asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any effectual measures have now been taken; and, if so, of what nature, with a view to diminish the large number of serious accidents and self-mutilations recently reported from Chatham Convict Prison?

Sir, considering the humane and considerate disposition of the hon. Member, I was very much surprised not to receive any Notice of this Question till I saw it this morning in the Paper. I immediately wrote to the Directors of Convict Prisons, and have been furnished with the following Memorandum on the subject of the Question, which, as it contains important information, I will read to the hon. Member. It is dated the 25th of July, and states that very minute and careful inquiries have been made into the subject of the self-mutilations at Chatham Prison, with a view to ascertaining whether they could be ascribed to anything in the treatment or management of the prisoners which called for correction. It is probable that some exaggerated ideas have arisen from the application of the word "mutilation," which conveys the idea of some permanent loss of limb or other injury, to eases of a very much slighter character, to which the word "contusion" would more properly apply. The following is an extract from the Report of the Medical Officer for the year ending December, 1872:—

"Contusions and injuries have been reduced from 487 to 358; of the fractures 27 have been purposely produced, 16 requiring immediate amputation. The amputations altogether amounted to 34, which were successful with one exception, when the prisoner died on the eighth day from gangrene of the leg above the amputation. Of the 358 injuries above mentioned, 163 were wilful; all terminated favourably, though some were attended with danger to life from the extensive inflammation which followed. Of the 163 cases of wilful injury during the year, 101 were the creation of sores and the introduction of foreign bodies under the skin, and 62 were actual mutilation or attempted mutilation. Of the 62, there were 36 during the first half of the year, and only 26 during the latter half, thus showing a marked decrease in this description of injury; and of the total 62 cases the majority—namely, 43—were ineffectual, and only 9 can be described as really serious cases."

But during the last few months the practice of self-mutilations has so decreased as to have almost entirely disappeared. In fact, since the 15th of March, there have been only four cases of mutilation, and four of contusions producing no permanent injury, and only one since the 10th of May. There can be no doubt that a very large proportion of these acts are committed for the purpose of evading labour; and only those who are familiar with this class of men are aware of the extent to which malingering to avoid work or service is carried. In the Army it is equally common; and an epidemic of this sort once prevailed in the French Army. Self-infliction of injuries is merely one form of malingering which, in recent years, seems to have become the vogue among the convicts at Chatham. The steps taken to put an end to these practices have been—(1), to remove from the men any facilities for committing the acts which were most common—namely, pro-clueing fractures or contusions with the trucks or engines; (2), letting it be clearly understood that severe punishment would follow any such acts; and (3), pointing out clearly and considerately to those who had suffered from them the uselessness, and, at the same time, the unreasonableness, of what they had done. The result of these steps has been that acts of this kind have now become rare, and persistence in the same course will, it is believed, put an end to it almost entirely.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, after referring to the last annual Report of the Local Government Board of England, wherein at page 49 it is stated that the Board sanctioned loans for sanitary purposes, from the 19th of August 1871, to the 31st of December 1871, amounting to £267,562, and from the 31st of December 1871, to the 31st of December 1872, to £602,271, making a total of £869,833; whether he will still adhere to his statement that the total amount of sanitary loans sanctioned in England during the said period was only £8,693; and, after referring to the annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland issued last month, wherein it is stated at page 7 that the Treasury sanctioned a loan of £50,000 to be made by them, the said Commissioners, out of the Public Works Loan Fund of Ireland, to the Waterford Corporation for water supply, whether he will still adhere to his statement that the loan was to be made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners of England?

Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to state, in reply to my hon. Friend's Question, that the amount of the loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board for sanitary purposes, from the 19th of August, 1871, to the 31st of December, 1872, was, as stated in the Question, £869,833. The great bulk, however, of that amount was advanced by public companies and private individuals, from whom, until the passing of the Public health Act of last Session, local authorities could borrow on more advantageous terms than from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The Question of yesterday referred to loans made by that Board with the sanction of the Treasury, and the amount so advanced was £8,389, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend, however, fell into a slight inaccuracy when he stated that the £50,000 loan to Waterford was made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for England. It was made by the Irish Board, but the Treasury consulted the English Commissioners on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any objection to extend the amnesty already accorded to political prisoners to Davitt and Wilson, who were convicted of treason felony at the Central Criminal Court?

I am sorry to say, Sir, that there is a strong and most conclusive reason, one which over-rides every other reason for not extending, this amnesty to the men referred to, and for leading us to conclude that these men are not political prisoners at all in the sense in which indulgence might be extended to prisoners of that character. It is a sound principle of modern administration, that when there has been a convulsion in a country and a contagion of strong feelings has led men to join it—when it is put down by the arm of the law, the individuals who were parties to it should be dealt with very leniently. But, Sir, I know no reason why single individuals who, without the apology of contagion, have endeavoured to bring about bloodshed, should be so dealt with. I look upon it as an abuse and morbid symptom of the feeling of the day to bring such a class into the category of political prisoners. I desire to gain no popularity founded upon any such supposed tendency, for, instead of entertaining such a feeling, I will always be the first to resist it. That is, I hope, a conclusive answer to the Question; and I am sorry that I cannot make any other answer. The offences of these unfortunate men were committed quite apart from Fenian offences. In point of time, these offences were committed and sentence was passed in 1870. They appear to have been part of a secret organization for distributing arms, and, if possible, laying the foundation for future revolution. In ordinary convictions for political offences we can positively and confidentially say that when once public excitement and hazard have passed away, it may be well to stretch a point on the side of mercy; but we are not able to do so in this case, and therefore I am not able to offer any encouragement to my hon. and learned Friend in reference to the Question he has put.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the county of Meath is not at present without any Coroner at all, and whether the office of Coroner for the lower division of that county has not been vacant ever since May 1871, and that of Coroner for the upper division of the same county ever since Spring 1872; whether the Grand Jury of Meath did not at Summer Assizes 1872 certify such vacancy to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and recommend that one Coroner should be elected for the entire county; whether certain justices of the peace of said county have not applied to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland through the clerk of the peace, asking for the writ of election for a Coroner; what is the average number of Inquests held in the county per year for the last three years; whether there have not been in the county of Meath cases of sudden death, or other eases proper for inquest, since the county has ceased to have a Coroner, in which considerable delay and inconvenience have resulted from the difficulty of immediately obtaining the attendance of a sufficient number of justices of the peace to perform the service formerly rendered by Coroners; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the old and important office of Coroner shall not again he filled up in the county of Meath?

in reply, said, he had obtained some information, although it was not complete, respecting the office of coroner for the county of Meath. That county was at present without any coroner at all; the office of coroner for the lower division of the county had been vacant since May, 1871, and that of coroner for the upper division since the Spring of 1872. At the Summer Assizes of 1872 the Grand Jury of Meath certified such vacancy to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and recommended that one coroner should be elected for the entire county. Certain justices of the peace for the county had applied for proceedings to be taken under the 9th & 10th Vict. for modifying the divisions of the county, and at a meeting of the magistrates, duly convened, a recommendation was made that the two districts should be united and one coroner appointed for the county. For some reason, however, which he had been unable to ascertain, no action was taken for some time in consequence of that recommendation; but not long ago a ease was submitted to the Law Officers, who expressed their opinion that the action taken by the magistrates was illegal, as they had no power under the Act of uniting the two districts, although they could alter or subdivide them. Under those circumstances, warrants for the election of two coroners for the respective divisions of the county were issued, and he was informed they were now in possession of the clerk of the peace. No action had yet been taken upon them, and he was unable to explain why further delay had occurred. He would make further inquiry, and, as far as Government could prevent it, would take care that there should be no more delay. He was obliged to admit that considerable inconvenience had resulted from the difficulty of immediately obtaining the attendance of a sufficient number of justices of the peace to perform the service formerly rendered by coroners.

said, it was not his intention at that stage of the Bill to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice to the effect, that it would be undesirable to proceed with further legislation concerning the "private estates of the Crown," unless provision were made for the publication of accounts of the annual receipts and disbursements of such estates. He proposed, however, to bring forward a clause in Committee, and to divide the Committee on that clause.

rose to move as an Amendment, in page 2, line 36, at end, to add—

"and all laws applicable to wills and dispositions of private persons, and imposing probate, administration, legacy, and succession duties shall apply to wills and dispositions by or in favour of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors."

said, the hon. Member was precluded from moving the Amendment, inasmuch as it imposed a charge from which the Crown was at present exempt.

contended that that objection did not hold good with regard to the real property of the Crown to which the Bill applied, if it did with regard to the personal. He would accordingly submit his Amendment in an altered form, declaring that the law should be applicable as regarded succession duties to wills and dispositions by or in favour of Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors.

said, the Amendment would impose a new tax on the Sovereign, without her permission or the previous permission of that House, and it was clearly out of Order. If the old Act had imposed the duty, the declaration would be of no effect; but the Act did not impose any such, and it could not be extended by an Amendment of this character.

said, if the Amendment varied the law otherwise than he had mentioned—by consent of the Crown or of the House—it was not competent to the hon. Member to propose it.

suggested, independently of the other grounds named, that the Amendment would require the consent of the Crown if it affected the interests of the Crown.

argued, that as that was a Bill to remove a doubt, and so to secure to the Crown certain property, which could not be at present regarded as secure, and in that way to augment its revenue, a restriction effecting an incidental charge upon that source of income which the Bill was necessary to secure could not be considered as imposing a new charge upon the Sovereign.

submitted there were three distinct grounds on which the Committee ought to decline to entertain the Amendment. The first was a ground upon which the hon. Member ought not to press it; it was not fair to the Promoters and the House to move an Amendment totally distinct from that of which Notice had been given. Upon a question of that kind, involving subtle argument, it was unfair to ask the House for a decision independently of Notice. On that account he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. Secondly, that was a matter affecting the permanent interests of the Crown, and the Motion proposed a charge which did not exist, and which could not be imposed without the consent of the Crown. Thirdly, irrespective altogether of the question on whom the charge would fall, it was a new charge, unless it were provided for already; and if it were provided for there was no occasion for the Amendment. If it was a new charge, the hon. Member could not proceed without a Resolution passed in Committee.

suggested whether the discussion was not altogether somewhat irrelevant, and out of Order.

said, the alteration made in his Amendment did not re- lieve the hon. Member from the difficult), in which he had placed himself. As the Amendment would affect the rights of the Crown, it would clearly require a Committee and the Royal Assent.

thought the Committee was not being met in the spirit in which the House had met the Government in voting for the Bill. It was undesirable to place the Crown in respect of private property in a position different from that of private persons, and it might become a question, whether the Bill should not be opposed altogether.

said, the object of the Amendment was good, for it would meet the difficulties about the secrecy of the Sovereign's disposition of property. He thought the hon. Member for Stroud had been unfairly treated, and the only course for those who thought so was to give the hon. Member an opportunity of putting himself in Order by delaying the progress of the Bill.

suggested that, after what had passed, it would be in the interests of the Crown if the Government were to consult the feeling of the Crown in the matter, and allow the Bill to drop for that Session.

said, he was not aware of any express legal decision on the subject; but the most eminent lawyers had never doubted the right of the Crown to leave personalty by will.

