Sitting of 27 February 1879

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — Sir David Wedderburn, baronet, for Haddington District of Burghs.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£2,750,000, Exchequer Bonds; £1,500,000, War in South Africa (Vote of Credit).
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading— Manchester Corporation Water *.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—Army Discipline and Regulation.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee— Summary Jurisdiction [69].
Committee —Report — Assizes [83]; Habitual Drunkards* [47].

QUESTIONS.

  FRENCH LAW OF BANKRUPTCY—THE BANKRUPTCY BILL—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before further progress is made with the Bankruptcy Bill, the Government will obtain and lay before Parliament a statement of the French Law of Bankruptcy, and the way in which it is administered in that country?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have consulted the Lord Chancellor upon this subject, and I find that it will be impossible to delay the progress of the Government Bankruptcy Bill in its early stages whilst the information asked for is being obtained; but if the hon. and learned Baronet will move for it, I will do my best to obtain such information as he wants.

  ARMY—MILITIA FINES.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Secretary of State for War, When it is his intention to carry out his promise of last Session that the fines for drunkenness stopped from militiamen should be credited to the stock purse or contingent fund of all militia regiments?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, that the Financial Secretary had had his attention directed to the subject, and before the next training he would issue an Order for appropriating the fines in the manner promised last Session.

  TURKEY—LOANS.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Her Majesty's Government have yet decided whether, by appointing Commissioners to receive certain revenues or otherwise, they propose to do anything to assist the Turkish Government to raise new loans; and, if so, whether anything has been arranged regarding the precedence of Russian and Roumanian claims for war indemnity, so as to avoid future complications on that score?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The question is one upon which Her Majesty's Government and the French Government have been consulting, and it is still under consideration.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF MR. BARR.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Barr, a respectable farmer occupying 150 acres in Renfrewshire, who on Wednesday 19th February last was sentenced by Sheriff Cowan at Paisley to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, without option of a fine, for killing a rabbit on land immediately adjoining his own farm; whether he will remit the sentence; and, whether it is proposed in the new Criminal Code to modify the Law so as to prevent the infliction of such sentences?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): The circumstances of the case are not quite as they appear in the terms of the Question. Mr. Barr was charged before the Sheriff Substitute with a con-
  1830
  travention of the Night Poaching Act, and pleaded "guilty." No option was, therefore, left to the Sheriff Substitute except to pronounce sentence of incarceration, with hard labour. I may state, however, that the Home Secretary, having considered the whole facts of the case, has directed that Mr. Barr should be liberated. I do not know whether it is intended in the new Criminal Code to make any alteration in the punishment for such offences; but I may remind the hon. Member that it is not proposed to extend the provisions of that Code to Scotland.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE DESPATCHES.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the Despatch from Sir Bartle Frere, dated Dec. 10th (II. p. 182), in which he says—
    "I can add little to what has been already said in previous Despatches on the subject of the Military necessity for the reinforcements asked for; but I would venture to add a few remarks on the observations in your Despatch, that 'all the information that has hitherto reached Her Majesty's Government with respect to the position of affairs in Zululand appears to them to justify a confident hope that, by the exercise of prudence, and by meeting the Zulus in a spirit of forbearance and reasonable compromise, it will be possible to avert the very serious evil of a war with Cetywayo.' I am, of course, not aware what information may have reached Her Majesty's Government on this subject other than what has passed through me. But I confess that, looking back at the information I have had the honour to submit to Her Majesty's Government for the past 12 months, I can find little ground for any such hope of avoiding a war with Cetywayo;"
    whether he received this Despatch on Jan. 15th; whether he gave any other answer to this Despatch than what is contained in his Despatch of Jan. 23rd—
    "It has, of course, been impossible for Her Majesty's Government as yet to examine the whole of the case as it is now placed before them;"
    and, whether he will lay upon the Table "the general means of information" which outweighed the "official communications" before the latter had been examined by Her Majesty's Government?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The despatch from Sir Bartle Frere, dated December 10, was received by me

    1831
    on the date stated in the Papers that have been laid before the House; I think it was the 15th of January. It was answered, with other despatches from Sir Bartle Frere, generally, in my despatch of January 23, and in that whole despatch, not in the particular portion of a sentence quoted by the noble Lord in his Question. I do not quite understand the last portion of the Question; but I gather, from the words which he appears to quote in it, that it has reference to my despatch of October 17. That despatch, of course, refers to the means of information which were in the possession of the Government at that date, and not to despatches since received. So far as I know, everything that can be laid before the House in connection with that subject is already in the hands of hon. Members.

  CRIMINAL LAW PUNISHMENT—ADMISSION OF THE PRESS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as recently stated in the "Pall Mall Gazette," that he has ordered the exclusion of the representatives of the Press from witnessing the flogging of criminals; and, if so, if he will state to the House what other provision he has made for ensuring to the public the advantage of whatever deterring character there may be in such punishments?
  MR. PAGETsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would, at the same time, answer the following Question:—If his attention has been drawn to statements which appeared in the evening papers of the 25th instant, professing to give minute details of the execution of Peace; and, whether it is possible for him to prevent the attendance of reporters at executions, and thus to prevent the publication of details of a revolting character?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: My attention has been called to the statements which appeared in the evening papers of the 25th instant, professing to give minute details of the execution of the unfortunate man Peace; and, having seen those statements, I am at a loss to see what public abvantage would be gained by the admission of reporters to witness the flogging of criminals. I take it that the proper
  1832
  course to follow is to see that all such, punishments are executed in the presence of certain official and responsible persons not connected with the gaol in order to see that they are properly applied. With this safeguard I think the public may rest content. As to the latter part of the hon. Member for Somersetshire's Question—which has reference to preventing the attendance of reporters at executions—I may say that the Sheriff has by statute the conduct of all those matters in the case of executions, and I have no power to interfere with his discretion.

  ARMY—MILITIA TRAINING.

    QUESTION.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that the Militia Regiments in the United Kingdom are to be called out this year for twenty days' training instead of for the usual period of twenty-seven days; if so, what is the reason of this change; and, whether it is intended that the arrangement should be permanent, or merely for this year?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, it is true that the Militia of the United Kingdom are to be called out for 20 days' training this year instead of 27, the usual time, and that it is also intended to curtail the period for Yeomanry training. I can hardly, within the limits of an answer, give details of the reason for the alteration; but I hope an opportunity will soon offer for the statement of my reasons for the curtailment.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PAYMENT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES—THE 3RD HUSSARS.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will explain why the Indian Government allowed the claim for travelling expenses in England of the Paymaster of the 3rd Hussars in December 1872, and again in October 1873, and how this fact is in accordance with the invariable rule of the Indian Government to disallow the travelling expenses in England of an officer ordered home from India on sick leave; and, does the order of the Indian Government of November 1878 apply to the Paymaster of the 3rd Hussars, who was directed to proceed to England to

    1833
    appear before a Medical Board by an order of the Indian Government dated 4th April 1878?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The claim for travelling expenses in England of the Paymaster of the 3rd Hussars at the dates named has not been made to, nor paid by, the India Office. The action of the Government of India in November, 1878, had no retrospective effect, but only that of putting an end to the submission of inadmissible claims for the future.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill, during the present Session, to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Police Superannuation, of April 1877?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he should like to take that opportunity of paying his tribute to the Committee for their labours in this matter, and for the admirable Report which they had drawn up. He thought that they had come to a right conclusion that the amalgamation of the Forces for the purpose of a superannuation fund would not meet the justice of the case; and therefore he was inclined to view the latter part of the Report with favour. He could not promise, however, to introduce, at an early period of the Session, a measure on the subject.

  CUSTOMS BILL OF ENTRY—THE COMMISSION ON OPPICTAL STATISTICS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Report has been received from the Commission on Official Statistics with reference to the Customs Bill of Entry; and if there will be any objection to lay such Report upon the Table of the House?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay upon the Table that part of the Report relating to the Customs Bill of Entry.

  ENGLAND AND PORTUGAL—THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  1834
  Affairs, Whether any communication has been received relating to the unsatisfactory state of commercial relations between England and Portugal, such as is referred to in Mr. Morier's Despatch of May 15th 1878, at page 1, of Return No. 21 (Commercial), 1878, on the Portuguese Tariff; and, if so, whether he could present the same in time to admit of its being considered by Members before discussion of a Motion relating to the Wine Duties that stands in my name for 18th March?
  MR. BOURKE: It appears that in May last Mr. Morier, Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, stated that he would take an early opportunity of calling Lord Salisbury's attention to the unsatisfactory state of the commercial relations of the two countries; but it does not appear that any despatch has yet been received from Mr. Morier such as is referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

  THE PLAGUE IN RUSSIA—SANITARY PRECAUTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as the navigation from the northern ports will be shortly opened, the Government contemplate imposing any restrictions upon the importation of hides and skins and any other animal products from Russia?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Baltic will not be open before April. The Government have not thought it necessary at present to take any special precautions affecting the trade from Russia; but they have full powers under the Quarantine Act to do whatever may be found expedient for the protection of this country against plague, and will be prepared to exercise those powers should there be any danger of the disease approaching our shores.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE DESPATCHES.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the further Papers relating to the Zulu War, which the Government appear to consider essential to the discussion of the causes of that War, will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am informed that further Papers will be published the day after to-morrow,

  1835
  or certainly by Monday. I am sorry to say that these Papers will not include despatches entering into details of the military disaster, which I had hoped to receive before this date. They have not yet reached us.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF IRISH PAUPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that the Clerkenwell Board of Guardians have passed a resolution directing the removal to Ireland of "all removable Irish poor?"
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will grant me permission to answer the Question. I have made inquiries of the Guardians of the Holborn Union, in which Clerkenwell is situate, and I find it is true that they have passed a resolution respecting certain paupers—four men and two women—who are to be removed to Ireland. They appear to be the only paupers who are to be removed; and I am told that in each case the paupers have expressed their willingness to go to Ireland, not only to the Board, but before the magistrate before whom the order for removal was signed. It was in consequence of the application of some of these Irish paupers that the Board has taken the resolution in question.

  THE TREATY OF BERLIN—RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the proposed Constitution for Bulgaria, while professing to grant "liberty of conscience and worship" to the various denominations not belonging to the Established Russo-Bulgarian Church, adds that such liberty must be always subject to the "Laws" which may be passed from time to time by the Legislative Assembly; and, whether any guarantee has been obtained against the eventual passing of "Laws" in regard to non-established worships calculated to render liberty of conscience more and more purely nominal?
  MR. BOURKE: The proposed Constitution of Bulgaria has not yet been received from Her Majesty's Consul in
  1836
  Bulgaria, and we have, therefore, no official knowledge of its provisions. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Article 5 of the Treaty of Berlin lays down as the basis of the public law of Bulgaria that difference of religion shall not exclude any persons from the enjoyment of civil rights, and that freedom of all forms of worship is assured both to persons belonging to Bulgaria as well as to foreigners.

  ARMY—THE 24th REGIMENT — APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to re-consider his resolution of sending six officers of the Guards and only three of the Line to act as officers of the 24th Regiment on the embarcation of a draft of that Corps for service at South Africa; and, whether the disproportion between the numbers of the officers of the Line and those of the Guards is not such as to entitle the former to a majority in selection for the above duty? In reference to reports that I have served in the 24th Regiment, I beg leave to say, Sir, first, that I did not serve in the 24th Regiment; second, that I have no relatives in the 24th Regiment; third, that I am not acquainted with any officer of the 24th Regiment, and that I never met the 24th Regiment in quarters or elsewhere.
    COLONEL STANLEY: It is unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to disclaim being actuated by private motives in putting this Question, the matter to which it relates being of considerable public interest. As regards the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that there is no intention to re-consider the arrangements made for sending out six officers of the Guards with this large draft of the 24th Regiment. I am not prepared to admit that the question of sending these officers for such duty is altogether a matter of proportion. But if it were so, the fact that there is a large number of officers of the Line serving on special duty with the Forces in South Africa would confirm me in a desire to I make no change in the arrangements already made.

  IRELAND—CORK AND MACROOM RAILWAY—ACTION AGAINST DIRECTORS.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'GORMANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether his attention has been attracted to the fact that the defendants in the case of the Cork and Macroom Railway accident, that is to say, the directors of that Railway, did about the 25th November last upply to the Court of Queen's Bench for an order to bring up the Inquisition (which had resulted in a verdict amounting to manslaughter against the defendants) to be quashed; whether a conditional order had on that occasion been granted; whether that order has since been made absolute; and, whether he had taken steps to show cause against this conditional order being made absolute; and, if not, whether it is his intention to interfere so as, in the interest of the public, to prevent the verdict of the jury being quashed?
    [No Answer was returned to the Question.]

  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT—THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the Supplementary Vote of Credit, the item of £33,000 includes any Votes for stationery for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: No, Sir; it does not.

  ARMY—THE TRANSPORT SERVICE.

    QUESTION.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the disbandment of the Native troops in South Africa, Her Majesty's Government have considered the propriety of employing Coolie or Chinese levies under British officers for the purpose either of Military or Transport Service?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, the subject had been brought to his notice, especially with reference to the selection of Coolies or Chinese for transport service; but although he was
    1838
    making inquiries, he was not yet in possession of sufficient information to justify him in coming to any positive conclusion.

  ARMY—SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers appointed Sergeant Majors under Article 204 of Volunteer Regulations, 1863, and previous to the issue of the Volunteer Regulations of 1878, would when they retired be entitled to the pension as laid down for a Sergeant Major in the Royal Warrant dated the 6th of September 1876, and amended the 9th of July 1877?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was not prepared to give any positive answer at present to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and hoped he would repeat it on a future occasion.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE REINFORCEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House the names of the Regiments and drafts and the strength of each with the number of horses, and of big and Gatling guns already embarked or under orders immediately to embark for South Africa?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I am afraid that I should unduly take up the time of the House if I gave these details. I may say that the total strength of the forces and drafts will be between 8,000 and 9,000 men, 1,800 horses, and about 225 waggons, six 9-pounder, eight 7-pounder guns, and four Gatlings. In a few days hence I shall be able to lay the embarkation Returns, which will give all the details required, on the Table of the House.

  SUPPLY—THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1878—THE KAFFIR WAR.

    QUESTION.
    MR. WHITWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the £400,000 named in his answer to a Question on the 9th August last as included in the Supplementary Estimate,

    1839
    and which he stated to be sufficient for the Kaffir War, was found to be sufficient, or whether any additional expenses arising for that War have to be covered by the proposed Supplementary Vote of £1,500,000; and, as the Appropriation Accounts for the Army Expenses have not been circulated, what have been the War Expenses in South Africa during the three years past and the current year up to the 31st March next, inclusive of the proposed Supplementary Vote of £1,500,000?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The statement which I made in August had reference to two distinct matters. They were the expenses incurred in the Kaffir War, or what we may call the "Transkei" War, previous to the 31st of March, 1878, and the expenses incurred and estimated for the remainder of the year—that is, for the year 1878–9. With regard to the expenses incurred previous to the 31st of March, 1878, it was impossible to get them in time for the Statement at the beginning of the financial year. We had, however, reason to believe that they would amount to something like £400,000; and I warned the House that it was probable that an excess Estimate for that amount for the expenditure of the year 1877–8 might have to be provided for. We have, however, since found, on the appropriation of the accounts of the Army, that the saving on other Votes has been sufficient to cover the whole of that amount; and, therefore, no further money will be asked from Parliament in respect of that charge. I should say that we have not been able to include in the appropriation accounts the month of March, 1878; and there may be a balance of something like £60,000 or £70,000 to be carried to the next financial year's accounts. Then, with regard to the Supplementary Estimates I presented to the House in August, amounting to some £300,000 or £400,000 for the Transkei War, they related to the expenditure subsequent to the 31st of March, and I have every reason to believe that that sum is sufficient. No part of it is intended to be charged on the Supplementary Vote of £1,500,000, which has reference only to the Zulu War. With regard to the last part of the Question, I shall have a Statement to make giving the information the hon. Gentleman asks.

    CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT CASTRO OR ORTON.—QUESTION.
    DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that Charles Peace, the Banner Cross murderer, before his execution, made a statement in which he confessed that he had murdered at Whalley Range, near Manchester, in August 1876, a police constable named Cock; whether subsequently, at the Manchester Assizes, a young man named Habron was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the said murder, which sentence was afterwards commuted by the Home Secretary to one of penal servitude for life; whether, taking into consideration that the case was one merely of identity, he will institute an inquiry which may be the means of releasing the said convict, who appeared to be wholly innocent; and, whether, if there be such a case of mistaken identity in fact, he may not be induced to reconsider the conviction of Sir Roger Tiohborne, who may also have been wrongly convicted under a similar error?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is true that William Habron was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murder of a police constable named Cock, at Whalley Range, near Manchester, in August, 1876. It is also true that his sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life, on the ground that there was some reasonable doubt as to whether his was the hand that fired the shot which killed the police constable, but not as to whether he was implicated in the murder in other ways. It is true that the convict Charles Peace made a statement after his conviction, and while under sentence of death, that he was the man who shot police constable Cock. The House, I am quite sure, will feel, on the one hand, that this is a matter which will require most careful consideration; and, on the other, hand, that the statement so made is one which must undergo the most careful scrutiny. But whatever the result of the inquiry into the matter may be, it can in no way affect the case of the prisoner Thomas Castro, otherwise Arthur Orton, now undergoing a sentence of penal servitude for a totally different offence.

    PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—THE PRESS.—OBSERVATION'S.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I am sorry, Sir, to interpose for a short time between the House and the special Business which is set down for this evening, but I have no alternative. I have to call your attention to a serious breach of Privilege, which is contained in a leading article which appeared in The Times newspaper of Tuesday last, reflecting on the conduct and misrepresenting the action of Members of this House. I have provided myself with a copy of the newspaper in question, and I have marked the portion of it to which I have to take exception, and if it is your wish, Sir, I will hand it in to be read from the Table, or I will now state as shortly as I can the substance of it, and it can then be read. In bringing this matter forward, I feel that it is only under the gravest circumstances that I should be justified in doing so. Having carefully considered the article in question, and the position of Members of this House, I can come to no other conclusion than that it is a deliberate attempt to intimidate hon. Members in the discharge of their duty, and also a reckless misstatement of facts occurring in this House. The law of Parliament on this subject I hold to be perfectly clear. It is a distinct breach of the Privileges of this House, and destructive of the freedom of Parliament, for anyone to publish the names of hon. Members of the House, and to reflect on and misrepresent their proceedings. Now, The Times newspaper of Tuesday published an article referring to the proceedings of the House as to the alteration of its Rules, and I am prepared to read a short epitome of it. I may here state that I am named individually, and that, therefore, I should have a right, as a Member of Parliament, to bring this matter under the notice of the House; but I believe I am also supported by a very considerable number—I may say by all—of the Members who are around me, and who are also referred to in the article. Sir, The Times says in that article that the Home Rulers watched the debates in Parliament on this subject — that is to say, as to our Rules—"with a malign intent," and at a given moment,
    1842
    as soon as the opposition of the independent Members appeared to have exhausted itself, and a compromise was coming into view, the Obstructionists "emerged from their ambush" for the purpose of putting into operation "their policy of exasperation." The article goes on to say—
    "The proceedings in the House last night reveal a resolution to obstruct progress as clear as that which has been conspicuous in former debates."
    And referring to myself and another Member by name, the article points out that the Home Rulers voted in minorities of 49 and 31; and adds that we, whom it calls "Obstructionists," seemed almost to have succeeded in postponing a division on the first of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolutions till another night. Another inference is further added that—
    "The irritation of the priesthood against the Government, and the approach of a General Election, combine to give the Obstructionist view a temporary predominance."
    Now, Sir, lam in a position to prove, from the Division Lists, that a more unfounded statement was never made. In all the Divisions, except one, that took place, there were more English than Irish Members; but it seems to me that whatever may be the opinion of the writer of this article, it is a very serious matter for any person to allow himself to accuse hon. Members of this House of lying in wait with "malign intent," to commit a breach of the Privileges of the House. Obstruction is a distinct Parliamentary offence, punishable by the Rules of the House; and to attribute deliberate obstruction to Members of this House is to attribute to them a serious offence against the House itself, of which the House ought to take cognizance. If these charges of obstruction are to be made without foundation, I submit that there is an insult to the majesty of Parliament itself. To show that the House of Commons is obliged to submit to obstruction of this character, and that it is not able to vindicate its authority, is, I submit, not for the benefit of this House. But the Division Lists will show how far this charge was well founded, or the reverse. The debates commenced on Monday, the 17th of February. In the first Division the

    1843
    minority consisted of 77 Members, 50 of whom were English and 27 were Irish. In the second Division the minority consisted of 71 Members, 45 of whom were English and 26 Irish. In the Divisions on Thursday the minority in the first was composed of 68 Members, 42 of whom were English and 26 Irish. In the second Division the minority consisted of 57 Members, of whom 37 were English and 20 Irish. In the third Division the Question of Adjournment was moved by an English Member, and seconded by another English Member. The Mover was the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and the Seconder the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), who sits on the other side of the House. The minority consisted of 45 Members, of whom 25 were English and 20 Irish. On the 24th of February the minority in the first Division consisted of 81 Members, of whom 62 were English and 19 were Irish; and I may mention, to show the difference of opinion which existed as to the proposed alteration of these Rules, that in the minority was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, while the Leader of the Opposition voted on the opposite side. In the second Division, which was one taken on a Motion of my own to divide the Estimates, and specially alluded to in the article, the minority consisted of 51, of whom 29 were English and 22 were Irish. To show whether there is any foundation for the libellous article of The Times, I may mention that in the minority was the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), and I think he will be surprised to hear himself called an Obstructionist. I always thought the Gentleman the University of Cambridge honoured by making its Representative did honour to the University in return. On the third night there was one Division in which the number of Irish Members was larger than the number of English Members. In the Division, which related specially to Ireland, the minority consisted of 33; but there were 10 English Members who voted in it. In another Division on that night the minority consisted of 49, of whom 24 were English and 25 Irish; but amongst the English Members were the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the
    1844
    hon. Member for the City of Bristol (Mr. Morley), and an hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Mure), so that I think there must have been some reason in the Division. In the fifth Division the minority consisted of 52 Members—30 English and 22 Irish; and the last consisted of 52 Members, who were also made up of 30 English and 22 Irish, and amongst them were the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who has been so consistent throughout the discussion of this question, and other hon. Members on the Government side of the House. I think, therefore, it is proved beyond the shadow of doubt or cavil that the charge of wilful obstruction in the House against the Home Rulers is a totally unfounded and improper charge. The House, I suggest, is now sitting in a judicial capacity, and I think it ought to lay aside for a moment—if it will allow me to say so—all Party considerations and to consider whether the freedom of hon. Members of all classes should not be vindicated when it is assailed in this way. If these statements appeared in an uninfluential journal, I would not have occupied the time of the House by calling attention to them; but The Times is regarded at home as the leading journal of this country, while on the Continent it is considered to be the leading journal of Europe. Numbers of persons take their opinions from The Times, and believe nothing except what they read in its leading articles. The Times, as it came out in the Parliamentary Committee on Reporting, has exceptional advantages in the Reporters' Gallery. It has specially assigned to it a place for a summary writer, or leader writer; and, therefore, it may very well be that this very article, which totally misrepresented the facts, was written by one who at the very time, from the place in which he has a right to sit, had an opportunity of ascertaining the real facts of the case. I think Gentlemen who are proprietors of newspapers in this House occupy a peculiar position. The hon. Member who is known to be the proprietor of The Times is a gentleman whom everyone respects, and, of course, he has an opportunity of combatting the opinions of hon. Members from his place in this House. But it is a very serious matter beyond that, when in his paper the conduct and demeanour of Members

