Sitting of 5 April 1881

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Committed to a Select Committee—London City Lands (Thames Embankment).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Whiteboy Acts Repeal * [134].
Report—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [99]; Inclosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common) * [115]; Inclosure Provisional Orders (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* [114].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON CITY LANDS (THAMES EMBANKMENT) BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper in reference to this Bill, which he begged to move—namely, that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. The Bill was introduced this year by the Corporation of the City of London as a Private Bill; but his contention was that it ought to have been introduced as a public measure, so that a better opportunity would have been afforded of discussing it than the House could possibly have in its present form. The main object of the measure was the sale by the Corporation of the City of London to the Commissioners of Public Works of certain land on the Thames Embankment for the purpose of erecting a new Mint. The question of erecting a Mint on the Thames Embankment had been considered by the House before—namely, in 1871, when the subject underwent a very careful examination. At that time

    733
    a Bill was brought forward for this purpose which was a Public Bill; but the measure was rejected by 118 to 95. It was now proposed to purchase a site for the same purpose, which, if carried out, would have the effect of overriding the decision arrived at in 1871; and it was further proposed to effect this object through the medium of the Private Bill now before the House. The Bill set out and confirmed an award which had been given by Mr. Edward Norton Clifton, architect, of London, by which three acres of land on the Thames Embankment were to be sold by the Corporation of the City of London to Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings, for the sum of £254,475. In some sense it might be alleged that the Bill was merely to carry out this award. He believed that the late Administration were the means, or, at any rate, they were parties to the award being made; but he had always understood, and, indeed, a distinct pledge was given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the whole matter should be submitted to the careful consideration and decision of Parliament. One question for inquiry was whether the land the Government sought to acquire was worth the money proposed to be given for it. Although Mr. Clifton had decided that these three acres of land were worth the sum of £254,000, it was probable that an independent investigation would result in showing that it was worth much less. At any rate, there were two observations that might be made upon the matter. In the first place, in 1871 the value of land nearly close to this was fixed at a much lower figure than it was now proposed to give. Sir Henry Hunt valued the land in that year at £40,000 per acre; but it was now proposed to give £80,000 per acre for it, or exactly double. He had endeavoured to ascertain what the cost of this land was, and he had asked more than one Alderman of the Corporation of the City of London; but they represented themselves as possessing no knowledge upon the matter at all. He believed that that was a true representation; but he had been informed that for the whole eight acres of land possessed by the Corporation of London in this locality, a less sum had been given than was now proposed to be given out of the Public Exchequer for three acres only. This was
    734
    a serious matter, and it was most desirable that there should be some sort of public discussion whether so large a sum ought to be given for a purpose of this kind. When the proposal was made in 1871, it was a commercial proposition for building a Mint on two acres of land, for which £80,000 was to be given, while £60,000 was to be expended in the building and £400,000 machinery, making a total of £180,000. As the three acres of land on which the Mint now stood was stated to be then saleable for £180,000, the account in that case would be squared, and there would be no loss to the Exchequer at all. But the House of Commons deliberately rejected that proposal, and the proposition now made was of a far less commercial character. In the first place, the value of land on Tower Hill had lessened rather than increased in value. It had lessened for this simple reason—that it was formerly available for the building of large bonded warehouses; but such warehouses were now generally built by the Railway Companies at their termini, and the present site of the Mint would be worth much less now than it would have been some years ago. In addition, the cost of erecting the building would be much larger than the original estimate. He had seen the elevation of the proposed building for the Mint on the Thames Embankment. It would, no doubt, be a very fine building; but it was absurd to suggest that it would be erected for £60,000, or for anything like that sum. But, supposing that it was possible to erect it for £60,000, and to put up the machinery for £40,000 more, the cost, including the site, would amount to £354,475; and if the building and site at Tower Hill produced £180,000, there would be an actual loss of £174,475. Surely a loss of that kind ought not to be incurred without careful consideration. As a matter of fact, however, there was every reason to believe that the loss would be more than £200,000. In 1871 the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the new Mint should be erected upon the Thames Embankment, because it might be built compactly upon two acres of land. The proposal now before the House was to purchase three acres, so that the argument of having the building compact upon two acres would no longer apply. When the present Mint was built in 1810, it

    735
    was placed near the Tower because it was considered convenient to have the troops at hand in case of an attack being made upon it, and also that it might be near to the Bank of England. Whatever might be the value of these two acres, he presumed that the site on the Thames Embankment would not be more commodious than the site on Tower Hill. Moreover, it could be demonstrated to a certainty that the Mint could be rebuilt on its present site. He was aware that there were people who objected to that proposition; but there were more than three acres of land on Tower Hill, and there could be no difficulty in rebuilding the new Mint gradually. The coinage would not suffer, because, so far as the silver and copper coinage was concerned, it had been repeatedly put out by contract at Birmingham and other places; and with respect to the coinage of gold, if building operations going on at the same time were likely seriously to affect it, there was this to be said—that for some time the coinage of gold had been suspended. He believed there had been no gold coined for nine months, and that from last July they did not propose to coin any until the present month. In the course of another nine months the rebuilding of the Mint could be far progressed; and it must, therefore, be admitted that the difficulties which formerly existed did not exist now. The nuisance arising from the smoke and fumes of the smelting operations would be no greater than they were at present; and the noise by working with leverage and new machinery would hardly be equal to that met with in the Western Prairies when they approached one of the great stamping mills. The commercial aspect of the question appeared to him to be one which ought to be carefully considered. There were one or two other points connected with the Bill to which he ought to make allusion. In the first place, the Bill empowered the Commissioners of Public Works to sell the Basinghall Street buildings to the Corporation of the City of London for the sum of £93,500. This was the site of the old Bankruptcy Court, which the Corporation wished to use for what they termed a temporary purpose. It was not for him to suggest that it was not desirable that the Corporation of the City of London should temporarily go
    736
    into the Bankruptcy Court. He agreed with an observation made rather wittily—having regard to the place in which it was made—in the Court of Common Council, that unless the City altered its ways it would have to take up more than a temporary residence in a Court of that kind. The City proposed to purchase the old Bankruptcy Court, which was near to the Guildhall, and the purchase formed part of the transaction that was to he carried out in the Bill. There was also a proposal to sell to Sion College a piece of land on the north side of the Thames Embankment for a sum of £31,625. It did not appear in the Bill how it became requisite that the consent of Parliament should be given to such a sale as this; and, certainly, if the consent of the House of Commons was necessary, he thought the House should be put in possession of all the circumstances of the case, and be told for what purposes Sion College required this land. Sion College was founded 250 years ago by Dr. White, for certain specified objects—namely, for the maintenance of a popular preacher at St. Dunstan's, for the erection of alms-houses, the incorporation of lecturers or curates, the holding of quarterly dinners, and the propagation of pure truth and doctrine. At the present moment he was not aware whether or no there was a popular preacher at St. Dunstan's; there was certainly no almshouse, and no incorporation of lecturers or curates. He knew nothing about the quarterly dinners; and if pure truth and doctrine continued to be propagated, it was not through any special action of Sion College. He believed the only thing that existed now in connection with Sion College was a library of some 60,000 volumes, which, he believed, was established by one of the executors of Dr. White. The House ought to be told what was the object of this sale, and if it was necessary that they should give their sanction to it, no doubt they would give it. These were the whole of the proposals contained in the Bill. There was a power to the Corporation of the City of London to sell other lands, and he certainly did not see why that power was necessary. It ought, he thought, to be explained, and also the power to purchase other lands. With respect to the whole question of the sale and purchase of important lands by the Cor-

    737
    poration of London, it must be borne in mind that the entire position of the Corporation was at the present moment subjudice, and it was a matter for consideration whether transactions of this sort ought to receive the sanction of the House of Commons until that question was settled. As to the application of the purchase money, one of the clauses of the Bill provided that the money payable by the Commissioners to the Corporation should be paid into the Bank of England as if it were paid in under the 69th section of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. He was fully aware of the difficult position which the Government occupied in the matter. When they came into Office the question had been already referred to an Arbitrator, and that Arbitrator had now given his award. To a certain extent, Her Majesty's Government might feel themselves called upon to support that award; but he held that the proposal was one which was entirely for the consideration of the House; and he ventured to think that no wise Administration would associate itself with a decaying body like the Corporation of the City of London. He had thought it necessary to put the case clearly and fully before the House, inasmuch as the carrying out of the scheme proposed by the Bill would result in a loss of not less than £250,000. It would be much better that such a measure should be brought forward and discussed in a Public Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    MR. BRANDbegged to second the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). His hon. Friend had fully explained the reasons why this Bill ought to have been introduced as a public measure and not as a Private Bill. The Bill seemed to be a very simple and a very insignificant measure. It was a Bill, in fact, to enable the Corporation of the City of London to sell, and Her Majesty's Government to buy, certain lands on the Thames Embankment and elsewhere. Now, he did not wish to oppose, or in any way to restrict, the freedom of the Corporation of the City of London in buying or selling land, because he did not object to the Corporation and all its works in the same way that his hon. Friend did. But he objected to the Bill because by the
    738
    1st clause, and by the first part of the 1st schedule, Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings were enabled to buy of the Corporation of the City of London certain lands on the Thames Embankment. Any hon. Member who casually looked at the Bill would not discover from anything contained in it what was the real intent and object of the measure. The real intent and object of the Bill was to enable Her Majesty's Government to build upon the site thus purchased of the Corporation of the City of London a new Mint. Now, if this was the first occasion upon which such a proposal had ever been brought before the House of Commons, he might still object on the ground that it would be a more legitimate and expedient course to have brought the measure before the House of Commons as a Public Bill. But the case was very different. This question was discussed in 1871. It was discussed then upon a Public Bill, and in 1871 the House of Commons rejected the proposal by a majority, and rejected it on the ground that even then it would cost a large sum of money to the English taxpayer. That being so, this was distinctly an attempt—and this was his objection to the Bill—it was distinctly an attempt to reverse the decision come to by the House of Commons on a public measure by a Private Bill. He maintained that it was a very inexpedient course to pursue. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), or his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who would answer for the Bill, would say, he presumed, that the circumstances were different now from what they were in 1871. It was perfectly true that they were different in this sense, that the economic arguments that were pleaded for the Bill of 1871 were no longer applicable. What was the condition of things then? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1871, proposed to buy a site on the Thames Embankment, the value of which was £80,000. It was proposed to erect upon that site buildings that were to cost £100,000, and competent authorities stated that the sale of the old Mint building would more than cover the whole of the expenses of the new building. The case was very different now. The land was to cost not £80,000, but £254,000, and he maintained that that altered the whole of the circumstances.

    739
    and that the Bill ought to be submitted as a public measure to the consideration of the House of Commons. There were only two other small points upon which he would touch. It might be said that there was a necessity for a new Mint. It might be so. He did not dispute the contention; but he should like to know whether the engineers had stated that it was impossible to adapt the old Mint to the new requirements. At any rate, it was a question for the consideration of a Select Committee, and if the necessity did exist it would not justify the introduction of this Bill as a Private Bill. He believed that the history of the Bill was this—the award was accepted by the late Government; and, therefore, the present Government thought they were bound in honour and good faith to bring the matter forward in this way before the House of Commons. He fully admitted that it was so; but there was no reason why the House of Commons should confirm the award, and, at any rate, there was no reason why the question should not have been brought before the House of Commons in a Public Bill. For these reasons he seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Firth.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had failed to adduce a single argument which was not an argument in favour of the Bill being submitted to a Committee upstairs; and the whole proposition now before the House was that the Bill should be read a second time with a view to its being considered in Committee in the ordinary course. He believed the House had been informed that the Bill had already been investigated by a Committee of the House of Lords, and, having passed that House, it now came down to the House of Commons. Its object was to carry out an arrangement which had been entered into between the Corporation of the City of London and Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the acquisition of a site on the Thames Embankment for the erection of a new Mint. He had read over the correspondence which had taken place
    740
    between the Government and the Corporation upon the subject. It extended over several years, and it showed that the Corporation had throughout been reluctant to sell; but that pressure had been placed on them by the Government to compel them to sell these three acres of land which they were in possession of upon the Thames Embankment. The negotiations arose in 1874 in consequence of a wish expressed by the Corporation to purchase the site of the Bankruptcy Court in Basinghall Street, the business of the Court having been removed to Lincoln's Inn Fields. After these negotiations had gone on for some time, the Government sounded the Corporation as to their willingness to sell the land on the Thames Embankment. Well, the Corporation were very reluctant to do so, and their objection to sell these three acres of land to the Government was because they were afraid that the erection of the Mint on the Thames Embankment might be the means of creating a nuisance to the adjoining property by the fumes from the works, the pollution of the air, the noise of the manufacturing processes, and the constant passing of a large number of workmen during certain periods of the day. It was only after these objections had been entirely removed by the frankness and fulness with which the Government explained the whole matter, and by the Reports of two very able scientific men, one of whom, a chemist, reported upon the effect which might be produced upon the air by the establishment of a Mint upon the Embankment; while the other, Mr. Bramwell, the eminent engineer, reported upon the other points of difficulty. It appeared, from the Reports of these gentlemen, that there was no foundation whatever for the apprehensions that were entertained as to the erection of the new Mint on this particular site being a nuisance. The Corporation, when they were satisfied upon that head, at once withdrew their objection, and became willing parties to the negotiations for the sale. As soon as they came to the conclusion that the Mint might properly be constructed on the Embankment, the Corporation referred the matter to their own City Architect, while the Government, on their part, referred it to an eminent surveyor and valuer, and these gentlemen appointed as Arbitrator an-

    741
    other architect and valuer, Mr. Clifton. As the result of that reference to arbitration, Mr. Clifton ultimately gave his award, and it was to carry out that award that the present Bill had been introduced. He failed to see, in as much as it was purely a local matter for the purchase and sale of a piece of land, why the Bill should necessarily have been brought in as a public measure. It appeared to him much more natural that it should be introduced as a Private Bill. There could be no technical objection to the scheme being carried out in a Private Bill; and, therefore, it was submitted to Parliament in a Private Bill. It had already passed through the House of Lords, and its sole object was to carry out an arrangement in regard to which, in the first instance, the Corporation had been extremely reluctant to negotiate. Ultimately, their objections were removed, and they had made what they considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. The only question now was whether the Government would be allowed to complete a negotiation which had been carried on for the last five or six years, and whether a Committee of the House of Commons should have the opportunity of considering the circumstances of the case, and expressing an opinion upon it. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had another Amendment on the Paper, in which he proposed, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, to refer it to a Special Committee, with special instructions to regulate their inquiry. He believed that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Corporation of the City of London had any objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend; and, on the whole, he (Sir Thomas Chambers) thought the best course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then to refer it to a Select Committee constituted in the way in which his hon. Friend suggested.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Recorder of the City of London had made a speech which no one in that House could take the slightest objection to. At all events, he (Mr. Rylands) did not intend to take the slightest objection to the statement made by his hon. and learned Friend. He entirely repudiated any disposition to charge the Corporation with anything in connection with the proposal before
    742
    the House which reflected upon the course they had pursued. So far as they were concerned, he quite admitted that the first movement in the matter was on the part of the Government. He remembered the debate which took place on the matter in 1871, and he had watched it narrowly over since. It was a most singular thing that outside the Government a certain amount of constant pressure—whether one right hon. Gentleman or another occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer or First Commissioner of Works—a constant pressure was put upon the Government, by somebody outside the Ministry, to induce them to take a step which, in the judgment of the House in 1871, and, certainly, in his (Mr. Rylands') judgment, was a step not only unjustifiable, but which would entail on the country a very large expenditure, without any corresponding benefits. He must say he entertained a strong feeling that the Bill which was now before the House ought not to have been introduced as a Private Bill, especially after what had occurred last Session and in previous Parliaments. It was a remarkable thing that a Bill, the effect of which was to reverse the deliberate decision of the House, should have been introduced in an unostentatious manner in the House of Lords as a Private Bill, and then brought down to the House of Commons without a word of explanation from the Government, seeing that it proposed to commit the country to a large expenditure which the House had already refused to sanction. He ventured to say that no hon. Member who was not conversant with the circumstances of the case would gain the slightest knowledge of the nature of the measure from a mere examination of the provisions of the Bill itself. When the matter was before the House on a former occasion, there was only a very partial and insufficient inquiry. The Committee reported in favour of the removal of the site of the Mint from Tower Hill to the Thames Embankment. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), whose absence from the House on account of ill-health they all regretted, took a prominent part in the debate which followed; and he was able, from his great knowledge of the subject, to adduce substantial reasons against the adoption of the Bill. The House divided against the Government, and rejected

    743
    the Bill by a majority. What happened then? The matter was settled as far as the House was concerned, and as far as the Government were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer then came into Office, and the same pressure was put upon him as was put upon his Predecessor to remove the site of the Mint. With his known good nature, the right hon. Gentleman was induced to give way, and negotiations were entered into with the Corporation of the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that he (Mr. Rylands) put a Question to him—he thought it was in 1879—asking him whether it was the fact that negotiations were going on between the Government and the Corporation with a view to obtain a site for the new Mint. He further asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would give an undertaking that the House should not be committed to the purchase of a new site without having an opportunity for fully discussing the question. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly told him that negotiations were going on, that they were not concluded, and that he would take care that the House should not be bound by the negotiations, or precluded from considering the whole matter. The House were now in this position. They were entitled to consider the whole matter; but they had certainly expected that no Bill would be brought in for dealing with it except a Public Bill, and on that ground he might have been prepared to vote against the present measure. At the same time, he had placed a proposal on the Paper for the appointment of a strong Committee, with a special Reference to such Committee, which would enable them to take the whole circumstances of the case into consideration, and to see whether or not it was desirable to remove the Mint from its present site, and whether an improvement to meet the necessities of the case could not be made upon the existing site. He thought that a strong Select Committee, with such an extended Reference, might be able to sift the matter thoroughly. He understood that the Government had no objection to his proposal; and he thought that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), in view of that proposition, might not feel disinclined to allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the distinct understand-
    744
    ing that a Committee with an extended Reference would be appointed.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he only wished to say a few words. No doubt, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had correctly stated what had transpired on the subject. At the same time, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished to state to the House what his position had been in the matter. It was one which had been constantly before him, and to which he had given very anxious attention, with every disposition to avoid the spending of the large sum of money which the operation was sure to cost. But he had the conviction entirely forced upon him that there really was a necessity, and a growing necessity, for a complete alteration of the Mint buildings; and, as far as he had been able to consider the question and investigate it, he did not believe that the alterations which were required could be carried into effect on the site of the present building. He meant by this that if they were able to shut up the Mint for a certain time and carry on the operations of the Mint some-where else, it was possible to re-construct the building on the present area. But if they could not do this, the inconvenience and loss to the public would be such that it almost seemed impossible to do what was necessary without obtaining a new site. There had been a great many difficulties in the way of getting a new site, arising principally from the prejudices of those to whom the proposed site belonged, or the persons who lived in the neighbourhood. That had been one of the difficulties in the way of the arrangement which had been proposed; but he hoped that they were now able to see their way to a satisfactory arrangement in the future. At the same time, he was not at all disposed to contest the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley, that it was reasonable there should be another inquiry. There had already been a formal inquiry before a Committee of the House; but he saw no objection to the appointment of another Committee if the Government entertained no objection to it. Therefore, the course now proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley appeared to him, on the whole, to be the most satisfactory one. The object they had in view was a public object of very great importance. At any moment the most serious inconvenience might arise in consequence of the break-

