retired pay, and prevented inordinate entries of cadets. That was the whole policy of the Orders of 1870. In 1870 the number of flag officers was 63; the late Government thought 50 were enough. As to rear admirals, the number of them now on the list was very large, and there was no excuse whatever for increasing it. As to captains, 90, he believed, were now employed. As to the commanders, he said distinctly that the Admiralty would do a very wrong thing if they acceded to the request of officers of the Navy that the number of commanders should be increased. There were at the present moment 40 commanders on the Half Pay List, and including those in the Coastguard no less than 50. Half the commanders were, therefore, engaged in the Coastguard or were on half-pay, and it was unnecessary to increase their number. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty ought, in his opinion, to do what was intended to be done in 1870, which was that when the list of commanders was reduced the rule was laid down that instead of commanders the older lieutenants should be employed in the Coastguard. Under all the circumstances of the case, then, he maintained that to increase the number of commanders when there was not an inordinately high list would do great harm. And now he came to the present position of the Navy, consequent upon the changes which were made in 1870. In that year there were 1,483 officers on half-pay, there were now only 639—or, in other words, there was a reduction of those on half-pay and harbour pay of 844. When the late Government had to deal with the subject the total number of officers stood at 7,150, and that number had been reduced by 2,123. A more difficult task, he maintained, had never been undertaken in any reduction of the Navy, and that had been effected by retiring no less than 1,990 officers. Every branch of the Service, he might add, was in the same difficult state; but before he gave the result of the changes in the case of the executive military branch, he wished to give the House some idea of what had been done with regard to the other
  1286
  branches of the Service. Although the military officers were those of whom the Members of that House saw most, yet they only constituted one-third of the officers of the Navy. He found that while of the navigating officers only 64 per cent were employed in 1870, there were now 70 per cent. He found only 8 per cent per annum promoted, but now the number of promotions was 14 per cent. Of Engineer officers only 66 per cent were employed in 1870; but now there were 82 per cent employed, the promotion per cent per annum having been only ½ per cent during the previous four years, whereas it was now 2 per cent per annum. Of staff surgeons and surgeons the number employed in 1870 was 65 per cent; but now it was 80 per cent. the promotion which was 40 per cent per annum, having risen to 51. Of paymasters, the number employed per cent in 1870 was 51; in 1874, 72. The number promoted from assistant paymaster was 51 in 1870, 45 in 1874, and instead of 3 per cent promoted in 1870, 4 per cent were now promoted. Of warrant officers on full-pay the number per cent was 84 in 1870, 100 in 1874: in the first-class—36 in 1870, 36 in 1874, and would be 39. In all these grades, then, there had been a sensible improvement since the Orders of 1870, and he would undertake to say that any going back from those Orders would be received with dismay by all ranks of officers. Now, if only a single and not a double operation had to be performed there would have been sufficient to promote every year 7 captains to the rank of admiral, 15 commanders to the rank of captain, and 30 lieutenants to the rank of commander, and that would put the service in a thoroughly efficient state. Before the Orders took effect the promotions in 1866–70 upon the then numbers were as follows:—captains, 2¾ per cent; commanders, 6 per cent; and lieutenants, 6 per cent. In the four years following—1870–4, the promotions were—captains, 3½ per cent; commanders, 8 per cent; lieutenants, 4 per cent. Thus in every rank but one promotion had been more rapid; they had been perfectly successful in increasing, save in this one respect, the flow of promotion. In the four years before the Orders the promotions and retirements were as follow:—rear admirals, 27; captains, 71; commanders, 154; lieutenants, 252—

  1287
  total, 504. In the four years afterwards they were—rear admirals, 49; captains, 160; commanders, 318; lieutenants, 448—total, 975. It had been said that promotion at the top had been stopped; but whereas in 1875 the time on the Rear Admirals List was 5¾ years, in 1870 it was 6¾ years, and in 1865 it was 7 years. The number of officers who wished to retire was much larger than that which the right hon. Gentleman was empowered to retire. Therefore, so far from this being an enforced retirement, a large number of officers who had been refused permission to retire had grumbled at being refused. While he had been at the Admiralty there was a very small number comparatively of compulsory retirements, the larger number being voluntary. As to the expense of the system, it would be found that the amount of pay, half-pay, retired and reserved pay, and military pensions, as shown in the annual Estimates, less half the commutation, amounted in 1869–70 to £1,771,000; in 1870–1 to £1,829,000; in 1871–2 to £1,851,000; in 1872–3 to £1,795,000; in 1873–4 to £1,790,000; in 1874–5 to £1,802,000; and for 1875–6 to £1,804,000, or just £47,000 less than the amount of 1871–2. He had stated that the amount, as calculated by the Admiralty, would have been £45,000 less, and that showed how accurate the calculation of that Department had been. He believed that the state of the Service would have been ruinous if it had been left in the condition in which it was found in the Committee of 1862. He should pity his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty if he adopted the suggestion made to him to-night—namely, to let all the retired officers go back to the Navy so that he might have the choice of 1 in 12, instead of 1 in 2. A more impracticable plan was never heard of. He, on the contrary, strongly advised his right hon. Friend on no account to be induced to increase his numbers, but to keep his Lists small and his officers thoroughly employed. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should lay down the same rule as to commanders which now prevailed as to lieutenants, and to retire commanders at 45, instead of 50, because they knew that no commander of 45 could ever hope to reach his Flag. If he would do this, a satisfactory increase in the rate of promotion would be obtained. Was it known
  1288
  that out of 45 to 60 junior captains only five were employed? He would venture to offer another suggestion to the First Lord. Until he had got the List reduced and had worked off the inordinate numbers that were left as a legacy in 1869, he might make every year 12 commanders to be captains and 24 lieutenants to be commanders. This should, however, only be a temporary arrangement, but it would keep the Lists thoroughly healthy, and if it were carried out for five years it would have the best effects. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to absorb the navigating class, it would be proper to increase the proportion of lieutenants to commanders; but in other respects he entreated his right hon. Friend not to depart from the Order in Council of 1870. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not take amiss the suggestions which had been offered.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). His plan had been excellent in theory; but, in practice, it had failed to give satisfaction to the Navy. There was great discontent in the Service in consequence of the scheme of the right hon Gentleman. Twenty years ago there was discontent because the List was larger than it ought to have been. The discontent was greatly lessened by the chance of a man getting promotion when he got service; but the List was now so much reduced that, no matter how much a young officer might distinguish himself, he got nothing by it. They promoted from the top of the tree, and there was therefore no inducement for young officers to work. It would be well for the good of the Service if they were to promote one-third from seniority and two-thirds by selection through all ranks. When there were only seven promotions a-year, what could the Admiralty do? The scheme of the right hon. Member for Pontefract was excellent in theory, but in practice he did not think it good, though it was at first received with favour. The result showed that there were three classes of men who took advantage of the scheme—those who disliked the profession, those who saw no chance of promotion, and those whose health failed. That left those who liked their profession and those who were strong in health. If the right

