Sitting of 30 July 1877

MINUTES
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report —Lunacy Law. [No. 373.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment* [264].
Committee—South Africa [195]—R.P.; Prisons (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [219]—R.P.
Committee—Report — Police Expenses Act Continuance * [259]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Board) (re-comm.) * [248–269].
Considered as amended—East India Loan * [215].
Third Reading—Contingent Remainders * [152]; Exoneration of Charges * [151], and passed.
Withdrawn—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [214]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment* [234]; Post Office Money Orders* [212]; Factories and Workshops* [123]; Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment* [199].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE LEINSTER CIRCUIT.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government were aware at the time Serjeant Armstrong was appointed Judge of Assize for the Leinster Circuit he had held briefs in railway traverses which were to be tried at Waterford as remanets from the last assizes; whether it is a fact that by reason of his incompetency to try these cases in which he had been counsel, the county business was transferred to the city, and a great delay consequently arose, so that the business of the assizes was left unfinished; and, whether it is a fact that Mr. Justice Lawson directed the jurors of the city of Waterford to attend at ten o'clock on Monday morning the 23rd inst., and did not come to the court, but left without sending either message or explanation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the Government had no knowledge of the private business engagements of Mr. Serjeant Armstrong at the time he was appointed Judge of Assize; but these engagements caused no inconvenience, as Mr. Justice Lawson tried the railway traverses, the only cases referred to in the Question. No delay whatever was caused by this, and all the business of the Assize was disposed of except cases postponed, with consent of counsel. It is not a fact that Mr. Justice Lawson directed the jurors of the city of Waterford to attend at 10 o'clock on Monday, the 23rd. On the contrary, the Commission was closed on Saturday evening, and not adjourned till Monday. The county jurors were apprised that they were not further required; but in consequence of the City Sheriff not giving a notice to that effect, a few of the City jurors came to the Court House on Monday morning, but the sub-Sheriff immediately gave them notice, and they returned to their homes, which are near the Court House.

  OFFICE OF WOODS—APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR.—QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWTNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the appoint-
  162
  ment of solicitor to the Office of Woods has been recently conferred upon a barrister; whether this office has not heretofore been invariably given to a solicitor; whether the emoluments of the office are £1,500 a-year, rising to £1,800 a-year, or whether there has been any change in the scale; whether on the vacancy in the office being declared the President of the Incorporated Law Society, on behalf of that body, addressed letters to the Prime Minister urging that as heretofore the appointment should be given to a solicitor in preference to a barrister; and, whether from 1872 to 1876, inclusive, the barrister who received the appointment was in practice or kept chambers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERin reply, said, it was quite true the office of Solicitor to the Office of Woods had recently been conferred upon a barrister. From 1812 to 1851 the legal business of the Department had been entrusted to a firm of solicitors, who were also in private practice. In 1851 a member of that firm was appointed sole solicitor, retaining his private practice. In 1855 Mr. Watson, the gentleman who had recently resigned, was appointed, and was required to give up private practice. Mr. Watson was appointed solicitor, except as to the Royal forests, at a salary of £1,000 a-year, increasing to £1,300 after five years, and to £1,500 after two years' further service; but on being appointed solicitor to the Royal forests his salary was increased to £1,800. On the recommendation of the Commissioners of Woods, the salary of the office, on the occurrence of a vacancy, was fixed at £1,200 for the first five years, and £1,500 a-year afterwards. It was quite true that the President of the Incorporated Law Society did address the Prime Minister with a view of obtaining, for a solicitor, the appointment of solicitor, not only to the Woods and Forests, but also to the India Board, which had not yet been settled. From 1872 to 1876 the present holder of the office was in practice as a Parliamentary barrister, and had chambers at Westminster. In 1876 he resumed business at the Bar. The Commissioners of Woods had given their advice, that it was immaterial whether a solicitor or a barrister was appointed, so long as they obtained an efficient man. He

  163
  had also ascertained that since the present Government had been in power the Prime Minister had filled up seven legal offices—two by promotion, two by appointment of solicitors, one by appointment of a barrister, one, a Scotch office, by the appointment of an advocate, and one, Queen's Proctor, conferred on the Solicitor to the Treasury without salary.

ROUMANIA—OUTRAGES ON THE JEWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state to the House what official accounts, if any, have been received at the Foreign Office respecting the outrages recently committed by the Roumanians upon the Jews in Darabina and Jassy?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, according to the accounts which we have received from our Consular authorities, on the evening of the 5th of June a band of about 200 persons paraded the town of Jassy and broke the windows of from 200 to 300 Jewish houses, and severely beat about 20 Jews whom they found in the street; and in one street 10 houses belonging to Jews were destroyed by fire, said to be caused by an incendiary. Several persons were under arrest for this and other outrages. At Darabina, on the 8th of June, a lady, a Roumanian by birth, instigated the peasantry to attack the Jews, of whom we hear three were killed and many seriously injured; and all their shops were sacked. The lady and her husband, who is a Greek, have been subsequently arrested.

  METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVEMENT BILL—NEW STREET FROM CHARING CROSS TO TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether he will explain to the House the circumstances which led to the abandonment by the Board of the scheme for the construction of a new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, which was approved by this House?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that the freeholder (the Marquess of Salisbury)
  164
  of considerable property in the line of the street indicated petitioned against the Bill, and in effect sought to limit the powers of the Board, as regards his own interests, to the acquisition of the property actually required for the public way of the new street, whereas the Board, in accordance with the ordinary practice, desired to take sufficient property to give frontages to the street when formed. The Select Committee of this House declined to accede to the prayer of the Petition, but a Committee of the House of Lords inserted the clauses asked for. Having regard to the inconvenience of the precedent, and to the heavy loss which the ratepayers would sustain by the diminution of the recoupments, the Board came to the unanimous conclusion that it could not carry out the improvement upon the prescribed conditions, and therefore, upon the third reading, asked that the Bill might be amended by striking out this improvement.
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, as the circumstances connected with the presentation of this Petition by the owner of considerable property, who is notoriously a Member of the House of Lords, require some further elucidation, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow, at the time of Private Business, when this House is asked to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Metropolitan Street Improvements Bill, I shall call further attention to the subject.

CHINA—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to state to the House the decision which has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the ratification of the Chefoo Convention; and, whether any further Papers on this subject will be presented before Parliament rises?
  MR. BOURKEin reply, said, Her Majesty's Government had at length received a Report from Sir Thomas Wade upon the whole question of the Chefoo Convention; but it would be impossible to present it until the Government of India had had an opportunity of perusing it.

  SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE "LARK" AND THE "OCTAVIA."—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to afford any further information respecting the claims against the Spanish Government arising out of the seizure of the "Lark" in 1872, and of the "Octavia" in 1875; and, whether there is any prospect of any early settlement of these claims?
  MR. BOURKEin reply, said, that with regard to the Lark, our Representative at Madrid (Sir John Walsham) had been instructed on the 18th ultimo to direct the attention of the Spanish Government again to the claim made, and to call attention to the statement which had been before made of the claim for compensation of the owners of the Lark and the destruction of the vessel, and for the detention of the crew. He was desired to recapitulate the case to Senor Calderon Collantes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was not in office when the last appeal was made and rejected by the Spanish Government. With regard to the Octavia, Her Majesty's Government had heard from Madrid that it had been delivered to the British Consul at Porto Rico. They had no information as to the number of the crew who were wounded, and the question of compensation as regarded the Octavia had not been raised.

TURKEY—THE FLEET IN BESIKA BAY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that the British Fleet has left the central position of Besika Bay; and, if so, whether he has any objection to inform the House as to its latest destination?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, it is not true that the British Fleet has left its position in Besika Bay. It went out for a day or two's exercise, but it has probably returned before this.

THE FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  166
  ment, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Factories and Workshops Bill during the present Session; and, if so, if he can inform the House when they propose to move the Second Reading of the Bill?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice that he would that day state the intention of the Government with regard to certain Bills, among which, he was sorry to say, the Bill named would find a place. It would be brought forward at an early period next Session.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE "WAR— ALLEGED RUSSIAN OUTRAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any reply to the statement made by Lord Derby to Count Schouvaloff, and contained in the despatch of the Earl of Derby to Lord A. Loftus of July 17th 1877, on the subject of outrages alleged to have been inflicted by the Russian troops upon the Mahommedan population of the Turkish provinces in Asia and Europe; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of such reply?
  MR. BOURKE: No reply, Sir, has been received on the subject.

ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT —THE LATE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNBARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the India Office has as yet arrived at any decision on the subject of the promotion and retirement of Officers of the late Indian Army; and, if so, when the Warrant relating thereto will be published?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, Sir. All officers of the late Indian Army, who, though transferred to the Imperial Army, remain under Indian pension regulations, are governed as regards pay and promotion by the Royal Warrants issued by the War Office, subject to such provision as the Secretary of State for War may consider necessary to preserve any rights secured to them on their amalgamation with the Imperial Army. The Royal Warrant before the House was prepared in consultation with the Secretary of State for India.

ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT —STATEMENT ON THE WARRANT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANwished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice—namely, Whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that before issuing the Estimate for the Promotion and Retirement scheme the Government intended to initiate a discussion in "another place" on a matter the importance of which turned on the question whether the House of Commons was or was not prepared to sanction certain expenditure; and if such was the intention of the Government, whether it was the case that the Estimate of that expenditure had not been laid before the House of Commons?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. The same explanatory Papers which have been laid on the Table of this House were laid on the Table of the House of Lords; and on that occasion my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (Earl Cadogan) promised to make a statement respecting them today. I am not aware that he has changed his intention, and the other House, having the Papers before them, have a right to discuss the subject. It is quite true that the Estimate has not yet been laid on the Table of this House, and that the House of Lords cannot discuss that point; but there are many other questions connected with this scheme which they may fairly discuss. I may state that on Monday next, if the Business of the House proceeds with ordinary prosperity, I propose to call attention to the subject.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was intended that the Estimate on this subject should be proposed on Monday, when the discussion might be held.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— THE RESOLUTIONS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. WHALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask permission of the House to make a short personal explanation. In the debate on Friday last, on two occasions, I had the misfortune to be called
  168
  to Order; and on the first Resolution you, Sir, were pleased to say my conduct afforded a very strong argument in favour of that Resolution. On the second occasion, I was called to Order when I was replying to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that Resolution was also mainly attributable to myself, acting in conjunction with some other hon. Members in keeping the House waiting uselessly through the night on a recent occasion. I would only ask permission —without in the slightest degree presuming to offer any observation upon, much less objection to, your ruling, Sir, —to say that in both cases when I was out of Order I was venturing to ask— having regard to the special circumstances of the case, and that the responsibility to some extent of these two changes in our Rules was thus cast upon me—to be allowed to state, with regard to the first, that I was saying at the time that it was not right that the rights of minorities in this House should be fettered by the action of a few Roman Catholics. ["Oh, oh!"] My object, I would venture to state, is not to offer any sort of objection, or to make any special observation other than to show that my action on these occasions was, I may say, bonâ fide, and that I was endeavouring to the best of my ability, my judgment, and my conscience —["Order, order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member and the House generally that it would cause great inconvenience to the House if every hon. Member who had been called to Order was on a future occasion allowed to explain.
  MR. WHALLEY: And as regards the second occasion and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: After the intimation from the Chair, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Should he continue his observations I must declare him out of Order. I call upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue).