    745
    ing down of the existing machinery. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion that if the Bill was allowed to be read a second time, and was then referred to a Committee with some such instruction as that proposed by the hon. Member for Burnley, they might be able to see their way to a satisfactory solution of the difficulty.
    MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEfailed to see the force of the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the Bill ought to have been brought in as a Public Bill. It was a simple Bill for carrying out an arrangement for the sale of a portion of land belonging to the Corporation of the City of London to the Government, and the sale of another portion of land by the Government to the Corporation. As the learned Recorder for the City of London (Sir Thomas Chambers) had well stated, the arrangement was to be carried out for the convenience of the Government, and the Corporation of the City for a long time were unwilling sellers. It was only after strong pressure that the Government were persuaded to sell the Bankruptcy Court to the City, and that the Corporation were induced to sell to the Government the land which they held in their possession on the Thames Embankment. That, he contended, had nothing to do with the question whether it ought to be a Private or a Public Bill. No mention of the word "Mint" was contained in the Bill. It was simply a Bill to enable the Government to purchase a certain quantity of land from the Corporation; and, in order to enable them to build a new Mint, it would be necessary for the Government to bring in a fresh Bill, and obtain the sanction of the House to the arrangements for the erection of a new public Mint. So far as the Corporation were concerned, the Government might use the land for any other purpose. There was no limit in the conditions of sale, and no compulsion whatever. So far as the opposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) was concerned, it was quite sufficient for his hon. Friend that the Corporation proposed to sell anything or to buy anything. His hon. Friend was quite ready to oppose any object they might desire to carry out; and, no doubt, from his hon. Friend's great knowledge of the value of property in the City of London,
    746
    and particularly in Chelsea, his views upon the matter were worthy of consideration. The House, however, would bear in mind that the opinion of very eminent men had been consulted as to the value of this land, and that the Bill only carried into effect the award of the Arbitrator who had inquired into the whole question. If the views of his hon. Friend were to be adopted, the Government ought to have no dealings whatever with the Corporation of London, and all the property belonging to the Corporation ought to be kept fastened up until the hon. Member's views in regard to the establishment of a great Metropolitan Municipality were carried out. In the meantime, this particular portion of the property of the Corporation would have to remain an open space probably for the next 50 or 100 years. He believed that that was the real object of his hon. Friend, and he had no fault to find with it. If it amused his hon. Friend, it certainly did not injure the Corporation. With respect to the Bill, if it were sent to a Select Committee, the Committee would have all the merits placed before them. If the House should then decide that the Mint should not be removed from its present site, and that it should not be built upon the Thames Embankment, the Corporation of London would have nothing more to say in the matter. The only object of the Bill was to carry out the arrangement which had been entered into with Her Majesty's Government; and the question whether the Government were to carry out their present intention, and build a Mint upon the new site, would have to come before Parliament in a regular form after the arrangement with the Corporation was completed. When that was done, it would be for the Government to adduce arguments to satisfy the House as to the advantages which would arise from building the Mint on the Embankment.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHremarked, that there were various important questions involved in the present Bill. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had done good service in calling the attention of the House to the measure; but he could not agree with his hon. Friend that the Bill ought to be rejected because it was a Private Bill. If the Bill was rejected on that ground, it would

    747
    not determine the question whether or not a new Mint was to be erected on what was called the Thames Embankment site. If it did, then ho should be quite prepared to agree with his hon. Friend that the matter ought to be dealt with by a Public Bill. But even if the present Bill passed, the House would still have to consider and settle that question. The necessity for the measure arose from the fact that the Corporation of the City of London were the owners of a certain plot of land on the Thames Embankment, which the Government were anxious to obtain for public purposes, and they had no power to sell it without an Act of Parliament. The question whether a Mint was to be erected on the site would have to be decided when the House was asked to vote a sum of money for the cost of the building. The only question at present raised was whether the Corporation should have power to sell and the Government power to purchase. The House would always have another opportunity of passing a judgment upon the question of erecting a new Mint. He wished to explain now why it was that the Government felt themselves bound to support the Bill, and why they felt themselves bound to confirm the arrangement entered into by their Predecessors in Office with the Corporation of the City of London. They felt that it was absolutely necessary that one Government should adhere to the engagements, in matters of this kind, that were entered into by another, so that anyone who transacted business with one Government would know that the arrangements made would not be disturbed by another. Indeed, it would be absolutely impossible for Public Business to be conducted if each succeeding Government could release itself from the engagements entered into by its Predecessors. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the Government were bound to support the present Bill. But, while the Government were bound, the House was free; because, in the arrangement entered into by the late Government, there was a special Proviso that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to make it obligatory, and all the engagements were to be conditional on the obtaining of that Act. The House was, therefore, perfectly free in the matter, and, at the proper time,
    748
    would be able either to confirm or to reject the proposal for the erection of a new Mint on the Thames Embankment. He hoped, however, that the House would not refuse its assent without grave consideration; and he would venture to suggest a few reasons why the matter should be more fully considered than it was possible that it could be on this, the second reading, stage of the Bill, and why he hoped the Motion, which his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) intended to make after the Bill had been read a second time, would be accepted. The whole question was carefully considered by a Select Committee in 1870, and the Government of that day were fully impressed with the absolute necessity of a great improvement being made in the Mint buildings. The present Mint buildings were erected at the beginning of the century. The demands upon the Mint had, however, largely increased, and the present Mint was altogether unable to meet the demands that were made upon it. It was quite true that within the last few years the demands made upon the Mint had been much smaller than usual owing to various causes. But it was not likely that the demands upon the Mint would remain in that position much longer; and it was necessary, therefore, to make provision for meeting all the demands that were likely to be made upon it. In the year 1872 the demands which were made upon the Mint were such that the Mint was unable to fulfil them, and the Government were obliged to enter into contracts with private firms for assistance in the copper and silver coinage, and great inconvenience might have been the result. There was also another consideration which rendered it necessary that there should be an improvement in the existing buildings. The gold coinage, he was sorry to say, was by no means in a satisfactory condition. The proportion of light coin was very large, and it was absolutely essential that the whole question of the gold coinage must be taken in hand before very long. But it might and had been said by some of his hon. Friends that the requirements might be met on the present site, and that it was perfectly possible to improve the existing Mint. Now, that was not so easy a matter as might appear at first sight. It would by no means be easy to

    749
    extend the Mint while its operations were being carried on. In the first place, there were grave objections to the closing of the Mint for any lengthened period. The Mint was obliged to convert into coin all the bullion that was sent to it; and the closing of the Mint for six months or for a year could not, under ordinary circumstances, be safely undertaken. Then, again, the gold coinage was a very delicate operation. It required to be carried on with the greatest accuracy and nicety; and it would be impossible to conduct such a coinage amid all the turmoil and bustle of pulling down one part of the building and rebuilding another. Therefore he did not believe, under ordinary circumstances, that it would be possible to make extensive alterations in the present Mint. But, on the other hand, it was perfectly true that the circumstances had very greatly changed since the proposal for the erection of a new Mint was originally made by the present Lord Sherbrooke, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was then hoped that the Government would be able to obtain the site on the Thames Embankment for £80,000; its present value had been estimated at £254,000. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) said the present moment afforded a remarkably favourable opportunity for improving the present Mint. It so happened that the amount of gold coinage held by the Bank of England was larger than it had ever been. The amount of gold coin held by the Bank of England, under ordinary circumstances, varied from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000; but, at the present moment, it stood at £17,500,000. Under all these circumstances, it certainly appeared to him that the Mint question might advantageously undergo the careful consideration of a Select Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time, and that it would then refer it to the Select Committee which would be proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that after the observations which had been made by his noble Friend he would not press the Amendment. The object he had in moving it would be completely attained by the appointment of the Committee suggested by his hon. Friend the Mem-
    750
    ber for Burnley; and, on the understanding that that Committee would be appointed, he would now withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw the Amendment?
    MR. FIRTH: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee, to consist of Fifteen Members, Ten to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they consider and report upon the condition of the buildings, machinery, and appliances of the Royal Mint, and whether such alterations and improvements as may be required in them can be made upon the present site of the Royal Mint, or whether it is desirable that new buildings should be erected upon the site proposed to be sold by the Corporation of the City of London under the provisions of the London City Lands (Thames Embankment) Bill, or elsewhere.

    ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
    Copy presented,—of Scheme for the Organisation of the University as adopted by the Senate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  BARONIAL WORKS (IRELAND)—BALLYDEHOB, CO. CORK.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the pay clerk to the Baronial Works at Ballydehob, county Cork, is paid a salary of £4 per week; whether, being principal merchant of the barony, he supplies all the tools, wheelbarrows, picks, crowbars, &c., to the workmen employed on the Baronial Works; whether the amount of wages paid to seine of the labourers is not frequently as low as 9s. and 4s. per week; whether the payments of wages to labourers are not frequently paid in an irregular manner, so as practically to bring about the truck system, inasmuch as the labourers have to deal with the clerk for provisions, &c.; and, whether the labourers at Cappaglass, Dirrindnord, and Dirriconnell, within about two miles of Bally-

  751
  dehob, after being at work during five weeks, had only received two payments of wages in that time—one payment being made on the 27th February and the other on the 2nd March, both payments being thus made in the same week?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find, on inquiry, that the division to which the Question refers is not comprised in the jurisdiction alluded to. As far as the rate of salary paid is concerned, I find that for similar services the Board of Works do not pay more than from 25 s. to 30 s. per week; but I do not know that the committee in this case cannot, if they choose, sanction the payment of a higher scale. It is the duty of the county surveyor and the standing committee to attend to these matters. It is open to all persons aggrieved to make complaints to the Board of Works or the Irish Executive, and in the event of their so doing such complaints will be fully inquired into.

  MALTA—SALARY OF THE GOVERNOR— FOOD TAXES.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give any practical effect to such portion of Sir Penrose Julyan's Report in regard to Malta, as recommended, that some considerable portion of the salary of His Excellency the Governor should be charged upon Imperial resources in consideration of Military services; and also as regards his recommendation that the existing exemption at present enjoyed by the British garrison from the whole of the food taxation, borne by the Maltese, should no longer form a source of profit to the Imperial Exchequer at the cost of the Native inhabitants, who require to make good the deficiency?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government has no intention of making alterations either in the arrangements with respect to the Governor's salary or the supply of the garrison.

  CORONERS (IRELAND)—ELECTION IN WEXFORD COUNTY.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is the case that in the elections for coroner in Wexford county, the Parliamentary electors
  752
  of the Boroughs of Wexford and New Ross (who pay much of the rates towards his salary) have no voice; and, whether the same disability exists in boroughs in any other Irish county; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to amend the Law on the subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The right, Sir, to vote at the election of a Coroner in Ireland is vested by statute in those residents in the district who are entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the county; and as the county franchise is much higher than the borough franchise, it follows that borough electors, merely as such, cannot at Wexford or elsewhere vote at the election of a Coroner. With regard to the last Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that this matter is connected with the question of Irish county government, which the Government has under its consideration.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 61— ARMENIA.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Governments of the other Great Powers, have considered, or will consider, the desirability, as the most efficacious, if not the only practical, mode of giving effect to the Sixty-first Article of the Treaty of Berlin, of trying to obtain for Armenia an administration similar to that which has worked so satisfactorily in the Lebanon?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I have stated on a former occasion, it has been considered advisable to postpone discussion on reforms in Armenia until the settlement of the Greek Frontier Question. When the proper time arrives Her Majesty's Government will be ready to consider any proposal that appears likely to bring about an improvement in the condition of the Armenian subjects of the Sultan.

ARMY—REGIMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHwho had given Notice of a Question to the Secretary of State for War as to whether he will take into consideration the effect the proposed changes, as detailed at page 7 in the Memorandum lately issued on Regimental Organization, will

753
have on the prospects of the senior captains in the Line who, under the existing Regulations, would in a short time become mounted majors? said, he would not put the Question in the form in which he had put it on the Paper, but would ask whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the scheme before it was finally adopted?
MR. CHILDERS: I am glad my noble Friend has not put the Question of which he has given Notice, inasmuch as it is extremely intricate and involved. In asking that he will communicate with me personally, may I say that when, after the Recess, the Army Votes come on, there will be ample opportunity for discussing the questions which he wished to raise?

STATE OF IRELAND—THE CONSTABULARY.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. DAWSON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following occurrences:—On Sunday, 20th March last, the Sub-Inspector of Police at Carlow, having drawn the attention of Constable Colter to the fact of a chimney being on fire, the constable on going to the House said "Oh! it is only a Land Leaguer's chimney," and on second thoughts said "Perhaps though we had better rap them up;" and, if he is unaware of these circumstances, whether he would cause them to be inquired into?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: My attention has not been called to the matter, except by the Notice of the hon. Member, whose absence I regret; because I should like to tell him that, in my view, the occurrence is not one which ought to be made the subject of a Question in this House, or ought to occupy its time.

NAVY—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
ADMIRAL SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether corporal punishment has recently been inflicted, with the approval of the Board, on three mutineers on board Her Majesty's Prison Ship "Liffey;" and, in case the Naval Discipline Bill should become Law, what punishment will be substituted in like cases? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked, Whether it is intended to make provi-
754
sion in the Naval Discipline Act Amendment Bill, for the corporal punishment of boys in Her Majesty's Navy, with birch or other instrument?
MR.TREVELYAN: The Board has been advised that the punishment inflicted on the three men on board Her Majesty's ship Liffey was in accordance with existing law and regulations; and, accordingly, it was not disapproved by the Board when reported to them from Coquimbo. The Naval Discipline Amendment Bill does not alter the power which the Board of Admiralty at present possesses to lay down rules for the discipline of naval prisons. Boys are punished under the regulations for minor punishments which the Board of Admiralty is empowered to lay down by Section 52 of the Naval Discipline Act; and we are advised that they will continue to be punished under those regulations if the Amending Bill becomes law in the shape in which it is presented to Parliament. There is certainly a much stronger legislative sanction for these punishments than for the flogging at Eton and Harrow.

ARMY—THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of his entertaining favourably the proposition of the honourable and gallant Member for North Leicester to add two battalions to the brigade of Guards, he will grant to these new battalions an Irish designation?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that should two battalions be added to the Foot Guards his suggestion would be considered; but I have no present intention to increase the strength of the Guards.

LICENSING (METROPOLIS).
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consider the propriety of recommending to the Government to introduce a measure transferring to some administration responsible to the Government and to the Country, the power to grant licences for the sale of spirituous liquors and for the opening of music halls and other places of amusements in the immense area now under the jurisdiction of the "Middlesex ma-

755
gistrates," a body appointed by an individual, and responsible alone to the Lord Chancellor in case of proved malfeasance?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say that the Government have it in contemplation to deprive the Middlesex magistrates of their present jurisdiction as far as the granting of licences is concerned.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW SCHEME—MAJORS OF ROYAL ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS.
MR. CARINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, What will be the conditions under which Majors of the Royal Artillery and of the Royal Engineers who were promoted to that rank before October 1, 1877, will be compulsorily retired?
MR. CHILDERS: As there has been a good deal of misapprehension on this subject, I will at once say that Majors of the Artillery and Engineers appointed before October 1, 1877, will be retired at 50. The seven years' rule does not now apply, nor is it intended to make it applicable to them.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PAT RICK DOWNEY.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state whether Patrick Downey, of Castletown Bere, who was previously arrested and brought for trial before the magistrates on the charge for which he was subsequently arrested under the Coercion Act, was afforded any opportunity of giving evidence in his own defence at the Petty Sessions Court; and, if not, whether he will now give the prisoner this opportunity of clearing himself of the charge?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: In answer to a previous Question put to me on this subject, I stated this was one of the cases in which a person was arrested on suspicion and dismissed, in the belief that it would be impossible to obtain evidence against him owing to the state of the country. He has since been arrested under the Protection Act. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that it is not the intention of the Government to treat this prisoner differently to other pri-
756
soners. He will be treated under precisely the same rules as other prisoners confined under the same Act.
MR. HEALY: Will he not be allowed an opportunity of clearing himself of the charge?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Like other prisoners confined under this Act, he will have an opportunity at the end of three months of having his case considered.
MR. HEALYalso asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in laying upon the Table of the House the statutable particulars as to the men arrested under the Coercion Act, he will cause to be added thereto a statement showing how many of the prisoners are town councillors, poor law guardians, and students of the learned professions, with the walk or condition in life in each case, and, if farmers, how many acres of land they hold?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think it my duty to add to the Returns anything beyond that which is set forth in the Act which has been passed.

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE IN CHANCERY (IRELAND).
MR. FINDLATERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the report of the case of Williams v. White, in a recent number of the "Irish Times" newspaper, from which it appears that a solicitor having ascertained from a clerk in the Accountant General's Office of the Court of Chancery, who innocently made the disclosure that a sum of £8,000 was lying there unclaimed, communicated with the parties interested and obtained from them a third of the fund as the price of giving information of its existence; and to inquire, having regard to the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, in which he says—
"He hoped that this was the last occasion on which either in casual conversation or by design any such communication would be made, and he also hoped that some steps would be taken to compel the publication of the accounts remaining derelict in the Accountant General's Office. This must be done by legislation as the Judges had not the power to do it. This case furnished a reason why such a thing should be done. It was monstrous for a solicitor of the Court of Chancery to trade on the Accountant General's Books;"
and, whether it is the intention of the

757
Government to bring in a Bill to effectuate the recommendation of his Lordship, or to take steps by periodical publication "of the accounts remaining derelict," to prevent the recurrence of so grave a scandal?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes, Sir; I have seen the report of the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, and hope, during the Recess, to make inquiry into the matters referred to by the learned Judge with a view to consider the propriety of some legislation on the subject.

SCIENCE AND ART—THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
ADMIRAL SIR JOHN HAYasked the Vice President of the Council, When the Geological Surveys of England, Scotland, and Ireland will be completed?
MR. MUNDELLA: I regret that I am not in possession of the requisite data to enable me to fix a time for the completion of the Geological Survey. We have carefully gone into the Question; and, not being satisfied with the present rate of progress, we are making arrangements which we hope will hasten the completion of the work. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will repeat the Question later in the Session I trust I shall be in a position to give him more precise information; at any rate, I will make a statement in moving the Estimates.

ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS—WARRANT OF 1880.
MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a strong feeling of dissatisfaction exists amongst certain Quartermasters with regard to their classification, who consider that their being placed in the subordinate section makes a distinction between the officers who rise from the ranks and others, and which they regard as a caste brand; and, whether he will place those who by ability and efficiency have shown themselves worthy of such promotion in the superior section, or altogether abolish the distinction between superior and subordinate?
MR. CHILDERS: I am fully aware of the objections which have been raised to the words "subordinate section" used in a former Warrant, for which I am
758
not responsible; and the amendment of that Warrant, issued in January, 1880, will be considered when other pressing matters have been disposed of.

CHINA—MIXED COURT OF SHANGHAI —CHINESE CRIMINALS.
MR. J. W. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to lay upon the Table of the House, a Return of the number of Chinese criminals who have been tried at the Mixed Court of Shanghai during 1879, and the nature of the punishments inflicted upon those who have been convicted; and, whether any Report on the nature of the punishments inflicted by that Court has been received from Sir Thomas Wade, as expected by him in July last year; and, if so, whether he will lay that Report upon the Table?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Return of Chinese criminals tried before the Mixed Courts at Shanghai has not been received; but a Report on the nature of the punishments inflicted by that Court has been transmitted by Sir Thomas Wade, and will be laid on the Table.

NAVY—COURT MARTIAL AT SYDNEY —CASE OF C. P. STAMP—H.M.S. "WOLVERINE."
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to a court martial held on board H.M.S. "Wolverine" on the 20th December last, when a chief petty officer was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment; whether Captain Purvis, of H.M.S. "Danae," sat as President of the Court after he had been objected to, on the ground that he had, in reply to a memorial from the petty officers of his ship, stated his intention of doing all he could against the accused; whether the proceedings of this and of two other courts martial held on board the same vessel have been severely criticized in the Sydney press; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any action in the matter?
MR. TREVELYAN: I replied at length some six weeks ago to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) about the court martial of the Wolverine. My hon. Friend will find the details in

759
Hansard of the 22nd of February. The prisoner has not yet arrived in England; but when he has arrived, his case will be considered. Captain Purvis sat as President; but no objection was made to his acting, and the prisoner pleaded guilty. Nothing is known as to the Memorial from the petty officers, nor as to the proceedings of this or any other court martial having been criticized by the Sydney Press. The fact is that the courts martial on the station have not been exceptionally numerous, and most certainly their sentences, which have been carefully examined at the Admiralty, have not been exceptionally severe. The last court martial on the Wolverine was held on a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery, who, when on shore for rifle practice, got drunk, knocked off the helmet of his superior officer, and kicked it along the road, resisted the escort which was sent to arrest him, tried to jump overboard from the boat, and, when rebuked by the lieutenant in command, said—well, I had rather not tell the House what that gunner said—and for all this, the man only got 14 days' imprisonment. I must say that if Her Majesty's Government took any action in the matter it would not be to the advantage of the gunner.