rose to move a new clause, to follow Clause 3, providing for the publication of accounts of the receipts and disbursements on account of the private estates of the Crown to be sent to the Treasury and laid before Parliament. The Prime Minister had said they were small, and there was no immediate prospect of their becoming large; but if such a concession as the present were not made, they might become very large in a single day, without Parliament having any knowledge of the fact, unless accounts were published. Large legacies might be left to the Crown by persons desirous of notoriety, or wishing to see it independent of Parliamentary Votes, and the money might be invested in land to an enormous extent. If the estates of the Crown were to be treated as private estates, no doubt, it would be inconsistent to require the publication of accounts; but as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud had fallen through, it was the more necessary to press for the publication of accounts respecting them—especially when the fact was remembered that they increased daily in value. They were published in the case of the Duchy of Lancaster, which at the beginning of the reign produced £8,000 a-year, and now £40,000 a-year. The annual publication of the accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster by the authority of Parliament was a case in point. The Prime Minister on a former stage of the Bill was understood to say, that if these private estates of the Crown became considerable, that ought to be considered in fixing the Civil List at the beginning of each reign. The advanced Liberals had often dallied that the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster should be regarded on the same footing as the other Crown lands; but that claim had always been resisted by the Ministry of the day. When Bolingbroke came to the Crown he brought the Duchy of Lancaster with him as his private estate. The Crown had always maintained the private character of the Duchy estates; but the income of the Duchy was annually published, and was taken into account as part of the income of the Crown on the accession of each Sovereign. The late Lord Derby asserted in the House of Lords that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster were as little the property of the public as were any of the estates of their Lordships, yet he gladly consented to the publication of the annual accounts of the Duchy. In the Civil List Act of George III., it was stated that His Majesty surrendered the revenue arising from the whole of the Crown estates, "except the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall." The Duchy of Lancaster was not named, yet it was held by Parliament and the Crown not to be included in the surrender. All he asked for was that accounts of the nature of the Duchy might be presented to Parliament yearly, and the clause which he had placed on the Paper was drawn up exactly in the words which applied to the Duchy of Lancaster, except that he would substitute the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who should render accounts to the Treasury for submission to Parliament, instead of the officer who performed that duty with respect to the Duchy. If, however, the Government preferred to name any officer of the Treasury he should not object, so long as the thing were done. He would conclude by moving the clause of which he had given Notice.

thought that it was an improvement that that question was now being considered in Committee on its merits, but, having considered it on its merits, he could not find that it had any. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) was under a mistake as to what he (Mr. Gladstone) said on the second reading of the Bill. He had not used the ambiguous word "considerable" in the reference made by the hon. Baronet. What he stated was that there was not the slightest probability that the private estates of the Crown would ever come to resemble those immense masses of property that were held by private individuals in that country, but that if they ever did come to resemble them, that would be the time for Parliament, on the accession of a new Sovereign, to take the subject into account. With regard to the Duchy of Lancaster, there was not the slightest analogy between that and Osborne or Balmoral, and the hon. Baronet's argument in that respect as to the publication of the accounts of the Duchy was altogether fallacious and irrelevant. That revenue had risen from £8,000 to £40,000 a-year, and the hon. Baronet said that because that was so, the smaller properties of the Queen at the places before-mentioned might have made a similar increase. The hon. Baronet, however, knew no such increase could accrue for this reason—the possessions of the Duchy were large, varied, scattered, and held under different conditions, and the income had been carelessly administered for several generations. What analogy, therefore, would there be between such an estate and property purchased by the Crown at rack-rents and according to modern usages? He was not responsible for the declaration made by the late Lord Derby. Lord Derby's opinion was no doubt entitled to respect, but he declined to be held by it. The hon. Member had no right to quote that opinion and call upon the House to act in conformity with it, unless he was prepared to plant his foot and take his stand upon it. He (Mr. Gladstone) affirmed that there was no resemblance between the Duchy of Lancaster and the private estates which were the subject of the Bill; and it was a mere quibble of words to argue whether the Duchy of Lancaster was in the same sense, a private estate of the Crown. In many vital respects it differed most essentially from the private estates of the Crown. It had been subject to management under the statutes of the realm. It could only be managed by a responsible Minister, whom the hon. Gentleman might remove, if he had influence enough; and it was a large estate and likely to grow. The Duchy of Lancaster had long been brought within the scope of Parliamentary interposition, and it was accordingly most proper that its accounts should be matters of public cognizance. These private estates of the Crown, on the other hand, were purely private property. They were partly the result of thrift and providence, and arose partly from a bequest. Yes; one such bequest had happened in the whole history of this country. These matters could not call upon Parliament for its cognizance, unless they should swell to some considerable amount, and should form some considerable item or element in the power and influence of the Crown, when they might be taken into consideration about once in 20 years, or when a new Civil List had to be granted. The statutes of the land recognized the principle of private property by the Crown, and this Act introduced no new principle in that respect. A doubt, however, had arisen as to whether that property could pass directly and by bequest to the succeeding Sovereign, and in connection with it, a more unhandsome, a more ungenerous use of an occasion given by accidental circumstances he could not conceive; and if it were attempted to make such a use against a railway company or a private individual who had occasion to come to Parliament, and to put upon him some stringent conditions utterly new to the law, the House, he was sure, would immediately reject the proposal.

said, the hon. Baronet below the gangway (Sir Charles Dilke) did not draw any analogy between Osborne and the Duchy of Lancaster—the right hon. Gentleman drew it himself. The right hon. Gentleman put it as applying to Osborne. If the Crown were to accumulate £9,000,000 or £10,000,000, and were to purchase landed estates, would not the clause apply to that. If the hon. Member had intended to apply the clause to Osborne, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman would have been fair enough, but not otherwise. The hon. Member proposed to do nothing but what Parliament ought to have done in the first Civil List. The fact was, the right hon. Gentleman had made a grievous mistake in bringing the Bill into the House at all, for there was nothing to be said in favour of the Act of 1862, of which the Bill was an Amendment. All the Bill intended to do was to amend a bad Act which passed through' that House and the House of Lords without debate, in that extremely degenerate Palmerstonian era of Parliamentary existence. It was only in such an era that the Bill could have been passed without debate. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking of the conduct of hon. Member for Chelsea as unhandsome and ungenerous, was importing a personal character into the debate. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said the proceeding was so on the part of the House of Commons.] That means the House of Commons could attach a personal character. No one has the slightest idea of importing a personal character into this discussion, as against the Queen, whom they all reverenced and honoured. It was simply as against the Crown, not against the individual who occupied it. If Parliament were to take the estates of the Sovereign on a new accession, it would be necessary for them to have the accounts before them, which the hon. Baronet proposed should be submitted to Parliament every year.

in reply, said, he would be willing to accept words which would exempt from the operation of the clause lands at present held by Her Majesty at Balmoral and Osborne.

said, he could not allow the measure to pass without entering his protest against the principle it embodied, in an inversion of the old rule of law with regard to the onus probandi. He objected that in certain cases parents should be obliged to prove that they were not offenders against the law before any evidence had been offered in support of the charge in respect of which they had been summoned. That was a bad and dangerous principle, and he hoped never to see it extended.

hoped that the passing of the Bill would mark a great abatement—he could not hope for an entire cessation—of the political asperity which had arisen on the discussion of the question. The time had come when the efforts of all parties ought to be directed to making elementary education sound and efficient, rather than treating it as a political and party question. With regard to the schools which the Nonconformists had founded for elementary education, he believed in all cases religious training had been combined with secular education, and certainly that was universally the ease with respect to the schools of the British and Foreign Society which the Nonconformists had actively supported. He wished to make one or two remarks on a clause in the Bill to which much attention had not been devoted. The 13th clause was intended to give school boards the power to accept gifts for educational purposes, and in that he hoped he saw the germ of the future development of a somewhat higher class of education than had been general in the elementary schools. The Revised Code, though it had increased the quantity and in some respects the quality of education, had had the effect of diminishing the attention paid to the higher branches and to the more advanced scholars. There ought to be some system by which scholars distinguished by character and ability could pass into middle-class schools, and thence into such institutions as Owen's College, Manchester. He knew that the Vice President of the Council was afraid that such a system might lead to expense which would not be justified. In his (Mr. Birley's) opinion, there was no ground for such an apprehension. Private zeal would furnish what was necessary, and all that would be wanted from the Education Department would be some assistance in the way of organization and inspection. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the result of his arduous labours. Whatever blemishes might be in the Bill, he still hoped it would have a good effect, and that numbers of children would be brought into the schools through its operation. He implored hon. Gentlemen opposite to put aside party dissensions, and to join with those on that (the Opposition) side in an honourable rivalry for the education of those poor children.

said, that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had told the House more than once that the 25th clause of the Act of 1870 was adopted unanimously by the House. He did not believe in any imputations of unbecoming arrangements on the part of the Government with the other side of the House, to make the Bill acceptable to either party; but the fact was, there were not half-a-dozen Members on either side of the House who really understood in 1870 the meaning and effect of the clause, otherwise it never would have passed as it did sub silentio. His right hon. Friend gave it to be understood more than once that the 25th clause should be re-considered; but that had not been done, and his right hon. Friend, by the course which he had taken, had thrown elements of disturbance among the religious party of the country which would be felt in the coming school board elections, and in the Parliamentary elections, and would, he believed, result in a loss to the Liberal party. The necessity for the existence of the clause at all was very small, and he deeply lamented that the right hon. Gentleman had not proposed its withdrawal. The amendment of the Act of 1870, which had been looked forward to so wistfully, had ended in bitter disappointment; and his right hon. Friend would find that at the next election he would be compelled to have recourse to the Conservative party in order to secure his return for the borough of Bradford, as he had had recourse to their assistance in that House in order to maintain the 25th clause. The Vice President of the Council had on that question departed from the principles of his youth, and of his full-grown manhood—["No, no!"]—hon. Gentlemen who said "no" should have read, as he (Mr. Candlish) had, the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in his early life, at a time when the right hon. Gentleman's opinions were identical with his own. That had led him at one time to entertain the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be the future leader of the great Liberal party. They had, however, been disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. Candlish) could not allow that occasion to pass without declaring his dissatisfaction at the course taken by the Government, and deploring the loss which in consequence would be sustained by the Liberal party.