    1845
    of this House are misrepresented in a journal under the control of the hon. Member who is to go without responsibility. After this article in The Times has been road from the Table I shall move that it is a distinct breach of the Privileges of this House, and if the House be of that opinion, I shall make a further Motion respecting the proprietor and publisher of the paper. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I beg to say this is a matter of great seriousness. The only thing that could be accomplished by it, and the only object of that article, is to bring odium on the Members of this House, and to excite ill-feeling between the two countries of England and Ireland. For my part, I do not think that ill-feeling ought to be more stimulated at the present moment; and if this House is not ready to protect hon. Members in the discharge of their duties, I can only say that we shall very much fail in our duty if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by such articles as this. In conclusion, I beg to say these charges of Obstruction appear to me to be becoming to be made a little too often, and, in fact, the House is losing its dignity. [Ironical cheers]. I expected these cheers, and I was prepared for them. There is nothing now in this charge of Obstruction. When the Government at present in Office was not in Office, the noble Lord the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho), in a debate on the Business of the House, expressed himself to the effect that the House ought to be cautious in allowing the two front Benches to arrange the Business. The noble Lord went on to remark—
    "The burden of the speeches of Ministerial Members during the Recess has been that the conduct of the Opposition last Session brought Public Business to a standstill, and that the Forms of the House must be altered, so as to take away from the minority powers which had been improperly exercised."
    That charge, made against Gentlemen who are not usually called Obstructionists, is the very charge now brought against those Irish Members who maintain their right to debate fully every question. The shrinking from a fair stand-up fight on a particular question is a characteristic of an effete Parliament. If we are to have our debates of a namby-pamby order, we had better go to the country at once. I am not willing—I have no right
    1846
    —to put any Question to the Chair; but I will appeal to experienced Members of the House, whether there has or has not been on any one of these occasions anything that could fairly be called Obstruction? I have shown that if there was Obstruction, it existed on the part of English Members more than on the part of Irish Members; but I repudiate this wretched charge of Obstruction. We have duties to discharge in this House. We must discharge them manfully, and, if necessary, with pertinacity. Some years ago another newspaper charged hon. Members in this House with venality, and an hon. Member, who is now no more, brought the matter before Parliament. The Irish Members at that time were called "Ultramontanes." They were previously to that called "the Pope's Brass Band," and they are now called "Obstructionists." There is always some opprobrious name to be attached to the Irish Members. On that occasion The Pall Mall Gazette—a journal which says it is written for gentlemen by gentlemen— the next day apologized for the statement, which drew from both sides very strong condemnation. In its apology, it said that the gentleman usually employed to write the article was away, and the leader had been entrusted to a fresh hand. May I not hope that perhaps the leading journal on this occasion found not its proper leader writer, but an apprentice hand, and one who, in making this accusation, has not brought credit on that journal, but very considerable odium on himself, and injury to the dignity of the House? I beg to move that this article be read.
    [Complaint made to the House by Mr. Mitchell Henry, Member for Gal-way County, of an article in the "Times" newspaper of the 25th day of this instant February.]
    MR. SPEAKER: Let the hon. Member bring it up.
    The said paper was delivered in and the article complained of read.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I move that—
    "The said article contains libellous reflections upon certain Members of this House in breach of the Privileges of this House."
    MR. DEASEseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed;
    "That the said article contains libellous reflections upon certain Members of this House in breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the relations between the House of Commons and the Press are always, I think, delicate, and we must be careful of the way in which we take notice of comments which are made upon our proceedings in the journals of the day. Undoubtedly we do see, from time to time, articles in papers of the highest character which appear to us, or some of us, to give an inaccurate, and sometimes, as we think, an unfair, account of what takes place within the walls of this House. Sometimes, no doubt, remarks and comments are made upon the speeches and actions of hon. Members which are of a nature to cause dissatisfaction, and sometimes to induce us to take notice of them, either by correction addressed to the paper itself, or if thought worthy of the attention of the House by calling that attention. But I think there is a general feeling among us that in all these matters we ought to be very tender, and not to interfere with the fair liberty of the Press. We do not require to insist upon privileges of, perhaps, a rather obsolete character, which would enable us entirely to forbid or prevent any remarks upon what has taken place in this House. We do not desire in any way to object to fair comments, although those comments may sometimes appear to be mistaken and unfair. But I do think that it is quite right and proper that Members who may feel themselves specially aggrieved by anything that has been said should call attention to it, and should ask the protection of the House against such misrepresentation. Now, Sir, we have heard read the article of which the hon. Gentleman complains. Undoubtedly, in listening to that article, one cannot help feeling that it contained some severe remarks upon the conduct of Members of this House, and that the writer of the article used one expression which was worthy of special notice. I refer to the words that the Irish Members "had watched the debate with a malign intent." Now, if there is one Rule that is more strictly observed than another amongst Members of this House, it is that we object to one Member imputing motives
    1848
    and intentions to other Members, and that which we object to amongst ourselves we regard with some jealousy when it is applied by others. Well, what was "the malign intent" with which the Irish Members were charged? It was the malign intent of obstructing Public Business. Now, the question arises whether hon. Members opposite consider that to be a serious offence? I have heard language upon former occasions which induced me to think that they would have hardly looked upon that as so serious an offence as I am glad to see that the hon. Member and his Friends consider it. I must say I think it is a matter for special congratulation that the hon. Member, occupying, as he does, so prominent a position amongst the ranks of the Irish Members, should have distinctly put it as one of the grounds of complaint that the article in question accuses him and hon. Members near him of being guilty of that which is a distinct Parliamentary offence. [Cheers.] He is perfectly right in stating, in my opinion, that wilful and deliberate obstruction of the Business of the House is a distinct Parliamentary offence; and we gladly welcome from him and from hon. Members sitting near him, as I gather from their cheers, that there is no intention to minimize or palliate that offence. In these circumstances, the question as to what was intended in the three nights to which reference has been made is one which we must consider in the light of the facts which the hon. Gentleman has brought before us. Unquestionably, if the opposition offered to the Resolutions on the Business of the House was of an obstructive character, the hon. Member has proved his case that the charge of obstruction cannot be altogether confined to any particular section of the House, or to the Irish Members. A considerable number of Members of the House felt that the proposals contained in these Resolutions were important, and that they raised questions which in their view were deserving of very long and serious consideration, and of opposition which might be carried to a very considerable length. Among those were Members who clearly cannot be accused of having the slightest sympathy with obstruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford

    1849
    Hope), for instance, is a man whom nobody would think of accusing, under any circumstances, of obstruction, and yet that hon. Gentleman was quite as vigorous as anybody else during the debate. I am glad that the matter has been brought forward in the way it has been by the hon. Member — good-humouredly and temperately. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that if a charge of obstruction could be maintained it would be a serious one; because obstruction is a distinctly Parliamentary offence, and he disclaimed for himself and those who sit near him any such intention. I hope, in the circumstances, we shall not be called upon to go further than what has now passed. We may place ourselves in a position of some embarrassment if we are called upon to vote on the Question that he has moved. Supposing the House were to decide that these words did amount to a breach of Privilege, we should have to follow that up by calling the proprietor and printer of The Times to the Bar; and I do not think it would be either for the interest of the House or of the public that we should engage in a conflict of that kind. On the whole, therefore, I venture to think that, having called attention to the subject in the manner he has done, the hon. Member would do well to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Having been mentioned in the article, by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope the House may allow me to say a few words on the question. I thank my right hon. Friend for vindicating me so thoroughly from the charge of obstruction. So far from obstructing, I was obstructed by the Forms of the House, because it happened that on the greater part of the second night's debate I was prevented from speaking at all. On the first night I proposed an Amendment which did not quite satisfy me; on the second, therefore, I asked leave to withdraw it, in order that it might be cast in a better form—such leave was a matter of course, and would have been the work of only a few seconds; but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) took the occasion to deliver one of those noble orations after the manner of the ancients to which we always listen with such delight. The general
    1850
    debate thus raised in so irregular a way, on a question in which the House was very much interested, occupied the greater part of the night, and I was the only Member that was precluded from speaking on it. I cannot accept the history which is given in this article of what took place during the three nights as accurate; but though it may be inaccurate, I cannot say that it is libellous. Members of Parliament must, above all things, show that they are not thin-skinned. Parliament is the great institution of the country, but the Press is a great institution, too. If there is anything in the Press which it is our duty, in the interest of public morality, to protest against, let us do it—but do not, I repeat, let us be thin-skinned on merely personal matters. The Resolution now before the House would, in my opinion, inflict a blow on the liberty of the Press, though the hon. Member cannot intend to do such a thing. To censure The Times for an article which, at the worst, is a little inaccurate and one-sided, would, in my judgment, not be a wise thing to do.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTENGTON: Sir, I am extremely anxious, if possible, to avoid entering into a debate on what was the meaning of The Times' article, and, therefore, I make no apology for rising thus early in the discussion. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to consider the advice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I presume the object of my hon. Friend was to have an opportunity of repudiating the accusation of obstruction put upon the conduct of himself and his Friends rather than to bring the publisher of The Times to the Bar of this House for punishment. I think my hon. Friend has entirely gained his object. The Leader of the House has stated, with very general assent, that the account which has been given in The Times was inaccurate, and that an unfair construction has been put upon the conduct of the Home Rule Members. I think my hon. Friend will do well to be satisfied with that statement, and will not press the matter further. The House will remember that two Sessions ago I endeavoured to induce the House to re-consider the Rules which regulate its relations with the Press. The House, I am sorrj1 to say, was not willing to entertain those proposals, and the Standing Orders and Rules which regulate

    1851
    these relations still remain, in my opinion, of a most unsatisfactory and obsolete character. Such as they are, it is absolutely necessary that we should avoid placing ourselves in a very unworthy and discreditable position. We must exercise the great Privileges we possess with great caution and forbearance. Therefore, I think it would be undesirable, in such a case as this, to carry the matter further. I do not wish to say a word in palliation of the article in The Times; I do not wish to invite the House to enter upon that subject; but I would point out, for the satisfaction of my hon. Friend, that the obstruction imputed to him is not that wilful obstruction which I understand has been declared by the highest authority as an offence against the Privileges and dignity of the House, but that kind of obstruction which, from time to time, is practised in all parts of the House, and about which there is great difference of opinion. We shall never agree whether speeches are too long or not, or whether an undue number of speeches are made. I do not think, so far as the article in The Times is concerned, there was any intention of imputing "wilful" obstruction. However, we should waste our time in attempting to settle that point. I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the expression of opinion which he has obtained from the Leader of the House.
    MR. SHAW: I venture, also, to express a hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a division. I read the article, and think it went considerably further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seem to imply. It appeared to me to grossly misrepresent the action of certain Members of the House who were in a minority. When my hon. Friend expressed his intention of bringing forward his Motion I was completely staggered; and I said to him that as there was exactly the same kind of descriptions of our conduct to be seen in the English papers week after week, that it would be useless to take the trouble of puffing into notoriety an article which would pass out of mind the day after its appearance. If we are to fight a battle we must not be thin-skinned. I am not a bit afraid myself if the whole House and the whole Press of the country called me an Obstructionist. Where I honestly oppose a Bill I shall oppose it, no matter what the
    1852
    papers say about me. We must not do anything that would in any way prevent comment in the Press upon the conduct of Members of this House. I believe the liberty of the Press was of still more importance than some of the privileges we enjoy in this House. For my own part, the only newspaper I am afraid of is The Skibbereen Eagle, which made a greater man than me—the late Lord Chancellor—tremble in his shoes. The article complained of went beyond the customary rule of comment and imputed improper motives; but the hon. Member having elicited a strong expression of opinion from both sides of the House as to its impropriety might, I consider, fairly withdraw his Motion.
    MR. PARNELLpresumed his hon. Friend the Member for Galway had fulfilled the object he had in view, and therefore it would not be necessary for him to go to a Division. He rose merely to point out that there was something more serious than many people thought in the practice of The Times and other newspapers in misrepresenting the conduct of the Irish Members. Their desire was, above all things, to cultivate the good opinion of England with reference to Irish questions, and such articles in The Times would mislead public opinion with regard to them. The outside public would, therefore, be entirely misinformed as to the motives and action of Irish Members, and a feeling would be got up against them so as to prevent Irish Members doing their duty in the House. A proposition was made before the Select Committee last year that when any Member was accused of obstruction a Division might be taken without debate, and a decision come to summarily on the conduct of the Member in question and the punishment to be inflicted on him. If such a Rule were enforced —and it might be by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the present Session—the opinion of the Members of the House might be so perverted by the publication of such articles that many who had not heard the speech of the Irish Member whose conduct was impugned might come in and vote for his suspension and the suspension of the rights of his constituency, not on the ground of their actual observation of his conduct, but by reason of the injurious impression derived from reading such articles. He submitted, in these

    1853
    circumstances, such articles assumed a much more serious complexion. The article in question imputed a deliberate intention to commit a Parliamentary offence, and, in a most invidious way, drew a line between English and Irish Members. But having performed a public duty in calling attention to the article, and having elicited an expression of opinion from all sides of the House as to its unwarrantable character, he hoped his lion. Friend would withdraw his Motion.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: My object in bringing this matter before the House was, not because I want to make a stand against the newspapers of the country, or to unduly curtail their liberty of fair comment and criticism. I believe I have most conclusively shown that there is not the slightest foundation for the mis-statements which appear in the article to which I have drawn the attention of the House. At the same time, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a fair and generous acknowledgment of the erroneous character of the article as I should have expected; but the noble Lord has done so. Other Members may have their own opinions about it; but in withdrawing my Motion, in deference to the expressed wishes of the House on both sides, I hope the House will remember that if ever an accusation of this serious character be again made, it may turn out on examination to be as equally unfounded as the present.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTION.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Supply he postponed until after the Order of Leave for a Bill relating to the Discipline and Regulation of the Army."
  MR. DILLWYNasked whether it was intended to take the Supplementary Estimates other than the Vote of Credit for the South African War to-night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be very inconsistent with himself if he were to try and press forward the Supplementary Estimates without giving proper time
  1854
  for their examination. The Secretary to the Treasury was perfectly prepared to go on with them; but he quite saw the reasonableness of the objection made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillwyn), and he should, therefore, confine himself to proposing a Vote in connection with the Exchequer Bonds, which expired on the 16th of March, and a Vote of Credit in connection with South Africa.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, it would be for the convenience of the House that before you leave the Chair I should say a few words upon the two Votes which will be submitted in Committee. There is the Vote to renew the £2,750,000 of Exchequer Bonds, which fall in in the last weeks of March, and there is the Vote of Credit for the South African Services. With regard to the Bonds I need say but little. They belong to the finance of the year 1877–8. They were issued in that year to meet certain expenditure which had been voted, and it was hoped at one time that, in part at least, they would be discharged in the course of the present year. Circumstances, however, have been against us, and we have not been able to pay them off this year; and, therefore, it is necessary that we should take power to re-issue, or rather to issue, new Bonds in order to enable us to pay off these as they become due. With respect to the Vote of Credit, it is, of course, a new feature. As I explained just now, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), I last year warned the House that there might be a sum of, perhaps, £400,000 required for hostilities in South Africa. That did not refer at all to the Zulu War. It is well the House should bear in mind that the hostilities in South Africa are distinctly divisible into two periods—the period of what we may call the Transkei War, and the period of this unhappy conflict. The Transkei War was begun in August, 1877, and

  1855
  ended about July, 1878, and it was with reference to that that our Votes and my observations were made. No accounts were made up in time for the last Budget as to the expenditure up to March 31, 1878, as regards the Transkei War. We knew, by the drafts on the Treasury Chest, that there had been great expenditure; and I therefore warned the House that it was probable, before the expiration of this financial year, I should be obliged to present an excess Estimate. But that has not been found necessary, because the Army Votes were sufficient for the Services for which they were intended, and there were enough savings upon them to cover the amount. Well, then, there were further Supplementary Estimates taken of £300,000 for the Army, and about £40,000 for the Navy in August last. That was for the same war; and, as far as we at present know, that sum will be sufficient for the expenses incurred. With regard to the Zulu War, the expenditure properly chargeable to that contest may be said to have commenced in October last, when the first preparations appear to have been made. It is rather difficult to give full information as to what has been the actual expenditure occasioned by that war; but my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to tell the House when it gets into Committee on what grounds the Estimates have been framed, so far as they have been able to frame them. I may only add that, being myself aware that the Treasury chest has been heavily drawn upon, I have thought it right to put into the Vote a sum of £300,000 for contingencies over and above the more detailed Estimates to be presented by my right hon. Friends. The House will bear in mind that that expenditure in respect to a distant war is carried on through the Treasury chest, and that the way in which that is done is this—the Treasury chest has a fixed Fund of, I think, about £1,000,000, which ought always to be maintained, and out of that Fund either payments are directly made, or bills are drawn, and the fund is used to meet these drafts, and from time to time it is replenished out of the Votes for the Army Fund. The Military chest has been heavily drawn upon for South Africa, and we therefore are now obliged to replace that Fund again. With regard to the Vote
  1856
  of Credit, the amount we propose to take is £1,500,000, and the details relating to it will be found in the Papers submitted to the House. I shall be asked—and I may as well enter on the question briefly now—in what way I propose we should raise this £1,500,000? I desire to point out to the House that we are now at a period so nearly approaching the close of the financial year and the next Budget, that it is hardly convenient for us to enter upon new financial operations at this moment; and, therefore, I shall propose a temporary arrangement to carry us over the end of this year and the beginning of next. I hope it will be in my power to bring in the Budget very early in April, before Easter; and, in the meantime, I propose that this money, if voted, shall be raised by the issue of Exchequer Bonds. In mentioning Exchequer Bonds, I wish to say two or three words in regard to what appears to me to be rather a mistaken idea in many quarters as to the nature and amount of our floating Debt. I observe that in many influential organs of public opinion there is an impression that the floating Debt has of late years been increased to a very large and even dangerous extent. I think that in some respects the idea arises from a confusion between the terms floating Debt and unfunded Debt, and that there is evidently a disposition to think that all unfunded Debt is floating Debt, which is not the case. The objections to a large floating Debt are, of course, these—that the securities which properly constitute a floating Debt may be presented for redemption suddenly or at inconvenient times, and in such a manner as to somewhat embarrass the Exchequer, or that, in renewing them, it might be necessary to give a high rate of interest. Now, that is the case undoubtedly with what is properly called a floating Debt—that is to say, Exchequer Bills and Treasury Bills. There can be no doubt that those bills are liable to be so presented, and that if they were in excess they might occasion some embarrassment. On the other hand, it is not quite to the same extent the case with Exchequer Bonds, which run for certain periods — two, three, or four years— even if these bonds are in the hands of the public; but still less is it the case with regard to a great deal of the unfunded Debt which now exists,

  1857
  because that is not in the hands of the public at all. It is money advanced by the National Debt Commissioners, and which, in fact, is only advanced from one hand of the State to the other, and is not, and cannot be, liable to the objection to which Exchequer and Treasury Bills are supposed to be liable. Let us see how we stand. The present amount of unfunded Debt is about £24,661,000; that consists of £14,458,000 of Exchequer Bonds, £4,497,000 of Exchequer Bills, and £5,706,000 of Treasury Bills. But of the £14,458,000 of Bonds now in existence no less than £11,708,000 are in the hands of the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, so that even if we reckoned as part of the floating Debt the Exchequer Bonds in the hands of the Bank of England the unfunded Debt is really no more than £12,953,000. That is a sum which, though I do not say it is altogether insignificant, is by no means open to the charge of being extravagantly large. I have seen it stated that we ought to take steps, by funding or otherwise, to bring the floating Debt clown to within £15,000,000. There can be no doubt that a certain amount of floating Debt is a convenience to the public, and also an advantage to the Exchequer; because the public, as hon. Gentlemen connected with business are aware, are glad to get a certain amount of Treasury and Exchequer Bills, and they take them at a lower rate of interest than they would have to pay if the same money was raised by the issue of Consols. I therefore think that the alarm which has been expressed with regard to the supposed magnitude of the floating Debt of the country is somewhat exaggerated. Having said these few words respecting it, there is one other question that may probably be asked of me. I may be asked what effect these Votes will have upon our financial position? I have said that at this time of the year, and with the Budget so near at hand, I must speak with reserve, and I hope I shall not be called upon to go into minute and conjectural details. There are always difficulties in estimating the Revenue towards the close of the year, and these difficulties are likely to be as great this year as upon any other occasion. But, speaking generally, I think I may say that the Revenue may probably fall short of the estimated Expenditure by something under £1,000,000; and I am
  1858
  sorry to say that the Expenditure, including the Vote of Credit and the Supplementary Estimates, and without reference to the £2,700,000 of Bonds, will exceed what we may now expect to be the Revenue by something like £3,000,000. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that £2,000,000 of that amount has been already provided for. In August we obtained permission to issue £2,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds, and these will absorb £2,000,000 out of the £3,000,000. I cannot say the outturn will be as I have described. I have put the figures in what I think to be the most unfavourable light, and I think I am making a safe statement when I put the probable excess of Expenditure over Revenue at £1,000,000. Under these circumstances, it might be sufficient for mo to ask for £1,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds; but I desire to be on the safe side, and to guard against any contingencies that may arise from disappointment in the Revenue. It will, therefore, be my duty at a later time—in Committee of Ways and Means—to propose an issue of £1,500,000 of Exchequer Bonds to carry us through to the end of this year. Of course, if my anticipations are fulfilled, and we do not want this money, the power will not be exercised to the extent I have indicated. I may mention, with regard to the Vote of Credit, that it is proposed to take it for the remainder of the present financial year. The power will lapse on the 1st of April, and anything further which may be necessary will be found the subject of a Supplemental Estimate. With these remarks, I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not remember any instance of a Financial Statement of the importance of that which we have just listened to being made before the Whole House, such Statements having always heretofore being made in Committee of Ways and Means. But, Sir, I shall not press that objection; but there is one remark which I feel it absolutely right I should make to the House upon the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told