NAVY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, When he anticipates being able to send the "Inflexible" to sea; and if, when commissioned, she will have the whole of her turret guns on board; whether any are to be breech, or if all are to be muzzle-loading guns; and, further, if he will be good enough to state how many men she will carry, distinguishing between Naval and Marine officers, engineers, firemen, seamen, and Marines?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Inflexible could be sent to sea in a fortnight; but the ship will not require to be commissioned for the Mediterranean until July. All her turret guns are on board. She has eight 20-pounder breech-loaders; but her 80-ton turret guns are muzzleloaders. Being twice the size of any guns hitherto mounted in our Navy, the number of seamen gunners requires so much consideration that the details of the complement are not yet decided.
760
There will be a Marine officer on board, if that is what my hon. Friend wishes to know.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—DISQUALIFICATION FOR CORRUPT PRACTICES.
MR. RYLANDSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the disqualifications attaching to candidates and others found guilty of corrupt practices by the report of an election judge also apply to the same persons scheduled by a Royal Commission; and, whether candidates, aldermen, and magistrates found guilty at Macclesfield and other Boroughs will be rendered incapable of sitting in Parliament, voting, &c. for seven years?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): There are certain disqualifications attaching to candidates in consequence of being reported personally guilty of bribery by an Election Judge. These disqualifications are imposed by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 43; but no disqualification of any kind attaches to any person so reported other than a candidate except the prohibition of his employment as an election agent during seven years. The reason for this is to be found in the wording of the 45th section of the Act I have mentioned, which says—
"Any person other than a candidate found guilty in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard,"
shall be subjected to certain disqualifications. It has been determined by Lord Blackburn, in the decision given by him in the Bewdley Petition case—and it seems to me quite correctly determined—that a person giving evidence upon the hearing of an Election Petition has not had "an opportunity of being heard" in the legal sense, and that, therefore, unless tried and convicted before a jury the disqualifications do not attach. The same rule applies with greater force in relation to the Reports of Commissioners; for even candidates are subjected to no penalties or disqualifications in consequence of being reported by Commissioners as personally guilty of bribery. The result is that unless persons be prosecuted and convicted, which they cannot be in the face of a certificate of indemnity, no consequences of any kind result directly

761
to anyone from being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Commissioners. As I mentioned on Friday, the Lord Chancellor has, of his own motion, taken, and is taking, steps in relation to magistrates who have been reported guilty of corrupt practices, and it rests with Parliament to determine what disqualification it will impose when Bills for that purpose are presented to it. The necessity for considering whether further disqualification than the usual one of mere removal from the register by statute should not be imposed becomes apparent when we know that in five Reports 20 Magistrates, 12 Aldermen, and 47 Town Councillors are found to be guilty of corrupt practices.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL COMMISSION—CONDITIONS OF PEACE.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, before finally entrusting the Government of the Transvaal, and the future welfare and liberty of its large native population to the Boers, he will instruct the Commissioners appointed to settle the conditions of peace to ascertain by plébiscite the wishes of the majority of its people; and if the surrender of the Transvaal, without some such precaution, to a fighting minority would be a fulfilment of the "honourable engagements entered into with the natives" to which he referred on the 25th of May last as a reason for maintaining the annexation, the original policy of which he condemned?
MR. GLADSTONE: It has never been the practice, as far as I know, of the British Government to adopt a plébiscite upon occasions bearing any analogy to the present. There would have been an occasion when the Ionian Islands were surrendered, which would certainly have offered a much easier, better, and more certain opportunity for the application of such a principle; but it was not adopted, and I think was not recommended by anyone. The present occasion, in the view of the Government, would be a very suitable one for attempting to bring into notice the principle of promiscuous popular voting partly among the Boors and partly among the Native population of the Transvaal. With respect to the Question of which the hon. Member has
762
given me private Notice, I certainly am of opinion that the methods which we are engaged in adopting, and which, of course, are not quite fully before the House, are those by which we shall be able most satisfactorily to discharge our engagements to the Native population.

TURKEY—BRITISH TRADE AT SMYRNA.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If arrangements have yet been made to restore to the commercial community of Smyrna the 100 pies of harbour frontage free of quay dues which was reserved to them in the concession granted by the Porte to the Smyrna Quay Company; and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to protect the interests of British trade at Smyrna?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have protested against the closing of the 100 pies at Smyrna in contravention of formal engagements entered into by the Porte; and they have called upon the Turkish Government to restore the space thus arbitrarily closed. Mr. Goschen, since his return to Constantinople, has addressed a further Note to the Porte, to which we hear by telegraph to-day that a reply has just been received. The Correspondence will shortly be laid before Parliament.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— QUESTIONS—PRINTING REPLIES.
MR. LEAKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the time occupied by Members of the Government in answering questions put by Members of the House, and also of the considerable difficulty of hearing many of the replies given, it would be possible, at the discretion of Ministers giving such replies, to print them and put them in the hands of Members at the commencement of the sitting of the House; and, whether he would consider, if such a practice were adopted, it might be sufficient for an honourable Member, on his name being called by Mr. Speaker, to rise in his place in silent recognition that his question had been duly answered?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot be surprised at the feeling which has induced my hon. Friend to put this Ques-

763
tion; but, on the whole, I do not think that his object would be promoted by my giving an answer in detail to it at the present moment. It appears to me that some general consideration might very appropriately be given to some of the Rules affecting the putting of Questions in this House; and probably a result of that general consideration might be arrived at which would give satisfaction to my hon. Friend.

ARMY—THE ROYAL ENGINEERS (EXTRA PAY).
MR. LEAKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the men of the Royal Engineers who were engaged in the Zulu War have been refused working pay in addition to their Regimental pay, and whether they do not receive such pay when peacefully employed on works at home; whether they have been refused a gratuity for service in the field to which, according to precedents, they would seem to have been entitled; whether time-sheets or checks of the time during which the men were engaged on active operations in the field were not kept by their commanding officers and forwarded to head-quarters; and, if so, if he could state the purpose for which they were so kept and forwarded; and, whether the officers of the Royal Engineers who were engaged in the Zulu War have received working pay and a gratuity for service in the field in addition to their Regimental pay; and, if so, if he could explain why rewards granted to the officers should be withheld from the men?
MR. CHILDERS: The men of the Royal Engineers engaged in the Zulu War did not receive working pay, which is only given to soldiers, whether of the Royal Engineers or of other arms, when employed upon permanent military works; or when performing services for the various Army Departments. It is not given to them on ordinary military duty including the ordinary services required of them during a campaign. This has always been the rule in the Army. Neither officers nor men become entitled to any gratuity for service in the field in the Zulu War; unless, indeed, allusion is made to an allowance of £1 which has been made to each soldier on account of damage to clothing. I have no knowledge of the time sheets to which my hon. Friend's third Ques-
764
tion refers. If they exist, it is a matter of internal arrangement of which the War Office has no information. The officers of Royal Engineers received the extra pay to which they have always been entitled under the Warrant when employed on the duties of their corps, but no gratuity or working pay. In fact, the payments to officers and men of the Royal Engineers during the Zulu War—except the allowance of £1 to the men—have been those uniformly allowed for many years.

BRITISH BURMAH—CONSUMPTION OF OPIUM.
MR. J. W. PEASEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Copy of a Memorandum on the Consumption of Opium, forwarded in the spring of 1880 by C. U. Aitchison, Esq., Commissioner of British Burmah, to the Government of India; whether he is in possession of any information as to the action taken by the Government with regard to the Opium Houses in that Province consequent upon the recommendations contained in that Memorandum; and, whether he can lay that Paper, and any others connected with this subject, upon the Table of the House?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, I have received a copy of that Memorandum, and there will be no difficulty in laying it upon the Table if the hon. Member will move for it. The increase of the consumption of opium in British Burmah has been for some time under the consideration of the Government of India, with the view of checking it.

TUNIS—DISTURBANCES ON THE FRONTIER.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any report has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Tunis, relative to the alleged outbreak on the Tunisian frontier; and, if so, whether he can communicate such information to the House?
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to a Protocol of the Sublime Ottoman Porto of the 28th of July, 1868, which explicitly declares all foreigners pos-

765
sessing real property throughout all the Turkish Dominion to be subject to the local Courts and local laws, even where all parties interested are foreigners; whether Her Majesty's Government has always recognized the Regency of Tunis as an integral part of the Ottoman Empire; and, if Her Majesty's Government officially congratulated the Bey in 1871 on his obtaining from the Sultan a firman ratifying and confirming that position; whether this Protocol has been laid before the Law Officers of the Crown with the Papers on the Enfida case, and if they have arrived at any decision; and, if Her Majesty's Government will now lay the Papers upon the Table?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have received no Report as to the disturbances on the Tunisian Frontier. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wareham, I may state that the Protocol in question has been referred to the Law Officers, whose Report has not yet been received. Tunis has always been recognized as a vassal State; but it possesses the right of self-government, and of concluding with foreign Powers Treaties not of a political or military character. The case has not yet reached a point at which Papers can with advantage be laid before the House.

ARMY—NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is not usual to allow non-commissioned officers of good conduct and exemplary character to remain in the Army after the full period of twenty-one years' service if they wish to remain; and, whether commanding officers of regiments have any authority to discharge such non-commissioned officers so long as they are able and willing to serve?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that all non-commissioned officers who express a desire to continue in the Service after the full period of 21 years, and whose applications are approved by the competent military authorities, are usually allowed to remain in the Army, under Section 82 of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1879. Should a non-commissioned officer not express such a
766
desire, his discharge is proceeded with on the completion of his term of service. But should he express such a wish, it rests with the competent military authorities to approve, his commanding officer being bound to forward his application to the War Office.

TURKEY AND GREECE—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any authority besides that of Mr. Kirby Green for his statement that five-sevenths of the population in the districts proposed by the Berlin Conference to be ceded to Greece are Greek; and, whether he will, following the example of the French Foreign Minister, M. Barthelmy St. Hilaire, publicly, with or without the concert of Europe, advise Greece to moderate her excessive demands?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The information to which the hon. Member refers was not received from Mr. Kirby Green, to whose Reports, however, both Her Majesty's late and present Governments have attached great value, but from officers who have visited the country in question, and derived their information from statistics gathered on the spot. With regard to the second portion of the hon. Member's Question, I cannot state in detail what is the course that is being taken by the Powers at the present time.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— VIOLATION OF THE ARMISTICE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a severe engagement has taken place at Pretoria since the Armistice, and whether the Government intend to take any notice of this act on the part of the Boers, as well as of their conduct at Brunker's Spruit and at Potchefstroom; whether the Government have received information confirming the statement in the "Times" and other papers that the gravest discontent at the terms of peace prevailed among British Colonists, that the British Flag has been insulted, that the Colonists propose to continue the struggle themselves, and that loyal Dutch and British settlers in the Transvaal are being persecuted and driven

767
from the country; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to maintain the honour and influence of Great Britain in South Africa, or whether they will allow the loyal Dutch and British residents in the Transvaal the same privilege that they gave to the "friendly" inhabitants of Candahar, viz. that of retiring with the retreating British garrisons out of the country altogether?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to say that, under the authority of Her Majesty's Government, the Commission will consider what acts which may have been done at Potchefstroom or elsewhere are covered, and what are not covered, by the amnesty. In reply to the hon. Member's second Question, I have to say "No." In reply to his third Question, I have simply to say that Her Majesty's Government has maintained, is maintaining, and will maintain the influence of Great Britain in South Africa.
LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the case, as reported by telegrams to the "Standard" published on the 2nd instant, that the Boer leaders have not observed, or are powerless to compel the observance of, the agreement to the effect that there should be "no molestation for political opinion on either side," and that many who were loyal to the late Government are now flying from the country in consequence of the gross violation of the agreement; and, if so, whether the Government will represent to the Boer leaders that such a state of things, if allowed to continue, will render the Treaty ratified on the 23rd of March no longer binding on the Crown?
MR. GRANT DUFF: I will first reply to my noble Friend's second Question. I think it would be most undesirable to say, on a hypothetical case, what it might or might not be proper to do if the Boer leaders did something which we have no evidence they have done—the more especially as it is my duty to reply to the first Question of my noble Friend by saying that we have no information confirmatory of the statement therein contained. Of course, in a disturbed country it is perfectly possible that violent things may happen; and it will be the duty of the Commission to
768
review all such things, if brought before them, before a final settlement is arrived at.

STATE OF IRELAND—SPEECH OF MR. DILLON, M.P., AT THURLES.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the reports of the speech of the honourable Member for Tipperary at Thurles, in the "Freeman's Journal" and "Nation" newspapers of the 2nd instant, where he is reported to have said as follows:—
"One farm empty and turned into a commonage—and there were more than one in Tipperary to-day—had more effect in bringing the landlords to terms than all the talk on all the platforms in Tipperary. He warned them to keep up that system—to let the land-grabber know that, no matter what Mr. Justice Fitzgerald or Lord Justice Fitzgibbon might say, he would be Boycotted, and Boycotted worse than ever he was before coercion. The moment it went out that the people are afraid to Boycott the land-grabber, that moment they would see the rents go up again, and the land-grabber at his work. (Hear, hear.) He was happy to say that in Tipperary no man had taken a farm from which another had been evicted since he came into the country;"
And, whether, having regard to the previous speeches of the honourable Member at Borrisokane and Woodford of the same tendency and effect, he proposes to take any action in reference thereto?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Report furnished to the Irish Executive by the Government reporter is substantially the same as that mentioned by the hon. Baronet, although it does not contain the words alluded to in the report quoted in the House a day or two ago by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). As to what action the Government intended to take in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary, I do not think it is for the public interest that Questions should be asked, the answers to which must fetter the Government in the fulfilment of its duty—the preservation of law and order in Ireland. I must, therefore, respectfully decline to answer the Question.

NAVY—THE MARINES.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the

769
case that, whilst the promotion of the Subalterns of the Royal Marines is admittedly very slow, and behind that of the average of other branches of the Service, two Lieutenant Colonels have been passed over for command of Divisions of Royal Marines, and yet allowed to remain serving under officers who formerly were their juniors; and that one of these superseded officers has months ago applied for retirement; and, whether he has taken the case into his consideration?
MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that two lieutenant colonels have been passed over for the command of divisions of the Marines; but I cannot help thinking that it is a pity to call attention to the fact in Parliament, as, where promotion by selection exists, the choice of one officer for promotion is no reflection upon another. Since the Order in Council of 1878, the command of divisions hi the Marines is given, "without reference to seniority, to officers whose services and qualifications best justify their selection." One of the lieutenant colonels, some months ago, applied, not to retire, but to know what retiring allowance he would receive in case he retired.

PUBLIC HEALTH—PUTRID AMERICAN HAMS.
MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has seen that at the Guildhall Police Court on Friday last, Alderman W. Lawrence ordered six casks, containing 200 putrid American hams, weighing about 18 cwt., to be destroyed, which had been exposed for sale in the Central Meat Market; and, whether he is prepared to recommend that communication should be made with the American authorities with the view to their taking some steps to prevent similar exportations?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, as far as he was able to gather the particulars of this case from the Question of the hon. Member, it appeared that the existing law was sufficient for the protection of the consumer. He had no information whether the hams referred to by the hon. Member were obtained from America in a bad state, or whether they became putrid in this country. If the latter, of course no restriction upon exportation would have any effect; and if the former, he was of opinion the action
770
of the consignee would be more influential upon the consignor than anything Her Majesty's Government could do.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.
MR. MONKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it will be in his power to introduce the proposed Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy before the Easter Recess?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he was extremely anxious to be able to introduce the Bill before Easter, in order that its provisions might be considered by the House and the country during the Recess. He was afraid that would only be possible if the House would be willing, as he hoped it might be, to take a Morning Sitting on Friday. If that should be the pleasure of the House, then it would be necessary formally to make a Motion for the introduction of the Bill on Thursday night. That would be made without debate; the Motion would be adjourned, and then it would become the Order of the Day on Friday morning.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since the Compensation for Disturbance Bill and the Royal Commission refer to many Irish rents as excessive, the Government will bring in a short Bill to suspend evictions, or will refuse to lend the assistance of the military and the police to the landlords, with a view of avoiding further effusion of blood?
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask, in reference to that unfortunate affray near Ballaghadereen, county of Mayo, Whether it is true that the number of wounded is not two, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, but something between 20 and 30; whether it is true that the process-server fired and reloaded his revolver several times; and, whether the object of the crowd originally was to get possession of the ejectment processes; and, whether the tenants on the estate were all miserably poor, and all of them, up to September last, were in receipt of relief?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the House will see that it is utterly impossible for me to answer such a Question

771
as that without any Notice whatever. The hon. Member did not even give me private Notice. How is it possible for me, simply sitting here, to know the exact position of these tenants? Of course, I should have to send to Ireland to obtain it. I wonder the hon. Member did not, at least, give me private Notice of the Question. With regard to the circumstances of the collision, if the House does not object to my repeating what I stated yesterday, I must reiterate the statement that the attack was made upon four police going in company with the process-server, before they reached the place in which there was a considerable body of police for the purpose of protecting the process-server in serving the processes. But at the time of the affray there were only four policemen present. With regard to the Question which the hon. Member has put down on the Paper, it would be very difficult for me to answer fully without anticipating what we might expect on the immediate discussion upon the Land Bill of the Government, and especially without anticipating the Statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With regard to whether the Government intend to bring in a short Bill to suspend evictions, it is not the intention of the Government to do so. If they were to do so, it could only be by displacing the Land Bill for a long time, in all probability putting off the power of being able to bring that Bill before the House. As regards the second part of the Question, which the hon. Member words in this manner—Whether the Government
"Will refuse to lend the assistance of the military and the police to the landlords, with a view of avoiding further effusion of blood?"
I suppose the hon. Member means whether we would give directions to the constabulary and the military not to assist the officers of the law in the recovery of rent or debts by legal process. The Government have not the power of doing that; and if they had the power of doing that, they could not do it without an entire disappearance a law in any district in which it was done.

THE LEGACY AND PROBATE DUTIES.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him
772
private Notice, with respect to a statement in his Budget Speech of last night, which appears not to have been properly understood. I refer to the statement with regard to the proposal as to the Legacy and the Probate Duties. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly state How he arrives at the net result that £390,000 will be gained on the Probate Duty; also what the Probate Duty would have produced if it had been left alone, and what it will produce as altered? I would also put the same Question as to the Legacy Duty.
MR. GLADSTONEthanked the right lion. Gentleman for giving him the opportunity of answering the Question, as evidently, probably owing to his own fault, what he had said had not been correctly understood. The Probate Duty, according to the Estimate, if it had been left alone, would have produced £3,100,000 for the year. As it was, it would produce, not for the year, but for the 10 months with the two additional months, £3,613,000, or an augmentation of £513,000. The Legacy Duty, if left alone, would have produced £3,650,000. With the alteration in operation for 10 months, it was estimated it would produce for the year £3,525,000. The result was a gain on the Probate Duty of £513,000, and a loss upon Legacy Duty of £125,000, leaving a net gain of £388,000, or, in round numbers, £390,000. That, he thought, was exactly the information which was desired, and it would be understood that the date on which they expected to bring the new system into operation was the 1st June. He might have mentioned that the gain upon Probate Duty would have been much larger than he had represented; but he had taken the net gain after deducting £400,000 on account of debts, and likewise £30,000 which represented the loss upon small estates.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL COMMISSION—THE INSTRUCTIONS.
SIR STAFFORD NORTFICOTE: I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister with regard to the Instructions to be given to the Commissioners in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would consult with the Colonial Secretary as to laying these Instructions on the Table. Is the Prime Minister able to toll us now, Whether we

773
are likely to have these Instructions before us previous to the Recess?
MR. GLADSTONE: I mentioned the other day that the Instructions could not yet be laid before the House, and the Question was asked whether it would not be practicable to lay a portion of them upon the Table. I have considered the matter with my noble Friend, and we find that the Instructions so completely form a whole, and being now only on the way to the Commissioners, we could not make any separation between them. To produce them at the present time would be disadvantageous to the Public Service.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked, Whether the Government would produce before Easter any despatches which might have been received from Sir Evelyn Wood?
MR. GLADSTONEhoped before then that the Government might be in possession of despatches which could be laid before the House; but they could not now speak positively on the subject.

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
In reply to Viscount FOLKESTONE and Mr. HENEAGE,
MR. DODSONsaid, that it was proposed, with the consent of the House, to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and he should not feel justified in departing from the intention which he had expressed of bringing the measure forward on the first opportunity. He could not promise not to take the second reading before Easter.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS,
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The House is aware that the Land Law (Ireland) Bill is to be introduced on Thursday. May I ask what other Business will then be taken, and what Business it is proposed to take on Friday morning? Is the Bankruptcy Bill to be brought forward on Friday, and is it intended to have an Evening Sitting on Friday?
MR. GLADSTONE: On Thursday the Land Law (Ireland) Bill will be brought on, as is well known, and in case, as is quite possible, the discussion upon it does not occupy the whole evening—indeed, I rather conjecture that Gentlemen would wish to see the Bill in print before entering on its discussion—there will
774
be time available for my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to propose the second reading of his Bill (the Rivers Conservancy Bill). As to Friday, a tentative answer was given by the President of the Board of Trade to the Question put to him with a view to gather the general inclination of the House. Supposing the general inclination of the House should be to have a Morning Sitting on Friday, then the proposal would be to bring in the Bankruptcy Bill to-morrow or on Thursday evening, taking the usual stage without discussion, and then to read the Bill a second time on Friday. [Murmurs.]
I beg pardon, I did not intend to pledge the House to the principle of the Bill; but the discussion on the second reading might be begun on Friday, and the debate could be adjourned. Of course, a Morning Sitting on Friday would also entail an Evening Sitting; but that would be at the discretion of the House.