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION BILL—NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. — THE O'DONOGHUE AND MR. BIGGAR.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, it has been intimated to me from a source the accu-

  169
  racy of which. I cannot doubt, that on Saturday a statement was made in this House by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in reference to me which is liable to a very injurious interpretation. I beg to inform that hon Member that I am now in my place, prepared to meet any charge that he may have to bring against me.
  MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) I beg to state that on the next occasion on which his name appears on the Paper as nominated as a Member of a Committee, if he will then attend, I will give my reasons why I object to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think the House must feel somewhat embarrassed by the few words that have been spoken just now by the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I think it would be right and satisfactory to the House that we should have, in the first place, a statement of what it is that has reached the hon. Member for Tralee, and that then, if he has cause to complain, or to desire an explanation of the hon. Member for Cavan—to whom I presume he has given some Notice—we shall have some statement from that hon. Member. I was not myself present on the occasion; but I understand that words were used by the hon. Member for Cavan relating to the hon. Member for Tralee, of which the hon. Member for Tralee not unnaturally desires some explanation; and I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Tralee would, in the first place, state what the point was of which he complains, and that we should then have some explanation.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I merely wish to say, Sir, that on coming down here to-day, at the very first opportunity I came to you to say that I felt myself called upon to notice statements which I had heard had been brought against me in this House by the hon. Member for Cavan. I also said that I thought it would be better to put a Notice upon the Paper, as, not knowing where a letter would reach the hon. Member for Cavan this morning, I had not had time to communicate to him my intention to refer to the matter in the House. You, Sir, said that you thought I had better allude to the matter at once. I said I
  170
  had heard a great deal about what had been said, and that I had also taken down from the fullest report I could find the observations attributed to the hon. Member. I found it in The Morning Post, where the hon. Member was reported to have said that
  "he objected to the nomination of the hon. Member for Tralee, and said there were weighty reasons against his appointment, but that he did not wish to state them in public in the absence of the hon. Member for Tralee."
  Sir, I now call upon the hon. Member to state those reasons.
  MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, of course the reasons which would pass through any speaker's mind would naturally be very various, and, of course, I do not now pretend to name them all, but I may refer especially to one. In the last Session, or the Session before, a very warm discussion took place in the House, in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) were speakers. On that occasion, several quotations from former speeches of the hon. Member for Tralee were read and discussed in this House and in his presence; and those speeches which were quoted from the public prints satisfied me, and I think satisfied a very large proportion of hon. Members then present, that the hon. Member for Tralee did not come very pleasantly out of the discussion. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not pretend now, of course, to remember the exact words which were used. ["Oh, oh!"] I really cannot pretend to remember a discussion which took place two or three years ago of a personal nature. I have got no notice of this question being brought forward to-day, and I have therefore had no opportunity of referring to the reports; but this I can say, that the impression left upon my mind was of a very marked nature— that a Gentleman who then appeared as the hon. Member for Tralee did, was not a fit Gentleman to be appointed on a Committee. That is one of the reasons, and I think a very material and proper reason. Of course, there are a number of other loose reports, which I cannot now refer to, because I do not know whether they are true or not. You must, of course, in a case of this sort depend upon the general character of the Gentleman who is nominated; but I do specifically refer to the discus-

  171
  sion which took place in this House on the occasion on which the hon. Member for Tralee was replied to by the hon. Member for Mayo.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I should like to call the attention of the House to the statement that has just been made. A Member of this House makes a deliberate statement against another Member of the House on Saturday, that that Member, in consequence of conduct which he only abstains from then stating on account of the absence of that Member, is unfit to sit on a Committee of this House. A graver charge which one Member could bring against another it is impossible to conceive, and that any man could deem himself fit to sit as a Member of this House who makes such a charge and is not able or willing to substantiate it I cannot entertain. Talk of having had no Notice! Why, what right has a man to make a charge of that kind unless he knows what he is about, and has foundation for the statement which he makes? If a man makes a statement of that kind, he requires no Notice at all. He ought to have all the materials fresh in his recollection before he brings a charge against another Member. What has the hon. Member for Cavan told us? He has told us there is something or other which he cannot recollect, and the words of which are not fixed in his memory—
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg leave to ask if the hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in saying that I stated something which I could not remember. I stated that there were a number of speeches made in this House, and the details of those speeches I could not remember.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I say that a man who does not recollect the details upon which a charge of that kind is founded has no right to make it. He ought to know the details, and he ought to be prepared to state them; and when a Gentleman—a Member of this House—comes down two days afterwards, at the earliest moment he can, and calls upon the Member who has made so grievous a charge against him, and receives such an answer as has been given by the hon. Member for Cavan, I think the House will know what judgment and what opinion to form upon the conduct of that hon. Member.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I am quite sure, Sir, I need hardly add anything to what has fallen from the hon. and learned. Gentleman opposite; but if the hon. Member for Tralee thinks it worth while, after what has been said, to take further notice of the matter, the House will support him.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER SIR GEORGE BOWYER rose, but—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: I must point out to the House that the proceeding that has now taken place is in the nature of a personal explanation, and any general discussion of the matter would at the present time be out of Order. If the House thinks proper that any notice should be taken of the matter, it should be done in the form of a substantive Motion; but any discussion now would be irregular.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Sir, I do not propose to enter into any general discussion on this occasion; but, as I felt it my duty on Saturday last to call the hon. Member for Cavan to Order for the insinuations he had cast against my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee, I must say this, after hearing the explanation of the hon. Member for Cavan, that that explanation appears to me to be totally unsatisfactory. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER interposed, but—
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I shall move the adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Cavan stated that the hon. Member for Tralee was not qualified to serve on a Committee because he was not identified with the Irish Party. Well, that I have nothing to say to. But he went on afterwards to say that there were reasons which disqualified the hon. Member for Tralee from serving on a Committee, which reasons he did not choose to state in public. Now, I maintain that in saying that he conveyed a grave charge against the hon. Member for Tralee, almost a worse charge than if it had been specific, because it was an insinuation. I say now that the hon. Member for Cavan ought either to state his charges or withdraw them. I move that this House do now adjourn.
  There being no Seconder, Question not put.

  PARLIAMENT—STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I understood it to be stated on Saturday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day would be prepared to make some further statement with regard to the measures with which it is proposed to proceed, and also with regard to those which the Government would abandon for the present Session. I do not wish to make a long statement; but I may mention that there are still on the Order Book 32 or 33 Government Orders of the Day more or less. Some of them are of no great importance, but there are others of considerable importance, and which will require time for their discussion, and the whole of them will require consideration from the Government. That consideration will, I should think, make it necessary for the Government to make up their minds to make a further sacrifice of these measures if this House is to adjourn within a reasonable time. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is something still to be done in Committee of Supply, and that there are several important Motions on going into Committee of Supply. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make some announcement which will give the House some reasonable prospect of being able to finish its Business about the time he named.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has observed, that there are a considerable number of the measures introduced by Members of the Government which are still on the Paper, and that some of these are measures which may be expected to take a considerable time in discussion. On the other hand, there are a good many of the 32 or 33 measures which are either so far advanced in their progress, or are of such moderate dimensions, that, although they may be important, yet I do not think they would take a great deal of time to consider. Taking the Paper for to-day, I would observe that we shall, of course, proceed with the first Order —the South Africa Bill; with the second Order — the East India Loan Bill; and with the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill, which has made
  174
  considerable progress. I should hope that we may also be able to proceed with the Canal Boats Bill, and with the Police Expenses Act Continuance Bill. The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill must either be passed, or continued in some shape or other for one year. The Prisons (Ireland and Scotland) Bills, which are both already in Committee, are, no doubt, large measures; but it may be hoped that, under the circumstances, they will not take an inordinate time in discussion. There remains on the Paper the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which we do not think it will be possible to go on with this Session. I may say the same with regard to the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, and also the Factories and Workshops Law Consolidation Bill. I am afraid also that, in consequence of the difficulty raised with regard to the Post Office Money Orders Bill, it will evidently take more time for discussion than can now be given to it. Accordingly, although we believe it to be an important measure, we shall not proceed with that Bill, and we shall, therefore, drop to-night these four measures —the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, the Factories and Workshops Law Consolidation Bill, and the Post Office Money Orders Bill. There are several other measures which come after these on the Paper, and which, considering how far they have advanced, ought not to take any length of time, and may be disposed of rapidly. On Wednesday we propose to proceed with the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill, and also with the Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance Bill. I think that these, with the Votes of Supply, and the questions referred to by the noble Lord on going into Supply, with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Universities Bill, constitute the work that remains for the rest of the Session. And I am not without hopes that we may be able to get through that work by Wednesday, the 15th, or the 16th of August.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONwished to know, whether he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill would be dropped, or whether it would be dealt with in the Continuance Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We will consider whether it shall be dropped, or proceeded with in the Continuance Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKasked the Leader of the House, whether it was his intention to proceed with the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, if it was intended to proceed with the Summary Jurisdiction Amendment Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made no remark on the 8th Order of the Day, the Local Taxation Returns Bill, which was a measure, though perhaps of little interest to the House, still of great interest in the country. Was that Bill to be proceeded with?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, in regard to this Bill, the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the President of the Local Government Board would remove any objections which might have been felt in regard to it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped before the end of the Session to be able to pass the Summary Jurisdiction Amendment Bill, which was a very useful measure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should have to communicate with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, before he could give an answer. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill would, of course, be proceeded with.

  THE LATE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY, MR. WARD HUNT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may take this opportunity, in speaking of the Business of the House, to mention one other class of Business which will have to be finished, but which must be finished under circumstances which I am sure none of us can regard without a feeling of pain. I refer to the Navy Estimates. I mentioned some time ago that a particular question likely to cause some discussion will not be brought forward; but still there are some Votes, being all that remain of the Navy Esti-
  176
  mates, which it will be necessary to have before us. I am quite sure we all share the deep feeling with which the country has heard of the loss we have sustained in the death of one who for many years was an active and honoured —may I not say a beloved Member of this House; one who, I am sure, never had an enemy, and who I know had a very great number of friends. It is very difficult for us with whom he acted to speak of him as others would do; but this I cannot doubt—that the whole House sympathizes with us in the feeling I have endeavoured to express.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the House proceeds to consider the Orders of the Day, I think, perhaps, I may be allowed to say a word with reference to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish to say how fully those who sit on this side of the House share the feeling the right hon. Gentleman has expressed with reference to the melancholy event which was announced to us this morning. The right hon. Gentleman whose loss we have this day heard of, and are deploring, has for a considerable number of years taken a prominent part in the proceedings of this House; and I am sure I may say that though many of us differed from him in opinion, we all regarded him as a generous and worthy political opponent. We have all been witnesses of the zeal which he brought to bear on the discharge of the official duties that fell upon him during the present Parliament. I am sure it will only intensify our feeling of regret for his loss to think that the end of the right hon. Gentleman has been hastened by the pertinacity with which, in his failing health and with his physical infirmity, he resolved to remain at his post and to do his duty. I can only again say how much we on this side share the feeling of regret expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SOUTH AFRICA BILL.— [Lords.]
  [BILL 195.]
  (Mr. J. Lowther.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July.]
  II.—UNION.
  Clause 3 (Declaration of union and provision for its completion.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to insert the words ''not being more than six months after the passing of this Act," the object of which was to limit the time within which the Act should be carried out to six months. He had taken the words from the Canadian Act, and thought they would be equally applicable to the present case, and that both should be made alike.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 4, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "not being more than six months after the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that six months was the time mentioned in the Canadian declaration; but he must remind him that in this case the difficulties of communicating between the Mother Country and the South African Colonies, and between the Colonies themselves, were very much greater than in Canada. He proposed later on to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who proposed after Clause 35 to insert a new clause providing that no Order in Council made under this Act should be operative unless published on or before August 1, 1882.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that would not meet his objections.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDquite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther). He submitted that the case of Canada had really no bearing upon the proposal under discussion, because in that instance the details of the scheme had been arranged beforehand, previous to the passing of the Confederation Bill. In this case it was a permissive Bill, and it was impossible to say whether the details could be settled in six or twelve months. Those details would have to be settled locally; therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member was impracticable, and should not be pressed.
  MR. COURTNEYthought that a sufficient time should be allowed for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the Colonists, and he, therefore, suggested that a period of two years should be substituted for the six months proposed by the hon. Member for Meath. He did not think it was any argument against a six months' limitation to say
  178
  that telegraphic communication was defective in South Africa; still, he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford would say that the limitation should not extend beyond two years, that the hon. Member for Meath should not press his Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsupported the Amendment, and expressed his intention of opposing the Bill unless the Government would fix some shorter time than five years as the limit of time within which the Colonies might avail themselves of the Act. He could not understand the logic of the Government. The other night they were told there was reason to fear that unless the Bill were pressed forward the Native tribes of South Africa might become a source of danger, and now they were willing to leave the matter floating in the void for five years.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was a feeling in Africa that the Government wanted to compel the Colonists to adopt a policy of Confederation. If they were to have a Confederation of these Colonies, he thought that it was extremely desirable that it should be understood that the British Legislature did not intend to compel Confederation. No doubt it would be thought a sufficient answer for the Government to say that this Bill was permissive. It was really a permissive Bill. Had it been anything but a permissive Bill, it would have been a mistake. But then they had to consider that, if the Colonies of South Africa were disposed to accept Federation, and if there was good reason to believe that this action of the Legislature would strengthen the hands of those in favour of Federation, the House ought to know whether that was so or not. They ought to know whether the Government had any reason to believe this measure would promote Federation, as the course hitherto adopted by the Government had been full of mistakes, and instead of promoting Federation, it had led to opposition in South Africa. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had not taken the House sufficiently into his confidence with reference to this measure. They understood the hon. Gentleman to intimate the other day that the Government had some private information which induced them to press this Bill forward. [Mr. LOWTHER: No, no!] Well, then,

