Sitting of 15 March 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts Amendment * [96]; Shipowners Liability * [97].
Second Rending—Explosive Substances* [76]; Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000)*; Marine Mutiny *.
Committee—Regimental Exchanges [3]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [72].
Considered as amended—Consolidated Fund (£882,661 8s. 11 d.)*.
Third Reading—East India Home Government (Pensions) * [74], debate adjourned.

NAVY—H.M.S. "ALBATROSS."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that Her Majesty's ship "Albatross," in the autumn of last year, was, shortly after her departure for foreign service, recalled to undergo extensive repairs; if he will state to the House the reason for and nature of those repairs, and the cost thereof; whether the state of the ship, which compelled her return, was due to bad workmanship in the dockyard, or to an original fault in construction; and, if the latter, who is responsible for that construction; whether it
  1800
  is usual in composite-built ships to use as an outer skin 2½ inches of soft porous wood; and, if any more ships have been or are being built of similar construction?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, it is the case that the Albatross was recalled from foreign service as described by the hon. Gentleman. The repairs were required on account of an offensive smell arising about the after part of the ship. On examination, it was found that the cause of the evil was attributable partly to bad workmanship in the driving of some of the bolts of the ship, and partly to the employment of some coarse grained and porous elm planking, and the parties responsible have been duly censured by the Admiralty. The cost of the repairs amounted to £1,500. It is usual in composite ships to employ elm planking for a few streaks near the keel. A large number of composite ships have been built with outer planking of elm to the same extent as the Albatross, and several of them have served more than one commission without complaint.

JOHN MITCHEL—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether originals or copies of any of the documents referred to in the Motion of the honourable Member for Kildare on Friday the 5th March instant, relating to John Mitchel, are in the possession of the Government, or within their immediate reach; and, if any of them are, which are they, and is there any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Louth, was for the production of Papers relating to the case of John Mitchel, and was negatived on the 5th of March instant by a large majority after debate and at a time when upwards of 200 Members were present in the House. The hon. Member for Louth, in the Question which he has just put to me, in substance asks me whether I am willing to give him copies of the same Papers as were moved for by the hon. Member for Kildare, or of such of them as are within the reach of the Government; but it appears to me that were I

1801
to do so, I should be taking upon myself to act in direct opposition to the decision of the House as expressed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kildare. I must, therefore, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Louth, state that I do not think it would be consistent with my duty to give copies of the Papers referred to in his Question.
MR. SULLIVAN: May I ask whether any of the Papers are in the possession of the Government?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: For the reason I have already given, I decline to answer that Question.

ARMY—THE MEDICAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, on the last occasion, only eleven candidates offered to compete for the vacancies in the medical service of the British Army; how many vacancies there are to fill; and, whether it is true that the first of the eight successful candidates in the late competition had only 84 marks beyond the last of the twenty successful candidates in the competition for the Indian Medical Service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the first part of the Question was perfectly correct, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the second part, there were now no vacancies to fill, there being seven in excess of the numbers upon the establishment. It was also quite correct that the last successful competitor for the Indian service was only 84 marks behind the first in the competition for the British service; but he was instructed by the examiners to state that the gentlemen selected were all qualified for the posts they had to fill. Upon other examinations, the reverse had been the ease. The last candidate in the competition for the British service in 1873 had 2,318 marks against 2,195 of the first in the Indian competition. The numbers varied at times; but he admitted that they were generally to the advantage of the Indian competitions.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT—THE REGISTER OF ELECTORS.—QUESTION.
MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board,
1802
If he will take into consideration the means of rendering the nominal lists of those in receipt of public relief available for facilitating the removal, according to statute, from the Register of Electors of all persons disqualified by such relief, inasmuch as many now continue upon the register in consequence of the difficulty to ascertain, by the method at present in force, the fact of their disqualification?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the nominal lists of those in receipt of public relief were, under the general order of accounts, made up half-yearly to Lady-day and Michaelmas. The qualifying year for electoral registration ended on the 31st July, so that there was no knowledge on the part of the overseers as to the number of paupers who might have gone on the list between Lady-day and that date. It might, he thought, be provided as a part of the duties of clerks of guardians, that they should furnish supplemental lists for that intervening period, upon the request of the overseers, and upon payment of a reasonable fee, such fee to be part of the expenses incidental to the preparation of the list. He was not aware of any objection to that course being taken; and if that were found upon inquiry to be the case, he would give directions accordingly.

MILITIA—EXAMINATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. AGG-GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that the privilege accorded by the Civil Service Commissioners to the unsuccessful candidates for direct Commissions, of ascertaining the marks obtained by them in the subjects in which they have been examined, is refused to candidates from the Militia; and, if so, whether there is any prospect of this apparent anomaly being redressed?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was not the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to state the number of marks gained either by the successful or the unsuccessful candidates for the Militia. In the Army, the number of marks given to the successful candidates were announced, and the unsuccessful candidates could ascertain the numbers on application. The Civil Service Commissioners did not think it

1803
would be desirable to state the marks in the case of the Militia, because what they wanted was to ascertain the number which would show efficiency on the part of the candidate.

INDIA—AFGHANISTAN—THE OCCUPATION OF HERAT—QUESTION.
SIR PERCY BURRELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the occupation of Herat by the Ameer of Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take such action as will be calculated to ensure the security of our Indian frontier, more especially with reference to Merv?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, as the language of the Question does not very clearly describe the facts upon which the hon. Gentleman bases his Question, I may be permitted to point out to him that Herat and Merv are not, as the Question implies, in immediate proximity to our Indian frontier. Herat is about 750 miles and Merv about 950 miles distant from Peshawur; and, secondly, I must remind him that Herat has been for many years an integral part of the dominions of the Ameer of Afghanistan, and that the action which the Ameer has recently taken in reference to Herat has been to send troops upon whose fidelity he could more confidently rely to replace the garrison previously occupying that post. The Indian Government are fully aware of the strategical importance of Herat and Merv, and that one of their duties is to insure, to the best of their power, the security of their frontier. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that in the performance of that duty the Indian Government will give every consideration to any circumstances which may occur in the vicinity of Herat and Merv.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. RODWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any objection to direct that when the Local Government Department make any Report upon any Private Bill to the Committee on such Bill, or to any officer of either House of Parliament, a copy of such Report shall at the
1804
same time be communicated to the agent or agents for the Bill?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: These Reports, Sir, as my hon. Friend is aware, are addressed, in pursuance of Standing Orders, to the Chairman of Committees and to the Chairman of Ways and Means, for their information, and for that of the Committees on the Bills. If the authorities of the two Houses see no objection, copies of the Reports may be furnished on application to the agents of the parties.

DESTRUCTION OF PEARL FISHING BOATS—H.M.S. "THETIS."—QUESTION.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What was the result of the inquiry made into the destruction of a fleet of pearl fishing boats by Her Majesty's ship "Thetis" during her voyage from Suez to Aden in June 1873; whether compensation has been paid by Her Majesty's Government to the owners of the vessels which were destroyed; and, if so, what was its amount; and, whether it has appeared on the Estimates?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the whole of the Correspondence on this subject between the Foreign Office, Treasury, and Admiralty is printed at Page 25 of a Civil Service Parliamentary Estimate (Parliamentary Paper No. 77). The amount of compensation was £12,000, which was voted, after considerable discussion in this House, on the 5th of March.

THE CAPE COLONY—BOUNDARY AT DELAGOA BAY.—QUESTION.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can inform the House when the decision of the President of the French Republic is likely to be given on the question of the disputed boundary at Delagoa Bay, which has been referred to him for arbitration by the Governments of England and Portugal?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the question of the disputed boundary had been for some time before the arbitrator, but had not yet been decided. More evidence was required, and when the decision was given Her Majesty's Government would, without delay, communicate it to the House.

NAVY—SHIPS OF THE LATE CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that besides the "Active," built upon the same plan as the "Volage," there are about thirty armoured and about the same number of unarmoured ships of war built according to the design furnished by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy; whether the sea-going qualities of the greater number, if not of all these sixty ships, have formed a serious ground of complaint by many of the most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's Service, besides that of Captain Fairfax, commanding Her Majesty's ship "Volage," just published; and, whether he will consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire and report whether the ships designed by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy can be considered as safe and efficient sea-going men of war, worthy a place on the Navy List of Great Britain?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the subject of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, cannot, in my opinion, be properly dealt with by a simple categorical answer. It involves much controversial matter, and is in effect an attack upon the professional ability of an hon. Gentleman who for some years held a responsible post at the Admiralty, and now occupies a seat in this House. I would suggest to my hon. Friend, if he thinks that the matter requires the attention of the House, that he should bring it forward in a way that would allow of his giving the grounds for the opinions he appears to entertain, and that would afford the hon. Member for Pembroke an opportunity for taking part in the discussion.
CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he would, in that case, give Notice that he should to-morrow move for a Committee to inquire into the sea-going and other qualities of the vessels designed by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy, Mr. E. J. Reed, C.B.

IRELAND—THE LINEN TRADE—CIVIL BILL OFFICERS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, on the renewal of the Acts regulating the Linen Trade in Ireland, which are at present of a temporary character, he will be prepared in the interests of that trade to render them permanent?
1806
The hon. Gentleman also asked, If it is his intention this Session to introduce a Bill to remedy the grievances of the Civil Bill Officers of Ireland?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, most persons who were interested in the linen trade in Ireland seemed to think that the Acts now regulating that trade ought to be made permanent, and, therefore, unless in the meantime he received some important opinion to the contrary effect, he should introduce a Bill to carry out that object. The grievances of the Civil Bill Officers of Ireland appeared to have reference mainly to the salaries they received; but as their whole time was not employed by their official duties, and as in many instances they were employed in other avocations, it was not his intention to propose an increase of their incomes.

POST OFFICE—MAILS BETWEEN LONDON AND SALISBURY.—QUESTION.
MR. RYDERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in order to avoid the carriage for 22 miles by Mail Carts of the Mails to and from London and Salisbury at night, and the damage not unfrequently resulting therefrom to articles sent by post, he will sanction the Mails being sent by Railway the whole distance, in the event of either of the Railway Companies establishing trains at suitable times for this purpose?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that the mails to and from Salisbury and London were sent by railway, except on Sundays, when there was no train. The mail carts could not, however, be dispensed with, as they were required for the intermediate country letters. There was no evidence to show that letters or articles posted were more liable to damage when sent by mail carts than they were when sent by train.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE SLOOP "LARK."—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and what progress has been made since the last Session respecting the settlement of the claims against the Spanish Government arising out of the seizure of the "Lark" by the Cuban authorities in 1869?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that

1807
in October last Her Majesty's Government had directed the Minister at Madrid to request the Spanish Government to obtain a report from their officers in Cuba with reference to the subject, and that morning a despatch had reached the Foreign Office from Mr. Layard, in which a very different version was given of the occurrence from that which had been previously received from the captain of the vessel in question. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to consider very carefully what steps ought to be taken in the matter.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, After what hour that night he will not take the Friendly Societies Bill, which was the second Order? He likewise desired to know, "Whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the consideration of that measure on the Thursday before Good Friday? That would be an unusual course to take, as the House had certainly not met on the day preceding Good Friday for more than twenty years.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take the Friendly Societies Bill after 11 o'clock this evening. With regard to the other inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that until comparatively modern times the House always sat, for some generations, in Passion Week, and that it always met on the Thursday before Good Friday. I do not know of any exception to that rule. At the same time, it is my wish and my duty to consider the convenience of the House as much as I can consistently with the due progress of Public Business; and if it is more convenient to the House that on Thursday, in case the discussion on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is concluded, we should not take the Friendly Societies Bill, I would propose that we should take the Army Estimates on that day.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS—NATIONAL TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CLERYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention
1808
of the Government to consider the claim of the national teachers engaged in Irish workhouse schools to payment by results fees, having regard to the fact that such teachers have been debarred this payment during the three years in which the result system has been in operation, though required to carry out all its details?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that before he submitted to the House the proposals he sketched out the other evening, the claims of the national teachers engaged in Irish work-house schools to payment by results fees would be fully considered; but he might point out that these persons did not occupy exactly the same position as teachers in the ordinary schools.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hardy, Mr. Stanley.)
REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 4th March.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Motion, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  COLONEL NORTH, in explanation, said, that in his remarks the other evening, he had not the slightest intention, as had been represented, of imputing to the late Sir Henry Havelock that he had derived "pecuniary benefit" from the system of exchanges. What he had said was, that the system of exchanges had given Sir Henry Havelock the opportunity of remaining in India, which afterwards became the scene of his success and his glory. It was not his intention to use one word which would give pain to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Henry Havelock) or east a slur on the honoured name of his father.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no intention of saying anything which would tend to reopen the discussion on the main principle of the Bill. That principle he understood to be the legislative provision that the difference of value between one commission and another might properly be expressed by a money payment, and that there was no reason, military or moral, why officers should not make what arrangement or bargain they pleased in exchanging one commission for another. He need hardly say that he deeply re-

  1809
  gretted the decision of the House; but as the House had adopted the principle, after two nights of full discussion, by a very considerable majority, he did not think any useful object would now be served by reopening the discussion. He rose wholly for the purpose of eliciting some further information as to the mode in which the Bill was to be carried out, and as to the views which the right hon. Gentleman held in respect to some of the claims for exchanging which some of the officers might make. It would be useful and important for the Committee to know whether the Secretary for War intended to sanction all exchanges which might be proposed to him by officers, if there was nothing extremely objectionable upon the face of the transaction; or whether, on the other hand, he intended by stringent regulations to provide that only such exchanges should be sanctioned as, either for reasons connected with the officers' health or for strong reasons of personal convenience, might appear necessary. Some information on these points had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, who had stated that he did not wish to discourage exchanges, but desired that they should be decided on their merits and from considerations of public convenience, leaving the money payments to be settled between the individuals. From that statement, the Committee might gather that it was only in rare eases and for strong reasons that the right hon. Gentleman meant to sanction exchanges. Further on, however, he used words tending to an opposite conclusion, for in another part of his speech he had said that a man might wish to exchange because he did not like his regiment; because his father had been in a regiment and he wished to get into the same; from reasons of nationality; or for other reasons of that kind. Now, he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought that if this was to be the principle on which the Bill was to be worked, these instances would open the door tolerably wide, for one or other of them would be certain to apply; and, as a consequence, we should soon see a very general system of exchanges and paying for exchanges. That was no mere theoretical opinion. The evidence given by Colonel Bray and Colonel Campbell before the Royal Commission showed that before the abolition of Purchase, when payments
  1810
  were allowed for exchanges and the sanction of the War Office and the Horse Guards was required, exchanges were constantly made, a certain market for them existed, and they were hardly ever refused. Now, without speaking of abuses, that was the system to which we were going to recur. But were not abuses extremely likely to spring up under such a system? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Disraeli) said the other night he had heard a great deal of abstract reasoning against the Bill, but very little practical argument. The right hon. Gentleman, however, could scarcely have attended to the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), who showed how, under the system, it would be possible for an officer to purchase, not actual promotion, but the prospect of speedy promotion; while the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) showed how it would encourage the revival of the bonus system, by officers making a purse and thus enabling an officer who stood in their way to exchange out of the regiment; and how an officer might, by watching his opportunity, purchase a majority in a regiment. We might be told that the veto of the Secretary of State for War and of the Commander-in-Chief would be sufficient to prevent abuses. But we know that abuses of a similar character had grown up under the old system, and it was very much to be doubted whether the Secretary of State for War and the Horse Guards, even with the best possible intentions, would have the means of checking those abuses. The parties wishing to exchange would have the best possible reasons for doing so; they had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who by-and-by would find it difficult to discover what was the real motive for the exchange. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was rather proud of knowing nothing what-ever about the sum paid. But if he did, he might know something also about the ulterior motives; because if a very large sum was paid, it might suggest that some material consideration, which did not appear on the surface, had entered into the transaction. The right hon. Gentle-man had said over and over again that he would know nothing about the money to be paid for the exchange; that would

