Sitting of 1 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation* (135).
Second Reading — Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments) (123); Salmon Fishery Law Amendment (No. 2)* (126).
Committee—Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (101).
Committee — Report — Dispensaries (Ireland)* (88).
Report—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers)* (129).
Third Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) Provisional Orders* (96); Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.) * (113); Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*; Customs and Inland Revenue*.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (INTERMENTS) BILL.
(The Earl Stanhope.)
(NO. 123.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that during the last three years there had been most important and exhaustive debates in that House respecting

1061
the laws relating to the burial of the dead; yet it was remarkable that, whereas there had been no less than five Bills introduced into the other House relating to burials, there had not been a single discussion this Session on the subject in their Lordships House. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) had on every occasion taken great interest in the question; and in 1877 had expressed his regret that there was no allusion to a Burial Bill in the Queen's Speech. Towards the end of April in that year, Her Majesty's Government brought in a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws that related to the burial of the dead. That Bill was read a second time, after a division, but in Committee it was withdrawn. Now, what was the state of the law as it at present stood? By the common law, every parishioner had the right of interment in the parish churchyard, irrespective of his religious creed. By ecclesiastical law, he had a right to the performance of the Service of the Church of England; but that was the only form of religious service that could be performed there. Many of the Dissenters thought this a great hardship; but the majority of them accepted without complaint the Burial Service of the Church of England. It was, however, asserted to be a great injustice not to allow any other service but that of the Church of England in the parish churchyard. He was ready to admit there might have been some grievance before church rates were abolished, and when everyone was expected to contribute to the church fabric and to the keeping in order of the fence round the churchyard; but he ventured to think that the grievance was now only a sentimental grievance. Those who had left the Church were not called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of the church graveyard, and if they still wished to be buried, they almost invariably accepted the Service of the Church of England—or occasionally, as in Scotland, performed the service at their own chapels, and committed the body to the grave without any further religious service. There were also many parishes in which Nonconformists had established their own burial-grounds, and in sonic of them the same rule applied as in the Church of England. For instance, in the Society of Friends, a resolution was
1062
passed in the year 1861 to the following effect:—
"Burials of persons not members of our Society may take place in our burial-ground, provided they be in all respects conducted as the burials of Friends are conducted."
They had heard much lately respecting sentimental grievances, and these grievances had been embittered by religious animosity and by political prejudice; but they often passed away when the heat of controversy was over. The religious difficulty in elementary schools was one of such grievances, but it was now never heard of—except, perhaps, in Birmingham; and the famous 25th clause of the Education Act for the payment of school fees had actually been repealed by the author of the Act because it was no longer required. He would now come to the objects of the Bill which he asked the House to read a second time. It was a very small Bill, containing only three clauses, and its object was to dissever the question of interment from any vexed subject of religious controversy. He had been a little surprised and startled, therefore, when he saw that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) intended to move its rejection. He had been anxious to see a settlement of the question, and here was an instalment towards its settlement on a broad and liberal basis. The Bill provided that the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, as regarded " mortuaries" or places for the reception of the dead before interment should extend to places for the interment of the dead, in this Bill called " cemeteries; "that local authorities might acquire and maintain a cemetery, either within or without their own districts, subject, as regarded any cemetery situated without their district, to the regulations of the Public Health Act in regard to advertising and duly giving notice; and the local authorities were authorized to accept or acquire land for the purpose of a cemetery. And it further incorporated the Cemeteries Clauses Act of 1847. Those were the only provisions of the Bill. There were now cemeteries provided in England and Wales for 14,000,000 persons out of 22,000,000—leaving 8,000,000 to be supplied; and the Bill, by giving the ratepayers a direct interest in obtaining cemeteries, would have the result of supplying that deficiently. It would