ELECTIONS TN FOREIGN COUNTRIES— CORRUPT PRACTICES AND THE BALLOT.
MR.CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will extend the official inquiries as to election expenses in foreign countries which he has promised to the hon. Member for Galway so as to include information concerning corrupt election practices and the working of the ballot in those countries?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It will give me great pleasure to comply with the valuable suggestion of my right hon. Friend with regard to information as to corrupt practices in elections abroad; but I am unwilling to add to the trouble which the proposed Circular will cause to Her Majesty's Representatives by asking for particulars as to the working of the ballot.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to bring under the notice of the House the unsatisfactory manner in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had answered Questions with respect to affairs in Ireland addressed to him recently by Members of the Irish Party. He said he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman that evening, which was one of

  775
  several he had been obliged to address to him last week, and his answers were so utterly unsatisfactory that he must take this opportunity of bringing the matter before the House, and, in order to put himself in Order, he should conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry to take this form of bringing his statement before the House; but he had no other course left open to him after the answers given to his Questions. He had reason to find fault with the general tone of the answers of the right hon. Gentleman to those Questions. The whole tendency of the language of the right hon. Gentleman had been to minimize, as far as possible, every act brought before him. For the purposes of his answers, he had derived his information from the police; while the information on which the Questions addressed to him were based was derived from local sources of a more reliable character. He might instance a case which he brought under the notice of the House the other day in reference to evictions on the Mountbellow estate. He then stated that an old man, the father of one of the persons about to be evicted, had his death occasioned by the action of the bailiffs and police; and the right hon. Gentleman got up and immediately stated that the old man knew nothing about the transaction—that he was kept in perfect ignorance of it before his death. Now, how did the right hon. Gentleman know that? The only means of ascertaining it he had was by the police report, which he accepted as thoroughly bonâ fide, and gave to the House as if he were acquainted with the facts himself. Since he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked the Question he had received information from Mr. John Kennedy, Secretary of the Land League branch in Mountbellow, a gentleman who lived in the district, and who knew all the circumstances, and he stated that the excitement caused by the entry of a force of police with a notorious rascal of a process-server into the house in which the old man lived undoubtedly accelerated his death. He only gave that as one of the many cases in which the right hon. Gentleman had taken the statement of the police as gospel, and had endeavoured to minimize the evictions brought under his notice as much as possible. Whenever he ventured to call his attention to the number of ejectment pro-
  776
  cesses served, the uniform answer of the right hon. Gentleman had been that these processes were rarely pushed to the final extremity. In fact, the general tone of his remarks was that, if there were any arrears of rent, it was because the large majority of the Irish tenants were what was called rent malingerers. He had two telegrams from the Land League in Dublin which would bring to the mind of the House some idea of the evictions going on in Ireland at the present moment. Yesterday he received a telegram stating that, during the last week, 150 writs, 500 ejectments, and 500 civil bills had been reported; and that morning he had received a telegram from his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), stating that over 100 threatened evictions were reported to the office that morning. From all parts of the country the information in the hands of the Irish Members was exactly the same. He appealed to his hon. Friends of the Irish Party on the opposite side of the House if their information was not the same as his—namely, that in all parts of the country the landlords were serving notices of ejectment as fast as they could, in order to drive out as many of their tenants as possible before the passing of the Land Bill. He had quoted a few, relatively speaking, of the number of ejectment cases brought under the notice of the Land League; but they by no means represented all the cases. In several parts of the country where the Land League did not exist, and where ejectments were more numerous in consequence, they were never reported to the public at all. His hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary wrote to him that in other cases notice of the writs did not reach the League for 10 days after their service. That was the state of things going on all over the country; and when he ventured to bring it under the notice of the Chief Secretary, the whole effort of the right hon. Gentleman was to delude the House, and especially his own Party, with the belief that these statements were so exaggerated that, practically, no evictions were going on at all. He had the honour of addressing a meeting which was largely attended by his Orange fellow-countrymen in Enniskillen a few days ago, and from Orangemen, speaking from an Orange platform, he heard the statement that the land-

  777
  lords in that district were serving notices as they had never done before. According, he might add, to another telegram which he had received, 13 families had been evicted in Mayo, in circumstances the description of which would, he thought, shock any human being. In The Freeman's Journal of the previous day he found a heartrending description of an eviction scene at Westport and Newport, where the police in large numbers assisted the Sheriff and bailiffs. In one case the unfortunate man evicted was the father of 11 children, one of whom was ill with fever, and it was only by the humanity of the Sheriff that the poor girl was not sacrificed in order to carry out the details of the law enforced by English police and soldiers, and supported by the taxes of the English people. The right hon. Gentleman that evening, when he asked him whether he was going to suspend evictions, said it would take too much time to pass a Bill of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman had known his duty to his Party and the traditions of his Party, if he had known his duty to the Irish tenants, he would have passed a Bill for the suspension of ejectments long ago. When the Compensation for Disturbance Bill came down last year, if he had taken the course of an English Minister worthy of the best Liberal traditions, he would have sent it up again and forced it down their Lordships' throats. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to change the attitude of his mind on the subject of the condition of Ireland in exact accordance with Party and Ministerial exigency. He minimized the result and extent of the evictions now, and by-and-bye, when it was necessary, he would maximize them. That was not an honest or straightforward course for a Minister of the Crown to pursue. He ought to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances. Some time ago a gentleman whom he knew, Mr. Patrick J. Sheridan, went and found the poor evicted tenants taking refuge from the inclement weather under the bushes. He went to Dundalk and made a speech on those unfortunate victims of oppression, and, no doubt, moved the hearts of his hearers. On the Wednesday or Thursday following that Mr. Sheridan was within the walls of Kilmainham Gaol. Thus the man, because he was generous, and Christian, and patriotic,
  778
  and took compassion on the poor creatures, was ordered by a Liberal Lord Lieutenant and a Liberal Chief Secretary to remain in prison. He had no hesitation in saying that the warrant under which Mr. Sheridan had been imprisoned was one of the most scandalous and shameful documents that had over emanated from a Liberal Government. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be quite another person from the man who stood up in the House of Commons 12 months ago, and spoke so feelingly of the sufferings of the Irish tenants. It would seem as if he had since thrown himself into the hands of their worst enemies. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that they must wait for the Land Bill of the First Lord of the Treasury. He would willingly wait for it, if he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would recognize the importance of the struggle that was going on. But every indication was against that likelihood; and in the meantime property was being confiscated and lives lost, and by the time the Land Bill became law what would become of these poor creatures? The Chief Secretary had begun to maximize evictions the moment the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was rejected, and had continued to do so up to the present time. But there was another document besides the evictions Returns, which threw a strong light on the situation. The published Returns as to emigration showed that in the year 1880 there sailed from the Irish shores 95,857, or nearly 100,000 peasants out of a population of 5,000,000, an increase of 100 per cent on the previous year, and the largest number for the last 26 years. Since 1851 to the end of 1880 there was a total of emigrants from Ireland of 2,631,187, or upwards of 2,500,000, of the people who were expatriated by the land system; and still the cry was wait for the providence of a Liberal Administration! The Chief Secretary said he could not bring in a Bill to stop ejectments, and he said he could not refuse to give the aid of the military and the police in order to carry out the law. But the right hon. Gentleman said on one occasion, if he remembered rightly, that if he found landlords carrying out a harsh, stringent law, in a harsh and unjust manner, he would cease to be the executor of the harsh and unjust law. Were they not carrying out the law now

  779
  in a harsh and unjust manner? If the right hon. Gentleman's conscience reproached him for being the instrument of turning dying people out of their homes, why did he not refuse to be the executor of legislation which sanctioned such a proceeding? What were they going to do with regard to the people who were being evicted? They were going to bring in a Land Bill; but, supposing it was the best Bill in the world, what would become of the people who were being turned out? What good would the Land Bill be to the 100,000 emigrants and to the 5,000 evicted persons? Were they going to take the last farthing for rent which they themselves had declared unjust? He found it was the opinion of the Committee, presided over by Lord Bessborough, that rent had been increased since the last Land Act to an excessive degree; and in the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission the opinion was given that there were serious abuses owing to the arbitrary increase of rents. That was the statement of the Conservative majority; while the opinion of the Liberal minority was that there was strong evidence that rents had been raised to an exorbitant degree. Would the Government aid unjust landlords to exact such rents? If rents were not excessive, what was the meaning of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill? It was brought in because bad years had rendered ordinary rents excessive, and to save the tenants who could not pay them from being driven from their homes. Well, the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was thrown out, and had the position of the tenants improved? They were still under what had been described from the Treasury Bench as a sentence of starvation, and 5,000 of' them had undergone that sentence by being evicted. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he would find the passage reported in The Times of the 6th of July—
  "The act of God and the failure of the crops had placed the Irish occupier in the same position in which he stood before the Land Act. Because he was deprived of his usual means he had to undergo eviction, and in consequence of eviction starvation. The occupier might regard a sentence of eviction as coming very near to a sentence of starvation."
  Ireland in 1879 and 1880 was very near to the sentence of starvation; and yet right hon. Gentlemen sat on the Trea-
  780
  sury Bench without moving hand or foot in order to save the people from that sentence of starvation. He was at a loss to understand how the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues could reconcile such a position to the most elementary dictates of an honest conscience. In the case of the debates on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill they had from the Treasury Bench the most picturesque accounts of the misery in Ireland. He remembered the Chief Secretary for Ireland quoting from his friend, Mr. Tuke, an excellent passage, in which the Irish tenant clinging to the soil was compared to a sailor on the beam clinging to the last raft. What had become of the sailor clinging to the raft now? What had become of the picture of misery drawn by the right hon. Gentleman last year? The Treasury Bench were in this dilemma. Their language was either mere rhetorical flourish, meant to gain a petty victory in the course of debate, or, as he was sure was the case, it was sincere and genuine. If it was sincere and genuine, how could they now leave these people to perish? Ministers were either sincere or insincere. If, as he believed, they were sincere, then they stood condemned by their own utterances. The right hon. Gentleman, last night, in the course of his speech made a remarkable statement. He said that his Financial Account showed an addition of £55,000 under the head of Irish Constabulary. That was a statement he could not have made with satisfaction. It showed a state of things which a responsible Minister ought not to allow the existence of for a day. Ireland was now in a state of siege. The liberties of the people had been taken away. Hon. Members below the Gangway assented to the passing of the Coercion Bill in the belief that it was necessary for the protection of life and property. Would they have assented to it, if they knew that it would be used to enable landlords to exact exorbitant rents, and others to clear their estates? Yet, that was what the Coercion Bill was being used for. They were putting into prison honest and respectable citizens like his friend, Mr. Walsh, a man of respectable position, who had gained the confidence of his townsmen in municipal matters. That was the use to which the Bill was being put; and the right hon. Gentle-

  781
  man the Chief Secretary had always evaded the question whether the men now in prison were the village ruffians, the village tyrants, and the mauvais sujets who he had so eloquently described in his speeches. He would ask hon. Members below the Gangway who voted for the Coercion Bill against their better judgment if, when they gave their votes, they thought that the Act would be used to put into prison honest men who were endeavouring to better the condition of their fellow-countrymen? Was it not the contention of the Government that only scoundrels and miscreants would be imprisoned? The question of eviction had been pressed on the attention of the Government by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who sought to get a claim inserted in the Coercion Bill for the protection of life and property of the Irish tenants as well as of the Irish landlords. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had endeavoured, in various ways, to get some statement from the Government with regard to their intentions. His hon. Friend the Member for County Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) moved an Amendment on the Address asking the Government to establish some sort of armistice between the parties until the Government had signed the treaty of peace. What was his reward? The Prime Minister, in that ungracious manner which, I am sorry to say, he has more than once shown to numbers of Irish Members, using all the vast resources of his rhetoric, replied to the hon. Member for County Longford on mere points of form and order, and never said a word about the real question at issue—whether he would allow force to be used in order to carry out sentences of starvation against the Irish tenantry? The Irish Members had done everything possible to bring this question forward, and the only answers they got had been the minimizing answers of the Chief Secretary, or the oratorical flourishes of the First Lord of the Treasury. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be sorry to say that he altogether approved of his action or of his words with regard to the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chief Secretary respecting the affair in Sligo; but the hon. Member for Tipperary was only
  782
  expressing the bitterness which at that moment was in the hearts of the Irish people with regard to the action taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Tipperary said that the blood which had been shed in Sligo would be on the heads of the two right hon. Gentlemen. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could not accept that view; but the right hon. Gentlemen themselves would be sorry if their tenure of Office should be associated with bringing to the minds of the Irish people a conviction of that kind. But if the right hon. Gentlemen did not interfere in some way to stop the wholesale evictions going on in Ireland, they would be responsible, before impartial history, for the blood that would be undoubtedly shed in Ireland. By no single word or action would he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) do anything that might tend to increase the excitement now in Ireland; but he must say that he was not at all surprised that when those poor people were fighting for their very existence, for their homes, for the lives of themselves, their wives and children, when they found themselves deserted by all, even by a Liberal and friendly Administration, it was no wonder that they fell into a sort of madness, and that such scenes as took place in Sligo occurred. If such crimes were there committed the responsibility rested, not upon the people, who were maddened by misery, but on the Government, which having omnipotence to deal with their grievances—and the present Government was omnipotent to deal with them if only it would use the strength that lay behind it in the House and in the country—failed to deal with them. He wished to conclude with what he thought was a practical suggestion. No measure of Land Reform, no matter how comprehensive, would be of the smallest use to the vast mass of the Irish tenants at the present moment unless it was of a retrospective character. If they allowed the landlords to destroy all this interesting soil which the legislation of 1870 was meant to give, and the intended legislation of 1880 to enlarge—if they allowed landlords to exact rents, the exorbitances of which was now admitted both by Conservatives and Liberals, such legislation would not be of the smallest use to the large majority of the Irish tenants. If they did not attach to the measure some provisions

  783
  dealing with the deeper evils, the legislation would be of no avail. Their coercion might succeed, but their remedial legislation would fail; and if there was to be peace it would be a peace of solicitude, and if there was to be order it would be order of a kind, and would not much commend itself to a wise Government. The hon. Member concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
  THE O'GORMAN MAHONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The remarks of the hon. Member will show to the House how impossible it is for me or for any Member of the Government to follow him into the discussion which he seems to wish to bring before the House. In his closing remarks he made statements with regard to the Land Bill which is to be brought in the day after to-morrow. He asked me in the course of his speech a question with regard to the Land Bill. He must be perfectly aware that nothing would be more contrary to custom, precedent, or convenience than for me to attempt to answer such a question, or to make any remarks this evening having reference in any way to the tenour or meaning of the Land Bill to be brought in the day after to-morrow. I suppose he really wished to show to the House and to the persons outside what the Land Bill ought to be; but he cannot expect that we should make a sort of partial statement of this measure in consequence of his Motion of adjournment to-night. He has made one or two remarks with regard to evictions in Ireland at present, and in the early part of his speech he thought fit to allude to my own conduct—[Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!]—and he stated that I had minimized this year what I had stated last year, and that he thought it would have been a more honest and straightforward course if I had spoken the truth in these matters. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I would wish the hon. Member, or any hon. Member, to bring forward a single statement in which I have minimized or maximized—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said I should be very sorry to attribute untruth to the right hon. Gentleman. I said his endeavour was to minimize
  784
  them, and that is a question of colouring. I denied all intention of saying anything offensive of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is quite true the hon. Gentleman said he did not mean to be offensive; but, almost immediately afterwards, he said it was better to speak the truth. I am very glad the hon. Member is not aware he used those words, because I suppose, therefore, he did not mean to use them. But when I am told it would be better for me to have taken an honest and straightforward course, I challenge hon. Members to show where, throughout these serious matters, I have in the slightest degree deviated from the truth. He said I attempted to minimize the number of evictions directly after the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was thrown out, and then he brought forward this extraordinary proof that the number of evictions were 5,000 and the number of caretakers were 5,000. The hon. Member must be aware that the evictions enormously diminished from the very time he said I began to minimize them, and I was correct in stating that evictions were diminishing. He said I had minimized them during this year. Well, the evictions in January were 43. I suppose I may have stated that fact; if so, it was no minimizing, but simply stating the precise fact. In February they were 92; and I am now very sorry to have to state—but it is quite as well I should have the opportunity of giving the information I only received this morning—that they are increasing and have increased. In March they were 215; but I defy the hon. Member to show that I have ever attempted to minimize them. I look upon evictions with the greatest possible anxiety. The hon. Member said my uniform answer had been that they were not pushed to extremities. I have given that answer once, and I should like him to prove that I have given it more than once. I gave it in answer to one particular question, and in answer to that particular question, I believe it was true. What we have to deal with is a much more important matter. It is not a question whether evictions have been minimized; but an important fact is that they are increasing, and it is one the Government are looking at with the greatest possible and anxious attention.

  785
  The hon. Member made allusions to our responsibilities. We are well aware of them; but we are not the only persons who have responsibilities. He made an allusion to the remark of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). I am sorry the hon. Member made that remark. He may have said things of me, and me of him; but I think he will regret having made the remark. [A HOME RULER: No, no!] I might know that the hon. Member who cries "No!" would not regret it. I do not think he would. The hon. Member for Tipperary said the responsibility for the murder of the two men rested on the Prime Minister and myself. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] Well, what happened was this. The four policemen were escorting a process-server along the high road. A mob attacked the five men, and in self-defence one of them had to fire, and was almost immediately knocked down and so injured that he can hardly live. In what way we can be held to be responsible for that matter I cannot imagine. The hon. Member said these men were going to serve processes to recover unjust rents. Is there not also this fact—that a great many persons have been told in Ireland not to pay rent, and that there have been refusals to pay rent? [Mr. HEALY: Unjust rents.] Yes, unjust rents; and a great many of the poor people to whom that is said think any rent unjust; and we know for a certain fact that since these recommendations have been given there have been wholesale refusals to pay rents which were fair and reasonable. For the bad state of affairs in Ireland, if there be one set of people more responsible than another, it is the set who have advised the people to take that course; but we cannot forget that there is a great deal of misery in this matter all round. I have not had time to inquire into this particular case, and therefore I will make no further reference to it; but I will say that many landlords and other persons have been reduced by these refusals of rent to the greatest poverty and want. These are the facts—the sorrowful, miserable, and disturbing facts—with regard to land tenure in Ireland with which we have to deal. They are the facts, amongst others, that have made us determine to make the Land measure for Ireland the great measure of the Session—they are the facts that
  786
  have made us anxious to bring in the Land Bill long before we have been able to do so; and if we had had the same assistance that has been given by hon. Members below the Gangway for the last two or three weeks earlier in the Session, we should have been able to have brought the Bill on before this. We are in hopes our measure will introduce a different state of things in Ireland. We look upon the matter of evictions with the greatest possible anxiety; but the House will not for a moment expect me to make any statement anticipatory of what we should do on Thursday.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYdesired to say a word or two in justification of the course which had been taken by his hon. Friend near him, in endeavouring to call the attention of the House to the serious condition of things that now existed in Ireland. There was great truth in the hon. Member's remark that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had changed his attitude towards the Irish tenants during the last few months. Until the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was rejected in "another place," the right hon. Gentleman had figured as the tenant farmer's friend; but since then he had come forward as the advocate of the landlord's rights, and upon every possible occasion had spoken in a spirit of hostility to the tenant. The hon. Member, therefore, was quite justified in saying that there had been a complete change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was now disposed to minimize, as far as possible, the tenant's claims. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his anxiety to have the Land Bill brought in without delay, and had stated that if Irish Members had exercised throughout the Session the reticence they had shown during the last two or three weeks, that Bill might have been introduced long ago. What he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and his hon. Friends complained of was that the Land Bill was not introduced at the beginning of the Session. The Chief Secretary for Ireland evidently thought they should have observed a graceful reticence in order that he and his Colleagues might hurry through their most unnecessary and wanton Coercion Bill, simply because they had a promise that when that was done the Government would turn their attention to remedial legis-