  1811
  be left entirely to the officers exchanging. But in adopting that course the right hon. Gentleman would refuse the only means that would enable him to judge whether the motives for the proposed exchange were honest and good. Moreover, supposing the right hon. Gentleman had resolved that the veto of the authorities should be brought into exercise to prevent the possibility of abuse, what an unenviable task the Secretary of State for War would be about to undertake. The right hon. Gentleman had said the other day,—"An invidious duty is cast upon us which we ought not to be called upon to discharge—that of saying what amount of money might be necessary to cover the reasonable expenses of an exchange." But any experienced clerk in the War Office would not have any difficulty in checking the amount that ought to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that would be an invidious duty; but what was the duty he was about to undertake under the Bill? Having sanctioned last week an exchange between Captain A and Captain B on what appeared to be good grounds, Captain C and Captain D would come the week after with an equally plausible story. But the right hon. Gentleman or the Commander-in-Chief might have heard something in the interval which led them to think that there was more in the matter than was apparent, and said,—"I can't allow this, though you bring forward very good reasons for it." Did the right hon. Gentle man think that Captain C and Captain D, who might be altogether guiltless, would think themselves fairly treated? In fact, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office would find themselves in this dilemma—either they must sanction exchanges generally, they must open the market to an unlimited extent; or they must restrict the power of exchange very much, and thus disappoint the expectations raised in the minds of officers, as well as the intentions of the Commissioners themselves, who had recommended payments for exchange in the interests of officers of slender means. How would officers of slender means be benefited, unless something like an open unrestricted market was allowed? Probably the Committee would be told that these abuses did not occur under the old system, and that there was no reason to
  1812
  think they would prevail under the new. But the answer to that was that things were entirely altered since the abolition of Purchase. When officers could buy promotion directly, there was no reason why they should buy it in a roundabout way. But when Parliament had closed the door against buying promotion in a straightforward way, it was very objectionable that they should be able to purchase it in a roundabout manner. Further, there was another reason why abuses should spring up under the new system which were not likely to arise under the old. That was the only outlet by which rich men would be able to turn their money to account, all the other outlets having been stopped up, and therefore it was far more likely that payment for exchanges would be made use of in an unlimited manner under the new system than when Purchase was allowed. There was one answer which would be likely to be given to his objections. When the Abolition of Purchase Bill was before the House, Lord Card-well was repeatedly asked to lay on the Table the Regulations he intended to make with a view to ensure a proper flow of promotion, but he always refused. But the cases were not at all analogous. It was impossible for Lord Cardwell to draw up a scheme until he knew how far the flow of promotion would be retarded by the abolition of Purchase, if it would be retarded at all. Lord Cardwell promised that the flow of promotion should not be retarded, and that as soon as the necessity arose he would bring forward a scheme. But the evils of the exchange system, if evils there should be, would arise at once, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared to meet them. The House, then, had a right to ask in what way he was prepared to do that. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman's answer would at least show that he was alive to the existence of at least possible dangers of abuse, and also that he would point out the way in which he intended to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman's answer would very much facilitate the debates of the evening upon the clauses of the Bill and the Amendments He could not pretend to say he expected that the answer would be completely satisfactory. The Committee could no help reflecting that regulations might fail. He was perfectly willing to give

  1813
  the right hon. Gentleman and the Commander-in-Chief every credit for their wish to do nothing to restore the system of Purchase; but the Committee could not feel any security that the right hon. Gentleman would always occupy his present position, and he might be succeeded by others who would not hold the same views. He trusted, in the few observations he had made, he had said nothing which could expose him to a charge of abstract reasoning. He had put forward some practical considerations which he hoped the right hon. Gentle-man would not think unworthy of a reply.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am not certainly without some surprise at the course taken by the noble Lord when I remember the course taken by his Government on the subject of the Abolition of Purchase. When the Bill of Lord Cardwell was defeated in this House, he at once proceeded to carry out the proposals of that rejected Bill by Royal Warrant, without any intimation to this House whatever as to the mode in which he proposed to abolish Purchase or to regulate exchanges; and he took upon himself—that is to say, the Government took upon itself—to regulate everything, oven to the minutest details, connected with one of the greatest changes of public policy ever known without any communication to this House at all; and the noble Lord now calls upon me to say exactly what I shall do when this Bill becomes law. I am not bound to follow the path indicated by the noble Lord; but as I have no desire for concealment or evasion, I will state on what I depend for security. How is it at the present moment? We are protected from Purchase by certain regulations. The noble Lord (Lord Cardwell) laid down the rule that the officer about to be promoted should make a declaration as to paying money. How, at the present moment, are we protected from the evils of undue payments in the case of exchanges? How have we any security that no money has passed beyond the actual expenses? Only the declaration of the officers themselves. When I see that that security contented the noble Lord, and that its efficacy has never been impugned, I feel that I may rely on the same declarations that he did. I am far from admitting that the evils shadowed forth so darkly by the
  1814
  noble Lord are likely to be the result of this Bill; yet there are some things which might occur, but which never did occur under the old system. The noble Lord opposite and his Friends have suggested modes by which, under this Bib, Purchase may be reintroduced into the Army. I do not believe that their suggestions will be followed. I think that danger may be guarded against as easily now, by the declarations of the officers concerned, as it is under the present system. An impression seemed to exist that some new law of exchange is about to be introduced. That is not the case. The Bill will not introduce any greater laxity into the system of exchanges than existed before. All that it will do will be to sanction by law what was sanctioned by custom, provided always that it be done under such conditions as shall prevent any one else being superseded, or in any way affected. What we want to do is to render the practice which so long existed conformable to law. My Predecessor at the War Office did not treat the question on the same high grounds as the noble Lord opposite. Be simply put it upon the grounds of personal convenience to the officers, so long as nobody was superseded. When the Purchase system existed, as Mr. O'Dowd said, there were no doubt a great many exchanges made simply and solely with the view of effecting sales afterwards. But that has all been done away with. It is absurd to think those purses we have heard of will be made up by gentlemen who can have no reasonable ground for believing they will get an equivalent. It is very unlikely that the captain will purchase out his senior, when the major is to be promoted by selection, and he can have no hope of obtaining the next step. If you will simply take the trouble to estimate the small number of exchanges occurring at present between majors and lieutenant-colonels, and study that in connection with this Bill, you will, I think, acknowledge the unlikelihood of any great increase in such exchanges. All I wish to do is to facilitate exchanges in all reasonable cases; and I do not admit that a man has either the right or the privilege to exchange whenever he pleases, with-out reference whatever to the general service. Such an idea has never been recognized. As an illustration of this, I may mention that a case occurred the other

  1815
  day, where an officer whose regiment was going to India exchanged into another stationed at home. Well, a very short time afterwards, the regiment at home was also ordered to India, and he was obliged to accompany it. In former times exchanges have often been refused by the military authorities, and for various reasons, such as where a man had exchanged too often, or even once before. What I propose, and what, under the Bill will alone be permitted, is this—that although the officer exchanges from one regiment into another, he is subject in doing so to the military authorities, and will find himself, whenever the good of the service requires it, in the position of a man who pays no money at all. He will remain just as much at the beck of the military authorities as if he does not exchange at all. In case he is required to go to India the very next day, he will be sent without regard to the money paid for the exchange. I have thus shortly touched on the points mentioned by the noble Lord. I say the same means by which exchanges are controlled under the present system will still remain in force. Exchanges in the Artillery and Engineers are not under the Act of Parliament at all. That point was brought out by Sir George Grey in the Commission on Over-Regulation Prices. "What is forbidden by the statute is, an exchange of commissions. There must be two regiments, or there is no change of commissions. Yet the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) wishes to put into the Bill the case of non-commissioned officers and privates—that is to prevent the exchanging commissions where there are no commissions at all. Then the noble Lord says this will be a roundabout way of buying promotion. Well, I have listened very attentively to the whole of the debates on the subject, and the only argument in that direction which I have heard is the making of a purse by the junior officers to purchase out one of their seniors. Now that, I think, can very easily be checked by the declarations to be made by the officer and the regulations of the service. When I reflect upon the former system of exchanges under the Purchase system, I cannot help arriving at the conclusion that our safety lay in the fact that there was no direct recognition by the State of the money that was paid by one officer
  1816
  to another. But what the noble Lord and his Friends wish to do is to fix and continue a regulation price. Well, all I can say is, that the dangers that were likely to arise under the old system were much greater than any which are likely to spring up under this Bill. In the American Army the consent of the two officers is sufficient for an exchange; no inquiry is made as to what money passes between them; and it is the same in France when the State is put to no expense. In conclusion, I wish to say that I simply desire to give a fair protection to officers in effecting exchanges; that when, on reasonable grounds, they demand such exchanges, unreasonable objections shall not be urged against them.; and that exchanges shall be granted when proper and reasonable grounds are stated on their behalf, and, as I said before, provided the professional prospects of other officers in the regiment are not affected.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in future, there would be the same protection as at present in the declaration to be made on the honour of the officer that he had not received more than the fair expenses incident to the exchange.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, at present, under the regulations of the late Government, they relied on the honour of the officer as to the amount received. He also relied on the honour of the officer in the declaration to be made under the new system.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTentirely agreed that they could rely on the honour of the officer; but the right hon. Gentleman had not explained to the Committee what declaration the officer had to make. That was what they wanted to know. What security had they that Purchase would not be restored? The right hon. Gentleman said Purchase would not be restored; selection would protect them from that. They had heard some years ago, on the highest military authority, that selection could not be worked; then promotion would mainly go by seniority, in a regiment; and, if so, it would be of great importance to a man to buy the place of senior captain, as he would have, if not an absolute certainty, a high probability of promotion. A junior captain wanting to get up to the senior captaincy

  1817
  would subsidise exchanges. That was what would take place. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh, oh!" but it was a well-known practice—[An hon. MEMBER: Not in exchanges.] That might not be so directly; but did they never hear of subsidizing an exchange? It was the commonest practice in the Indian Army. Where a man could not buy a step himself a purse was made to enable him to do so, and that would be done by means of exchange. The thing could not be done directly as in the case of Purchase; but it would be done indirectly by exchanges. What was to prevent a man helping one above him to the money necessary to exchange when he knew that when the exchange was made he would get a step? What security was there against a transaction of that character? The argument derived from the Artillery and Engineers was altogether inapplicable. The argument of the Secretary of State for War was founded on the idea that an officer was commissioned to a regiment; but he was informed that that idea was based on a complete misapprehension—that an officer was commissioned to Her Majesty's Army, and that he was only gazetted to a regiment. At all events, the Secretary of State ought to let them know what was the declaration on which they were to rely.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that after listening to the arguments of hon. Members opposite, he was unable to gather how it was that the proposal to facilitate exchanges could help promotion. If a junior captain exchanged into another regiment and found himself at the bottom of a list of nine, was it to be supposed that the Horse Guards were so blind that they would allow him to effect nine exchanges in succession? In the experience of the oldest soldier, there had been nothing approaching to such a suggestion. Under the old system of purchase a man could exchange with a poor officer, and, by paying a, regulation price, buy promotion over the heads of other officers; but under this Bill, officers would simply be allowed to exchange, subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief, for their own convenience, provided the exchange did not interfere with the interests of the service; and for the life of him he could not see how this privilege would give rise to traffic in promotion. The explanation of the Se-
  1818
  cretary of State was as clear as daylight to military men. It did not seem to be understood by hon. Members opposite, and he did not think if it were discussed for three weeks, they would understand it a bit better.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster must have been absent when it was shown there was a danger of exchanges being made the means of buying promotion, unless the Bill should be modified as proposed. He himself sketched the successive steps by which, as soon as the Bill passed, if not so modified, a major would have an opportunity of exchanging from a battalion in India, and in making that exchange he would look for a regiment whore the lieutenant-colonel must shortly retire, either on half-pay or full-pay, so that on arriving at that favourable position by exchange, there would virtually stand but one officer between him and that step—namely, the senior major. Then, if he chose his regiment discreetly, he might find the senior major accessible to a further exchange out of his way, and, by paying an additional sum, say £1,000, he would inevitably in the course of 18 months or a couple of years drop into the command of that regiment. The Report of the Royal Commission was full of such cases. It was said that there was a fallacy in that argument in consequence of the question of selection; but what had happened in the past, afforded some indication of what might take place in the future. Out of 149 cases occurring in three and a-half years there were only three which could be called instances of pure selection. As he had said on a former occasion, it was one of the evil effects of this system of exchanges, unless some check was put to it, that it tended to a division of the officers of the Army into two classes—a rich and a poor, with conflicting interests detrimental to the service; it would tend to stimulate what the authorities had been desirous of putting down—an extravagant mode of living in the Army—and if officers were thereby thrown into debt, they would be the more open to offers of money for exchanges.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, it was with regret he had to complain that hon. Members opposite had from the first onset treated the question as a Party one. By doing so, they increased the