  1859
  us that he is taking the present course because we are approaching the end of the year, and he followed that with the remark that after the end of the financial year it would be his duty to place the Budget before the House. I wish to say to the House—and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make a clear answer to my allegation—that according to all precedent, when our finance is in its present serious position, the Budget ought not to be postponed to the month of April. In every previous case when the finances have been in this position, the Government has come down to the House with the Budget either in February, or, at least, never later than the beginning of March; and considering the great effect which is produced on trade by the expectancy in which the country is kept when a Budget of such importance as this year's is delayed—to say nothing of other considerations my reticence as to which my right hon. Friend will appreciate — the Government ought not to delay it, not a mere week or two weeks, but, as it will turn out, for two months, from the commencement of the Session. The Budget ought to have been brought in within a week or two of the meeting of the House, as has been done under similar circumstances in previous years. My right hon. Friend, some years ago, published a valuable work, from which I have taken some facts which I will quote to the House. From that work it appears that Sir Robert Peel had a very serious deficit in 1842, and the Budget was produced on March 11. In 1845 great changes were necessary, and the Budget was produced on February 17. In 1847 it was necessary to raise a very large loan, amounting to something like £8,000,000, and the Budget was produced on February 27. In 1848 there was a very serious deficit, and the Budget was produced on February 18. In 1854 there were important financial operations rendered necessary by the possibility of war with Russia, and the Budget was produced on March 6. In 1860 there was a still more serious state of things, and the Budget was produced on February 10. The only very recent case of serious deficit was in 1867, at the time of the Abyssinian War, and the addition to taxation was made in the month of November. Those are all the cases since the time of Sir Robert Peel
  1860
  when there has been a deficit of serious magnitude, and in every case the Budget has been produced, not at the beginning of the financial year, but some time before the end of the previous financial year. I think I have shown to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must explain why on the present occasion, when our financial position is so serious, the Budget is not brought in at once without waiting till the first week in April. And now let me sum up in a few sentences our present financial position. We concluded the year 1877–8 with a deficit of £2,750,000. We were told in the original Budget of 1878–9 that the new taxes would yield enough to give a surplus of from £710,000 to £1,210,000 to go in reduction of that debt, and that next year it would be entirely wiped out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was allowed to amend his Budget in August. Instead of a surplus in 1878–9, he then estimated for a serious deficiency of £1,577,000, which, added to the deficit of the previous year, would compel us to begin 1879–80 with a deficit of £4,307,000, and he proposed no Ways and Means to meet it. We protested, but in vain. What is the case now? Last year we were charged with audacity in thinking that the Revenue Estimates were sanguine; but now we are told that they will fall short by something under £1,000,000. We are told that there is to be a deficit this year, exclusive of 1877–8, of at least £3,000,000, and that we shall not be safe unless we meet this to the extent of £3.500,000 by the issue of the Exchequer Bonds which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes; so that the years 1877–8 and 1878–9 are to close with an accumulated deficit of from£5,750,000 to £6,250,000. Has the House thoroughly appreciated the fact? I am not exaggerating, or giving a single figure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given himself. Here we are at the commencement of a Zulu war, with a falling Revenue, with almost a certainty that the financial position of next year is going to be serious even in comparison with this, with an accumulated deficit of £6,000,000, and yet we are going to delay the Budget till April. Sir, there has not been a more serious deficit since the first Reform Bill. Therefore, I say it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to postpone intro-

  1861
  during the Budget. I will not suggest, or even hint, at the measures that must be I taken by the Government; but I would urge that the Budget should be at once brought forward, in order that the commercial public may see what the effect of the Government finance will be. With regard to the other question of the unfunded Debt, it is a very inconvenient time to discuss it now. There are many points which, I allow, it might be very desirable to raise, but which cannot be well raised or discussed with you, Sir, in the Chair, and when, after asking a Question, it is out of our power to rise again. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done good by showing the difference which exists between what is popularly called the floating Debt and the unfunded Debt; but when he speaks of the unfunded Debt as, being of no importance, and would appear to regard the transactions of the last year or two in that respect with perfect satisfaction, let me remind him of this one fact—that while he has been adding very largely indeed to the unfunded Debt in the hands of the public during the last few years, the Government brokers have been at work all the time, and, partly by their operations, and partly in another shape, the unfunded Debt— exclusive of the Terminable Annuities —has been very considerably decreased in each year. Whether it is wise to increase the unfunded Debt in years of emergency is a matter of opinion; but nothing can be more undesirable than, at the same time, to increase your unfunded Debt, and to reduce your funded Debt. I hope, when the proper opportunity comes round, the House will discuss these matters and the effect in this respect of the finance of the last few years. For the present, I will content myself with pointing out that we are about to start a fresh year with the most serious deficit that I remember, and yet we are to have no Budget for five or six weeks. That is, I venture to say, a state of things with which the House ought not to be satisfied.

  ARMY — THE ARTILLERY — BREECH-LOADING AND MUZZLE-LOADING GUNS.—RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to move—
  "That the great difference which exists between our cannon and those which find favour
  1862
  with Foreign Powers calls for careful investigation, and that it would he unwise to further postpone experiments on such classes of breech loading guns as are now possessed by other Powers;"
  said, the question, although perhaps not so interesting to the House as the discussion on financial matters which had just taken place, was, nevertheless, one of considerable importance to the country; and he had more than once drawn attention to the difference in the construction of the cannon of this country and that of other Continental Powers. It was generally allowed in the Press that England stood alone in the class of cannon which she had, England holding to the muzzle-loader, while on the Continent the breechloader was favoured. He made a statement to that effect last year, and he was corrected by the noble Lord opposite the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Lord Eustace Cecil) who said that his statement as to the general adoption of breech-loading ordnance by the Continental Powers was only partly accurate. The noble Lord admitted that the four great military and naval Powers — Russia, Germany, France, and Austria, wore exclusively in favour of breech-loading guns, and two were entirely in favour of muzzle-loading. The two, he said, which were half in favour of muzzle-loading were Italy and Belgium, while Sweden and the United States were the two exclusively in favour of muzzle-loading. Well, no doubt, these were four important countries, though not such important countries from a military point of view as Russia, Germany, France, and Austria. But even as regarded these smaller Powers, he did think the present state of the case was now that which it was when the noble Lord made his statement. It might have been accurate at the time he made it; but he (Major Nolan) did not believe it was strictly accurate at the present moment. Now, take the case of Italy. That country had been steadily, for the last eight or nine years, replacing all her muzzle and her field artillery with breech-loading cannon. No doubt, last year she seemed to favour muzzle-loading, because she ordered four 100-ton guns in this country on that system; but he believed that those guns had since come into the possession of Her Majesty's Government. He did not know why Italy had parted with them, whether

  1863
  under pressure or not, or whether she was glad to get rid of them; but the fact remained she had those guns no longer, and she was not now so much in favour of muzzle-loading as she had been; in fact, she was going in about a fortnight's time to try a breech-loading gun larger than our 80-tun gun. Therefore he claimed Italy as being in favour of breech-loading. With regard to Belgium the case was this. That in those cases where she was best able to judge she was going in for breech-loaders. As to Sweden, she prided herself upon her cast iron guns; and although the noble Lord last year quoted her as being exclusively in favour of muzzle-loading ordnance, that was no longer the case, and very lately she had decided to abandon muzzle-loading guns as her field guns and adopt breech-loading cannon. There then remained the case of the United States, which was a peculiar one. The United States determined upon a policy of the most rigid economy after her war, and they had of late scarcely made any new cannon whatever. She had made a few experiments, however. The great war left her as a legacy a large number of cast-iron guns, and she had altered these so as to make them better weapons by converting them into rifled cannon. On the whole it had been easier to turn these guns into muzzle-loaders than it would have been to have made them breech-loaders; but the whole scientific opinion of America, which was to be read in the Reports of the Directors of Naval and Military Ordnance in that country, seemed to be exclusively in favour of breech-loading guns. The Chief of the American Ordnance said whatever difference of opinion existed as to the relative efficiency of the breech and the muzzle-loading, the latter being exclusively used by England, and the former exclusively used by the great Continental Powers, there could be no question that in certain cases the breech-loading had peculiar advantages. Therefore, from what he had said it would be seen that the four Powers to which the noble Lord had alluded as being half in favour of the muzzle and only half in favour of the breech-loading system were rapidly getting round to be in favour of breech-loading as against the muzzle-loading. If that should prove to be so, England would be left without a single follower or supporter of any consequence
  1864
  in Europe in her system of ordnance, and they would be in a perfectly isolated position with their guns, if they continued to maintain that the muzzle-loading system was the best against the naval and military opinion of the whole of the rest of the world. What he (Major Nolan) proposed was that extensive experiments should be made by the Government with breech-loading guns, and with breech-loading guns only, because enormous experiments had already been made with muzzle-loading weapons. Herr Krupp had circulated a paper among many hon. Members of the House within the last week, in which he said that his 6¾-inch gun had been tried against an English 9-inch gun, and his gun had given far better results. His main reason for advocating breech-loading for field artillery was that the breech-loader, from the great length of its bore, and from the fact that the chamber was of larger diameter than the bore, not only gave the gun a greater power and a longer range, but also diminished the danger to which artillerymen were usually exposed when charging the gun, inasmuch as they were entirely protected from the attack of small arms while they were engaged in that operation. This was shown to be the case very clearly in the Report of the special Committee some seven or eight years ago, although that Committee did not report in favour of breech-loading. It was demonstrated that there was far better cover for the men with the breech-loader. No experiments, however, were carried out at Shoeburyness to show which gun gave the most cover, so that the special advantage of the breech-loader was not proved to exist; and he hoped, when the noble Lord next made experiments, he would go into this point. If the two guns, a breech-loader and a muzzle-loader, were put in the open field, there would be no difference as to cover; but in intrenchments a very much superior protection was given by the breech-loader. When muzzle-loaders were adopted in this country, it was absolutely necessary that they should be made short, because it was more difficult to ram down charges in a long gun than in a short one; but now the whole tendency of modern artillery was to make guns longer, in order to render them more efficient.

  1865
  Even if the muzzle-loader was improved in that respect, it would only be by: imitating the special quality of the breech-loader—its very great depth; thus making the muzzle very clumsy and difficult to handle. He had seen the experiments at Shoeburyness as to cover for muzzle-loaders; but he was convinced there would be four or five times more men killed by small arms with the muzzle-loader than there would be in cases where the breech-loader was used. These, then, wore the advantages of the breech-loader—the length of the gun, larger chamber for powder, and the great extent of cover. Therefore, this question of the character of English ordnance was a most serious one, and therefore it was that he pressed it upon the attention of the Government. He might refer to what was called the Thunderer system. There the cover was the same as with breech-loading; the gun itself stopped the port-hole, and prevented the fire of the enemy getting in at the men. Had the gun of the Thunderer been a breech-loader, it would have been impossible that it could have received a double charge, and its destruction would have been avoided. Such an accident was one which could not occur again for a long time to come, and he did not wish to make too much of it. The fact was, it was an accident inseparable from the construction of the gun and the mode of loading it. He did not believe the explosion was in any way due to a deficiency in the strength of the gun, which was almost bound to burst when loaded with two charges, inasmuch as the fact caused at least seven times the ordinary amount of pressure to be brought to bear at the point of bursting. Another strong objection to the system of muzzle-loading—and this also was shown in the case of the Thunderer—was that the gun was loaded at a distance from the firing detachment, the members of which could know nothing of what had been done, or of the danger to which they were, or might be, subjected. This was a necessary consequence of the system, and great care would be necessary to prevent a recurrence of similar disasters; but that would not do away with other evils that would inevitably crop up. He did not object to the use of hydraulic machinery, for with large guns it was very useful; but the fact of having the loading party
  1866
  20 or 30 feet away from the firing party was a great defect, and one likely, as in the present case, to lead to accidents. Yet another danger arising from muzzle-loading ordnance was that the gun bad to be loaded at one elevation; then raised to prevent the missile from falling out of the muzzle; and, in the third place, depressed to bring it to the proper elevation for firing. Thus, there were, at least, three changes in the elevation of a muzzle-loading gun from loading to firing, and this in itself was, in his opinion, a strong ground for objecting to the system altogether as compared with breech-loading. Another point was that, up to the present time, English artillerists had derived great benefit from being able to watch the systems in use in other countries; but this advantage was now withdrawn from them by reason of the fact that England now stood alone in the use of muzzle-loading ordnance, although such use was contrary to the practice of all Europe, and was opposed to the theories of civil engineers universally in the country. He would like to know on what authority the Government based its opinion? When the question had been raised before, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had replied in general terms that his action had been based upon the advice of his official and professional advisers. But the only name given beyond the personal opinion of the noble Lord was that of Captain Nolan, and he thought the noble Lord ought not to shelter himself behind a cloud of names, but he should state the names of his advisers in this matter. If he had a distinct opinion from the Director General of the Ordnance that muzzle-loading guns were superior to breech-loading ones, that would, of course, be most valuable. If the noble Lord had a considerable body of scientific evidence in favour of muzzle-loading guns, he ought to name the officers who supplied it. At present they were going against the scientific practices of Germany, Austria, and America, and against engineering opinion also, and he thought that was most unfortunate. If they were going to retain the muzzle-loading principle, the country ought to know the evidence on which that decision had been arrived at, and the grounds on which it rested. The two systems could not co-exist together; but

  1867
  if the two were used alongside each other, breech-loaders would drive out muzzle-loaders. It was scarcely satisfactory; and it was to be hoped that on the present occasion the, noble Lord would give the names of the gentlemen whose advice had guided him. It might, perhaps, be thought that he was a little pressing in bringing this subject before the House; but, as it was one which might possibly determine the issue of a battle by land or a naval engagement, it was, he thought, well worthy the consideration of the House of Commons. He was not now asking the noble Lord to introduce breech-loaders, but to have such exhaustive experiments made as would satisfy the House as to their value, and that could be done for £100,000 or £200,000, or a cost certainly not exceeding what was now being spent in adding to their muzzle-loading ordnance. It would be better to incur that expenditure than to proceed farther on their present course without well knowing what they were about. There was a very good opportunity for introducing them in some of the forts which required larger guns, and in which there was much practical difficulty in fitting in heavier muzzle-loaders—a difficulty which would vanish if they only put in breech-loaders. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had done good service by again, this Session, as in the previous one, bringing forward his Motion on the subject of breech-loading ordnance, and he should very much wish that his suggestion for instituting experiments on the subject of the relative merits of muzzle-loaders were adopted and carried into practice. On that account he should beg to second his Motion, in order that, when the time came for making the change from muzzle-loading to breech-loading pieces, at which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks pointed, they might be in a position to make it with despatch and certainty. On the previous occasions when the change from muzzle-loaders to breech-loaders was carried out, the nation was hurried into a vast expense before the best and most suitable breech piece was perfected. Then, 11 years later, the change made
  1868
  from a breech-loader was equally hurried before the best kind of gun was ascertained; indeed, the nation escaped at great outlay in avoiding a brass rifled gun instead of the present iron and steel tube. He was sure that the noble Lord the Surveyor General of Ordnance would not fail to give the attention they deserved to the obviously intelligent and scientific recommendations of his hon. and gallant Friend, and that he would cause experiments to be carried out which would settle the question in which the country was so deeply interested—namely, as to the best kind of gun for the Army and the Navy. A nation like England ought to possess not only the best ships and army that could be formed or produced, but the best guns that scientific skill could devise. He trusted that what his hon. and gallant Friend had said as to the recently proposed 4-ton 6-inch gun would be borne in mind. It was a piece of ordnance perfectly well suited to the class of vessels which the present First Lord of the Admiralty had so wisely introduced into the Service. It was in every way so far superior to the gun of 64 cwt. with which the Isis was armed that it might be truly said, if adopted for that vessel of great speed, to double her power as a vessel of war. He would suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend to submit a programme of the experiments it was desirable to make, and to place a Resolution on the Paper of the House which would require the authorities to give their best attention to the subject. He was aware that the noble Lord was always willing to obtain information from hon. Members at either side of the House, and would not disregard the suggestions of his hon. and gallant Friend merely by reason of his not belonging to the Party of the present Government. What was required was not a hasty and sweeping, but a gradual change, so that the country might, after careful investigation, secure the best possible gun for the Army and the Navy.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the great difference which exists between our cannon and those which find favour with Foreign Powers calls for careful investigation, and that it would he unwise to further postpone experiments on such classes of breech-loading

  1869
  guns as are now possessed by other Powers," —(Major Nolan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not wish to oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan), which he had brought forward with much practical knowledge and ability. The advance of science had, he admitted, altered the position of the question very much from that which it occupied when, on the then perfectly sound recommendation of the Ordnance Committee, muzzle-loading guns were adopted for both Services. The system of breech-loading had then great disadvantages, while the muzzle-loading gun had the advantages of cheapness and simplicity, the latter being of considerable advantage to the Naval Service. The breech-loading gun had a considerable number of different pieces of various kinds to be attended to, and a slight derangement disabled the gun and was the cause of accidents. The present system of breech-loading was, however, a vast improvement on the old. It was simple, and had the advantage of securing to them a longer gun, with increased charge and accuracy. These reasons induced him to concur with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in desiring that the subject should undergo consideration, and that, if necessary, further experiments should be made. The appointment of a Scientific Commission would probably answer every purpose. He hoped, however, it would be done in a more permanent manner than was suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He desired to see the Ordnance Select Committee re-established, which, consisting as it did of the ablest officers both of the Navy and Army, gave confidence to the Services in its inquiries and in its reports. He should prefer that, if re-established, it should be in such a manner as to insure the more frequent change of its members than formerly prevailed; either by the adoption of the five years' rule, or in any manner which the Secretary of State for War thought would introduce fresh blood into the Ordnance Select Committee. The fact of the noble Lord instituting such permanent Committee would give confidence and convey an
  1870
  assurance to the officers of both Services that the result of an impartial scientific investigation would be adopted.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had rather sprung a mine upon him. He was not aware that the Motion would be brought on as it had been, as it was put down for the Army Estimates. He had, however, listened attentively to the able observations of the hon. and gallant Member; but while acknowledging their force, he must correct him on one point. He had represented his (Lord Eustace Cecil's) opinion as being in favour of muzzle-loaders. It was perfectly true that year after year he had defended the course taken by the Government, but for himself he had never expressed any opinion; and for the Government he could truly say that they were neutral in the matter, and that their great anxiety was to adopt that system which, on the whole, would be the best and most useful. The present Government found a certain system in use. That system was, after several years' inquiry, adopted by the Government who preceded them, and it was adopted at very great expense, after an expenditure of from £4,000,000 to £6,000,000 in experiments. It was supposed at that time—and he never heard any opinion to the contrary—that they had as good a gun as any in the world. No doubt, invention did not end there, and it was quite possible that a better gun on a different principle might be discovered; but that better gun did not seem at present to be forthcoming, and he would repeat that the country was now in possession of a good gun. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had stated that other countries had got a better gun, and that they had adopted Messrs. Krupp's gun; but that was not, as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) showed on the 12th of March last, the case generally. No doubt, other Governments would keep their eyes open to see whether a better system could be discovered; but that was just what the War Department of this country were doing—they were watching for further improvements—and when found out, he ventured to assure the House that no time would be lost in testing any invention which promised to be of advantage to the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had

  1871
  suggested that he (Lord Eustace Cecil) should inform him of the names of the officers who advised him; but he really did not think that that was necessary, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be quite as, perhaps more, familiar with those names than he was. He knew the Director of Ordnance, and also the Head of the Gun Factory. They were all distinguished officers, very capable of dealing with the question. The Director of Ordnance had always said he was perfectly prepared to see introduced any improvement that could be carried out; he was neither a "muzzle-loader" nor a "breech-loader," but was anxious to obtain the best gun possible for the Service. However, there were very great difficulties in the way of making a sudden change. In gunnery, it was as true as in most other things— "the more haste, the worse speed." It was absolutely necessary that any new step should be taken with great caution, and that it should recommend itself not only to military, but also to naval opinion. He would not now follow the hon. and gallant Member in his remarks with regard to the accident on board the Thunderer, because at present the Papers bearing on the subject had not yet been presented to the House, and because it was impossible as yet to say what change in the present system, if any, naval opinion would recommend. It was quite possible that, in consequence of that accident, it might be thought necessary to introduce breech-loading guns into the turrets of their ships. It was not, however, for him to anticipate what might be done in that matter. All he could say about it was that he felt quite certain the Secretary of State for War would cordially co-operate with the First Lord of the Admiralty and naval opinion in this matter; and that if it should be found necessary to make any great change in their guns the Government would not shrink from doing it, but would do it cautiously, gradually, and, he hoped, thoroughly. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Government too hardly. Considerable stress was laid in some quarters on the Krupp system of breech-loading; but unless he was very much mistaken, there were other systems of breech-loading equal, if not superior, to it. The question would, no doubt, receive the fullest consideration from the
  1872
  Heavy Gun Committee now sitting, and further experiments would probably be made if necessary. Two of their officers had been invited by Herr Krupp to attend some new experiments in Germany, and possibly their Report might point to some new invention in the Krupp system worthy of imitation. He could assure hon. Members that every effort was being made to keep up with public opinion in these matters all over Europe. At the same time, he thought it only right to remind the House that experiments in gunnery were extremely costly, and if they allowed a particular inventor to have his gun tested, they must extend the same indulgence, if not to all foreign, certainly to native inventors. The present system of muzzle-loading was only adopted after an immense amount of money had been expended, and still the inventors, as a body, were not satisfied. They never were, to whatever length the experiments were carried. Not anticipating any discussion of this nature, he had not brought any Papers with him; and he was, therefore, unable to go into the subject as fully as he might have done. He could only, in conclusion, repeat his assurance that as soon as a better gun was forthcoming they would not fail to introduce it. It was a mistake to suppose that a prejudice existed against breech-loaders in official circles. Indeed, as the hon. and gallant Member was no doubt aware, breech-loaders were in use to a certain extent both in their fortresses and on board ship, therefore the two systems had been working pari passu. He did not think there had been any unfair detraction of the breech-loading system; on the contrary, he believed there had been every desire to give the breech-loading system a perfectly fair trial, and that civilians and officers of the Army and Navy were all animated by one wish, which was to secure the best gun for the country.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE BRIGADE DEPOT SYSTEM.—RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNErose to call attention to the brigade depot system, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Brigade Depôt system requires amendment, as it is costly, unsatisfactory, and inadequate to the requirements of home and foreign service."