said, the House would not expect any long discussion on that stage of the Bill. As to the objection of the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield), that the onus probandi was thrown on the parent, he might remind him that the illustration which he gave ought to be satisfactory to his hon. Friend, for in the Factory Acts it was found absolutely necessary to throw the same burden of proof on the parent for the protection of the child. He was sorry the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had thought it necessary to make the remarks he had done. His hon. Friend could hardly have wished to convey the impression that he (Mr. Forster) on the part of the Government had acted differently from what he stated last year it would be his duty to do. His hon. Friend said that hopes were held out of the repeal of the 25th clause; but if his hon. Friend referred to what he stated, he (Mr. Candlish) would find that not once or twice, but oftener, in answer to Questions from his hon. Friend, from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). and others, he said he acknowledged the objections held by his hon. Friends, that he himself did not concur in them, that he would, if possible, remove them; but that he could hold out no hope whatever of doing so unless the right of the parent, when too poor to pay the school fees, to choose the school was reserved. He had always stated that they had no right, in putting compulsion in force, when there were two or more elementary schools from which the parent might choose, to say that the children should go to the schools which the school boards approved, and not to those approved by the parents. Everything, he stated, had that condition attached. That being so, the Government and he himself had done what they could to fulfil what he promised. They brought forward propositions for the purpose, and, on the high authority of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, had to some extent removed the objections to the clause felt by his hon. Friend and those who acted with him. It was true that before the plan was proposed, and before it was known what would be its exact form, it was objected to, or at least an opinion was expressed upon it before it was proposed. He had, however, hoped that full and candid consideration would have been given to it, because a similar provision was brought up in the Scotch Bill, and almost unanimously accepted. He thought it right to say that much in vindication of the course pursued by the Government. But his hon. Friend said he had not met the difficulty, but rather made it greater by applying it to pauper children. It was quite true that the right of choice was not taken away in the case of pauper children. But had his hon. Friend or any other hon. Member protested against the application of the right to pauper children? His hon. Friend voted for the second reading, when he (Mr. Forster) stated clearly that all that had been taken out of the Bill with the consent of the Government was with reference to the indigent parent, rather than the pauper. His hon. Friend had thought fit to foretell the reception that awaited him in his own borough in connection with this subject; but he should be able to state that so strong was the feeling of the House that the pauper should not be deprived of this right, that neither his hon. Friend nor any other hon. Member had ventured to propose to deprive him of it. He did not make these remarks in any feeling of irritation, but it was impossible to pass by some of the remarks of his hon. Friend. He said that he (Mr. Forster) had deserted the principles of his youth, and he spoke not only of the effect which would be produced on himself, but also on the party. That was hardly a remark that should have come from the hon. Member, who knew nothing of the principles in which he (Mr. Forster) had been brought up, and of which he had been so unworthy a representative; but the fact was, that education question had been one of great difficulty and responsibility to him, and he felt from time to time that he had to consider, not the good of his party, nor the advantage of any temporary measure, but what he thought was right and just in itself, and he knew from the lessons he had received from his old Quaker father, that there was not a step he had taken on this question, especially with regard to religious education, that he would not have approved. He was confirmed in that opinion by some of his persuasion who were now alive. Then as to the effect that would be produced on his own interests, did the hon. Member suppose that he should be afraid of that? He appealed to those who knew him intimately whether he had ever viewed these questions as they af- fected his own interest or those of his friends in preference to the manner in which they influenced the welfare of the country and the children of generations to come? He considered that he should be utterly unworthy of occupying the position he did if he allowed such considerations to have the slightest weight with him; and, looking forward to the opposition with which he was threatened in his own borough, he could assure the House that he did not fear the result. He was prepared to meet not only the whole constituency, but the Liberal constituency of Bradford, What the result might be he did not know; but he was quite sure that, after they had heard what he had stated, they would admit that he had acted in the manner which he thought best for the interests of education; and his firm conviction was that he should not be worthy of taking any part whatever in politics if he had either deserted his principles or lent himself to taking away the freedom of religious teaching in schools. When his hon. Friend said he had deserted his principles, his reply was, that so far as he had said anything in regard to education, he had simply repeated what he had always stated, and he would find that in addressing a large meeting at St. James's Hall, in the year 1868, he expressed the sentiments he had done now.

I feel that it may be thought presumptuous in me, a Parliamentary baby so lately born into this House, to venture to utter a word in its august presence. I plead in extenuation the fact that I have had a species of experience on the elementary education question, which I believe no other Gentleman present has had. I have for some years of my life had the honour—the high honour—of being in charge of a largo parish. It was a rural parish in an English midland county. During those years I have been in constant and intimate intercourse with the cottage labourers. I am intimately acquainted with their feelings, their views, wishes, and wants. My experience leads me to hail with the greatest satisfaction the amended Elementary Education Act Bill. I am convinced that the advantage likely to be derived from it can scarcely be exaggerated. The cottagers receiving out-door relief are precisely the class whom it is most difficult to induce to send their children to school. I shall mention an instance in point—a type of thousands of similar cases scattered throughout the country. I well remember a pauper family, the head of which was disabled by slight paralysis, and who was, therefore, a chronic ease of out-door relief. This man had a large family of children. Every means were tried to induce him to send them to school; we offered to pay their school fees; we assisted them with clothing; we plied the parents with arguments and entreaties, but all in vain. The children grew up wild and neglected; the girls became instruments of vice and immorality; the boys became poachers and vagrants; the whole family were the plague-spot of the parish. Now, what would we have given in those days for such powers as the amended Act of 1870 will confer on parish Guardians? Those children would all have been sent to school, and would probably have grown up to be useful members of the community. The hon. Member for Sunderland has stated that the results of the Act of 1870 were insignificant—that they were represented by an expenditure of only £5,000 a-year. My experience would quite have prepared me for this, because I know the rural Guardians to be a class of men who shrink from responsibility. The Act of 1870 was permissive, and therefore implied responsibility; the present Act is compulsory, and I feel convinced that the Guardians will gladly carry out the provisions of the Act, now that it will no longer entail responsibility or odium. Before I sit down I wish to say a few words on one point which has arisen during the debates upon this Bill, with reference to a different class to the out-door relief pauper. The hon. Member for Brighton, in his eloquent speech, said much about calling a spade a spade. He argued that if a man received parish relief in the shape of school fees for his children, that constituted him a pauper. I venture to join issue with him there. I deny that the spade in this instance is a spade. The definition of pauper is a man who cannot provide himself or his family with the physical necessaries of life, but education is not a physical necessary of life. Paupers are the failures and incapables of the community. There is a very large class who can and do provide their families with the necessaries of life, who cannot further afford the luxuries of education for their children, and whom, yet, it would be unjust and impolitic to brand as paupers. The cottager, who has fed and clothed half-a-score of children on 12s. a-week, and who has besides paid his provident club subscription, has, I think, done enough to entitle him to our earnest admiration. When the problem of making both ends meet has been so arduous we can scarcely expect that many pence, if any, will be left for school fees, and he may without reproach accept educational aid from the wealthier members of the community without being dubbed a pauper. What is it which nerves his arm, and furnishes the stimulus for this hard battle and struggle? Why, it is the honest feeling of self-respect and independence. It is his glory and his pride that he has never come upon the parish for food or clothing for his family. But if you now tell him that all that hard struggle has been in vain — that if he cannot, besides, pay his children's schooling, he is but a pauper after all, then you break that man's heart—his arm will fall nerveless by his side, and you will make him indeed what you have made him in name, a pauper. I trust that the hon. Member for Brighton who said—"Let us call a spade a spade," and also hon. Gentlemen who applauded the sentiment, will re-consider their verdict. I hope that they will call to mind the words of the poet—"Who robs me of my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed." I hope also that the hon. Member for Brighton will forgive me for challenging anything he has said, and will excuse me, too, for speaking a word in favour of my old and most sincerely esteemed friend, the labouring man.

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had stated that the 25th clause was an outrage on his conscience. He wished to ask the House why his hon. Friend's conscience was entitled to respect, while his (Mr. Fowler's) was not. He had co-operated for many years past with Nonconformists in promoting ragged schools, and in those schools Churchmen and Dissenters had been able to work harmoniously together in inculcating these great truths in which they were agreed. He could not see why the same system should not be followed in Government schools. He was quite ready to contribute to schools in which the Nonconformists should teach their own religious views; but it was a violation of his conscience to support schools from which the Bible was excluded. He thought he had as much right to ask to have his scruples considered as hon. Gentlemen opposite. It had been a subject of great grief to him to see the Nonconformists, whom he had always believed to be sincerely attached to the Bible, ready to exclude it from education. He, however, rejoiced to believe that the policy of his right hon. Friend the Vice President was supported by an overwhelming majority of the people. They had seen how large the majority was in this House, and he believed it was still larger in the country, because many of the minority obtained their seats, not in consequence, but in spite, of their views on this question. There was one subject of a personal nature to which he wished to refer. The hon. Member for Sunderland had reproached the right hon. Gentleman with having abandoned the principles of his ancestors. Now, it had been his great privilege to know the parents and the family of his right hon. Friend, and he could bear witness that they had devoted their lives to philanthropy, and especially to religious education. He had himself, at the time the Education Bill was passing in 1870, visited a venerable friend of his—a near relation of the right hon. Gentleman—shortly before his death, and he expressed to him the great satisfaction he felt that his nephew had maintained the principle of Bible education.

shared the desire of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) to get rid of points of difference, and to unite all parties in promoting that degree of religious education which was wished for by the masses of the people. His complaint was, that in many districts where there was but one school—and that a National School—the schools were being to a large extent worked in suppport of Church principles. In 1870, he recognized the magnificent efforts which had been made denominationally, and therefore supported the Vice President, being simple enough to think that, in country districts where schools were scarce, some common ground for the inculcation of religious instruction would be found, and that it would be suitable to the entire population. It was exceedingly difficult to prove the contrary, because there was a great indisposition on the part of those affected to give evidence on the subject; but he know enough to be convinced that there was a large number of instances in which the Conscience Clause was inoperative, particularly in villages where there was no owner of property who sympathized with its spirit, and that persistent attempts were made to promote Church interests in the schools. That was accounted for by the fact that those standing high in the Church of England had given utterance to the most stimulating suggestions that the schools should be managed in the interests of the Church alone, that the teaching was to be dogmatic, and that teachers were to be secured who were members of the Church of England, and who would pay supreme regard to the preparation of children for confirmation. In proof of that, he might refer to speeches of Lord Lyttelton, the Rev. Canon Norris (Inspector), the Bishops of Lichfield, Ely, Peterborough, and Gloucester, and the report of the National Society; and he would contrast, with their utterances, those of Dr. Fraser, Bishop of Manchester, who said that the Birmingham League was greatly misunderstood, and that on its platform clergymen might very well maintain a position which would show they were not afraid to act upon a common ground, on a subject on which they were supposed to have deep feelings. He could not be a party to the third reading of this Bill without appealing to hon. Members to shake themselves loose from Church prejudices, so that they might get to the end of these bickerings about Church and Chapel, and exert themselves in a united and hearty movement for the thorough education of the people. He especially appealed to the Vice President, who apparently had failed to see anything of danger that needed to be checked. He must, at the same time, tell him there was not one word in the Bill that touched in the remotest degree the grievance of which Nonconformists complained. As a Nonconformist, he protested against the application of public money to these purposes, and if that spirit continued to be manifested, it was child's play to talk of any cessation of the present agitation.

said, he would not enter into a discussion on the third reading of the Bill; but he would say that the efforts of the Church on educational matters had been recognized on all occasions, and he did not think the claims they put forward were extravagant. The House had not expressed any regret at the passing of the 25th clause, and he attributed the agitation against it to jealousy of the Church, rather than zeal for education. He should not care much if the maintenance of the clause did split up the Liberal party. A maintenance of the struggle on the question must only end in disgusting the people of England, and increasing their sympathy for Church and denominational education.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Charles Adderley) ought to show some consideration for those who contend for what is called secular education in day schools, for there was a time when he himself shared their views. When the late Mr. Fox, then Member for Oldham, some years ago introduced into this House a Bill for secular education, the right hon. Baronet, much to his honour as I think, strenuously supported that measure. He has probably changed his views; but he ought not to be hard on those whom he has deserted. I will not enter into the controversy between my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and the Vice President of the Council, as to whether the latter has forsaken the principles of his youth; but I have always understood that the religious body among whom he was brought up, held this as one of their fundamental principles—that the application of public money, extracted from the pockets of the people by taxation, to teaching religion, whether in church or chapel or school, is not consistent with the freedom and purity of the Christian dispensation. But I arise principally to protest against the use that has been made of the word "sectarian" in the discussions that have taken place on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) fell into the use of the merest clap-trap, when the other day he spoke of "sectarian wrangling" and took care by what he said before and after, very distinctly to point the application of the phrase to the Nonconformists. I suppose there must be something very fascinating to the ear and heart in a loud cheer, especially when it comes from the ranks of your opponents. I infer that from the pains that are taken, and the sacrifices that are made to gain it. But the danger is, of being betrayed into clap-trap, in trying to secure the enjoyment. And I must say I think the hon. Member for Brighton has been a little exposed to the temptation of late of courting the applause of the party opposite, rather more than some of his friends think quite safe. Nothing can be more utterly unfair and unjust than to apply the epithet "sectarian" to the course taken by the Nonconformists on this education question. We are emphatically the unsectarian party. We are contending for national against sectarian education. The simple truth is—and it is vain to attempt to disguise the fact—that the conflict in which we are engaged is only a part of that which is going on all over Europe, and in respect to which the whole of the Liberal party in every country in Europe are at one—against delivering up the education of the people into the hands of the priesthood. Then we are charged with inconsistency, because we refuse the application of rates for denominational education, while we sanction it in Parliamentary grants. But who has sanctioned it in Parliamentary grants? Not the Nonconformists. On the contrary, they have steadfastly and consistently opposed it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton has followed the history of Nonconformist opinion on this subject, he must be aware that for many years the great body of the Nonconformists opposed State education altogether, and especially, and emphatically on this ground—that the appropriation of public money by Votes from the Consolidated Fund to denominational, or oven to religious teaching of any kind, was a clear violation of their principles and a wrong done to conscience. In 1843, at one of the largest and most important conferences of the Congregational Body ever held in this country, this resolution was carried unanimously—

"That this meeting, utterly repudiating, on the strongest grounds of Scripture and conscience, the receipt of money raised by taxation for sustaining the Christian religion, feels bound to apply this principle no less to the work of religious education."