  787
  lation. But it was the paramount duty of Irish Members to resist coercive measures, and in so doing they considered themselves perfectly guiltless. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a picture of a process-server being attacked as he was going along the high road guarded by several policemen in the discharge of his duty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that they were protecting him in the discharge of his duty. What I said was, that they were walking by his side along the high road.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he would take it they were promenading the high road; but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that the business of the process-server was necessarily and inevitably hateful to the people of Ireland. The duty he was called upon to discharge was one which struck terror into the heart of every tenant and peasant in Ireland. The appearance of the process-server was regarded as a visible sentence of expulsion or an embodied sentence of starvation by the people he went amongst. The Government, by carrying out their unjust and tyrannical decrees, had figured before the population of Ireland as the friends of the landlords and their tyrannical machinery. When it came into Office, the Government was almost omnipotent; it had a majority loyal almost to the depths of servility; and were the Government now going to say that they had no way of interfering between these extreme evictions and the people with whom they dealt so heavily? The Government had not done their duty; almost every attempt made to prevent the oppression in Ireland was met in a minimizing tone, and often in an indignant manner, as if to point out the Irish Representatives as people who merited the hatred and contempt of this House and of all proper persons. He had no hesitation in saying that the Government had, by their attitude, language, and policy last Session, done all they could to foment this very agitation all over Ireland of the tenants against the landlords. They acted, no doubt, with the best intentions; but their action, their language, their attitude did tend to excite fond hopes in the hearts of the Irish people; then, when it served their turn, they held off from their former attitude, denounced the
  788
  very agitation they themselves had set going, and charged the movers in the agitation with being criminals, and they brought in a Coercion Bill which repressed by force that very land move-merit which they themselves had encouraged and fostered and brought to such a crisis. On this ground, he thought the Representatives of Ireland were entitled to complain of Her Majesty's Government; and his hon. Friend was well warranted in calling the attention of the House, before they broke up for the Holidays, to the serious nature of the crisis now going on. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would do all in his power to support him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me a course unworthy of a Party who think they have such crimes and misdemeanours to charge against Her Majesty's Government to make a statement of these charges upon a Motion for the adjournment of the House. If these are the conscientious convictions they entertain, it is their duty to put forward these conscientious convictions in some tangible form in which they can be met and grappled with—in which those who advance the charges and who are cheered by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock can be confuted, and the opinion of the House, if necessary, taken upon them. What says the hon. Gentleman who last sat down? He says that in the last Session of Parliament we fomented the agitation in Ireland against the landlords. What proof does the hon. Member adduce of that fact? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The Compensation for Disturbance Bill.] Compensation for Disturbance Bill? Does the hon. Gentleman, whom the noble Lord cheers, say that that Bill fomented agitation? If so, then the hon. Gentleman and his solitary cheerer must part company. The hon. Gentleman will not say that that Bill was calculated to foment agitation against the landlords. On the contrary, we know, by the very frank confession of those who act with the hon. Member, that if that Bill had passed it would have very materially put down that agitation; and it was with the intention of putting down that agitation that we introduced it. I do not say that that was the sole intention with which we introduced it; but, at all events, it was introduced in the interests of peace and order in Ire-

  789
  land, and those interests, we believe, would have been fully secured had that Bill happily become law. I must say, in answer to the hon. Member for Longford, that from him and from his Friends we got very little assistance in passing that Bill. Whether it was because they thought it fomented agitation or not I cannot tell; but I must say that it would have been very hard for an impartial observer to make out, in the course which they pursued, whether they desired that Bill to pass or not. However, having first of all abstained from giving any efficient assistance to that Bill by which we sought to afford relief to distress, and still more to afford support to public order, the hon. Gentleman now says we did it to foment agitation against the landlords—a charge which, in the first place, is totally without foundation, and a charge which he himself has not ventured or attempted to adduce one syllable of proof in support.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I did not charge the Government with bringing in that Bill to foment agitation; but I said that by their attitude and speeches they aroused strong hopes and passions in the Irish people, and so fomented agitation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It amounts to the same thing. But the hon. Gentleman ought to have shown what he meant by our attitude, and how our attitude fomented agitation. It is easy for any man, under cover of words so vague and unintelligible, to make any charge whatever; and I might say, if I thought fit, that the hon. Member, by his attitude, is doing anything I please to impute. If it is from our speeches that the agitation is said to have proceeded, the hon. Member ought to show from our speeches what language it was that we used which tended to foment agitation in Ireland. But he has not done so. Without having done that, what did he say? First of all, that we fomented agitation, and then, he says, as soon as it served our turn, we turned round upon the promoters of that agitation which we had fomented. Why, Sir, how did it serve our turn? We never turned round at all. We pursued one and the same course all along. But, even supposing it could be shown that the course which we have taken in proposing measures for the security of life and property in Ireland was at variance
  790
  with what we had said and done before, how did it serve our turn? Does the hon. Member really think we had a political object to serve in proposing these measures on which we have spent nearly three months of the present Session? Is he so blind; is he so incapable of observing what passes under his eyes; is he so without the faculty of comprehending—I am sure he is not without the faculty of comprehending that and a great deal more—the political position as not to know that with the views with which this Government took Office, with the views they entertain of addressing themselves to useful legislation, nothing could so ill serve the turn of the present Government as to spend three or four months of this Session upon the coercive task which it has been our duty to undertake? It served our turn to set ourselves against this agitation I really do not recollect what was the next charge which the hon. Member compressed into the short speech which he has delivered, and in which he contrived to concentrate as much of unfounded accusation as I have almost ever heard delivered by any Member of this House in an equally small number of minutes. But, Sir, the hon. Member behind him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has spoken of my ungracious and discourteous manner in conducting these controversies. I have only to say in reply to that charge that if, upon any occasion, any excess of language or any defect of courtesy can be pointed out to me by that hon. Member, or by any other of those with whom he acts, I shall respectfully submit myself to the rebuke, and endeavour to repair the wrong. It may be perfectly true, for aught I know, that my manner has not always been gracious in the conduct, so far as it devolved upon me, of these controversies; but this I must say—that I have exercised much self-repression to keep my language within the bounds to which it has been confined. I shall continue to do so. I have felt how great mischief any man does, and especially how great mischief is done by any man in Office, who needlessly mixes his own excited feelings, or his own private or political purposes, with the grave and serious questions now depending between England and Ireland. We have allowed ourselves to be torn from the purposes which we most cherished upon taking

  791
  Office, in order to apply, what we thought, needful remedies to the momentary and immediate wants of Ireland, and upon that work we have spent the first half of the Session. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] We are now going to make an effort to deal with the sorest of the social wants and grievances of Ireland; and never in my knowledge—I will not say what the character of that effort will be, I will not prophesy its success—but I will say that never in my knowledge, extending over my whole life, has a Government, at any rate, bestowed greater care, labour, and anxiety in the consideration of the proposals which we shall have to submit to the House. I am quite prepared, after the speech of the hon. Member, to hear that we have done all this to serve our turn. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] That is the sort of reception I am taught to expect by the kind of sentiment that the hon. Member (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) has delivered to-night. Sir, that reception of our measure will have no effect whatever upon us. We shall endeavour, as we have endeavoured in the past, to maintain the principles of public law and order, and to apply to the rooted evils of the country those searching remedies which justice and policy alike demand at our hands.
  MR. PARNELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has attributed motives to the hon. Member for Longford which the hon. Gentleman did not entertain in the delivery of his speech. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Galway has performed an exceedingly useful function in making inquiry from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant as to the possible character of the proposed land legislation of the Government. It is true the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant advanced a technical point when he deprecated answering such a question before the introduction of the Land Bill; but the House will recollect that the Land Bill which is about to be introduced the day after to-morrow cannot be discussed on that evening. In the first place, it will not be printed, and, in the second place, anything like a general discussion at that stage of the measure would simply result in the postponement of its introduction until after the Easter Recess. It follows, then, that some three weeks must elapse before we
  792
  are to have an opportunity of laying the point to which my hon. Friend has directed the attention of Parliament before the House of Commons, and during these three weeks immense—enormous—damage may be done in Ireland and very great suffering inflicted, owing to the possible want of consideration of this point by the Government; and, therefore, I think the Irish Members would not have been doing their duty if they had allowed the House of Commons to separate before the Easter Recess without putting this matter before the Government and drawing their most earnest attention to it. Nay, more, notwithstanding the excited manner of the speech of the Prime Minister, I do trust that between now and the introduction of that Bill the Government will give serious attention to the point which has been urged by my hon. Friend as to the retrospective nature of their legislation. I think that, to a great extent, Ireland is entitled to have some consideration for the throwing out of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last Session. I am not one of those who consider that that Compensation for Disturbance Bill would have been of very much value in Ireland. Of course, regard to its passage through the House was criticized by the Prime Minister, and he said they did not receive much assistance from the Irish Members during its passage. Well, I can recall the House to the fact that while the Bill remained in its original condition the Irish Members did all they reasonably could be expected to do for the purpose of assisting the Government in its passage by voting for the second reading and by remaining silent. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has told us this evening that the Irish Members can best assist Government by remaining silent, and more particularly with regard to land legislation. I will only say we anticipated this advice during the earliest stages of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and that we assisted the second reading of that measure by our silence and by our votes; and it was only when the Government appeared to us to depart from their original intention with regard to the measure that we felt bound to protest and walked out of the House in a body without voting. But how does the matter stand? I think that the Irish tenants who have been ejected

  793
  since the Government have come into Office are entitled to whatever protection the land legislation of the Government may give them, because the tenants are not ejected in Ireland if they are able to pay their rents. I know, as a fact, that even notwithstanding land legislation, that tenants in Ireland at the present moment do not submit to ejectment if they can by any possibility scrape together the means of paying their rents. Those tenants are ejected who have no stock for sale by the State, and the value of the interests in their farms is of no use. If tenants have stock to sell the landlords will sell it by a forced sale in preference to ejecting them; and if the tenant is paying a reasonable rent the landlord will sell out the interest of that tenant in order to obtain payment of that rent rather than eject him for non-payment of rent. Two hundred and fifteen tenants have been evicted during the month of March, the month succeeding your Bill for protection of Person and Property; 215 families, numbering altogether over 1,000 souls; and taking that for the average during the year, 12,000 persons would be ejected during the coming year if this average is maintained; and I say these persons are tenants, almost without exception, who are unable, either from poverty or rack-renting, to pay the rents demanded of them; and why should not these persons have the protection of the intended legislation of the Government if their rents are high, too high? If their rents are too high, why should they suffer simply because the Government failed in passing their Bill of last Session owing to the action of the House of Lords? Surely that is giving a premium to similar action in future; and surely the Government will consider the matter, and will see the very grave importance of the question which my hon. Friend has brought under its attention. As to the right of the Irish tenants to retrospective protection, I may, perhaps, be told that the tenants have six mewls to redeem their holdings after being ejected; but it is very little use for a tenant to be allowed to redeem his holding after his house has been levelled to the ground, and more especially when it is impossible for him to pay the rent. These rents for which the tenants are ejected are rack-rents; and if your land legislation is to be of any use at all, it will have to be
  794
  such as will enable tenants in such circumstances to obtain a reduction of such rents. If your land legislation is to be of any use to rack-rented tenants in Ireland, it ought to enable them to place themselves in that position which would render it impossible for the landlords to evict them, as they are doing at the present moment. If the Government had intended a month ago to introduce a Bill having a retrospective character like the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, what could have been more easy for them than to have announced that fact, which would have at once prevented the bad landlords from pressing their eviction suits against their tenants, because they would have known that if they persevered they would have to come under the penalties, if penalties are to to be provided in the proposed legislation of the Government? On the other hand, it would have tended materially to smooth matters as regards the action of tenants. The tenants would have known that they were going to receive some protection in the proposed legislation of the Government, and would not have been driven in their despair forcibly to resist the serving of processes. They would have submitted more peaceably and tranquilly to the enforcement of the law, and we would not have such scenes as, unhappily, occurred the other day in the county of Sligo. I admit it is exceedingly inconvenient to raise a question of this kind on a Motion to adjourn the House. I do not wish to make any charge against Her Majesty's Government; I wish to hold my opinion as to the proposed legislation of the Government in suspense until I see the provisions of the Bill before the House. But I think we have a right to draw the attention of the Government to this matter before they introduce the Bill; because I often see that when a strong Government introduces a good measure they do not like to entertain representations afterwards; and I trust that what we have said to-night may bear fruit, and that if the Government had not intended that the legislation should be retrospective, that they will give the matter their most careful consideration within the next few days, with a view of seeing whether they can satisfy the justice of the case by leaving the 12,000 persons who were evicted last year without the protection which they propose to

  795
  afford to the tenants in future, and by leaving those 215 families who were evicted during the month of March without the protection of the proposed Land Bill.
  MR. HEALY, referring to a Resolution which had been passed in the House, declaring that the serious condition of the West of Ireland deserved the attention of the Government, said, that the Resolution was passed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, so far as he was concerned, allowed the Resolution to remain a dead letter. The Chief Secretary, when he assented to the Resolution, must surely have had some intention of doing something with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman had charged Members connected with the Land League in Ireland with a great deal of responsibility in connection with the present evictions. He would read to the House the words of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), another Member of the Government, as to what the action of himself and his fellow-Members had been in Ireland. It was quite true that they told the tenants not to pay unjust rents. He (Mr. Healy) himself had told some of the poor people in a remote part of the County Cork (Castletown-Berehaven) not to pay any rent at all, and he was prepared to reiterate that advice. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a publication of a statement made by Mr. Courtney with regard to Mr. Parnell and his followers, in which he stated that he could find no fault with Mr. Parnell in the policy which he had adopted, except in so far as he was not sufficiently explicit in his meaning, and he could not charge him with any attempt to mislead.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ought to have known that, rather than submit to ejectment, the unfortunate tenants would be only too glad to pay their rents, no matter what they told them, and no matter whether they were just or unjust, if they could only scrape the money together. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the evictions had increased from 92 in February to 215 in March. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would put the blame of that, not upon the Protection of Person and Property Bill, but upon the advice
  796
  given by the Land League to the Irish tenants before Christmas. That was another of the advantages the Government had in having a Chief Secretary in Office who did his duty by closeting himself up in Dublin Castle whenever he visited Ireland, instead of taking steps personally to see what the wants of the Irish farmers were. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister would go into the distressed districts of Ireland and see for themselves the extreme misery and destitution in which the people lived in their wretched hovels, eight or ten persons being huddled together in one room, with such domestic animals as they might possess, and often having only one meal of Indian corn per day, they would then better understand the stand which the Irish Members were making on behalf of those poor tenants who were being driven from their homes. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, in the previous Session, that if he had to administer injustice he would leave the Treasury Bench; but though he acknowledged that the law of disturbance was unjust, and though he had administered injustice since, he had not left the Treasury Bench. Not only did he do his best to resist every attempt made to keep the people in their homes, but he had caused an addition of £55,000 to be made to the cost of maintaining police, presumably for the purpose of additional weapons and machinery for the carrying out of evictions. He (Mr. Healy) was happy to be able to state that the odious duties which had been thrown on the police by the right hon. Gentleman's Government had caused numerous resignations; and in physique and general character the police force was greatly altered since the duty of driving the unfortunate people from their homes had been cast on them. The right hon. Gentleman had blamed his hon. Friend for bringing forward this Motion in an irregular manner; but he seemed to forget that the course pursued by the Government left no other course open to the hon. Member for Galway, who was perfectly justified in seizing upon the first opportunity of defending the homes and property of his countrymen from the destruction which the Government policy permitted and encouraged.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought that the indignation which had been exhibited by the Goverment that evening was

  797
  quite misplaced. The good which might be found in the promised Land Bill was one thing; but the protection of the existing tenants in Ireland was quite another. If a good Land Bill were passed, all the tenants who might still be in possession of their holdings would, for all future time, be protected from non-payment of exorbitant rents; but at the present moment, from inability to pay exorbitant rents, there were thousands of the Irish tenants liable to eviction. He held it to be an error of policy on the part of the Government to be always repeating the parrot cry that they were only executing the present law in Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. Every single Member of the Government having left the House, there are not 40 Members present.
  House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Charitable Trusts Act Amendment* (59); Stolen Goods* (60); Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) (61); Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* (62); Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* (63).
Second Reading—Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) (53).

LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S DEPARTMENT —EGRESS FROM THEATRES (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Chamberlain a
690
Question, of which he had given him private Notice. Very alarming accounts had of late appeared in the newspapers with regard to the means of egress from the London theatres and other places of amusement. Would the Lord Chamberlain state whether those assertions were correct?
THE EARL OF KENMAREsaid, he was much obliged to the noble Duke for having called attention to the subject. The statements he had seen were much exaggerated. There must always be considerable danger when any large numbers of persons were congregated together within a building; but the London theatres were better provided with the means of escape than most other public buildings, and he was glad to say were being constantly improved. Perhaps the best answer which he could give to his noble Friend would be to lay on the Table a Return showing the actual state of things at the present time with regard to the exits from the theatres licensed by him.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the first time, said, he proposed that their Lordships should sit to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, for the purpose of reading the Bill a second time. Their Lordships could go into Committee on the Bill on Thursday, and the discussion might be taken on going into Committee on that day. If that course were agreed to, he would move the third reading of the Bill on Friday.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a; to be printed.(No. 61.)

SEA FISHERIES (CLAM AND BAIT BEDS) BILL.—(No. 53.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was intended to enable the Board of Trade to give protection to clam and bait beds in the same manner as to oyster and mussel beds under the Sea Fisheries Act of 1868. It had been found, especially in Scotland, that the

691
fishermen on the coast constantly discovered that the banks on which they relied to find their clams and baits had been trawled over and spoilt, so that their means of livelihood were liable to be suddenly put an end to. This had of late years much increased, in consequence of the use of steam trawlers. Of course, there was always considerable contention going on between the rival classes of fishermen; and the Board of Trade, though they had no desire to interfere to protect one industry more than another, thought it important that the hook-and-line fishermen should have their baits protected under certain conditions from beam trawls, as oyster beds now were. The Bill did not apply to Ireland, where there were already more extensive powers, and it was proposed in Committee to omit the Channel islands.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW SCHEME.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ABINGER, in rising to call the attention of the House to the scheme of Army Organization submitted to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War, together with the various Reports and Papers now on the Table of the House referred to in the said scheme, said, that the Papers which had been laid on the Table and were contained in the Blue Book had evidently been compiled with much care and labour. Many most competent witnesses had been examined before the Commission appointed to inquire into the question; and, though the Commission had not come unanimously to their conclusions, the House had sufficient means of forming a correct opinion. The first, and perhaps the most important, question was the length of service—a matter with respect to which it was to be feared that we might run from one extreme to the other, and that we might sacrifice, to some extent, the strength of our fighting line, in order to form a strong Reserve Force. On this point there was an undeniable difference of opinion. One gallant officer had announced himself in The Nineteenth Century an uncom-
692
promising advocate of short service; while, on the other hand, another gallant officer, now on his way home from the Cape, had drawn exactly opposite conclusions from his experience in Afghanistan, and had said that without seasoned soldiers his march from Cabul to Candahar would have been impossible. If, as Sir Frederick Roberts said, troops were not fit for active service in India until they had been three years in the country, a large number of our men would at once have to be struck off the rolls of the effective Army. For himself, he concurred with Sir Frederick Roberts and the Report of the Commission of which his noble Friend (Lord Airey) had been the Chairman, and thought that several reasons existed for reverting, to some extent, to the long service system. The Commission proposed that the period should be from six to eight years with the Colours and six years with the Reserve, that recruits should be enlisted as recruits for six months to test their fitness for military service, and that a certain proportion of the men should be allowed to serve for 21 years. It was necessary to pay special attention to two questions—first, whether the scheme would injuriously affect recruiting; and, secondly, how far the new plan would interfere with the Reserves. These were important considerations; but he believed that the plan would work well in both cases. Another very serious matter, in which he could not approve the action of the Government, was the proposal to reduce the number of officers by about 480. It seemed to him that the officers had not hitherto been excessively numerous, and that the intended reduction was for various reasons ill-advised. An officer had more work to do now than was formerly the case, for the men were younger and demanded more supervision, and the old and valuable class of experienced non-commissioned officers was fast disappearing. Then, again, as was shown by the evidence of Sir Thomas Steele, an officer for the first two years of his service spent a great part of his time not in purely regimental duty, but in his own professional education. In short, there were many cogent arguments against reducing the number of officers. The attenuated condition of the home Establishments was also a blot on the system; and while he considered.