  1873
  He said the system had completely failed to attain two objects with which it was introduced — the furnishing of drafts for foreign service, and the welding into one harmonious whole of the forces in the sub-district, so as to form a nucleus of instruction for all auxiliary forces. Instead of that, however, it had been found necessary, in the two cases of emergency that had just occurred, to draft large numbers of men from other regiments in order to make up the strength required. For instance, to fill up the regiments sent to the Afghan Frontier and the Cape the regiments at Aldershot had been denuded of their best men. Then, again, there was a preposterous superabundance of officers at some of the depôts; in some cases there were only 80 men fit for duty under one colonel, one major, four captains, and four subalterns—a great disproportion of officers to men, whose number was utterly insufficient for the purposes of instruction to the auxiliary forces of sub-district. The men ought to be raised to 900 at least, and then they would be able to furnish strength to the battalions if required for foreign service, and be a nucleus of instruction to the Militia regiment and Volunteer corps of sub-district. As regarded the cost of these depôts, it bore no relation to the money paid for the work done and the responsibility incurred by colonels with the Army; and the officers at the depôts were examples of idleness in the districts, which was very injurious. The whole cost of the depôts was £274,000—an enormous sum of money spent on an object which was a complete failure. This Estimate ought to be cut down this year. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Brigade Depot system requires amendment, as it is costly, unsatisfactory, and inadequate to the requirements of home and foreign service,"— (Major O'Beirne,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, he was not aware that these debates were coming on that evening, nor he was sure were
  1874
  a large number of officers in the House, or they would have been present. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne) that the cost of brigade depôts was very disproportionate to the results obtained. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the number of men in the battalions should be increased to 900. No doubt, they would then be of much more use for the purpose for which they were intended; but surely, if the number of men were increased, it was only reasonable to ask that the number of depôts should be reduced. The fact was that a mistake was made in establishing so many depôts, and all soldiers, if not all Members of Parliament, were agreed that, however good the design might have been, the territorial principle was not exactly adapted to the size of England, nor to their habits and institutions. The brigade depôt system, it was perfectly true, had failed entirely as regarded the localization of regiments. It could never have been otherwise, for as soon as the two regiments at a depôt centre were filled up, all the recruits were taken away for general service, and sent anywhere all over the country. Again, in some of these centres recruiting was actually at a standstill—had never, indeed, even begun; while in others a very large number of recruits were obtained. This showed that the system did not and could not work well everywhere. He did not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member about the idleness of the officers. That depended a good deal upon the character of the commanding officer. He knew one depot where the objection was the other way, and the duties of the officers were discharged with 20 or 30 men in precisely the same manner as if there had been 900 men in barracks. No doubt that was going too far, and was a mistake of the commanding officer; but, on the other hand, where there were few men, the officers usually had very little to do. If the regiments were kept up to a sufficient strength of officers, he was not sure that it was not a good thing for a certain number of those officers to have a pleasant and an easy time as they might have at the depôts. His principle always had been, and he commended it to everybody else, to make the Service as pleasant as it could be, so long as it was combined with a careful discharge

  1875
  of duty. He believed it would be more carefully discharged if every facility were given to officers and men to be employed and amused. There was one little point he should like to bring to the notice of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), in which he thought a good deal of expense might be saved, and that was in the case of recruits proceeding on foreign service. They were enlisted for foreign service at, let them suppose, Cardiff. If the homo battalion was serving in some remote part of the country, as Scotland, and the other battalion was abroad, it was thought necessary to send these recruits up to Scotland, and then to bring them down again to Southampton and Portsmouth to embark them for India. As he was not aware that this debate was coming on, he did not fortify himself by looking at the Returns, to which reference had been made, and he did not even know how many depôts had been established; but he hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend would think once, twice, and thrice before he began to carry out the system where it was not already in operation. In his opinion, the general feeling of officers of the Army would be decidedly in favour of the modification rather than the extension of this system of brigade depôts.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he, too, like the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Arbuthnot), had come down to the House unprepared to give figures on these matters. He had no right to complain that the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne) had brought forward this Motion on the present occasion; but he feared he could not give him a full answer. But, inasmuch as he had had some rather intimate acquaintance with the subject, he hoped to be able to show the hon. and gallant Member why some of the objections he entertained were not altogether valid, and why they could not very easily or lightly depart from the system which had been some time settled. To begin with, the hon. and gallant Gentleman left out of sight, for purposes of argument, that the objects of the so-called brigade depôt system were not limited in their effect to the Army. Although the Army was now the primary consideration, its object as laid down by the late Secretary of State for War (Viscount Cardwell), was not only to form a training depot for every pair of
  1876
  battalions, one of which was on foreign service and the other on duty at home, but also to serve as storehouses for reserve stations where Militia recruits might train in all seasons of the year, and camping places for the Volunteers. He was not prepared to concede that these brigade depôts had wholly missed their original object. With regard to the disproportion between officers and men, at first sight he would be very much disposed to agree with the hon. and gallant Member. But it would be recollected that when they were considering the point, and obtained Returns from the authorities, they found the number of officers returned for duty at the depôts by no means disproportioned to the men. When it came to be reduced to a matter of actual fact, there was not in the majority of cases much incongruity. But in some cases there did appear to be an excessive number, and the Committee over which he had the honour to preside recommended that those officers should, as far as possible, be sent to rejoin their battalions. As regarded the number of men, there was nothing which, as Secretary of State for War, would rejoice him more than to see the depôts extended to the full size of 900 men; but this would mean a fine addition of 40,000 to the Army, and it was, therefore, hardly necessary to discuss it at the present moment. But, apart from this, if they had this large number of men tied up at these little depôts, they would be precisely undoing the object of late years, which had been, not to split regiments up apart from one another at country places, but to bring them together in large camps for better instruction, and in order to teach them the duties they must fulfil when they formed part of a large army. The number of the depôts was a subject on which he did not feel indisposed to speak, for he believed this was one of the very objections he, the late Colonel Anson, and others, had raised when the measure had been first proposed by Viscount Cardwell in that House. His opinion at that time had been that it would be far better not to split the men into such small detachments, but to have fewer and larger centres and more ground. From that opinion he had seen no reason to depart. But, on the other hand, he was bound to say that any alteration of these centres was not a

  1877
  thing to be lightly undertaken. If they called to mind the number of days and nights that had been spent in the discussion of this localization scheme, they would feel bound to admit that it was one thoroughly accepted on the part of the country, and that the money for it had been voted with open eyes. As to the disturbance of these centres, if it could be shown that, without expense, certain depôts could be reduced without any loss, either direct or indirect, to the country, that was an obvious matter of administration with which anyone would be prepared to deal. But, as a matter of fact, when Viscount Cranbrook acceded to Office, he found in almost all these places either the contracts so far advanced, or the depôts themselves so far proceeded with, that he scarcely had the power, without throwing away good money after bad, to alter the original system. Again, why should they turn back, after having gone half-way, in a scheme which was decided on by Parliament, for which Parliament had voted large sums of money, and when the purposes for which the money had been voted had been only half fulfilled? He confessed he would shrink from the responsibility of lightly asking Parliament to depart from the scheme. There might be small points of administration, here and there, which might be remedied; but if hon. Members looked upon these depôts as being so many men required for duty, they altogether failed of their purpose; they were depôts, and did not purport to be battalions. Perhaps, at another time, it might be his duty to touch on some points where he thought some remedy might still be required; but he was certainly not prepared to go as far as the hon. and gallant Member. The uneven number of recruits was always a difficulty in this country. It was impossible that centres of recruiting should coincide with the depôts; but the distances between the two were short. There could be no doubt that the depôts had served their original purpose of supplying more centres of recruiting than there had been before. He would mention one other point. One of the great complaints of late years had been that the stores were too much centralized. Now, it was quite evident in the late mobilization that the more they were making use of the storehouses at the depôts to distribute the stores, the
  1878
  better was the service of mobilization likely to be performed. He, therefore, could not see any reason for departing from this brigade-depôt system, at least, so far as the centres themselves were concerned.
  MR. WHITWELLthought the brigade depôts were exercising a very beneficial influence. They were more or less affecting the whole body of the Volunteer Forces. He hoped that brigade depôts would soon become the means of affording instruction to the Volunteers.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RYLANDS: I desire, Sir, before you leave the Chair, to enter a protest on the part of independent Members against the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Statement on the Motion that you do leave the Chair instead of in Committee of Supply. While, of course, I do not presume to say that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order, yet the course he has taken is one which, in my recollection, is entirely unprecedented, and one which has exposed the House to a very considerable amount of inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman has brought in what in effect is a third Budget for the present financial year. That, in itself, is most unexampled, and in consequence of the extraordinary step taken to-night it has been followed by a Motion on going into Committee, which has led to a discussion of matters entirely apart from the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite clear, if the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the usual course in moving that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, without making any observations, then the Motion on going into Committee would have come forward in due course, and the right hon. Gentleman would then have made his Statement with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair. The discussion in that event would have proceeded in a regular and orderly manner; but, as it is, I am doubtful whether even on the Vote, which will be put from the Chair when we have resolved ourselves into Committee, I should not be precluded from making general observations which appear to me to have been called forth.

  1879
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a course to-night which I feel myself—and I believe I am not alone in that opinion—Is calculated to confuse the mind of the House. If the House of Commons is to possess any efficient control over the Expenditure and over the taxation of this country, it is quite clear that they ought to have a full Statement, in regard to the Expenditure and taxation, placed before them in an explicit and ample manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of his moving the Budget for the year. But he has not done so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down with a Budget at the usual time of the Session, and he gave the House to understand what would be the Expenditure of the financial year; and he laid before the House certain proposals as to the taxes he intended to levy during the year. We were supposed to base our judgment and opinion upon the Budget as stated. But what do we find? That the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman prove in the course of a very few months to be utterly delusive. You find the right hon. Gentleman coining down to the House from time to time, no doubt with sincerity, but under the influence of a very large organ of hope, and in the most sanguine manner, anticipating that the Expenditure would be less, and the Revenue greater than it has subsequently proved. Thus, after the first Budget had been found to be delusive, and after the right hon. Gentleman had taken another unprecedented course, of laying upon the Table of the House a scheme embracing the ordinary and extraordinary Expenditure—a scheme alike confusing to the country and the House —he came down with a second Budget. The Government shirked new taxation, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to borrow, admitting that the Expenditure was getting beyond the sums that he had anticipated. Again, he had hopes for the future, which had not been realized. We have now a third Budget, and again we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House and tells us that the Expenditure is greater than he had estimated, and that the taxes have not realized what he expected. The result of all is that he has landed us in a financial difficulty, which I do not hesitate to say is without example in recent years. The system
  1880
  of borrowing cannot go on for ever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put off the evil day as long as possible, and the time is fast approaching when he will have to impose additional taxes upon the country. What will be the inevitable effect of the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing his third Budget before the public? It will be this—that persons engaged in large mercantile operations—persons interested in tea, spirits, and tobacco—will go in for heavy operations in the anticipation of some additional taxation on one or other of these articles. Such operations will certainly cause men engaging in them very great inconvenience, and the passage of a large and unusual quantity of goods through the Customs will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a large amount of Revenue this year which does not belong to the year. Present appearances of Revenue will, of course, be improved; but next year will not present so favourable an aspect. Those connected, as I am, with the commerce of the country, have a right to complain of the Statement made to-night, and a right to assert that there should be no delay in laying before the House the Budget for the coming financial year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) has shown that it has always been the custom, when there was a large deficiency, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down immediately and state the facts of the case in Committee of Ways and Means. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does what he now proposes, he will not only do serious injury to the commerce of the country, but he will be setting up another precedent which it is undesirable to pursue. I do not desire to occupy the House longer than necessary, but I have one remark to make which I could not well make in Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he intended to apply a sum of £400,000 to the military operations in South Africa, which had been provided by savings in other Departments of the State. Now, I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a clear case of a transfer of sums voted by this House for particular purposes to other purposes not contemplated by the House at the time the money was voted. I think it a most objectionable course, although a

  1881
  legal one, to be adopted. Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman. It might have happened that if he had come down to the House for a Supplementary Vote for the expenses of the South African War, the policy and conduct of the Government with regard to that war might have been fairly challenged. The Government, by taking the course they had pursued, had prevented any consideration by the House of the transactions of an important part of the Imperial policy. They had escaped any challenge of their policy in consequence of the Treasury giving authority to the Army Department to transfer sums of money which had been voted out of the funds granted in this House under entirely different conditions to entirely different objects. That £400,000, so granted by this House, had been taken with the sanction of the Treasury to pay for the South African War. I say that the control of Parliament in such matters does seem very much like a farce. I am not prepared to say that under no circumstances ought such a transfer to be allowed; for I know that if a rule was laid down too stringently, there might be a certain amount of public disadvantage; but if this system is to be so largely adopted I contend that, whatever may be the inconvenience to the Departments, the House of Commons ought to be determined to put a stop to it. I wish it to be understood that £400,000, voted for certain specified purposes, has been expended in war, and this has been done without Parliament being consulted in the matter. I must apologize for intervening between the House and its going into Committee of Supply. I should certainly not have done so had not the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to depart from a practice of this House without the consent of the House.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—EXCHEQUER BONDS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £2,750,000 Exchequer Bonds.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had been so much criticized for irregularity that he hardly
  1882
  knew whether he was justified in taking notice in Committee of observations which were made out of it; and, in fact, he doubted whether he should be justified in making any Statement except as to the particular Vote before the Committee. He also, with some hesitation, referred to the other questions which had been raised, and he hoped he was in Order in doing so. He did think, however, that he was consulting the convenience of the House in making the Statement he did. In the first place, there undoubtedly had been occasions— several occasions—on which Budgets had been brought forward earlier in the year than the present time. He did not know whether all the cases which had been mentioned were exactly in point, because the change made in 1854 in the date of the financial year affected some of them, though he did not wish to insist very much upon that. At the same time, he was quite sure that there were inconveniences, and always had been, in making a Budget Statement prematurely. That inconvenience had been very much increased of late by the change made in collecting the Revenue. The great charge of the Income Tax fell upon the third and fourth quarters of the year, and there was great difficulty in estimating with accuracy what the whole amount of the tax would be. Of course, there was a similar difficulty with other sources of taxation; but he referred especially to the Income Tax. He thought his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Childers) would agree with him that though it might be inconvenient, and undoubtedly was inconvenient, to the public to have any delay occur in making the Financial Statement of the year known, yet that it would be almost more inconvenient that an imperfect Statement should be made prematurely, necessitating fresh arrangements afterwards. There was considerable difficulty, at the present time, in estimating, not merely the Revenue for next year, but the Expenditure also. This latter must depend very much upon what they might have to pay for the operations in South Africa; and at the present moment, and until they got the next fortnight's despatches, of course, it would be extremely difficult to know for what sum it would be necessary to make provision. Therefore, it would hardly be consistent with cer-

  1883
  tainty in taxation if they were to attempt to introduce a Budget at so early a date as the beginning of March. For these reasons, he had suggested that they should wait until the beginning of April for his financial propositions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had rather exaggerated the position in which they stood. He said it was the gravest and the greatest since the time of the first Reform Bill. That, he thought, was a statement calculated to alarm the public mind quite unnecessarily.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that was not quite his statement. He said it was the most serious deficit since the first Reform Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that opinion; but he would not discuss that point for the present. However, if it had not been for the South African War the arrangements he had made last year would have been sufficient, and it would have been unnecessary for him to make any Financial Statement at all. He now had to propose a Vote for the renewal of those Bonds which were issued for the Service of the year 1877–8. He had hoped they might have been able to pay off a portion of these Bonds in the present year. They had not been able to do so, partly on account of the deficiency in the Revenue, partly on account of the greater demand for Expenditure; and he had, therefore, no other alternative but to make provision for meeting these Bonds when they fell due on the 16th, and the following days of March. He hoped the Committee would see that in making these propositions they were only carrying into effect the contemplated arrangements.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had just told them that it would not have been necessary for him to come down to the House and ask for power to make any alteration in the arrangements he proposed last year had it not been for the breaking out of the war in South Africa. That was a very important qualification, and bore very materially upon the plan of finance put before them in the month of August last. In that month the right hon. Gentleman contemplated an excess of Expenditure over Revenue for the current year of £1,556,000, and, adding to that the de-
  1884
  ficit which he would have to provide for of the Exchequer Bonds for Expenditure in connection with the Vote of Credit incurred in 1877–8, left him with a deficit of £4,306,000. The right hon. Gentleman said he proposed to spread that over the next two years, and, assuming that his Revenue for the next two years continued the same as in the current year, plus £600,000, the additional amount of the new 2d. on the Income Tax, and that his expenditure continued the same, minus the expenses incurred in connection with Turkish affairs, he hoped to be able in each of the two years to pay off, roughly speaking, £2,000,000 of Debt, and thus, in the two years, to wipe off the £4,000,000 odd of deficit. The right hon. Gentleman justified his action by saying that if this was not actually war expenditure it was next door to war expenditure, for it was the cost of averting war. If, however, the cost of averting war was to be treated as war expenditure, he did not know where they were to stop. In one sense, the whole cost of the Army and Navy was the cost of averting war, for they were intended to guard them—to protect them—against war. Unfortunately, this expenditure for averting war proved, in the case of Afghanistan at least, to be rather the cost of provoking war. It could not be doubted, indeed, that the policy pursued in regard to Turkey led to the Afghanistan War. Then the right hon. Gentleman, on the assumption that his Revenue and Expenditure would continue the same, spread his deficit over the two coming years. But he had been singularly unfortunate, because since that time he had had two fresh wars—the Afghanistan War and the Zulu War. He was not then going to discuss the policy of the Government, or to lay any blame upon the right hon. Gentleman; but the course he had taken did show the danger of spreading the so-called cost of averting a war over future years, and trusting that the future years would be so uneventful as to enable them to pay off such arrears. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly met with singular ill-fortune in having the Zulu War and the Afghanistan War come upon him. Besides this, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was about to propose a loan to India of £2,000,000 without interest. He would

  1885
  not stop to discuss whether that would not, in reality, be a gift; but, in any case, the money would have to be provided. Therefore, in addition to the deficit of £4,306,000, they had also to face a proposition for £1,500,000 for the Zulu War, something over £354,000 for the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates, and the prospect of a loan of £2,000,000, without interest, to India. The right hon. Gentleman had also told them what they must have all been exceedingly sorry to hear—that the Revenue was likely to fall short of the estimate by something not much less than £1,000,000. He was afraid, looking at the Revenue Returns, that that shortcoming would be, at all events, in great part upon the three most important heads of finance — Customs, Excise, and Stamps. At the close of the third quarter, the receipts from these three heads were £200,000 behind the receipts for the same period in the previous year. But, at the present time, according to the Return up to February 22, the falling off was £371,000; or, in other words, the falling off, during the last seven or eight weeks, had almost doubled. It must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of calculating on a falling off, had reckoned on a considerable increase under two of these heads, for he had calculated on an increased Revenue from Customs of £531,000; from Excise, including the additional dog duty, of £136,000; and a decrease on Stamps of £26,000. Therefore, while he had reckoned on an increase by the 31st of March next of £641,000, he had instead, up to the present time, a decrease of £371,000. It was obvious that, unless these three important heads of Revenue much improved, the right hon. Gentleman would be £1,000,000 short of his calculations. He dared say that the Revenue would come in better, as it often had done before, just before the close of the financial year; but still the prospect wad, as these three important heads of Revenue were falling off with remarkable rapidity, that they would disappoint the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman; and the fact that this falling off had been recently so rapid did not promise well for the Income of the next year. He wished to call attention to one other point with regard to the new Sinking Fund, established in 1875.
  1886
  The right hon. Gentleman, by means of that Sinking Fund, paid off in the first year £280,150; in the second year, £624,780; and in the third year, £764,825, making a total paid off in the three years during which the Fund had been in operation of £1,669,755. But in the course of the same three years the Debt had been increased by a larger amount than the total amount paid off; therefore, while they had been paying off the Debt with one hand, they had been adding to it with the other. The money, in fact, by which it had been paid off had been borrowed for the purpose, or if not actually so borrowed, was withdrawn from Revenue, at the cost of leaving a corresponding amount of Expenditure to be met by borrowed money. The result was an increase in the Debt, funded and unfunded. The right hon. Gentleman estimated, in his Budget last April, that he would pay off in the current year, by means of that Sinking Fund, £684,747. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not apply that money to meet part of his deficit, seeing that he must borrow so much the more if he were going to keep the Fund up. Of course, if the operation of the Sinking Fund were a continuous one, with a definite object to be attained in a definite time, it might be worth while not, even temporarily, to hinder its progress. But as this was not the case, and as the proposition simply was to provide so much surplus each year in order to pay off a certain amount of Debt, it seemed to him, when no such surplus was provided, an illusory and useless operation to continue it. Without expressing any definite opinion, he would merely suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be a wise thing to suspend the action of the Sinking Fund for the current year, at all events until they saw what their prospects wore?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsuggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should put into the financial accounts every year a statement showing by whom these Exchequer Bonds and Bills were hold. He could tell him frankly that, by allowing the very large amount of unfunded Debt to exist without making the public acquainted with the way in which it was held, he had done himself much harm,