  1819
  difficulty officers felt in discussing it as a purely military question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed the Bill with the intention of making the Act of 1871, introduced by Lord Card well, work more easily and harmoniously for the officers. It was perfectly clear that the facilitating of exchanges, which was the main object of the Bill, would be a great advantage, and render the service much more pleasant for the officers than if they were bound down by a hard-and-fast line; but he regretted somewhat that the Secretary of State for War did not fix a regulation sum within which these exchanges would be allowed. Without such a limit, he thought there was some danger that the Bill, instead of working in the direction in which the Secretary of State wished it to work, would have a contrary effect. A certain number of officers who wished to stay at home, and were willing to pay a sum of money for exchange, would inscribe their names in the Army Agents' books, and the officers who were willing to go abroad would do the same. If the number of the officers who wished to stay at home exceeded those who were willing to go abroad, the exchange price would rise, and he supposed it was not the right hon. Gentleman's wish that a bonus system should grow up which would carry an exchange beyond the means of officers in moderate circumstances. Much had been said about the privileges of the Guards. Well, they had privileges, and they highly valued them; and although of late years they had been pretty well cut down, still they existed; for they still had the privilege of serving in the immediate presence of the Sovereign, and the other great privilege, that they were the first to go out to service in the event of a European war suddenly breaking out. For himself, he would gladly pay £2,000 or £3,000 to enjoy those privileges—especially the latter. The Guards formed one of the best schools one could enter for the Army; and in the Guards, one had the advantage of coming under the eye of the Commander-in-Chief as well as of the Secretary of State for War. He did not wish to see those privileges ever done away with. The Guards were the standard regiment of the service to which other regiments looked, and he hoped it would always be so; but there was a danger
  1820
  in saying that you would allow an officer after serving a few years in the Guards to exchange and pay money for it. There was no doubt that those who were looking for good officers to serve with them went to the Guards to pick them out. For instance, the Governor General of India, the Governor General of Canada, and other high officials came to the Guards for their military secretaries, and their comrades in the Army did not grudge them these advantages; but if the price of exchanging from the Line into the Guards rose to £2,000 or £3,000, it would be very difficult to maintain the privileges of the Guards. What objection could there be to fixing a regulation price?
  THE CHAIRMANbegged to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was now anticipating an Amendment of his own, which would, in due course, come before the Committee.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, he was not aware that he was trespassing on the Amendment. His only object was to impress upon his right hon. Friend the danger of the amount that would be given for the exchange rising considerably beyond the sum he anticipated. He wished the Secretary of State would give the Committee some assurance that if these exchanges rose unduly, he would fix a limit and keep the power of regulating these exchanges in his own hands or in those of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to put a question to the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that we should in future have the same protection by a declaration on the part of the officers, such as had existed in times past, against abuses under this Act. What he wanted to know was, whether that declaration had any reference to the receipt or payment of money; and, if so, what that declaration would be?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I will give the right hon. Gentleman an answer as far as I think it consistent with my duty to do so. I reserve to myself the form of the declaration; but I have no hesitation in saying that a declaration ought to be made that an officer has not been assisted by his junior officers in. obtaining the exchange.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that a statement of his, made a few

  1821
  nights ago, to the effect that many officers after a short service in the Army were useful in the Militia and Volunteers, had been much commented upon; but he had in his hand a long list of Militia and Volunteer regiments in which that was the case. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was in error in supposing that the Royal Warrant of 1871 contained any words about the passing of money. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), he would also remark that, by the Royal Warrant issued on the recommendation of Lord Cardwell, every promotion was to be made on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, with the approval of the Secretary of State for War. If any officers had been set aside, it must, therefore, have been with the consent of Lord Cardwell. In answer to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay), respecting exchanges from the Guards, he believed that since the year 1868 only one exchange per annum on the part of the officers had been made. These exchanges must not only have the consent of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War, but also the approval of the lieutenant-colonels of regiments, who watched exchanges very closely, and were very jealous of the honour of their corps. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford had changed his tone of late in reference to this question. It was not long since he was endeavouring to have Oxford made a military centre, and he painted in glowing colours the advantages which all concerned would derive from this object being attained. He seemed, however, to forget that the troops brought together in such a centre would be commanded by the "fancy officers" to whom he had referred in far from complimentary terms. He wished, in conclusion, to remind the House that the phrase "fancy officers" was not his. He quoted it on a previous occasion from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), to whom he begged to return the copy-right.
  MR. ANDERSONregretted that any remarks should have been made by the light hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War on his Amendment before it came under the consideration of the Committee. It was very unfair to endeavour to pre-
  1822
  judice that Amendment before he (Mr. Anderson) had been heard; and he thought that as the Chairman had called the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay) to Order for speaking on an Amendment not then before the Committee, he ought equally to have called the right hon. Gentleman to Order. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were entirely erroneous, because the Act of 1809 made it a misdemeanour to traffic in any commission, office, place, or employment.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHsaid, he was unable to see the force of the rich-and-poor-officer argument which had been so persistently trotted out in the discussions on that Bill. The fact was, that a very small proportion of rich officers existed in the Army, and that therefore there was very little money among them to pass from hand to hand in case of exchanges. Rich officers in the Army were like the plums in schoolboy's puddings—rari nantes in gurgite vasto. There were men in the service who were very poor, and their prospects had been destroyed by Purchase being done away with, because it was to many of them almost a necessity to get to India in order that they might live on their pay. In that case, it seemed to him, as he had said, to be a matter of course that there could not be much money to exchange on either side. A poor man with a wife and large family wanted to get to England, and a poor man who wished to live on his pay wanted to go to India.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that though stringent regulations had always existed in the Army against exchanges to which money considerations were attached, means had always been found to evade such regulations. He deprecated the course now followed of giving to officers the right by law to effect those exchanges which should alone be permitted on military considerations. No one was more anxious than he was to see the rights and privileges of men and officers thoroughly established; but there was a limit to these rights, and especially to the form now proposed, of an Act of the Legislature, to establish exchanges by law, instead of by a General Order or by a Royal Warrant. The fact was, that the evil effect of abolish-

  1823
  ing a European force for the Army of India was now being felt, and would, doubtless, be more severely felt in the future, so that it would end in having two classes of officers in our Army—one suited for the Colonies, and one for the Home Army. In that way, all the anticipations so firmly believed in, when the European Army of India was unwisely abolished, would be falsified, and the evils said to have existed under the former system of two Armies would be really felt, instead of being mainly imaginary.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he also wished to remind the noble Marquess who led the Opposition, and who had apparently made up his mind to thwart the Bill in every way, that those hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House were determined to carry the Bill in its integrity. He believed that it would increase the efficiency of the British Army and remove one great inconvenience which now existed.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he was unable to support the Bill, and he hoped it would go no further than its present stage. His principal objection was based on the fact that in certain favoured Cavalry regiments they were going to endow commissions with a money value. Officers in those regiments might, under the new system, exchange, and after a certain number of years retire from the service with the exchange money in their pockets, there being nothing in the Bill to prevent such an arrangement.
  Motion agreed to; Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Authorised exchanges exempted from Army Brokerage Acts).
  MR. ANDERSON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after "officers," to insert "non-commissioned officers and privates," said, he must confess himself surprised that the Secretary of State for War should have refused the Amendment, because he had thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been anxious to have removed from the Bill the stigma of being unjustifiable class legislation. The objection urged against his Amendment he had already stated to be entirely erroneous. What did the Bill pretend to do? All it said was, that the Brokerage Acts should no longer stand in the way of officers exchanging commissions.
  1824
  But the old Brokerage Laws were not confined to officers. The Act of 1809 provided that no person holding a commission, place, or employment under the Crown should traffic in the same. There was therefore no limitation whatever to officers who held commissions, and so his Amendment was quite regular. No one who had listened to the debates on the subject could have come to any other conclusion than that the only argument in favour of the Bill was that it would be acceptable to the officers. That was the basis of the Report of the Commissioners, and it was the basis of all that had been said on behalf of the Bill. It gave the chance of gaining money to the poor man, while to the rich man it gave the privilege of selecting his regiment as well as the district or country in which he should be stationed. Money to the poor, privilege to the rich—the very things those classes most desired. He did not blame the officers for thinking these things acceptable. The same privileges would be acceptable to any other class; but being acceptable and being such good things, why should they not have them all round? If they were good for the officer, why were they not good for the non-commissioned officer and private? It might be said to be beyond the Preamble of the Bill to extend it to all the public services; but distinctly it was not contrary to the Preamble to include non-commissioned officers and privates. That the privileges would be equally acceptable to them, there was no reason whatever to doubt. Officers were allowed without the Bill to effect exchanges, and the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) said, privates and non-commissioned officers were at present allowed to effect exchanges. Therefore, at present, they were all on an equality; but the object of the Bill was to stimulate exchanges by money payments. Why should they stimulate exchanges for money payments among the officers, and not do so among the non-commissioned officers and privates? It might be said that the sum they could pay would be very small; but it would be as great a relative price to the poor man who received it. In fact, the only objection he had heard urged was that the non-commissioned officer or private could not pay the cost of coming home from India. But the Bill was not limited to India.

  1825
  It had no geographical limit. Now, a non-commissioned officer might wish to exchange from Aldershot to London, or from Paisley to Edinburgh, or they might wish to exchange from one regiment to another from reasons in no way connected with locality. In the same way as the officers, they might wish to go into the same regiment where they had a brother or some other relative. But he had a word to say about the inability of privates and non-commissioned officers to pay for exchanges. A Return which had been recently issued showed that in the military savings bank there was a sum of £332,000 of the savings of these privates and non-commissioned officers, which showed that they had a little money to expend in this way. In those circumstances, he did not see why the non-commissioned officers and men should not have the same privileges as were given to the officers. A great deal had been said about the discontent which existed in the Army, and which the Bill they were now discussing was intended to allay; but it appeared to him that nothing could be more calculated to lead to discontent among the rank and file than the Bill itself. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "officers," to insert the words "non-commissioned officers, and privates."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Act of 1809 was passed with the view of bringing in certain officers not included in the old Act of Edward VI. The class of non-commissioned officers and privates were not affected by the Army Brokerage Act, and he did not think the Amendment was at all germane to the purposes of that Act. He would further remark that non-commissioned officers and privates were in no way affected by the Bill either, inasmuch as a rule at present was in force at the War Office by which a man might claim to go into the regiment where his father or brother was. In fact, they possessed the very privilege which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) sought to give them by his Amendment.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, he had always given the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) credit for knowing some-thing about the Army, and so when he
  1826
  saw his Amendment on the Paper he thought it must be a humorous one. He now found, however, that it was not supported by a humorous speech, and so he was forced to the conclusion that the hon. Member was in earnest. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had dissipated the impression in his mind that he knew something about the Army; but every hon. Member in the House, whether he belonged to the military profession or not, must be perfectly aware that the Amendment with which the time of the House had been taken up was perfectly useless. It was an Amendment which could not receive his support, nor that of the Liberal Party. He went further, and said that without drawing any comparison between officers and men—and no such comparison could be drawn—it could not receive the support of any one who had any practical knowledge of the Army.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that he could come to no other conclusion than that some of these Amendments were simply proposed with a view of delaying the Bill. He was opposed to what was called the "levelling" system; and, in his opinion, class distinction was necessary to discipline. No colonel ever troubled himself about exchanges effected by non-commissioned officers and privates, so that the soldier got the best of it. He therefore opposed the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN NOLANpointed out that the proposal would cost the Government of India about £200,000. Every year 6,000 or 7,000 men were allowed to return home from India. Of that number he believed 2,000 or 3,000 wished to stay in the country: but if they were allowed to exchange, there would be that number of men coming home every year in addition to the present number, and 2,000 or 3,000 others going out from England to replace them. He might support the Amendment; but he did so with his eyes open, and on the ground that, if adopted, it might be the means of improving the class of non-commissioned officers.
  MR. WHITWELLalso supported the Amendment, believing that in many instances the principle would be very valuable. He could not see why the privilege proposed to be given to the officer should not be extended to the soldier.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) intended to press his Amendment to a division, but he hoped he might be induced to withdraw it; for he had not satisfied him (the Marquess of Hartington) of the existence of any practical necessity for the legislation which he proposed. Therefore, not seeing any practical object in the Amendment, he hoped the hon. Member might be induced to withdraw it, especially as he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not support it.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had fully expected the officers to be jealous of their privileges, and therefore it was not surprising that all but one of those who had spoken against his Amendment were officers. He might also perhaps except the noble Marquess; but he had long since given up expecting anything thorough-going from that front Bench. The only practical argument was that of the hon. and gallant Member below him the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan); but in reply to him he had to say that he fully admitted that it was inoperative as far as India was concerned.
  MR. G. O. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman wanted an argument from below the Gangway, he would give him one in a single sentence. There were hon. Gentlemen there who objected to all exchanges of public offices for monetary considerations. They objected to it in the Courts of Law, and they objected to it in the Army; and what they objected to in the case of officers they objected to in the case of non-commissioned officers and privates.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 322: Majority 275.
  MR. HAYTER, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after "officers," to insert "not being regimental field officers," said, when Purchase was abolished the recommendation of the Duke of Somerset's Commission was adopted, that all these officers should be promoted by selection on the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. But it was impossible to retain the power of selection in the Commander-in-Chief and allow officers commanding regiments to nominate their successors. He
  1828
  wished also to call the attention of the House to the manner in which it would affect the position of superior officers. He had known a case where Major Eraser was serving with a Cavalry regiment—the 7th Hussars—as junior major in India. He exchanged into the 11th Hussars at home, becoming the only major. The lieutenant-colonelcy became vacant in a short time, and, having been appointed, Colonel Eraser became a full colonel in the Army in five years, thus far outstripping his comrades in the 7th Hussars, who remained with their regiment in India. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) had stated that out of 149 promoted by selection, Only three had been taken out of regimental promotion, but the case would be very different under the proposed system. Suppose an exchange was made, would that exchange be only for the unexpired term of five years, or would the man who succeeded come in for an entirely new term? In the latter case, the power of selection would be taken out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief; in the former, the perpetual change of command would be seriously detrimental to the discipline of the regiment and to the public service. He thought it highly probable that this Bill would be worked so as to bring back all the old evils of Purchase, and it was therefore he moved the Amendment. If it were carried, it would remove much of the evil principles of the Bill; but if, on the contrary, the Bill were passed in its present shape, it would be fatal to the system of selection; most injurious to all those regimental officers whose promotion was now the subject of consideration by a Royal Commission, and extremely prejudicial to the discipline among non-commissioned officers and privates, who would know that again, in the opinion of the House of Commons, the command of 1,000 men was to be a matter of purchase or sale to be hawked about in the public market.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "officers," to insert the words "not being regimental field officers."—(Mr. Hayter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman

  1829
  that the system of exchanges would remain as at present; the only difference being as to the payment. If there were two ranks in the Army to which the Bill would more properly be applied than another they were those of lieutenant-colonel and major, because to them the plan of selection applied. Another objection was this—it would interfere with promotion, because when a lieutenant-colonel or major were near the end of their time, other officers would come in and get the fresh term of five years; but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had already said that that would not be. It might as well be said that because a lease was originally for 99 years, if it should be taken from the original possessor after 50 years it would run back to the 99 years again. He thought the Committee would do well to reject the Amendment.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would have accepted that Amendment, for, according to his own showing, there would be in the case of field officers few, if any, exchanges, and he would therefore be giving up very little in admitting the Amendment. All the evils and dangers which it was feared would result from this Bill were concentrated in the case of the field officers of the Army, because the smaller the body to which and from which exchanges were to take place, the greater the danger would be. If selection for field officers' appointments was to be a reality—and he could show that it had been exercised during the last two or three years in a sufficient number of cases to assert the principle—nothing could more effectually neutralize it than the power conferred by this Bill upon an officer immediately to exchange into another regiment from that to which he had been appointed by selection. The Committee should not forget that the Bill practically conferred on the officers of the Army a right to exchange—a right qualified only by "military reasons." No answer had been given to the the question—what was meant by "military reasons," in virtue of which exchange was to be allowed? Was it that no exchanges were to be allowed that were not demanded by military considerations, or was it that no steps were to be taken to prevent exchanges
  1830
  unless they militated against the interests of the service? What sort of a position would the Commander-in-Chief Be in when he was called upon to assent to an exchange one day, and to refuse an application for an exchange the next? It would be almost impossible for him to resist the appeals that would be made to him, and to discriminate between the cases. The effect would be to give, contrary to the wishes of the House, a direct money value to the patronage of the Commander-in-Chief, for an appointment as field officer to a home regiment would be worth, by means of exchange, a considerable sum of money. If there were two or three officers of nicely-balanced claims as to merit, it would be a delicate matter to decide who was to be appointed to the lucrative command—namely, that which was convertible into money. If, on the other hand, selection was not to be used, and officers were to be promoted—as no doubt they would be in the great majority of cases—regimentally, evil results were certain, for an exchange on the part of one officer would secure promotion to another; and how could that other officer be prevented from contributing to the exchange? If the junior major in a regiment knew that the lieutenant-colonel was soon about to leave the regiment, would he not be tempted to help the senior major to exchange, in order that he himself might become senior major, and have the certainty of succeeding to the command of the regiment? Such a process might, as had been pointed out, be attended with greater difficulty in the lower ranks; it would, no doubt, be rather a tedious process for a junior captain to induce nine or ten captains to exchange; but this argument did not apply in cases where it was only necessary to assist one major to effect an exchange, and in such a case it would be difficult to prevent an abuse, however great the vigilance of the authorities might be. All these were elements of danger, and the Government did not deny their existence; indeed, the fact that they promised to take great precautions showed they were conscious of those dangers, and they reached a climax in the case of field officers. Staff officers also might plead for exchange as much as regimental field officers. They held their appointments on analogous terms, and there

  1831
  was the same uniformity of duties between staff officers at different stations as there was between field officers in different regiments. Let the operation of the Bill be limited, as proposed in the Amendment, and these difficulties would be avoided. Again, he would like to know whether the exchanging field officer was to serve in his new regiment for the unexpired period of his own original appointment, or for that of the officer whom he replaced? If the latter, an officer might, by always exchanging with an officer who had still the greater part of his five years to serve, prolong his term almost indefinitely; if the former, there would be a stoppage of promotion in the regiment he entered. It was thus clear that exchanges between field officers would involve personal and regimental complications, to avoid which he hoped the Committee would support this Amendment.
  MR. A. H. BROWN, who spoke amid continued interruptions and cries of "Divide! Divide!" was understood to say he should vote for the Amendment, because he wished to put an end to money payments in the Army.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) that a considerable portion of the officers whom his Amendment excluded—namely, the majors and colonels of Engineers—were the very men who stood most in need of the privilege of exchanging. He should, therefore, oppose it.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was obvious that hon. Gentlemen were determined not to allow of a fair and full discussion of the clauses of this Bill in Committee, and he should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped that the Motion would not be pressed. The hour was one at which hon. Members generally showed themselves impatient of debate, and it was not, perhaps, to be wondered at, when hon. Members repeated the same arguments over and over again, that they should meet with some interruption. He could not quite catch what the hon. Member
  1832
  for Wenlock (Mr. Brown) had said; but his remarks seemed to be a repetition of the speech he had delivered at an earlier hour of the evening. He trusted the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not persevere with his Motion. It was most desirable that progress should be made; and, for his own part, he was ready to listen to any arguments that could be urged by the opponents of the measure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in that case, suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should not give quite so much encouragement to hon. Members who sat behind him and below the Gangway on his own side of the House. It was a most extraordinary thing that those hon. Gentlemen should be so clamorous for a division when the Bill had only been three hours in Committee. This haste contrasted oddly with the debates night after night on the abolition of Purchase. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the critical hour, but that was passed, and what he complained of was, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite would not hear his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock, who supported the Amendment, they listened attentively to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan), who had supported the measure. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) was one which deserved discussion, and although the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said, speaking of the Conservative Party—"We as a Party are determined to pass this Bill," he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to think that "we as a Party" would not be able to pass any measure in a high-handed way without listening to arguments when those arguments might happen to be opposed to their particular views. There was no other course open to them than that which had been taken by the hon. Member for Swansea.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLrepudiated that view of the case. He admitted that some impatience had been displayed on the Ministerial side of the House, but it was perfectly pardonable. The arguments against the Bill had been repeated over and over again by the same speakers, in nearly the same words. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were convinced that the Bill would restore Purchase, nothing that could be

  1833
  said from the Ministerial side would convince them of their error; but the Bill would do nothing of the sort.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) was not in the House during the last Parliament, so that he did not see what took place during the Abolition of Purchase Bill, nor did he witness the tactics then displayed. What the Opposition complained of was, that although hon. Members would not hear the hon. Member for Wenlock, they were as quiet as possible when the hon. and gallant Gentleman who followed him spoke. He had just as good authority for saying that the Bill was intended to restore Purchase as the Government had for saying it would not.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYrose to Order. The hon. Member had stated the Bill was intended to restore Purchase, whereas he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had distinctly stated it would do nothing of the kind. By making such a statement he made an imputation on the character of those Members of the Government who were around him.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no wish to impute such an intention to the Government. What he meant to say was, that as good a soldier as any that sat in that House had expressed an opinion that the measure would restore all the evils of Purchase—["Name, name!"]—he alluded to the late General Storks, who was not a Member of the House when he made the remark; but who deplored that he was not so when this Bill was introduced last year, so that he might have opposed it. Besides that, he had the authority of a distinguished officer for saying that the measure, if carried, would place the poor man in India and the rich man in Pall Mall. He should support the Motion for reporting Progress. He had every confidence in the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, but unless the arguments on that side of the House were heard fairly, there was no other course open than to report Progress until the House was in a calmer mood.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, there was on his side of the House every disposition to listen to what might be urged in opposition to the Bill, but that they had waited in vain to hear any new arguments.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had no desire to prevent the measure from being pro-
  1834
  ceded with, if temperately and reason-ably discussed, and if it was the wish of the Committee he would withdraw his Motion. He hoped the Secretary for War would endeavour to preserve greater decorum among his subordinates during the remainder of the evening.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that, although there might have been some interruptions, yet several speeches from the benches opposite had been very patiently listened to. There was no disposition on his side of the House to prevent the fullest expression of opinion on the Bill; but they were naturally impatient when Member after Member on the other side got up and reiterated the same statement which had been so repeatedly and pointedly repudiated—namely, that the Bill was intended to re-introduce Purchase.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  In reply to Mr. T. CAVE,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that in the case where an officer with two years' service desired to exchange with another with five years' service, the military positions of the two would be so entirely different that no exchange could, in all probability, be allowed.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKpointed out that if that statement had been made before, much of the objection entertained to the Bill would have been removed.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 156: Majority 61.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, who had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert in page 1, line 13, after "corps," "or between officers belonging to the same regiment or corps," said he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL LORD-LINDSAY, who had given Notice that he would move the insertion in lines 13 & 14, after "expedient," of the words, "Provided that in no case the amount paid for any one such exchange shall exceed the sum of five hundred pounds," also intimated that he would not proceed with his Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZregretted the course taken by the hon. and gallant Member, whose Amendment, he thought, should be discussed by the Committee. He urged that there ought to be a definite sum fixed as the amount to be paid for an exchange. Believing himself to be within the Rules of the House, he would himself move that the Proviso of which the hon. and gallant Member had given Notice be added to the clause. Having had to pay £7,000,000 for the Abolition of Purchase, they should be cautious lest they did anything to revive that system. "When the Secretary for War said he had no intention to restore Purchase, he believed him; he imputed to him no arrière pensée, because they all knew the integrity of his character, and the straightforwardness of his political principles; but they had no security as to the principles and views of his successors. In such matters they must therefore trust to legislation, and not to the personal character of any Minister. If this Amendment were adopted, he believed it would have the effect of allaying the ill-feeling which prevailed out-of-doors on the subject, and which he felt convinced was much stronger than the Secretary of State for War imagined.
  Amendment proposed.
  In line 14, after the word "expedient," to insert the words "Provided that in no case the amount paid for any one such exchange shall exceed the sum of five hundred pounds."—(Mr. Muntz.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobjected to saddling the Department with any responsibility respecting monetary transactions arising out of exchanges, and it was on that ground that he had brought forward this measure. He could not assent, therefore, to the proposed Amendment. If his hon. Friend referred to the statute of George III., he would find that all money payments were illegal after the passing of that Act, except such as were sanctioned by Royal regulations. But that Act was only used for the purposes of Purchase, and never operated in respect to exchanges at all.
  MR. GOSCHENregretted that the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire had not moved the Amendment himself,
  1836
  instead of leaving it to be done by deputy. The hon. and gallant Member had recently written a letter to The Times, in which he had declared that the worst policy would be one under which the pecuniary means of the officers should be eked out by a large bonus system; that the real fault of the existing system arose from the inadequate pay of the British officer; and that under the Bill it would be more difficult for a poor officer in India to effect a homeward exchange than it was at present. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could answer that argument. The Bill would allow exchanges to be put up to auction, a course which he and those who sat near him objected to most strongly, while they thought that free exchanges were of great benefit and should be encouraged. The hon. and gallant Officer further stated in his letter, as he would no doubt have stated in his speech had he brought forward his Amendment, that the abuse of the Bill would be that certain privileges of the Guards, which represented a large money value, would be sold? Why had not the House received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that those privileges would not be sold? Was it, he asked, desirable that those privileges should be brought to market and sold to the highest bidder? He hoped before the Bill passed through Committee to hear some answer given to those questions.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, it could not be doubted that the foundation of the Bill was the inadequate pay of the officers, and that, too, was the reason the measure was received with such favour. He felt, however, that was too large a question to introduce into a discussion of this character. He thought a certain amount of bonus was fair, and considered that hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much responsible for this demand, because when Purchase was done away with they took upon themselves the responsibility of saying that the pay of the British officer must be increased. It, therefore, scarcely laid with them now to oppose—as he might term it—this measure of alleviation. He still thought that there could be no great objection to fixing a limit as to the amount within which these exchanges should be allowed, and he failed to see

  1837
  how it could possibly happen that the country would incur any pecuniary responsibility thereby. It was impossible to separate official from private knowledge; and, however much the House might wish to exclude the knowledge of what officers were paying, they could not help knowing it. The reason he did not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice was that the subject had been fully and fairly brought before the Secretary for War, who, he was persuaded, was only anxious loyalty to give effect to the Bill of his Predecessor. In that effort he was opposed in a Party spirit by hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill was founded upon the recommendations of a Commission appointed to consider the subject by Lord Card well himself.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagreed with the hon. and gallant Officer who had just down, that the pay of the officers of the Army was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would, he thought, act wisely if he took steps to remedy that state of things. The remedy was available by the use of funds now uselessly spent in paying for too many officers at present maintained for the Army. 1,000 officers of infantry could be struck off the establishment, not only with advantage to the service, but with the certainty of benefit to those who were kept up by providing for their advancement and retirement. The diminution in the number of cadres of regiments, companies, and batteries would also be effected with increased efficiency, and with the certainty of further economies. It was to reforms such as these that the right hon. Gentle-man could find ample means for improving the pay, promotion, and retirement of the officers of the Army.
  COLONEL NORTHhad asked himself during the progress of the debates on that Bill whether there were such persons as the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War, or whether the Army was to be placed in the hands of Army Agents. According to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, an officer had merely to go to an exchange agent, without any regard to the veto of the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief, and arrange an exchange off-hand. He denied that such would be the case, and believed that
  1838
  the supervision which would be exercised would be amply sufficient to prevent any abuses arising under the operation of the Bill. Further than that, he maintained that no officer could be certain of his promotion, and that no man in his senses would pay a large sum upon such a chance. It was refreshing to see hon. Gentlemen opposite standing forward as the friends of the poor officers. Those officers, however, did not appreciate the favour done them by the abolition of Purchase, nor were they grateful to hon. Gentlemen for their efforts to prevent these exchanges. The sooner the House went to a division the better, for both sides had made up their minds upon the question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentle-man had made up his mind; but if upon all subjects when hon. Gentlemen had made up their minds all discussion was to cease, the name of the House of Parliament had better be abandoned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception to arguments against that Bill, which were based upon the supposition that exchanges would be effected through the instrumentality of Army Agents; and himself held the view that nominal, if not active supervision, by the Commander-in-Chief, and of the Secretary of State for War would, if the Bill passed, prevent any of the abuses which its opponents anticipated from its operation. The evidence given by officers examined before the Army Purchase Commission entirely negatived the view of the hon. and gallant Member, and showed that the officers regarded the right to exchange through an Army Agent as a vested right on which they could raise money just as easily and as certainly as they could by drawing a cheque against the balance which might stand to their credit at their bankers. For instance, Captain T. Goune, of the 17th Lancers, said that under the old system he should have raised £2,500 by exchanging as a major to India. In what way? He said he should have gone—not to the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary for War, but to an agent—say Messrs. Cox and Co.—and said—"Find me an exchange as a major to India." He could have bought his majority by borrowing money. If he had £1,500 and wanted £2,500 he could have borrowed the money upon the cer-