693
the system of double regiments better than that of linked battalions, he thought that a still better system might be devised. As to the majors, dealt with in the scheme of the Government, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether they were to be what was called "walking majors," or whether they were really to be fighting majors? The difference between the two was very great, for the walking major was merely a captain, called a major, but doing the company work of a captain; whereas a fighting major was disconnected from the companies, and did the work of a field officer. He regretted that a system of vaccination was not to be adopted as a check on desertion, and he still held the views which on previous occasions he had expressed in their Lordships' House on the use of the lash. Its retention was necessary, not so much that it would often have to be resorted to, as that the mere possibility that it might be would have a salutary influence on soldiers who would not be deterred from the commission of offence by the fear of any other punishment that would be substituted. No one unacquainted with war could conceive its savagery, or the fierce and turbulent spirit which it bred in the soldier; and he was of opinion that, under some special circumstances, it was hardly possible to do without the terror which the lash excited. In the late American War, General Scott determined to resort to it, instead of inflicting death for certain offences, with the result that the risk of flogging proved a more effectual deterrent than the liability to the punishment of death with the reluctance of the authorities to inflict it.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLdesired to refer to a few passages in the Report of Lord Airey's Committee bearing upon a question which he had submitted to the House two years ago—namely, the unfortunate or inconvenient limitation to which the Militia was by law exposed as regarded the Colonial service, for which it might be otherwise available. The passages seemed to give a striking confirmation to the opinion advanced by himself and others that the Militia ought, if possible, to be rendered more elastic and more available for the service of the country than at present. The passages stated nothing new as to fact, but indicated an opinion that such a state of
694
things required consideration. On the whole, he said that the Committee had entered an authoritative protest against a system which locked up in the United Kingdom so large an Auxiliary Force, while the numbers of Regulars available were not larger than they were in the times of the Duke of Wellington or the Duke of Marlborough, in spite of the immense development of the country which had since occurred.
THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that he must apologize for presuming to speak so early on such a subject as that under discussion in the presence of so many illustrious military officers and others; but, as a Welshman, he must protest against depriving the Welsh Fusiliers of that ancient title, and degrading them from a national to a semi-provincial title. The Fusiliers were the senior regiment, they had seen more service, they had 19 names on their Colours, while the 41st had only 11; and surely, in these circumstances, the national and senior regiment should retain its pre-eminence. An English regiment was to be sent into Wales and called the South Wales Regiment, and yet the Welsh Fusiliers were to lose quite unnecessarily a much older territorial distinction. Of the nine Indian regiments whose distinctive titles were to be abolished, three had fought at Plassey; and, while two of them were to be amalgamated, five were to be dispersed through the rest of the Army. One regiment of the Bengal Fusiliers who fought at Plassey were to be joined with the Royal Irish, and another with the Connaught Rangers; and one of the invented titles was the West Munster, which nobody had ever heard of before as a territorial distinction, and which would, he thought, be too easily confused with "Westminster," so that people would be in doubt whether it was to be composed of wild Irishmen or Metropolitan cockneys. Those who formerly administered the Army were not content with placing Plassey on the colours of regiments who fought there; but they gave the 39th the almost unique distinction of bearing the motto "Primus in Indis." There were only two other instances in which corresponding distinctions had been conferred upon our regiments—for the siege of Namur and the gallant defence of Gibraltar. It might have been supposed that the Provinces of Madras, Bengal, and Bombay would have

695
furnished territorial designations of sufficient importance for the Indian regiments, and that episodes in our military history might still have been associated with the regiments who took part in them; but, so far from that being done, the 39th not only lost its name, but it was to be joined with, and confer its motto upon, a regiment that had never fired a shot in Hindostan. He wished to call attention to the position of the officers of the Indian Artillery and Engineers, who, after the Mutiny, were affiliated with the English Army, and had a Parliamentary guarantee that they were not to suffer by the amalgamation. He would also ask whether colonels on the Indian list would participate in the retirement scheme? A point demanding attention was the position of colonels of the Line under the new Warrant. There would be the two classes of purchase and non-purchase colonels; and the former would have paid to the country £4,500 on the faith that they would succeed in turn to the honorary distinction of commander of a regiment, and also to the capacity for employment. There was nothing that was definite as to their position; and it was feared that when the scheme was interpreted at the Treasury, skill would be displayed in minimizing its effect, as, under Commercial Treaties, countries were placed on the footing of the least favoured nations. If that would be the case, these officers were entitled to have the £4,500 returned to them, or have the special retirement of £600 offered to them as well as the Artillery. Referring to the new rules regulating the retirement of general officers, he asked whether it was not a fact that under these rules neither Lord Hill nor Lord Hardinge could have occupied the position of Commander-in-Chief. As this system was one which would have deprived the country of the services of such eminent Generals as those whom he had mentioned, he held that the burden of proving its necessity must be borne by the Secretary of State for War, and that the onus probandi ought not to be shifted on to those who objected to the new proposals. After pointing out that in the Navy flag officers were not compelled to retire until after non-employment for 10 years, and that only half that period would be allowed in the case of generals, he illustrated the evils of the new system of
696
compulsory retirement by reference to Sir Henry Havelock-Allan's resignation of his seat in the other House. That officer would have had to retire from the Army if he had not determined to serve immediately. The result was that he had been compelled to leave the House of Commons, where it was of the greatest importance that there should be Members qualified to speak about the feelings and wants of regimental officers. Turning to another subject, he argued that the new system of maintaining one battalion at home and one abroad left no margin for emergencies. He would only add, in conclusion, that, in his opinion, the Government was parsimonious in depriving officers of their good service pensions upon retirement. It was hard that an officer retiring from wounds or ill health should lose the good service pension his gallantry had earned. He suggested that retirement should begin earlier. It cost no more to give A and B in succession £600 for six years' service, than to give £1,200 to C for 12 years' service. Under purchase many ensigns retired at £450 and lieutenants at £700. He suggested that £600, £800, £1,000 should be given for six, eight, or 10 years' service. Subalterns would thus be able to retire before they were too old for other employments, and would make very good Militia or Volunteer officers. On the whole, he did not think the regulations of the Government as to the good service pensions would be satisfactory to the public. He wished them success in their endeavours to improve the position of the non-commissioned officers, and in securing their continuous service.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the noble and gallant Lord who introduced this subject (Lord Abinger) dwelt, in the first instance, upon the effects of the introduction of the short service system, and quoted from the remarkable speech delivered by Sir Frederick Roberts before he left England. In the first place, with regard to the sacrifice of the fighting line, before they attributed it to the short service system they should not forget what sort of fighting line they had before the short service system was introduced. So much had been lately written upon the question that he was unwilling to enter upon an historical account of the state of the Army under the system of enlistment which had prevailed prior to the intro-

697
duction of short service. It was enough to say that from the beginning of the century and the Peninsular War down to the time of the great war between Germany and France there had been a continuous effort on the part of the authorities, not always successful, to keep the Army up to its full establishment. Throughout the whole of that time the condition of the recruits, in respect of quality, had been most unsatisfactory, and the hurried augmentation which in those days used to take place whenever there was a prospect of national emergency arising were, he thought, a most unsatisfactory way of increasing the ranks of the Army. In the case of the augmentation determined upon in 1870, before the augmentation was complete the Franco-Prussian War was over, and the emergency had ceased to exist. The short service was designed to obviate inconvenience of that kind; and, although the system had its faults, they must not be blind to its advantages. The Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting showed that, under short service, they had no difficulty whatever in getting annually about 26,000 recruits; secondly, it showed that the physique of these recruits was improving steadily; and, thirdly, that the proportion of soldiers under 20 years of age was diminishing steadily, and had within the past 10 years fallen something like 100 per cent; and, fourthly, that the recruits were better educated than formerly, and were of a preferable type to those enlisted in former times. He ventured to say that these facts were in themselves satisfactory, and proved, in these important respects, at all events, that the short service system had not been a failure. It was, however, impossible to shut their eyes to the fact that during the last two or three years the condition of the fighting line had very properly occasioned serious misgivings in the public mind. The original scheme contemplated 71 battalions at home and 70 battalions abroad. At the beginning of 1879 he thought he was right in saying there were only 55 battalions at home. These battalions had, owing to the practice of drafting largo numbers of men from their ranks into those of the battalions abroad, become attenuated, and the 86 battalions out of the country contained much too large a number of young and partially trained soldiers.
698
How did that come to pass? He denied that it was the inevitable consequence of the short service system. That system, as introduced by Lord Cardwell, depended on two primary principles. The first was that, in time of national emergency, untrained recruits should not be hurriedly gathered in, but that trained Army Reserve men should be available to serve under the Colours; and the second was that a number of battalions should be kept at a high strength, so that a large force of troops should be always in a state of preparedness to leave at short notice on a military expedition. With this object 18 battalions were to be kept at a strength of 820 men. Before, however, one year elapsed, instead of 18 battalions, they had only four battalions at 820; and in 1878 the Estimates provided not for 18 battalions of 820 men, but for 18 battalions at a strength of 740 men. He ventured to say that, in thus departing from the original intentions of the scheme, they were pulling out the keystone of the arch. That was not only his own opinion, but it was that expressed in the Report of a Committee which had sat on the subject in 1878, and had met with the concurrence of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. There was no part of the scheme of the Secretary of State for War which pleased him more than that which provided that a certain number of battalions should be maintained at a strength even higher than that which was originally fixed, and he hoped that arrangement would be maintained. With regard to the depôts, he found from the Report of the Inspector General that the number of recruits enlisted in the sub-districts was steadily increasing and had now reached 65 per cent of the total. The noble and gallant Lord had said that the depôts did not supply proper training for these recruits; but he thought there had been some misconception as to what was the function of those brigade depôts. They were never intended to supply a complete training, but only a preparatory one for the more thorough discipline of the home battalion to which the recruits were afterwards to be transferred. It had been said, too, that the depôt buildings were insufficient; but that difficulty could be got over by hutting the men in the neighbourhood. A suggestion had been made that larger depôts should be substituted for the present

699
ones; but he did not think such a course would be advisable, as the depôts were in existence, and it would be difficult to re-model the present machinery. A still greater objection was that discipline and order would be more difficult to maintain if a large herd of untrained soldiers were to be gathered together in one place as suggested by the advocates of these large depôts. With respect to the linked battalion system, he had great pleasure in expressing his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the noble and gallant Lord. It was better to have a double battalion regiment than the present system of linked battalions. The Committee presided over by the late Secretary of State for War had thoroughly investigated those questions, and had unanimously recommended the formation of those territorial regiments which it was now proposed to create. The provisions which had reference to the position of non-commissioned officers would, he believed, command the approval of their Lordships. The efficiency of these men was a matter of the highest importance, and it was most desirable to promote their interests and make their position a desirable one. He objected, however, to the compulsory removal of non-commissioned officers after 15 years' service. If a man entered at 20, he did not think his services ought to be dispensed with at 35. He was glad the Secretary of State had not adopted the recommendations of Lord Airey's Committee on the Army Reserves. It would be a dangerous thing to imperil the relations of employers and employed in the case of Army Reserve men. Mr. Brassey had given evidence on the subject, and had said that some employers objected to having those men in their employment, while others were actuated by patriotic motives. He thought it would not be wise to trespass too much on the patriotic instincts of employers. With respect to the changes contemplated by Mr. Childers in regimental organization, they had to consider both the efficiency of the Army and the position and prospects of the officers themselves. As to the number of regimental officers, he was glad that no considerable reduction was proposed. It was important to remember that ours was a volunteer and not a conscript Army, and that the average intelligence of the men could hardly be expected to be so high as
700
when soldiers were taken from all classes of the population. That was one reason why he should be sorry to see the number of our regimental officers largely reduced. Another reason was one by which all thoughtful minds must have been painfully struck in our recent engagements—the large proportion of casualties among the officers due to their intrepidity, and the performance of their duty in the most gallant manner. But though the proposal of the Secretary of State would involve a slight reduction of officers, we should still have a larger number in proportion to the number of men than any other, except one, of the Powers of Europe. In the French Army there was one officer to 57 men, in the Russian one to 56, in the Austrian one to 52, in the German one to 45, and in the English one to 38, He rejoiced extremely that the Secretary of State had been able to avoid having recourse to that system of compulsory retirement of officers introduced in consequence of the recommendations of Lord Penzance's Commission. When those recommendations were made, he ventured, in his place in that House, to protest against the great injustice that would be done to the officers by requiring them, when still in the prime of life, to leave a Service to which they were attached, and in which they might have an opportunity of distinguishing themselves, and doing good work, until the question of organization had first been thoroughly disposed of. If the course then adopted had been carried out in its entirety, half the total number of officers would have been turned out of the Service at the early age of 40, and eventually 4,500 captains and 500 majors would have been retired at a cost of nearly £1,000,000 per annum. That would have been a result unfortunate for the officers themselves, unfortunate for the taxpayers, who would have had to find the retiring allowances, and undesirable in the interests of society, which would have been invaded by some 5,000 extinct officers without profession or prospects. He desired, in conclusion, to express his general approval of the proposals of the Secretary of State, which would, he believed, increase the popularity, as well as the efficiency, of the Army.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would not enter into the question of the short

701
service system, which had not been carried out in the manner Lord Cardwell intended. The radical proposals for Army organization which had now been submitted to Parliament showed that the present Secretary of State for War did not consider it altogether a success. It would be far more advantageous to discuss the present organization scheme in itself; and he proposed to go somewhat closely into its practical details. But, first, he wished to say a few words with regard to the German Army, with which our present and proposed system had been so frequently compared. All recruits in the German Army joined in November, and they were at once placed under the company officers, who had the sole responsibility of drilling them. By the end of February the recruits were inspected by the battalion commander, and were passed as fit to take their place in the battalion. They were then passed in April by the regimental commanding officer, and in May or June by the corps commanding officer. So that by the time of the manœuvres the men who had entered in November were fit not only for battalion, but for Army Corps manœuvres. But our recruits came in all the year round, and could not be drilled, therefore, in the same way as in Germany. It was clearly not possible to compare the two systems. Then, with regard to the length of service, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that in 1866 Prussia, with men between 20 and 23, totally defeated the veteran troops of Austria. But he believed no men ever entered the Prussian Army under 20½ years of age, and none went into active service under 21. After three years they went to the Reserve, and there served four years, and in that Reserve they came back to the identical battalion and company which they joined at first. The battalion, therefore, consisted of men from 21 to 27—the finest age that could possibly be had. That not was the case in our Army. There was no use in comparing ours with the German Army because they had a system of short service; they might as well say two statues were alike simply because they were both made of marble. Coming now to the Memorandum, he would consider it step by step. First, no recruit was to be enlisted who had not attained 19 years or a physical equi-
702
valent. That was a great change for the better, and the Secretary of State for War was to be congratulated upon it. But how was the physical equivalent to be correctly ascertained? He had read the medical evidence taken before the Committee, and it went to show that medical experience was not a safe guide with regard to age. The physical equivalent in height, weight, or chest measurement that men nominally 19 should come up to did not insure that the recruit was really of that age; and, therefore, unless care was taken we might find that our Army in India was being filled by soldiers too young to stand the trial of such a climate. In the case of soldiers in that country, it was proposed that service should be extended to seven years. That would, no doubt, have the effect of materially increasing the efficiency of the Army in India. He trusted, however, that the men, after serving seven years, would be liberally allowed to extend their service. It was of the highest importance that we should have in India a very efficient Army. There could be no greater danger to India than a weak British Army; and it was to be remembered that men of the Sepoy Army were enlisted for long service, that they were armed with breech-loaders, and that they were peculiarly skilful in musketry. With regard to the rule by which men were not only to be allowed, but to be encouraged to pass into the Reserve for nine years after three years of home service, he feared that with weak battalions the men would not be fit for the Reserve after so short a period of service. The men of the Reserve ought to be thoroughly seasoned and drilled, and should be good shots, which they could not be after only three years with the Colours. Then came the vexed question of territorial regiments. He had always been of opinion that it was desirable that the Line and the Militia regiments should be as closely connected as possible; but he was not prepared, in order to obtain that connection, to destroy the identity of every battalion in the Service. He confessed that he viewed with dislike and dread the system of doing away with the numerical titles of regiments, and giving them fresh territorial distinctions. It would be found in the proceedings of the Committee over which the late Secretary of State for War presided

703
that it had been repeatedly stated that regiments clung rather to their numerical titles than to their actual numbers, and "that the number assigned to the regiment signifies little." However, only five officers gave evidence on that point, and the highest authority who gave evidence on the subject expressed an entirely contrary opinion. Again, how many regiments had nominal titles? He found that only 21 regiments employed them on parade instead of number's, and of these 21, eight were Fusilier regiments who would have to use numbers if brigaded together. It had been stated that, as a matter of history, the numerical titles of regiments had been often altered. On looking into that matter, he found that six changes had been made in 1748 and 11 in 1757; that 15 second battalions had been converted into new regiments in 1758; that two other changes had been made in 1798; and that, with the exception of the case of the Rifle Brigade, no change of the kind had been made in the present century. It would be absolutely necessary to revert to numbers for regiments, for the sake of convenience on parade and on active service. Supposing that instead of having to telegraph the numbers of the three battalions which had been lately prominently employed in South Africa, territorial designations had been employed, what a difference it would have made in the length of the telegrams. The 58th were the Northampton and Rutland Regiment; the 60th were the King's Royal Rifle Corps; the 92nd were the Gordon and Sutherland Highland Regiment. If he might venture to make a suggestion, the better plan would be, as 67 double battalion regiments were wanted, to keep the first 25 regiments as they were, and to give the other 42 most distinguished regiments a second battalion each, thus only destroying the identity of 42 regiments instead of that of 108. Next he approached the question of the proper strength of the battalions; and he agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that it was most necessary to have a strong Corps d' Armée ready to take the field at short notice. He hoped no Secretary of State for War would ever reduce the strength of the battalions for foreign service. At the same time, he pointed out that of 51 home battalions the strength of eight was only 500 men,
704
and of the 43 others 480 men. Those were simply depots to feed the battalions on foreign service, and would be able to do nothing else. With such a system 51 depôts were altogether unnecessary. Another objection to such weak battalions was that they were in various ways so reduced as to be unavailable, or, at any rate, very inefficient, in case of any national emergency. In such an event, each of them would require at least 600 men from the Reserve, and it would be some months before, with so many strangers in their ranks, they could be regarded as in a satisfactory condition. In his opinion, the weakness of the battalions was the worst feature in our military system. The system, in fact, was not that which would give us the most efficient Army, but was the best which we could afford. He was delighted to find that the pay of the non-commissioned officers would be increased, for he thought every inducement ought to be given to them to remain contentedly and happily in the Army. He desired, however, to draw the attention of the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War to the circumstance that the lance-corporals were to receive no extra pay, and that, consequently, there was nothing to induce privates to accept that position, which entailed a great deal of hard work and a great deal of responsibility. He must now say a few words with regard to the position of quartermasters. He was sure the Under Secretary of State for War had intended to do everything he thought was necessary for that valuable and much injured class of officers, who were, undoubtedly, placed in a very false position. He considered that, as regards rank and pension, they should be placed, as far as possible, in a position equal to that which they would have gained had they joined the combatant branch of the regiment. As, however, Colonel Alexander had so ably stated their grievances in the House of Commons, he felt he might safely leave their case in the hands of the War Office. The next question he wished to refer to was that of regimental organization. A very great and serious change was proposed to be made in the organization of the Infantry battalions. That change was not to be made, however, simply because the present organization was deemed to be faulty, but for the sake of

705
equalizing the promotion of the different corps in the Army. Would it do so? Was it certain that the Artillery would not still have an undue pull over the Infantry? The present system of promotion, which had been in force for about 20 years, was a sort of military leap-frog, in which officers kept alternately hopping over each other's heads—at one time one branch of the Service was in front; at another time another. This was the result of piecemeal legislation. Whenever the promotion of one part of the Army was proposed to be accelerated, inquiry should first be made as to how it would affect that of the rest. Referring to the scheme of compulsory retirement, he expressed his belief that it would act very harshly indeed upon certain individuals. The intention of the proposed change of organization was to prevent that compulsory retirement; but as captains were to be allowed to become majors in larger proportions than heretofore, the compulsory retirement would be transferred to lieutenant-colonels and colonels. He did not see why the term of five years had been laid down, for there was no reason why an officer should not be, like Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, fit for active service after an interval of even nine years. Moreover, according to the present scheme for retiring allowances, the younger, and consequently, cateris paribus, the most efficient, generals would be those who would suffer most. He pointed out differences in the pay of Field Artillery and Infantry officers, and said he was unable to understand the cause of the difference. Other inequalities also deserved to be rectified, and he commended the matter to the consideration of the noble Earl. He entered his protest against the proposal that rewards for distinguished service should cease to be tenable after retirement from the Active List. The reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War wore that the officers holding them would, in the natural course of events, forfeit them when they obtained a regiment, and that they had the option of remaining on under present conditions if they pleased. But a large majority of officers now holding good service pensions would have no chance of succeeding to regiments, as, by their position on the list of generals and by their age, they must, according to actuarial calculations, die
706
before such an event could take place. These officers were now in a position superior to those who had not received that reward, and drew £100 a-year more pay. When retired, however, the honourable distinction would be taken away, they would lose the solid advantage of pay now enjoyed by them, and there would be nothing to distinguish them from those who had not been fortunate enough to earn this special mark of Her Majesty's approbation. Whilst admitting that the retiring allowances were on a liberal scale, he trusted that present holders of the reward might be allowed to retain it when retired. He could not sit down without making a few remarks upon an article which had appeared in The Nineteenth Century, entitled "Long and Short Service." Questions had been asked in both Houses of Parliament regarding that article, and although it had not received the actual approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, it had certainly not met with his disapproval; for he distinctly stated, when pressed on the subject, that the clause in the Queen's Regulations forbidding officers "to give publicity to their individual opinions," &c., had been "more honoured in the breach than in the observance." Now, if that were really the case, the clause in question should be either cancelled or modified; as, otherwise, the truth of the adage that one person might steal a horse, whilst another might not look over the gate, would be brought painfully home to some officer who might be imprudent enough to follow a bad example. He would venture to suggest, at all events, that Staff officers who might in future write articles in favour of Army Reform should be ordered to confine themselves to argument, and should be strictly forbidden to hold up to ridicule and contempt all those who differed from them. In the present case it was well known that even within the walls of the War Office there were many officers who entirely disagreed with the views of the writer of the article in question. Those who happened to hold different views regarding the present Army system from the writer were spoken of in the following terms:—
"Condemnation of short-service system is owing to wilful ignorance, prejudice, and stupidity. It is a disease characterized by chronic