  1887
  as one of their ablest financiers, and lowered the national credit, because the public was not acquainted with the fact that these Bonds and Bills were at present mainly in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt and the Bank. They amounted to £14,500,000, leaving about £5,000,000 only in the form of Treasury Bills in the hands of the public. But, as nobody knew where they were, it was assumed that all were mainly in the hands of the public; and until they had heard the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was generally assumed that this kind of indebtedness, known as the Floating Debt, must end in the issue of Consuls, and with this notion the rise in price had been checked of this kind of securities. If the right hon. Gentleman would publish the statement to which he had referred, it would do much to insure that steadiness in the Money Market which was so essential. With regard to the plea urged for delaying the Budget till after the close of the year, he very much regretted the assigned cause being the change that had taken place of late years in the mode of collecting the Revenue from the Income and Property Tax. Appeals of the strongest character were made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer not to do it, but in vain; and then appeals were made to the late Prime Minister, but he did not feel himself justified in interfering to stop the unwise project of his Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, some right to urge that the mode of collecting this Revenue by which the larger portion of this tax was collected in the last quarter of the year, had placed them in their present position of being unable till the year closed of dealing with the Estimates for the year ensuing. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with the deficiency in a bold and statesmanlike manner. Within one year this Floating Debt had increased by £7,000,000. It was not safe to allow of further increase, and it would be preferable to reduce the amount. He hoped, if necessary, he would ask not only for 1d. but 2d. more on the Income Tax, and that he would not any longer run the great danger of leaving this heavy burden of a dangerous kind of Debt hanging over them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like to know how this money
  1888
  was to be raised. He hoped it would not be carried beyond next year, and that the matter would be dealt with in the Budget.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the money would be raised by Exchequer Bonds, which would only be current for a year; and when he brought in the Budget he would make a statement concerning the manner of providing for them.
  Vote agreed, to.
  (2.) £1,500,000, War in South Africa (Vote of Credit).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he merely rose to protest against the Vote of this sum of money. Of course, he was aware that no protest of his would have the slightest effect; but he felt, on the other hand, that he would not be discharging the duty he owed to himself and his constituents if he did not protest against this most unjust and flagitious war. They had deliberately invaded a country inhabited by people who had done them no harm, and they had, for several years, deliberately prepared this invasion. It had been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provoke this war, in order that it might annex portions of the territory of these Zulus. At the time of the annexation of the Transvaal this tendency of theirs was pointed out, and it was shown clearly, and proved, as far as anything could be proved, that if the Transvaal were annexed the next step, must be the annexation of a portion of the lands of the enemy. Of course, the Colonial Governor was carefully instructed as to his duties, as to how he was to get up this little war, and the name of humanity was put to shame by the proceedings of the Government. Then, after the way had been carefully prepared, and after excuses had been carefully got ready, troops were sent into the country, and these people were attacked. He knew that the disaster which had recently befallen the troops would compel the re-instatement of the military position; and, so far as that went, he supposed nobody would object to that. But he did not apprehend, from the temper he had recently seen displayed by the people of this country, that the Government would be satisfied with the recovery of the military position. On the contrary, he supposed the Government

  1889
  would proceed to carry out their original intentions with regard to attacking the country. Of course, it was now clear that the panic and the alarm sedulously got up when the news first arrived of the massacre of a battalion of the 24th, and that Natal was in danger, were utterly groundless, and that the Forces on the spot were perfectly capable of defending the Colony against any attack from the Zulus. The resistance of Lieutenants Bromhead and Chard, at the head of only 80 men, after they had had time to entrench themselves in a very slight and scanty manner, showed that the Zulus were perfectly incapable of conducting an offensive campaign against our troops. These enormous preparations, and the dispatch of these thousands of men, meant neither more nor less than a premeditated determination to annex that country, as the Transvaal had already been annexed. He supposed that there would be no quarter given to these savages, as, in accordance with their savage nature, they had given none; that the sword would go amongst thorn, and that their villages would be burned, as they had burned the villages of the unfortunate people in Afghanistan. These poor people had displayed instincts which, in other nations, were supposed to indicate heroism, for they had endeavoured to defend their country against the attacks of foreigners and strangers. He would not go through the form of dividing the House; but he would again protest against the application of this money to what he was sure would be a war of annexation and extermination.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he could not allow one charge brought by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) against Her Majesty's troops to pass unanswered. The hon. Member had said that no doubt their troops in South Africa would have received orders that no quarter should be given; but that was very far from being the case, as would be seen from the examination of a document already published, but which had not, as yet, been laid upon the Table of the House. The document to which he (Sir John Hay) alluded was an order of the late Lieutenant Governor at the Cape, Sir Arthur Cunynghame, and it contained the most positive instructions, not only to British troops, but to the ordinary Native levies, both to give
  1890
  quarter, and, if possible, to make prisoners in battle, instead of the course suggested as likely to be pursued by the officers and men of Her Majesty's Army by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He (Sir John Hay) could not have imagined that any hon. Member would have expressed such an opinion at once to the House, the Committee, and the country. That suggestion was entirely unfounded, and one which it would be seen could not possibly be carried into effect. The hon. Member had further said that Her Majesty's Government had conceived this scheme of spoliation and war; but he (Sir John Hay) believed that the South African War had come upon them as a matter of great surprise. If the hon. Member would read the despatches and Blue Book, it would be found that there was not a single instance of any order from Her Majesty's Government to carry the war into the Zulu country. On the contrary, so far from there existing any desire to carry fire and sword into that country, the arbitration which had been held, under that distinguished Governor, Sir Bartle Frere, had resulted in the arrangement that a very considerable portion of territory, which had been in dispute, should be conveyed back to the Zulus. Pending the further opportunity of discussing the question of the war, he thought that the study of the publications he had referred to was desirable, as they certainly did not bear out the statements of the hon. Member for Meath.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it undesirable that any debate should be taken upon the causes of the war at that moment; but he could not help expressing his surprise that a Vote of such enormous importance should be submitted to the House without any explanation or statement whatever on the part of the Government. The £1,500,000 just asked for was but for two months' expenses of a war which might attain a great magnitude. [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, no!] It was for expenses up to the 31st of March; it was a Vote for beginning a war, the end of which they did not see. But whether the inception of the war were just or unjust, it was a fact, and must be carried to a conclusion —namely, the entire disarming of the Potentate with whom it was being

  1891
  waged. A great distinction was to be drawn between wars of such different characters as the late Kaffir War, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had called the Transkei War, and the present Zulu War. His impression and experience was, that when they had districts of savage and unruly tribes, wholly surrounded by British territory, the best course was to take them in hand, conquer, and bring them entirely under British control. In that view he considered that the Kaffir War might be a good job; and if the expense was not excessive, he might not object to the result, on the express condition that henceforward the Cape Colony should undertake the wars within its own borders, and that Kaffraria should be treated as part of the Cape Colony which should bear the cost of its own defence. On the other hand, the Zulu War was one of a totally different character. In that case they were not forced by circumstances to attempt the conquest of a bit of territory, but were undertaking the conquest of a great Kingdom upon the borders of our Colony, beyond which extended the whole Continent of Africa, with its enormous population. They were, consequently, brought face to face with the great question— were they to be forced to go on more and more into that great Dominion in Africa against their will, just as they were formerly forced to go into the great Dominion of India? He felt surprise and regret that it had been found necessary to employ only their finest regiments in the present somewhat ignoble war against savages, and that no assistance had been derived from the Indian Army. The Native Indian soldiers were, in his opinion, admirably well fitted for the kind of work now on hand in South Africa. If, instead of making an unfortunate demonstration at Malta and Cyprus, and allowing their Representative in India to entangle his troops in Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Government had been able to move a brigade or division of their best Indian troops into Africa, the war might have been carried on and concluded without that destruction of the power and sinew of the country, which he knew very well had resulted, and must result, from what he must call this ignoble war. He was not sanguine that the people at the Cape would be willing to undertake
  1892
  the responsibility of government with respect to the Zulus by consenting to federation when the war was over, for it was their opinion that they had already enough to do within their own borders. He did not think they would be willing to relieve us of the expense and responsibility of future wars in the interior of South Africa. They had a large Native population to deal with, whilst they were separated at present by British Colonies, and the Orange Free State, from places in which they had no concern. If the Cape Colony would not, the Colonies of Natal and the Transvaal could not undertake to deal in a fitting manner with the Native African population, especially now that they were supplied with arms from the Portuguese Coast—they were without the resources needful for the prosecution of great wars. But while these Colonies were not able to carry on war on their own account, they had, on the other hand, enormous temptations to get the British Government to carry it on for them. The present war would be enormously profitable to the people of Natal. Sir Arthur Cunynghame's Book showed this. He had seen lately that the carriage of 1 cwt. of goods from Durban to the capital of Natal had run up from 2s. 6d. to 15 s. 6d. He noticed in the Estimate that there was only £200,000 for the cost of Naval transport, while £1,200,000 was devoted to the military charges, almost the whole of which would go into the pockets of the Colonists, who had the greatest inducements to promote war for the sake of the profit accruing to them. Another reason why the Colonists were inclined to war was, that they were habitually wont to carry it on in the form of a cattle raid; and during the first 10 days of the present Zulu War the troops were engaged in collecting many thousand head of cattle from the peaceful villages, which they afterwards divided among themselves in the name of loot. There was another important point about which he would say a few words, and that was the land system now prevailing in South Africa, which gave another and very strong inducement to the Colonies to engage in war. He asked hon. Members to compare the present Colonial land system with the wise policy pursued in the United States, where the lands were reserved in the

  1893
  power of the Government as a means of forming new Colonies. Of all the monopolists of land, he was quite sure that the South African Colonists were the greatest. And it was their habit not only to divide the whole land which they could appropriate, but to encroach upon the land of their neighbours. Hon. Members might observe that these Colonists had a habit of dealing in what they called farms; but the term had a very different meaning in South Africa to what it had here; for there a farm consisted of at least 6,000 acres—indeed, farms out there might reach a maximum of more than 20,000 acres. Such were the farms in the Transvaal, where every boy who attained the age of 16 years was entitled to one of 6,000 acres and upwards. Sir Arthur Cunynghame told them that the demand for farms was such that the authorities of the Transvaal were obliged to appropriate their neighbours land in order to distribute it among the rising population. The farms, of course, could not be cultivated by boys of 16, and the consequence was that they were sold for a song, and got into the hands of monopolists, who left none for new Colonists. He was not prepared to say that it might not be a wise and merciful policy to establish their rule over greater regions in South Africa; but that they should not leave it in the power of the Colonists to job away the land. He asked the other day a gentleman travelling who came from the Cape — "Why they did not get more Colonists in South Africa?" And the reply was—"The real fact is that we have no land to offer them; it has all been jobbed away." He (Sir George Campbell) impressed on Her Majesty's Government the advantage of carrying out the wise policy of the United States of reserving the land in the power of the Central Government, and not letting it fall into the hands of jobbing Colonists. By those means they might be able to settle a Colonial population, and so free themselves from the great burden of future wars. It appeared to him that if we must advance in South Africa, one of two policies must be followed— either the government of the country under a despotic system, like that of India, or the establishment of free Colonies, which might be capable of relieving the Home Government by taking upon themselves their own burdens.
  1894
  There was a good deal to be said in favour of the acquisition of land in South Africa. If this were fairly dealt with, it would become an admirable outlet for the younger sons and brothers of the upper and middle classes in this country, for whom it was sometimes difficult to make provision, and who were not prepared to do that which must be done by those who wished to succeed in America—namely, to work with their own hands. They might have the assistance of Native labour.
  MR. ASSHETONrose to Order. He could not see that the land question had anything to do with the Motion before the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwould not trouble the Committee longer. When the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) called him to Order, he was just coming to the end of his speech. He implored Her Majesty's Government to look the question in the face, and feel that they had part in a great war—he would not add of conquest and annexation. He should be happy if the question were dealt with in a large and serious spirit, and the land question made the means of colonization and improvement, instead of jobbery and profit.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would not attempt to follow the lion. Member who had just sat down (Sir George Campbell), as it required a much cleverer man than himself (Sir Henry Holland) to see any connection between the subjects introduced by the hon. Member and that before the Committee. The institutions of the United States of America on the land question had nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion; but in listening to the hon. Gentleman when he was showing us how to govern Zululand, he was struck with the truth of the old advice "to hatch your eggs before you nurse your chickens." He (Sir Henry Holland), however, rose to correct the statement of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who said that this country had annexed the Transvaal with a view to the subsequent annexation of Zululand. Nothing was more contrary than this to the view of the Government. The Transvaal was annexed because the Dutch were in constant collision with the Zulus, from which resulted danger to the peace, lives, and property of our Colonists. In April,

  1895
  1877, after the annexation, we sent to Cetewayo to inform him that in the case of any aggression having been made on his territory we were prepared to have the whole question considered, and the question of disputed territory properly arbitrated upon. This proposition was agreed to, and very able and, experienced men were sent to examine thoroughly the question of disputed territory. An award was made, by which we were enabled to hand over to the Zulus a large portion of territory unfairly annexed by the Boers. He (Sir Henry Holland) had, therefore, the right to say that the observation of the hon. Member for Meath as to our reasons for the annexation of the Transvaal was certainly without foundation.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwould be glad if Her Majesty's Government would state, by way of explanation, to the House what had become of that vast amount of warlike stores prepared last year in view of another war. Of the £3,000,000 voted last year, the sum of £987,500 was spent upon two items under this head. He wished to know why the shot and ammunition, the appliances and warlike stores were not available for the purposes of the war in South Africa? He thought the House was entitled to a statement, showing how the Supplies granted last year were disposed of, and trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, or the noble Lord the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Lord Eustace Cecil), would favour them with an explanation.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down (Sir Alexander Gordon) had urged the Government to give an explanation of the expenditure of Supplies voted last year. He felt bound to support him in that request. He only wished to add, that he failed to see why the Government had not employed Indian troops in the South African War, as they had recently done in the Mediterranean and at Cyprus. Whether the policy of the Government was right or wrong was an important question; but the present was not the proper time for discussing it. It appeared to him that the House required much fuller particulars in order to be able to form a correct opinion of the war now being waged, and, therefore, that discussion should be delayed until such
  1896
  particulars had been received. He thought that the urgency of the case did not allow of contention in the matter of granting the money asked for; and his only reason for rising was to say that the agreement to the Vote by hon. Members on this side of the House must not be taken as an approval of the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in South Africa. So far as he was able to judge from the information before the House, he thought that Government were not justified in embarking in these wars. As to what fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), he wished to observe that the Zulus appeared to have been unfairly treated in the matter of their award. It had been agreed that the lands, about which the dispute arose, should be restored to them; but it appeared that, in direct opposition to this, we had allowed the Boers to remain in occupation of them.
  MR. MACDONALDquite agreed with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who had objected altogether to this Vote. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had stated that they were much indebted to Sir Bartle Frere for his services in South Africa; but in his (Mr. Macdonald's) opinion, they were only indebted to him for having incurred an expenditure which required this Vote of Credit to meet it. He considered that if Sir Bartle Frere had not been there, they should not now be embroiled in this war. He felt bound to enter his protest against it, and regretted exceedingly that the hon. Member for Meath did not press for a division in the matter. If he might be allowed to make the remark, in reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had said that the Government should follow the example of America in the matter of public lands in South Africa, he should say that it would be a baneful day for England when she decided to enter upon such a course. How did they find it in that country? The poor had 160 acres each out West, if they chose to go and select 1he same and pay taxes upon it. The great Railroad Corporations of the United States had gone to the Legislature and got over 200,000,000 of acres by a system of jobbery unequalled in any country on the face of the earth. He hoped that,

  1897
  whatever might be done in the matter of public lands in Africa when acquired, at least one example would be avoided, and that was that of the United States. The disposal of those lands had been a greater scandal than any other public matter in that country.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed not quite to understand the Question which he had put to him. His Question was as to the amount of money in successive years which had been voted for war in Africa.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERintimated that he had not understood the hon. Member's Question in that way.
  MR. WHITWELLentirely agreed with the words that had fallen from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn); but still it seemed to him that hon. Members must decide for themselves whether this was or was not an unavoidable war. It was certain that during the last few years too much assistance had been rendered to Colonists by Her Majesty's Government. He held that the war was entirely unnecessary, as the Colonies in South Africa ought to defend themselves. He could not understand how the Votes that had been given had been spent or accounted for. In 1876–7, £170,000 was voted by this House for South Africa; in 1877–8, £208,000; in 1878–9, £428,000 —of course, that was connected with the affair in the Transvaal. Now, in 1879–80, a Vote was required for £642,000; so that it had gradually increased during the last few years from an almost nominal sum to the present amount of more than £500,000, to conduct a war in a Colony in which it was an acknowledged fact that a war was more expensive than in any other. They had derived no benefit from these wars. They had increased their territory, and that was all. They had little interest in things as they were; but now they hoped to improve the condition of the Natives, not by example of self-government, but by enjoining upon the neighbouring States the necessity of leaving the Natives out in their policy of annexation and aggrandizement, and by those means they hoped eventually to reach the centre of Africa. And, above all, the Government had been asked to commence the system of carrying the legions of India to
  1898
  protect their territories and extend their annexations over every barbarian tribe. He had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he failed to hear him say that he hoped this war would prove of benefit to the Natives. He trusted that the matter would be ventilated thoroughly, and that before long they would be able to enter upon a minute discussion with reference to it, and that they would be supplied by Government with Returns of men and money that had been sent to Africa during the last 10 years. He feared, however, that they would find that they had received nothing in return.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that beyond question the Vote would be accepted by the House, although, no doubt, on a future occasion, the policy of the war would have to be fully discussed. It would be some time before they would be in possession of sufficiently full information to be able to discuss that question thoroughly in all its bearings. But he rose to call attention particularly to a question which occurred to him when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement before they went into Committee, and which was to be reserved until the discussion on the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that last Session a sum of £340,000 was voted for operations in South Africa, £40,000 of which would be required for the Navy. But, in addition to this £340,000, £400,000 had been previously spent— in fact, to a great extent, in the financial year 1877–8; and this the Chancellor of the Exchequer only knew by the drafts maturing on the Treasury Chest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last August warned them that probably it would be found necessary to take a Vote to place this matter in a right position. He (Mr. Childers) wished to point out that thus a very large expenditure had been going on without any Supplementary Estimate, although subsequent expenditure of the same character had been the subject of an Estimate voted six months ago. He thought that no one would deny that such a financial arrangement was very unsatisfactory. He did not wish to blame the Government; but he thought that it was a bad precedent to take Votes in such a manner. What, however, he asked especially was this

  1899
  —as the £1,500,000 which they were now asked to vote was for the expenditure of the Zulu War, or South African transactions, beginning last October —was it expected that this sum would cover the entire expenditure up to 31st March, which had been incurred either in this country or in South Africa? In other words, whether the amount covered the total expenditure to 31st March; or only those drafts which had up to this time been presented against the Treasury Chest?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had some real difficulty in answering the question. He thought it would be understood, with reference to last year, that, in the first place, the Government had had no information beforehand for the year ending 31st March, 1878. But inasmuch as an extraordinary expenditure had been going on, it was certain that, sooner or later, an amount would be required to adjust the account of the Treasury Chest from which sums had been drawn. But that amount could only be ascertained when the Government were in possession of full information. At the time he was speaking—at the beginning of August—it was thought that the amount required would be the £300,000 for the expenditure of the Army, and £40,000 for the Navy, and the Government anticipated a further charge for the year 1878–9. A saving had been effected on the several Votes in the Estimate; but what had been expended over the amount saved would require to be voted. He was unable to say what was the amount of actual expenditure; but the War Office had given the Government an approximate account of what had been spent since October, and they estimated the amount to 31st March at £1,000,000. The Admiralty, however, who were able to calculate with greater precision than the War Office authorities, had named £200,000 as the amount they would require. The Government had considered that another £300,000 would be sufficient—probably more than sufficient—to cover contingencies, and on that account they had now asked for a Vote of £1,500,000 to coverall outlay to 31st March next.
  MR. CHILDERSasked whether the Government had taken any steps to ascertain the actual expenditure going on in South Africa?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that a financial officer had been sent out to take charge of the matter.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, we find ourselves once again sitting in Committee of the Whole House to vote a war subsidy. I grievously fear that so long as the present occupants of the Treasury Bench retain their places they are determined the Temple of Janus shall not be closed. In the Reading Room of this House, a couple of years ago, Her Majesty's Ministers were kind enough to send up, for the convenience of the Members of the House of Commons, and to hang on the walls, maps of our latest acquisitions and our seats of war. We had maps of Cyprus and the harbours of Famagousta and Limasol, and all the rest of it. Then came the seat of war in Afghanistan, which covered all that remained of the wall; and the other day, when the clerks of the Intelligence Department came to fix up our newest seat of war, it was discovered that we had on hand so many seats of war, that there was no room for any more maps on the wall. Sir, if this sort of thing is to go on, where is it to end? I will tell you, at any rate, that it will not end so long as Her Majesty's Government can have money voted in this House on the excuse that, because we are involved in war, money must be voted to carry it on. It is always too late, or too soon to protest. For my part, I do emphatically protest against what seems to have become a System of plunging us into wars from which our consciences revolt, and then, because the butcher's bill is incurred, we are told that Government must needs have money, that it would be unpatriotic to refuse it. I object to being placed in any such predicament by the conduct of the Government. I know there are hon. Members round about me who will say—"We are as much opposed to this Zulu War as any man can be. We believe it to be an unjust war; but will vote for the money because the country is now engaged in the struggle." I can quite recognize that that is a ground which conscientious men of this House may take up; far be it from me to quarrel with them; but, for my part, I say my conscience recoils from having act, hand, or part in voting a sixpence for a war which I challenge any man in or out of this House to defend on the

  1901
  principles of public equity, if he will only suppose that it is Russia that is waging the war, and not England. I say that no man in this House will dare to apply to such a war the principles which you apply towards elsewhere. If this dusky savage, spear in hand, set forth to defend his home against the Frank, the Russian, or the German, English pens would trace his record of glory, and English poets would sing his fame. We have been reminded of the days of Pizarro, when men, savages perhaps, withstood the civilizing tyrant that came upon their shores. And when we stand in Pizarro's place in South Africa to-day, is no voice to be raised in England better worthy of being heard than mine to say—"I believe this to be an iniquitous and a wicked war. It is one in which I cannot sympathize. It is against all my convictions of right and wrong?" And at what an hour do we find ourselves so far gone in this onward march of aggression—this lust of territory, this greed of annexation? It is at the very moment that you have been contesting the right of a Christian Power to redress Christian wrongs in the East of Europe. You call Russia an aggressive Power, and treat us to homilies on the iniquity of her pushing her frontiers forward. Was ever hypocrisy so gigantic as yours? To call Russia aggressive, when you are reaching out your hands to grasp move territory in every region of the globe by every violation of right. You annex the Transvaal, and it is incontestible that you led this man to believe that you favoured his claims to this strip of land. The British authorities induced him to believe that they would recognize his claim; but no sooner had you annexed the Transvaal, than you turn round upon him in conduct which he calls—and I say justly calls—something very like perfidy. Now, that you are the Rulers of the Transvaal, you say he shall not have what you led him to expect. I wonder where slumbers the public morality of England? I look in vain in the public Press of this country for that voice which ought to speak out, when we read the Ultimatum—that impudent and insolent missive of Sir Bartle Frere. I know of nothing more audacious than the document which was sent to provoke this war; and now the land is agitated from end to end by the story of the terrible
  1902
  disaster in Zulu, and money is being sought here—not for defence of our South African Possessions, but in order to wage a war of vengeance on Cetewayo, and carry sword and flame into his territory. I pay my tribute—and it is all the more honest because it comes from me—to the gallantry and heroism of those soldiers who fell in support of their colours. They served their Queen and their colours well; but while I admire them, I more admire the men, savages though they be, who fell, with their feet on their native soil, defending themselves against invaders. My morality is not cribbed, cabined, and confined by geographical lines. I mete out to the savage the same measure of justice which I do to the more civilized races. Although a man is a savage, we ought not to deny him the degree of praise which is due to his patriotism, as praise was paid to Caractacus and Kosciusko. This Prince stood within his own territories, and he only did what Queen Elizabeth did in the case of the Spanish Armada, when it threatened English soil. He called his forces around him, as she did hers, and said—"I will make the invader bite the dust," and he did so. England, with the £1,500,000 you vote to-night, will doubtless succeed in a war of revenge upon this wretched Zulu Prince. £1,500,000! Why, if the Government had asked for £5,000,000, they would have got it. For my part, if I saw Cetewayo pushing his advantage so far as to invade the territories which do not belong to him, and to endanger the safety of peaceful settlers who are outside his own land, I could sympathize with your military movements; but in so far as he stands in the position of one who is resisting invasion, and is on his own soil, defending his own people and country, for my part I cannot avoid confessing— whatever consequences may follow from my avowing it—that I feel for the savage man, and say he ought to have from us the same admiration that the writers of history have taught us to pay to the men who resisted the Spanish invaders in Central America. I prize very highly the advantages of civilization, and the blessings of civil and religious liberty; but never shall a vote of mine be given to encourage unjust invasion and conquest on the pretext of pushing civilization, or to carry the Bible with the sword, so that rapacity may call its