  1839
  tainty of having it repaid by exchange. From that it appeared that the traffic was, and would continue to be, carried on through the Army Agents, and neither Commander-in-Chief nor Secretary of State knew anything about the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay) had expressed his opinion that the one thing necessary was to increase the pay of officers in the Army; but he omitted to say that the abolition of Purchase had already done that to the extent of doubling the pay. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might object to the statement; but if they considered for a moment, they would see that if an officer receiving from £400 to £500 a-year as pay, kept in his own possession the £6,000 or £8,000 which, under the old system, he would have paid for his commission, the interest of that principal sum would amount to doubling his pay. A peculiar feature in the debate had been the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire, whose physical courage was undoubted, had run away from his own Amendment. The reason given for that course by the hon. and gallant Member was, that he had entire confidence in the Secretary of State for War; but surely he had the same confidence when he put the Amendment on the Paper. There was something mysterious about the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had adopted with reference to his Amendment. Bills had mysteriously disappeared—not in that House of Parliament—under private influences which could not be fathomed, and that evening an Amendment had disappeared under influences which were not clearly explained. That Amendment had been picked out of the mire by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire had told the House that there would be enormous danger in exchanges unless they were limited to £500, yet he afterwards declined to move that they should be limited because he said he had confidence in the Secretary of State that he would take care that in the system of exchange there should be no abuse. But the day might come when there would be a Secretary of State who would make obnoxious regulations, like the last Secretary for War. How would he feel then? As the hon. and gallant
  1840
  Member for Berkshire had withdrawn his Amendment in consequence of some assurance from the Secretary for War, he maintained that the Committee ought at least to know what that assurance was. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) had stated the other night that those officers of the Guards who had given evidence before the Commission only spoke for themselves and not for the regiments they represented. If so, the Commissioners had made their Report on a wrong assumption, and a new Commission ought to be appointed. The opinion of those officers of the Guards was, that a man in the Guards had a right to sell his privilege, and that it was worth from £2,000 to £3,000. What, therefore, he wanted to ask the Secretary of State for War was whether he meant to allow that or not? That was a question which had not been answered, and it was one to which a reply ought to be given.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the evidence which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford had read as to officers in the Guards selling their privileges was the language of a jobber, who was well worthy of the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to designate one of the officers of the Army as a jobber I will give him his name.
  COLONEL NORTH: I believe if he had not been a jobber he would not have been supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of Order in making an observation of that description.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would at once withdraw the observation. He was answering the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had argued as if an officer had only to go to an Army Agent without obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, the Commission which was appointed by the late Government to cure the mischief which they themselves had caused, recommended the very course proposed by this Bill.
  MR. ASSHETONobserved, that the great distinction between the system now proposed and the system of Purchase was, that in the latter case money had to be paid to an officer by the State; but in the former, money would be paid out of the pocket of one officer into the pocket of another officer.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Secretary for War appeared to have some of that cotton wool in his ears, of which he would require a large quantity when this system of exchanges was adopted. The right hon. Gentleman had been repeatedly asked with regard to the privileges of the Guards, and the Committee were entitled to know his views on the subject. The question was whether the officers in the Guards were allowed to sell their privileges, but no answer had been given. With the greatest courtesy he requested the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have stated several times that the officers in the Guards are not entitled to sell their privileges. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they are not entitled to do so. He knows also perfectly well, that he is not entitled to put to me the questions which he has thought proper to put. I have laid down the principles on which I propose to act—namely, those which were acted on in the former system of exchange. I am determined that those principles shall be observed. I decline to give an answer with regard to particular cases.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they were entitled to exchange, but what his views were with regard to the policy of the Guards selling their privileges, for so they termed exchanges. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite looked at the evidence they would find that officers in the Guards said, when speaking of exchanges, "When we exchange from one regiment to another we are practically selling the prestige of our regiments." Now, that seemed to him to be a question of very great importance and of policy, and any Member of the House was entitled to put a question as to the views of the Government respecting it. What those officers asked for was freedom of exchange, coupled with the custom of selling the prestige of their regiments, as compared with the less privileged regiments. Colonel Burnaby, in his evidence
  1842
  before the Commissioners, referred to the custom of officers selling the intrinsic value of the prestige of commissions in the more privileged regiments, to recoup themselves for the difference in exchanging into the Line. The recommendations of the Commissioners were to the effect that assistance should be given to officers of slender means; but if the right hon. Gentleman made the stringent regulations he had lately spoken of he would fail to satisfy the officers, because they would not be able to sell the prestige of their regiments and to recoup themselves.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that Colonel Burnaby represented solely his own views, and not those of the Guards. There were, however, five other officers of the Guards who held views different from his, but somewhat in accordance with them. Well, he was glad to say only that small number of officers in the Guards did entertain such views. It was clearly shown that in making exchanges the Guards had never bartered their privileges. Officers had come into the Guards, perhaps as Queen's Pages, who had been unable to afford the expenses of a life in the Guards, or who found a wider field open to them in India, or some more active service, and who exchanged for those reasons alone. No doubt, under the old system of Purchase there were a very few cases in which officers accepted a "bonus," to use a commercial term more familiar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London than to officers in the Guards; but he maintained that such exchanges could no longer be carried out, as the officers had now no opportunity of "recouping" themselves, to use another City term.
  MR. GOSCHEN, interposing, said, the terms in question were not City terms, but were used by the officers who gave evidence before the Commission.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the terms were unfamiliar to him until he heard them fall from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be impossible now to revive the large prices of former times; but the surest way of restoring the old system would be to fix a regulation price, which would become practically the price to be paid.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that as no answer had been given to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member

  1843
  for the City of London, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James.)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he trusted the Committee would not take such a course, for it would be unprecedented. Any one might always find an excuse for making such a Motion by imagining that a question had been asked and had not been answered, and there would really be an end to all regularity and decorum of discussion if the Committee authorized such a Motion as that to be made for such a reason. He did not know that any one was justified in saying that a fair Parliamentary question had been asked which had not been answered. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made a charge, and very fairly, but he had only done so in a rhetorical manner. The right hon. Gentleman had not pretended for a moment that the inquiry he had made ought, in a Parliamentary sense, to be answered. He said—"This is a question of policy. I am not asking you a question as to the interpretation of the Bill, but as to your opinion on a matter of policy." The real answer was, that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to inquire what was the policy of the Government in regard to a matter which they had not introduced into the House at all. It was an imaginary point which the right hon. Gentleman had himself created for the sake of discussion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was as follows:—"I give credit to the Secretary for War for his intentions. I think it likely that his intentions will be realized by the measure he has brought forward, and that all his clients, the officers, will be disappointed." Well, the answer of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman was—"Well, if you think so, you had better let the Bill pass." The Government, on the contrary, said—and he said it himself in a tone of conciliation—"You are very disappointed that we are not restoring and reviving the system of Purchase." The Government quite agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite that no prestige of any British officer would be sold by auction under the Bill. They entirely agreed with all the inferences which
  1844
  hon. Gentlemen opposite had drawn, and believed that the Bill was a moderate but a useful one, which would disappoint officers like those whose evidence had been quoted, while it would satisfy such officers as were represented by his hon. and gallant Friend who sat behind him. Having discussed the measure very freely, very fully, and also with credit to both sides, he hoped that the Committee would not for a moment tolerate the proposition made by a Gentleman who bore an honoured name—for he (Mr. Disraeli) had sat for years in that House with his father—but who certainly had not had, with respect to Parliamentary proceedings, so much experience as his respected father. He asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion in an amicable spirit, and thus enable them, quite forgetting that it was made, to proceed to the business before them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the unusual course taken by the Government on the question made it not unnatural that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James) should have made the Motion. The question put by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) had not been accurately described as "a rhetorical question." It was an eminently practical question. It was in evidence in the Report of the Royal Commission, which was the shield behind which the right hon. Gentleman acted, that a certain number of officers in the Guards considered that, under the system of free exchange about to be restored, they had a right to sell the prestige of their commissions. It must be known perfectly well that the prestige of the regiments of the Guards was a saleable commodity; that many officers would be willing to pay a large sum of money for such an exchange. What they wanted to know, therefore, was whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to permit exchanges upon such a footing. Of course, these officers had no "right" to demand such permission; but everybody knew that these exchanges were looked upon as a right under the old system. In the view of the Government, then, were sales of the prestige of certain regiments to be permitted in future? If the Secretary for War did not choose to answer the question, the Committee, and he hoped the country, would draw their own conclusions from the silence of the right

  1845
  hon. Gentleman. He recommended, however, the withdrawal of the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 222: Majority 76.
  MR. WHITWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in lines 13 and 14, to omit from the word "expedient" to the end of the clause. The effect of the Amendment, he said, would be to strike out the words repealing the Brokerage Acts so far as they affected the payment of money for exchanges. He held that it was all the more necessary to maintain the Brokerage Acts, since the Committee had decided in the last division, that no limit should be placed on the amount to be paid for exchanges. The Act of Edward VI. was to prevent corruption, and subsequently the Act 49 Geo. III. was extended to commissions in the Army, subject to the Queen's Regulations; and the Bill would be understood by the country as intended to abolish those restrictions against corruption so far as regarded the Army, which were maintained against all other services.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. Member had by that Amendment, in effect, proposed to leave out the whole substance of the Bill, because it would not have been brought in at all were it not for the purpose of repealing the Army Brokerage Act as far as regarded exchanges. If that Act was to remain in force, he would have to lay down regulations as to the money to be paid on exchange, and to that he entirely objected. He might take that opportunity of saying that he had answered over and over again the question which the noble Lord had put to him, and his answer was that all exchanges, whether in the Guards or otherwise, if there were no military considerations against them, would be made without the amount to be paid being settled by the War Office.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was happy they had got an answer at last. They now distinctly understood that if there was no military objection, officers in the Guards or otherwise would be able to sell their prestige to the officers of other regiments. He
  1846
  did not wish to discuss that point any further, he would merely say that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), it amounted to a proposal to vote again on the principle of the Bill. He had voted twice against that principle, and he did not imagine any different result would be arrived at if the hon. Gentleman were to press his Amendment. If, then, the hon. Member for Kendal would accept his advice, he would not divide the Committee.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 16, after "in force," to insert—
  "Provided that no exchange shall be sanctioned in any case in which the officer paying money for that exchange would he placed in a better position as to his prospective promotion than he occupied before that exchange,"
  said, he had to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) for the frank and courteous explanation he had given of his statement the other evening with respect to the exchanges effected by his father, and in which money had been no object, but only regard for the rules of the service. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the Amendment, which was, both in its nature and its object, entirely in keeping with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he introduced the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was a Bill to facilitate exchanges; and the Amendment, if it had not that effect, would certainly not hamper that facility. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would not open a door for the reintroduction of Purchase, to abolish which the country had paid £7,000,000, and the Amendment had the same object in view. It had always been the practice in this country not to leave the interpretation of laws to those who administered them; but to introduce into every Act a distinct statement of the principle and purpose for which it was intended, and in order to follow that rule he proposed the Amendment. He did not doubt the assertion of the right I hon. Gentleman, that he had no inten-

  1847
  tion of retracing the step that had been taken as to Purchase; but Secretaries of State were not eternal, and his successor might not take the same view of the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman. Its meaning and intent, therefore, ought to appear clearly in the Bill itself. There had been a great change within the last few days in public opinion with regard to the Bill, because it so closely resembled Purchase in the Army that it was undistinguishable except by professional men. The apprehension which he entertained was not in any respect a theoretical one, but one founded upon actual experience. He had known within the last few years the case of a major of distinguished service whose name had been frequently mentioned in General Orders and in despatches, so that he had every right to look forward to the command of a battalion, but who was disappointed by reason of an exchange of the kind which it was the object of his Amendment to render impossible. That officer was so disgusted at what had taken place that he at once retired from active service and went upon half-pay. He would give the Government the names if they desired to investigate the case, the details of which, he believed, never came to the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief. His Amendment put the Bill upon its trial before the tribunal of public opinion, and although the Government, as they had been told by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), intended to carry the Bill as it stood, a victory like that in the face of the common sense of the country, resting not upon argument, but upon numerical force, was likely to prove the first nail in the coffin of the Conservative majority. The Liberal Party would, however, have it to say that they did their duty in protesting against such hasty and ill-considered legislation. He would conclude by moving the Amendment.
  MR. P. STANLEYwished to say, in no spirit of animosity, that it was impossible to assent to the Amendment, because it contained provisions which, even if adopted, it would be almost impossible practically to carry out. In order to give effect to it, it would be necessary to know what was the exact position as to prospective promotion of any officer in the Army, and to ascertain that knowledge, if it were possible, would involve an amount of actuarial labour which had
  1848
  not been undertaken to arrive at more definite results than had as yet been reached. It would be really very difficult to say whether a man would be placed in a better position than he would have occupied if he had not exchanged. In some military careers promotion had been for a long time very slow and then suddenly rapid; and all depended upon unforeseen contingencies which could not enter into actuarial calculations.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHILDERS, in rising to move, as an Amendment, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the provisions of the Army Brokerage Acts extending to the payment of any sum of money or valuable consideration by any officer or by any person on his behalf for or on account of an exchange between two other officers, one of whom may be senior to him, and in the same regiment: Provided also, That any person who shall negotiate, act as agent for, or otherwise connive at such payment as last aforesaid shall be deemed and judged guilty of a misdemeanor,"
  said, that he had added some words to make his proposal more precise. The ease was this. When an exchange took place between two captains or between two subalterns each went to the bottom of the list of his new regiment, so that every officer who was the junior of the officer with whom he exchanged got a step towards promotion. His object was to prevent the making up of a purse, or the subscription of a bonus, by junior officers to induce a senior officer to retire, and to prevent the reintroduction in that way of a part of the former system of Purchase. Some years ago, under Purchase the bonus system did not exist, but it crept in gradually, and ultimately assumed proportions the magnitude of which was unknown until Purchase was abolished and questions of compensation arose. The Duke of Cambridge, when examined about it before the Army Organization Committee said, he should be glad if anyone could suggest how it could be stopped, so pernicious did he consider it. But though the practice of paying for non-Purchase steps by a bonus from the officers who would be promoted to a vacancy occasioned by a full-pay retirement was admitted, it had been stated that there was no evidence of the existence in England of these contributions towards a purse by the

  1849
  junior officers who did not actually get promotion. There was hardly a military man present who would confirm that assertion. One of the colonels examined before the Commission in 1874 admitted that he had paid £100, not for his promotion, but to get rid of some one above him who prevented his promotion. What was the evidence given by Colonel Devitt, of the 71st? That he had given from £300 to £400 to induce officers to retire, as he was a junior captain and wished in that way to advance towards promotion. Another case mentioned by a witness was that he knew an instance where, by way of bonus, the second captain paid £400, the third £150, the fourth £80, and the fifth captain £60, and so on, in order to induce a major to retire. There were eight or nine captains in the regiment and all interested in inducing the senior captain to retire, in order that they might get a step in advance. In this case they paid altogether £1,750 for single steps, while the lieutenants paid altogether £1,090 in the same way. Without some distinct words prohibiting this, it would not exist in full force, but would be actually encouraged by the present Bill, as the War Office were to take no cognizance of money transactions. He proposed to introduce words which would prevent anything of the kind happening in future. The right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to make the officers exchanging declare that no part of the money had been received in the shape of contributions from other officers, and that showed that he thought it very probable some infraction of the Act would occur which ought to be guarded against. Now, was it best to rest the matter on a declaration or to introduce a provision making it illegal? That was the whole case. If a declaration were founded upon some distinct statutory provision there would then be some hope that it would be observed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Clause, the words "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the provisions of the Army Brokerage Acts extending to the payment of any sum of money or valuable consideration by any officer or person on his behalf for or on account of an exchange between two other officers, one of whom may be senior to him, and in
  1850
  the same regiment: Provided also, That any person who shall negotiate, act as agent for, or otherwise connive at such payment as last aforesaid" Shall be deemed and judged guilty of a misdemeanor."—(Mr. Childers.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He was not at all disposed to dispute the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, the evidence given before the Royal Commission in 1874 left no doubt on the subject. But bonuses were different things altogether from the objects proposed by this Bill, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman did not at all meet the case. Besides, he thought it was entirely unnecessary that an enactment should be made on the subject, or any such words introduced into the Bill. There was no such danger as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, and he was still of opinion that his way of dealing with the difficulty was the best.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government had given no reason why the words should not be inserted. If they did no harm, why not accept them, especially as many people believed they would guard against a great evil being introduced into the non-Purchase system. They, on that side, wished to show the public and the Army that the Purchase system was completely abolished, and not to be indirectly revived under a system of exchanges.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 242: Majority 82.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought it was impossible that the next Amendment—the most important on the Paper—could be satisfactorily discussed at a late hour, and would therefore move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be greatly to the advantage of both sides that the discussion of the Bill in committee should close that evening. There was only one other Amendment to the clause to be disposed of, and although it was, no doubt, an important one, yet he was sure there was quite sufficient time to enable the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) to propose his Amendment and to obtain for it attentive consideration. He believed it was