1063
also place the matter under the Local Government Board, who, unlike the Home Office, had numerous local Inspectors. He need not remind the House that the local authority meant in the Act of 1871 the urban and rural sanitary authorities. The whole Kingdom was divided into urban and rural sanitary authorities; thus an existing machinery would be utilized for providing cemeteries through the length and breadth of the land. He was at a loss to understand why the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should quarrel with this proposal. During a discussion on the Government Bill in 1877, he had objected to such powers being conferred on vestries, because, to quote his own words, the noble Lord said—
" I do not think a vestry would be a good body to undertake those duties with or without a committee of ratepayers; and with regard to the election of these committees, I think it would be a great pity to infuse into the parishes fresh elements of religious discord." — [3 Hansard, ccxxxiii. 1873.]
But, perhaps, the noble Earl considered that the area of a local authority was too large a district. In that case, by Clause 202 of the Public Health Act, a local authority might appoint parochial committees. He had such a parochial committee in his own village in Kent, appointed by the Board of Guardians to assist the school attendance committee; and so harmonious was it in its action, that it included members of all denominations, who co-operated most amicably in filling the parish voluntary school. Again, it might be urged that it would entail a great additional expense on the ratepayers; but that would be the ratepayers' own fault, inasmuch as they elected their own representatives on the local authority Boards. Lastly, it might be said the whole of the ground provided would in all cases be consecrated under the Cemetery Clauses Act. That would not necessarily follow. Those Acts had worked well for many years, and the local authority would not have any more power to extend unduly the area of consecrated ground than any commercial company would have. He wished to point out to the House that the proposal of making local authorities the burial authority originated with a distinguished Member of a former Liberal Government—Mr. Hibbert, who was formerly Secretary to the Poor Law
1064
Board. Last Session, Mr. Hibbert presided over a Committee of the House of Commons on the Election of Poor Law Guardians, and after a most careful and elaborate investigation, they adopted the Report, of which he would read the first two sentences. They reported—
"That Burial Boards where they exist in urban sanitary authorities shall be merged in the urban sanitary authorities of such districts respectively . That whenever practicable the powers of Burial Boards in rural sanitary districts in England shall be transferred to Boards of Guardians or the rural sanitary authority of the district."
He hoped the noble Earl opposite would act in a liberal spirit and support a measure which he (Earl Stanhope) thought formed a real instalment towards the settlement of this question. It was a miserable thing to quarrel over the ashes of the departed. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Earl Stanhope.)
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl who has moved the second reading that, instead of being prepossessed against the Bill, I am very much prepossessed in its favour by the moderate and cautious way in which he has introduced it; but I cannot admit that because the Bill is a small one it ought not to be opposed. I share the noble Earl's views that this question was fully discussed and satisfactorily disposed of, so far as this House was concerned, two years ago; and I have not the slightest intention of initiating a debate on the subject at this stage of the Bill. But I wish to call the attention of the House to the Bill itself. The noble Earl has spoken of the care which this Bill received in its passage through the House of Commons. I have made inquiry, and I am informed that one of the principal stages of the Bill was postponed six times, another nine times, and the Bill passed on three occasions, either by good luck or good management, just before the House adjourned, and in the absence of those who had given Notice of opposition. I do not quote this as a reason why your Lordships should reject the Bill, but merely to destroy the notion that it has received the deliberate sanction of the House of Commons—nearly every Member of which is probably perfectly