  179
  if the Committee were in full possession of information, then there was no justification for the Bill. If there was no immediate prospect of Federation, there was no reason for pressing the Bill that Session; but if there were anu urgency, it must be on account of the probability that the provisions of the Bill would be taken advantage of. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to let them know what were their reasons for pressing the Bill with such determination at the expiring moments of the Session.
  MR. GOLDNEYthought the proposal of the Government would allow to the Colonies sufficient time in which to decide upon the proposals contained in the Bill. The question was what process of confederation was to be adopted, and as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies was going to propose an Amendment by which the local Legislatures were to be invited to discuss the question, a limitation of six months would simply negative the whole thing.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to receive from Her Majesty's Government some further information than was contained in the Bill. As at present advised, he was of opinion that the Government possessed little, if any, information beyond that which was in possession of hon. Members who criticized the measure. There was a very large party among the South African Colonies in favour of confederation, and he should be glad if the Government were in a position, which he doubted, to give the House any further information on the subject of the feeling of those Colonies on the matter. The principle of the Bill was to ask the House to support Her Majesty's Government in two things— first, to let the Colonies know that we should be very glad if they would confederate; and, secondly, to make them the offer of enabling them to confederate if they wished to do so. The hon. Member for Meath said that these Colonies must accept that offer within six months; but, for his own part, he conceived that that would be placing them in an awkward position, because it was too short a time to allow them to consider whether they should federate or not. If it was honestly intended to give those Colonies the opportunity of federating, according to the bargain they might make with one another, they should not be pressed too closely as to time. It
  180
  would be better, he thought, to defer this question until his own clause was reached.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that the information he had from South Africa was that considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to federation. If the Bill were not permissive he should oppose it. Altogether, he thought this question of time had better be discussed on the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bradford.
  MR. PARNELLcould not agree to postpone this discussion until the clause of the right hon. Member for Bradford was brought before the Committee. He had no objection, however, to the limit of time for confederation being extended to two years, if the Government would agree to that period. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), who had shown that he possessed considerable knowledge of Colonial affairs, had pointed out that this Bill was not an exact copy of the Canadian Bill, inasmuch as it entirely disregarded the wishes of the Colonial Legislatures.
  LORD ESLINGTONreminded the Committee that this Bill had been before Parliament for many months, and, therefore, it was unfair to treat it as though it had been thrown upon the Table without a word of explanation. We had never had a Secretary of State more anxious to consult the wishes of the Colonies than the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies. He had mixed a good deal with persons connected with the South African Colonies, and they had informed him that the majority of the people of those Colonies were anxious to confederate.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbelieved from the authorized testimony of the South African Colonists, that they were not, as a body, in favour of confederation. As the hon. Member for Meath had declared himself willing to accept two years instead of six months, he would move to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting two years.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "six months," and inserting the words "two years."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment. After full consideration

  181
  of the whole subject the Government had considered that five years — the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)— would meet all reasonable requirements. He did not say that there was an immediate necessity for the confederation of all the Colonies; but what he did say was, that it was necessary that prompt steps should be taken to enable such of the Colonies to confederate as thought fit to do so. Her Majesty's Government left it to the Colonies themselves to say what the nature of the confederation should be—whether of a closer or a looser character. He hoped the Committee would not put any unnecessary constraint upon those who had to carry the scheme into effect, as would be the case if the limit of two years were imposed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford would apply only to the latter portion of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would apply to all the provisions of the Bill, and, therefore, it would be very much more convenient to discuss this question when the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford was before the Committee. Whether the Colonies were anxious for a confederation or not, it was desirable to give them power to do so.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERremarked that the proposal to lay down a limit of six months was simply and absolutely absurd. Two years appeared to him almost as objectionable. With regard to five years, circumstances might arise which might render a Colony unwilling to join the confederation within that or even within a longer period, and he did not see why any limit at all should be proposed. Seeing that this was merely a permissive Bill, he objected to any limitation of its powers. If a division took place he should be prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea.
  MR. DILLWYNwas glad that the Government had agreed to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, which he did not doubt would be carried. But the two questions were distinct, and that under discussion involved the first step towards the carrying out of that Act.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the period of five years proposed was not an unreasonable one. He hoped it would not be forgotten that while this was a permissive Bill as regarded the Colonies, it was irrevocable so far as regarded this country. Sufficient time should, therefore, be given for considering the clauses fully and deliberately. He hoped the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would be withdrawn.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that he was sorry to see that the right hon. Member for Bradford was not in his place. If the Members of the late Government got in again they would have to take a Colonial Secretary from below the Gangway. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, however—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment referred to, not touching the clause, could not be discussed.
  MR. E. JENKINSonly meant to reserve to himself the right of moving the Amendment. He was of opinion that the period should not be allowed to run out at the end of five years. If the Amendment of two years were accepted, they might as well not pass the Bill at all. It was chiefly valuable as a formulation of the confederation scheme. That would be of little use if it was to lie before the Legislatures of the South African Colonies for only two years. He should vote with the Government.
  MR. PARNELLwould be happy to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Clauses 3 and 60 were entirely different from one another. Clause 3 provided for the admission of the first two or more States which might desire to be admitted; Clause 60 for the ultimate admission of States not admitted at first, but which might afterwards desire to be admitted.
  MR. BIGGARthought that the Committee should agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was not too much to ask that the Government should be reasonably certain that at least two States were ready to confederate. It was of less importance to say when the Bill should cease to operate, than when it would begin to operate. Was it really necessary that an enabling Bill should be passed? Had not the Cape of Good Hope and Griqualand

  183
  West already entered into a legislative union?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it would be out of Order to answer the question, which had nothing to do with the matter under consideration.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFbelieved that Griqualand West was not yet annexed.
  Question put, "That the words 'not being more than two years after the passing of this Act' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 23; Noes 180: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 2, line 5, after "Africa," to insert, "the majority of whose elected representatives shall so declare and." The hon. Member said, the object of his Amendment was to secure that no State should be joined with any other State or States, either by confederation or any other form of union, unless the people of that State desired it. The Amendment, he observed, was of a very important character, and raised the whole principle of confederation—namely, that it should be voluntary and for the benefit of the people. The Bill was singularly deficient in these respects, and he believed the Amendment he proposed would supply the deficiency. The necessity of such a provision was sufficiently proved by the experience of the United States and Canada.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, after the word "Africa," to insert the words "the majority of whose elected representatives shall so declare and."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. E. JENKINSagreed in the necessity of plenty of time being given to the inhabitants of the Colony to consider any proposal of confederation. It was important that the opinion of the people should be ascertained; but the manner in which that could be arrived at required further consideration than it had yet received. There was also the fact that in some of these Colonies the official Members of the Legislature were numerous enough to swamp the other Members on such a vital question as that of confederation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he had himself already given Notice of an Amendment on this point, which he trusted would be accepted by the hon. Member for Meath. It was after the words "South Africa," to leave out "which," and insert "Whose respective Legislatures." He believed that the elective element was in the majority in those Legislatures and was not swamped, as had been alleged, by the official votes. It would weaken the authority of those Legislative Bodies if any attempt were made to go behind their decisions.
  MR. O'DONNELLin supporting the Amendment, quoted the authority of Locke for saying that Legislatures derived no power from their constituencies to delegate to others the function of making laws which they were created to exercise themselves. He should be willing to accept the Amendment of the Government if they would consent to insert words to the effect that the Legislatures should have the special authority of their electors for considering and deciding upon the question of confederation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that the adoption of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Dungarvan would create consternation in the Colonies. It would give the Government the power of inflicting a penal dissolution on any Legislature which refused to join in confederation.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERentirely disagreed with the argument of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The broad principle of the Constitution was quite competent to deal with matters of this sort, and although the various Legislative Bodies in South Africa were not sovereign for all purposes they were for some. They might, he thought, under the supervision of the Colonial Secretary and the Parliament at home, be taken to have power to settle the question.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsupported the Bill, believing it to be a just and necessary one; and he had arrived at that opinion after hearing the able and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). That there seemed to be some danger of collision between European and Native races appeared to him to be evident; and, to avert such a calamity, confederation

  185
  seemed to him to be at once politic and necessary. Although the question of Transvaal annexation had been imported into the discussion, anyone who had read the Bill would observe that it had nothing to do with the subject under consideration, which was merely a permissive Bill, allowing districts in Southern Africa to confederate, under certain circumstances, of their own free will, without any interference from the Government. Hon. Members like himself (Sir Patrick O'Brien) were told by some of the hon. Members opposing this Bill that they knew nothing about the question. No doubt, he did not pretend to the universal knowledge which those hon. Members seemed to attribute to themselves. He read the morning journals and the articles referring to questions like this. He communicated with friends, and listened to the opinions of persons informed on the subject, and thence drew his deductions. He would not presume to claim any but a very imperfect knowledge, not only of this, but of many questions coming before the House—indeed, upon many of them he had no knowledge at all; and his position in this regard was not singular. Yet he ventured to think, that, upon many matters meeting with the determined opposition of the hon. Gentlemen behind him, he possessed as much knowledge as they did. He believed that this Bill was a good one, and calculated to promote the interests of such Irish emigrants as were domiciled in Southern Africa, and he should cordially support it.
  MR. COURTNEYfeared that the Amendment of the Under Secretary would not effect the result contemplated, and they must be very careful, in dealing with this question, not to bring about such a scandal as had taken place in Nova Scotia at the time of the Canadian Confederation. He should propose to move at the proper time an Amendment which would refer the question of confederation to the Members of all those respective Legislatures which should be elected after the Bill became law.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath was a very proper one for the consideration of the Committee, although he was unable to accept it himself, be-cause he thought that the present Legis-
  186
  latures would be more fitted to determine the question of confederation than one specially elected to determine the matter. The noble Lord the Colonial Secretary, acting not only with justice, but with wisdom, had properly decided that the question should be discussed by the existing Legislatures, who had been elected for the purpose of managing the general affairs of the Colonies.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that so far as he could understand, the Government desired that confederation should only take place with the assent of the White population, and with that view they proposed to require the assent of the Legislative Councils. But the Legislative Assemblies of the different Colonies were of very different kinds. In the Cape of Good Hope they had a really Representative Body, and their action might very well be allowed to bind the Colony. But in Griqualand the Legislative Council was practically nominated. It was quite clear that the opinion of the Legislative Council would be guided by the opinion of the Government at home or the Lieutenant Governor in the Colony. They must, however, take the Constitution of the country as it existed, or else it would be utterly impossible to proceed with this Bill. It was quite possible there might be an improvement in the Government of Griqualand; but what they would do with the Transvaal he declared he did not know. He did not think, however, that the Amendment was the best means of effecting the object the hon. Gentleman had in view.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that if the question were decided by Legislatures partly elected and partly nominated, it would carry no moral weight, because the opinion of the people of the different States would not be taken on the subject. It must be remembered that a great portion of them were Dutch, and not at all friendly to the English nation.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Member for Bradford had shown that there were no representative Assemblies in the South African States, and argued that we should therefore not allow the people to express an opinion on the subject of confederation. The statement of fact was no doubt true; but the right hon. Gentleman's argument was most illogical. Were the Government going to press this Bill without taking steps to consult the wishes of the people? It was

  187
  said confederation was for the interests of the Empire; but nothing could be for the interests of the Empire which was not for the interests of the States it was proposed to confederate. If the people were fit for Constitutional Government, their own wishes ought to have been consulted; and, if not, he could not think them in that case fit for confederation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that he had not suggested or sanctioned the argument that the confederation should be indefinitely put off.
  MR. PARNELLrejoined that the difference of race would explain many of the difficulties of confederation, and the relations between the two races ought to have been defined before the House proceeded with the Bill.
  MR. BIGGARwanted some expression of opinion from the Colonies themselves.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government desired to ascertain from the various Legislatures the opinions of the Colonies; he could not, however, argue the question whether or not those Legislatures were the most perfect possible.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 95: Majority 88. — (Div. List, No. 264.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out " which," and insert " whose respective Legislatures." The question had been already discussed, and he therefore did not intend to occupy the time of the Committee by travelling over the same ground.
  MR. O'DONNELLproposed to amend the Amendment by adding the words, "and the elective part thereof after the opinion of the electors has been consulted." He did not think this Act would conduce to the growth of those feelings of confidence which Her Majesty's Government assured the House they were desirous of fostering if they allowed a clause of this kind to pass without appending to it such precautions as the Government in their speeches said ought to be attached to it, but which they were nevertheless slow in putting into the Bill. He did not desire to press his Amendment if the Government would propose a better; and all he and those with whom he acted wished for the various races was that the spirit of the
  188
  British Constitution should be infused into their Legislative institutions.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the most regular course would be to dispose first of the Amendment of the Under Secretary of State. That having been done, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) could propose the addition of any words which he deemed desirable.
  Amendment (Mr. J. Lowther) agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLformally moved the Amendment which he had just proposed.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved an Amendment requiring the election of a new Legislature after the passing of the Act.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be advisable to dispose of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Dungarvan before discussing any other proposal.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought he was justified in appealing to the Under Secretary or to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) for some information so as to enable hon. Members to vote intelligently on this question. He would like to know what portion of the Legislatures were nominated and what portion was elected; and if they had the opinion of the elected legislators, how far they could regard their decision as the wishes of the people who were the electors?
  MR. E. JENKINScontended that the adoption of the Bill, if passed into an Act, should not be permitted unless its adoption was supported by not less than two-thirds of the " elected" Members of the Colonial Legislature. He suggested this in order that the opinions of the elected Members—that was, of the electors—might have due weight as against those of the "nominated" Members in the decision of a matter so vitally important to the interests of the Colony.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcould not accept either the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo or the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee. If any distinction were made between the two classes of Members of the Legislature he thought it would have a disturbing, unsettling effect. There was no desire on the part of the Government to act contrary either to the opinion or wish of the elected.