  1289
  hon. Gentleman had made his scheme compulsory there would have been a rapid flow of promotion, and the Navy would have been benefited; but that had not been done. As far as the executive line went, he could only see one way of getting over the difficulty, and that was by increasing the rear admiral List. No doubt that would occasion complaint in that one branch; but it would be better to do so than to have complaint throughout all branches of the Service, and there would be this advantage connected with the course—the Admiralty would have a larger number to select from. He thought the assistant paymasters ought to receive promotion after eight years' service. All naval officers would be exceedingly sorry if the navigating class were done away with. Their duties required the greatest possible practice. The old masters, who had been brought up from boyhood as navigators, were much better than we should get under the present system, one of the best proofs of it being the few men-of-war compared with the merchantmen that were lost in the Channel. But if the masters were to be done away with, it was better that it should be done at once than that they should be allowed to drag on with officers who had much greater advantages. Then, as for the engineers, they were a class of officers who really did want to have something done for them. Their duties were much more important than they used to be, because nearly every part of the ship was under the engineer-in-chief and his staff. As they had no chance of promotion whatever, some progressive rate of of pay for them would be but fair. All naval men would allow that the warrant officers were some of the most valuable men in the ship. Men lost by becoming warrant officers and therefore for the last 25 years we had not nearly so good a class as we might have had. [Mr. CHILDERS said, he had increased their their pay.] Yes, but not so much as it ought to have been. The question as to promotion and retirement was one of money. It was to be hoped that next Session the First Lord of the Admiralty would ask for more money, not so much for the sake of the naval officers as for the sake of the country, because the discontent in regard to promotion was very great indeed.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the debate had been a very instructive one, and though he had given great consideration to the subject he was not sorry that the debate had taken place, as by means of it they had had the opportunity of learning the views of the gallant Officers who had addressed them. He stated, in moving the Navy Estimates, that he thought that the stagnation of promotion was very disadvantageous to the Service. While he would have been unable to agree to the proposition of his right hon. and gallant Friend, as it was originally presented to them, he could not but assent to it in its altered form. That was to say he acknowledged that the present system of retirement had failed to bring about a due flow of promotion. It seemed to him impossible to resist that conclusion. Before dealing with the main question he would touch upon one or two points which were not immediately connected with it. As to appointing an "outsider" as chaplain to the Arctic Expedition, he could assure the chaplains in the Service that he had not intended to cast any slight whatever upon them. Originally, a regular naval chaplain had been chosen, but the medical officers had refused to pass him. The number of volunteers for the post had been extremely small, and many considerations had to be kept in view in making the choice. It had been thought desirable to get a man without a family. It had been necessary to consider whether his theological opinions were such as would not give rise to bickerings, and whether he was of a genial temperament and disposition. No doubt, there were many men suitable for the post at present at foreign stations; but it had been thought undesirable to bring one home and at great expense replace him. Moreover, it had not been decided to have a chaplain at all until the arrangements were very far advanced. The choice which had been made seemed to him very satisfactory, and under an Order in Council it had been perfectly competent for him to make the appointment. His right hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to the question of the Marines. The difficulty of dealing with that question arose from circumstances outside of the Admiralty. A few months ago, when he pressed the Treasury on the subject, the answer he got was, that it was impossible to deal

  1291
  with it till a conclusion had been come to with reference to the labours of the Commission which had been considering the subject of promotion and retirement in the Army. His right hon. and gallant Friend asked why the question of the stagnation of promotion in the Marines should not be submitted to that Commission. Well, there was no officer of the Marines on that tribunal, and he had reason to think that the Marines would be satisfied if an officer of that corps were placed on the Commission; but he found that a reluctance existed on the part of the military authorities, after the Commission had been appointed, either to increase the number of its members or to enlarge the scope of its inquiry. He therefore hoped that that highly valuable corps would not think that he in any way disregarded the grievances under which they suffered; and it was his earnest wish, as soon as circumstances would allow of it, to see if he could not induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable him to do something for their benefit. As to the general question of the effect of the Order of 1870 on the flow of promotion in the Navy, the right hon. Member for Pontefact (Mr. Childers) had given them an interesting statement of the reasons which had actuated him in proposing that measure. He had described the evils resulting from the overcrowding of the List, principally arising from the entry of too many cadets, and also the necessity there had been of adopting a drastic measure to get rid of the difficulties with which the Admiralty had to contend. He had no reason to dissent from the general view which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had put before the House on the subject. He felt it to be desirable to stop the accumulation of the service at the fountain head, and not to permit a greater admission of boys than was likely to be wanted. He had previously stated that he thought it desirable that there should be an entry of more cadets now than was necessary before it was determined to do away with the navigating class of officers. But with that qualification he believed that the numbers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were not very far out. He also agreed with his views as regarded the necessity of finding as much employment for officers as they could, if they wanted to keep the List effective.
  1292
  It was true that the promotion of officers no longer went by favour; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that all officers were now equally entitled to promotion. [Mr. CHILDERS explained that what he had said was that all officers now considered themselves equally entitled to promotion.] He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) that if they wanted to stimulate the zeal of officers they must lead them to look for promotion as their reward. It was impossible that all officers could be promoted. There must be a certain number who, either from want of natural ability or want of attention to their duties, or from other causes, must be content to see others pass over their heads; and if promotion was to be entirely by seniority, he believed the greater part of the energy of the Service would disappear, and the List would by no means be an efficient one. Of course, it was no doubt mortifying to an officer against whom there was no record of any particular fault to see others put over him; but it was necessary that selection should be made for promotion in order to stimulate officers to the zealous discharge of their duties. His right hon. Friend had given some figures showing the flow of promotion since 1870. He also had been furnished with calculations showing that while in the promotions to flag rank greater quickness was anticipated, in the lower rank this was not the case, and that the expectations of his right hon. Friend in 1873 were by no means likely to be fulfilled. Looking forward, in fact, to the next nine years, the careful estimates with which he had been furnished fully bore out the statement that the present system had failed to give a quick flow of promotion. For example, according to the best calculations he could procure, the captains' List would not be brought down to 150 till the year 1885. His right hon. Friend had made several suggestions which would receive from him the most attentive consideration—many of them had already been discussed by him and his Colleagues with the greatest care and attention. He hoped, however, he would excuse him if he did not enter more into detail on the present occasion. He saw signs of dissatisfaction in the Service, because nothing had yet been done to cure the stagnation in the flow of pro-

  1293
  motion. The question was, however, one of extreme difficulty, and being new to his present office, he felt that it would be extremely wrong in him to deal with it in a hurried way. The Treasury had to be consulted in the matter, as it was one which must necessarily involve considerable additions to the Estimates. He mentioned that, because he was unable to say whether he should be in a position to lay a scheme before the House during the present Session or not; but if the Admiralty could devise any such scheme in time to lay it before the Treasury, and could obtain their assent to it there might be a chance of bringing it before the House this year. He could not, at the same time, make any positive statement on the subject; but he hoped at an early period of next Session to be able to call the attention of the House to the subject, and to submit to it a proposal with respect to it. In the meantime, he hoped the Service would not think that he was not fully alive to the evils which arose from the existing state of things. He had no hesitation, he might add, in accepting the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend behind him, as it was now worded, but he could not assent to the Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHEN, wishing to have Party feeling excluded from the consideration of this question, suggested that both the Amendment and the original Resolution—which was, in fact, a Vote of Censure upon the last Board of Admiralty—should be withdrawn. The right hon. and gallant Baronet might well be content with the debate, and the pledges that had been given by the Government.
  MR. A. E. EGERTONsaid, it had not originally been the intention of the Government to adopt the Resolution of the right hon. and gallant Baronet; but they had submitted to him a modification of it, which they would be willing to receive. Under these circumstances, they had no difficulty in acting upen the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  SIR JOHN HAYconsented to withdraw his Resolution on the assurance of the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would himself deal with the question.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) * (121).
Committee—Church Patronage (79–122).
Committee—Report—Military Manœuvres* (115).

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished to correct an error into which he fell in his speech on the second reading of the Regimental Exchanges Bill. In quoting from the Report of the Evidence taken by the Committee presided over by his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset), he referred to a statement that seven out of eight officers of the 43rd Regiment who were highly connected had returned from India within 18 months after the regiment landed there. He gave that statement on the authority of the late Lord Clyde, but he had since ascertained that it was contained in the evidence given to the Committee by Mr. Higgins. He had made extracts from the evidence of both witnesses, and he must apologize to their Lordships for having attributed to the one what had been said by the other.
  EARL POWISstated that of the seven officers referred to only two had returned by exchange.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.