  1851
  not yet 12 o'clock, and he would, under the circumstances, appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who was always ready to give his assistance in the endeavour to secure that the Business of the country should be carried on in a satisfactory manner, to say whether it was not reasonable, seeing that the labours of the Committee might be closed in an hour or so, that he should ask him to use his influence to put a stop to such Motions as that of the hon. Member for Sheffield—Motions which were conceived in the heat of the Lobby, and which could scarcely bear the cooler atmosphere of the House. He felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion, but in no hostile spirit, and he would rather appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who sat upon his side of the House had throughout the evening, he hoped, shown no undue disposition to impede the progress of the Bill. He had every wish, so far as he was concerned, to facilitate progress, and had on two occasions already that evening been successful in inducing hon. Members not to press proposals; but the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had rather under-stated than over-stated the case for reporting Progress with reference to the next Amendment. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that it was the most important Amendment on the Paper; but there was another Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter), which was also of great importance, and it was impossible, he thought, that the discussion on those two Amendments could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion that evening. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would not consult the convenience of the House by taking two or three hours to consider those Amendments on another day. ["No, no!"] The Committee had already been at work on the Bill for seven hours; it was universally acknowledged that the most important Amendment on the Paper had been arrived at, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would consult the convenience of the Committee if he allowed it to be adjourned, instead of having time wasted in fruitless divisions.
  MR. DISRAELI: I shall not further object to the Motion to report Progress, but then I must propose that the committee should meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 74.]
(Lord George Hamilton, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 74.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  MR. FAWCETT, in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That it is inexpedient for Parliament to impose any new charges on the revenues of India until the Select Committee which has been appointed to investigate the Indian home charges has completed its inquiry,"
  said, he had to complain of the hurried manner in which that measure, which imposed a charge on the revenues of India, was pressed forward. It was to be regretted that the Committee which last Session began an inquiry with regard to the Home Charges connected with the Government of India had not been reappointed, for it had not gone further than the threshold of the investigation, the only part of the subject it had taken up being the military charges. The present Bill proposed pensions to certain officers, but before any measure of the kind was considered, it was most desirable that the whole question of Indian pensions should be investigated. If such an inquiry was held, and he had any share in it, he pledged himself that disclosures would be made which would astonish the House of Commons. Some remarkable differences existed between the system of pensions prevailing at the India Office and that which existed in the other Government Offices. A gentleman employed in the India Office might enjoy two distinct pensions, and in addition occupy a highly-salaried office. If he had occupied two or more offices under the Indian Government he might get as many pensions. The telegrams which had been received from India that day foreshadowed a

  1853
  financial catastrophe in that country, and therefore it behoved the British Parliament to enforce the strictest economy in every Department of the Government of that country. He asked the House to hear in mind that if there was to be profuse liberality and recklessness in the giving of pensions, it should be with the revenues of England, and not with those of India. What was the state of the Revenue of India? The Debt of India was increasing alarmingly, and the Revenue was rapidly diminishing; yet in the face of such a state of things, the burdens of India were increased. Contrast such a course of proceeding with that which was pursued with regard to England with its diminishing debt, rapidly-increasing revenue, and slowly-increasing expenditure. It was said if the Bill was not allowed to pass, the Government would find it difficult to pension the Members of the Council of India; but before those pensions were granted, the House should have the opportunity to consider what the character of the Indian Council was. By all accounts, it was a most extravagant, costly body. There was not a single Member of the Indian Council entitled to a pension. They took the office, to which immense salaries were attached, and they had no ground to come to this House to ask for pensions. In moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, he was only following the line pointed out by the present Secretary of State for India, when, in his evidence, Lord Salisbury said that the best and only security they could have for economy as regarded the finances of India was the constant watchfulness of the House of Commons. He cordially agreed in that maxim, and for one, he would watch their affairs, and try, by raising his voice, to protect their finances just as much as if the money were to be taken out of the pockets of his own constituents. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient for Parliament to impose any new charges on the revenues of India until the Select Committee which has been appointed to investigate the Indian home charges has completed its inquiry,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that if, as was alleged by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), extravagant pensions had been paid to employés in the India Office in times past—a point on which he (Lord George Hamilton) would not express an opinion—that would not have occurred if the whole of the recipients had been placed under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1859, as was proposed to be done with the gentlemen to whom the present Bill applied. Those gentlemen were the auditor, who, through an oversight, was the only member of the Indian establishment not receiving a pension, and certain Members of the Council, a body to whose Members pensions had to be given in order to secure the services of gentlemen best fitted to assist the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State gave any pension under this Bill the warrant for that pension would have to be laid upon the Table of the House, and the subject could then be amply discussed, if that should be thought necessary. The hon. Gentleman had introduced a great deal of extraneous matter, having nothing whatever to do with the operation of the Bill, which, in his opinion, would not in any way add to the charges upon the Indian Revenue. A telegram had been received from the Indian Government, from which it appeared that the state of the Indian finances was more satisfactory now than when he laid the Indian Financial Statement before the House last year. With respect to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member, it should be remembered that the Home Charges amounted to a very considerable sum, and that it would be impossible to take any step, however small, with respect to them until the Report of the Committee was presented, if the Resolution was adopted by the House. Under those circumstances, he could not agree to the Resolution.
  MR. KINNAIRDregretted that more notice was not taken of the affairs of India, and expressed his surprise that Indian affairs were not discussed until nearly the close of the sitting when not more than 10 to 20 Members were present.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 72: Majority 66.
  Main Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREinquired, whether Members of the Council of India would be entitled to superannuation?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that as he read the Bill, those Members of Council would be entitled to pensions who had served 10 years, and those who were already in receipt of pensions or superannuations because of services in India, would not be entitled to pensions under the measure.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point.
  MR. SULLIVAN, said, in order to settle the point, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid' he did not object to the Motion, as it would give him time to consult the Law Officers of the Crown; and if they thought it necessary he would introduce words to make his interpretation of the Bill perfectly clear. He hoped if he did so, there would be no further opposition to the third reading of the Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he must decline to accept the noble Lord's condition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
On Motion, "That the sitting of the House To-morrow, at Two of the clock, be subject to the Resolution of the House of the 30th day of April, 1869."
MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Friendly Societies Bill would not be taken after the Regimental Exchanges Bill had been discussed, as many hon. Members were not aware that there was to be a morning sitting.
MR. ANDERSONcomplained that the course of the Government, in fixing a morning sitting so early in the Session, was unprecedented, and he trusted that when they met in the evening, the
1856
Government would take care to have a House to enable him to bring on his Motion about the Currency, or else he would suffer materially by the change the Government had made in the sitting of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought there was no harm in putting the Friendly Societies Bill on the Paper, in the hope that if the discussion on the Regimental Exchanges Bill terminated at an early hour, they might proceed so as to enable them to get into Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, "That the sitting of the House To-morrow, at Two of the clock, be held subject to the Resolution of the House of the 30th day of April 1869."

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.

  LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CAWLEY, Bill to amend the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAWLEY, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Mr. HICK, and Mr. TORR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 96.]

  SHIPOWNERS LIABILITY BILL.
  On Motion of Captain Put, Bill to define the liability of Shipowners, Shipmasters, and others in command of British Merchant Vessels, in respect of loss of life or injury to the person on board ship, ordered to be brought in by Captain PIM and Mr. TWELLS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 97.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Order * (30).
Report—Land Titles and Transfer (27–40).

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.

  (NOS. 27–40.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had given Notice of some Amendments on this stage of the Bill; but of these some were merely verbal, and in others changes intended to give effect to Amendments of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne), which he was ready to accede to. He believed the only Amendment on which any discussion would arise was that of which his noble and learned Friend had given Notice, and which, if adopted, would follow Clause 10.
  Amendments made.
  LORD SELBORNE, in moving to insert the Clause of which he had given Notice, and which provided that when, after three years from the passing of the Act, there was a sale of land in fee simple, registration should be compulsory, said, that he might have contented himself with the protest he made on the second reading against the omission from the Bill of a compulsory clause, if his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had not been so good as to say, that he would willingly hear the reasons for and against compulsion stated, and to encourage him to take this opportunity of raising the question by a distinct proposition. In approaching the question he wished to point out that compulsion in this case differed very much from compulsion in any case where conscience was concerned, or in which noncompliance was punished with any personal penalty. There was no man in their Lordships' House who had a stronger leaning in favour of liberty or against compulsion in those spheres of human action which were proper subjects for free choice than himself. But this was not a question of personal liberty, whether public or private. The subject with which their Lordships were asked to deal was one in respect of

  1777
  which the law prescribed an effect which was to arise from certain things, done or omitted to be done. Therefore there could be no interference with personal liberty in making the registration required by this Bill compulsory. All he proposed to say to the landowner was this—"If you put your property on the register, you will get a legal title with certain rights and incidents. If you do not put it on the register you will not get a legal title, but you will have an equitable title with other rights and incidents." In all the existing modes of conveyance and assurance, certain legal solemnities were required to be used for the purpose of producing certain effects: the entire system being technical, and the creature of positive law. That was just the same sort of compulsion which would be applied, rendering necessary, instead of those solemnities, others of a simpler and more convenient kind, if his Amendment were adopted. Well then, if their Lordships were satisfied that their legislation was proceeding in a right direction and on sound and accurate lines, the presumption was that the legislation ought to be compulsory rather than otherwise. The object was, as far as possible and as soon as possible, to substitute a better system for our present complicated system of land titles and land transfer; and if the plan by which it was proposed to do this was a good one, manifestly public policy pointed to the importance of having it made as general as possible. They ought to leave themselves as little as possible at the mercy of the prejudices and interests generated by the system they intended to supersede, in order to give the best chance possible to the measure which they wished to succeed. That being the general principle on which he desired to proceed, he had next to consider whether in a case of that kind such experience as we had was in favour of a general and compulsory or of an optional and voluntary system of registration. The answer was, that all our practical experience in similar or analogous cases was in favour of compulsion. What had the advocates for reform in the transfer of land been constantly placing before their Lordships as practical arguments in its favour? Why, they had always brought forward the examples of systems in which compulsory registra-
  1778
  tion had already received the sanction of the Legislature, and always with the best results. Take the case of the transfer of stocks, and of shares in ships—was registration in these transactions optional or compulsory? It was compulsory. Registration was compulsory in respect of deeds in Middlesex, in the several Hidings of Yorkshire, in the Bedford Level, and in Ireland; and the Legislature had given its sanction to compulsion in these cases with the express object of avoiding a part only of the evils of our system of conveyancing. There was also the case of dealings in shares in Joint Stock operations. And in our Australian colonies, and in various foreign countries, in which the title to land was evidenced by public registers, registration was compulsory; and the system worked easily, and with satisfactory results. All these examples showed that there was nothing new in the principle of compulsory registration, and that in every case in which it was enforced it had been found effectual. If, by the present measure, their Lordships and the other House of Parliament did not make the registration of title compulsory, he feared there was serious danger of the new system being warped and embarrassed by those habits and those interests which were opposed to it. When he spoke of interests, he did so in no invidious sense; because he believed that in very many instances at least those interests would be brought to bear unconsciously. Their Lordships were aware that in 1869 a Royal commission was appointed to consider the working of the system of land registry under Lord Westbury's Act. Some of the evidence taken by that Commission was very instructive. He found that a member of a very eminent firm of London solicitors, when being examined by the Commission, stated that as to the neglect of registration he did not believe hostile feeling had much to do with it—he thought it was to be attributed to an indisposition to change and a dread of the unknown. He might cite to their Lordships the testimony of a number of witnesses to the effect that, in their opinion, nothing but compulsion could overcome the dislike to registration. According to his own observation, that opinion was a well-founded one—he believed there would be a vast amount of vis invertiœ opposed to the working

  1779
  of the Bill now before their Lordships. When that was seconded by those interests to which he had before referred—for it was a matter which, after all, was very much in the hands of the lawyers—it was difficult to feel at all sanguine of success if the system was to be an entirely voluntary one, both now and in the future. He would now call their Lordships' attention to one or two things which ought to be borne in mind when the question of compulsion was considered. The present Bill, as well as the two previous Bills, differed in an important respect from the Act of Lord Westbury. The difference was this. In accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1869, it was proposed in this, as it had been in the Bill of last year and the Bill which preceded it, to enable persons to register, not only absolute titles—titles that had been examined and certified by the Registrar—but possessory titles also. That was to say, every man in possession of land might, under the Bill as it stood, register the title which he claimed to that land; and if the Bill were amended by the clause he proposed, he would be compelled to do so, after the expiration of throe years from the passing of the Act, in the event, and upon the occasion, of its being brought into the market for sale. The difference between this Bill and Lord Westbury's Act in that respect was, no doubt, very important. It would have been impossible to make registration compulsory under Lord Westbury's Act; because under it, the only titles which could be registered were those which were made out as absolute. What was known as a Parliamentary title was to be made out when a title was put on the register under that Act. Now there were not many estates with such a title in this Kingdom; and the reason was this—It had been customary to sell land with special conditions, and the consequence was that the greater part of the land which had passed through the market was held on titles qualified by those special conditions. But to clear those special conditions off would require a considerable time; and until they were cleared off, the title of land to which they attached could not be registered under Lord Westbury's Act. Again, even where special conditions did not interpose as a difficulty, the expense of making out an
  1780
  absolute title would be, in many cases, an expense which could not be thrown on owners of moderate means. Well, most wisely, this Bill, like its two predecessors, was so framed that it would enable persons, who would not go to an expense which they might not be able to afford, to place their titles such as they were, with all their imperfections, on the register. This provision at once removed a hardship which would otherwise exist if owners were compelled to register whenever their land was brought into the market. The. Commissioners of 1869 pointed out that the titles would increase in validity by progress of time from the period at which they were put on the register. They pointed out that recency of date was no objection; because if the purchaser was not satisfied with the title registered, he would require proof of title in the same way as though there had been no registration; after the title had been on the register for five years, they thought it probable that the purchaser might frequently require less proof, and so on; and that, after 30 years, none, or very few, would go beyond the register—while, in respect of the period which had elapsed after the title had been on the register, no one could go beyond the register at all. The lapse of time made the title stronger and more marketable every year; and they said we ought thus to lay the foundation of a system which would become, year by year, more beneficial than the systems it would gradually supersede, and would ultimately substitute a good one for a bad one. The Commissioners compared the process, by which all titles put on the register would be cleared, to that which water underwent in a filter. As the water descended the purer portion was constantly increasing in volume, though that which was yet above remained mixed with mud or other impurity; but when all the water got down below a certain mark, it was all pure. So it was with titles placed on the register. In process of time they were completely cleared. That would, he thought, be an object of high public policy, even if there were no advantage from the very date at which the registration commenced. He admitted it was a drawback that the present generation would not live to see all properties pass through the registration filter; but he was not