  189
  Members of the Council or of the population generally.
  MR. T. CAVEsupported the view-taken by the Under Secretary of State, remarking that for the House to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) would be equivalent to saying that in this country the House of Lords could not be credited with any desire to protect the interests of the people.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the cases were not parallel, because in the Colonies many of the nominated Members had claims on the Government, and were by no means fit for the office.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsupported the Bill.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to insert, in page 2, line 11, after "agreed," the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, That no union of Colonies or States shall take place under the provisions of this Bill, unless the Cape Colony is included in such union."
  The Boers could not be trusted to govern fairly, having already been guilty of great oppression towards the Natives. As to Natal, Mr. Froude said that the oppression there had been far greater than in the Transvaal. The nominative Members were the only people who ought to be the guardians of the rights of the Native inhabitants. In the Cape a fair share of the elective system had been given to the Natives, and he hoped that, perhaps in the course of a generation, a system of that sort might be extended to the Transvaal and to Natal. They were not yet, he thought, ready for it. It might be said that the laws had to receive the sanction of Her Majesty. He believed that that would not be effectual; and who was to alter the unjust laws already existing? In Natal and the Transvaal a grossly unjust law prevailed, for the Natives were not allowed to hold land in their own country. The Cape Colony had done more than any other community in the world towards bringing Christian, Mahomedan, and Pagan populations into amicable and friendly political relations. Without uniting these Colonies with the Cape, he could not consent to the Bill as it
  190
  stood, and therefore hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word " agreed," to insert the words " Provided, That no union of Colonies or States shall take place under the provisions of this Bill, unless the Cape Colony is included in such union." — (Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member had fairly raised a question of extreme importance. He hoped that he would not think that in opposing the Motion he (Mr. Lowther) entertained any reasonable doubt that Cape Colony would be the first to adopt the Bill. But it would be unwise to adopt a method which the hon. Member for Meath would call an act of coercion. Natal and the Transvaal should not be bound to enter into an arrangement, nor, on the other hand, precluded from entering into such, from the mere fact that another Colony outside their boundaries was of a different opinion as to its advantages. Every wish existed on the part of the Government to meet the other difficulties to which the hon. Member had alluded. But they could hardly be discussed on that Amendment; and he (Mr. Lowther) had placed on the Paper, at the end of Clause 25, words which might meet those difficulties, and which he hoped would satisfy the hon. Member.
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed his surprise that it could be seriously proposed to confederate the South African Colonies, leaving out the Cape. If hon. Members would look at the Returns from South Africa, they would realize the enormous difference between these various States. Hon. Members talked about the confederation of these various States as if it were possible for them to enter upon confederation upon equal terms. They had Cape Colony, with a very large White population of 236,783, with wide exports and imports to the amount of several millions, and with all the other evidences of civilization; and alongside this great State with a large revenue and a large White population, they had two or three smaller States— Griqualand and the new annexation of the Transvaal, with a few thousand Whites, and, he supposed, in the case of Transvaal, a million Blacks, and also

  191
  in the case of Griqualand, a large number of Blacks. To attempt to carry out confederation without Cape Colony at the head of it was a delusion and a snare. What was the object of the Bill? Why, that there should be a certain amount of mutual support amongst these various States for protection against the inroads of the savages. But if they allowed these small and weak States to confederate, leaving out the Cape Colony, they did nothing to solve the problem; they probably raised a difficulty in the way of the problem being solved. If they had the Transvaal, Griqualand and Natal confederated, leaving out Cape Colony, any further step forwards, to bring Cape Colony into the confederation, would be a very difficult one. The confederation of these weak States would be like the mutual support of two drunken men, who, in the end, would be obliged to appeal to the support of the Imperial Parliament to assist them out of their difficulty. To pass such a Bill, without including the Cape as a sine quâ non, would be converting a serious measure into something like a farce.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDcould not see why, if the Confederation were good in principle, it should not be useful even if the Cape Colony did not come in. It would be most injudicious to elevate the Cape to the " dog in the manger " position of being able to spoil the Confederation if it did not choose to become a member of it. He did not, however, agree with those who thought that Cape Colony would not come in. On the contrary, Sir Henry Barkly, who was the person most competent to speak upon the subject, stated that there was a strong feeling at the Cape in favour of Confederation. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment, believing that Confederation was desirable for these South African States, as it would greatly strengthen them and put them in a better position to deal with the Native question.
  MR. CHILDERSbelieved that it would be impossible to assent to the Amendment. To say to one out of five members of a proposed Confederation— " Unless you come in there shall be no Confederation," would enable that particular Colony to make what terms it pleased. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. COURTNEYwas surprised to hear hon. Members discuss this question of confederation as if it were an abstract one and apart from the circumstances of the States which were invited to unite. To lay down the principle that confederation was in itself desirable amounted almost to a disqualification of the authority of the Member who uttered it. That was, no doubt, a strong statement on his part, but he believed it was true. Would they talk of confederation between such Colonies as Natal and the Transvaal? The Transvaal was, in his opinion, incapable of confederation in its present condition, and to leave the Cape out of the proposed body would be absurd. The greatest evils would result from the exclusion of the Cape Colony from the scheme of confederation. The confederation would consist of States in which 60,000 Whites would rule over 1,500,000 Natives. Did the Committee know that there existed in the Colony of Natal a system of slavery, as odious as was ever sought to be put down at any time or in any country, under the name of wife-purchase? The hon. Member proceeded to read an extract from a work on the subject of slavery in Natal, when—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he desired to point out that, although the hon. Member was quite in Order in alluding to customs and laws prevailing in Natal, he was not in Order in entering into an elaborate discussion of those customs or laws, these not having reference to the question before the Committee.
  MR. COURTNEYwished to show by reference to the state of affairs in Natal what would be the result of allowing the Transvaal to be confederated with Natal without the addition of the Cape Colony. [" Order! "]
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order, Sir. Do I understand you to say that an hon. Member is entitled to refer to a question in his argument, but that he is not in Order in making an elaborate disquisition on it? ["Order!"] Are we to be told that he is to be allowed to refer to a question, but that if he makes an elaborate disquisition on it he is out of Order? I say that that is an insult to the common sense of the House. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must leave that observation to the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is impossible that such an observation as that made by the hon. Member for Dundalk can be allowed to pass, or permitted to remain unchallenged. As I understand the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk, he has said that your ruling, Sir, is an insult to the common sense of the House—
  MR. CALLAN: I have made no such statement. [" Oh, oh! "] I rise to explain—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If I am misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman he can explain when I have done. What I understood him to say was that a ruling of yours, Sir, was an insult to the common sense of the House. [Mr. CALLAN: No, no!] That was certainly what I understood. Of course, if the hon. Member demurs to the expression I have attributed to him I have nothing more to say; but it certainly seemed to us here that the hon. Member stated that a ruling of yours, Sir, was an insult to the common sense of the House.
  MR. CALLAN: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not quite sure of my words. Perhaps he has been taught a lesson by recent events; but as to my words, he can move that they be taken down, and repeat the blunder that he made last week ["Order! "] I am perfectly within my right. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) made a statement which the Chairman ruled to be within his right to make; and what I said was that because the hon. Member elaborated that statement, that fact did not put him out of Order; and I added that it would be an insult to the common sense of the House to say that the elaboration of a statement which was not out of Order could be out of Order.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is exactly what I have said. The hon. Member has stated that the ruling of the Chairman is an insult to the common sense of the House—
  MR. CALLAN: Not the ruling, but that observation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then I can only move that the words of the hon. Member be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule of the House in Committee is, that words complained of must be taken down immediately after they are uttered. It is not competent to take them down after a discussion has arisen upon them.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcertainly understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to use the expression which had been adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the hon. Member was bound to withdraw that expression as applied to the Chairman of Ways and Means. It might not be competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move that the words should be taken down, but they reached him quite distinctly, and he did not remember ever to have heard such expressions used before, and having been used, they ought to be withdrawn. At the same time, he (Mr. Newdegate) felt, when the Chairman called the hon. Member for Liskeard to Order for entering into too elaborate an argument, that that was a difficult point of Order for the Chairman to settle. According to the custom of the House when a Member, without being absolutely out of Order, trespassed too long on one point, it rested with the endurance of the House whether they would submit to having their time so occupied. The habit of the House in former days was to refuse to hear such arguments by rendering them inaudible, and if any hon. Member should abuse his power of speaking, he (Mr. Newdegate) would be prepared to take part with other hon. Members in making him inaudible. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the expression he had used.
  THE CHAIRMAN: After what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain the circumstances under which the interruption arose. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in possession of the Committee, and was speaking in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and in the course of his argument he entered into a lengthened description of, among other things, slavery in South Africa. I pointed out that, although the hon. Member was in Order in referring to slavery as existing in South Africa, he was not in Order in discussing the question at length, that not being the sub-

  195
  ject before the Committee, and more particularly for this reason—that if he did so other hon. Members might reply to him and so lengthen out an irrelevant discussion. I pointed out to the hon. Member that the course of his observations was so protracted as to involve a departure from Order. It was then that the hon. Member for Dundalk used words which I deeply regret were ever uttered in a Committee of this House, and which have placed me in a position in which I am sorry to say it will be impossible for me to conduct the business of the Committee with anything like self-respect if the words are not withdrawn.
  MR. DILLWYNunderstood the words in the same sense as they were understood on the other side of the House, and hoped they would be withdrawn, because if such expressions were allowed the authority of the Chair could not be supported.
  CAPTAIN NOLANdid not understand the hon. Member to have been controverting the decision of the Chair, but rather to have been referring to hon. Members opposite, whose interruptions had thrown him out. He thought the proper course would be for the hon. Member simply to say that he had not meant to use the words as against the ruling of the Chair.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that everyone who had had some experience of the House must see that the ruling of the Chairman was one which might be open to discussion. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Member for Dundalk had been merely expressing an opinion on the question whether the hon. Member for Liskeard was in Order or not.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLpointed out that the question was whether the hon. Member for Dundalk had really intended to use the words which were imputed to him; and he expressed surprise that the hon. Member sat still in his place without offering an explanation.
  MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN, begging the hon. Member's pardon, said he was quite ready to get up. ["Order! "]
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that before the hon. Member for Dundalk stated what he really said he wished to point out the very unpleasant position in which the Committee was placed. The fact that the Chairman had understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to apply the
  196
  words to his ruling was very much due to an inconvenient habit, which hon. Members on the other side had fallen into, of indulging in interruptions to an almost unprecedented extent. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by repeating his performance of the other evening, had thrown everything into confusion, and deprived the hon. Member for Dundalk of the opportunity he ought to have had at the time of explaining his words, which, no doubt, he would have been willing to explain at once if he had not been treated in such an exceedingly sharp way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [" Oh! "]
  MAJOR DICKSON MAJOR DICKSON rose to Order. Was the hon. Gentleman speaking to the question before the House?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the House was a point of Order.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped, as an independent Member, that the Leader of the House would re-consider the action which he seemed determined to pursue on every occasion, and would not submit the House to a recurrence of those scenes which would not have arisen except for the uncalled-for interposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would have risen before this to explain if it had not been for the threat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that self-respect had prevented him from rising then. He had hoped that the occurrences of the past week had taught the Chancellor of the Exchequer some discretion— ["Order!"]—some discretion in the manner in which he treated Members of the House, and taught him to avoid the blunders of the past week. [" Order! "] It might be disagreeable to hon. Members to hear this, but it was perfectly in Order. He (Mr. Callan) had not used the words " insult to common sense" with reference to the ruling of the Chairman, because the ruling of the Chairman had been to the effect that the hon. Member for Liskeard was fully in Order. He had used the words with regard to other matters, and he was quite prepared to defend them, but he hoped that would not be considered necessary. ["Oh, oh!"] If hon. Members wished to carry this scene any further, he was quite prepared unflinchingly to say what he alluded to. With reference to the readiness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others to seize upon points of Order,