1065
ignorant of its contents. My objections to the second reading of this Bill are grounded on its form, its substance, and its machinery, or, rather, want of machinery. It is, as was said of another measure the other day, a memorandum for a Bill, and a very meagre memorandum, rather than a Bill itself. I doubt whether the most learned of your Lordships could tell what this Bill does merely by reading it—I am sure that the noble Earl who moved it has not yet fully mastered its contents. The title is inappropriate and misleading. It is not an Amendment of the Public Health Act—it is an alteration of the Burial Laws. The provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875 deal with sanitary measures, sewage, supply of water, buildings, lodging-houses, lighting, slaughter-houses, nuisances, smells, unsound food, and matters of that sort. It contains nothing about burials, excepting provisions for a mortuary for the reception of dead bodies before interment and their removal to such mortuaries and places for post mortem examinations. It is on this slight peg of a mortuary that the Bill engrafts powers which would certainly make it possible to provide exclusively denominational cemeteries at the expense of the rates. At the present moment cemeteries can be provided in either of two ways—first, by a private company at its own expense. Such a company—since it works at its own expense, and not at the expense of the rates—may confine itself to a consecrated ground, or to persons of any or no religious denomination. To such companies the Cemetery Clauses Act applies. But because it was passed as a Consolidation Act of the previous Cemetery Private Acts before the tolerant enactments of the Burial Acts were agreed to, and because it does not deal with rates at all, that Act imposes no obligation of tolerance, no safeguards for the protection of the interests of Nonconformists. Cemeteries can also be provided by local authorities at the expense of the rates. Such cemeteries, however, are governed by the Burial Acts. As such cemeteries are made at the expense of the rates, provisions are made for compelling the division of cemeteries into consecrated and unconsecrated parts, for unconsecrated chapels, and otherwise for the purpose of toleration. Under this Bill,
1066
which connects the Cemetery Act with the Public Health Act, with which it has no real connection, while it entirely omits the provisions in favour of Nonconformists contained in the late Burial Acts, local authorities would be able to provide, at the expense of the rates, cemeteries of an exclusively denominational character, free from any of the obligations and safeguards of the Burial Acts, and in all respects as if they were private Companies. As to the machinery, I believe the Bill would prove unworkable. There is no provision for the dissolution of existing Burial Boards. If a new cemetery is established under it in any town where there is now a Burial Board with a debt, the new cemetery would probably withdraw from the old one the means of paying off the debt. There will also be double burial authorities in one place. The Burial Acts contain elaborate provisions for the working of those Acts; but, as those provisions are not incorporated and no substitutes provided for them, I believe the Bill to be unworkable. The noble Earl alluded to the Bill that was introduced by Her Majesty's Government two years ago. That Bill was a consolidation of all the Burial Acts—including, of course, those which are now omitted. The Bill was carried on the second reading; but it was afterwards abandoned by the Government in consequence of a considerable majority, led by a Conservative Peer, who was also a staunch Churchman, and followed by a large number of the most Conservative Members, passing an Amendment declaring that further legislation should be accompanied by a substantial redress of the burial grievance complained of by Nonconformists. I certainly do think that, your Lordships having expressed the opinion you did in 1877 that substantial justice should be done to the Nonconformists, it would be extremely inconsistent for your Lordships to pass a crude measure like the present, which, far from consolidating the Burial Acts, adds another inconsistent one to them, and which, instead of advancing in the direction desired by your Lordships, is of a decidedly retrograde character from that which now exists. I think I have said enough to justify me in moving the rejection of the Bill; and I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.

1067
Amendment moved, to leave out (" now ") and add at the end of the
Motion (" this day three months").—(The Earl Granville.)
On Question, That (" now ") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 116; Not-Contents
65: Majority 51.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Hawarden, V.

Cairns, E. (L. Chancellar.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

York, L. Archp.

Melville, V.

Leeds, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Northumberland, D.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Richmond, D.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Rutland, D.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Ely, L. Bp.

Abergavenny, M.

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Bristol, M.

Bute, M.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Hertford, M.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Salisbury, M.

London, L. Bp.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Amherst, E.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Beaconsfield, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Beauchamp, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Belmore, E.

Bradford, E.

Alington, L.

Brownlow, E.

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Cadogan, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Coventry, E.

Bolton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Dundonald, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Haddington. E.

Hardwicke, E.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

Lanesborough, E.

Clinton, L.

Lucan, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colchester, L.

Manvers, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crofton, L.

Morton, E.

Delamere, L.

Nelson, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Onslow, E.

Powis, E.

de Ros, L.

Redesdale, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Romney, E.

Digby, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Forbes, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Forester, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Tankerville, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Gordon of Drumearn, L.

Verulam, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Wilton, E.

Hampton, L.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Bridport, V.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Inchiquin, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Cranbrook, V.

Hardinge, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

1068

Lilford, L.

Sondes, L.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Northwick, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Norton, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Templemore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Sherborne, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Ventry, L.

Windsor, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Winmarleigh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Ebury, L.

Devonshire, D.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ailesbury, M.

Emly, L.

Northampton, M.

Foley, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Airlie, E.

Albemarle, E.

Hammond, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hanmer, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Cowper, E.

Hatherley, L.

Dartrey, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Ducie, E.

Durham, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Fortescue, E.

Granville, E.

Monson, L. Teller.]

Grey, E.

Mostyn, L.

Ilchester, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Kimberley, E.

0xenfoord, L (E. Stair.)

Lovelace, E.

Penzance, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Spencer, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Sydney, E.

Robartes, L.

Romilly, L.

Cardwell, V.

Rosebery, L. (E. Roseberg.)

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Sandhurst, L.

Portman, V.

Sandys, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Aberdare, L.

Selborne, L.

Blantyre, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Camoys, L.

Carlingford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Sudeley, L.

Churchill, L.

Truro, L.

Clermont, L.