And they gave the best proof of their sincerity by refusing to accept the grant for their own schools, and so placing themselves at an enormous disadvantage. And their views on this subject have been expressed in this House with perfect explicitness. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, in the debate on the Minutes of Council in 1817, though he was almost the only Nonconformist in the House, with characteristic courage spoke out our sentiments fully. The Nonconformists were charged with "clamour" then, as they are now charged with "sectarian wrangling," and in reply to this, my right hon. Friend said—

"Just recollect, when the whole of the Nonconformists are charged with clamour, what they mean by being Nonconformists. They object, as I understand, at least I object, to the principle by which the Government seizes hold of public funds to give salaries and support to the teachers of all sects of religion, or of one sect of religion, for I think the one plan nearly as unjust as the other."—[3 Hansard, xci. 1094.]

Perhaps I may be asked why, if we object to Parliamentary grants for denominational education, we do not oppose those grants when they are brought forward in the Votes? For a very obvious reason, and one which I think is not dishonourable to us. Because we know that, however opposed to our principles they may be, Parliament and the country were committed to those grants many years ago, at a time when we, the Nonconformists, had scarcely any voice in this House at all, and that many schools which have done and are doing excellent service in the work of popular education—and I have always ungrudgingly acknowledged the great service which the Church of England has rendered in the cause of education—have been established on the public faith that the grants would be continued. We felt that it would be unfair and unjust to attempt to withdraw suddenly the aid on which the strength of such schools has been led to depend. To allow a system which has come down to us from past times, to remain without active or immediate resistance, is one thing; but to allow the same system to be recognized and consecrated in a new direction, and by fresh legislation, is quite another thing. There is a a great disposition to sneer at the conscientious objections alleged by the Nonconformists on this matter. Well, they have given at least some proofs of their sincerity, when they have pleaded conscience on former occasions. For ages they submitted to be deprived of all the most precious privileges of citizenship, of the right of filling any office in the service of their country, of the honour of a seat in this House, and of the priceless advantages of University education, because their conscientious religious convictions stood in the way of their complying with the conditions by which those rights and privileges might be enjoyed. I must repeat again, what I have often said in this House—that the position taken by the Nonconformists on this subject is misunderstood, if not misrepresented. We do not ask for education without religion. I will yield to no man in this House, or in the country, in my anxiety to secure religious education for the people of this country. I believe that the best basis for a virtuous and prosperous population, is to have a population thoroughly imbued with religious principle and feeling. We only ask that religious instruction should be given by those to whom it could be best discharged, parents of the children, ministers of religion, and the teachers in our Sunday schools.

said, he felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the conscientious, consistent, and useful course taken by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) during that long educational controversy. For several years he himself had been opposed to his right hon. Friend, not indeed on great and essential points, but in regard to the intervention of the State. They had both been advocates of the universal education of the people, of freedom of education, and of the combining of religious with secular teaching. His right hon. Friend and himself had supported the system of undenominational Bible instruction which was founded 60 years since by the British and Foreign School Society, under Joseph Lancaster, the Duke of Bedford, and others; and among the life-long friends of that society were the father and uncle of his right hon. Friend. He knew the writings and speeches of his right hon. Friend on the subject, and he bore witness that his conduct had been straightforward and consistent. Where they had differed, he was ready to say that his right hon. Friend had generally been in the right, and he (Mr. Baines) in the wrong. Yet he had not been altogether in the wrong. He had foreseen the enormous difficulties that would arise on the score of religious teaching, when Government should take the national education under its control. Perhaps he and his Nonconformist Friends had strained their religious scruples; but he must be permitted to point out the great change which had taken place in the attitude of Government and Parliament, and which seemed to him to justify his own change of action. In the Minutes of Council of 1846, introduced by that venerable friend of education, Earl Russell, it was made an absolute condition of a school receiving a Parliamentary grant, that it should give religious instruction, or at least should have the Bible read daily. His hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) and himself went to the Government during the Administration of the Earl of Derby, as a deputation from an influential meeting of Nonconformists held in the metropolis, and urged that that condition should be withdrawn. They said they gave, and should continue to give religious instruction in their schools; but they could not do it at the dictation of the Government, or receive a pecuniary bonus for doing it; and they wished that the Government should neither enforce nor prohibit religious teaching, but leave that element to the supporters of the schools, and confine their own action and superintendence to the secular department, and should aid secular schools as well as religious. That was precisely what had been done by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) in the Education Act of 1870. In that Act it was over and over again declared that the grant was made exclusively for the secular teaching; the School Inspectors were instructed not to examine in religious subjects; a strict Conscience Clause was enacted; the use of religious formularies was forbidden in board schools; and it was left to the school boards, elected by the whole body of the ratepayers, to decide whether there should be any religious teaching in their schools, and of what character it should be. The Act was a purely secular Act. When some of the Nonconformists objected to grants being still made to denominational schools, he thought they were mistaken; because the grants were made purely for the secular teaching; and he knew of no Nonconformist principle that forbade the State from making grants even to religious bodies for secular education, provided they were made to religious and secular bodies impartially. Before he sat down he must be allowed to express an opinion that would be distasteful to seine of his hon. Friends opposite who were very sensitive as to any increase of rates. He must declare that he believed the question of national education would never be effectually settled until a school board was elected, and at least one undenominational school opened in every school district of the kingdom. At present an enormously disproportionate amount of public money was granted to Church schools, and in many parishes there was no school but a Church school to which Nonconformist children could go. He did not blame those who had provided the schools, and he would not consent to do them injustice or to break faith with them. But Churchmen must see that Nonconformists were not likely to be satisfied with a system which practically forced their children into Church schools; and he believed it would be the best policy of the friends of the Church to promote, rather than oppose, the establishment of undenominational board schools, to which Dissenters could with satisfaction send their children.

said, that if unsectarian schools were to be established in every district for the children of Dissenters, as recommended by the hon Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), Churchmen might ask that school boards should also establish schools which should be satisfactory to Churchmen. Churchmen preferred that children should receive what they believed to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and, as a mere rate-paying question, if Nonconformists were entitled to have unsectarian schools set up by authority of Parliament, the Members of the Church of England were equally entitled to have schools set up that would be suitable to them.

said, that, as several of the clauses contained in the Bill were of a highly penal character, it was only fair to give shipowners time to prepare for the necessary changes. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, in page 1, line 14, to strike out "January," in order to insert "July." Time should be given for the circulation of the Act before it came into operation. As the Bill now stood, many of its provisions would come into operation immediately on receiving the Royal Assent, and might thereby prove hurtful to many ships which were now away in foreign waters.

said, that he would be sorry to postpone the operation of the clause beyond the 1st of January, yet as regarded certain ships not at the time within British jurisdiction, he would specify a period of one month after their arrival in any port of the United Kingdom. There were some other clauses which, perhaps, ought not to come into immediate operation, and he would consider how words could be best introduced to delay their operation upon the Report.

moved an Amendment which would prevent any reference being made to the depth of a ship's hold for purposes of registration. It might be very difficult at the last moment to obtain that depth, and he found that, under ordinary circumstances, the Board of Trade had ample means for obtaining such information, without inserting a provision to that effect in an Act of Parliament.

said, that the measurement of ships contemplated by the clause, to ascertain their buoyancy, was to be taken amidships only. That would not give a full or fair idea of their buoyancy, and he therefore moved in page 2, line 40, to add the words "amidships and at the stem and at the stern," in order that the measurement should be made in three places instead of one. The object of the Amendment was to guard against erroneous impressions as to a ship's seaworthiness that might arise from the fact of the single measurement being put on record. Some vessels had long poops and topgallant forecastles, and others had more sheer than was usual, and so might be safely loaded deeper amidships than other vessels.

observed that the point was a very technical one. He had taken the best professional advice with respect to it, and had been advised that the measurement should be amidships only. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

in supporting the Amendment, said, that the buoyancy of a ship could not be ascertained if she were measured amidships only.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would not assent to the proposed alteration of the clause.

in moving as an Amendment, in page 6, line .10, to leave out "by the Board of Trade," said, the object of that and following Amendments he wished to make in the clause was to obtain an impartial survey.

said he accepted the spirit of the Amendment, but would propose, that instead of leaving out the words suggested, the words "or shipowner" should be added after them.

proposed an Amendment providing for the enforcement of proper regulations for the lowering of boats on occasions of emergency. They all knew how often lives were lost from the want of some such regulations.

said, the proposed Amendment would saddle the Board of Trade with a large responsibility, and one which the Board would not be able satisfactorily to carry out.

hoped the Board of Trade would initiate inquiries, as to what were the best means of saving life in case of shipwreck. He thought that the Amendment ought to be adopted.

said, that if the regulations of that kind were adopted by the Board of Trade the responsibility would be taken off the shoulders of the shipowners, which he thought undesirable.

said, it would be simply impossible to keep up the constant supervision which would be necessary if the Amendment were passed.

inquired whether, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the present state of the law was satisfactory as to life boats?

said, he was not prepared to recommend the Committee to impose such serious responsibilities upon the Board of Trade as the Amendment proposed. The clause itself was only intended to be a temporary provision, and it would no doubt be strengthened hereafter, according to the success of the experiments which were being made for saving life. Before the Board of Trade could adopt any of the best appliances the trials must be made at sea, subject to all the conditions of stormy weather. The law as it stood at present did provide that vessels should be duly supplied with boats and all requisites for their use, and, therefore, as the Board of Trade could not at present hope to fulfil the conditions of the Amendment with satisfaction to the public, he must decline to accept it.

said, what he wished to do by his Amendment was to give the Board of Trade power to provide means especially for lowering boats with safety down the sides of vessels when the lives of the passengers and crew were endangered by shipwreck. The want of such means, he believed, was the principal cause of disaster.

believed that the loss of life was chiefly caused by the great fear and tumult which prevailed when a ship was foundering. The clause had better remain as it stood, so that the responsibility of providing the best means of saving life might rest on the shipowner, and not upon the Board of Trade.

concurred, and expressed a hope that the responsibility would never be taken away from those on whom the prevention of accidents more immediately depended.

approved of the clause as far as it went, but regretted that it did not go further. A blot in the original Act of 1854 was the fact of the supply of boats being made proportionate to the scale of the tonnage of the ship, and not to the number of passengers carried. That was a great mistake, and he hoped the Board of Trade would find a remedy for it. Every passenger ship ought to be compelled to carry boats adequate to the number of persons on board. When he had crossed the Channel to the Continent, he had observed that there was nothing like the number of boats required for the passengers on board; while on the other hand, large vessels going long voyages with few passengers had much more boat accommodation than could be of any use.

was of opinion that the clause already went in that direction as far as was practicable. There was the difficulty of stowing the boats, and it was not for want of them that loss of life often occurred. Indeed, one of the greatest shipowners in this country had assured him that the closest observation over a great number of years had led him to the conclusion that these boats had actually caused more loss of life than they had ever saved.

suggested that as many of the boats now carried on ships were useless for the purpose of saving life, their place could be supplied by boats and modern appliances which would be of real service.