707
grumblings and whining pessimism. This class of officer believes that the world, as far as armies and military science are concerned, stands still. They are those who would still wish to flog the soldier as the keeper does his wilful spaniel."
He must protest in the strongest terms against that paragraph; it was a gross libel upon those officers who, whilst particularly disliking corporal punishment, maintained that it should be retained until some other punishment which should be equally deterrent could be substituted for it.
"They are naturally Conservative in their tendencies, and consequently view with great suspicion any changes effected in organization by a Liberal Government."
The officers of the Army, as a rule, took but little part in politics; and the writer had no right to charge them with Party feelings, whether Liberal or Conservative. They were all anxious that the Army should be made as efficient as possible, and it was a libel to accuse them of such low motives, in order to account for their general opposition to the present Army system.
"An article of faith with every British soldier is that the authorities of the Horse Guards are his natural protectors, while the War Department officials are his enemies."
It was scarcely necessary to comment upon the bad taste of that paragraph.
"The aspirations of a large proportion of our very oldest officers do not soar beyond the creation of a standing Army of well-set-up, perfectly drilled soldiers."
Had they such an Army, he believed the writer would not have had any cause to complain that the present system did not meet with the favour of the large majority of officers in their Service.
"Regimental officers dislike short service, because it adds considerably to their daily work. Hitherto the Army has been a pleasant home for idle men; now they must make up their minds to a different kind of existence. He must make up his mind to the constant drudgery of teaching his own men, as the officers of the German Army do. Captains prefer old stupid sergeants to young intelligent ones, because the former relieved them of work that ought to have been done by themselves."
He ventured to say that a more unjust or more untrue accusation was never penned. He could speak from the personal experience of many years in command of a regiment as to the regimental officers of some years ago, and he had
708
heard from many sources an account of those who were at present doing duty in that capacity. They were, as a body, as zealous and hard-working, and as proud of their Profession as any in the Armies of the Continent. They would gladly accept the condition of the German company officer; and it was because their system was so different that even the most zealous could not help at times feeling disheartened. The German captain received all his recruits in the month of November, and before the spring drills commenced they were ready to take their place in the ranks. The full strength of a German company in peace time was 131; so that, deducting the inevitable casualties, its captain had always a sufficient number for tactical instruction during six months of the year. He knew also that the men who left for the Reserve at the end of each year would certainly come back to him until they passed to the Landwehr after four years in the Reserve. He had every inducement and every interest in the drill and instruction of the annual recruits. What a different position did a captain in our Army hold Recruits coming in by driblets all the year round—company so weak as to preclude the possibility of its ever being drilled as a separate unit—men who had completed one year's service sent away to linked battalion, never to be seen again by those who had been instrumental in instructing them! Was it wonderful that now and again a cry of despondency was heard, or that an officer occasionally gave vent to a hearty growl? His task was that of Sisyphus—no sooner had he rolled the stone to the top of the hill as a drilled soldier than it tumbled back to the bottom in the shape of a raw recruit. The writer of the article had no claim to be heard as an authority on regimental matters, for he had done but five years' regimental duty during his whole service, and only two out of them as a captain. To understand and appreciate the work of regimental officers it was necessary that one should have commanded a regiment, or at least a brigade, during peace time. There was but one passage in the article that he could heartily endorse, and that one appeared to point to a conclusion diametrically opposed to all the writer's premisses. It was to be found in the concluding paragraph—

709
"Without discipline and esprit de corps, no army can hold together on active service, or ever be worth much, and everyone who has really served in one of our regiments during war—who has commanded a company on active service—knows as well as I do that our admirable regimental system is above all things calculated to foster the growth and further the maintenance both of discipline and of esprit de corps."
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he agreed with everything which the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had observed in reference to the merits of short service as regarded recruiting. In England there would always be a difficulty about recruiting; but he thought it possible that the disadvantages incident to voluntary service might be lessened. With regard to the noncommissioned officers, he was of opinion that they were not old enough to keep the men in order, and that an old sergeant would keep lip the smartness of a company better than a young man could do it. The way to increase the efficiency of the Army was to improve the position of the non-commissioned officers. It would be well if some employment were to be found for them on their discharge after 20 years' service. The new scheme proceeded on the correct principle that in time of peace the Reserve should be fed by the Army, while in time of war the Army should be fed by the Reserve. He had a command at the time the Reserves were called out, and considered it satisfactory that only 2 per cent of the men were missing at first, and many of them turned up in three or four days. On the whole, he believed the scheme was a step in the right direction.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, it is difficult, at this time of the evening, for anyone holding an official position to say all that he ought to say on this subject. It is a dry subject for civilians, and, therefore, hardly one admitting of very close discussion in a deliberative Assembly. It is more a subject for discussion by a Committee, when details—many of them wearisome and seemingly, though not really, unnecessary—can be brought forward and considered from day to day. The whole question is made up of minute details, and unless you go deeply into them it is impossible to understand thoroughly this great and important subject. I say great and important deliberately, for is not the Army one of the foundations
710
upon which our Empire rests? The Army is a very important matter in every country, but especially is it so in ours, and it will be very difficult to keep the Empire intact unless the Army is in an efficient condition. The question, I am glad to say, has been discussed to-night without any show of Party feeling. There have been strong opinions expressed, no doubt; but certainly not in a Party spirit. I hope the question will always be discussed, as it has been tonight, as a professional question. Discussing it simply as a professional question, I am in a position to express my opinions with less reserve than I should otherwise have to maintain. In my position it would not be proper even to have the appearance of antagonism to the views of the Government of the day. My Lords, a comparison has been made between our Army and Continental Armies; but, in making that comparison, it must never be forgotten that such Armies are framed upon an entirely different basis. In Russia, Prussia, France, and other Continental nations their Armies are raised by conscription; but ours is raised voluntarily. We are attempting now to have a short service Army without having the foundation afforded by the system of conscription. The absence of that foundation makes the question infinitely more difficult than it otherwise would be. But, comparing the old system of service with the present, I feel bound to say that I very much doubt whether it would have been possible to continue the system of long service, owing to the difficulties of recruiting. I must plead guilty to a connection with the linked battalion system. Being more old-fashioned than some others, and being under the impression that unless some change were made it might be difficult to get the needful number of recruits, I urged, as it was not desirable to dispense with esprit de corps, that some such system as the linked battalion system should be introduced experimentally. That system has been much criticized and abused. But there is a great deal to be said for it, and under it recruits joined the ranks in large numbers. The linked battalion system is practically the same as that of double battalions. The two systems are worked on the same principle. The real difference between linked battalions and double battalions is that the feeling of the officers

711
in a linked battalion regiment differs from the feeling which characterizes officers in a double battalion regiment, in which the esprit de corps of the regiment pervades both battalions. In regiments which are linked a sentiment of antagonism is, in many cases, entertained. This is especially the case when one of the two linked regiments has a strong desire to be linked with a different regiment—such a desire, for instance, as has been evinced by some of our most distinguished Highland regiments. Therefore, the question arose, could the linked system continue, or ought we to make a great change? I must say that the time had arrived when we had to consider whether we should unlink or amalgamate thoroughly one with the other. I think it is to the advantage of both that the regiments should become territorial. Others think that it would be better to unlink altogether, and to have depôts—either isolated local depôts, or an amalgamated depôt, for those battalions which should happen to be serving abroad. I own I have myself a predilection for unlinking; but a change of that character would necessitate a very large addition to the establishment of the Army, and, consequently, a large additional expenditure. The noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) has referred to the question of numbering. That is, perhaps, a small detail; and I think it very likely that we shall have to come back to some sort of numbering, and this is one of those details which it seems to me will have to be modified. Turning to another point, I believe it is the feeling of all officers who have advocated a short service system that such a system necessitates the maintenance of a larger establishment than that required under the old system. The system renders more drill necessary, and by the time a man has thoroughly mastered his drill, and has become a thorough soldier, he now goes into the Reserve. Unless, therefore, you have a large number of men at your command, it will become difficult to keep up battalions serving abroad. That is a point which is not quite acknowledged by the Government. Under the short service system, then, a larger establishment of men than we have hitherto maintained will always be required. That is one of the questions which the other House of Parliament will have to deal with. My noble Friend,
712
the noble Marquess, has said that this scheme of Lord Cardwell was not thoroughly tried. I perfectly agree with him; but why was it not carried out? Because it would require such large sums of money. No political Party is disposed to incur the risks and difficulties which a demand for large sums of money may entail. It should be borne in mind by those who criticize the working of the Reserve system that our system differs materially from foreign systems. The moment a regiment goes on service in Russia or France the Reserves come out as a matter of course. I do not see how such a system is to be introduced here; but I think the public ought to know the fact. On the whole, I cannot but think that the new scheme of the Government is fair and reasonable. The Secretary of State for War has done all that he could do under the circumstances in which he found himself. I am not going to discuss that question at length. But I am glad that the Secretary of State has agreed to the term of service being seven years instead of six, and eight years in India; and that the Secretaries of State for India and War respectively have power to prolong the term even beyond those eight years, should circumstances in India require it. These are points which show the direction in which the Secretary of State for War has been moving. I think that difficulties will arise in respect of that part of the recommendations of Lord Airey's Committee which refers to great and small wars, and provides that the Reserves shall in future be called out in wars of both descriptions. Those recommendations will be difficult to carry out in detail, as they will not be acceptable to the public, though, in my opinion, absolutely necessary. We have much more frequently to deal with small ones than large ones. Of course, in large wars both the Militia and the Reserves would have to be called out. I venture to think that the recommendations of the Committee have been largely accepted by the present Secretary of State. I do not, however, deny that we are placed in a position of great difficulty; and I think the Secretary of State has done his best in the circumstances. Then it is said that matters are not very satisfactory with respect to the men themselves. No one can deny that the men who were, sent to South Africa were not altogether

713
as efficient as we could have wished. Well, my noble Friend must remember the position in which we were placed. We were in this difficulty. It took a great many more men than had been originally estimated for; and I cannot help thinking that it was difficult to send them in a shorter period than we did. As to the condition of the men, it is in your Lordships' recollection that a Committee of distinguished military officers, under the presidency of Lord Airey, was assembled to consider the short-service system, and where it was found to be deficient. The question was argued with much ability; and if it had not been for the recommendations of that Committee we might have been in still greater difficulty as to the course to be adopted, as it enabled the Secretary of State to modify the arrangements which had, up to that time, been in force. If you follow the course of events they entirely contradict and refute the statement that there has been any falling off in the description of the recruits enlisted. My noble and gallant Friend, who has made remarks which I have heard with great satisfaction and pleasure, quite acknowledged the difficulty about the men; but, then, that leads us back to the fact that we have no conscription, and that we cannot raise more than a certain number of men at any particular period. The recruit takes from one to three years to be trained; and we are obliged to enlist our men from day to day. When we send away 100 men, instead of having 100 to take their places, we are obliged to meet our wants by enlistment, and wait for them to be trained. That is the cause of a great deal of the difficulty; and then, in addition to that, there is the question of pounds, shillings, and pence; and it is very difficult to make the public understand that it is not just always to be finding fault with the military authorities for being unable to do impossibilities. It is no easy task to keep up a larger body of men for short service in an army of volunteers. Now, I would not have your Lordships think that I am an advocate of conscription in this country. I am not going in for anything of the sort. I always said it was impossible. But I have always been strongly of opinion that you ought to have conscription for the Militia. The Militia ought always to be kept up to
714
its full strength. I do not care whether you call it conscription or ballot, it comes to much the same thing. I do not mean that the Militia ought to be called out to go to a foreign war; but it ought always to be in a condition to fill up the gaps in the Regular Army. On the whole, my Lords, I think it may be as well to accept the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. Then comes the question of battalion organization. There is, no doubt, a great deal to be said as to organization; but I hope that there will be no change in this respect in battalions. I am a strong advocate for eight companies, and I believe all the best officers in the Army take that view. I will now say a few words on the question of majors. The question of the majors of the Army was a question of simple justice. Out of 1,000 candidates entering the Line as officers 600 would have to be compulsorily retired as captains. Under the present regulation it is impossible to avoid this, because, otherwise, you would be doing a great injustice by stopping promotion altogether. Under the present system you have no means of keeping up a proper retirement for the Army except by compulsory retirement, and the consequence is that without it there would be complete stagnation in promotion. Now that purchase has been abolished you must necessarily retire compulsorily a much larger number of officers. I do not at all advocate the system of having a too early retirement of officers; and unless the Secretary of State for War had taken the steps he now proposes to adopt a great injustice would have been done to the great body of officers entering the Army, and we should have lost compulsorily a large number of those who are now serving; and we were, therefore, bound to find some other mode of obtaining the required promotion. We were obliged to take the course we did; and in the accomplishment of that object, in my opinion, the more decided the measures that were taken the better. Certainly it is better to do that than to lose so many good officers as we certainly should have lost. As to the general character of the officers themselves, the history of the country speaks for those of former times. We know what they have done; we know the Empire we happily possess; and we are proud of it.

715
I believe the officers of the present day will follow their example. I believe they are anxious to do their duty, and to acquire knowledge. Their gallantry is as conspicuous as ever it was in the time of war, as my noble and gallant Friend knows. I need not assure your Lord-ships that I have all my life taken a zealous interest in the Service; and I must say I am astonished to see how much the young officers know compared with what they knew when I came into the Service. Look at the classes which they go through—signalling, musketry, and the various kinds of instruction which they receive from day to day and hour to hour, thus giving officers a knowledge in professional subjects which in former days was never contemplated. And then, as for conduct, see what they have done. It is said—"You mark the officers by their dress, and they are shot down." It is not the dress; but it is the leading. That is why they are shot down. I do not mean that the men would hang back; but it is the spirit of English gentlemen that urges them to lead on in the time of danger. Talk of the young officers being idle! It is a calumny I am prepared to deny. I am not now entering into details. I am making some general observations in my military capacity as head of the Army. The noble Earl (the Earl of Morley), who is well acquainted with this whole subject, will, in his official capacity, and with the ability for which he is conspicuous, answer on the various points brought forward. I have not attempted to go into those details—it is not my province to do so; but I wished to make some general observations on what I think the most important points for the efficiency of the Public Service. Reference has been made to the age at which officers are called upon to retire. Age is one of those things as to which men deceive themselves. They do not like to believe that they get older. It is quite true that one man at 60 or 65 is, perhaps, a less active or efficient man than another at 70. But, on the other hand, you must make some rule. In doing so you may hit some men very hard; but if you wish to have a flow of promotion, you must make rules with a view to insuring it. At a certain age a man is not so active as when he was younger; but you want to bring young blood into
716
the Army; and unless you lay down a hard-and-fast line you cannot do what you want. Whether the Secretary of State has exactly hit the right age or not I will not pretend to say; but I think it will be admitted that his proposal is a fair one; and I hope it may effect the object in view. With regard to the system of five years' command, a great deal may be said upon it. I should like to see some arrangement by which the two lieutenant-colonels could have their fair share of command. I quite agree with the Secretary of State that what is to be done should be decided upon at as early a period as possible; but I believe the small details will be subjected to a general review before they are carried out, and that modifications will be made. I have to thank your Lordships for having heard me with so much attention. I thought it my duty to make these remarks, occupying, as I do, the highest position which a soldier can hold in this country, and having at heart the honour of the British Army; and I only hope that my observations may be of some service in elucidating a subject so difficult, so dry, in many of its details, and yet so interesting and important for the general benefit of the country.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he was very glad that the present discussion had taken place, although he quite admitted that, inasmuch as the number of men had already been voted, it could have very little practical effect. When the Enlistment Bill of 1870 was before the House, he had ventured to remark that that Bill gave the Minister for War carte blanche to manipulate the conditions of service as he pleased. The consequence had been that we had had constant changes in those conditions, so that the soldier was always kept in a state of uncertainty as to his position, which acted prejudicially to the Service generally. What, however, surprised him most was that the War Office should have believed that with short service, pur et simple, a proper supply of noncommissioned officers could be procured. In this respect Lord Cardwell's scheme had signally failed, as, in the present year, the first step taken was to improve largely the position of the non-commissioned officers, and to enlist them for long service with pension, of which he entirely approved. He was sorry

717
the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not now in his place, because he stated that the short service system had been a success, but qualified the statement by admitting that it had failed, to a certain extent, after the disaster of Isandlana, because it had not been properly worked. He wished to ask the noble Marquess what he would have done if the emergency had been greater than it was. He could not have called out the Reserves, or embodied the Militia, because he had not the power to do so, and therefore would have been compelled, nolens volens, as the Conservative Government had been, to have recourse to the pernicious system of volunteers. For himself, he was strongly in favour of calling out the Reserves in small wars. But the noble Marquess said that would interfere too much with the employment by the public of the Reserve men. He found, however, that the Reserve men, when demobilized, had no difficulty in getting back to their places on railways and elsewhere; and, therefore, he did not understand why the Government should be so squeamish with regard to calling out the Reserves when we had little wars. The noble Marquess stated that six years with the Colours and six in the Reserve had worked very successfully, whereas only seven out of 122 officers of distinction had approved of it in their evidence. He (Viscount Hardinge) attributed many of the present shortcomings in the Army to the pernicious system of volunteering, which he hoped they might never see again. It should be remembered that it was Lord Cardwell's original intention that a certain proportion of recruits should be enlisted for long service. The first General Order issued from the Horse Guards after the reorganization of the Army provided for 25 per cent of long service men. Some time afterwards a new General Order was issued providing for the enlistment of all men on short service. Now, why, he wished to know, were the plans of the War Office changed? He did not believe that any difficulty would be experienced in getting 25 per cent of the recruits to enlist for long service. The evidence, indeed, given before Lord Airey's Committee was all in favour of that supposition; and he regretted that the Secretary of State for War should not have seen his way to adopt-
718
ing that principle, and so securing in the Army a certain proportion of those seasoned soldiers whose absence the witnesses examined before Lord Airey's Committee so greatly lamented. The want of seasoned soldiers in the ranks had been clearly demonstrated before that Committee. The evidence of Lord Chelmsford, General Newdigate, and Sir Evelyn Wood had exposed the deficiency; and it was well-known how, during the South African campaign, the young soldiers had failed to bear the hardships of long marches, even when relieved of their knapsacks. They were told that they must bear the Reserve in mind; but it seemed to him there was too great a tendency to foster the Reserve at the expense of the Line. In connection with the question of short service, it was important to consider what Lord Airey's Committee described as the "great waste" going on in the Army. We never enlisted in one year more than 28,000 men. The illustrious Duke said recruiting was going on admirably; but the fact was that this year we had only enlisted 25,000 men. Now, according to one calculation, it was necessary, in order to secure an effective addition of 28,000 men to the Army, to raise 36,000, the margin being consumed by desertions, invaliding, &c. Another calculation, based on the enormous losses between enlistment and final approval, fixed the number of men which ought to be raised at 54,000. The fact of these large margins being required would be understood when he stated that within the past six years 17,000 men had been lost through desertion, and 15,000 through invaliding, discharge, &c. Not one of those men had gone into the Reserve, and yet surprise was expressed that the Reserve should not be in a better condition. Then, again, we had 13,000 men in the Army under 20 years of age. Now, what was the remedy proposed? It was to enlist recruits between 19 and 20, of which he entirely approved; but it should be borne in mind that it was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the age of the recruit. You could not look into his mouth as you could into the mouth of a horse. All that could be done would be to have more stringent regulations as to chest measurement, height, and other qualifications. As a means of checking desertion and fraudulent re-