  1903
  crimes the diffusion of Christianity. No, Sir; I will give no vote to extend this already swollen Empire at the cost of the liberty of these Natives, howsoever dark their skins may be. I protest here to-night against further annexation. I believe if the Representatives of Ireland, or the people of Ireland, had a voice in this question, they would say that the British Empire is wide enough, great enough, grand enough, powerful enough, and rich enough, without sending an Ultimatum to take a rood of ground from Cetewayo. We might leave this dusky savage to himself, and the British ensign would float as proudly from the turrets of Windsor Castle as it does now. Nay: much better and happier might we all be by giving up these aggressive enterprises and costly schemes of aggrandizement. While trade is languishing, and industries are perishing in our midst, and the cry of absolute destitution comes to us from the Midland Counties, £1,500,000 is being asked for from us in order to carry out this most iniquitous war. But all vainly I speak. To-night this money will be voted. I know that well; but I know what verdict will yet be passed on this episode of British history. When the present feeling of resentment has passed away—when passion has cooled, and reason returned—there will arise some Alison, or some Macaulay, or some Lecky, to trace this chapter. They will say it was a reproach to the British Parliament that it had not patriotism enough, orind ependence enough, to resist this application for money to spend in a war which is as unjust, as wicked, and as wanton, as that which George III. waged—thankGod, he waged in vain!—against the liberty-loving people of the American Colonies.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had listened with a great deal of sympathy to the eloquent words which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He (Mr. Chamberlain) had studied the Papers which had been presented to the House with reference to the unfortunate war in which they found themselves engaged, and he must say that, as far as those Papers went—as far as the information went which had at present been afforded to Members of the House—he believed that nothing had been produced which justified the war. It appeared to be a
  1904
  war as iniquitous and as unjust as any with which this country had ever been engaged. He, however, felt they were bound, in fairness to the Government, and still more in fairness to those persons in authority who were incriminated in the proceedings, to wait until they had all the information which their friends considered necessary to their defence. They had been assured by the Government that there remained to be produced Papers of the greatest importance; and if he had rightly understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Papers which were to be published on Monday would contain all that the Government considered to be essential to the proper consideration of the causes of the war. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I did not say so.] He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would be further Papers which would have reference to the disaster at Isandula; but that as regarded the causes of the war they should have Papers on Monday that would enable them to come to a right conclusion.
  Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: So far as I have them, the hon. Member will have all such Papers by Monday; but there may be other despatches on the way that may be of great importance.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, all he wished to urge was this—That until the Government could tell them that they were in possession of all essential documents, it was undesirable to discuss this matter in detail; but as soon as they were in possession of those documents, unless the further documents which were to be produced threw an entirely new light upon the subject, he should be pre pared to condemn, as absolutely and as entirely as did his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth, the proceedings which, unfortunately, had led the country into war. In his comprehension that was the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W Dilke), who had put a Resolution upon the Paper, which, as he understood, the hon. Baronet was determined to discuss as soon as the full information was before them. Under these circumstances, there only remained the question as to what was to be done with reference to the Vote they were asked to pass that night. It appeared to him that it was

  1905
  one of the misfortunes of all inequitable proceeding's, by whomsoever initiated, that while it was very easy to drag this country into war, or to allow it to drift into war, it was not easy to stand still after the mischief had been done. At the present time the result of the action in South Africa had been to place in danger a large number of British subjects, and possibly also the British troops who had been sent over to their assistance; and he did not see how, while holding the Government to their common responsibility in this matter, they could refuse them the resources which they believed to be necessary, not, as he understood, to prosecute a war of revenge, but in order to secure life and property in the Colony which was menaced. Under those circumstances he was prepared to support the Vote, while he reserved absolutely his opinion as to the causes of the war for discussion at another period. Now he was on the subject, he should like to ask a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman first introduced the Vote in the House, he understood him to say that the previous war in which they were engaged—the war in Transkei—had finished in July, 1878. He should like to know whether he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman, and in what sense he meant to represent the war in Transkei as having been entirely concluded? As far as he (Mr. Chamberlain) could judge from the Papers presented to Parliament, he thought that war was only standing over until they had had time to deal with Cetewayo; and at the present moment he understood that one of the dangers with which the Colonies in South Africa were menaced was the possibility that Secoceni might take advantage of our being engaged with Cetewayo and might invade the Transvaal territory. There appeared no certainty whatever that they might not have two wars on their hands at the same time; and he did not understand the confidence with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the £400,000 which they voted last Session would be sufficient to pay the whole expenses of the war, which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, had been concluded.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the war in the Transkei was concluded last July. That district was on
  1906
  the borders of Cape Colony, many hundreds of miles from the points at which their troops were now engaged, and still further from Secoceni's country. It was perfectly true that the war with Secoceni might, in a certain sense, be said to stand over; but as he believed this Chief to be but a vassal of Cetewayo's, it might be reasonably hoped that when the Zulu War was concluded little more would be heard of him.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLunderstood that the £1,500,000, if voted at all, was voted for ever; and that it was not a Vote of Credit, detailed Estimates for which would be afterwards furnished. There appeared to be a great discrepancy between the charge for Naval transport and the Military charges; for while the sum of £200,000 only was asked for the former, the latter amounted to the enormous sum of £1,300,000. As the 8,000 or 9,000 men now being sent to the Cape could not arrive till the end of March, it was clear that hardly a farthing of military expense could be incurred on their account; and it appeared that by far the greater part of the £1,300,000 must have been expended in South Africa upon the small force now there. He must express a hope that the Head of the Department concerned would afford some idea of the mode in which the sum in question had been applied.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had received no reply to his inquiry about the stores provided last year. He wished to know why the large amount of stores, prepared last year for a war which did not take place, were not now available for the war in which they were engaged? He must beg to have a reply from some Member of the Government.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, with regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), as to the amount for warlike stores voted last year, he must ask the Committee to consider the very difficult services their Army had to perform, and the stations which were in question when the Vote was granted. He was speaking without figures and from recollection; but the Committee was, perhaps, aware that undoubtedly a very large amount had been spent for warlike stores—torpedoes, heavy guns, field guns, and stores of that kind. Their present requirements, it must be borne in mind, were of a very special character. For

  1907
  instance, they had sent out guns of the very lightest class that could be manufactured; not 9 or 10-pounders, but guns mounted on special carriages. There were other matters connected with the transport which would also be of very special requirements. He would further remind the Committee that the troops were at great distances from each other in a very difficult country. Again, there were certain questions on which the Government had thought it wise to send out a financial officer to settle accounts, and endeavour to get an audit on the spot, which, although rough-and-ready, would be the best obtainable. Many of the advances which had been made, so far as his opinion went, came out of the Military Chest. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that a careful account should be rendered to Parliament; and he (Colonel Stanley) could say that he desired nothing more earnestly than that every information should be laid before the Committee concerning the items in question at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he thought that, as the sum of £1,500,000 was going to be voted, some view should be taken of the position in which they stood. For the second time they had been brought into war, and asked to vote money for that war, while they were told, if any question was raised as regarded the propriety of voting the money, that their course was unpatriotic, and against the interests of the Colony and country, which were at stake. Such an answer was very unsatisfactory to the people, and was utterly inconsistent with, and opposed to, the Constitution of this country, no matter what might be found in black-letter books on the subject. That they should be hurried into war, and have no discretion left to them but to pay when asked, was a condition of things which could not last very long. Somebody must be fixed with the blame of the Zulu War. The organs of the Government among the Press had been saying for some time that Sir Bartle Frere was the cause of the war. If that was the case, he had committed a great crime, and it should not go unpunished. If the Government made out a case, and threw it upon his shoulders, he must bear the charge; if they did not try to prevent the war, the
  1908
  country would revenge itself upon the Government; but if, on the other hand, Sir Bartle Frere had been made the scapegoat, justly or unjustly, the matter would not be allowed to pass. He would, if nobody else did, place a Notice of impeachment of the Government on the Paper.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it had been stated that the Government were not to blame for this war. Then, if that was the case, and if Sir Bartle Frere was the cause of it, why did they not recall him? It was as clear as noon-day that either the Government at the Cape or at home were to blame for the war. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) was on the horns of a dilemma. He had also raised another point— namely, that arbitration was held, the result of which was in favour of the Zulu King. They decided, it would appear, that the King was perfectly in the right, but that the other party should keep the property. With regard to the mode of carrying on the war, they had recent experience of English warfare in Afghanistan, where the English troops massacred in cold blood a number of prisoners bound and unarmed. That was not, in his opinion, in accordance with the rules of civilized warfare; and he feared they might have further instances of this system in the present war.
  MR. W. H. JAMESinquired whether it would not be possible to have the casualties among the rank and file telegraphed in future, in the case of disaster, as well as of the officers?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that as long ago as last summer he had addressed a despatch to the Governors of the South African Colonies, requesting full information in the case of any casualties, and a fortnight ago he had repeated that request to Sir Bartle Frere. He would add one word with regard to what had passed that evening. He had listened to the speeches of several hon. Members, most of whom had said that they would not discuss the policy and causes of the war, and had then entered into an expression of opinion upon one or more points of the subject. There were, no doubt, great differences of opinion thereon; but it seemed to him that the right view had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), when he said that the present was not the time for

  1909
  discussion upon the causes of the war. He would, therefore, only say that he wished to enter his protest against such language as had been made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who had applied the words "wicked" and "audacious" to the Ultimatum sent to Cetewayo by Sir Bartle Frere. On behalf of Sir Bartle Frere, he must ask even those who were most disposed to blame him, at any rate to hear what he had to say for himself before they condemned him.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that if the war was wicked and impious, as he believed it to be, they ought to divide upon it. No Party combination ought to prevent them from expressing their opinion on the money Vote. What would be the use of expressing an opinion on the policy of a war after the money was voted?
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MOTION.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Discipline and Regulation of the Army, I cannot but feel conscious of the difficulty of the task before me, and I cannot but wish that my noble Friend and Predecessor (Viscount Cranbrook), who, in the first instance, had this subject brought under his consideration, were here at this moment, by his clear diction and his strong common sense, to make this somewhat complicated matter clear to the House. I do not propose, at this time of the night, to go back into various questions which might otherwise be of considerable interest, nor to trace from remote ages the manner in which the military law of the country grew up; but there are one or two points to which I must advert to show that even from the earliest times it was found necessary that a short, summary, and stringent law should be applied to such forces as were kept under arms. In early days, of
    1910
    course, the proceedings of martial law were of considerable stringency, but were, at the same time, very well defined. Dating from the earlier days of the courts of chivalry—from almost feudal times—we trace them in the form of the Court of the High Constable and of the Earl Marshal, and in that form passing from the jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal—almost a military office—they continue down to the middle of the 16th century. Then came the time when the absolute government of the Army was over, and the Army was almost entirely administered by Articles of War, framed under the Prerogative of the Crown. When the Court of the High Constable and the Earl Marshal had been extinguished, there was still a necessity for a tribunal to deal with military offences; and in 1625 a Commission was issued to certain military officers and civilians authorizing them to punish military offenders, and he was sorry to say "other dissolute offenders," by martial law. Articles of War were issued for their guidance. Three or more persons constituted a Court, and their sentences required the sanction of the Crown before they could be carried out. These Articles contain an outline of the present system, without the present statutory authority. The first part deals with the martial law; the second with the Articles of War, growing out of it, as they now do out of the Mutiny Act; the third with the court martial to try and sentence offenders; and the fourth with the general confirmation of the sentence before execution. The same necessity for this Court seems to have existed under the Commonwealth as under Royal authority; and in 1642 the then Lord General seems to have found himself under the necessity of strengthening his hands by obtaining summary powers to deal with military offences; and he obtained them, for on the 6th of September, 1642, it is recommended that
    "Special power be given him for the restraining and punishing of disorderly soldiers according to the custom of war;"
    and apparently on the very same day the laws and ordinances for the better government of the Army were on his authority framed and confirmed. From time to time military orders and articles for the government of guards and gar-

    1911
    risons were issued, and in some cases special commissions were given to Commanders-in-Chief for the framing of Articles of War. Under that system the Army appears to have been administered until we come to something approaching the Mutiny Act in 1689. That was directly traceable to the following incident:—Several regiments which had enlisted under James II. were ordered by William III. to embark for Holland. Eight hundred of the men mutinied, and declared James to be their King, and that they would live and die by him. On the 13th of March leave was given to introduce the Mutiny Bill, and on the 15th the Government, desiring to suppress the soldiers now in rebellion, issued a Proclamation declaring them, and all that adhered to them, rebels and traitors. That Bill passed through all its stages by the 28th, and I hope the Bill I now ask leave to introduce may pass as quickly. It received the Royal Assent five days after, and it came into operation on the 12th of April following. That Bill was contained in 10 sections. The 1st section enabled the Government to punish any officer or soldier
    "Inciting, causing, or joining in mutiny, or deserting the Army, with death or such punishment as by court martial shall he inflicted."
    Other sections declared the number and rank of the officers who were to constitute the court martial; section 8 limited the Act and prescribed the form of the proceedings; while the 10th further prescribed that all capital cases should only be tried between certain hours of the day. That Act made no provision for the discipline or government of the Army in minor matters, and made no mention of the Articles of War. Apparently, therefore, the Parliament, by the Mutiny Act, while it strengthened the authority of William III. over the Army by enabling him to punish certain quasi-political offences, left the Army in every other respect to be governed by the Prerogative clauses. Further proof of it is shown by the fact that a court martial was held at Exeter in 1696, when certain men were found guilty under the 23rd Article and sentenced to be shot to death. No such section appears in the Mutiny Act. From that time to the present, although there have been important and considerable changes
    1912
    both in the Mutiny Act and in the Articles of War, the same general line has still been followed. There have been Mutiny Acts passed by Parliament, and Articles of War expressed the Prerogative of the Crown, although in later years statutory power is given to these Articles by a Statute passed by this House. But, passing to the more immediate business, I now come to the circumstances under which it is my duty to lay this Bill on the Table of the House. In 1869—whether following or in consequence of the Courts Martial Commission I am not at this moment prepared to say—instructions were given to the Parliamentary Counsel to prepare a Bill to consolidate the law relating to the Army. It was clear that such a step was necessary, for the Courts Martial Commission commented very strongly in their Report on the necessity of drafting the military law in a clearer form. Instructions were accordingly given to Parliamentary Counsel—I believe in the year 1871 an Army Discipline Bill was handed over to Mr. Davidson, the then Judge Advocate General. His untimely death—a death which, I am sure, those Members who were acquainted with him must deeply regret, for he was a person of great judicial power and of large views—was a loss to Parliament at that time, for it put a stop to any further proceedings in relation to the Bill. The subject was again taken up, I believe, by Parliamentary Counsel under instructions from Lord Cardwell in the Autumn of 1872. A War Office Committee, consisting of officers high in the Service, went through a large portion of the Army Discipline Bill in March, 1873, and suggested certain alterations, which, I believe, were introduced at that period by Counsel. Another pause ensued; some of the questions raised by the then recent organization were not settled, and the Secretary of State for War thought it best to postpone the Bill for another Session. During the Vacation of 1873, Mr. Ayrton was appointed Judge Advocate General, and on the 13th of November he took up the subject, and undertook to conduct the Bill through Parliament. He suggested that the Bill should be altogether assimilated to the Mutiny Act, and that the clauses relating to billeting, moving of troops, and enlistment should, so far as they are included in the Mutiny Act, be inserted in the

    1913
    Army Discipline Bill. Bills were prepared, were submitted to Mr. Ayrton, and he introduced into the Bill, then called the Army Discipline Bill, so much of them as was necessary for the consolidation of the Mutiny Act; but he omitted the enactments of the Army Enlistment Act, 1870, and two other enactments, which had previously found a place in the Mutiny Act. The change which took place at this time in the composition of the House caused us the disadvantage of losing from our discussions on this point the services of Mr. Ayrton; but with a public spirit and good feeling, which is an example to many of us, although both out of office and, out of Parliament, he did not relax from his labours until he had thoroughly completed his revision of the Bill and forwarded it to the Parliamentary Counsel, who afterwards reprinted it in the form as he settled it. We then found ourselves in this position. From the time of the Courts Martial Commission—a period of nearly 10 years—the military law had been so far condemned that, although we were anxious to adhere to its provisions, all felt it was in a confused state, and must reasonably be re-drawn. Pressing business before the House prevented the introduction of the Bill by successive Secretaries of State; but it was always felt—and I think that those who were most intimate with the subject have felt it strongest—that, like the dancing bear, of which it was said that the wonder was not that he danced so well, but that he danced at all, the wonder was not that the officers of the Army administered the law as they found it in the Mutiny Act with so little complaint, but that they were able to administer it at all. When, therefore, attention was called to it in the House, it was felt that many of the sections could not be theoretically or practically defended. My right hon. Friend, now Viscount Cranbrook, gave a pledge to the House that at the earliest possible moment he would have the Bill re-drafted; and he expressed his confidence that 1877 would be the last year in which the present form of the Mutiny Act would be submitted to the House. Owing to the force of circumstances, it was found impossible to proceed with the re-drafting of the Bill in 1877. In 1878 the natural desire of the House for the assimilation of the law was more definitely expressed, and a definite state-
    1914
    ment was made by Viscount Cranbrook during the course of the debate, that he would at once place a Bill before a Parliamentary Committee to be appointed from Members of this House. Then, Sir, came a change in the personnel of the War Office, and when I succeeded to my present position I found myself with a Bill which had been making considerable progress, but was, in many respects, far from complete. Notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts of the able Parliamentary Counsel, it was found impossible to lay the Bill before the Committee in a complete form. Indeed, at one time suggestions were made that the Committee should be asked to postpone their sittings; but I felt that a pledge, especially given under such circumstances, should be redeemed at any hazard, and, therefore, I laid the draft before the Committee, without professing that it was a complete measure. They reported upon it; and I am bound to say that their Report seemed to me as favourable, on the whole, as it could possibly be, under the circumstances in which it was presented to them. If I may venture to do so, I should wish to bear my humble testimony and extend my sincere thanks and those of the Government to my hon. and learned Relative opposite (Sir William Harcourt) for the pains and care with which he piloted this Bill through the deliberations of the Committee. In acknowledging his kindness, I am happy to state that, as far as possible, the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce follows the general lines of the Bill laid before the Committee. The Bill was to consolidate and amend the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War; and though I am afraid it looks rather bulky and formidable, I hope hon. Members will not think it unduly so, when they remember that the Mutiny Act contained 110 clauses, the Articles of War 192; and, further, that we have endeavoured, in certain matters, to bring within the scope of the Bill portions of the Enlistment Act. Heavy as the task has been in some respects, it has not been our wish that the Bill should be too much changed in character. A great many alterations take place; but they are mostly in form and construction, although there are some extremely important changes in principle made here and there, upon which I will very briefly touch. It is divided into five

    1915
    parts:—Enlistment, billeting, empress-ment of carriages, certain miscellaneous provisions, and the application of the Act, together with certain saving clauses and definitions. The first part, again, is sub-divided under the heads—crimes and punishments, courts martial, and execution of sentences. As to the first part—crimes and punishments—we have retained the old language where it is clear, believing it is more easily read and interpreted, its very familiarity to the soldier being a point of some importance. We have, however, taken a distinct departure in one respect, and we now classify offences by grouping together offences of a similar character, ranging the various groups, as between themselves, in a manner which is intended to impress the soldier with their relative importance. Thus we have—first, mis-behaviour in the field—the greatest crime a soldier can commit—by sentinel on duty; mutiny and insubordination, by way of showing that, after misconduct in the field, mutiny ranks next; then desertion, absence without leave, disgraceful conduct, drunkenness, and other offences, which I will not detain the House by specifying. With regard to crimes and punishments, these appear to me the chief differences in principle. We have differentiated between offences on active service and those not on active service, active service being, by the way, defined as meaning service in war or when in occupation of an enemy's country. We have farther defined, or attempted to define, desertion, which has been so far extended as to include merely abandoning one regiment for another. We have now endeavoured to restrict it to quitting or deserting the Service. We have found it necessary to set up again, as in one of the earliest Mutiny Acts, the crime of fraudulent enlistment as such, not treating it as desertion, but as a fraudulent breach of an engagement, with a view to a fraudulent contract. The Bill then proceeds to declare a scale of punishments, and in this we follow the precedent of the Naval Discipline Act, making a considerable deviation from the existing practice. At present punishments are constantly designated as "such punishments as a general or other court martial may award." The Bill defines the maximum punishment, and then, under the head "Scale of punishments," provision is made that a
    1916
    court martial may award that or a less punishment. Passing next to courts martial, we have re-arranged the old law, but we have maintained the principle. Now, courts martial will be divided into two classes in respect of the mode in which they are convened. First of all, courts martial are now convened under the authority of the Statute alone; and, secondly, under authority, derived mediately or immediately by Warrant from the Crown. The first class, under Act of Parliament, are regimental courts martial and detachment courts martial; secondly, general courts martial and district courts martial. I should add to these a fifth sort, detachment general courts martial—which can be convened without Warrant—having the powers of a general court martial, but only under special circumstances, for the protection of the life and property of the inhabitants of a country in which the troops are acting. The law will remain unaltered for regimental or detachment courts martial, which will still be convened by Statute; but we do not see the advantage of keeping up the separate name for detachment general courts martial, and we propose to merge it, with its functions, into regimental courts martial, keeping the extraordinary powers merely under the same circumstances which under the former Act rendered extraordinary powers necessary. General courts martial will remain unaltered, the convening authority being, as hitherto, either a Warrant directly from the Queen, or from a person authorized by order from Her. The district court martial has been altered as to the mode in which it is convened. The authority to convene a general court martial we now intend to carry with it, first, the authority to convene a district court martial; and, secondly, to delegate to another officer the power to convene a district court martial. The matter is a little complicated; but the result stands in this way. Practically, every court martial, except a general court martial, will derive authority from the Statute, although in the case of district courts martial the authority will be exercised by a person who has a derivative authority under Warrant of the Crown. There is some difficulty in explaining who are the confirming authorities; but, practically, we have thought it best to allow the law to remain the same under