  1781
  one of those who thought that the Legislature should have no care for posterity; and a not remote posterity would enjoy the full advantage of the system. Some, however, of its good effects—and those of no trifling value—would be immediate. The expense of the change ought not to be great—for if the title was put upon the register without being completely made out and certified, the cost could not be serious—and, from the very moment of registration, so far as related to the mere operations of charges and transfers, as distinguished from trusts and settlements, all future expense of conveyancing would be got rid of. In our Australian colonies, where the system had been adopted, as far as transfer was concerned, it seemed to be carried out with extreme simplicity and inexpensiveness. Such success as the system had met with in the colonies—and it was generally spoken of as a great success on the whole, though, perhaps, there were some points on which some of the Colonial Acts might be improved—had not resulted from its being optional, but from its being compulsory. If his memory served him rightly, there was some difference among the Commissioners of 1859 on that point—as to the extent to which compulsion should be carried—but the question had been considered by them with respect to a scheme very different from that before their Lordships. Compulsion had, since that time, been applied in the colonies, and had been attended with success. We had also had considerable experience of the working of Lord Westbury's Act, and of what had been done in Ireland under the Incumbered Estates and the Landed Estates Acts, and he thought their Lordships were now in a position to decide as between a voluntary and a compulsory system. Their Lordships had heard from his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack what were the reasons which had led him to withdraw the compulsory provision contained in his Bill of last year, and to make his present measure one for voluntary registration only. The practical objections relied on by his noble and learned Friend appeared to him to resolve themselves into two—one, the difficulty as to expense in the case of small properties, and the other the difficulty arising from the number of local registries which would be required if Regis-
  1782
  tration were made compulsory. As to the first of these, he might refer to a printed document which had been placed in his hands, and, no doubt, also in the hands of his noble and learned Friend, and the contents of which were similar to those in a Petition presented last Session to the other House of Parliament. It was drawn up by a numerous and highly respectable body of gentlemen who were solicitors practising in Lincolnshire. It would appear from the document that the county of Lincoln abounded in small freeholds, which were made the subject of transfers, and that these transfers were carried out with much expedition, simplicity, and economy, under the present system. He was very glad to hear that in Lincolnshire there was such a large number of those small freeholds, and he hoped that Lincolnshire was not the only county in England thus favourably circumstanced. If it were demonstrated that a system of registry would not benefit those small freeholders, and would not tend to facilitate the transfer of that class of property, he confessed he should have a much less strong opinion than that which he now entertained as to the advantages to be derived from any Bill of this kind. If such a Bill were only good for the rich, it would be of much less value than he took it to be. But let their Lordships see the conditions which, according to the authors of the document to which he had been referring, made those transactions so simple, cheap, and expeditious; and let them further see whether those conditions would not equally tend to make registration practicable, without any additional cost in those cases. The gentlemen who drew up the document stated that in their part of the country the solicitors and the clients were known to each other, and were acquainted with the land. If that were so, it would much facilitate registration. Then they said that the same solicitor often acted for both vendor and purchaser. That circumstance would be quite as advantageous in the case of registration as it could be in the case of a transfer without registration. Again, they stated that in some instances the purchase money was to be secured, wholly or in part by mortgage on the property, and the same solicitor acted for mortgagor and mortgagee. This, again, would be a saving of money in the preparation of

  1783
  deeds: the transfer and the charge could be simultaneously made upon the register. They urged, further, that in those small cases there were no complications arising out of settlements:—that the titles were simple and well-known, that the assistance of counsel was rarely required, and that the contract was made and the whole transaction completed within a very short time. Every one of these advantages would operate exactly in the same manner, and have exactly the same value, under a system of compulsory registration. The petitioners relied much on the cheapness of the present system; and to illustrate their experience in that way they gave a summary of the costs in 127 cases. Of these 5 were under £50, 17 under £100, 33 under £200, and 14 under £300. He would not go further than £300, because that was the limit in the Bill of last year. The lowest charge for conveyance, including stamp and payments, was £2 8s. upon a £40 transaction; and the highest was £20 upon a £1,000 purchase. The average cost for a conveyance for under £50 was £2 9s. 2d; for a conveyance under £100 it was £2 18 s., and for a conveyance under £200 it was £4 3s. 2d. The charges upon the whole 137 cases gave an average of £6 9s. 4d. in each case. Now, what reason was there for believing that the charges under a system of registration would not be equally small? Excluding the stamp duty, the average charge for conveyancing in the cases to which he had referred to was for transactions under £50, £2 9s. 2d.; under £100, £2 18 s.; and under £200, £4 8s. 3d. Everything higher cost proportionately more, which, for the mere operation of registration, need not be the case. It would not require more than 5s. for registration, and 5s. for the affidavit, of which the sole object would be to prove possession, and which might, and would be, in a short and simple printed form. The margin for the solicitor's travelling expenses, and fair profit, would be at least as great as now, without any additional charge; and it must be borne in mind that after registration all future transfers would cost comparatively nothing. He thought, therefore, that by fixing the fees at a low rate, as they ought to be fixed, it would be quite practicable to adopt the system of compulsory registration with-
  1784
  out increasing in the case of the first transfer the cost of those small transactions, and with a great diminution of expense in all subsequent transfers. He observed that the Birmingham Law Society said—"We observe with great satisfaction the omission of all compulsory clauses from the present Bill," The only thing he gathered from the report of those gentlemen from Birmingham was that they were willing to contemplate with complaisance the possibility of a system of registration coming into operation some 20 years hence. It was quite true, as stated by one or more of the witnesses examined before the Commission of 1869, that the system of registration under Lord Westbury's Act was expensive, but the one he now proposed was totally different in its operation. Writing to him on this subject, a gentleman of great local experience, as a solicitor and conveyancer, in the county of Essex had stated his conviction that if registration was not made compulsory, instead of being a benefit, the Bill would be an injury, because it would render it necessary in all cases that country solicitors should employ their London agents to search whether the property was registered or not, and he was of opinion that the views which he (Lord Selborne) had advocated were sound and practical. If they combined an optional system of registration with an optional system of ordinary conveyance, they would add in all cases of optional conveyance an additional expense for searching to see whether the land was registered or not. In Middlesex and Yorkshire and Ireland they had long had experience of registration of a very different, less useful, and far more costly kind; and even such registration, though it might cause some expense, did not check small transactions in land. This brought him to the second question, as to district registries, which he would assume to be necessary; not, indeed, for the examination or verification of title, but for the registry of—at all events—possessory titles by those to whom it might be more convenient to transact that business in the country than in London. This was the opinion of the Commissioners of 1869, who thought that the expense of registering the titles to small properties might be much diminished by having local registries. It was a point, however, on which

  1785
  opinions were divided. Sir Robert Torrens said that in Australia the system of one central registry worked with great facility, and Mr. Smee, of the Bank of England, advocated the same theory. Now, they had already district registries for the County Courts, for the Probate Court, and also local Admiralty registration; and one or other of these systems might be employed to register possessory titles. He would go further, and say that this district registration might be done by any respectable practising attorney. He ventured to think that they would be sufficiently remunerated for this service, whether the business were much or little, by the fees, which might be fixed. If it were much, those fees, though small, would be a substantial remuneration; and, if it were little, there would be no occasion for more than a small remuneration for little work. The whole of this part of the question was matter of detail, and need not involve any practical difficulty or expense which ought for a moment to be put in competition with the great objects they had in view. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, after Clause 10, to insert the following clause—
  "When, after the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Act, there is a sale of land in fee simple in possession, or subject to any prior estate for life or for years, and whether subject or not to any incumbrance (there not being already a registered proprietor), and the purchaser might apply for registration under this Act, some person shall be registered under this Act as proprietor thereof, either with a possessory title only or with an absolute or qualified title: and any deed or instrument of conveyance of the land shall operate in equity only and not be effectual at law to pass the legal estate in the land.
  "The application for registration may be made either by the purchaser (with the consent of the vendor) before the execution of any deed or instrument of conveyance, or, after the execution of any such deed or instrument, by some person interested, beneficially or otherwise, under the same; and if in such deed or instrument any person or persons is or are specified as the person or persons to be registered as proprietor or proprietors of such land, the registrar shall register such person or persons accordingly thereto. If no person shall be so specified the person or persons to be registered as proprietor or proprietors shall be the purchaser, or some person or persons to be nominated by him in that behalf, when the application is made before or without the execution of any deed or instrument of conveyance; and when any such deed or instrument of conveyance has been executed then such person or persons entitled under such deed or instrument as herein-after mentioned; (that is to say,)
  1786

  "(a.) The person (if any) entitled beneficially in possession to the fee simple of such land:

  "(b.) In case of there being persons beneficially entitled under such deed or instrument for successive estates, the person or persons (if any) in whom, if registration were not required, the land would be by such deed or instrument vested in fee, as trustee or trustees; and if there be no such person, the person or persons having the first beneficial freehold estate under the same; or (at his or their request), any person or persons having under such deed or instrument a power of sale over such land, whether with or without any consent, request, or direction."—(The Lord Selborne.)

  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not help rejoicing that, even at the expense of some encroachment on their Lordships' time, his noble and learned Friend had brought the present question fully under their consideration. It was important the House should know on what principles legislation with respect to it should proceed, and it was also desirable that there should be no misunderstanding on the subject out-of-doors. Having heard his noble and learned Friend, their Lordships might, he thought, congratulate themselves on having heard every possible argument in favour of compulsory registration submitted to them in the most forcible manner; but he (the Lord Chancellor) should, he believed, be able to show them that the noble and learned Lord had underrated some of the difficulties which stood in the way of the proposal which he advocated, while there were others which seemed not to have presented themselves at all to his mind which were absolutely insuperable—when he had done that their Lordships would have the opportunity of deciding on the question after having heard both sides. He might at the outset observe that nothing would be more satisfactory to the Government than to propose legislation on the subject which would not leave it to chance or even to the future to determine whether a measure such as that under discussion recommended itself to the good will of the country, but which would at once make it obligatory. He, as well as his noble and learned Friend, was fully alive to the vis inertiœ which existed in relation to questions of the kind, and he would gladly overcome it by legislation if he could deem it expedient or practicable to do so. It was, however, because he believed it to be both inexpedient and impracticable in the present instance,

  1787
  that he must ask their Lordships not to give their assent to the proposal which had just been submitted to their notice. He would, in the first place, point out how the question of authority with respect to it stood. His noble and learned Friend had referred to two Commissions, one of which made its Report in 1857 and the other in 1869. Now, he thought it right to mention that the former had under their consideration only the system which involved the examination of titles, although they, in point of fact, clearly recommended that registration should not be compulsory. With regard to the Commission of 1869 the case was altogether different. It was appointed especially for the purpose of finding out why it was that Lord Westbury's Act had failed, and how that failure could be remedied. Before that Commission those witnesses were examined to whom his noble and learned Friend had referred, and there were only two or three of them who suggested anything about compulsion. That, however, was not all. The Commission had before them the project of the registration of mere possessory titles—they had it before them, for the Bill which he (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced in the House of Commons had been amended so as to include titles of every kind; and, on their own Report, they strongly recommended that any system of registration should be founded mainly on the registration of mere possessory titles, and yet declined to recommend a compulsory scheme. They recommended, indeed, that once a title was placed on the register, it should not be taken off; but beyond that they made no recommendation. So much for the weight of authority. He wished, in the next place, to touch on the question of principle. His noble and learned Friend had put forward illustrations as affording a parallel to the present case, which, in his opinion, simply tended to mislead. In adverting to that point, he wished their Lordships to bear in mind what the Bill did not propose to do. They were aware that in many countries of the Continent it was thought to be a matter of great public policy to have a registration which would reveal to the public and to the State, at all times, the names of the real owners of every piece of fixed property in the country. These nations made re-
  1788
  gistration compulsory, because their public policy was to have a record of real owners, so that it might be known who owned every acre of land in the country, and unless registration was made compulsory that object could not be attained. Other countries had acted on the policy—we ourselves had done it with regard to Middlesex and York-shire, Ireland and Scotland—that the dealings of mankind required that every deed which was executed with regard to real property should be placed on an open register, so that the world might know what deeds were in existence charging incumbrances, or in any way affecting such property. Now, that was an intelligible policy, though he looked upon it as a policy of the worst possible kind—but it was a policy which required compulsion, because otherwise every deed placed upon the register would fail to secure the object in view. In those two instances, therefore, there was compulsion, for it was demanded by the nature of the case. The present, however, was a Bill, which even though it made registration compulsory did not profess to make it compulsory to place the real owner on the register—because the name on the register might be that of a person who had no beneficial interest in the property—neither was it a measure to provide for placing every deed on the register, because the object was that no deed should be put upon it. The two analogies which he had mentioned, therefore, entirely failed. His noble and learned Friend next took the analogy of ships, pointing out that it was sought to make the transfer of land as easy as the transfer of ships, and that the registration of ships was compulsory. Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) was anxious to make the registration of land as easy as that of ships; but it should be borne in mind that the reason why the registration of ships was made compulsory was not to facilitate transfers but because, as a matter of public policy, it was desirable to know that every ship that carried the British flag was in truth a British ship, as she had certain privileges under that title and certain obligations. Then as to stocks, registration was compulsory, for how could there be any transfer except by a change of the inscription on a public register from one person to another? Again, it was said that in Australia registration was com-