  (NOS. 12–79.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into a Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he wished to say a few words on the Bill before their Lordships went into Committee. The Bill had undergone so many changes by the Select Committee to which it had been referred that it might now be discussed as if it stood for second reading. Looking at the Bill from that point of view and as the objections he entertained to the measure were essentially objections on the prin
  1204
  ciple, he thought it would be convenient and proper that those objections should be stated before their Lordships proceeded to a discussion of the clauses. The object of the Bill professed to be to deal with certain scandals and inconsistencies which had arisen within the Church. No doubt scandals might have arisen in some small number of instances from the abuse of Church patronage, but it did not seem to him that the abuse had been so general as to call for legislative interference. If he was right in this, the Bill would have a very injurious effect in seeming to give corroboration to some of the statements made against the Established Church by those who were hostile to her. And at the present time, when it became the duty of the Church to assert her integrity, it was very unwise to direct attention to minor matters, and to invite and encourage criticizm, and by treating them as fit subjects for the attention of the Legislature, to give them an exaggerated importance. It must be borne in mind that the Established Church of this country was not only a great religious but also a great State corporation, and as a great State corporation carrying with it certain conditions of secularity which were liable to be misunderstood and misconstrued if the Church were regarded from a purely spiritual point of view. It did not rest on conformity only. It was not a Church of ascetic devotion, requiring an abnegation of secular motives—for their Lord-ships could not forget that it was a great secular profession as well as a purely spiritual body. The Dissenting bodies were not free from these secular considerations, and in a state of society such as the present it was necessary that the clergy should have the proper means of support—and it was in the fact that the clergy of the Church of England were not dependent on chance for the means of living that we had the great security for the due exercise of their profession. No one doubted the general morality of the Church of England—there was no pretence for any accusation of a diminution of piety or morality in the Church; but it was too true that it did not maintain its social status and intellectual eminence, and it was the tendency of this Bill to accelerate that decline. There was a growing disinclination on the part of educated men to enter the Church, and it was not for

  1205
  Parliament to pass a measure the tendency of which would be to diminish the comfort and well-being of the educated clergy of that Church. He objected to the Bill, in the second place, on the ground that it was an interference with the rights of property. The advocates of the measure argued in its favour on the ground that Church patronage carried with it responsibility. Of course it did; but you had no more right to take away a man's property in Church patronage than you had to take away any other class of his property. Again, he believed that in many instances a layman could administer Church patronage better than it could be administered by an ecclesiastical authority. An intelligent resident gentleman, free from professional feeling, was likely to be the best judge of the kind of clergyman who would be best fitted for the particular parish; and from his own observation he felt satisfied that, as a rule, lay Church patronage was exercised with great discretion, and under a becoming sense of responsibility by those who held it. He happened to be allied to a noble-man who had as large Church patronage as almost any Member of their Lordships' House, and he knew the care and discretion which characterized the exercise of his patronage on the part of his noble relative. That was not in any way a singular case. As regarded the sale and exchange of livings, Petitions had been laid on the Table that went even further than this Bill, for their tendency was to abolish the sale of livings altogether. Though this Bill did not go the full length of forbidding the sale of Church livings, it would go some way in that direction, and was inconsistent with legislation approved by their Lordships' House—including, he believed, the entire of the right rev. Bench. He referred to the Act of the late Lord Westbury for the sale of Crown livings, which had been most successful in its working, and under which there had been the most extensive trafficking in Church livings that had ever been known. One great advantage arising from the sale of livings was that it brought money into the Church; and the fact of a man buying a living showed that was likely to bring some competency into the Church. There were a great number of small livings, and if Parliament discouraged men from going into the Church
  1206
  who were able to bring money in with them it would do her a great injury. He thought it also unwise to throw impediments in the way of exchanging livings and resignations;—if the Bill had gone in the way of diminishing these difficulties, he would gladly have supported it. There were at present frequent family arrangements by which a family living was reserved until the person for whom it was intended had been fitted by age and education to take it—an efficient locum tenens being in the meanwhile appointed. Such a person was usually best fitted to meet the social and religious requirements of the locality; but this Bill discouraged all such arrangements—he thought to the injury of the Church. He entirely disapproved the proposition of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), which would give the Bishop a veto as to the institution of the incumbent which hitherto had never been possessed. By means of this proposal a certain form of inquisition would be set up in parishes, and scope would be given for the exercise of party feelings and private animosity. Private and sectarian animosities would be sure to break out in the most offensive manner; and the result would be that the candidate's character would be utterly destroyed; he would not be instituted to the benefice, or, if instituted, a party would have been already constituted in his parish which would impede him from the first moment of his administration, and disturb his comfort and his good relations with his other parishioners. It was urged in favour of the proposed change that at present the Bishop was placed in an unfortunate position, because he could not refuse to institute a clergyman without exposing himself to the consequences of libel or scandal; but he believed that if they thought they would put the Bishop in a better position by encouraging a sort of supervision of the clergyman by persons' who, in all probability, would be very incompetent for the task they were very much mistaken. He ventured to think that if the Bishop acted on vague information, he would place himself in an intolerable position, and one from which he would not be able to withdraw with honour or credit. Their Lordships ought to give this fact their serious consideration—that a principle recognized by the Church of Eng-

  1207
  land was to regard every clergyman as a fit man for an incumbency from the moment of his ordination. Protection against the admission to the ministry of men unfitted for it was quite right, and the Church of England had a good and intelligible form of securing it; but after a man was ordained they had no more right to subject him to suspension and supervision than they had so to act with any other member of the community. The Church of England owed her strength to the full co-operation and sympathy of the laity. She mixed herself up with the social and political movements of the laity. It was for that the right rev. Prelates were sitting in their Lordships' House. It was because the Church of England recognized the lay element that she was something besides a great religious sect; and he hoped that she would continue to maintain her position as an important corporation of the State.
  VISCOUNT PORTMANthought it would be more convenient to defer his remarks until their Lordships were in Committee, when he intended to take the sense of their Lordships upon several Amendments, of which he had given Notice; reserving to himself the right to divide against the Bill on a future stage, if he should not succeed in inducing their Lordships to adopt the Amendments. He had presented a Petition from about 300 clergymen against the Bill, and meant to do his utmost to further their wishes.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it had long been the custom of the Bishops to require of a candidate presenting himself for institution to a benefice, testimonials signed by three incumbents, and countersigned by the Bishops of the dioceses in which they were beneficed; but as the House of Lords had held that there was no legal right on the part of the Bishops to require testimonials to be so countersigned, it was necessary to give the Bishop who was called upon to institute some further security for the fitness of the candidate than testimonials not so countersigned would afford. Testimonials were often given through good nature, in cases where they ought not to be given. He hoped that the original words which made these countersignatures necessary would be restored, for they were, in his view, far greater safeguards than any veto.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Abolition of donatives).
  VISCOUNT PORTMANmoved the omission of the clause. Donatives were private property granted to the original donors by royal grants in return for the building a church, endowing the parish, and making a separate district. The parties fulfilled their obligations, and though some called a donative a privilege, he contended it was as much a property as any other estate that was duly paid for. Moreover, he believed the number of donatives was less than 100, and the owners of the most of them were as honourable and good men as the Bishops who wanted to take away their rights, be they those of property or of privilege, for so many or for so few as the Bishops might prefer to describe them, wrong should not be done. In every private Bill where any property was taken, the greatest care was taken by the Standing Orders to protect the owners from injustice—and in no instance that he was aware of had Parliament taken away the property of an individual without notice and without compensation. Whatever abuses might exist in connection with donatives, they were of a very limited character; but here, because in perhaps some half-dozen of instances—the number might be a few more or it might be less—there had been an abuse of this patronage, it was proposed to take it away from everybody who possessed it. Let wrong be dealt with in another way than by doing injustice. It was inconsistent of the Government to support the proposition before the House, because in a measure for dealing with the Bishopric of St. Albans they were giving their sanction to the principle which the clause would abolish. He hoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who in the case of the attacks on Endowed Schools had been the champion of private property, would resist the attack made on it in this case.
  Moved to omit Clause 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he felt the full force of the appeal in favour of private property made to him by his noble Friend, and as far as the principle put forward by his noble