  197
  he would remark that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said that if a certain course was pursued he would prevent the Members from being heard, by means of some of those noises that were often raised, or other means—a threat which had passed without that reprobation from the Chair which it deserved.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Member for Liskeard, in addressing the Committee, proceeded to show why there should not be an amalgamation of certain customs that related to the Colony of the Transvaal. The Chairman ruled that he was perfectly in Order in alluding to the matter, but that he was not entitled to go into an elaborate discussion on the subject. On that the hon. Member for Dundalk got up in his place and distinctly stated, as he understood, that such a ruling was an insult to our common sense.
  MR. CALLAN: The Attorney General was not present when I used the words. Am I correct in saving that he was not present?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was present all the time, and I was listening to what the hon. Member said with great attention.
  MR. CALLAN: I merely asked whether the hon. and learned Member was in his place. I did not use the words as attributed to me, and I regret that the House is falling into great disorder. I have stated that I did not apply the words to the ruling of the Chairman; but the Attorney General, with that delicacy of feeling which is his remarkable characteristic, has in his place stated that I did use the words imputed to me in a sense which I repudiate. I ask whether, after I have made that assertion, it is competent to the Attorney General to get up and assert that I did use them in that sense?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I do not wish to take any notice of the personal remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Dundalk. I believe it to be my duty to call attention to anything that appears to be a reflection on the ruling of the Chairman; because it is absolutely impossible that the proceedings of the Committee of this House can be conducted at all if respect is not paid to the ruling of the Chairman. Certainly I was not alone in supposing that the hon. Member for Dundalk, in making those observations, was
  198
  casting reflections upon the ruling of the Chairman; but as the hon. Member has stated that in using those words it was not his intention to reflect upon the ruling of the Chairman, I may remark that it has always been the practice of this House to accept such an explanation by an hon. Member; and I now therefore beg to suggest that this incident should come to an end.
  MR. CALLAN: I cannot accept pardon in that way. I wish to be judged exactly by the words I have used. I have already said that I did not reflect upon the ruling of the Chairman, because I approved that ruling. The reflection I made had reference to other matters.
  MR. LAINGremarked that after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundalk he thought that hon. Members who were sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and who had listened to what he had said, should bear their testimony to the correctness of the statement of the Attorney General. He appealed to hon. Members near him whether the hon. Member had not said that the ruling of the Chairman was an insult to common sense? The hon. Member was evidently not quite aware of the exact words which had fallen from him; and therefore he would now have an opportunity of doing that which every Gentleman in such circumstances would do—of admitting and of withdrawing those words, instead of meeting the matter by denying that he had used them, when every hon. Member in that House had heard him utter them within the last few minutes. If the hon. Member declined to withdraw the words, it would be the duty of the Leaders on both sides of the House to take strong measures and assert the authority of the Chair.
  MR. BELLsaid, that he had been sitting next to the hon. Member for Dundalk at the time he used the words, and he had taken down the words of the hon. Member, which were to the effect that the ruling of the Chairman was an insult to common sense.
  THE O'CONOR DONthought that a good deal of misapprehension appeared to exist as to the exact words which the hon. Member for Dundalk had used— [" No!"]—well, as to what he intended to say. The hon. Member had said that he did not say—and certainly that he did not intend to say—anything to

  199
  cast reflection on the Chairman's decision; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in those circumstances the matter ought to come to an end, and should not be pressed any further. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would proceed with the question before it.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYstated that it was perfectly understood upon that side of the House that the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be taken. The hon. Member by denying that he had used the words at all or if he had used them with the intention imputed to him had satisfied the Committee, and they were prepared to let the matter drop. The ton. Member, however, declined to allow that course to be adopted. If the hon. Member were prepared to let it drop upon that ground, there would be an end of the matter.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he had three times stated that he did not use the words complained of with reference to the Chairman's ruling. On the contrary, he concurred in the Chairman's ruling that the hon. Member for Liskeard was in Order.
  MR. CHILDERSthought the Committee was bound to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had declared that the incident ought to terminate. The hon. Member for Dundalk was understood to have impugned the decision of the Chairman, and he (Mr. Childers), in common with other Members of the House, at once cried "Order!" and was quite prepared to support whatever was necessary to maintain the authority of the Chair. He expected the hon. Member for Dundalk would have risen at once, and have stated what every Gentleman in the House usually did— ''I used certain words not intending to attach to them a certain meaning; "or, "I have been misunderstood, and I express my regret." But the hon. Member did not think fit to do that, and in consequence they had had a long and painful discussion. The hon. Gentleman had now three times disclaimed the words, and had at last distinctly stated that when he used the words "insult to common sense" he did not intend to apply them to the decision of the Chairman. But when the hon. Gentleman stated that he applied it to them and not to the Chair, he thought they were bound to support the Chancellor of the
  200
  Exchequer, and he earnestly hoped this discussion would cease.
  MR. CALLAN: I cannot allow this discussion to stop after the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers). [An hon. MEMBER: Not ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer.] Well, no matter, I believe he has been in almost every office. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I did not pursue the course which would have been followed by every Gentleman in this House in not distinctly and at once withdrawing, whilst in the next breath he states that I have withdrawn. I think if a Member of the House states at least three times that he did not use words imputed to him there is no necessity for the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Childers') interference at this stage of the debate. ["Order!"] Well, that is my opinion. Logically I could not have used the words, for I fully concurred in the ruling of the Chairman in reference to the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  MR. DILLWYNasked what was the real ruling of the Chairman. He understood the Chairman to have ruled the hon. Member for Liskeard to be out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Swansea has asked me a question which I shall have no difficulty in answering. I ruled in the first instance that, although the hon. Member was quite in Order in alluding to the customs and laws prevailing in Natal, he was not in Order in entering into an elaborate discussion on those customs and laws, they not having been referred to by the question before the Committee. It was in reference to the last part of this ruling that I understood the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk to refer.
  MR. GOLDSMIDurged that much time had been lost in this discussion, and he hoped that the Committee would make progress.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, if there was anything which a Member of the House had. a right to expect, it was on an emergency of this kind the Leader of the House should exhibit some little presence of mind. [" Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for Meath will see that the matter into which he is now entering has no reference to the point of Order

  201
  raised with regard to the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he would endeavour to explain the social evils which would result from Confederation, without the presence of the Cape Colony as a member of the Confederation. Slavery in its worst form was to be anticipated, unless a much larger civilized population were introduced, for 60,000 Whites could not maintain a proper balance in the midst of 1,500,000 Natives. That was the invariable difficulty wherever the White population was very small.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcould not see the immediate connection between the Amendment and the remarks of the hon. Member. The House would listen with respect to his arguments; but they would have been more appropriately urged on the second reading of the Bill. The details into which he had entered might, perhaps, be a reason for the alteration of any form of Government such as he had described; but they did not tell against the policy of confederation. He could only repeat, that it would be most impolitic to allow any one Colony to set itself against the wishes and the interests of all the others; and he hoped the Committee would grant powers for the formation of the necessary union.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, while the House was considering a very delicate point of abstract politics the Cape Colony was steadily pursuing a policy of annexation, and that was a very strong reason in favour of the Amendment. Already he understood that Griqualand West had ceased to exist as a separate Colony, having been annexed by the Cape Colony.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLin reply, contended that a Constitution which was not fitted for these Colonies separately would not be fitted for them combined.
  MR. PARNELLimplored the House to consider the immense responsibility of the step they were taking. As the discussions on this Bill went on he began to get wiser as to what it really meant, and now he found that, instead of confederation, it was centralization which was contemplated. He trusted that the Government would withdraw the Bill, or at least would give it its proper name, and would call it a scheme for the union and junction of one or more Colonies in South Africa for the advantage of the Government itself.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to report Progress.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexpressed a hope that the hon. Member was not serious in making that Motion. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Meath had already oftener than once expressed their opinion fully on the subject. He had listened with the greatest attention to the expression of their views, and they should have due consideration. Time, however, was valuable, and the Session was by no means young.
  MR. O'DONNELL, withdrawing his Motion to report Progress, said, he only wished to ask how far the Cape Colony was pursuing a policy antagonistic to that of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. J. LOWTHERassured the hon. Member that there was no such antagonism in the policy of the Cape Colony.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 173; Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
  MR. O'DONNELLon rising to move an Amendment to the same clause, providing that the vote of the Legislature should only take place when the Legislature or the elected part thereof should have consulted their electors on the question of legislation, said, that his Amendment only sought to embody the expressed intention of the Government. If the Colonies had been in the full possession of the franchise it would not have been necessary to introduce any distinction between the Legislature and the electoral part thereof.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member appeared to be identical with one which had been rejected by the Committee.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask what hon. Member moved that Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood that the Amendment in question had not come before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was put from the Chair and negatived in the absence of the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words, "Provided also that the aforesaid union shall be a federal one."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word " agreed," to insert the words " Provided always, That the

  203
  said Union shall be a Federal Union."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that what the Government desired to do was not to establish any union or to force it on the Colonies, but to provide a machinery by which the Colonies could form an union of any kind which they desired.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTin criticising the Amendment, said, the hon. Member for Meath seemed not to understand the distinction between the words "Confederation" and "Federation." The difference of meaning was very great. Federal union, in common parlance, meant no definite form of Government.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford seemed not to understand the distinct meaning of the words which he criticized and failed to define. The distinctive difference was not that which the hon. and learned Gentleman with so much confidence assigned. The real object of the Amendment was to prevent a legislative union such as existed between England and Ireland; to make the union of these Colonies like that of the United States.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Federal union was not what lawyers called " a word of art." The United States at first were a federal union; but it was found so inconvenient, that they changed it to a confederation of States.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFexplained that the Bill proposed to establish a state of things similar to that in Italy, where the old States were changed into préfectures or Provinces, in each of which there was the Conseil Général for local affairs, distinct from the Imperial Parliament.
  MR. PARNELLconceived that in the case of only two of the South African Colonies adopting the Federation scheme there would be as many Legislatures there as in Austria-Hungary—namely, three—but that while the number of Legislatures might be the same, there would be a great difference with regard to the powers. He was opposed to forcing on these Colonies a legislative union such as had existed with such disastrous effects between England and Ireland.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwould repeat what he had stated several times. They did not contemplate forcing upon the Colonists any one particular system. All that they asked Parliament to do was to place these Colonies in a position to choose any form of union which they themselves might determine on. It might happen that the Cape Colony and Griqualand would choose confederation, while the others might choose another form. What was intended was to leave them to themselves on that point.
  MR. PARNELLobserved that a new light had been thrown on the subject. He was obliged to the hon. Member for the plainness of his answer. He knew now that instead of being a Bill for the federation of the South African Colonies this measure ought to be called by an entirely different name; and he should oppose every stage of its progress until the Government could make up their minds as to what powers they were going to give to the South African Colonies. We had already in the case of Ireland an example of federalism, in which union was forced upon the weaker by the stronger party, and it was necessary to guard against such a result under this Bill. He thought the Chairman ought to re-port Progress.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been present for two hours. For the first hour and a-half hon. Members opposite had been arguing that Cape Colony would certainly reject this measure; and for the last half-hour they had been in a state of alarm because they thought Cape Colony would immediately adopt the measure. The object of the Government was to extend to the Colonies generally by this Bill the widest choice in their form of government, and he knew that the Colonies would be very grateful for the passing of this measure, which would give them the means of uniting for mutual defence.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 179: Majority 175.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 2, line 17, after "Order in Council," to insert—
  " Provided always, That such alterations or amendments be submitted for ratification to the Confederation Parliament."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had another Amendment, which would take some time, but they had been working hard, and he thought he would be in order to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be as well to finish the 3rd clause, and they would report Progress before proceeding to the next clause.
  MR. PARNELLthen moved, in page 3, line 23, after "Union" to leave out from "and," to end of clause, and insert—
  "with the consent of the majority of the elected representatives of any State or Colony concerned, or of any Committee duly appointed by the elected representatives of any two or more of such States or Colonies jointly to consider the subjects mentioned in this Act."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.— [BILL 215.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Lord George Hamilton, The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should not oppose the Bill, but he took the opportunity to complain that any new charge should be thrown, as was evidently contemplated, upon the revenues of India, in order to carry out the new Army promotion and retirement scheme of the Secretary of State for War. He asked for information on this point from the Under Secretary of State for India, and wished to know, if an extra charge was to be levied, where the money was to come from? He was afraid it would have to come out of the loan which the House was asked by this Bill to raise.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONreplied that it was not intended to raise any extra expenditure that might be required for military purposes by borrowing.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading— Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* (163).
Third Reading—Puhlic Loans Remission* (150), and passed.