entirely approved of the object of the clause, but was desirous of making it more explicit with reference to collisions such as that which resulted in the loss of the Northfleet. He suggested whether words might not be inserted in the clause, providing that in cases of collision the two vessels should be bound to stay by each other until each had ascertained from the other whether any assistance was required.

promised to consider the suggestion, and to see whether he could not on the Report bring up words to meet the object in view.

moved the addition of the following words, as a Proviso to the clause:—

"Provided, That the benefit of this clause shall not extend to any foreign vessel, unless mutual advantages shall have been granted by convention or otherwise by the Government of the country to which such foreign vessel may belong."

opposed the Amendment. He held that the master of a vessel who was guilty of a crime like that committed by the captain of the Murillo at the beginning of this year ought to be considered to be guilty of a misdemeanour.

complained that the punishment for offences to which the clause related was thrown not upon those who were guilty of such offences—the captains—but upon the unfortunate underwriters.

said, that in that respect the clause was a mere re-enactment of the existing law, excepting that for a certain offence the captain was held guilty of a misdemeanour.

moved the omission of the clause.

in rising to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the mode in which European Officers are supplied to the Native Army of India, and to the promotion, pay, pensions, and retiring allowances of such officers,"

said, that although the subject was a military one, no one could take an interest in Indian affairs without feeling that the efficiency of our Native Army was a subject of prime importance to the future of our Indian Empire. Tranquillity now prevailed in India, but tranquillity there was different from tranquillity in England. In India there were always turbulent tribes on our frontier to watch, and dependent States that were liable to disturbing influences; and although he admitted that good government was the best guarantee for peace, yet good government in India was impossible unless there was behind it a reliable amount of physical force, and that physical force must in a. great measure depend upon the Native Army. Again, there was no portion of Indian finance more important than military finance, and no portion of military finance more important than that which related to the European officers of the Native Army. He would exclude all reference to the Artillery in India, which was substantially part of the Royal Artillery. The officering of the Artillery was essentially different from the officering of the Line, to which his Motion would be confined. The House was aware that there prevailed in India what was called the Irregular, as well as the Regular system. The difference between the two systems was this—the Regular regiments were organized very much like our Line regiments, and had a nominal complement of 25 officers. The regiments of the Irregular system had a complement of three European officers, selected from the Regular Army. The duties which the officers of the Regular regiments were called upon to perform, besides their own immediate regimental duties, were numerous. The Army Staff, the military departments, the Commissariat, and the Pay Office were all supplied from the officers of the Regular Army, borne on the effective strength of their regiments, besides the numerous diplomatic, judicial, and police executive duties, which were in many cases performed by officers borne on the regimental strength of the Army. The result of that system was, that instead of there being 25 officers with the Regular regiments the number amounted to about 8 to 12. Upon the policy and effect of the system he would say nothing, except that it had an inevitable tendency to interfere with the military spirit of the officers, and induced them to seek other than military employment with their regiments. There was no subject which had been the theme of more interesting essays and despatches. Forty years ago Lord Metcalfe wrote some most able despatches, and it was curious to see how they applied to the subject now agitating the public mind. The evils were frequently admitted, and before the Mutiny the Directors had authorized an inquiry as to how officers could best be provided to perform detached and State duties. Then came the Great event of 1857. Almost the whole of the Bengal Army revolted and disappeared. The Bombay Army generally remained faithful. One regiment of Madras Cavalry showed signs of disaffection, and was disbanded; but almost all contingents, except the Hyderabad Contingent, followed the example of the Bengal Army. In 1858 the government of India was transferred from the Company to the Crown, and by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, the advantages with regard to pay, promotion, &c., were secured to the officers on their being transferred to the Crown. Just before the Act passed, a Royal Commission was issued for the purpose of examining generally as to the character of the Army it was desirable to maintain after tranquillity should be restored. That Commission, presided over by General Peel, made their Report on the 7th of March, 1850. The whole matter was referred to India for discussion. All the greatest authorities military and administrative, were consulted by Lord Canning, and the most elaborate replies, filling a large blue book, were given in answer to queries circulated by Government. Lord Canning called for a Report from the Military Finance Committee, consisting of Colonel Jameson, General Balfour, and General Burn, and in the following year they sent in their Report. Lord Canning wrote and elaborate Minute, and sent home Sir Henry Durand to confer with the authorities; but here he must take care to assure the House in justice to Lord Canning, that he did not suggest or approve of the scheme which was afterwards carried out. General Norman, who was at home at the time, was consulted by Sir Charles Wood. General Norman was an officer of very great administrative talents, and was as distinguished in the field as he was in the council chamber. A General Order was issued on the 10th of April, 1861, by the Governor General, framed in pursuance of Royal Warrants and directions conveyed to him in dispatches by the Secretary of State. By that Order, the amalgamation of the two armies was effected, and the terms of the amalgamation and of the organization of the Native Armies were elaborately set forth. The Native regiments, both Cavalry and Infantry, were to be officered on the Irregular system; and, by a principle of selection, there were to be seven European officers to each regiment. All regimental appointments were to be Staff appointments, to be made form a body then constituted, called to Staff Crops. All existing officers of the Indian Army were to be retained on full pay, and assured promotion, whether there was employment for them or not, or whether qualified or not. Here they were called upon to deal with men, many of whom were unwilling and unqualified to enter the Staff Corps, and who had important but undefined rights guaranteed to them, independent of any Regulation which might be framed. They had to deal not only with regimental officers, but with those who were performing Staff duties, police duties, and all other duties. Whether it would have been wiser to have then cut the Gordian knot, and separated the Civil officers who were nominally regimental officers from those who were purely military, he could not say. But the clause guaranteeing existing rights made that very difficult; and, considering the great work which had been done in days of old by the class of men called military civilians, it was not surprising that the Government thought it advisable, on the whole, to retain a system by which military men could be retained for civil employment. The rules, therefore, establishing the Staff Corps were framed, not only for the purpose of establishing a permanent body, to be recruited in future on certain principles, and of regulating the pay, pension, and promotion for the future, but also for the purpose of admitting the old officers into the Staff Corps, who under the Parliamentary guarantee had already statutory rights which could not be interfered with. And besides these, they had the officers on the General List, who had been admitted after the outbreak of the Mutiny, on condition that they would serve where their services were required. The permanent and general rules of the Staff Corps were these—First, admission to the Staff Corps was to be through the Imperial Army, based, in the first instance, on selection, and open to all officers under the rank of captain. But no person was to be selected who was not qualified by a certain amount of service in India and by examination tests; nor without service of a year in a Native regiment. Nor could any officer enter the Staff Corps permanently without having passed a probationary period in that branch of the service for which he might be selected, whether civil or military. Then promotion in the Staff Corps was governed by length of service. 1. Officers after 12 years' service, of which four must have been in the Staff Corps, were to become captains. 2. Officers after 20 years' service, of which six must have been in the Staff Corps, were to become majors. 3. Officers after 26 years' service, of which eight must have been in the Staff Corps, were to become lieutenant-colonels. The pay of the several ranks was laid down; but besides that pay, it was also laid down that every officer would receive, in addition, such a sum as would make his total pay up to the sum assigned by the Government of India to the particular office which he held. A pension list was also laid down for the future; also it was laid down that a certain proportion of the senior officers of the Staff Corps were to receive colonels' allowances in the proportion of one for every 30 officers in the Staff Corps. The colonels' allowances amounted to about £1,200 a-year. All the old officers in civil and military employment who were borne on the cadres of their own regiments, were to be provided for. Rules therefore were made for them. It was decided to admit, in 1861, all the officers in the British and Native Armies below the rank of colonel then on Staff employ in India who were duly qualified; and Staff employment included all civil and political employments of every description, and also employments in the Irregular Corps; but the option of joining the Staff Corps was open only to those who were considered fit for the Staff Corps. Under these rules, therefore, it will be seen that some of the regimental officers might and did join the Staff Corps, while others, who did not, constituted what is called the local officers. Changes were very soon found necessary—I will explain the reason why. I have already said, promotion in the Staff Corps was and is regulated by length of service; the promotion of the local officers, who did not join the Staff Corps, by seniority. The two systems clashed. The system of promotion by length of service interfered with the rights and privileges of the old officers, guaranteed by Act of Parliament. The result, therefore, was that, so far as regimental officers were concerned, great irregularity of promotion occurred, and some officers were superseded by their juniors. Great discontent, great irregularity was the result; and the grievances of many of the officers were brought to the notice of the authorities. A Royal Commission was therefore appointed, which was presided over by Lord Cranworth. In consequence of the Report of that Commission, an Address to the Crown was moved for, in 1865, as to the grievances of officers, and a Commission was appointed, presided over by General Aitchison. Then took place a change, which the admirers of the Staff Corps said had spoiled the whole system. The Staff Corps was thrown open to the whole of the Indian Army. All limits as to the number of colonels' allowances were removed, and two additional pensions of £000 and £750 a-year were added to the pension list. The result of that Order was, that in one year the number of officers leaped from 1,485 to 2,197. There was no doubt that the Staff Corps' system possessed some advantages. The position of the regimental officers in India belonging to the Staff Corps had been very much improved. Under the new system, every officer must be a colonel in 26 years, and if he commanded a regiment his salary was £1,700. Under the old system, he would probably, if a regimental officer, be still a captain drawing about a third of that sum. There could be no doubt, also, that the officers were very much improved, and for efficiency, they could compare favourably with any service in the world; and though some were superseded by their juniors in regimental command, yet, at the same time, the position of the officers as a whole was incomparably better than it was before 1861. As it was necessary to provide in 1861 for all the officers of the Indian Army, many of whom were unfit for important employment, and as it was necessary, also, to continue to recruit the Staff Corps in order to obtain young and efficient officers, it followed that a great number of unemployed officers must remain on hand as a dead weight. That was one of the most serious sources of embarrassment at the present day. On that subject General Norman said that under a new system, requiring vigour and judgment, many officers who had become unemployed through the Mutiny were not now thought fit for employment, and yet a Government like that of India would be loth to treat them with harshness. The question of those unemployed officers required immediate attention. As to the excess of field officers, in 1862 we had about 4,000 altogether to provide for; while in 1873, we had altogether in the Staff Corps and local body on full pay 3,216, 400 being unemployed. Field officers being allowed to attain that rank after a specified time of service, the number far exceeded the requirements of the service. In 1862 there were 568 lieutenant-colonels and majors; in 1873 there were 1,334; and there was no reason to suppose this proportion would decrease at present. In fact, calculations had shown that in a few years the number of field officers would be double that of captains and subalterns. In 1862, 4,167 officers cost £1,800,866; in 1873, 3,216 officers cost £2,050,000; so that the staff of officers in 1873 cost£200,000 more than in 1862, although the numbers had been decreased by 20 per cent. Financially, there was no probability that the expense would not go on increasing. Supposing things to remain as at present, the officers drawing colonels allowances' in 1873 were 64, their pay being £72,000, while in 1892 there would be 513, costing £577,000. As remarked by General Broome, military history presented no instance of an Army so constituted, or of one so costly; and not only was a further increase in the proportion of field officers inevitable, but under the rule granting the colonels' allowances to lieutenant colonels of 12 years' standing, a large and steadily augmenting proportion of field officers would be in receipt of that allowance. That the present system of officering the Indian Army would bear the strain of war was doubted by men of the highest authority, and in Abyssinia it completely broke down. Eleven officers were posted to each regiment instead of seven, and the Madras Army was largely indented upon for subalterns to make up that complement. Lord Sandhurst had been obliged to represent that the three Presidencies had been simply drained to supply Lord Napier's wants, some British regiments having been emptied of their officers in a manner almost unexampled, and most injurious to the interests of the service. Lord Sandhurst added that had the war lasted, all future demands for officers, which from the nature of the service would have been considerable, must have been supplied from England, Indian resources having come to an end while if in the service now proceeding in the Hazara District, 30 or 40 officers were put hors de combat—a likely enough contingency whether from sickness or wounds, he should not know where to find the men to replace them, and the Native regiments might easily come to be devoid of good officers. There were defects in the Staff Corps' system which nobody could deny. In the first place, every step of advancement was liable to separate the officer from his regiment; and, further, it could not be denied that a system of selection led to jealousies and heart buntings. The view he was expressing was supported by many eminent authorities, and, among others, by Sir Henry Durand—

1st. That regarded as a system of military organization, the Staff Corps, constituted as it was at first, and modified as it has since been, was a mistake and proves a failure.