  1209
  Friend—that the Legislature should not take away private property without compensation—affected the general principle of the Bill he owned that he felt considerable doubt and apprehension. To that portion of the measure which gave the Bishops larger control over candidates for institution to benefices he did not object; but that part of it which was directed to the hindering of persons from purchasing livings, though attractive, did not, when it came to be examined, stand the test of close investigation. Of course, everything in the way of purchase seemed to be repugnant to spiritual objects; but if a man was drawn by his own feeling to take a part in the Christian ministry the only two means by which he could obtain an independent position in the Church—for such a position was not occupied by a curate—were purchase and favour. He might obtain it by either of those means. It was obvious that in this country there was a feeling against obtaining anything by favour. That feeling was growing day by day. They knew there was a powerful feeling in some quarters against obtaining anything by purchase either, and that his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Card-well) took a violent step a few years ago with regard to the purchase of posts in the Army. But undeniably there was a growing feeling in this country against obtaining any pecuniary advantage by favour. At present persons who were anxious to take a part in the Christian ministry, and to do so in an independent position, could effect that object by purchasing a living. If they were shut out from that means, and if they shared in the growing dislike of favour, what other was open to them? This Bill, he was happy to say, would not entirely stop up that way to an entrance into an independent position in the Church—if it did, he would not have agreed to the second reading; but it did tend in that direction—though not to such an extent as altogether to destroy the advantages that might be derived from it. He felt that he was addressing an unsympathetic audience, and that the general sentiment in their Lordships' House was against the purchase of livings in the Church; but he believed that the abolition of such purchase would close the door against some of the most valuable incumbents in the Church. So much as to the general principle of the Bill, As
  1210
  to the Amendment of his noble Friend' and the appeal he had made to him to support it, on the ground that the abolition of donatives would be similar to the confiscation of private property without compensation, he would remind him that there was no analogy between the two cases. The objection urged against donatives was that they had been used as "warming-pans." What was proposed to be taken away by making donatives presentative benefices was something accidental and irregular which had become attached to the patronage itself in the course of time. The patronage itself was property combined with a trust, and he thought it was open to Parliament to make any provision it thought fit with the view of securing that the trust should be more properly administered. In dealing with donatives in the manner proposed Parliament would not take away anything that was a part of the original property in patronage. He could not accept the analogy which the noble Lord had attempted to institute between this case and that of the Endowed Schools.
  LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOURsaid, he doubted whether the true history of donatives had been given. In some cases, as stated, they might have been the creations of the Royal Prerogative with a view to a particular trust; but in many others, and in the instance to which he was going to refer, he believed that the right arose out of the old ecclesiastical arrangements of the country, and in this way—Previous to the time of the Reformation these parishes were out of Episcopal jurisdiction, and the particular jurisdiction to which they belonged being then abolished, they absolutely lapsed to the lay impropriator. He moreover denied that the proposition that a donative "was not only a property but a trust "was applicable to his case. He happened to be the proprietor of a donative in the county of Wilts, which had been purchased by one of his ancestors in 1595, like any other property, in the open market. Being Roman Catholics, however, his family had—very reasonably, from a Church of England point of view—been debarred from exercising the right of presentation, and what remained was, therefore, only the right of property in the benefice. Under these circumstances his right could not properly be termed a trust, He must,

  1211
  therefore, protest against the arbitrary conversion of donatives into presentative livings, which in the case of Roman Catholics meant simply confiscation of their property. No doubt many of their Lord-ships, believing the abolition of donatives to be in the interests of their Church, would willingly acquiesce in the surrender of such rights; but in the case of a Catholic proprietor who had no such motive—indeed, no compensating inducement at all—it was simple confiscation, and it was to affirm the principle of confiscation for the first time in modern legislation—for the 18th clause of the Irish Church Bill expressly gave compensation to all patrons whose rights were "affected" by its provisions. It was a small matter so far as he was personally concerned; but he could not help asking their Lordships, and more particularly the Episcopal bench, to pause before affirming this principle—"Hodie mihi cras tibi."
  THE BISHOP OF PETREBOROUGHsaid, he had some difficulty with respect to this clause, inasmuch as he was called upon to reply, not only to the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the omission of the clause (Viscount Portman), but also to that of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), which ought to have been delivered upon the second reading of the Bill rather than in Committee. Dealing with the latter speech, in the first place he wished to take that opportunity of declaring that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge which had been brought against him of having been animated in introducing this Bill with a feeling of hostility to lay patronage. 80 far from that being so, he had frequently expressed his desire that lay patronage should be preserved in its integrity, and it was with a view to its continuance that he sought to reform any abuses in the system which might peril its existence. As an evidence of the opinion of the clergy upon the measure he might refer to the number of Petitions that had been presented by them in favour of this measure. The principles of the Bill were identical with those that had received the sanction of both Houses of Convocation, and had been supported by nearly the whole body of the clergy. He must remind the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) that the laity did not consist wholly of lay patrons, and that it was the interest
  1212
  of the laity in every parish in the Kingdom that good and fitting pastors should be appointed to the different livings. He believed that if the clergy of the Church of England were polled to-morrow three-fourths of them would be found to be in favour of this Bill—or, at all events, of its principle and of most of its provisions. With regard to the Petition against the measure signed by 300 of the clergy, to which the noble Lord had referred, he was happy to be able to inform him that he had heard from one of its signatories that if one particular clause in the Bill were omitted the objections of the Petitioners would be almost entirely removed. The noble Lord had laid down the startling proposition that once a man was ordained by the Bishop, no opportunity should afterwards be given for testing his fitness as a presentee—so that because a man was sound in doctrine and pure in morals at 23, therefore he must be equally sound in doctrine and pure in morals at 33, and that because he was bodily fit for the discharge of his duties at 33, therefore he must be equally bodily fit to discharge them at 93. Did the noble Lord think that clergymen were like wine and that the physical fitness of the clergy must necessarily improve as they grew older? Having thus dealt with the objections of the noble Lord opposite, he would now proceed to defend the clause against the criticisms of the noble Viscount (Viscount Portman). There were three reasons why he proposed that donatives should be converted in to presentative benefices. First, because the kind of patronage attached to donatives was altogether unreasonable in principle; secondly, because it was mischievous in its practical operation; and, thirdly, because donatives could be abolished without the slightest injury being done to property and without giving ground for any fears that claims to compensation could be set up. In his opinion, the privileges enjoyed by a clergyman presented by a donative were unreasonable, inasmuch as he was not even bound to adduce proof to the Bishop that he was in holy orders, and thus the parishioners were actually not secure that the person who married them was legally empowered to do so. Again, the individual might be the best or worst man in the world, but the Bishop had no means of ascertaining his character, or of even knowing when