ARMY (PROMOTION)—THE WARRANT AND MEMORANDUM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN, in rising to call attention to the Memorandum presented on Tuesday the 24th of July last explanatory of the proposed Warrant for the appointment, promotion, and retirement of officers in the combatant ranks of the Army, said, that on an early day of the Session a Question was addressed to him on the subject of the Report of the Commission on Promotion and Retirement in the Army by a noble and gallant Lord (Viscount Templetown), who expressed a hope that opportunity would be given for discussion, in both Houses of Parliament, of any measures which might be proposed in consequence of that Report. The noble and gallant Lord also assured the House that officers would acquiesce readily in any measures which it might be found necessary to take for the welfare of the Service, provided that a decision upon them had been arrived at only after full and exhaustive discussion in Parliament. The most tangible shape which this question could take, from a legislative point of view, would be that of a discussion on a money grant, which, however, would not occur in their Lordships' House; but the subject was of so much importance, and possessed so much interest for many of their Lordships, that he felt himself bound, and indeed pledged, to initiate a discussion upon the Paper then upon the Table. A great deal had been said, both in Parliament and outside its walls, about the delay which had taken place in maturing the plans of the Government on this question. The authorities of the War Office, who were aware of the enormous inconvenience and even danger of such delay, did indeed regret that this subject should be brought before the House at so late a period of the

  137
  Session; but he was confident that those who understood this subject best would most fully appreciate the innumerable difficulties which had to be overcome, and would be the first to acknowledge the necessity of extreme care and caution in dealing with the question. Not only would hasty legislation on this subject have been dangerous, it would have been impossible; and he could assure the House that in the War Office, at least, this question had never been shelved for one single day, and that nothing but the most unceasing labour, on the part of those whose duty it had been to grapple with the mass of details and calculations involved in this difficult subject, had enabled the Government to mature their proposals. It was, fortunately, not necessary for him to go at any length over the past history of retirement and promotion in the Army. It would be sufficient to look back to a comparatively recent period, when a change was effected in the circumstances and position of officers in the Army by the abolition of purchase, which gave rise to the present state of things, and which was the chief cause and origin of the necessity for fresh legislation. He was not going to trouble their Lordships with a discussion on the subject of the purchase system. The Government had accepted the decision of the country in favour of the abolition of that system; and they had never, either directly or indirectly, aimed at re-establishing the system of purchase in the Army. He himself was far from wishing to defend it; he believed it was vicious in principle, and certainly was, in practice, open to serious objections and abuses; but he must remark, in connection with the subject now under discussion, that one advantage could be claimed for the purchase system—namely, that it provided a retirement paid for by the officers themselves and not by the country, or, in the words used by the Commissioners in their Report—"By the purchase system promotion among the officers was secured at their own expense." However, in 1871 purchase was abolished, under circumstances which he would not recall, and its abolition was followed, as might have been foreseen, by numerous remonstrances and complaints, the consequence of which was that, on an Address from their Lordships' House, a Royal Commission was issued, in October, 1873, to inquire into the grievances which the
  138
  officers alleged had been inflicted on them by the abolition of purchase. Before that Commission had reported, the late Government had retired, and Mr. Hardy found, on coming into office, a state of things which he (Earl Cadogan) could only describe to their Lordships by showing very briefly the rate of promotion which obtained under the purchase system, and contrasting it with the state of things which existed on the accession of the present Government to office. On an average, calculated over 30 years previous to 1870, the rank of captain was obtained after serving 9 years, that of major after serving 18 years and 11 months, and that of lieutenant-colonel after serving 23 years and 6 months. On the other hand, the Commissioners found that at the time of their inquiry, the rank of captain was obtained, on an average, after a service of 15 years and 9 months, or 6 years and 9 months later than under the purchase system; the rank of major after 29 years and 3 months, or 10 years and 4 months later; and the rank of lieutenant-colonel after 33 years and 6 months, or 10 years later; and if the present system were to remain in force, it was calculated that the average age of an officer on attaining the rank of captain would be 35; on attaining that of major, 49; and on attaining that of lieutenant-colonel, 53 years and a-half; which ages, the Commissioners justly remark, would be "destructive of the efficiency of the Army." Thus the remark of the Commissioners was justified—
  "That it is hardly necessary to observe that the rate of promotion which obtained under the purchase system has not been sustained in the great body of the Army since the purchase system was abandoned."
  And here he would draw the attention of their Lordships to a consideration which he thought of the utmost importance—namely, that legislation was not called for merely to obtain a fanciful rate of promotion; but some such arrangement as that under consideration was absolutely necessary in order to secure a reasonable flow of promotion, and thus to ensure that officers should attain the various ranks at a sufficiently early age. Therefore, a measure such as that then before their Lordships, would not only be for the benefit of the officers, but distinctly for the welfare of the State. He had now described

  139
  the position of matters when the present Government came into office. On the one hand, there was the promise of the noble Lord (Viscount Cardwell) that, notwithstanding the abolition of purchase, a reasonable rapidity of promotion, not differing essentially from that which obtained before such abolition, should be obtained for the future. On the other hand, the only thing done by the noble Lord to secure the fulfilment of that promise, appeared to have been the issue of the Warrant by which it was enacted that lieutenant-colonels and majors should hold their appointments for only 5 years; and the result was a complete absence of retirement, and a consequent deadlock, caused by want of the necessary flow in promotion. Four months after this the grievance Commission reported. The gist of their Report was that the officers had, to some extent, substantiated their case, but that the question of compensation ought not to be separated from that of promotion. On this a fresh Commission was issued, on the 7th of November, 1874, which deliberated under the distinguished presidency of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Penzance) for nearly two years, and whose Report, dated the 5th of August, 1876, was now before their Lordships. It would be presumptuous on his (Earl Cadogan's) part to express the feelings of appreciation with which all their Lordships, in common with himself, would regard the result of the labours of that Commission in the shape of the Report then on the Table; but he might be permitted to say that that Report contained a masterly exposition of the whole question, which well nigh exhausted the whole subject, and furnished us with a State Paper of the utmost value and importance. Before dealing, however, with the recommendations of the Report and the proposed action upon them, he felt it to be his duty to say a few words on a subject which had been much discussed—namely, "re-organization." It had been—and he believed it still was—the opinion of many that by some re-arrangement of grades of officers—such as that suggested in appendix N of the Report—Lord Cardwell's promise might have been redeemed without recourse to a scheme of retirement and without cost to the country. He might, perhaps, be allowed to read some short extracts from the Report bearing upon this point. The Commissioners said—
  140
  "It is quite possible that if the existing organization of the regimental ranks of the Lane were altered, either by assimilating them to those in the Artillery, or in some other way creating a greater equality in the number of the successive ranks than now exists, as suggested in the Memorandum handed in for our consideration, which is printed in Appendix N, the necessity for any compulsory retirement in the lower ranks might be removed. It appears, from a calculation given in Appendix 0, that some re-arrangement of the kind might render the promotion of an officer on joining the Service more valuable to him and even less costly to the State. There are many officers, as will be seen from the evidence in the Appendix, who think that such an alteration is desirable, but opinion upon this subject is by no means uniform."
  Now, he need hardly assure their Lordships that so obvious a consideration was not lost sight of by the Secretary of State. He did not, however, refer it to the Commission, because, after mature deliberation, he came to the conclusion that no such, alternative proposal could be entertained, and for reasons which he would endeavour to state in a few words. If their Lordships would refer to Appendix N, page 256, of the Report, they would see a proposal for widening the neck of the bottle by giving the home battalion 4 majors and 4 captains, instead of 1 major and 1 captain; and the linked battalion abroad, 2 lieutenant-colonels, 2 majors, and 4 captains, instead of I lieutenant-colonel, 2 majors, and 8 captains. This, however, was a change involving the establishment of double companies, and affected questions of discipline and military tactics, which he submitted should not enter into the consideration of questions of retirement and promotion. Such re-organization would be entirely a military question, and should be so dealt with. Retirement, on the other hand, must be provided for in order to secure a flow of promotion, whether re-organization were decided upon or not. Such re-organization, he contended, could only be justified either by the necessities of the Service and increased efficiency, or for the sake of economy. Now, as to the necessities of the Service, the Commissioners, although they did. not deal minutely with this question, examined some of the witnesses upon the point, and the result of those inquiries left the matter still very doubtful, and he might add that the highest military authority to whom the Secretary of State could refer—namely, the illustrious Duke on the cross benches—was opposed to any

  141
  such change. As to the consideration of economy, he submitted that such a change should not be brought about for purely economical reasons; and he therefore thought that the question of reorganization might be passed by, with the remark that the scheme of the Commissioners would not in any way interfere with any future re-organization, should such be thought desirable on military grounds, and the Warrant, therefore, might he adopted without reference, or prejudice to a future change of organization. He now passed on to a very brief explanation of the details in the Memorandum. That Paper which, no doubt, had been perused with attention by all their Lordships, had so thoroughly exhausted and explained the proposals of the Government, that he need not try the patience of the House at any length on questions of detail; but in the few remarks he had to make it might be convenient that he should divide the subject into the two heads of—1, Promotion, and 2, Retirement. The general recommendations of the Commission with regard to promotion, were that the existing practice, which made regimental seniority the basis of general promotion, should be continued; but that in order that it might be possible to bring forward young officers of promise, a certain number of unattached promotions, I to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, 2 to major, and 10 to captain, should be given annually, without regard to seniority, on the understanding that the officer promoted should be brought back to full-pay within a year of his promotion. This had been adopted, and would be embodied in the draft Warrant. They further proposed that, in order that promotion should, as far as possible, proceed on one system throughout the whole Army, the rank of regimental-colonel of Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers should be gradually abolished, and that the rank of colonel should be attained in the Ordnance Corps as in the Line, by brevet only. This had also been carried out. With the above exceptions, and a few minor matters of detail which were set forth in the Memorandum, the system of promotion, up to the rank of colonel, would remain as it now was, subject, of course, to the provision for retirement, which should be noticed later on. The promotion to the rank of general officer, as their Lordships were probably
  142
  aware, was formerly to an establishment of 275 for Guards and Line, and officers were promoted to it, except in exceptional cases, by seniority, remaining on it until death. In other branches of the Service the same system prevailed; and it should be noticed that this system was intended to provide an honourable retirement, as well as to supply officers to fill commands. The main proposal of the Commissioners, with regard to general officers, was that they should be removed on reaching the age of 70. This had been adopted with two important provisions—first, that colonels were not to be promoted after the age of 55; and, secondly, that the establishment of effective general officers should be cut down to 200. The establishment, therefore, would now be more purely effective than it had hitherto been. And this brought him to the most important changes proposed by the Commission—namely, those relating to retirement. Now, retirement was of two kinds — voluntary and compulsory. Voluntary retirements were obtained, first, by sale of commissions; secondly, by retirement from the regiment on half-pay, after 25 years service without limit; and, thirdly, by retirement from the Service on full-pay; this latter retirement being limited to a sum of money annually voted. Compulsory retirement was applied, under the present system, in the following instances:—First, lieutenant-colonels were to be removed from their regiments on completing five years' service as lieutenant-colonels and placed on half-pay, unless extra regimental employment were found for them; and the same rule was to be applied to majors of Infantry and Cavalry, unless promoted before they completed five years' service as majors. Second, lieutenant-colonels in command of battalions were retired from their commands on full-pay compulsorily on attaining the age of 60, unless their services were specially retained. Now, one word on the subject of Compulsion. The opinions of the Commissioners were to be found stated on this point in their Report, and the Secretary of State had adopted their views. He was most unwilling to apply compulsory retirement to any officers of the Army; but he felt that he could not propose to Parliament a scheme involving an extra vote of money without a certainty that it would effect the object aimed at; and any scheme founded on a

  143
  purely voluntary system of retirements, would fail to give the necessary guarantee that money voted by Parliament would secure the desired result. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would see that no proposals unsupported by compulsion would have been satisfactory, and that the difficulties of this subject must be met, and the expenditure applied, upon some sound principle permanent in its operation. This, he submitted, could only be found in a voluntary system, backed by compulsion as a last resort. The Commissioners recommended that such a scheme should be devised so as to cause retirements in sufficient numbers in the lower ranks. The scale of voluntary retirements which they recommended was so framed that, compared with the pensions proposed on compulsory removal, every pension granted, and in whatever numbers taken, should be economical to the public. This also had been adopted unaltered, except in one particular. The Commission, following the precedent of the retirements applied successfully to the Artillery in 1871, proposed a sliding scale, beginning at a gratuity of £745 after 8 years' service, and rising, by annual steps, to a gratuity of £2,357 after 19 years' service. The scale substituted in the new Warrant, as would be seen, provided for a gratuity of £1,700 after 15 years' service for a lieutenant, captain, or major, and a gratuity of £2,000 after 18 years' service, without any sliding scale of gratuities in the intermediate years. The Commissioners recommended that all officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel, on being appointed to the Staff, should be "seconded;" that was to say, removed for the time absolutely from their regiments, and brought back when their Staff appointments expired. This would be carried out in the new Warrant; and he would remark that it would have the effect of a slight measure of re-organization, inasmuch as it would increase the number of officers in the upper ranks. The Commissioners then proceeded to recommend certain regulations for compulsory retirement. They proposed that in the Infantry and Cavalry no officer should, unless under exceptional circumstances, be allowed to remain with his regiment—first, if not promoted from the rank of captain before completing 20 years' service; or, secondly, if not promoted from the rank of major before completing 7 years as major, pro-
  144
  vided his total service be not less than 27 years; and, thirdly, that the term of service of a lieutenant-colonel of the Line, or regimental-major of Foot Guards, with a regiment, should be limited to 5 years. With one important modification, made with the object of lessening the hardship of the rule for the removal of captains after 20 years' service, these proposals, and the scale of pensions which accompanied them, would be adopted. The modification was that the removal should not be enforced until an officer had served at least 7 years as a captain. A provision would also be added by which service under the age of 20 would not be reckoned towards the periods on the completion of which officers would be removed from their regiments or disqualified for further promotion. In order, too, to soften the possible hardship which the new "20 years' rule" would involve, if at once rigidly applied, it would be for a time relaxed, and the periods of service, on the completion of which officers of the Guards and Line would be removed from their regiments, if not mounted officers or majors, would be, until the 31st December, 1878, 23 years; until the 31st December, 1879, 22 years; and until the 31st December, 1880, 21 years; and only from and after the 1st January, 1881, 20 years—the period proposed for officers of the future Army. It should be noted that as regarded the immediate application of their scheme, the Commissioners divided the officers into two classes; (a), those who in the Guards and Line retained the rank they held when purchase was abolished; and (b), those who might since have entered the Army. The latter class they proposed at once to make liable to the rules for the Army of the future, and to remove them from their regiments on completion of the periods prescribed for their ranks. This recommendation had been adopted in principle, but modified in one or two particulars. With the officers in class A— with those, that was to say, who held commissions which they acquired under the former rules, and in which, therefore, they might, to some extent, fairly claim vested interests—the Commissioners did not consider they could justly deal so freely. They did not, therefore, propose that these officers should be made liable to removal; but, at the same time, it was felt that it would be against the public interest that they