Wrottesley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Resolved in the Affirmatives.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg leave to say that, not having heard the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Bill, I shall, on the proposal that the House go into Committee, renew the Motion, and move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this day three months.

THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the statement made in an evening journal is true, that the late deeply lamented Prince Imperial was himself in command of the troops sent out to reconnoitre, with the view of seeking a fitting camping ground? The noble Lord said, he thought that their Lordships would not need from him any apology for calling their Lordships' attention, by way of a Question, to the very circumstantial account given of the lamentable death of the gallant Prince Imperial. The circumstances disclosed in the accounts published in the Press affected the management, discipline, honour, and sensitiveness of the British Army; and, indeed, the statements published manifested most clearly, he thought, the irresponsible manner in which the campaign in South Africa had been carried out. It seemed that the responsibility was anywhere and nowhere; and the confusion that arose would unquestionably lead to the opinion that there was a want of system and discipline, and an absence of prevision and of retrospection, and, above all, a want of ordinary precaution in carrying out the duties connected with that campaign. Before ho proceeded with the few remarks with which he should trouble their Lordships, he should like to call their attention to the unfortunate want of communication which rendered the Government altogether behindhand in their arrangements. It was strange that the public papers in this country should be provided not only with general information, but also with an amount of minuteness with regard to circumstances that had happened, whilst the Government appeared to be in a state of perfect ignorance in relation to them. In order to deal with the matter with strict impartiality, he thought that they should look for a moment to the occasion that led to the Prince Imperial leaving this country; and he begged, with all possible deference, to say that it seemed to him that either Her Majesty's Government, or His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief certainly, or both of them, had taken upon themselves a responsibility of the most grave character. It might be that the Government would be pleased to share the responsibility with the
  1070
  Commander-in-Chief; but, in any case, he thought that no Member of their Lordships' House would fail to take this view—that the responsibility which now rested upon the Government or the Commander-in-Chief, or upon both, was a very serious and grave one. The application of the Prince Imperial, in the first instance, was, he believed, that he should be allowed to take an active part in the campaign, and the Government having considered that request, came to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient that he should take an active military part in that campaign; but could it be said that the permission afterwards granted to that young Prince to go to South Africa at all was consistent in any way with the decision that he would take no active part in the campaign? His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was kind enough to read to their Lordships two letters, and he (Lord Truro) begged their most earliest attention to those two letters. They were not satisfactory, inasmuch as they did not convey to his mind that earnest determination and decision that would be likely to impress upon the Commanders in South Africa the necessity of abstaining from, in any way whatever, giving to the gallant young Prince any active employment. It was perfectly true that that young Prince might of his own free will have gone to South Africa; but there was a great difference between giving him an acting command and forbidding him altogether to go. It was unreasonable to suppose that that active young Prince would remain quiet, or that he would not extract from the military authorities some opportunities of distinguishing himself before the eyes of Europe, and especially before the eyes of France. What, in fact, happened? The thing was done, and the young Prince obtained leave from the authorities here to go to South Africa—he (Lord Truro) would not even say that he had permission to join the Army there; but he had permission to go there. What was the first step taken? It was that Lord Chelmsford made him aide-de-camp, and attached him to his own Staff; and ho (Lord Truro) should be glad to hear whether that was a civil employment, or whether it was not an expressly military position? He confessed that, possibly in his ignorance, he laboured under the