  1213
  he came into or went out of his diocese. If it was legitimate and reasonable that the Bishop should be able to ascertain all these material facts connected with the person to be presented in the case of the 12,900 lay patrons, surely it was equally legitimate and reasonable that he should be able to do so in the case of the 100 owners of donatives. Another advantage that the owner of the donative enjoyed over other lay patrons was that the law of lapse did not affect him. The law of lapse simply required that the lay patron should do his duty by giving a pastor to the parish, and under it if the patron did not appoint within six months the Bishop appointed, and if the Bishop also failed to appoint within six months the Archbishop appointed, and in his default the Crown. The argument of the noble Viscount, on the other hand, went to the effect that the owner of a donative had a right to keep a parish without a pastor for 10 or 20 years, or for his whole lifetime, while he himself was receiving the proceeds of that donative. What the noble Viscount claimed was that the owner should have a right to shut the church door in the face of his parishioners—to say to them, "Your children shall not be baptized; your dead shall not be buried; you yourselves shall remain unmarried as long as I please to say so." The Protestant principles of the noble Viscount were well known and much admired in the country; but, to his astonishment, the noble Viscount would inflict upon many of our parishes a worse than Papal interdict. The noble Viscount was not so much defending property as divorcing property from its duties. It was the duty of the owner of church patronage to provide spiritual ministrations for the parishioners. He might illustrate his argument by mentioning something which occurred in his own diocese. He had announced his intention of holding a confirmation in the church of one of his parishes; but it happened that the living was a donative, and the owner of the donative refused to allow him to do so in what he was pleased to call his church, and favoured him with a lawyer's letter to that effect. He (the Bishop of Peterborough) wrote to the gentleman in question expressing a humble hope that he would be pleased to allow him to hold the confirmation; and he replied that he had no personal feeling in the matter,
  1214
  that he would be happy to give him luncheon, but that as long as he lived no Bishop should hold a confirmation in his church. Why, this was the most unreasonable and wildest privilege to give to 100 out of 13,000 patrons in England. The privileges in question were mischievous in operation, and not only so for the reasons he had now given, but for those he had given in his former speech, by which he showed that they were used for the very worst purposes. He would just mention one instance. A clergyman well known to the Bishop of this diocese informed him that at present an incumbent who wished to resign his incumbency for any reason, in spite of his diocesan, had only to apply to a clerical agent, who would at once refer him to the patron of a certain donative living, who, on receiving the fee of £250, would grant that incumbent a "turn" of his living with his donative, which thereby vacated his present preferment.
  "I know well," he added, "the history and doings of this donative and the romance of simony to which it had been instrumental, and that in one twelve-month three of the above-named sums were received by the patron of it from clergymen who thereby set their Ordinary at defiance. In each case the clerical agent received his 10 per cent commission—£25."
  That was one of the crying abuses of donatives. But they were not used for those purposes only. They had the effect of directly impoverishing the benefice. The owner of a donative had been known to decline to allow an augmentation of the clergyman's stipend from the Queen Anne's Bounty, because had he acted otherwise he would have lost the donative, which would have been turned from a donative into a presentative benefice; and thus the clergyman was kept in poverty because the augmentation would deprive the owner of his exceptional rights. So that the thing was contra bonos mores. It was against public policy and the interests of the Church that it should be preserved. The noble Viscount was not much enamoured of the Bill, and therefore he was entitled to assume that whatever clause which the noble Viscount did not question he considered just and necessary. Well, but the striking out of the 4th clause would exempt the owners of donatives from those very clauses which the noble Viscount was content to leave in the Bill,

  1215
  They might apply to 12,500 patrons, but for some mysterious reason 100 were to he exempt from the operation of those admittedly salutary restrictions. The noble Viscount was willing that in all cases except in the case of the owner of a donative the Bishop should have a right to inquire as to the character of a presentee and that any communication so made should be considered privileged, and so on with respect to other provisions. But he provided a loophole for escape and new and most invidious and mischievous privileges for the owners of donatives. If their Lordships would shape the Bill as the noble Viscount would have it, these donatives would become a refugium peccatorum in the Church—a corner of the covert in which the unclean beasts would gather together. He had given, he thought, sufficient reasons for the belief that those exceptional privileges were unreasonable and would be mischievous. He would now show that they did not, in the least, touch the question of compensation. He agreed entirely with the assertion that if you touched a man's property you were bound to give him compensation; but he entirely denied that if you took away a privilege which was exceptional and injurious to the public welfare, you were bound to give him compensation for that. The Legislature had always distinguished between property and privilege. Property was something realizable, tangible, marketable. Privilege was not. The law had repeatedly dealt with privilege without compensation. He had not heard that when the rotten nomination boroughs were done away with by the Reform Bill the owners of the estates on which they were situated received compensation. He had not heard that when Members of Parliament were deprived of the privilege of franking, of which many made a marketable value, they received compensation; nor had he heard that when clergymen were deprived of the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons the owners of the advowsons which were affected thereby in value put in a claim for compensation. He had not heard either that in the case of the owners of Welsh advowsons, dealt with in the beginning of the present reign, who had the privilege of appointing men who could not speak Welsh, when that privilege was taken away, whereby the market value of the advow-
  1216
  son was considerably narrowed, the Legislature had given them compensation. It was, in fact, impossible to assign a money value to those privileges. He asked the noble Viscount to put upon a sheet of paper what would represent the marketable increase of the value of a donative deriveable from the possibility of putting it to a bad use? What was the marketable value of the privilege of appointing a decrepit clergyman or of shutting the doors of the parish church? What was asked here was the preservation of privileges which were injurious to the public interest. But he contended that the effect of the passing of the Bill would not be to diminish by a shilling the value of donatives, but rather to increase it; because if the Bill were passed the donative living might be turned into a presentative benefice allowing of augmentation from Queen Anne's Bounty and other sources. If the owners of donative livings were allowed the privilege of shutting up the parish church and of appointing paralytic clergymen, or clergymen of the age of 95, it would be impossible to calculate the evils that might arise from such an anomalous state of things. The recommendation to abolish it was not that of the Episcopate alone. There had been two Select Committees of their Lordships' House, on which Bishops were in a very small minority, and on which law and property and rights of patrons were most largely and ably represented, and each Committee made a similar recommendation without a division. He must say that the amount of lay and legal opinion in their Lordships' House in favour of the proposition was largely in excess of the amount of opinion on behalf of the Spiritual Peers in favour of the Bill. He had shown that those donatives were, in principle, unreasonable and anomalous, and in operation mischievous and dangerous, and that they might be converted into presentative benefices without the slightest injury to property or the least violation of the principle on which the Legislature had always acted in respect of interference with vested interests. In conclusion, he entreated their Lordships not to accept an Amendment which would go far indeed to destroy the whole working value of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT POSTMANobserved, that the right rev. Prelate in his eloquent