  145
  should be promoted without regard to age, and the Commissioners accordingly recommended that a captain of the Household Cavalry or Line should be ineligible to the rank of major after completing 25 years' service, and an officer of the Foot Guards be ineligible to succeed to the command of a battalion after completing 30 years' service. Thus the general principles had been accepted; but as in the case of captains made subject to the 20 years' rule, the periods after which these officers were to be ineligible for promotion would also be extended for a time; and Mr. Hardy had so far relaxed the rule laid down by the Commissioners as to allow officers, promoted between 1871 and a month after the date of the new Warrant, the same privileges as regarded retirement as if they still held their former purchase rank. The Commissioners proposed that, with the exception of the removal of captains after 20 years' service, the general rules recommended for the rest of the Army should be applied to the Ordnance Corps, in which the "5 years' rule" had not hitherto been enforced. They believed that with the larger proportion of majors recently granted to this corps, promotion to that rank would be attained at a sufficiently early age without the compulsory removal of captains, which they would gladly have avoided in the other branches of the Service had they thought it possible to do so. At the express request, however, of the responsible representatives of the corps, the Artillery and Engineers had been placed on the same footing in this respect as the rest of the Army. The Secretary of State had also thought it right to continue the pension of £600 a-year to officers after 40 years' service. The officers of the Indian Staff corps were guided by Warrants of their own; therefore, the only point on which they were touched in this scheme was the separation of the lists of general officers for purposes of promotion, although they would be printed in the same list. It would be impossible for him, without abusing the forbearance of the House, to enter into all the complex details and intricate considerations involved in this scheme. Having, he hoped, explained the main principles which had guided the Government in this matter, he preferred to commend this Paper to the careful consideration of the House. Any further explanations which might be
  146
  required, the Government were not only willing but anxious to give. As to the cost of the scheme, he had no very accurate figures to lay before them; but, generally speaking, he believed he might state that the cost would not exceed, and would probably fall short of, the Estimate of the Commissioners. It was no small matter to propose to Parliament measures involving such enormous changes in one of the most important branches of the Public Service. They could not expect to satisfy everybody, and they were quite prepared to be met with objections from opposite points of view. They had not, however, shrunk from the difficult task of proposing these measures, because they believed them to be necessary for the welfare of the Service and the country; and they were fortified by the knowledge that Parliament had always shown itself ready and willing to entertain any proposals calculated to benefit the Service which he had the honour to represent. He wished to make a special appeal to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell), who had always shown the utmost generosity towards him in that House. He trusted that the noble Viscount would consider these proposals in the same impartial spirit in which he had treated previous proposals connected with the Army; and that he would recognize in this scheme an honest and conscientious endeavour to carry out his own promises, and to adopt measures which his policy had rendered necessary. It had been stated that officers of the Army were grumblers. In his experience they rarely complained without having justice on their side. In this matter, at all events, they had afforded a signal example of patience, considering the delays which had taken place in the settlement of a question so vitally important to their interests and prospects. He ventured to state that no body of men were more ready loyally to obey the call of their country under whatever circumstances their services might be required. In a purely voluntary service like ours, it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of regulating the promotion of officers, of ensuring their position, and of maintaining in all ranks a feeling of security and contentment. The Government believed that that feeling would be created by the adoption of this scheme, without infringing upon the great principles of efficiency and

  147
  economy; and he submitted their proposals with confidence to the wisdom of Parliament and the patriotism of the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he was sorry that the scheme had not been brought forward at a period of the Session and under circumstances which would have insured for it a fuller discussion than it was likely to receive when their Lordships were within 14 days of the prorogation of Parliament. The proposal of the Government was not a mere temporary expedient for getting rid of some passing difficulty, but was a suggestion which would have the effect of making an enormous and permanent change in a very important branch of Her Majesty's Service—it not only affected the position of every officer in the Service and involved a permanent charge on the finances of the country, but it touched very closely on the very system of our Army organization itself. That some scheme of the kind was necessary no one would venture to deny— he admitted that some steps were necessary in order to introduce that flow of promotion without which its efficiency would be impaired, and there was no desire in any quarter to throw obstacles in the way. He might, however, remind their Lordships that while the Report of the Royal Commission was dated in the month of August, 1876, they were now close on the month of August, 1877; and it did seem a little hard that if Parliament was to be consulted at all about this matter, it should be expected to make up its mind within 12 or 14 days from the close of the Session on a subject which, Her Majesty's Government had as many months to consider. Again, he might remind their Lordships that they had not even the Warrant before them, but only Memoranda partly historical and partly explanatory;—and from this they were required to put together what the Government proposed. It appeared that in order to get over the stagnation now complained of, the proposal of the Government was two-fold—they proposed a system of voluntary retirement and a system of compulsory retirement. As regarded the retirement of General Officers, he was glad the Government had added to the recommendation of the Commission the qualifications which had been explained by his noble Friend— namely, the retirement of Colonels at 55 and the reduction of the total number
  148
  of General Officers on the establishment. They proposed, in fact, to enlarge the outlet and diminish the body of water. There was a further qualification which no doubt had been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and which he should be rather glad to see adopted. It was that General Officers who for a certain number of years had not been in active employment should be placed on the Retired List. In his evidence before the Commission His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief said—
  "Those men who have been on half-pay for a lengthened period, however good officers they may be, become so rusty that they are not fit to take up active service again after a very few years. Everything changes so rapidly in the Army now—things change three or four times as rapidly as they used to do—and if a man goes out on half-pay and does not resume active service for three or four years he is entirely out of hand, he has lost all connection with what is going on, and his value as an officer, however efficient he may have been, is lost to the State."
  That was a suggestion which he hoped Her Majesty's Government might some time or other adopt. The next proposition in the scheme had reference to a much more serious matter—that of compulsory retirement in the lower ranks. There had been much discussion on that point, and it was but reasonable to think that there could be no greater discouragement to a young man thinking of adopting the Army as a profession than to feel that from no fault of his own, in the prime of life, and when he was in full vigour, and when perhaps very bright prospects were opening to him, he might be called on to retire from the Service. He thought the Government would do well to consider before drawing off the scabbard of so tremendous a weapon as compulsory retirement. Then as to voluntary retirement, one objection to it was that it tended to induce officers to leave the Army at a comparatively early age; and the officers must likely to take advantage of it when promotion was not open were those whom it was most desirable to retain in the Army. If they had two officers side by side, one with considerable abilities and a desire to advance rapidly in life, and the other perhaps an excellent soldier but not of any particular ability, they might easily imagine which of them would avail himself of the power of voluntary retirement under the circumstances to which

  149
  he had just referred. A noble and gallant Lord who had had much experience in the Army and at the Horse Guards, when Sir Richard Airey, gave this opinion on the point—
  "The question of retirement is a very difficult question, because if you make it too good some of the best men, still comparatively young, may take advantage of the retirement to follow other pursuits in the city or the Colonies, and so forth, leaving the drones of the Service in the Army."
  He might cite other authorities, but he did not wish to trouble their Lordships with too many quotations. Primâ facie there were considerable objections to any systems of compulsory and voluntary retirement which might be proposed. The question was whether those objections were insuperable. If there were no other means of meeting the existing difficulty they must take what was offered and make the best of it. He did not, however, think that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of a satisfactory system of retirement. The conclusions of the Commission appeared to amount to something of this kind—that much of the difficulty arose from the wide disparity between the higher and lower ranks in our Army. Evidence was given to show that "possibly the most economical system for the purposes of promotion and retirement and the most beneficial in a money point of view might be obtained if a different organization was adopted" in our Army, and that "such a change would be desirable in a military point of view." He believed that our organization was peculiar to the English Army. He thought that in all foreign armies the organization was different from ours. And even within our own Army there was an exception to the general rule—in the Artillery, where the senior Captain was an officer of field rank, and in the Cavalry, where the unit was a squadron, which was a larger unit than that of a company. There appeared to be a wide difference of opinion among officers as to our Army organization. Sir Lintorn Simmons, well known as an officer of experience and as Colonel Commandant of the Royal Engineers, stated—
  "I think that the unit that has been adopted in the Artillery, of a major, a captain, and three subalterns to a battery, might with very great advantage, both tactically and economically, be extended to the other branches of the Service—in the Infantry, by making double
  150
  companies, commanded by a major with a captain and three subalterns under him to every double company, and in the Cavalry by breaking the regiments up into squadrons instead of troops, with a major, a captain, and three subalterns to constitute the squadron officers."
  Sir Lintorn Simmons concluded by laying before the Commission full details for carrying out his suggestions, and expressed his belief that the Army with that number of officers would be fully as efficiently officered for service, and that the variation of the proportion in the higher ranks would tend to give a much more satisfactory flow of promotion. Similar evidence had been given by Lord Sandhurst, Sir John Adye, and Lord Strathnairn, all of whom had thought the change desirable. It had been said that the question of organization was so important that it ought to be considered by itself; but it seemed to him, on the contrary, that if changes were a means to an end, every alternative course ought to be considered very fully; and, as the hands of the House were not tied, he hoped the subject would be completely discussed.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I approach the question before your Lordships without any bias except this—that I desire to see the Army as contented, as efficient, and as valuable to the country as it has hitherto been. It is only natural that recent changes should excite comment. I shall not for a moment enter into the question of the abolition of Purchase—that is past all consideration now. It has been universally adopted, its principle has been accepted, and there is no desire to see it reestablished. But I cannot disguise from myself the fact that the abolition of Purchase has materially altered the position of officers who entered the Army under that system. That being so, it becomes a matter of the gravest importance to ascertain how the facilities for retirement which existed under the Purchase system are to be continued under the new system so as best to protect the interests of the officers and maintain the efficiency of the Army. In consequence of the change that has taken place, we shall be obliged to substitute State aid for the means formerly provided out of private sources. And here arises the question whether the money to be provided out of the Imperial Exchequer will be sufficient to induce officers to retire as freely as they would have done

  151
  under the old Purchase system. As far as I can judge, I think the proposal of the Royal Commission is a fair one, and by carrying it out I trust that the flow of promotion will be as satisfactory under the new as it was under the old system. The proposal is a liberal one, and, being so, is necessarily an expensive one. But it is well that it is a liberal one. I think it will be much better to induce men to leave the Army at a certain age than compel them to leave it. My own belief is that such liberality has been shown that officers will be induced to retire without compulsion. Nobody can have a stronger objection to compulsion than I have; but if it be found necessary to employ it in order to keep the Army efficient, then it must be adopted. I hope that the liberality of Parliament will prevent us having recourse to compulsory retirement—but we should not be doing our duty to the country unless we held that power in reserve. With respect to the question of the re-organization of the Army, I think it would be a great mistake to have a number of officers doing lower duty than was connected with their rank. It will not do to lower the status of the field rank. I believe that our system of captains of companies is a good and a sound one. This principle is so far admitted on the Continent that were it not for the expense it would, I believe, be adopted. It does not exist there, but its introduction would correct many defects. Continental systems are very different from our own, for Continental Armies are levied from the community in general, and every trade and profession may be represented; but in England there is a vast difference, for our Army is not composed of all classes of the people, but is a heterogeneous mass of persons who enlist for a livelihood. I hope we shall not run hastily into any new system of re-organization. With regard to the length of time during which this subject has been under consideration, I entertain a very strong opinion that it would be a great detriment to the public service if the scheme were any longer delayed. The question of re-organization might be allowed to stand over, but the subject now under your Lordships' consideration is most pressing. It is true that Her Majesty's Government have had a good many months to consider the scheme; but all persons who are
  152
  conversant with such matters know that it is necessary to consult various Departments of the State with regard to it. For example, after passing through the ordeal of the War Office, it has to go before the Treasury; where, of course, it is fully sifted and investigated. It has likewise to be submitted to the consideration of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, who has to consult his Council, and who would have to give his opinion with that of his Council, on its bearings on Indian finance. Consequently, it was impossible to bring this scheme forward at an earlier period; and although I deeply regret that there is not more time to consider it, yet I feel satisfied that, in the interests not only of the individual officers, but in the interest of the State, and in order to promote the efficiency of the Army, something ought to be settled at once, and that no further postponement ought to occur. I will endeavour to show how the delay in settling this question is acting seriously on the interests of the Service by reading to your Lordships a statement I have brought with me, showing the length of service of officers who are now waiting for promotion. At this moment there is one lieutenant who has been waiting 19 years for his commission as captain; three lieutenants who have served for 18 years, four for 17 years, six for 16 years, 11 for 15 years, 36 for 14 years, 61 for 13 years, 132 for 12 years, and 126 for 11 years. The nominal period for promotion being between 11 and 12 years, it is obvious that these 126 lieutenants will have to wait a longer time if the question of promotion and retirement be not dealt with this year. The interest in the service is damped if an officer has to wait so many years without having a clear view of his future prospects. The hopes of a man who has been waiting 19 years as a lieutenant cannot be very cheerful—an officer, in fact, now-a-days has but a poor prospect—he does not know what may become of him, and the consequence is there is a strong feeling of listlessness among these officers. We have got nothing, at this moment, in lieu of the Purchase system, and therefore no temptation is offered to officers to retire from the Service. Officers see no advantage in retirement, and therefore they wait and hope. Ordinary promotion is practically nil; and the result is that a large number of men