2nd. That regarded as a system of ancillary civil organization and administration, it is full of anomalies, inelastic and teeming with sources of embarrassment and difficulty.

3rd. That strive as we may to bolster up and improve the Staff Corps system thus constituted, it cannot last, and that consequently it is only a question of more or less time given to temporary shifts and expedients ere a thorough reorganization will be forced upon Government. That event may take place, either in prudence before or else after a signal collapse under the strain of war; but it is to my mind absolutely inevitable. Shifts and expedients may delay, but they cannot dispense with the unavoidable and pending necessity for a radical reform.

Looking at that question as a financial one, he regarded it as one which might damage altogether the finances of our Indian Empire. Those finances had during the last few years shown a steady progress, and it would be a great calamity if anything should occur to prevent the continuation of that progress and improvement. He believed it was not too late to devise measures to prevent that increase in our military expenditure which he believed to be desirable. No stone, therefore, ought to be left unturned, and no pains spared to accomplish that great object. He believed the proposal he was about to make was a prudent one. The Government of India had at its command able and experienced men who understood the Staff Corps system; but they were all men who had given opinions on the system, and he thought it would be a great assistance to have the opinion of men who would bring fresh minds to the subject, and give their opinion without prejudice or foregone conclusion. The ultimate decision would, of course, rest with the Secretary of State, and upon this subject he wished to say a few words. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs. (Mr. Trevelyan) proposed to leave everything as it was at present. He believed that if that course was taken the proposal of the Government, if indeed any were made, would lack the authority and weight which they would have had if made upon the authority of a Royal Commission; and so strongly did he feel that, that he should certainly take the opinion of the House on his proposal, unless he was assured by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India that steps were being taken in order to effect reforms in a direction which would in his opinion contribute to the future welfare and the general interest of our Indian Empire. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.

in seconding the Motion, said, that the question was one of vast importance, and ought to be fully discussed. He was sorry that the forms of the House would prevent the second Amendment, of which Notice had been given by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), from being put, for he thought the claims of the officers of the late Indian Army for compensation for the loss of regimental bonus ought to be abolished. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) proposed to leave the matter to the Government of India; but he thought it would be well to entrust the inquiry to eminent men who would be able to give their whole attention to the subject, because, although he fully acknowledged the great talents of those who were now connected with the Government of India, he thought their time was too fully occupied to undertake an investigation of this sort. As a Member of the Committee which was sitting on the question of Indian finance, he was fully alive to the importance of reducing the expenditure of the Indian Government as much as possible; but at the same time, full justice ought to be done to those gallant men who were the successors of those who had won India for us. It was most important, in any reductions which might be made, that efficiency should be combined with economy, and we should not therefore send out more officers than were absolutely necessary to maintain the efficiency of the service. A point, also, well worth ascertaining was whether a Native Army was specially necessary for the interests of India, and whether it should or not be maintained.

who had given Notice of his intention to move the following Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke)—

"That, while immediate and earnest attention should be given to the mode in which European Officers are supplied to the Native Army of India, and to the position and emoluments of those Officers, the responsibility of ascertaining and proposing such steps as should be taken for the reform of the present system ought, in the opinion of this House, to be left to the authorities entrusted with the Government of India,"—

said, that Amendment was not of a hostile character to the Motion which had just been made. That discussion could not do anything but good, and his object was the same as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, though he (Mr. Trevelyan) differed as to the appropriate remedies which were necessary in our Indian military system. Speaking roughly, our Indian Army consisted of 65,000 European troops, with a Native Army of 130,000 men, the latter being composed almost entirely of Cavalry and Infantry, for since the Mutiny the Artillery had been almost entirely European. Thus the 3,300 officers, with whose grievances we had so much to do, and of whose defective organization we had heard so much, belonged exclusively to what in England was called the Line. The conditions of service of these officers were absolutely unprecedented in the history of any civilized nation. He used the words "civilized nation" advisedly, because it really required a high state of civilization to invent a system so cumbrous, and one so utterly wanting in all the essential attributes of military effici- ency and financial economy as that on which our Indian Army was at present officered. A system so monstrous never was devised, was never even foreseen as a whole by any human intellect, nor did the responsibility of the system rest with any single Minister. It reached its present position by gradual growth under one Minister after another, and under circumstances of great and special difficulty. The old Indian Army consisted of 275,000 men, comprising 155 regiments of Infantry and 21 of Cavalry, besides 37 Irregular regiments. During the Mutiny that vast Force underwent an entire change. Excepting 12 Regular regiments, the old Bengal Army melted away, and in the crisis of the Mutiny was replaced by numbers of corps of Punjabees, Ghoorkas, and loyal sepoys, raised by the exertions of individual officers. The suppression of the Mutiny left us with an immense amorphous force of officers without regiments, and regiments with the merest handful of officers, and it was not till May, 1861, that some order was evolved from this military chaos. The whole Force was broken up, the Indian Army in all the Presidencies being reduced to about 140 regiments; and at the same time an important change occurred—the transformation of the Army from a Regular to an Irregular Force. Of the grievances of the officers of that Force much had been heard. He begged the House to keep the two questions of the grievances of the officers and the organization of our Indian Army, quite separate. He did not wish to depreciate the importance of the question, or to disparage the claims of so splendid a service; but those grievances concerned mere individual interests and financial considerations, whereas the organization of our Indian Army was a question upon which, to our shame, we had heard little, though it concerned the very existence of our Indian Empire. The regiments of the old Indian Army had a full complement of 25 officers, who were attached to their regiments in the same manner and on the same terms as the officers in the English regiments, indeed, in some respects, far more closely. Exchanges had not been allowed for 35 years. The regimental system, of which so much was heard in 1870, existed in all its integrity. Each officer had definite duties, commanding a company or a troop, and though many of the more able and fortunate were withdrawn for Staff employment, enough remained to officer every portion of the regiment. Side by side with that system existed also 35 or 40 Irregular regiments which had been raised by officers of great ability; they picked their own subalterns from the entire body of the Indian Army, and the consequence was, that they got the very best men for officers. In the Cavalry the soldiers owned their own horses, and were of a much higher stamp than ordinary soldiers, and they had the greatest confidence in their leaders. The success of those special corps inspired the Government with the idea of forming the whole Army upon their model; and thenceforward each regiment, instead of being commanded by a regular hierarchy of colonel, major, captain, and lieutenant, with special duties, was to be officered by six or seven officers—a commandant, two wing officers, two wing subalterns, a quarter-master, and an adjutant. When the Army was attempted to be constituted upon this plan, the essential vice of the system was that it was worked by picked officers. Formerly we had 4,000 officers out of whom to choose for 37 regiments; but by turning the whole Army into an Irregular force, we did not, unfortunately, turn all the officers into men like Nicholson and Chamberlain, Jacob Pane and Probyn. The ease was still more important when we came to the rank and file. The old Irregular regiments were made out of warlike races on the North-West frontier, and they required constant fighting on the frontier to keep up their warlike spirit, for the great characteristic of half-civilized races was that when they ceased fighting among themselves their warlike spirit died out rapidly; and most fortunate for us that was. There were large portions of India from which we still drew sepoys, where there was no more natural taste for a military life than there was among the Syrians or Egyptians under the Roman Empire; for instance, the inhabitants of Aladras, and to a great extent of Bahar and Bombay, were not natural soldiers, and required perpetual drilling and the constant supervision of European officers to make them efficient at all, and even then it was doubtful whether they were worth much. We could not change the nature of a population by a stroke of the pen, and it was the very fanaticism of theory to imagine that by dressing a fat old Madras ressaldar in a turban and jack-boots you could turn him into a dashing partisan, like one of Probyn's Punjabees. In fact, with regard to the Madras Cavalry, the absurdity of the notion was so egregious, that the transformation of them into Irregular Horse had been indefinitely postponed. The plain thing to be done was not to continue in that unfortunate and ruinously expensive course of keeping up a large force drawn from an unwarlike population; but we ought to disband, or largely to diminish that force, and replace it by a much smaller number of real fighting men, drawn from the warlike population of the North-West Provinces, and officered on a proper system. That was the more necessary from the large increase that was going on in the Indian police. The police in India now numbered from 130,000 to 150,000 or 160,000 men, and the expense of keeping it up had been increasing by something like 500,000 of rupees during the last six years. If that were done, where would be the necessity for appointing a Commission? The appointment of a Commission would convey an indirect censure on the Indian Government, which had proved itself to a high degree capable of facing the difficulties which must be surmounted before India was provided with a reasonably cheap and an entirely effective force. In 1869, the Home Government called upon the Indian Government to make a searching and general revisal of military expenditure in all its branches; and the Indian Government, under Lord Mayo, instituted that inquiry, and sent home recommendations for large reductions in the Madras and Bombay Armies, but they stated that the Bengal Army could not be reduced with any safety to the Empire. In an evil hour the Secretary for India wrote that it was impossible to take this plan into consideration, because, in breaking up regiments, they did not dispose of the officers, or relieve the state of their military pay, and that there should be some general system of gradual reduction in all portions of the Empire equally. That despatch, dated the 27th of January, 1870, was a confession that an excess of military force was kept up in India, not for the sake of the efficiency of the Army, but for the sake of the officers. On that consideration Her Majesty's Government recommended that the reduction should be made not in Madras, where the Army was comparatively useless, nor in Bombay, but that it should be equally carried out in all the Presidencies, including that in which our military force was only just equal to the demand. It was all very well to say that they wanted a Commission; but the men actually concerned in the matter said they did not need any inquiry, that the House was already in possession of all the information necessary for its purpose, and that further inquiry would not be necessary for at least two years more. The present Viceroy brought to bear on the question a familiarity with military organization acquired during an altogether exceptional period of activity in our War Department. It was beyond doubt that it was possible to make our Native Army a far more formidable fighting machine at a far less cost to the taxpayers of India. That was a task by which the present Viceroy might be well satisfied if he could illustrate his tenure of office; and that task, seconded as he would be by the assistance of the ablest officers that could be secured, without aid or hindrance from a Royal Commission, he was well able to perform. Then as to the alleged enormous expense of the Staff Corps, to which his hon. and learned Friend alluded, and as to which he failed to suggest any remedy. He (Mr. Trevelyan) doubted whether a Royal Commission would have more wisdom or discernment in connection with that subject than his hon. and learned Friend himself. The evil of the system was, officers had been promoted, not according to the requirements of the service, but with a small decreasing number of exceptions according to a General List, on which they rose according to the length of time during which each officer had served in a particular grade. Of course, at the foundation of the Staff Corps it was intended that the rapidity of regimental promotion should only represent the average rapidity of regimental promotion. The result showed the danger of departing from a healthy system. The only justifiable system of promotion was according to the exact requirements of the public service. The consequence of departing from that system was, that the pressure of private interests became so strong that the period of passing from rank to rank was unduly shortened. The moment the Government attempted to solve the question by substituting for the Parliamentary guarantee the right of admittance to a privileged corps, it was morally certain that no peace would be had until every officer obtained the same advantages. In fact, it would have been far better to have swallowed the whole thing at once, and to have admitted all officers to the Staff Corps; and whatever might be the ultimate burden, whether half a million or a million, it would be the greatest sum ever drawn from a subject-nation not for Imperial purposes, but to subsidize individual interests. It was absolutely essential that the Government should, without delay and without the possibility of giving rise to any future controversy, lay down clearly and for ever the terms on which all officers not belonging to the old Indian Army who had joined the Staff Corps since 1860, and who were joining it now, should serve. The experience of the past told us how dangerous it was to leave open these questions of promotion and pension. The whole story of Indian military organization during the last 12 years had taught us that in dealing with public servants during a great change in the conditions of their service, it was absolutely necessary that pecuniary compensation should be exactly proportioned to pecuniary loss. The present Government, in their Bill of 1870, adopted a sound policy, directly opposed to that which had brought the finances of the Indian Army into such inextricable confusion. The Government would be assisted in their task by the heads of the civil and military Departments in India, and to their combined efforts, warned as they would be by this discussion, and by the disclosures made before the Select Committee upstairs, he should leave the re-organization of our Native Army with more confidence than he should feel in those of any Commission, however well selected.