  1217
  speech had assumed that he intended to do something. He, on the contrary, proposed to do nothing; his proposition Being to let things remain as they now were. The right rev. Prelate proposed to confiscate property—he did not.
  On Question, Whether to omit? resolved in the negative—Clause agreed, to.
  Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Declaration by Patron).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as the clause stood a declaration was to be made by the patron in the form provided in the said Schedule, whether the patron was a private person, or the patronage was in the Crown or in the Bishop. The declaration was against simony. But he thought that what might be simony in a private person was in official persons corruption or malversation of office, and they should be impeached. The great Officers of the Crown should hardly be called upon to declare that they had not been guilty of corruption in the exercise of their office. He moved to omit the words in line 6—
  "And where the Bishop himself is patron he shall himself make and subscribe a similar declaration."
  And he proposed afterwards to add at the end of the clause—
  "This declaration shall not he necessary where the Crown or Bishop is patron."
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he did not understand that the Bishops themselves objected to make this declaration, and he did not see why they should be exempted in terms; though something more might be said in reference to the great Officers of State. He hoped that there would in this respect be no distinction made between lay and ecclesiastical patrons.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYbelieved that there was no desire on the part of the Bishops to be put upon any other footing than that occupied by other patrons.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his Amendment was hardly placed upon this ground. A Bishop as patron would have to declare that he had not received any money for the presentation since the avoidance. But suppose that he had received money before the avoidance? This would not be simony, but it would be a most serious offence on his
  1218
  part to receive money for a presentation at a time when a lay patron could have received it without offence. He objected to attempting to provide against corruption in office by a declaration of this kind.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORnext moved to add to the clause these words—
  "And this declaration shall not be necessary where the patronage is in the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall, or a Bishop."
  LORD HOUGHTONopposed the Amendment. If the clause passed in this shape an opinion would go forth that the right rev. Bench had sanctioned a distinction between lay and clerical patronage, to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the latter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  VISCOUNT PORTMANurged the rejection of the clause, on the ground that it would establish an invidious distinction between private and episcopal patronage. The Bill proposed that a patron who had disobeyed the law should be liable to punishment for misdemeanour; but the Episcopal Bench was to be exempted from the penalty. Suppose a patron had been guilty of a breach of the Statute of Elizabeth by presenting to a living a clergyman who had voted for him as a candidate for the House of Commons—that would be set up by a political opponent as a corrupt proceeding, and you would have an application to a Justice of the same side, who would hold the declaration to be false, as it would be an indirect act of simony so to present for services rendered by the Presentee, he would commit for trial, and a jury would then determine whether he had committed a misdemeanour or not. Such a man would be liable to imprisonment with hard labour because he had inadvertently committed a breach of the Statute. That was a state of things to which lay patrons ought not to be subjected, and he would not submit to it unless it was accepted by a majority of their Lordships' House.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, the noble Viscount had insisted upon the injustice of making an invidious distinction; but the law as it

  1219
  existed did make a most invidious distinction. It required that a clergyman should make a declaration that he had not committed simony, but a lay patron was not required to make such a declaration. At present all he contended for was the principle that this invidious distinction was not to be made between lay-men and clergymen, with regard to whom the hardship, if any, was greater on account of their sacred character in the matter of simony. The noble Viscount would understand that he would not be subject to the penalty for misdemeanour unless the House consented to the other clauses.
  LORD HOUGHTONtrusted the House would not submit to this great invasion of the lay patron's rights. There was no more reason why a layman should be called upon to declare that he had not violated the law than any other person.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not see how this could be regarded as an additional burden placed upon property—it seemed to him simply a question of expediency—whether you gained any useful end or avoided any evil by a declaration of this kind. No doubt, the Committee which sat on the Bill last year recommended that there should be such a declaration made both by the patron and the clergyman. He did not misrepresent the idea of that Committee, judging by their Report, when he said that they took notice that the law of simony was very intricate, full of niceties, and with many pitfalls about it, and that much would be gained if you could define what simony really meant. After consideration, the Committee came to the conclusion that it was better not to attempt to frame a new oath—that it was better to set up the clause in the Act of Parliament, and require the patron and the clerk to say they had done nothing against the Act. He owned, however, that upon thinking over the probable result of this process, he was not of opinion that the matter was made easier or less obscure than it was before, or that the declaration in the Bill was any great achievement. He hoped, therefore, that much good would result from the Bill without insisting on this declaration.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the opinion expressed by his noble and learned Friend agreed very much with what had occurred to his own mind.
  1220
  The Committee determined to alter the existing declaration, on the ground that the matter was left very much as one of legal construction. But what happened now was this:—A man went to his lawyer, and, after telling him in what stage the transaction was, asked whether he was breaking the law against simony. The lawyer examined the ease with a disposition to find that the law had not been broken; and if he gave that opinion, the client thus satisfied his conscience, if he had one. The same lawyer would be consulted in the same way upon the declaration required in the present Bill, and he would give exactly the same answer. The conscientious man would then adopt the declaration as easily as under the existing law; and, of course, the unconscientious man would have no difficulty.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that after the opinions expressed by the noble and learned Lords, he should withdraw the Schedule, but he should press the proposal that the declaration now required from the clerk against simony, which he thought quite proper, should be also required from the patron. There were lay patrons not of the high character and honour of those in the House of Lords. He would mention one instance in which a clerical agent was also a lay patron.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the present declaration was of quite modern origin. He was a member of a Commission which, after trying to define simony, had quite failed in doing so. He saw no advantage in the course suggested by the right rev. Prelate in extorting from the lay patron the declaration required from the presentee. There must be two parties to a simoniacal bargain, and it was sufficient to require a declaration from one of them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the policy of guarding laws by declarations that you had not broken the law was a policy which Parliament had not of late years adopted. On the contrary, Parliament had rather shown a tendency to repeal such declarations.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he would not press the matter on their Lordships, and would withdraw these clauses.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 13 (Declaration by clerk;)—Clause 14 (Proceedings on complaint) omitted.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERmoved, after Clause 16, to insert a new clause to render illegal the sale by auction of advowsons and of the right of presentation to a benefice, and to require them to be sold by private contract. He proposed this clause with the object of avoiding the scandal that arose in the conduct of such sales. Suppose, for instance, a sale of this kind should be held in a public-house in the parish the advowson or next presentation to the benefice of which was being sold. The patron, he contended, was an officer of the Church; and though he did not object to private patronage, he objected very much that that private patronage should be put up to public auction. Besides, when property of this description was sold by auction less care was likely to be exercised by the patron in the selection of the clergyman than if it were sold by private contract.
  Moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause:—
  "No advowson, nor any estate or interest in an advowson, nor any right of presentation to a benefice, shall hereafter be sold or offered for sale by public auction; and when mortgagees, trustees, or other persons in a fiduciary position are empowered or directed to sell an advowson, or any estate or interest in an advowson, or any right of presentation to a benefice, by public auction, it shall be lawful for them to sell by private contract, and by private contract only, and without being responsible for any loss to be occasioned thereby."—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the right rev. Prelate seemed to proceed on the idea that at a sale by public auction the vendor's object would be to obtain the highest price by any means, and of the purchaser to make the most of his purchase. But he thought that at a sale by private contract the patron would be not less pressing to obtain the highest price for his property, and certainly he saw no ground for thinking that a better man was likely to be secured as pastor if the advowson were sold by private contract than if it were sold by public auction. He would point out to the right rev. Prelate that property of this description was generally sold in public sale rooms, and not at public-houses. He did not think that it
  1222
  would be right to dictate to the patron how and where he should sell his property.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Repeal of 9th Geo. IV. c 94, rendering bonds, &c., for the resignation of ecclesiastical preferments in certain specified cases valid).
  VISCOUNT PORTMANmoved to omit the clause.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsupported the clause in question, observing that the arrangement by which a child in his cradle might be appointed to take charge of a parish when he came of age was one which ought not to be tolerated in the clerical profession, and would not be tolerated in any other. What would be said of an infant being appointed to the command in the Army when he reached a particular age? Such things had been, but, owing to the action of a sound public opinion, they had long since ceased to exist; and surely it was quite as undesirable that a youth should be designated to the future charge of a parish as that a child in his cradle should be designated as the future colonel of one of Her Majesty's regiments. It was, in his opinion, high time that an Act which tolerated such a thing should be repealed. It was in any case only a question of time, for no one could suppose that when the attention of the public was directed to the subject, such a power would be allowed to continue.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the real objection to the clause was that a man who possessed an advowson, and wished to create a vacancy at a definite time, if he was not allowed to do so openly by a resignation, would do it un-avowedly and in a most objectionable way—namely, by appointing a man sufficiently old to make a vacancy almost a matter of certainty at the time it was required. It was a great evil; but it was not an evil in his opinion that a fit man should be appointed to a parish for a limited number of years. People were appointed to high commands in the Army for periods of five years without injury to the service, and temporary appointments were made in other professions without injurious results. In respect of the Indian service, for instance, it was the constant practice to appoint a man