    1917
    the Bill as it is at present. We have endeavoured, however, to clear up the language, and to make it perfectly intelligible as to who is the confirming authority under the various circumstances in which he has to exercise these functions. The confirming authority for a general court martial is appointed by Warrant; and in case of a district court martial, confirming power is given to the officer having power to convene the court martial. Before we come to the matter of procedure, there is one matter which does not come under courts martial, but so nearly trenches on their functions that I think it better to allude to it here, and point out the reasons which, so long ago as 1869, were urged in favour of the change. The Courts Martial Commission, in their Report, say—
    "It is a question whether the frequency of regimental courts martial does not tend to diminish, in the mind of the soldier, that dread of them which ought to exist if they are to have their proper weight as preventives of indiscipline and crime, and it is submitted for our consideration whether the powers of commanding officers might not be advantageously-increased, so as to lessen the number of trials. Some of the evidence was in favour of abolishing regimental courts altogether. We are not prepared to recommend the latter course; but we concur in the view that the jurisdiction of the commanding officer may be safely extended, and we recommend that his power of imprisonment be extended from seven to twenty-one days."
    After very careful consideration, we have found it advisable to extend to commanding officers this further power of sentence, recommended by the Commission of 1869, and we have also given the commanding officer the power, as urged upon the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that, in the case of a non-commissioned officer, there should be some power given to the commanding officer to deal with offences in a less summary and strict way. At the present time, if a non-commissioned officer comes before the commanding officer charged with any crime there is practically no middle course between sending that officer before a court martial or letting him off, without punishment, altogether, or with merely a reprimand. Under the altered circumstances of the Army, and under the very strong wish we have to obtain good non-commissioned officers, and, when we have got them, to encourage them to remain in the performance of
    1918
    their very arduous duties, we have thought it right to give the commanding officer the power to reduce a non-commissioned officer, by one or more grades, as he shall think fit. I am quite aware there is much to be urged on both sides. Many eminent military authorities hold to the view that a non-commissioned officer who once commits himself has so lost caste that he would never be able to assume a position of authority, and that his reduction to the ranks must ensue. Practically, I am bound to say that the effect of that is that—I do not say in many cases, but not infrequently — a non-commissioned officer obliged to be reduced is, within a very few days, after re-instated. It might not be wise to punish a non-commissioned officer, not altogether, perhaps, for some fault of his own, by putting him down in all cases to the bottom of the list; and, therefore, we have given the commanding officer power to reduce a man one or more grades. But while we give this power to the commanding officer, with a view to diminishing the frequency of regimental courts martial, and so of giving them their proper weight in the maintenance of discipline, we have also given in these two cases the power of appealing from the sentence of the commanding officer to the court. We have not thought it right that the power of forfeiting pay, liberty, or rank should be left, without appeal, in the hands of any one person, however good that person may be. Passing on to the procedure, the first thing I have to mention is, that we have effected an alteration in the form of oath taken by members of a court martial. The Commission pointed out that the present form was very vague and unsatisfactory, and recommended that the oath should be that now used under the Naval Discipline Act. That is a very simple form, and it amounts to this—that the officers are sworn to try and determine the charge under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Another important alteration suggested by the Courts Martial Commission we have thought it advisable to carry out— that where there is a verdict of acquittal on all the charges, that acquittal shall be pronounced in open court. At the present time, until the finding of a court martial is approved the prisoner, even although there may be a verdict of acquittal, is detained in custody, some-

    1919
    times owing to inevitable circumstances, for a considerable period. We think that justice will be better done by the discharge of the prisoner at once, where the acquittal extends to all the charges. Of course, in cases where there is only a partial acquittal, the detention will still continue. We have also taken power to the courts—as in the Naval Discipline Act—to find a prisoner guilty of a less grave offence than that with which he is charged. For instance, a prisoner charged with stealing may be found guilty of embezzlement or fraudulent misapplication, according to the circumstances. With regard to penal servitude, we have, I am sorry to say, been obliged to recognize the absolute necessity which exists in the Army, as at present constituted, for some punishment more severe than mere imprisonment. Although the subject has received our very careful consideration, we have not found ourselves at liberty to remove from the Bill the punishment of penal servitude in certain cases. But we have laid down that it is only to be carried out in the same manner as sanctioned in the United Kingdom; and, in the majority of instances, that will really amount to penal servitude being carried out in this country. With regard to imprisonment, we have also taken into consideration that which, I venture to say, was, no doubt, I will not say an abuse, but a wrong use of a former system, and we have endeavoured to provide that punishment shall not be cumulative beyond a certain extent. I confess this is a subject on which I have, perhaps, more doubt than any other portion of the Bill. We know that soldiers are not always to be dealt with by kind treatment alone; and though I believe, in the majority of cases, that is the way to deal with them, yet there are a certain number of men who must be in fear of a sufficient punishment in order to keep them within proper and reasonable control. We thought it right to limit the period of imprisonment to the maximum of two years. We have also given power to the courts martial, who do not appear hitherto to have possessed it, in certain cases where offences have been committed from insanity to find a special verdict that the prisoner is insane, and he will then be ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. I have now spoken of the chief measures of
    1920
    procedure, and I propose to pass to another subject of considerable importance — that of enlistment. The Bill, as now drawn, makes certain changes, slight though they may be in form, in the Reserve Act, and these I think it necessary to bring to the notice of the House. When the Reserve Act was brought in, there are those who will remember the discussion which took place, and how, rather as a matter of compromise than otherwise, the limitation of service was introduced in the Bill, and it was prescribed that a soldier should serve not less than so many years with the Colours previous to his subsequent service in the Reserve. We have now taken greater powers of elasticity in many ways. We have taken power to enlist men for a less period than 12 years, although not wholly for Army service; and we also take power to the Secretary of State to allow a man to enter the Reserve, though he had not served in the Army for three years. It was thought at that time that three years were necessary as a minimum, and that a man could not be trained as an efficient soldier in less. But it was altogether left out of sight that in these days, when men enlisted early, they must be passed through all their stages of service before they had reached years of decrepitude. There might be circumstances under which you may wish to bring back into the Army, to pass him into the Reserve, some man who has served with credit in the Army before. The cases were not infrequent during last spring, when men, thoroughly trained soldiers, would produce their discharge, and being still within the ages for enlistment, would offer themselves for service in the Army. We had to take them as soldiers without the power we should otherwise have exercised of passing them through the ranks and into the Reserve. That power we propose to take, and I hope it will be of advantage to the Service. We have also taken corresponding power with the view of clearing up a point as to which there was some doubt. At present there is some doubt whether a Reserve man can volunteer for service. We should be, on all occasions, anxious to employ a Reserve man, to have the Army assume its largest dimensions; and there are other occasions when, if men are anxious to come forward for actual service, there may be

    1921
    strong reasons for employing them. Even with the proceedings of last week in remembrance, there are many occasions on which we should be glad to have them back. What was intended was, no doubt, a good object—to keep the Reserve locked up for national emergency. But we hope that these great emergencies, which justify calling out the Reserves, will only occur occasionally; whereas there may be many occasions when strong drafts are wanted, and then it may be desirable to employ men who come forward with their own consent. We have thought it worth while sacrificing something of the Reserve in order to use these men. We make also an important change in the enlistment. It is a difficult subject for those who are not familiar with it; but I trust I shall make it clear, as far as I can. Prom time immemorial enlistment has been held to consist in the passage of a coin, usually a shilling, given by the recruiter to the recruit. Men, too, often were enlisted in a state when they were ignorant of what they had done; and having regard also to the circumstance that a man might engage for the greater portion of his lifetime to serve the Crown, the law thought it right to interpose a delay of not less than 24 hours, or more than 96, before the man could go before a magistrate and complete the forms which we recognize under the term attestation. He is asked certain questions as to his age, married or single, whether he has served before, and so on. He is bound, under penalty, to reply to these accurately, and he is then attested in the presence of the magistrate for the Service. But in these days, when recruits are pretty well awake to what they are doing, we do not see any reason why we should not alter this, do away with the enlistment shilling, and make the attestation before the magistrate the real enlistment. What will happen, therefore, will be this. The recruit engages himself to the recruiter to appear before the magistrate. When taken there he, presumably, must be in a fit state to enter into a contract, and then and there without further delay before the magistrate he will enter into a regular contract of service. This will have the advantage of preventing that disagreeable beginning of a soldier's service which is not really the fault of the men
    1922
    but the system. We say a man shall not be attested for 24 hours, but we do not give him the privileges of a soldier; we do not give him a billet, or any place in barracks; but we keep him hanging about, often in very discreditable localities, until the following morning, when he comes up before the magistrate. We think, on the whole, that it would be better to balance the thing fairly. We think that the recruit is wide awake enough to see that the attestation before the magistrate is what he is bound to. At present, if he wishes to be off his bargain between the time he receives the shilling and the attestation, he pays smart money of about £1. We intend to alter that. If a recruit, between the time when he first meets the recruiter and the time he is to present himself for attestation, chooses to disappear, that is a matter to be settled between him and the recruiter who enlisted him. The real contract will begin from the attestation, and from that time he will become, to all intents and purposes, a soldier, and subject to the privilege of being at once brought into barracks, and removed from the evil communications I have mentioned. Then, after attestation, a soldier can at present only obtain his discharge as an indulgence, and he pays, in most cases, a sum amounting to about £20. I think there is no injustice in giving a man the power to claim his discharge at any time within three months of his enlistment, not as a favour but of right, on repayment of what we fairly estimate the cost he has put the country, amounting to about £10. He will claim that not as an indulgence but as a right, and no doubt many men who have changed their minds and find the Service different to what they expected, and who can do better in civil life, will avail themselves of this right we propose to give them. Well, then, I come to another portion of the Bill which, simple though it may look, is of very great importance. We feel at this moment that there are many men in prison whose lives are passing away discreditably to themselves and uselessly to their country. If, by any means in our power, we can render these men useful soldiers, it is our duty to do so; and I, therefore, propose to ask for power to transfer men under sentence for certain crimes for general service. We shall not do it lightly, or where the

    1923
    punishment is such as a light sentence from courts martial; but we do feel that there are many cases of desertion, and other crimes, which have really arisen from young men being led away into bad company; and we think, in the present days of short service, there is little injustice in calling upon a man to fulfil part of his term in an engagement, not in this country but in some one of her Dependencies. Many men get into temptation in this country who, in many cases, I believe, will own themselves unable to keep out of it, who will, nevertheless, in the Colonies or in India turn out good soldiers. We have also taken power, under certain circumstances, to allow a man to be moved from his regiment as a prisoner. When regiments are sent abroad drafts have to be obtained, and some men, whether by carelessness or in some eases perhaps with intent, manage to get into trouble just before their draft or regiment leaves, and instead of going with it, and performing their duty, they have to be left behind in prison. We propose that, under certain circumstances, men may be removed as prisoners with their regiment, giving power to liberate them on the voyage, or subsequently, so enabling them to wipe away their disgrace and return to the colours. We think this is fair to the men all round. It throws the work upon those who would wish to shirk their duty, and relieves the good soldier from the duty otherwise unfairly thrust upon him. At present, a soldier forfeits his service for the time when he is passing under imprisonment, or detained for trial, or is a prisoner of war. Well, we propose to remove these forfeitures; but we provide that the soldier guilty of desertion or of fraudulent enlistment, or of becoming a prisoner of war without due cause, shall forfeit all prior service. It sounds severe; but desertion is so formidable that, feeling the responsibility of what I do, I am bound to ask the House to give us sufficient power to deal with it; but otherwise we do not intend to forfeit service for any kind of imprisonment, or for not performing duty. The fact is, curiously enough, under present circumstances, the man who is constantly losing service for being in prison is really very often approaching the end of his sentence almost in a retrograde manner. The soldier who has enlisted for six
    1924
    years, and has spent one in prison, has seven years, under present circumstances, to serve before he can get his die-charge, or be removed from the Army. We think that is treating it in the wrong way, because it causes us to keep a bad man when we would rather replace him by a good one. We intend, then, that prison service shall no longer be barred, but shall run on exactly as if he were in the ranks. That enables us to prevent the ranks from becoming clogged with men we want to get rid of. I am happy to say, also, that the state of the recruiting market is such as to enable us to pick our men, and to get good men to replace the bad. We have made re-engagement a matter of indulgence. We find, practically, that very often re-engagement leads to loss, and we intend to allow it only as a matter of indulgence, and we do not intend to give it as a matter of right. With regard to old soldiers left at the depot when the regiment goes abroad, we propose to take power when a man is within two years of his time, or when he is unfit for foreign service, not merely to transfer him to the home battalion, but, if we think fit, to transfer him prematurely to the Reserve. With regard to the laws of billeting, we have not introduced any very considerable change: but we have assimilated the English and Irish laws, which formerly differed to a very great extent. I do not think it necessary to keep up in Ireland what does not exist in England; and I propose that billeting in private houses there shall be given up. In respect to taking carriages on an emergency, and when necessary for the public use, we have endeavoured to bring the law more into harmony with the times in which we live; but, at the same time, we do not feel ourselves altogether free to part with the power of billeting, or of taking carriages. We have also settled the mode in which the route is to be issued: and we have endeavoured to define the position of that person who has been alluded to in Acts of Parliament for 100 years, but has never before existed in real life—the billet master, or civil authority of billets. We now come to the application of the Act. There is one point upon which there has always been a difference of opinion, and it is a subject of considerable difficulty; but I have not thought it my duty to

    1925
    shrink from endeavouring to interpret the law in respect to it. There has always been a question whether half-pay officers were tinder the Act or not. The words of the Act are "commission or on pay." As they receive pay, no doubt they do come under the terms of the Act. It has always been held to be vague, and the application has never been carried into effect within recent times, although I am advised that it is applicable. But the House will bear in mind that there is a new class of half-pay officers growing up, or rather a class who are very much in the position of half-pay officers—namely, persons who, by their own choice, have chosen to retire with a pension, that pension carrying with it a liability to a call for service under certain limits of age. We do not think it right that an officer, who served yesterday and may serve tomorrow, should be able entirely to throw aside his military status. If he chooses the position at his free option, we think it not too much to ask that the man who wears the uniform of the country and receives its pay should be so far subject to military law that it can deal with him in cases of grave misconduct. It is a subject which must always be one of some doubt, and I approach it myself, I confess, with diffidence. But I feel strengthened in the view I take by feeling that there are many officers who are placed in a similar position, and to whom I will refer a little later on in connection with the Auxiliary Forces. We define generally the Regular Forces as officers and men who are continuously serving. It will be borne in mind that Viscount Cardwell's Act of 1871 place the Auxiliary Forces, of whatever nature, when training and exercising with the Militia or Regular Forces, under the Mutiny Act. We provide under this Bill, also, that whenever the Militia and the Volunteers are brigaded with the Regulars, that in relation to military law they shall be placed in precisely the same position. Viscount Cardwell's Act recognizes the Auxiliary Forces as coming in direct relation to the Army, as it was then understood. They form part of the general Land Forces, and, when together, should be brought under the same discipline. We think it right to be consistent, and we think where Forces are so much intermingled it is advisable to recognize the fact, and to place the
    1926
    Militia and the Volunteers upon precisely the same footing as officers and men of the Regular Army, when they are attached to them. A Volunteer, then, while serving with the Regular Forces—which is entirely at his own choice—shall become liable to this Act, exactly as if he were the soldier whoso duty he is anxious to undertake. We propose, also, subject to due inquiry and satisfactory assurances that they will discharge their duty with ability and discretion, as we enable Regular officers to serve upon courts martial upon Volunteers and Militia, to enable, at the discretion of the general officer, Militia and Volunteer officers to be members of courts martial for the trial of officers and men of the Regular Service. It is difficult to define, and many people will doubt the wisdom of this course; but it is accepted by the highest military authority, and those who are most conversant with the discipline of the Army have not hesitated to give to this principle an unqualified adhesion. My noble Friend associated with me at the War Office, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, state that, so far as they can ascertain, the Volunteer Forces are quite as willing as the Militia were to see themselves placed on this footing of liability, and that they would accept the liability and the position offered to them in connection with the Regular Forces. The Regular Forces are those officers and soldiers who are on continuous military service; the Reserve Forces are the Forces raisable under the Army and Militia Reserve Acts; the Auxiliary Forces are the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers. These constitute the various branches of the Land Forces, or the Army generally; and the differences existing between them are defined by their conditions of service. The Regular Forces are engaged to devote the whole of their time to the service of Her Majesty; the Reserve Forces become, when called upon, a substantial part of the Regular Forces; the Militia engage to give a limited portion of their time, and they are not compellable to serve out of the United Kingdom; while the Volunteers and Yeomanry engage to give their services only in case of an invasion, or a dread of invasion, or for purposes of training and instruction. In the Repeal Bill, which it will be necessary to intro-

    1927
    duce as a matter of form, I propose, with the assent of the House, to eliminate that provision which places the Yeomanry in a rather invidious position —namely, their special liability to be called out in case of civil disturbance. We see no reason in these days why the Yeomanry should not serve for the purpose for which their supply was voted in the Estimates, and why they should not take their proper place, which is to serve as Light Cavalry, and to act as part of the Army of the country. We propose to place them upon the same footing as the Volunteers, and to relieve them from the very onerous and invidious position in which they are now placed by the existing Act. When any of these men come up on actual military service this Bill regards them as soldiers to all intents and purposes. We have only made more clear that which the House assented to under Viscount Card well's Act; but we put it on a footing which we hope will not be misunderstood by the country, and will be appreciated by those to whom it refers. I am anxious that this Bill should be brought in. It is a matter of too great length to explain in all its provisions; but I am sure the House will far better understand the Bill from having it before them, and I only wish that I had been able to place the matter more clearly. The amount of matter was, however, so great, and the Bill was of such an extent, that I felt the shorter and more explicit I could make my statement the better. One word I would like to say, and I trust it will not be in the slightest degree misconstrued as being anything whatever in the nature of putting undue pressure on the House. This Bill, though of some dimensions, with the exceptions which I have stated, is practically a revision and a codification of the existing law. The House, as distinctly as it could affirm anything without an actual vote, declared that it was unwilling again to pass the Mutiny Act in its present form. I do not suppose that even those who might oppose it most would wish that the Army should be left without any discipline, or without any regulation. I cannot but feel that it will be my duty, though I should be 10th to do it, if we cannot get well forward with this Bill, to propose a short Bill, continuing the existing Mutiny Act for a short space of time. Considering the very strong ob-
    1928
    jections taken to the existing Bill by hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway upon the opposite side of the House, and by many hon. Members behind me, I felt it was my duty, as early as possible, to lay this Bill upon the Table of the House. I do not wish to speak of myself, although I have spared no effort in this matter; but I am bound to say that not one single moment has been lost by the very able Parliamentary counsel, by my Colleagues, and by my advisers. Through the summer time and the winter to the present day they have been unremitting in their efforts; and I felt I must not shrink from endeavouring to place it as early as I could before the House. I have done my utmost to redeem the promise given by my Predecessor. I am anxious that the present Mutiny Act should not be passed again in its present form; but, on the other hand, I must lay the matter frankly before the House. Unless we can pass this Act in a reasonable time, it will be necessary to apply for a short Bill to continue the Mutiny Act. It is a course I should deprecate, because it is asking the House to stereotype, for a further period, a law they were at that moment condemning. Without putting any undue pressure on the House, I think it right to indicate the position in which we stand, and now I must leave the Bill to recommend itself. I have not attempted to recommend it by any extraneous support, or by any attempt at bringing highly-coloured illustrations of matters of sentiment into connection with it. It is a strict matter of business; and I have endeavoured, I hope not altogether without success, to place it before the House in a business-like manner. I have only to express the hope that the House will see that this is not a matter of Government or of Party, but of business, will deal with it in a business-like way, and in a manner becoming its own duty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Discipline and Regulation of the Army."—(Mr. Secretary Stanley.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no voice to support his right hon. and gallant Friend at any length; but he wished to say that he agreed fully with the observation that this was no question of Party. He was sure that

    1929
    his right hon. and gallant Friend would receive from both sides of the House all the assistance he desired in carrying so desirable a measure to its completion.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked what was to be done with respect to the Articles of War?
    COLONEL MUREsaid, there was one thing which he had not heard mentioned. It was one of the recommendations of the Committee that a cheek should be put on the power of revising officers to increase the sentences awarded by courts martial. He hoped that the point would be dealt with in the new Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved that there was no concealing the fact that the Bill would greatly strengthen the hands of the Crown and of the War Office. The Bill could be divided into two parts— namely, the administrative and judicial portion. The administrative part, which dealt with re-enlistment and the re-engagement of the Reserves and soldiers going on foreign service, seemed to be excellent; but, as to the second part, which included the alterations proposed in judicial matters—such as altering the number of cases in which soldiers could be tried by the commanding officer, and in giving commanding officers greater powers, and in bringing fresh classes under the scope of the Act—they were all subjects which would require great consideration, and he was afraid they were contrary to existing usage. He might observe that, in his opinion, the appeal given to a soldier from the decision of his commanding officer to a court martial would be altogether illusory.
    MR. PARNELLthought the preferable course to adopt under the circumstances would be to allow the old Mutiny Acts to stand for another year rather than to run hastily through a Bill like the present. This was the more necessary, as the present Bill was not intended for one year only, but as an Act to be enforced by a sort of continuous Act from year to year. He would venture to point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he could hardly ask the House to pass a Bill of such a complicated character as this, involving such great changes, and such points of detail, in the limited number of Sittings at the disposal of the Government between
    1930
    that time and the 26th of April. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had hinted that if there was not sufficient time to pass the Bill he would propose to continue by a short Act the present Mutiny Act. In his opinion, that would be a course much open to objection, for there were great Constitutional reasons why the present Mutiny Bills should not be continued by a continuous Act. But still, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was really determined to carry out this Bill during the present Session, and to give the House full opportunities for discussion, he could see no reason why there should not be a general understanding that the Army and Marine Mutiny Acts of last year should not be passed without opposition. But unless some pledge were given by the Government, it would be a very questionable course, for it was not probable that there would be time to carry this Bill by the 26th of April. If, however, by a common understanding, the Government were allowed to pass the old Mutiny Acts without opposition, and afterwards, in pursuance of their pledge, to proceed to make the best Act possible out of the materials which had been furnished, every object would be attained.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, having listened very attentively to the interesting and lucid statement of the Secretary of State for War, thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that the alterations proposed followed very closely the suggestions and representations made by the Committee over which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) so ably presided. He could not exactly enter into the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), nor, he confessed, could he understand the course he proposed. It appeared to him that at the various Sittings of the Committee he had had an opportunity of raising all the questions, which, no doubt, the hon. Member would give them an opportunity of hearing again in that House. He thought that if this Bill were at once printed and circulated, the necessity of adjourning the matter for another year would not arise.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he did not propose any such course; all he meant to say was that they could do with the old Acts until this Act could be passed,