  1789
  pulsory. Now, he believed there was no registration at all in Australia till 1859, when it was found that the registration scheme which he had introduced into the House of Commons might be extremely well suited to that colony. That scheme was, therefore, taken up, if he was not mistaken, by Sir Robert Torrens, and passed in opposition to the Government of the day. He thought that that registration was, in the first instance, voluntary, and was afterwards made compulsory—but under what circumstances? The title of land in Australia depending entirely on Crown grants of certain rectangular squares of land marked out by parallels of latitude and longitude, and mapped out and recorded originally in Government offices, it was found that the system of registration adapted itself without trouble to a state of things of that kind. As it consequently recommended itself to the great body of the owners of land it was largely adopted—at first in a voluntary shape, and subsequent legislation made it compulsory. He should be glad when a system of that nature could be adopted in the same way in this country, and then it might be that a further step could be taken to render it compulsory. He asked their Lordships to consider what was the foundation of this measure. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that there was a principle of public policy involved in a Bill like the present; but it was a principle of public policy which was to be attained through the medium of a boon offered in the first instance to the landowners of this country. What he understood such a measure to offer was this. At the present day, no doubt, on every transfer or mortgage of land a very large sum was spent on law costs, and that sum had to be spent over again at the next transfer or mortgage. If, for example, they were about to sell 1,000 acres of land, there might be a stamp duty of, say, £50 payable in effecting that sale, while the law expenses connected with the examination of the abstract of title and other difficulties might mount up the bill of costs both on the side of the seller and on that of the purchaser to £450—a sum which he thought in many instances was not an exaggeration. Thus they would have an expense of £500 on each transfer, which was just so much money taken from the seller; because it
  1790
  would otherwise go to the owner of the land that was being sold. It stood to reason that if that £500 had not to be paid by the purchaser, as was now the case, the purchaser would be able, and they might suppose also willing, to pay £500 more to the owner of the land. Therefore, if they could devise any scheme by which a large proportion of the expense now attending the transfer or sale of land might be saved, they would offer a boon to the owner of the land, and would arm him with the power of going into the market and obtaining a higher price for his property. If that were accomplished generally throughout the country, a great public advantage would be derived; but that public advantage was to be, and ought to be, derived in the first instance through the boon offered to the landowner. That being so, he asked on what principle they were to force on the owner of land by compulsion a boon of that kind? Assuming, for the moment, that their means of compulsion were efficacious, what light had the Government—unless it adopted the principle of being a paternal Government—to say to a man—"We offer you a boon of this character; you must accept it; we leave you no choice in the matter?" Did they do such a thing in other cases? No doubt, many of their Lordships thought a particular course of husbandry was the best mode of cultivating the land; but what would they say to legislation which, even with a consensus of the men most skilled and eminent in such matters, proposed to impose a particular course of husbandry on the cultivator, because, forsooth, they felt satisfied it would put money in his pocket and add to the productiveness of the land. He had listened with some interest to his noble and learned Friend to find whether he would supply any precedent for legislation of the kind he recommended, but he had heard none. They often had complaints made of the length of conveyances, and measures had been proposed and carried for shortening them; but he had never heard of any Act being passed to make those measures compulsory, even although a good deal of money might be saved by it. Therefore, even as a matter of principle, he said they had no example, and he believed they had no reason in the abstract by which they would be entitled to force a measure

  1791
  of that nature on those who did not wish to adopt it. Then how did his noble and learned Friend propose by his Amendment to apply the principle of compulsion? He proposed, in the first place, to apply it only in the case where there was to be a sale. "Why was it not also to be applied to a mortgage, or, again, to a devise, where there was a will passing land? But, taking the case of a sale, supposing there were two farms separated by a hedge, what right had they to say because it happened that the one farm was about to be sold, that it must be put on the register, and that the other farm need not be, because it was not to be sold? It was suggested that it was desirable to give greater facilities for the passing of land from hand to hand, and to encourage more land being available for transfer than was now the case. Well, it was a singular way of attaining that end to fasten on the land which was going to be sold—which required no compulsion—which was about to pass from hand to hand—they singled out the very land which was already doing the work that they wanted to be done, and they placed that obligation against the will of the owner upon it—because he assumed that if the owner liked it he could take the advantage of that legislation without compulsion—while with the other land they did not interfere at all. He maintained that once they got the land on the register the effect would be that it would enable it to be passed from hand to hand at very much less expense than it was at present—the Bill would be an entire failure unless it secured that end. He believed it would be impossible to put land on the register in the first instance, whether with only a possessory title or with a higher title, without some additional expense for that purpose; and what they were doing by fastening on the first sale of land was to say that there must be a further expense than would otherwise be incurred in the transaction. It must not be supposed that the expense would only be a few shillings, and it must be distinctly understood that the Government were not prepared to recommend a grant of public money for the purpose of cheapening the transfer of land in this country:—the land registry must be self-supporting—for the work to be done, payment must be made sufficient to cover the cost of
  1792
  that work. That principle had been adopted in Ireland, and also in the case of the Middlesex and Yorkshire registries. That was the only principle which the House of Commons would be likely to sanction. Where work of that kind was to be done the fee charged for doing it must be commensurate with the work done. In this attempt to make registration compulsory, it was impossible to draw the line between large and small conveyances on any principle that could be satisfactorily maintained. His noble and learned Friend had admitted, with regard to small transactions, that unless some effective means of local registration could be secured throughout the country, it would be impossible to force registration upon the purchasers. To show what would happen in these cases he would take one instance—and one was as good as a thousand. He had received a communication, not from Lancashire or Birmingham, but from a cathedral city in the south of England. It was from a solicitor whose respectability he had inquired into, and it ran as follows:—
  "I have for many years been solicitor for the …. Benefit Building Society, and in that capacity have had to make numerous conveyances for the members of that society of small pieces of land. The fees in such cases are extremely small, and in one instance I prepared 115 conveyances at 20 s. each, and 67 at 10 s. each—not, of course, including stamps,—and have made many others for about the same price. The purchase money is, of course, small, ranging from £15 to £50, and a few exceeding that sum. In the course of my practice I have made a large number of conveyances, and do so from day to day, for sums varying from £1 10 s. to £4, including stamps. I have to-day engaged to prepare one where the purchase-money is £140 for £3 10 s., exclusive of stamps. In such cases the title is simple, and, of course, we take this fact into consideration in the cases especially of the working classes, who generally expect a solicitor to tell them beforehand how much the conveyances will cost. I am quite satisfied that the only effect of compulsory registration would be expense and delay in all small purchases, and they are much more numerous in the country than the larger ones, and thus, instead of the Act proving a benefit to the working classes, for whose advantage it is supposed to have been intended, it will prove very injurious to their interest, and will prevent instead of promoting the sale of land. I am about shortly to prepare 110 conveyances of small pieces of land for the artizan class to build dwelling-houses on. My fee will probably he £1 each, and what can the effect of registration be but a considerable increase of expense, and rendering the whole transaction more tedious and difficult?"
  Well, how would those cases where the

  1793
  fee of the solicitor was at present £1 be affected by registration? His noble and learned Friend had referred to the Middlesex Registry. In that case the smallest office fee was 5s. This, however, was but a small part of the matter. It would be necessary when land was placed on the register for the first time, whether the title was merely possessory or not, that the register should be approached by a solicitor. What was to be set down as the charge under this head? In connection with the Middlesex Registry the ordinary charge appeared to be £2 2s. But let it be taken that that was too high, and that the fee in connection with these small transactions would be the lowest which it was the practice of solicitors to charge—namely, 6s. 8d. With 5s. as the office fee, that would make 11 s. 8d. to be paid for registration in addition to the charge of £1 already incurred in connection with the conveyance.
  LORD SELBORNE: But there need be no deed of conveyance.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmaintained that upon the first transfer—the transaction which was to lead to the title being put on the register—no man in his senses would dispense with a deed. Once get the property registered, and then, he was delighted to think, it might pass by a single change of name upon the register, without any deed. The registration expenses he had mentioned would, he contended, be a very serious additional cost in the small cases to which he had referred. In the larger cases also there would be the same objection. Compulsory registration of the kind proposed would simply be a tax on the transfer of land, and would be felt most heavily by those whom it was desired to encourage as much as possible to become owners of land. Next he came to the very important question as to where the registration was to be done. It was true that the Commission of 1869 had said that it would be desirable to have district Registrars; and in the most cheerful way possible they added that they did not think it necessary to enter into details on the point. There was no doubt that it would be impossible to require persons to come up to London from remote parts of the country—from Devonshire, Cornwall, or Northumberland—for the purpose of registering small purchases in a central
  1794
  office; but his noble and learned Friend said there would be no difficulty whatever in registering possessory titles in the country, and that existing Registrars—those of the County Courts, for example—might be employed for the purpose. This proposal seemed to him to be based on a mistaken view of the necessities of the case. If a district was taken away from the jurisdiction of the London office, it must be taken away wholly, and all the registration for that area must be carried on in the local office. Otherwise, it might commonly happen that land on one side of a hedge, in regard to which it was desired to register a possessory title only, would be registered at the local office, while land on the other side, which had a guaranteed or qualified title, would have to be registered in London. He certainly did not think such an arrangement could work. It would be practically impossible either at the London office or the local office to ascertain what charges there might be upon the land. It would not do for a man to be told at the London office—"You must wait till we have communicated with the local Registrar before getting the information you want." It was scarcely necessary for him to point out to the noble and learned Lord that it would be impossible to have one kind of title registered by the County Court Registrar in the country and another kind registered by the Registrar at the head office in London; and to enact that one acre of land in Devonshire was to be registered by the Registrar of the County Court of Devon, and that another acre, perhaps adjoining it, was to be registered in London. If that were so, who was to conduct the registration of titles in the different localities? Their Lordships must remember that it required equal skill and legal knowledge to enable a Registrar to judge of a Devonshire title as of a Middlesex title; and it it must not be supposed that because Devonshire was at a distance, that therefore the work would not require to be executed with as much exactness as would be necessary in London. But what would be the result of the adoption of the noble and learned Lord's proposition? Why, that in Devonshire, almost any person would be able to act as Registrar; but in London, the duties of the office must be discharged by a barrister of 15 years' standing, receiving

  1795
  a large salary. The noble and learned Lord had stated that he had received a communication from a solicitor in Essex in favour of the establishment of district registries; but, for his part, he (the Lord Chancellor) had received a score of letters every day on the subject from solicitors and others who were not only in favour of the establishment of district registries, but who were also willing to undertake the duties of those offices; they were not only anxious that there should be district registries, but they were anxious to be appointed district Registrars. He did not doubt that every one of those gentlemen, if appointed to discharge those offices, would do their best; but if they could discharge the duties efficiently, what necessity was there to have a head office in London merely to discharge similar duties? Speaking with all respect of the existing County Court Registrars, he did not think they possessed any special qualifications or training for investigating the titles to land. The County Court Registrars were chosen by the County Court Judges, and they were selected chiefly on account of their skill in the forensic litigation which usually came before a County Court, and they were just the very class of solicitors who would not have any special experience of conveyancing. His impression, indeed, was that the County Court Registrars did not require any qualification at all, and that they need not even be solicitors or barristers; all that they had to do being merely to receive wills, and to see that they were properly attested and to send copies of them to London. But he had not even yet exhausted the difficulties that would arise in the event of the noble and learned Lord's proposal being adopted. It was important to determine under what circumstances access to the register of titles should be admitted, and, in his opinion, the registers should not be open to any one who could not show a primâ facie interest in the property the title of which he sought to inspect. But the noble and learned Lord now proposed to throw open the register of all the titles of a particular county to a particular solicitor practising in that county—because the County Court Registrars were not required to give up their private practice—who would thus have placed in his hands the key to all the titles to
  1796
  the property in his neighbourhood. Such a provision was not, in his opinion, likely to commend itself to their Lordships. But it might be asked, if all these difficulties to which he had referred were to be anticipated from the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, what was the boon that this Bill would confer upon the owners of small properties? Taking the case of a large estate purchased by a Benefit Society, with the view to its being cut up in order to sell it in small lots, numbering, perhaps, 800 or 1,000, for the erection of small houses, all that would be necessary to do under the Bill would be to register the property in the lump, and then to print some 800 or 1,000 tickets or pieces of parchment of limited size—with perhaps a little map at the corner—and to have written upon them the terms of the transfer of each lot at the office of the Registrar, which could be done at a very small expense. He confessed that he should rejoice to see such a proposal carried into effect, because he was certain that it would confer a great boon upon the holders of small properties. He was afraid that the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, that this Bill should be made compulsory could not be carried out, and he was sorry to inform their Lordships that, in his judgment, the compulsion proposed by the noble and learned Lord was absolutely no compulsion at all—or, at any rate, would not operate as such in nine cases out of every ten. The noble and learned Lord had said that he did not intend, in the event of non-registration, to make the purchase and sale of an estate void, but merely to enact that any instrument of conveyance of land should operate as a conveyance of the equitable estate only, and not of the legal estate, and that the title of a non-registered estate could, therefore, only be perfected by going to a Court of Equity. Such a proposal might have had terrors for an intending purchaser some years ago; but by recent legislation to which the noble and learned Lord had been a party—he referred to the Judicature Act of 1873—the whole of those terrors had been done away with, because by that Act every division of the new consolidated High Court of Justice was bound to take judicial notice of all equitable estates and rights, and to give them equal force with legal estates and rights. Therefore, for the

  1797
  future, under the provisions of that Act, equitable titles would be just as good in 99 cases out of every 100 as legal ones, and so the proposal of the noble and learned Lord would be no compulsion at all. If it were necessary in the hundredth ease to get in the legal estate, the emergency would probably not arise until some 20 or 30 years afterwards, when the holder of the legal estate might be in Australia or in the backwoods of America, where nobody could find him, and, consequently, the legal estate could not be got in.
  LORD PENZANCEdesired to point out that the safer and more prudent and more reasonable course would be to leave the Bill in its present form. He was satisfied that if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had found it possible to make the registration of titles compulsory, he would have been only too glad to have done so; but considering the various circumstances under which property was held, it was almost impossible to say what injustice might not be done, if the Bill were altered as proposed by the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne). The most prudent course would be to pass the Bill in its present shape, and try how it would work. If it were found in the course of a short time that it was desirable to have compulsion in the case of small holdings, it could easily be enacted.
  LORD O'HAGANwished to say a word as to the working of a measure, similar to the present Bill, which had been in operation for the last 10 years in Ireland. Since the year 1850 the Landed Estates Court had dealt with properties of the value of over £50,000,000 sterling, while under the Record of Titles Act, which was similar to that now under consideration, properties to the value in all of £2,000,000 sterling only had been dealt with. The Landed Estates Court gave to every purchaser an indefeasible title, the recording of which was free from any difficulty; and it was plainly the interest of every one who had such a title to put it on record. The want, however, of such a record, which was mainly owing to the absence of a compulsory clause in the Act, left things, in many respects, as they were before the Landed Estates Court was established. Every year created new complications, and made new and expensive searches unavoidable on every
  1798
  fresh transfer, which would have been wholly unnecessary if the machinery of the Record of Title Office had been put into action. He feared that if the clause proposed by his noble and learned Friend were not adopted, the same unfortunate result would arise in England, where the record would be more difficult, and the temptation to avoid it perhaps greater than in Ireland.
  LORD SELBORNE, in replying, observed that in small transactions a deed of conveyance would not be necessary, as under the Act the entry on the register would operate as a transfer of the fee-simple. He altogether demurred to the notion that district registries, for all the purposes of the Act, would be indispensable, merely because they might be so for some, and these very simple purposes. The investigation of titles would go on in the central registry. There need only be local agencies connected with, and subordinate to, the central registry, the functions of which would be to receive and record simple transactions, within their local limits, which did not involve the investigation of title, and to transmit to the central registry, with as much promptitude as might be necessary for the purposes of search, duplicates of all the entries made in their books, just as was now done with respect to wills proved, and administrations taken out in the country by the District Registrars of the Probate Court. Then, with respect to the legal estate, the universal experience in transactions of sale and purchase showed that it was part of the solicitor's duty to obtain a conveyance of the legal estate to his client, and no prudent purchaser would be satisfied with less.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 39: Majority 24.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 40.)

  CONTENTS.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ripon, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Granville, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Card well, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Selborne, L. [Teller.]

  Abinger, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  NOT CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Richmond, D

  Chelmsford, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Clinton, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Hampton, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Headley, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Manners, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Derby, E.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Searsdale, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Ventry, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.