  1223
  to an office which he would be unable to fill for two or three years. If the appointment was an improper' one, the Bill enabled the Bishop to refuse his licence.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that parishioners did not feel towards a clergyman who was to be among them for a short time only, as they would towards one who was to be their permanent pastor; nor was it probable that the temporary clergyman could take so much interest in a parish as the permanent clergyman would. "When the Act of George IV. was under consideration Lord Thurlow strongly objected it on the ground of public policy—for a resignation bond might be enforced at any moment, and such a condition of things was practically injurious. The Act in question was known by a name almost too vulgar to be mentioned in their Lordships' House; but it showed what public opinion on the subject was. It was called the Warming-pan Act. He objected to it on the principle that the incumbent should not be the mere tenant at will of the patron; and further, because it opened the door for simoniacal contracts between the patron and the presentee.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsupported the clause for the additional reason that the person named in the bond might be not nearly as desirable as another, and yet should be appointed.
  After a few words from Lord HOUGHTON,
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwished to say there was a growing feeling among the clergy that these resignation bonds were of doubtful propriety, and in several cases that had come under his knowledge those who had consented to sign them were afterwards troubled to know whether they had done the thing that was right. The transaction partook of a simoniacal character—a man got a living by signing a bond which he would not have had if he refused to sign it. It might not be illegal, but scrupulous men would not consent to hold livings in this manner.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 16: Majority 14.
  Clause 19 (Patron may forbid the sale of presentations in certain eases).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he believed that in the first Select Committee the question of the sale of next presentations was discussed, and a proposal to make the sale of the next presentation illegal was lost by I vote. In the second Select Committee, of which he had the honour to be a Member, the matter was not considered, as it was thought better to leave the subject to be discussed by their Lordships' House. There was, however, this difficulty—that the Bill not only left matters exactly as they now were, and thereby affirmed sub silentio the practice of selling next presentations, but went further in the present clause and by implication if not distinctly legalized the sale of next presentations. It might be true that the sale had been legal from time immemorial; but it would be very difficult to produce any statutable authority by which the patron was authorized to sell the next presentation of a living in his gift. This 19th clause, however, involved the admission that the patron might sell the next presentation of his living. He now proposed what he had wished to recommend in the Select Committee—that their Lordships should consider the question of the legality of these sales or otherwise and there was, as it seemed to him, no better mode of raising the question than by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that from and after a certain date, sufficiently remote to prevent any person from being injured, the sale of next presentations should be illegal. He would venture to say that, just as with regard to resignation bonds, it was only a question of time when their illegality would be declared, so the same thing might be said as to the sale of next presentations. He thought he was very liberal in allowing the term of 10 years during which they might be recognized, and prohibiting them afterward; because he had a strong moral conviction that before the end of 10 years they would be swept away altogether. He believed that there was no instance in any other profession of men to whom an important trust had been committed being able to dispose of the right of presenting to it for money. Such a right used to exist in certain offices, but it had passed away. By no assent on the part of the Church of England, but owing to a certain scrupu-

  1225
  lousness as to the rights of property, the right of sale of next presentations still lingered in certain patrons in the Church of England. He did not know what distinction might be drawn between the patronage of a layman who might be lord of the manor or the proprietor of a great estate who might have Church patronage vested in him, and the same patronage when vested in a high official such as the Lord Chancellor, or in an ecclesiastic, in virtue of his holding for life a certain ecclesiastical position. And if it would be out of the question, according to the common rules of morality as now understood, that a public patron should sell his next presentation, he wished that some of their Lordships would tell him the distinction between a public and private patron in this matter. It might be said that a private patron held his patronage as a matter of property; but the fact of a trust being hereditary did not take it out of the category of other trusts. We had had great legal and other offices that were hereditary. The Justice General of Scotland used to be an hereditary officer: we had at the present time an hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain, but what would be thought of him or of some other Lord Chamberlain who, because he had succeeded to his high office and position as a matter of heir ship, thought that he was justified in making a market of any office that he had to bestow in virtue of that hereditary position? No real distinction could be made between the duties which devolved upon private patrons and those which devolved on public patrons in this matter. There was a time, no doubt, when public patrons had acted in other professions in the way in which it was contended that private patrons ought to act now—no doubt, there had been times when high and important offices in Courts were more or less regarded as the property of the Judge who appointed to them. They had not to go back to the time of the great Chancellor Bacon to know that in times past there existed something similar to this in all the professions; but fortunately it had died out in all the professions but one, and that a profession in which above all others we should least have expected to find it. In that profession also it had entirely died out in reference to all public patrons; and
  1226
  he did not see why private patrons should desire to retain what with one voice they condemned in all public patrons. It might be urged, as it had been, against every good reform, that it would be extremely difficult to carry your reforms so completely into effect that the law should not be from time to time evaded. Then, it was said that excellent men had been appointed to livings by the sale of next presentations. He made no doubt of that; and he made just as little doubt that in all the other great professions where such customs once prevailed, eminent and most distinguished men rose through the practices which existed in former times, and which a purer state of public opinion had since removed. He was of opinion that many patrons would be very thankful to be relieved from this disagreeable privilege—for, after all, a conscientious patron considered patronage as a trust. A conscientious man might, of course, make great mistakes in the exercise of his trust—by being misled he might appoint a man who turned out to be very unfit for the position; and the conscientious patron who made this mistake always looked on his mistake with great sorrow that he had been misled. But when he went to a clerical agent and placed his trust in his hands, he entirely divested himself, or at least tried to divest himself, of the responsibilities which as a patron devolved on him. A young man entering on life might feel a deep sense of the responsibility that had fallen on him—he was determined righteously to fulfil the conditions of his position as a landlord, and in every other way:—he happened to be the owner of the advowsons of several livings:—he fell into embarrassments, and the first thing that might occur to him to extricate himself would be to sell his next presentations at the same time that he sold his hunters. Under such circumstances, a young man would be only too glad to be relieved from the temptation of divesting himself of the deep responsibilities of choosing a fit man to exercise the cure of souls in parishes with which he was connected. He did not believe, if it were right, that it would be wise to hide any of the faults of that system under which we lived. He did not believe it would be effectual, and he was certain it would be wrong. His