  153
  are hanging on with the object of seeing what will occur. These men ought to have an opportunity of retiring honourably and creditably, and with some advantage to the Service. Under the circumstances, I trust, if it be possible, there will be no delay in coming to a decision upon this important question. In making the statement I have done I believe I have expressed the sentiments of the large body of the officers of the Army. I do not like the principle of compulsory retirement in itself, but I accept the scheme because it is necessary; and I believe, when it comes into operation, it will be acceptable.
  LORD PENZANCEas Chairman of the Royal Commission that had sat to inquire into this subject, said, that the Members of the Commission had been throughout impressed with the importance of making their several recommendations consistent with themselves and with one another; and they felt that the particular hardship complained of was one that should be dealt with by the Executive itself, and not by any rules the Commissioners felt themselves justified in laying down. In the first place, as to the alteration which had been recommended by the Commission with respect to General Officers, the Commissioners felt that to allow a man who had been away for eight or nine years from all regimental duty to be placed on the General Officers' list was an evil, inasmuch as he could not be supposed to be sufficiently conversant with the changes in military formations, in drill and other details which daily experience dictated. The Commission, therefore, desired to reduce that period, and were of opinion that a large number of General Officers at the head of the List should be retired and their places filled up from below, so as to bring the General Officers' establishment nearer to the regimental. He should not, however, have troubled the House with any observations on the present occasion had it not been for what had fallen from the noble Marquess who spoke second in the debate, who seemed to think that some of the proposals made by the Commission were quite unnecessary. The noble Marquess objected to compulsory retirement; and singularly enough he objected to voluntary retirement also. What, then, was to become of promotion? He begged to remind the noble
  154
  Marquess that the main thing the Commission had to do was to provide a flow of promotion. There had been a flow of promotion under the Purchase system, but they had to devise a flow of promotion without Purchase. For their guidance, they consulted statistics for the 10 years before the abolition of Purchase; and they found that, within that period, the number of Officers sold out in the rank of lieutenant colonel was 49 only; in the rank of major, 137; of captain, 1,051; and lieutenant colonels and ensigns, 1,600. These figures showed conclusively this fact — that under Purchase the flow of promotion was in the main created by retirements in the lower ranks. It had been the object of the Commission to procure a similar flow of promotion without Purchase, and they might be excused for thinking that the surest and best mode of doing so was to endeavour to procure similar retirements in the junior ranks by similar inducements. This was the justification for the pensions on voluntary retirement, which they induced the State to offer. He very much regretted that the Government had altered this portion of the scheme. Instead of allowing officers to retire when convenient to themselves—at any time after 8 years' service—with proportionate pensions as the Commissioners had recommended, the Government had fixed upon two periods only, between 8 and 20 years' service, at which a pension would be allowed on retirement. This change, he very much feared, would go far to upset the well-founded expectations which the Commissioners entertained—that no compulsory retirement would practically be required; and this would be a great evil. Great objection had been taken, in and out of the House, on the score of compulsory retirement. The remarks made by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) were entirely in the direction of the feelings and opinions of the Commissioners— from the first to the last they considered that compulsory retirement was not, in itself, desirable, but then they came to the conclusion, that it might be a necessity, and it devolved upon those who were opposed to it to show what could be done if voluntary retirements failed to give the requisite promotion without compulsory retirement. The Commission had done all they could in the direction of voluntary retirement; and

  155
  unless the alteration which the Government had made in their scheme should prevent it, he believed that compulsion would never he required. The noble Marquess, in the remarks which he had made with respect to exchanges, seemed to have forgotten that in all cases of exchange there must be two parties to the bargain, the rich officer who paid, as well as the poor officer who received. As to the system of re-organization on which the noble Marquess spoke, the question was purely a military one, and its importance should not be diminished by considerations of mere economy. They had never been able to get at anything like a calculation showing that the promotion asked for could be got by any Army re-organization. He hoped that no suggestion that it could be done would for one moment weigh on their Lordships' minds. The officers of the Army had borne with great patience this trying state of things.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, he would not willingly say anything which should have a tendency to create delay in the settlement of this important and difficult question. The Commission over which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) had so ably presided, consisted of three eminently judicial persons—his noble and learned Friend himself, Sir William James, and his right hon. Friend Mr. Ward Hunt, of whose death they had that day heard with painful surprise, and with most sincere regret. The Commission were deeply indebted to the diligence and practical ability which the lamented Gentleman brought to the work. Indeed, three more judicial persons could not have been appointed to the duty; and he would, therefore, say nothing that should have the result of throwing obstacles in the way of a settlement— on the contrary, his desire was to promote to the utmost of his power every measure designed for the improvement and advantage of the Army. He fully appreciated the desire that the matter should, if possible, be settled in the present Session of Parliament; but their Lordships must remember that it was not upon them, but rather upon the other House, that the settlement chiefly depended. What Her Majesty's Government had to do was to satisfy the House of Commons that proper principles had been adopted, and if they were successful
  156
  in that endeavour, he had not the slightest doubt that that House would vote the money. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) seemed to think the noble Marquess had made an attack upon the Report of the Royal Commission. That he did not understand to be the case. The noble Marquess had objected to compulsory retirement, particularly in the lower ranks. The same objection had been expressed by the Royal Commission and by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), and perhaps it might be assumed for the moment that all their Lordships were of the same opinion. That being the case, the noble Marquess said they had got in the Report of the Commissioners a plan which they certainly did not discourage— on the contrary, so far as a colourless Report could be taken as encouraging, they seemed to encourage it, and if that plan had been adopted, the necessity of resorting to compulsion—at least, in the case of the younger officers —might, it would seem, have been avoided. After stating great objections to compulsory retirement, they said—
  "It is quite possible that if the existing organization of the regimental ranks of the Line were altered, either by assimilating them to those in the Artillery or in some other way creating a greater equality in the numbers of the successive ranks than now exists—as suggested in a memorandum handed in for our consideration, which is printed in Appendix N— the necessity for any compulsory retirement in the lower ranks might be removed. And it appears from a calculation given in Appendix O that some re-arrangement of the kind might render the prospects of an officer on joining the Service more valuable to him and even less costly to the State. There are many officers, as will be seen from the evidence in the Appendix, who think that such an alteration is desirable; but opinion on this subject is by no means uniform. We have not entered upon this question, as we conceive it not to be within our province to deal with it; the question referred to us being how to create the necessary promotion under the existing organization."
  Short of dealing positively with the subject, the language of the Report could hardly have been more favourable. What he understood his noble Friend to say was that he wished this question had been gone into. Appendix N, referred to in that extract, said—
  "The principle of reducing the number of companies in the battalion, at the same time that their strength is increased, has been adopted by all foreign armies, and its introduction into our Service for tactical reasons has been

  157
  for some time advocated by a large number of experienced officers in our Army."
  He hoped he would not be considered obstructive when he ventured to join in saying that it would have been well to have that plan carefully examined by a high military authority and brought to a settlement. He did not for a moment believe that the opinion indicated was a universal opinion in the British Army. They had just heard that the highest authority, in the Army—the illustrious Duke—was entirely opposed to it. He happened to know, also, that the opinion of the illustrious Duke was shared by many younger men who desired to promote in every way the efficiency of the Army, and were not disposed to object to proposals merely because they were novel. But such a divergence of opinion was no reason why the Royal Commission should have shrunk from the careful examination of the question. On the contrary, it was the strongest reason why they should have thoroughly exhausted it. The re-organization of the Army for tactical reasons was the natural foundation of any pecuniary arrangement as to promotion and retirement, and he could not help thinking that it would have been more satisfactory had that larger question been settled first. His noble Friend who opened the discussion (Earl Cadogan) spoke of retirement as having become stagnant in consequence of the abolition of Purchase. Now, personally, he had never doubted that when the stimulus due to the sale of commissions should cease, a new necessity would arise for some new measures to expedite promotion; but stagnation was certainly not created by the first operation of the change, for in August, 1874, the Royal Commissioners thus reported—
  "Up to the present time, so far as we have been able to ascertain, the rate of promotion has been well sustained since the Act, and we venture to hope that the recommendations we have made, if carried into effect, will continue to maintain it."
  And it was perfectly natural that matters should have been in that state, because officers, instead of making arrangements through their agents, had only to go to the Purchase Commissioners and ask for their money. In conclusion, he could only say that having himself given a promise, on behalf of the late Government, that promotion should continue
  158
  substantially the same as before the change, he was the last man to oppose any well-considered and reasonable scheme of the Government to make that promise effectual. He recognized the exertions which the Government had made to bring the question to maturity, and, for his own part, he cordially desired the contentment of the Army and the liberal remuneration of its officers.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, they lived in a commercial age and in a commercial country, and he did not see that there was much in the Warrant that would satisfy the Army. For instance, he doubted whether officers would be willing to withdraw after 14 years' service without compensation. It seemed to him that a hard-and-fast line drawn at 15 years' service would create great discontent, especially in cases where officers who before completing that period of service were compelled to resign through ill-health, and. that if service in the ranks were only allowed to count as half-time it would place officers who had risen from the ranks at a serious disadvantage. They were a class to whom promotion should be made a real advantage; they were not persons of private means, and in questions of retirement age must be considered as much as actual service.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, he willingly endorsed all that had been said by the illustrious Duke on the absolute necessity there was, in the interest of poor officers of the Army, that the question should be at once settled, and not be put off for another year. They were in a state of the greatest anxiety as to their future prospects. They had so far waited with exemplary patience for the decision of this question—there had not been a word of complaint from the officers, which was the best proof of the discipline of the Army— and he trusted their hopes would now be met by this long and painful suspense being brought to an end. He trusted also that the prophecies of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cardwell) would be fulfilled, that the scheme would not cost so much as was anticipated. If it did, it should be remembered that the abolition of Purchase had emanated from the noble Viscount's side of the House.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I had hoped, from the Notice given by the noble Earl

  159
  (Earl Cadogan), and the title of the Memorandum presented by him, that either in his admirable speech, or in that Memorandum, I should have found something relating to the appointment of officers to commissions. For the Warrant of 1871 needs correction, quite as much about the appointment as about the promotion and retirement of combatant officers; dealing, as it does, with the raw material out of which the officers are made. On the abolition of Purchase it was decided that commissions in the Army should be gained by competitive examinations. I do not at all object to the principle. By all means let each commission be given to the best competitor. But I object to the way in which the principle is acted upon. I object that the present competitive examination tests only the book learning, that is, the intelligence, or rather especially the memory, of the candidates. When the young candidate's competent health and eyesight have been certified after a medical examination, which does not at all test his strength or activity, not one mark can he gain in the competitive examination for Cavalry or Infantry, the non-scientific branches of the Army, by excellence in riding or any other martial or athletic exercise, though, curiously enough, this is not the case in the Engineers and Artillery, the two scientific branches. We all remember how the youthful heir of an illustrious though unfortunate Sovereign, who, whatever his faults, was the best foreign Ally England ever had, gained a distinguished place in the Woolwich examinations for commissions, to which his getting the highest marks for riding contributed. It will avail a young candidate for a Cavalry or Infantry commission nothing that he has the eye of an hawk and the fleetness of a deer, that he can climb like a goat, or leap like a roebuck, or swim like an otter, or ride like a centaur, if, being equal in other marks, he is beaten by two marks in, say, Chaucer, by a candidate who has barely got his medical certificate, rather but not very short-sighted, rather but not very short-winded, and decidedly inactive, for activity is not tested by the doctor who passes him. And yet which would be the most likely to serve the Queen efficiently—the young man taken, or the young man rejected in such a case? That noble veteran, Sir John
  160
  Burgoyne, himself not only a man of science but of much literary culture, in the last conversation I ever had with him, strongly deprecated too much weight being given to book learning in candidates for commissions. He attached great importance himself to the hardihood and adventurous spirit which is apt to show itself in a love of field sports and athletic exercises. A friend of mine, who long commanded with acknowledged ability a Cavalry regiment, quite an enthusiast for competitive examinations for commissions, told me that he thought marks for strength, agility, and skill in athletic and martial exercises, ought to count for at least a third, if not for half, the total in these examinations. I earnestly hope the Government will, during the Recess, consider the question; and, for the sake of obtaining the best and most efficient officers, allow excellence in martial and athletic exercises to have its due weight in competitive examination for commissions in the non-scientific as well as the scientific branches of the British Army.
  LORD STEATHNAIRNconcurred in the remarks of the noble Earl who had just spoken as to the importance of the possession of physical qualifications by candidates for commissions. He approved the Memorandum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.