719
enlistment, he saw no objection to the marking of recruits by vaccination. The plan, indeed, seemed to him perfectly reasonable, and he had no sympathy with the squeamish ideas which one sometimes heard expressed on the subject. Brigade depôts wore a costly and unsatisfactory contrivance, though they had the redeeming point of affording each other great mutual support. Of the 70 colonels examined before Lord Airey's Committee, only 20 were in favour of brigade depôts as they were. It was possible, he believed, to attach too much importance to the territorial connection, for the evidence of competent observers was that under the new system, as under the old, recruits would always in the main come from one class—the waifs and strays of society. The great objection to them was that they denuded the home battalions of their best men, and annihilated esprit de corps, which had been so clearly shown in the letters of "One Who Has Served." Then it was said that by their agency new districts were "tapped;" but that did not appear to be the case from the evidence of Lord Airey's Committee. Again, when the battalions became dislocated, there was no means of expanding the depôt, which was mainly insisted upon by Colonel Stanley's Committee. If we could re-organize de novo, there could be no doubt that regiments with three battalions would be the best; but after upwards of £3,000,000 had been spent on these brigade depôts, it could hardly be expected that the Government would at once sweep them away and adopt Lord Airey's alternative, which would entail an expense of £700,000 a-year. With regard to the conditions of service in India, Sir Henry Norman and other authorities had, he believed very rightly, insisted on a period of nine years, so that the soldier might remain in the country for a sufficiently long time after becoming acclimatized. For home service he would infinitely prefer eight years, as recommended by Lord Airey's Committee. He imagined that seven years could only have been adopted as a compromise between Lord Cardwell's scheme and that of Lord Airey. The additional year would be of great value. In India the expense, under the present system, of sending home the six years' men had been enormous. The expense had increased from £2,000 to 5,000 a-
720
year. The proposal to keep the first 12 regiments at 950 was excellent in principle; but such had been the variations of our establishments from successive fits of economy that there was no security that these establishments could be maintained. And then the reduced home battalions would again become mere nurseries for the foreign battalions. Our real Reserve was the Militia, which had given, at least, 35,000 men to the Line in the Crimean War; and the Militia Reserve should at once be recruited by every possible means up to its establishment. The number of absentees from training was unsatisfactory—13,000 men were the numbers given; and the only way to check this was to insist on every recruit on enrolment being sent to the depot to be trained. Where circumstances would admit of it, they should be trained with the Line, especially the Reserve men. As the Militia was short of its establishment by 20,000 men, it would be desirable to offer additional inducements to recruiting; because it must be borne in mind that on the declaration of war the Militia Reserve would have to be deducted from the strength of the Militia Force. His fear was that the Government thought more about the Reserves than the fighting Army, and he might remind them that the Army was not made for the Reserves, but the Reserves for the Army.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that in the comments on the letters that had appeared in The Times signed "One Who Has Served "—who had been alluded to in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for War as being avowedly Sir Lintorn Simmons—the Report of Lord Airey's Committee had apparently been anticipated, and, as he held, unfairly handicapped. Information had, in this instance, been withheld from the public after a newspaper had been enabled to print inspired articles on the subject. It was a dangerous precedent to decline, over and over again, after pressing solicitation, to give information on a most important subject to Members of Parliament in either House, while such information was communicated privately to writers in the public journals. The public mind had thus been poisoned against the recommendations of Lord Airey's Committee before its Report was permitted to see the light of day. He might say briefly

721
that that Report might be regarded, first, as a condemnation of the present system as to the term of engagement for service in the Army; secondly, as a condemnation of the mode of manipulation of recruits; thirdly, as showing the unfortunate want of inducement to soldiers to attain to the rank of non-commissioned officers; and, fourthly, as an utter condemnation of the linked battalion or brigade depôt system. No one, he thought, would deny that that was the substance of the Report. As regarded the term of service and the inducements to non-commissioned officers, he entirely concurred in the remarks made by his Royal Highness the illustrious Duke. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had remarked, with great seeming satisfaction, that 25,000 men were enlisted last year; but he could not help feeling that that was a doubtful source of gratification, considering the terrible waste in the Army attendant upon those enlistments. The evidence adduced before the Committee showed that 12 per cent of all the recruits enlisted of late years deserted within three months of their enlistment; and that within 12 months of enlistment the ratio of desertions increased to something like 25 per cent. The country at large ought seriously to consider why it was that this very rapid desertion occurred. He believed there was nothing so galling to a young soldier as to be shunted and hustled from one place to another during the first few months after his enlistment. It was the amount of drill at the beginning, as well as this change from place to place—all caused by this unfortunate brigade depôt, including the linked battalion, system—that was the cause of the early desertions which were a disgrace to this country. On one point he ventured to differ from the illustrious Duke—namely, with regard to conscription, or ballot for the Militia—for he conceived it was the great glory of this country that we possessed an Army composed entirely of volunteers. Indeed, he had always regretted that the term "Volunteer" should have been given to that gallant body which was raised in the year 1859, because it conveyed the idea that the Regular Army itself and the Militia were not based on the volunteer system. He did not see why it should be necessary to have recourse to balloting in the Militia. We
722
ought to consider all these matters thoroughly, to use every means to make the two Services popular, and to avoid the introduction of continual changes. He was convinced that the system of "territorial regiments" was the most unfortunate ever conceived, and that it would never add one effective soldier to the Army. Its only effect would be to efface all the old distinctions which soldiers held most dear, and set regiments at sixes and sevens. He trusted it was not yet too late to reconsider and abandon it, and revert to the older system which it was now threatened to replace.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he should not take part in the discussion were it not that he thought it right that someone connected with the late Government should say a few words on the subject before their Lordships' House. In the new scheme of Army Organization the Secretary of State for War had followed, to some extent, the steps of the late Government, and there were novel points in the scheme upon which the right hon. Gentleman was to be heartily congratulated; but there were others upon which he, for one, could not altogether agree with him. The discussion that evening had been of a somewhat desultory character, as from the nature of the subject it was bound to be; but it had served in no inconsiderable degree to elucidate the subject. The question was, did the new scheme supply the defects of the old, which were patent and acknowledged? Many questioned whether these defects were removed by the new scheme; would it supply seasoned soldiers for the battalions abroad at all times? Did it afford a reasonable guarantee that in sudden emergencies the reinforcements we should send out should consist of men of mature military age, of physical fitness, and of thorough training? The present scheme was a continuation of that brought forward by Lord Cardwell. No one could read the Localization Report on which the original scheme was founded without seeing that something was originally in the scheme of Lord Cardwell which must have dropped out shortly before the production of that scheme. The changes made by Lord Cardwell were in the direction of the imitation and the followings of foreign Armies; but the scheme was like the play of Hamlet with the Prince of Denmark

723
omitted. Some form of compulsory service was the backbone of the foreign Army system; but it was left out of ours. There seemed to be complete evidence that originally some form of compulsory service was contemplated by Lord Cardwell. All the calculations as to the numbers of the Militia were based upon the assumption of so many men per head of the population. There were various other points that irresistibly led to the same conclusion. He heard with pleasure the illustrious Duke say that compulsory service—service in the sense of conscription—was utterly foreign to English modes of thought, and impossible for our Indian Army; but that some form of compulsory service for home battalions and the Militia might, without any undue strain upon the feelings of a free people, be admitted among us. The new scheme dealt efficiently, and in the main very fairly, with the question of Army promotion. The difficulties of former Governments had been, on the whole, very fairly and successfully met by the new scheme in this respect, and also as regarded the improvement of the condition of non-commissioned officers. As a matter of detail, he would suggest that corporals should be allowed to go until they had earned a pension. It would be a great improvement if it were possible to enlist men at 19 instead of 18, so that they might be 20 before being sent to India; but if simultaneously there were to be a diminution of chest measurement that would neutralize the other change, and we should still find men of 17 and 18 in the ranks. The main point was whether the new scheme would do better than the old in point of bringing fully developed, matured soldiers into the ranks, and he did not think it would. Under the old system the home battalions were denuded by constant drafts until they became mere skeletons of young and untrained men, and they were sent on foreign service at the very moment when they were in the most unfit, denuded, and forlorn condition. The idea of linked battalions, one at home, and one abroad, was not carried out; the stress of exigencies did not allow even Mr. Cardwell's Government to realize it. The numbers in the linked battalions at home and abroad should have been even; but that was never the case. A recent Return showed that in
724
1871 there was a dislocation of one battalion; in 1873, one; in 1874, three; in 1875, one; in 1876, five; in 1877, five; in 1878, 13; in 1879, 31; in 1880, 19; and this year, 19. We had now a total of 80 battalions abroad and 61 at home, showing a dislocation of 19. The dislocation of 31 battalions implied that the battalions at home became less and less able to furnish even their own links, and when their turn came for foreign service they were utterly unable to obey the call. The results of this dislocation might be illustrated by an official Report, which showed that when the 21st Regiment was ordered to Zululand it was supposed to consist of 800 rank and file. Of this number 343 had to be left behind. By drafts from various regiments the number was made up to 798; but of these 119 were under 20 years of age, and 303 of less than 12 months' service. In the case of the 91st Regiment, also, 374 men were required to bring it up to the Cape establishment, and the men were drafted from 11 different regiments. At the hour of embarkation these men were total strangers to one another. It would be well, he thought, for the public to understand that we could not have an efficient Army—numerous enough for our wants and suitable in every way—under present conditions. The conditions of an efficient Army had not been satisfied by Lord Cardwell's system, because for the money the people were willing to give suitable men could not be obtained in sufficient numbers. Unless the country was willing to pay the necessary price we could not have the best Army possible. There were three courses open to us. We must be content with a system inferior to the best, or we must go into the labour market and give a higher price for the article we required, or we must submit to some form of compulsory service, not for the foreign Army—for that, he believed, would be impossible—but for the Home Army, that was, the Militia and Volunteers. Referring to the Reserves, he asked whether any legislation was contemplated with regard to them? At present the Reserves were only to be called out in great national emergencies. The right hon. Gentleman intended to go on with the system which had been begun by Lord Cardwell. The main reason urged, he said, was that the country,

725
in consequence of Lord Cardwell's measures, was committed to an expenditure of £3,500,000. But that could hardly be expected to have much weight with those who, like himself, had opposed Lord Cardwell's scheme. The scheme now before their Lordships was not the re-organization scheme which some of its enthusiastic admirers had promised. It was not a scheme which settled the condition of the Army for ever and a day. It was merely a scheme, good in some points, and good as far as it went, but which merely touched the fringe of this great question. It was a mere re-shuffling of the same cards, so much money and so many men, and as former schemes had broken down, so he took the responsibility of saying the scheme would break down again. Would these territorial brigades, he asked, when completed, answer their purpose? Would they draw to regiments on foreign, and especially on active service a full proportion of seasoned men, and steady-going Reserves? That was the main question, for these small wars to which he had referred might be called our normal condition. During the last 40 years we had been at war for 35 years. For 16 of these years we had two wars at a time; during eight years, three wars; and during two years we had no fewer than four wars on hand at the same time in various parts of the world. The reason why he thought the new scheme would not be better than the old one was that it depended, as Lord Card-well's also depended, upon an exact balance between the battalions at home and the battalions abroad; and if in any one year one of those wars came upon us and took one single battalion away from home to the seat of war, from that moment the whole scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would be dislocated, as Lord Cardwell's was dislocated, as at the time of the Zulu War, and the whole thing would get into inextricable confusion. It was also absolutely necessary for the success of the scheme that the establishment should remain during a term of years exactly at the same point. But neither of these two conditions had hitherto been fulfilled; and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should anticipate that he should be more fortunate than former War Secretaries, and that he should
726
find successive Parliaments more compliant than former Parliaments had been. Nor did he believe that the hopes expressed by the right hon. Gentleman of the efficiency of Corps d' Armée would be realized. He felt sure, also, that there would be great difficulty in maintaining the establishments in a state of efficiency. A fit of economy would come, and then the establishments would come down, and with them the whole fabric of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. If they must have a territorial Army, let them keep the depôts at home. With reference to the proposal of the Government as to having a local Indian Army, he did not see the advantage of trying to have a scheme which on the very face of it appeared not to be an extremely useful one. As to the waste of the Army, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not framed his Estimate with regard to the requirements of the number of recruits for the Army. Short service would only be felt in 1882; and when that time arrived it would take 38,000, instead of 25,000 men, to keep up the Army to its present strength, and the waste of the Army went on to such an extent and with such rapidity that in order to obtain those 38,000 or 35,000 soldiers they would be obliged to enlist 54,000 men. There were several respects in which the scheme of the Government was a good one; but in other directions he certainly thought there was reason to complain. He should be glad to know whether it was intended that in case of war—a minor war, not sufficient to call out the Reserve—the brigade depôts should be expanded into a provisional battalion, and whether the Secretary of State would be able to call out the Reserve Militia of a district. He did not see anything in the new scheme which would attract the private soldier to the Service. The condition of the non-commissioned officer and the officer had been improved; but that of the private soldier had been altered rather for the worse, because he was asked to extend his term of service. He approved of that extension; but we should not attract private soldiers without giving them greater inducements.
THE EARL OF MORLEYbegged to thank the noble Lord who had brought forward the subject and thus initiated a most valuable debate. Many of the sug-

727
gestions made by noble Lords of great military experience would be most useful in determining many details of the scheme now under consideration. He acknowledged that the criticisms from both sides of the House had been useful, and, on the whole, friendly to the scheme. He would, in the first place, refer to that part of the scheme which dealt with the officers. There was no intention of interfering with any officer under the Indian guarantee, as the noble Lord opposite seemed to suppose. Colonels of Artillery and Engineers in India had a better scale of retirement than English officers in the same arm of the Service; and, therefore, any improvement in the retiring pay of English officers would be inapplicable to officers in the Indian Service. One of the main objections urged against the new regulations was that general officers would be retired at an earlier age than at present. But it was absolutely necessary to have some limit at which officers in the various ranks should retire from the Service or from the several ranks. It should be remembered that by keeping one man in they kept another out. Every scheme of promotion and retirement aimed at two things—to secure that officers should be of such an age as to be able to give efficient service in their rank; and, secondly, to create such a flow of promotion as would encourage officers in the hopes that they would reach, within a reasonable time, the higher grades in their Profession. For that purpose, he did not think the rule unfair which would compel a general officer to retire from the Service after five years' non-employment, particularly when it was proposed to increase the pensions of retiring generals. The whole difficulty in framing any scheme for the promotion and retirement of officers consisted in equitably balancing the interest of officers in various positions in the Service. The illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief had paid a high compliment to the officers of the British Army, which he wished in the fullest manner to endorse. During all the changes which had resulted from the recent Army reforms—and changes must be harassing—the officers had loyally and energetically performed their duty. In doubling the number of majors in the Cavalry and Infantry, the Government had no desire to press on a determination of the ques-
728
tion of large or small companies. That was a question of organization on which military authorities had not expressed a unanimous opinion; but if the large company organization were ever adopted, the new establishment of officers would be suitable for it—if not, they would, at least, save a number of captains from being compelled to leave the Service, because they had failed to obtain promotion within the period prescribed by the existing warrant. Passing to the important questions relating to non-commissioned officers and men, he should repeat what the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) had stated, that there was no analogy between the English and the German Army. Not only was the one recruited by conscription, and the other by enlistment; but the one had a large part of its Army abroad, while the other had no foreign army at all. The object of the recent changes was not to assimilate our Army to the German Army, but to provide a Reserve, and without a short service system a Reserve was impossible. The defects which were alleged against the short service system were that in the battalions there was too large a proportion of young soldiers; that there was a deterioration in the non-commissioned officers; that the Reserve had not grown as fast as had been anticipated, and that, in consequence of desertions, dismissals, and other causes, a very large number of men were lost to the Service between their enlistment and the termination of their service with the Colours. Some of those defects might be due to the state of transition in which the Army had been during the past nine years. It should also be remembered that the late Government had attempted to carry on two wars with a peace establishment, and he wished to know how it could have been expected that any system could have stood such a strain without showing signs of weakness; and, further, some of these defects were common to the long and short service, and could not, therefore, be fairly attributed entirely to the latter. The extreme youth of recruits had been urged as one of the results of the short service system; but the fact was that the age of the recruits was constantly rising. The average age of recruits during this year was 20 years and seven months. It was true that the growth of the Reserve was

729
less rapid than had been expected; but the short service system had been instituted in 1870, and, consequently, the first men were passed into the Reserve in 1876 who had completed six years' Colour service; so that, practically, the system had only been in force for five years, and during that time more than 1,000 men had been summoned to rejoin the Colours. Moreover, a considerable number of men who would, in ordinary circumstances, have passed into the Reserves were still with the Colours in India. It had been suggested that a system of vaccination would be a check on desertion; but if it could not be done effectually, so as to produce a distinctive mark, no greater mistake could be made than to adopt it; and the medical authorities admitted that in many cases vaccination did not take in the case of adults; and in those cases it was obvious that it would not cause a scar by which a deserter could be identified. With respect to the length of service which had been fixed upon, he would remind their Lordships that it did not differ very materially from that recommended by Lord Airey's Committee. The regular term of enlistment would be for seven years with the Colours, followed by five years in the Reserve; and it was proposed that there should be an extra year in India always, and also in the Colonies, when the Secretary of State thought it expedient to extend the time. Recruits were not to be accepted before the age of 19. It might be desirable, if possible, to raise the age of recruits to 20 years; but then they would incur the risk of checking recruiting, or, still worse, of getting men who had failed in civil careers. They proposed that no man should serve in India before he was 20 years of age, and had had served for at least one year at home; and the statistics of mortality showed that the best length of service for men in India was about seven years. After that length of service in India, the figures quoted by Lord Airey's Committee proved conclusively that the rate of mortality and of invaliding increased very rapidly. It could further be arranged between the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War, that in certain cases, which it was believed would not be numerous, the men should be allowed to serve somewhat longer in India; but not beyond the original term of enlistment for 12 years.
730
It was also proposed, in certain cases, to allow men in the home battalions to pass into the Reserve after three or four years. It had been asked to what regiments that principle would be applied. It would not be applied to the first 12 battalions, which would form part of the first Corps d' Armée. How far it would be applied must be left in the hands of the Secretary of State. The object was to give as much elasticity as possible to the system. It remained to be seen what the effect of the new limit of age would have on recruiting. It was an experiment which was generally admitted to be in the right direction. If it failed it would be possible to recur to the limit of 18 years; but he hoped and believed that, with the advantages to be given to non-commissioned officers, and with the other advantages held out to the Army, and with improved recruiting agencies and the greater publicity which it was proposed to give to the advantages of the Army, the recruiting would be kept up, and that in the next few years they would be fully able, as in the past, to meet the requirements of their establishment. With regard to the question of organization, Lord Airey's Committee had recommended, but not unanimously, that regiments should be unlinked. On the other hand, a few years ago an influential Committee, presided over by the late Secretary of State for War when he was Financial Secretary, unanimously recommended that the linking system should be carried to its legitimate conclusion, and that the regiments should always be double battalion regiments. That was the system which they proposed to carry into effect. There were many objections to the single battalion system; they would render necessary depôts of 12,000, 16,000, or, perhaps, 20,000 men to supply the foreign reliefs even in time of peace. Unless the Home Army was to be increased by that number of men—a supposition that was not likely to be realized—it was clear that a corresponding, or a nearly corresponding, reduction must be made in the home battalions; but the battalions now on the roster were, in the opinion of many officers, too weak already; and, consequently, the only alternative would be to reduce the number of regiments—a reduction which would amount to nearly 20 regiments 800 strong. This would clearly weaken the Army, by des-

731
troying so many cadres which, though weak in times of peace, could, by an infusion of Reserve men, be expanded into serviceable regiments in times of emergency and danger. On the other hand, double battalions had great advantages—they would facilitate reliefs for India enormously, and would enable us to obtain the full service of seven years from each healthy man in that country. It was all important that we should have a force at home which, coupled with the regiments in the Mediterranean, would form a Corps d' Armée which would be prepared to take the field at any moment. He was somewhat surprised to hear the statement that the territorial depôts had been useless for recruiting, as the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting seemed to show the contrary. He had now endeavoured to point out the main principles on which the new scheme was based. It was not of a new or an original character. Its principles were those on which Lord Cardwell had acted, the details had been modified with a view of correcting the defects, and of strengthening the weak points which the experience of the last 10 years had discovered in the system on which our Army was organized. The most important changes were, as he had stated, the lengthened term of service and the localization scheme, both of which presented complicated and difficult problems that had not been worked out without very grave deliberation. He confidently believed that the result of these changes would be the attainment of the object they all desired—namely, the increase of the efficiency of the Army.
LORD STRATHNAIRNbriefly called attention to the ill-effects of too early enlistment, and pointed out that recruits were not physically fit for service until they had reached the age of 20. However, the Army was filled with recruits under 18 down to 15 years of age, and that was the cause of the great waste in the Service. He hoped his noble Friend opposite and his right hon. Friend in the other House would direct their most serious attention to devising a remedy for this great evil.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 59.)

STOLEN GOODS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law respecting the recovery of Stolen Articles—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 60.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock, till Tomorrow, Eleven o'clock.