  1227
  view of the mode of maintaining the Church of England was this, that with an unsparing hand they should correct everyone of its abuses. This by the great majority of the people of England was regarded as one of its abuses, and he should only be too thankful if their Lordships would follow him into the Lobby, and vote that the sale of the next presentations ought to be put a stop to. The most rev. Primate concluded by moving to leave out Clause 19, and insert the following Clause in lieu thereof:—
  "From and after the 1st day of January, 1867, it shall not he lawful to grant the right of presenting to any avoidance of a benefice apart from the grant of the advowson of such benefice: and any grant made contrary to the provisions of this section shall be to all intents and purposes void.
  "Where the right of presenting to any avoidance of a benefice is before the commencement of this Act vested in any persons upon trust to sell the same, they may execute such trust notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not help regretting that the most rev. Prelate had seriously proposed this Amendment. He believed that if adopted it would be entirely fatal to the Bill. It was altogether opposed to the principle on which their Lordships proceeded when the Bill was read a second time; for if there was one thing made more clear than another in the discussions on the Bill, it was the intention of their Lordships not to disturb the system of lay patronage as it at present prevailed in this country, recognizing that from that system good and not evil had resulted. The arguments of the most rev. Prelate were not against the sale of next presentations, but of advowsons. He pictured to their Lordships the case of some owner of property reduced to embarrassment compelled to sell his hunters and at the same time selling his "advowson"—then correcting himself he said, "his next presentation." But when a man was in such embarrassment as to be compelled to sell his hunters was he likely to make much distinction between his "next presentation" and his "advowsons." The most rev. Prelate's whole argument was against the sale of advowsons. That was at once a departure from the principle on which the most rev. Prelate who proposed the Bill announced his intention not to inter-
  1228
  fere with the system of lay patronage. The most rev. Prelate asked what difference there was between a public and a private patron. A public patron could not sell the perpetual right to present—he could not divest himself of that which reposed in him the obligation and trust of presenting to a living of which he was a trustee. But with regard to a private patron the law said he could divest himself of that trust to one who was willing to recompense him in money for that which he parted with. If that was so, where was the distinction in point of principle which made it a more heinous offence to sell the next presentation than to sell a perpetual right to present? But this Amendment would not effect the right rev. Prelate's purpose. An enactment of that kind to stop the sale of next presentations would be perfectly illusory. How would a clause of this kind affect Roman Catholic patrons—one of whom (Lord Arundell of Wardour) had spoken early in the evening? They might not desire to let any advowson pass out of the family; but they could not exercise the right of presentation. What would they have to do except to sell the next presentation? To forbid that would he positively confiscating their property. He believed the course proposed by the most rev. Prelate would be fatal to the progress of the Bill.
  LORD CAMOYSagreed with the last remark of the noble and learned Lord that if the right to sell next presentations were taken away it would amount absolutely to confiscation.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that the present system had, on the whole, worked satisfactorily, and if the Bill were sent down to the other House with a clause forbidding the sale of next presentations it would raise questions which he, for one, would be most anxious to avoid. He agreed with the Lord Chancellor that the arguments urged in favour of this Amendment were directed really against the sale of advowsons at all. It would be most dangerous to set up a new system at variance with the universal practice of the country. The right of the patron was that of presenting to the Bishop a clergyman for induction. The duty of the Bishop was to satisfy himself as to the qualifications, moral, intellectual, and physical, of the clergyman so presented to him, before he proceeded to induct him into the spiritualities of the

  1229
  living. The Bill in all its clauses was directed to the one sole object of strengthening the hands of the Bishop; removing all impediments, and giving to him all necessary powers for the efficient discharge of this duty. Beyond that the Bill did not go. It left the question of Church patronage—the sale of advowsons, or of next presentations wholly untouched.
  LORD BLACHFORDdesired to state what, to his mind, was the difference between the sale of an advowson and the sale of a next presentation. A right of presentation was admitted to be a property incident to a trust; which trust might be broken in two ways, either when the trustee made an unfit appointment, or when he converted to his own use the monies of which he had to determine the application. In the former case the breach was of a kind which it might be difficult to deal with by mere law; the second was of a kind against which it was the special function of the law to provide. Now, the sale of an advowson was, as a general rule, the total transfer of the trust and property, and was, on the face of it, liable to neither of those objections. The sale of a next presentation was, on the contrary, in the majority of cases, a sale to a person who had in his eye a particular nominee, and who intended to pay for the presentation out of money which belonged, or ultimately would belong to that nominee. Whenever that took place, the result evidently was to charge the officer appointed, that was to say, practically, the office itself, with the payment of a sum of money to the person who appointed that officer; and thus the sale of next presentations became a machinery for effecting such a breach of trust as was most offensive to the law—the personal appropriation by the trustee—that was, the advowson holder—of the property of the cestui que trust, that was, the holder of the living and the congregation who were interested in his liberal maintenance.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKasked the House to consider the position in which it stood with respect to this question. The right rev. Prelate who had the conduct of the Bill (the Bishop of Peterborough) when he first introduced the subject to their Lordships' notice, pointed out that there existed very great difficulties with respect to patronage.
  1230
  Their Lordships, after very long discussion, granted a Select Committee, in which this proposition was in substance made; but it was lost by a majority of one at a time when all the Members of the Committee were not present. When their Lordships appointed the Select Committee it was fair to suppose that it was intended to deal with the matter which had given rise to the whole proceeding; but he did not find in the Bill anything which would limit this traffic in any great degree. He feared therefore, that they were running the risk of turning out a Bill the result of two Select Committees and of full discussion in this House, which would go far to show that this "abominable traffic" as it had been described by the right rev. Prelate himself—was quite beyond the reach of legislation. The reason why he supported the clause of the most rev. Prelate was that without it their Lord-ships would be making a confession of weakness to the country. The argument was that they must not deal with property at all; but their Lordships were pledged to deal with property sufficiently at least to secure the end in view. No suggestion had been made, and there was no provision in the Bill, which, without this Amendment, would have the effect of putting a stop to this traffic.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought they were getting into a difficult if not a dangerous position. There were two evils which might be brought about if the proposal which seemed to find favour with the right rev. Bench were accepted. If they succeeded in passing the clause it was possible they would only be successful in procuring the rejection of the Bill altogether at a future stage; or it was possible they might succeed in time. But if the right rev. Bench succeeded in stopping the sale of next presentations there was no reality in logic if they did not stop the sale of advowsons too; and when they had done that the next thing would be that advowsons would be abolished altogether. And were the Episcopal Bench in such a state of happy illusion as to think that they would be allowed to retain presentations when everybody else had lost them? He would vote most earnestly against this proposition; and if he had not been led to believe that there was no intention on the part of the authors of the Bill to touch

  1231
  this question of next presentations he would have voted against the second reading of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, unless something was done to restrain the evil which caused their Lordships to embark in these debates, the Bill might as well go. There was no wish on the part of his episcopal brethren to take advantage of the present thin state of the House; but if the Amendment were carried now, it might be re-considered in a fuller House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clause was not in the Bill, and was now for the first time proposed, the House at large not knowing of any such proposal. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be pressed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought it could hardly be said that the clause was proposed unexpectedly. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Peterborough) had spoken strongly respecting it from the first. He himself had mentioned it in the Select Committee, and he understood that the Committee agreed that he should propose this Amendment to the House, and his episcopal brethren regarded it as almost vital if the measure was to be of any real use.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that in introducing this subject last year he had spoken strongly against the sale of next presentations, drawing a broad distinction in principle between the sale of next presentations and the sale of advowsons. He had not inserted the clause in the Bill because it was not assented to by the Select Committee; but he had expressed his deep regret in this House that the clause had not been carried in the Select Committee, and had said that it would be quite open to anyone to move the insertion of such a clause; in which case, he added, he should be quite prepared to vote for it. The most rev. Primate also, in the conversation which followed the second reading of the Bill, stated that he would take an opportunity of raising this question; and therefore there had been nothing like a breach of faith—which, of course, no one imputed; on the contrary, there had been the greatest anxiety to make clear to the House that this question would in some form or other be raised. He had gathered from the noble and learned Lord that the Amendment, if adopted, would be fatal to the Bill, and this state
  1232
  ment was made on the part of those who had ample means of fulfilling their prediction. To carry the Amendment would, therefore, be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. Now, he did not agree with the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) that the Bill as it now stood was worth nothing. On the contrary, he thought the Bill contained clauses of very great value, which would seriously check the evils connected with Church patronage. Still, having strongly expressed his opinion in favour of the Motion, he should certainly vote for it if the most rev. Primate insisted on pressing it to a division.
  On Question that Clause 19 stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 25; Not-Contents 20: Majority 5.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (Z. Chancellar.)

  Halifax, V. [Teller.]

  Portman, V. [Teller.]

  Somerset, D.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Belper, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Devon, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cardwell, V.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  London, Bp.

  York, Archp.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Ely, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Blachford, L. [Teller.]

  Coleridge, L. [Teller.]

  Hereford, Bp.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Waveney, L.

  Remaining clauses agreed to; with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 122.)

MILITIA DEPOTS AND STORES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to purchase buildings now rented for Militia DepÔts and Stores, under the provisions of 35 and 36 Vic, cap. 68, and 36 and 37 Vic, cap. 84?
  EARL CADOGANreplied that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to purchase the buildings referred to. The whole subject of Militia Stores was under the consideration of the Government.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.