thought the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn had shown good ground for the gravest consideration of the state of the Indian Army by Her Majesty's Government. It was essential, in the mode of appointing the Army, that they should have content, and not discontent, in all the grades, from the highest to the lowest; and it was the more necessary because the question could not be decided by the vote of the House on that occasion, but would have to be left to the discretion of the Indian Government, and of the Home Government. He (Lord Elcho) had intended to move as an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, an addition to the effect that the claims made by a large number of officers of the late Indian Army for compensation for the loss of their regimental bonus should be also referred to that Royal Commission. But he was precluded from moving the addition by the Forms of the House, and, as no Commission was likely to be appointed, all he could do was to urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the two questions together, as he did not think they could be kept separate or distinct. The question should be considered by some impartial tribunal either here or in India. A system of regimental bonus for the purpose of accelerating promotion had existed in the Indian Army, and was finally sanctioned by the Government, in order to induce contentment amongst the officers, upon which feeling depended the efficiency of that Army. Lord Derby, when Secretary of State for India, said that the privileges of the officers would be reserved; and, in 1860, Sir Charles Wood repeated the same assurance. Could any case be stronger? There were—the title, from the East India Company, of 1837, the Parliamentary guarantee of 1858, the statement then that it was a Parliamentary guarantee, a confirmation of this two years later, and another statement at that time by the Secretary of State of what was intended. Yet, in spite of this, the claims of the officers were disregarded when, in 1861, the introduction of the system of Staff Corps destroyed the regimental system, and no compensation was given. The result being an appeal from Caesar on the Treasury bench to Cesar in the House of Commons, on a Motion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis), in May, 1865, when the House decided by a large majority that the matter should be considered by the Government, and the claim of the officers dealt with in the sense of those guarantees. No further action was taken until Lord Cranborne (the present Marquess of Salisbury), as Secretary of State, directed that the question should be considered, subject to deduction for any benefit the officers might have derived from their subscriptions. As Colonel Sykes afterwards said, the generous-minded Lord Salisbury must have acted upon the sordid advice of subordinates, in offering compensation with one hand and taking it away with the other. Claims of £250, £420, and £4,421 were reduced to nothing; and, to quote Colonel Sykes again, the claims of the officers were met with meanness and heartlessness. That that was the opinion of the House of Commons was shown by a Resolution it adopted at the time, directing a further consideration of the subject. Since then, in answer to the Address on the subject, the Duke of Argyll sent to the different Presidencies in India instructions to see whether Lord Cranborne's despatch had been put into operation, with a due regard to the interests of the officers. He might mention -that the officers absolutely repudiated that despatch in regard to the way in which it proposed to deal with their claims. In the Presidency of Bengal it was held that the interests of the officers had been well considered; but from that opinion Lord Napier, the Commander-in-Chief, evidently dissented, because his name was not appended to the document; and the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were very strongly opposed to the opinion of the Madras Presidency. That was the position of this matter in the year 1870. He now came to the year 1871, when upon the Bill for the re-organization of the Army, we were called upon to consider the analogy between the bonus system in India and the purchase system in this country. That analogy was this—that both were intended to secure more rapid promotion and enable younger men to get to the heads of regiments; but the difference was this—that the bonus system and the purchase system were both forbidden nominally by law, and although in England there was a semblance of standing by the law, things were allowed to go on to such an extent that a Royal Commission reported that Parliament could not avoid dealing with the question. The House then felt it necessary to deal with over-regulation as well as regulation prices, and pay officers in full, on their retirement, under the Bill of 1870. The East India Company acted more fairly; because instead of winking at it, they considered it was necessary, and said they did not intend to make any alteration, as the officers were entitled to it when they left the Army. The principle of the Bill having been carried, the fights in Committee were upon the way of giving effect to the abolition of purchase; the majorities of the Government were reduced from 120 to 16; and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) got an Amendment put into the Bill of 1871 for the benefit, not of all the officers who had served in India, but only for a section of them—namely, the Infantry regiments of the Line; and within the last week the same hon. Gentleman had been assured by the Secretary of State that the Engineers and Artillery would be placed on a similar footing. In conclusion, he maintained that the officers who complained had a strong and good case, resting on a Parliamentary guarantee, and on the statements made in that and the other House by Ministers responsible for the government of India; and he did hope, whether by a Royal Commission, or whether by the Government themselves, that the matter would be considered fairly and generously as regarded the officers. He believed that distrust and. discontent existed, arising from a sense of injustice; and he did not think it was wise in any Government, however strong, to ignore the prevalence of feelings of that kind among such a body. It had been wittily said, that the difference between a man with a strong will and one with a weak will was, that the former said, "I will," and the latter, "I won't;" and it would be not only a gracious act, but a sign of strength, if the Government yielded to the reasonable request of the officers, whether of the English or the Indian service, and he trusted they would bear in mind what His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had said in "another place," a few days ago, about the discontent in the Army, and the expediency of steps being taken to satisfy the officers that their complaints would be heard.

said, at that late hour of the night, and in view of other hon. Members addressing the House, on the present important question, he would endeavour to condense his remarks in the briefest possible way. That was the more practicable, seeing that the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn had placed before the House a remarkably clear exposition of the former and present system of officering the Army of India. He could not refrain from expressing to the hon. and learned Member his best thanks for the labour he had devoted in order to make the question quite clear to the House and to the country. He would only add that the regimental system of India, which had the sanction of Pitt and Dundas in the last century, and had borne the strain of war for a long period, was changed in 1861 by Sir Charles Wood, contrary to the wishes of the Indian Government. It was also introduced at a most unfavourable time, when the finances of India were in an embarrassed state, owing to the expenditure to quell the Mutiny of the Bengal Army. It distracted attention from the great question of financial reform, and it came on the country when all were labouring to aid the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) to free India from the serious embarrassments which then weighed upon that country. That change was made in spite of advice and warning, and with nothing whatever to guide the Secretary of State in introducing such vast changes as were made by Sir Charles Wood in the entire constitution and organization of the Indian Army. It was based upon the plea of economy; whereas it had involved India in an unlimited expenditure, and they now saw its results in discontent and dissatisfaction, and with great distrust as to its efficiency in war, as the hon. and learned Member had so clearly pointed out. As one who had had long experience of Native troops, as an adjutant of a Native battalion of India, and from having served in the field both with Europeans and with sepoys, he maintained that though an admirer of the Native Forces, yet the efficiency of the Native Army of India depended entirely on the number and efficiency of European officers; that unless the white faces were well to the front, leading on the men, and setting them an example, it would be found some day that a failure would happen to us, and some great disaster prove the inefficiency of the present organization. There ought to be a searching inquiry made, and the Secretary of State who introduced those changes ought to be required to explain his reasons for doing so, and to be held responsible for the bad results of his administration. With regard to the principle of selection, which was the most prominent feature in the Staff Corps system, he would ask what selection could they have from a body of officers even now quite insufficient in number for the duties which had to be performed? The strongest objection to the organization which Sir Charles Wood destroyed was the selection of regimental officers from regimental duties for Staff employ, leaving a residuum with the regiments. But that was even now the practice. At present, they had many battalions with not fewer than five field officers, and, in some instances, three of these were full colonels. They had also many regiments without any subalterns, but all consisting of captains and field officers. They could not expect old officers to go and do the work which should be done by subalterns. Where were they to select from, and who were to be the selectors? Instead of selection, they would come to an absolute system of seniority. Indeed, so difficult was it now to pass over old but respectable officers, that commands of battalions were, as shown by the list, entrusted to the senior colonels in the service, thus proving that seniority, and not selection, was in force. That result had been long foreseen, for the Duke of Cambridge had stated in evidence, that selection would be fatal, and that all they could do was to have a veto on the rise of officers. He hoped that defective system would be put an end to, for it was causing the greatest discontent and dissatisfaction in India. The second question before the House was the Resolution regarding the bonus payments of the old India Army; and, having considerable experience of the practice of paying old officers to retire from active service, he must add that he entirely agreed with all that had been said by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire with regard to the bonus system. These contributions were begun at the distinct instigation and encouragement of the Indian Government, at home and abroad, and, in proof, he would refer to the despatch of the 25th April, 1829, from the Government of India, pointing out the necessity for accelerating the promotion of the European officers of the Indian Army. That document was obtained from the India Office, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis), who, 10 years ago, earnestly laboured on behalf of the Indian officers, and had his advice been then taken, many of the difficulties now felt would have been prevented. The despatch from India advised the Home Government to establish a fund for the purpose of accelerating promotion by buying out old officers. That despatch was from Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in India, one of the greatest of economists. The principle it advocated was approved of by a despatch from the Board of Control in 1832, conveying to the Directors of the East India Company the approval of the Government of England for retiring funds being formed in the Indian Army. That system, as at first proposed, was a subscription on the part of regimental officers, combined with a subscription on the part of the Government, by which the retirement of old officers should be accelerated. The Court of Directors distinctly authorized the formation of these funds. They encouraged officers to subscribe as he could positively assert from his own experience, for soon after his arrival in India he was actively engaged, in conjunction with a comrade now not far distant, in the management of one of those subscriptions to the regimental fund. They were then young subalterns amenable to a committee of seven officers, and would have been immediately reported and restrained by their superior officers, and by the commandant of the regiment, had they been infringing the orders of Government. But, on the contrary, the superior officers themselves joined in the management of the fund, and the collection of subscriptions was carried on publicly, with the full knowledge of all the high authorities, and with the sanction of Government, who facilitated the collections through the Accountant General; and the system thus practically recognized continued in force throughout all his term of service, until it was put an end to by the change in the organization of the service which was made in 1861. That change was made by the Secretary of State for India of his own accord, without the approval of the Government of India, and as it was made for the good of the service, as asserted at the time, it was only just that compensation should be given to officers who had paid their money without any chance of obtaining value for it, or of having it returned to them owing to these changes. Those payments had effected great good. They enabled many old and formerly good officers to retire at a time when they felt a difficulty in continuing in active employment. Without that purchased retirement, the Government would have expended much larger sums to effect those promotions of officers which the efficiency of the service demanded. It was, therefore, most ungrateful for the Government to refuse the payment of compensation, now that the officers could no longer help themselves. He had himself paid upwards of £2,000, for which his promotion had been accelerated by six months. That was all the advantage he got by it, and, yet, if afterwards he had applied for the payment of the bonus on retirement, he would have had the amount of the pay for the six months' acceleration of rank deducted from the bonus; and that, notwithstanding he had been upwards of 18 years in the rank of subaltern, and 32 years in the rank of subaltern and captain. That was the course ordered by Lord Cranborne's despatch of 8th August. 1866; but it was not consistent with justice. It was, moreover, in marked contrast with the liberality of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who, only a few evenings since, announced to the House that any officer of the Home Army could, when desirous of leaving the Army, walk down to the the Purchase Commissioners, and there obtain, without any deduction, a cheque for the full value of his commission. There was, indeed, a marked difference between that and the treatment of the India bonuses under Lord Cranborne's despatch. He hoped the question would, at length, be fairly considered. He entreated the Government to put an end to the discontent which prevailed, and appoint an independent arbitration to decide, in order that justice might be done to the officers whatever might be the consequences.