    1931
    and when passed it should at once supersede the old Acts.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwould repeat his suggestion that if the Bill were printed and circulated at once, then, between the present time and the 26th of April, hon. Members would have every opportunity of raising objections and making Amendments. He believed that long before that date the Bill could be worked into an effective Act. He wished to say, with regard to the proposed alterations now announced, that he could not express his entire concurrence with them, nor did he endorse every principle laid down. There was one point, in particular, with which he could not at all agree. He alluded to the changes in the position of half-pay officers; for he was not prepared to say whether the alterations suggested with regard to those officers would not make a grave and material alteration in their Constitutional position. But nearly all the alterations enumerated by the Secretary of State for War were in the direction of recognizing fraudulent re-enlistment as a breach of a commercial contract instead of an offence for which there should be a great punishment, and such alterations were decidedly in the right direction. More especially, he thought, that the power of giving soldiers, who might have been misled into desertion, an opportunity of retrieving their character by serving faithfully abroad was a step that would recommend itself to the House. He did not intend to take up the time of the House by dwelling on the various points; but would only say that, with the alterations now proposed, the old Acts might be converted into a good, wise, and humane law.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that as a Member of the Committee he must state his opinion that the Report made by it was both incomplete and unsatisfactory. Various important suggestions were made by different Members of the Committee which were hardly listened to; and hon. Members making those suggestions were repeatedly told that, owing to pressure of time, there was no opportunity of taking proper evidence. Amongst the suggestions made was one raising the important question as to whether a Court of Inquiry should be placed under well-defined rules, and also whether there should be courts of
    1932
    appeal to refer the decisions of courts martial to. There were several other important questions, intimately connected with this Bill, which were not listened to. He might mention that as to whether the Commander-in-Chief should be placed under the five years' rule or not, the present Commander-in-Chief had been 20 years at the head of the Army; and it was a most important matter to decide whether or not he ought to be placed under the five years' rule. For his part, he did not see why any distinction should exist in his case. He thought the Committee should be re-appointed, to discuss these and other very important questions.
    COLONEL STANLEY: I will endeavour to answer, to the best of my power, the various questions which have been addressed to me; but I must first thank the House for the very courteous manner in which they have received my statement. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon), I have to say this—we have preserved in the new Bill all the powers of the Crown contained in the former Mutiny Act. As a matter of fact, when we came to specify the different crimes, it was found of so little practical advantage to specify the Articles of War side by side with the statutory provisions, that we have only referred to them. I do not say that under no circumstances will a change be made; but I think, as a matter of fact, we should be content with keeping the power. I think that it is right, in a Bill of these dimensions, not to allow any matters to be unnecessarily introduced; but wherever any powers exist in any Article they will not be allowed to fall into desuetude. With respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), we have not given distinct instructions in the Bill as to courts martial; but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, some matters cannot properly find a place in the Statute, but will have to be dealt with by regulations. The regulations will be brought under the notice of the House, and will then admit of challenge. I am afraid of addressing the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in his absence, and cannot, therefore, perfectly reply to his question. I may say, however, that I hope he will find his

    1933
    fears as to the power of commanding officers, and as to bringing other classes under the power of the War Office, altogether fallacious, and that the change proposed will prove beneficial. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), I confess that I am placed in a position of some difficulty. It is clear that if the Army is not to be left without any Discipline Bill whatever, you must have either the existing Bill or some other. No man had more objections to the existing Act than the hon. Member for Meath; and I thought that he, above all men, would have been glad to welcome any change. But if we do not pass this Bill before the present Mutiny Act expires, it is obvious we must have some provision for carrying on the government of the Army. I expressly guarded myself from putting any undue pressure on the House; although I did express a hope that we might make such progress with the Bill as to render the continuance of the present Mutiny Bill unnecessary. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), I may say that it is perfectly impossible to explain all the different points of this Bill in a limited time—and I wish the Bill to explain itself as soon as possible. With respect to the question of half-pay officers, I admitted that though I have done my best to adopt what I believe to be a course consistent with the existing law, and in accordance with the altered circumstances under which officers now retire, yet I am in a position of some difficulty; and I have no doubt considerable good will result from a discussion being raised upon the question in this House. With regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), I must say that I do not see what good would be likely to result from the reappointment of a Committee for the purposes of the Bill. I do not think it came within the purview of that Committee to deal either with the tenure or the limit of Staff appointments. I think I have now answered the questions put to me; but I ought, perhaps, to have stated that this Bill technically—even when passed into law—will have no force except as representing a code of discipline for the Army. In that respect I hope it will be, more or less,
    1934
    permanent; but it will receive annual force, and be brought under the notice of Parliament, from year to year, by an annual Army Discipline and Regulation Act—a short Bill, reciting the number of men voted in the first Vote of the Estimates, and adopting this Bill and giving it effect until such time as the annual Act itself will expire. I trust I have answered the various questions put to me; and I hope there will be other opportunities granted on further progress of this Bill, when I shall be able to give fuller explanations.
    MR. BIGGARwished to say one word on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). What he wished to convey was that if there was not sufficient time to pass this Bill before the 26th of April then that the present Mutiny Bill should be renewed, subject to a pledge by the Government to give sufficient time to push this Bill through during the remainder of the Session. Then, so soon as this Bill became law, the old Mutiny Act should be dropped, and the new one take its place. In that way there would be a Bill of some sort; and at the earliest possible moment an amended Act would become law.
    COLONEL STANLEY: I think I quite understood the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Meath; but it is necessary we should bear in mind that there are other parties to be considered besides those sitting in this House—namely, the officers and men of the Service—and we must have this Bill in their hands by some definite date, so that they may know the law under which they are acting. We have two alternatives—the one to confirm the present Bill, and the other to pass a better Bill to supersede it. I confess I see little advantage in taking up the time, which might be well occupied in passing this Bill through Committee, in passing the present Mutiny Act. It would be far preferable to add a clause to the present Mutiny Act that it should exist only to the end of the Session. What we want is one Mutiny Act, and not three.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary STANLEY, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ASSIZES BILL.— [Bill 83.]
  (Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  ASSIZES BILL.— [Bill 83.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that although he supported the Bill—the object of which was to give effect to a wish expressed by the House in relation to the Assizes Act of 1876—yet there were one or two practical disadvantages to the present Assize system. He was encouraged by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was amenable to suggestions to point out to him the matters to which he referred. The House was aware that this Bill carried into effect what had already been sanctioned by the Assizes Act of 1876, and practically carried out the expression of opinion of this House, that it was desirable that no prisoner should be kept in custody untried for more than the space of three months. He should give his most cordial support to the Bill; but there were one or two practical objections to the system of centralization which it effectuated. The object of centralization was solely for the purpose of economizing judicial power; and if there were more judicial power, he did not think that anyone would wish the system of centralization to be carried out. It was desirable that prisoners should be tried in the counties where their crimes were committed, inasmuch as it brought home the administration of justice to the criminal classes, and had a good effect upon the community. The trial of prisoners in their own counties had a good effect also upon those concerned in the administration of justice—as the magistrates—and he knew of no class which benefited by the removal of prisoners from their own county, except the public, by the fact that judicial power was economized. As matters remained at present, there were no means of carrying out the opinion of the House, except by the system of centralization. But the practical objections that occurred to that system were worthy of consideration. Prisoners were, before conviction, supposed to be innocent, and it was, no doubt, desirable that they should be left as short time as possible in prison untried. But the system of centralization
    1936
    produced some evils. The effect of removing a prisoner a distance from the county where he had committed his crime took away some of his means of defence, and removed him from the persons who could come forward to help him. He had to take with him all his witnesses—perhaps the clergyman of his parish—to testify to his character; and as he could not, as a rule, pay his witnesses, it could not be expected that volunteer witnesses would give up their time to go long distances in order to testify to his character. The result was that prisoners went to trial without the witnesses whom they would have had if tried in their own county town. That was an injury inflicted upon those very persons for whom this system of Assizes had been established. Again, when before the magistrates, a prisoner, no doubt, employed a solicitor to defend him: but when tried hundreds of miles off, his solicitor could not conduct his defence, and thus prisoners were frequently left undefended at their trial. Therefore, those persons, for whose interests these Acts were passed, were sent to a distance from places where their offences had been committed without witnesses and without legal advice or assistance. Another matter which fell heavily on those concerned he would call attention to. No doubt, the Government might say they had done something to mitigate this evil by giving an allowance of £20, if a Judge certified to that effect. But that did not apply to witnesses to character, to whom no compensation was given. It was a great practical evil, and had been drawn to his attention by persons who had been witnesses, that when prisoners were sent to trial, witnesses for the prosecution had to attend, frequently under circumstances of great hardship. Amongst the witnesses were married women with families, and girls under 15 years of age; and to those persons the only allowance made was for their own expenses for travelling and for keep. Although the distance might be from the Welsh side of Monmouthshire to Gloucester, they had to travel without anyone to take charge of them, and to stop for days in a strange town where they knew no one, because the only expenses allowed to such witnesses were for themselves, and not for anyone to accompany them. No doubt, this was a small matter; but to those people on whom it fell it became a great grievance.

    1937
    It would be better for the House to take notice of this small matter, and prevent the hardship from arising. He had been told of an instance where a whole family were kept nearly a week in a town, and the only money paid to them was to one member of the family as a witness. No doubt, so long as the judicial strength remained where it was, this system of centralization must be adopted; but he hoped that it would not be carried into effect, except where absolutely necessary. It had an evil effect, both upon the public, by reason of removing the administration of justice from before their eyes, and upon prisoners and witnesses in subjecting them to hardships.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNwished to know whether, if the Bill passed, the full Winter Sessions could be abolished? He had understood that it was not intended to abolish them.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had only done justice to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in stating that he had endeavoured to carry out the grouping of counties in such a manner as to minimize the inconveniences which must of necessity attend the system, and so to give effect to the expressed wish of the House that prisoners should not remain untried for more than three months. No doubt, some disadvantages resulted from the system of centralization. But if, in some cases, witnesses had to go a considerable distance, yet, at the present time, they had frequently to go as great a distance when trials took place in their own counties. To meet the expenses incurred, an allowance of £20 was made. He must also observe that the object of these Acts was not only to economize judicial power, but to save also the time of sheriffs, jurors, and other persons necessarily concerned in the transaction of judicial business. The House would see that this Bill was a necessary sequence to the principle laid down by the House—that no prisoner should remain in custody for a longer period than three months.
    MR. PAGETremarked that the Bill provided that the Winter Assize Act of 1876 should be construed as if it were therein enacted, with the substitution of Spring Assizes for Winter Assizes, and of the months of March, April, and May, for the months of November, De-
    1938
    cember, and January respectively. He should like to know whether the Act was to extend the Winter Assizes into those months of the Spring?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was clear that the Bill enabled the Judges to hold four Assizes in the year by groups of counties. The months were purposely omitted, in order to make that possible; and it would be impossible for that to take place if they kept the Assizes to the Winter. This Act was passed to enable them to hold Assizes in two or three other months. The Judges were now framing a scheme for the regulation of Assizes, by which those for criminal and civil business were to be held early in the year, and criminal Assizes only were to be held in the Spring.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    VISCOUNT EMLYNobserved, that in his county (Carmarthen) the Spring Assizes were held in January. He wished to know whether, under this Bill, a power would not be given to abolish either or both of the full Assizes now held in every county, and to substitute for them Assizes for a union of counties. He hoped that words would be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that this would not be done.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that, as he understood, the Assizes in which civil and criminal business took place were I to be held in the counties; but that the criminal business only was to be held elsewhere. With reference to the Spring Assizes being held in January, that only occurred through the old Winter Assizes being carried over Christmas. If there was any doubt, it could be put at rest by providing, upon the Report of the Bill, that only two Assizes should take I place out of the counties.
    MR. PAGETsuggested that a provision should be inserted carrying into effect the regulation that two distinct holdings of Assize should be held in the counties.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think that any difficulty could arise with regard to the Bill on the point suggested; but he would undertake that, if necessary, words should be added to make the provisions perfectly clear.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

    [BILL 69.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he felt some regret to see a Motion on the Paper by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. He was so confident that this matter had been thoroughly ventilated during the time that it had been before the House—namely, the last two years—that he regretted to see even the slightest obstruction opposed to it. He should have thought that the time which would be spent in sending this Bill to a Select Committee might have been spared, for he did not see what fresh information could be required.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he was quite as anxious as the hon. and learned Member that this Bill should pass speedily. For a long time he had expressed his opinion that a great number of persons were sent to prison who never ought to go there. He thought no person ought to go to gaol unless he had been tried. The experience he had gained in the Office which he had at present the honour to hold had impressed him strongly in favour of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) as to imprisonment for debt, and he should be glad to see it pass in some form or other. His feeling was that if a man went to prison he ought to be punished; and if a man did not deserve punishment he ought not to go to prison. He had viewed the inside of gaols, and it was anything but a pleasant sight to see the number of persons idling away their time there—absolutely useless members of society. He hoped the time would come, and during the period that he held his present position, when a salutary change would be made in this respect. The hon. and learned Member had asked him why he had sent this Bill to a Select Committee? He had done so for three reasons. In the first place, he could not foretell whether a great number of Amendments would be set
    1940
    down to the Bill or not. There were certain other matters which prevented his seeing his way clearly to carry the Bill through if a considerable number of Amendments were set down; but, having discussed those Amendments upstairs, they would be more readily disposed of in the House. In the next place, there were technical matters relating to warrants, and things of that kind, which wanted to be scrutinized by learned gentlemen accustomed to the administration of justice. Lastly, this Bill only applied to England; for with regard to Ireland, he was happy to say that the law there was in a much more advanced state than in this country. The English law was a step or two behind the Irish law; and, therefore, it would be impossible to make this Bill, in its present form, applicable to Ireland as well as England, because it would not fit into the Irish Summary Jurisdiction Acts. Therefore, he thought that if the Irish Members who took -an interest in the question were enabled to discuss the question in Committee, they would be enabled to appreciate more fully a Bill which the Attorney General for Ireland would introduce dealing with the Irish law. That, he thought, would be the best course and most acceptable to the Irish Members and the people of Ireland. For the reasons he had stated, he wished to send the Bill before a Select Committee; and he hoped that the House would allow him to take the Chair on that Committee, and that no time would be lost in bringing the matter forward.
    MR. W. S. STANHOPEsaid, that considerable anxiety had been expressed by some magistrates in Yorkshire as to the scope of the Bill. A largely increased power was given by it to Petty Sessions, and a Committee of Quarter Sessions had been appointed to consider those provisions. He was glad to hear that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
    And, on March 18, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. DODSON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. WOODD, Mr. PAGET, Mr. COURTAOLD, Mr. SPENCER STANHOPE, Colonel COLTHURST, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. WALTER, Mr. RODWELL, and Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH:—Five to be the quorum.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL— [BILL 52.]
  (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Sir Richard Wallace.)
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL— [BILL 52.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th February.]
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SESSIONAL COMMITTEES—Standing Orders Committee on Private Bills, Committee of Selection on Opposed Private Bills, Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, appointed and nominated.
THE PLAGUE IN RUSSIA—SANITARY PRECAUTIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in asking a Question of his noble Friend the Lord President, of which he had given him private Notice, said, that at the commencement of the Session he had, as their Lordships would remember, put a Question to his noble Friend with respect to the plague in Russia, and received a reply stating what precautions had been adopted by the Government on the subject. That morning he had read a startling announcement in the papers, to the effect that the plague was no longer confined to the south-eastern districts of Russia, but, by a sudden bound, had made its way to St. Petersburg, and that 48 persons who were supposed to have been in contact with a person seized by it had been interned. It would be wrong to say anything on the subject which would have a tendency to create any agitation in the public mind; but the matter was one of a very serious character. The plague was of a deadly description, and there was a great difference between its existence in the province of Astrachan and its making its appearance in a capital, which one might say was within a few hours' journey of this country. He was concerned to read in the papers to-day that in a debate which took place upon this question in a learned Society yesterday—the Epidemiological Society—in the course of which a great deal of valuable information was given, and in which certainly nothing was said which could create a panic, a gentleman connected with a Government Department seemed to attach so little importance to the absence or presence of the disease in England that, speaking upon this subject, he went so far as to express
  1824
  a hope that the Government would keep themselves clear of all the nonsense of quarantine. He fully admitted that it was quite competent for a medical gentleman to express any opinion he pleased on such a subject; but he ventured to think that anyone connected with a Government Department was bound to observe great caution, and to use the most guarded language in dealing with such a subject. No doubt, his object was to discountenance anything like a panic; but, at the same time, he was bound to attach due importance to it. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) now repeated what he had said upon a former occasion—that he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take every precaution that lay in their power. He was sure, from what his noble Friend had said, that he considered it his duty to adopt every possible precaution. In the discussion which took place last night among the medical authorities at the learned Society to which he had referred, it was pointed out that our sanitary code was an excellent one, but that it had not as yet been brought into practical operation. Of course, it was for his noble Friend to consider whether it was possible to do so. If this newspaper report was true, the danger was very close at hand. Upon one point all authorities seemed to be agreed, and that was that distress, poverty, and want of food were conditions that were very favourable to the existence of the plague; and, unfortunately, these conditions existed at the present time to a higher degree than had been experienced for a very long time. He was sure that while his noble Friend would not give any undue importance to any rumours on the subject he would regard the subject as one deserving the attention of the Government; and therefore he hoped he would take every precaution that seemed desirable to prevent the introduction of the plague into this country.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in reply, said, that no official confirmation of the report which had appeared in the newspapers of the appearance of the plague at St. Petersburg had been received by Her Majesty's Government—in fact, he had received no information on the subject beyond what his noble Friend possessed. As to the speech to which his noble Friend had more particularly called attention,

  1825
  as having been made by a gentleman connected with a Government Department at a meeting of the Epidemological Society, he hoped he should not be regarded as wanting in courtesy if he declined to endorse all the opinions of that gentleman—supposing him to have been correctly reported. From the statement of his noble Friend, that gentleman was reported, in the first place, to have said that he would not object to one or two cases of plague occurring here in order that they might be scientifically considered. If he had been correctly reported then, in his (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's) humble opinion, he had much better not have said it—at any rate, he thought he would not find many persons to agree with him. His next statement was, that he hoped the Government would keep clear of the nonsense of quarantine. To that he could only say that quarantine in certain cases was part of the law of this country; and so long as it remained so, and he continued to fill the office of President of the Privy Council, he would see that the provisions of the law with respect to quarantine were effectually carried out. Scarcely a day passed without the subject of the plague coming before him in some way or other; and he could assure his noble Friend that the Government had been adopting, and would continue to adopt, all due precautions. He was in constant communication with the officers of Customs, and he was of opinion that the powers already possessed by the Privy Council were sufficiently strong.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—DESPATCHES.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government had received any further information from South Africa?
EARL CADOGAN, in reply, said, that the Government had received no despatches from the seat of war by the Asiatic, the steamer which arrived on Wednesday night; but that she did bring Government despatches from the Cape. It must be remembered that the Asiatic left the Cape only two days after the steamer which brought the first news of the disaster, and had been 27 days on her voyage to this country. Another steamer
1826
left on the 4th instant, and the substance of her despatches was forwarded by telegram from Madeira on Saturday last, the vessel itself might be expected to arrive this evening. Another steamer left the Cape on the 11th, and the Government hoped to receive telegrams forwarded by her from Madeira on Saturday next.

FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, a Bill for the better management of Fairs and Markets in Ireland? The noble Viscount said, that of late years there had been a considerable increase in the practice of holding fairs and markets in small towns in the South and West of Ireland. Those fairs at present created a great deal of inconvenience; and if they were properly regulated, it would involve a certain expense in making proper provision for their management. The result of the want of proper accommodation was, that the fairs and markets were held in the high roads or the main streets of the small towns, and that practice caused great inconvenience to the community in general. Some attempts had been made in both Houses of Parliament to legislate upon the subject, but nothing had been done. He hoped that some attempt would be made this year to deal with this question, which was of more importance than their Lordships might, perhaps, think.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could corroborate the statement of his noble Friend, that attempts had been made in both Houses of Parliament to deal with this subject. In the year 1854, in the year 1857, in the year 1861, in the year 1862, and in the year 1867, Bills were introduced either into this or the other House of Parliament for the purpose of dealing with that question; and the Bill of 1857, and that of 1861, went before a Select Committee. Moreover, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the subject in 1852, and that Commission made its Report in 1854. The only successful attempt

  1827
  to deal with the subject was by a very small Bill, which became law in 1868, enabling the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to alter the legal times and days for the holding of fairs and markets. The difficulties in legislating on this subject were great, owing to the private interests which were affected by it, and that was, no doubt, the reason why, up to the present time, there had been no legislation upon it. With the amount of Business that Her Majesty's Government had in hand, it was not intended —at all events, at present—to bring in a measure in either House of Parliament for dealing with this subject.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Orders Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Somerset.

  V. Eversley.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  V. Halifax.

  M. Winchester.

  L. Camoys.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Saye and Sele.

  M. Bath.

  L. Balfour of Burley.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Monson.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Ponsonby.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Digby.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Powis.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Verulam.

  L. De Tabley.

  E. Morley.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Belper.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Ebury.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Egerton.

  V. Hawarden.

  L. Hartismere.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Penrhyn.

  V. Hardinge.

  L. Wolverton.

  All petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Orders Committee, unless otherwise ordered.

  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
  The Lords following; viz.,

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Boyle.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:
  1828

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Bradford.

  Ld. President.

  E. Granville.

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  E. Kimberley.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Sydney.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  E. Redesdale.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Hawarden.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Hardinge.

  M. Bath.

  V. Eversley.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Devon.

  L. Ponsonby.

  E. Doncaster.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Tankerville.

  L. Skelmersdale.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Aveland.

  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.