  1071
  impression that the very fact of putting him into the position of aide-de-camp to the Commander-in-Chief of an Army in the field would give him a certain military qualification which without it he could not have obtained. Then, where was he? He was in the camp of Lord Chelmsford. He was sent by Lord Chelmsford to the Quarter Master General. Did he go there simply with despatches, or did he go there ostensibly for the purpose of getting employment, and at the instigation, or, at all events, with the sanction, of Lord Chelmsford, and that notwithstanding what was written of him by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief? He (Lord Truro) would not wish to press hardly upon Lord Chelmsford, for he believed that his anxiety and his troubles were very great; and that the additional burdens which had fallen upon him were enough to bear him down even to the grave. This young Prince obtained leave from Colonel Harrison to prosecute this reconnaissance, in which he lost his life, in order to find a fitting camping ground. He (Lord Truro) asked whether, of all the duties, there was one that could be more dangerous than selecting such a ground? On a previous occasion what happened to Lord Chelmsford? He thought it fit to go with proper security to ascertain what would be a proper and convenient ground for having a camp. It was said by competent military men that a more unfortunate position could not have been selected, and of that opinion the confirmation they had in the result was overwhelming. Then, this was a young man with no previous experience in the field, who had lately come from a military College, and who had very recently landed in the country. It was most unfortunate, and hardly conceivable, that this young man should be selected out of the whole Army to fix upon a position where the British Army should encamp. In South Africa we were said to have no less than eight able Generals, and to have there an amount of experience never exceeded in the British Army; and could it be conceived that this young Prince should, of all men in the world, have been selected for this most important purpose? But there was more. It was cruel, he had almost said wicked and inhuman, for men in a responsible position, and men of experience, to allow this young man to go
  1072
  upon such an expedition with insufficient force and protection. He believed that at the outside there were sent with him only ten men, and that including a young officer, Lieutenant Carey. Whether that officer had greater age and more experience than the Prince, he (Lord Truro) could not say; but this he knew, that both Lieutenant Carey and the Prince had been upon that very ground a short time before—not, perhaps, attacked—but fired upon by Zulus; and with that knowledge, was it conceivable that Colonel Harrison should have sent them upon such an expedition with such an inadequate support as nine or ten troopers? These men also were armed with only three rifles, and they had two led horses. It was clear from the narratives that the Prince commanded the party. He ordered a halt, he ordered a renewed march of an hour's duration; then, after another halt, which he also ordered, he, unhappily too late, directed the horses to be saddled. How was it possible, after the letters of His Royal Highness, that so fatal an error could have been committed? A more unfortunate campaign than that had never been known; and when the country came to look at it, he believed that they would say to the Government—" Important and successful as may be your foreign policy, valuable as may be your domestic measures, you have placed the country in a state as regards its Army which is most unfortunate and most insecure; and as to the mode in which you have conducted the South African campaign you have brought on us eternal disgrace." God forbid that the campaign should end in the condition in which it was now, with disgrace to the Army, and disasters such as in the lifetime of their Lordships had never yet been known.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he did not intend to follow the noble Lord in his speech on this subject—he would merely answer his Question. One word, however, he must say—and lie was sure that on both sides of the House he would be supported by the opinions of their Lordships when he said he could not but think that it was a pity that the noble Lord should take advantage of his privilege of free speech in that House, and of the deep sympathy which was universally felt for the fate of the late Prince Imperial, to throw broadcast—

  1073
  without proof, without waiting for reliable information—censures, as he had done, loud and long, and couched in almost violent language. This the noble Lord had done, having nothing before him but the irresponsible statements of journalists in this country, and without waiting for the result of the Court of Inquiry, which the noble Lord must well know was now sitting in South Africa to investigate this most unhappy event. In these circumstances, he (Viscount Bury) would only express his regret that the noble Lord had not reserved his words of censure until he had some proof before him that they were deserved. In reply to the noble Lord's Question, he had to say that Her Majesty's Government had no further information to impart than that which was already before their Lordships and the country. The noble Lord asked whether the statement made in an evening journal was true — that the late deeply-lamented Prince Imperial was himself in command of the troops sent out to reconnoitre with the view of seeking a fitting camping ground? He had only to state that the had not seen the words of the journal referred to—indeed, he did not know what journal was referred to; but he was quite sure that it must be misinformed, and that the statement was not true. The illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief informed their Lordships' House and the country the other day that the Prince Imperial did not bear Her Majesty's commission, and, therefore, that it was quite impossible he could have exercised any military command. It was quite true that Lord Chelmsford placed his Imperial Highness as extra aide-de-camp on his Staff; but he did that for the purpose of welcoming, as the guest of England, at his camp a distinguished stranger, and also for the purpose, in a country where he need not say there were no means of buying them, of obtaining forage and rations, and of giving him a home. It was for that purpose, and. that only, that the Prince Imperial was placed on Lord Chelmsford's Staff, and not in any military capacity. It was, therefore, not possible that he could have been in command. of the party in question—especially as, if the reason he had already given were insufficient, he was in the presence of an officer very much senior to himself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that from the letters read by the illustrious Duke the other night, and from what had been said that night, their Lordships would conceive that the lamented Prince could not have been, properly speaking, in command; but what he desired to know was, whether the noble Viscount could say that the Prince was not actually in command?
  VISCOUNT BURY: The Prince Imperial did not bear Her Majesty's commission, and, therefore, I am safe in saying he did not exercise any military command.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.