said, with a view to shorten this discussion, and fix attention upon the issue they had to de- cide, he would pass over the early history of the bonus question, which had been so often before Parliament, and come at once to January, 1861. There existed in the old Army of the Company, which became at that date the Indian Army of the Crown, a practice of subscribing in each regiment to buy out officers who retired, for the purpose of accelerating promotion, before reaching the rank of lieutenant-colonel. That practice was in most regiments irregular and spasmodic—sometimes followed, sometimes not. It had been pronounced illegal by the Courts of Law, but was, nevertheless, after being winked at for some years, permitted by the Government. Still, it was a perfectly private arrangement, nothing like our authorized system of purchase ever having existed in the Company's Army. The amalgamation of the Indian Army of the Crown with its Western Army made the continuance of the bonus system almost useless, and indeed to a great extent impracticable, and those who had maintained it began very naturally to cast about for some method of getting compensation. First they tried to have its cessation represented as a breach of the Parliamentary guarantee, and accordingly they took measures to have it considered by Lord Cranworth's Commission, which reported in 1863. That Commission, however, reported that it was no breach of the Parliamentary guarantee, and that Parliament had never guaranteed that bonus system in any shape or form. A second Commission was appointed under the presidency of Sir John Aitchison, with reference to the Parliamentary guarantee, and that Commission reported in 1865; but again that Commission treated the bonus system as altogether outside that Parliamentary guarantee, and did not even notice it. The argument from the Parliamentary guarantee was than abandoned, and the question of equity as between a State and some of its servants. The principle of Lord Cranborne's settlement was this—he gave up the contest as to the legality or illegality of the bonus system. He said —"I will recognize your bonus system; and I will do more. The arrangements consequent on a great State exigency having had the incidental effect of making your bonus system unworkable, I will take care that each of you shall have returned to him the money which he subscribed under the bonus system, after setting off the money which he received in consequence of the arrangements which led to the sweeping away of the bonus system. You shall, in short, lose nothing, and the State—that is, the Indian taxpayer—shall lose everything which is necessary to shield you from loss." Lord Cranborne's concessions were announced by himself on the 6th day of August, 1866, and were received with every appearance of acquiescence and satisfaction. His despatch to the Government of India embodying his concessions was laid upon the Table. Not a word was said against it. It was not till long afterwards that any symptoms of dissatisfaction arose, when the committees in India, composed, be it remembered, of persons who naturally sympathized with the complaining officers, were found not to give to the complaining officers such large sums as they had expected. Then it was that recourse was had once more to the old agitation. But it was said that Lord Cranborne had no right to deduct the money advantages gained by promotion from the sums advanced by the various officers under the bonus system. If he had not a right so to do, why did not the persons who had then charge of the case of the officers object at the time? The answer was obvious. They saw the equity of the arrangement. The money was paid by the various officers for the express purpose of obtaining rapid promotion, and if they got rapid promotion they got what they paid for. Promotion, and rapid promotion, was what the Indian officer sighed for, and what he meant to buy by his bonus payments. Authorities on all sides of politics were against the demands now made. The House of Commons of 1866, a long and unbroken succession of Secretaries of State and of Viceroys, with their respective Councils, were to be put in the one scale, as against a single Governor of Bombay on the other. Parliament having deliberately created the Indian Council for the express purpose of guarding the India Treasury, was the House of Commons, yielding to pressure against which the Council was guarded. going to pass a Resolution in the very teeth of the Indian Council, which would be inoperative unless the sum of £600,000 should be straightway taken out of the Indian Treasury and given to various claimants whom the Council, in spite of their natural sympathies with men along with many of whom they had lived all their lives, believed to have no just claim whatever upon the Indian Treasury. He could not believe a proceeding so unjust and impolitic as the re-opening of this question by referring it to a Royal Commission would find favour with the House. With regard to the present organization of the Indian Army, it was the result of very extraordinary and terrible events, the suddenness of which hardly allowed the country or its rulers to consider what should be done with the calmness and deliberation appropriate to great affairs. Possibly what was done was the best that could have been done under all the circumstances. Very possibly it was, but he would not say that as modified by what had been done since, it was the final outcome of human sagacity. The mode in which European officers were supplied to the Native Army of India, and to certain civil and political offices and Departments deserved careful scrutiny, and it, or indeed all the matters referred to in his hon. and learned Friend's Motion, might be susceptible of improvement. Many unjust strictures as well as some just ones had been directed against the Staff Corps, which had been held responsible for things which formed no part of it as originally devised, and would form no part of it, if it were to exist till the end of the century. The unhappy plethora of field officers formed no part of the original Staff Corps organization, but was the result of a Resolution carried in that House against Sir Charles Wood and the then Government of India; and the adoption of' this Resolution would repeat one of the worst mistakes over made in Indian government. The act which produced this plethora was taken by the late Conservative Government; but neither it nor any other Government could, under the circumstances, have done otherwise. Its consequences, however, would cease as soon as the officers of the old local Army then allowed to join the Staff Corps had died out, which in the nature of things would happen before the end of the century. The number of field officers, indeed, would reach its maximum in about four years, and by 1891 or so, the Staff Corps, if it existed, would be constituted as originally intended. The anticipations of enormously increased colonels' allowances were the result partly of miscalculations, but largely of a desire that such miscalculations should be correct; many officers in India being anxious, as there happily seemed no' prospect of active service, to get a good round sum from the Government in compensation for their prospective allowances, and to bid India adieu. The last figures put before him showed that while in 1861 the officers' pay and colonels' allowances amounted to £2,046,993, and in 1871 to £2,128,095, in 1881 the sum would be £2,180,510, and in 1801 only £1,914,859. Obviously, therefore, the writers who predicted a terrible burden to the Indian taxpayer from colonels' allowances had forgotten to set off the diminished amount of pay to effective officers and retiring pensions. He might go on to point out that in many other ways the Staff Corps had had scant justice done to it by half-informed opinion. Nevertheless, he did not come down tonight to defend it as a perfect machine, or even to assert that it would be a permanent institution. The tenor of advices from India was such as to lead the Government to believe that the present Viceroy was going to take up the whole subject of our military organization, and to examine it impartially, precisely in the way in which the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn desired that it should be examined by a Royal Commission. He had telegraphed to this country, begging the Government in the very strongest way not to complicate his position by agreeing to the appointment of a Royal Commission, and his hon. and learned Friend would doubtless be unwilling to increase the Viceroy's difficulties. If Lord Northbrook and the Home Government, in whatever hands that Government might be, failed to place the local military service in India on such a footing as might be acceptable to his hon. and learned Friend, then it would be time enough to move for a Royal Commission. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would feel that he had done enough by calling public attention to the subject in a very able speech, and by eliciting from him (Mr. Grant Duff), as the representative of the Government of India here and in India, the fact that the Government was prepared to—nay, he might say, had actually begun to, take the large subject which he had laid before them into its consideration.

being the only Member of that House who had served on the Council with Lord Canning in India at the time when the change was introduced, felt it due to that Nobleman's memory to bear testimony to the fact that he was in no degree responsible for that measure. The changes which led to the deplorable results described by the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn were forced in successive steps upon Lord Canning's Government by influences at home. Under the old system, prior to the establishment of the Staff Corps, we had an Indian Army, separate from that of the Queen, the supply of its officers being kept up by the nomination of cadets, who were generally the sons of country gentlemen who had been connected with India. On the amalgamation of the Armies that system was recklessly destroyed. There never, in his opinion, was a greater want of political wisdom shown than in the measures which were adopted in consequence of the transfer of the East Indian Service to the Crown. The Staff Corps was regarded at the time as a means of recruiting our Indian officers from the Queen's officers who chanced at the time to be serving in India. The assimilation of the services, however, was to lead to the necessity of establishing a most expensive Staff Corps with very great prizes, and to the general adoption of the Irregular instead of the Regular system. The testimony of all military men, however, who were connected with India was, that, in order to make the Native regiments efficient for actual warfare the first condition was that they should have a large complement of European officers. Even the Madras regiments, which had been so much decried, had on many occasions done good service, when they were led to action by European officers whom they respected, and who set them a gallant example. When, however, these were converted into Irregular regiments they were worth nothing; therefore, in his judgment, it was impossible to reconcile efficiency with economy so long as the Irregular system was made the starting point. While he perceived the magnitude of the evil, he hailed with great satisfaction the pledge of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State that the Staff Corps should not be a permanent institution. He hoped, however, the authorities who would have to consider the matter, would be prepared to go a good deal further, and that if they were satisfied the system founded contrary to the advice of Lord Canning in 1861 was a failure, they would be prepared to sweep it away, giving of course a liberal compensation to all vested interests. As regarded compensation to officers, he wished to vindicate the memory of Lord Canning, and also his Advisers, from all responsibility for what had since occurred. He could say that had his hands been as free to deal with the Indian Army as he had been to deal with the Indian Navy, none of this discontent would have occurred. It had been too much the custom to appoint officers who had names from birth, rather than from merit to high and efficient positions, thereby destroying that emulation which was necessary in the Army. More than that the Government had resorted to a system of economy, which was not consistent with efficiency. His experience in India proved to him that the most economical way in which the grievances in question could have been dealt with, was by the adoption of the policy to which the Secretary for War had recourse in abolishing Purchase—namely, the giving of a just and liberal compensation to all who had vested interests. They had had a body of officers for an Army of 250,000 men, but from the effects of the Mutiny and the financial exigences of the war, that number was reduced to 130,000. The difficulties which necessarily resulted would have been best met by the adoption, not of half measures, but of a liberal policy, for the most fruitful source of extravagance was ill-timed parsimony. He believed that that like other serious evils, had arisen from the united wisdom of the Governor and his Council in India being controlled and over-ruled by the Government at Home. He had more confidence in Lord Northbrook getting out of the difficulty than in a Royal Commission dealing with the matter; and therefore he could not vote for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, although he cordially agreed in all he had said, and trusted that after the assurance of the Under Se- cretary of State, he would not go to a division.

hoped his hon. and learned Friend who had brought the question forward would be content with the discussion that had taken place, and would not press his Motion to a division, especially when he considered that it had taken so satisfactory a direction. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that India had suffered to a considerable extent from the way in which this country had interfered with the Indian Government. What had been the weakness of the present Army system of India was, that there had been too great a desire to make it as a whole into an Irregular Army, and the adoption of that course had led to considerable difficulties. A mistake was made at first, so far as the officers were concerned, in not looking the matter boldly in the face, and compensating those officers who were not required, and parting with them on satisfactory terms both to themselves and to the Government. He hoped the Government would still deal boldly and liberally in the matter, and that they would place the system on a footing which would be perfectly satisfactory and sound. He did not think the Staff corps as at present organized could be maintained without alteration but Lord Northbrook, whose service in India had given the highest promise of a useful and valuable Viceroyalty, could be safely entrusted to deal with the matter. He fully concurred in the opinion that it was most injudicious to interfere in Indian affairs by the action of Parliament or of Royal Commissions in matters which could not possibly be so well understood at home. The position of the Indian Army was very different from that of our home Army. He also thought it very unadvisable that the House should much discuss the claims of any particular class of Indian officers on the Indian Treasury; and holding that view, he dissented from the views put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Haddington. Two Commissions respecting them had decided against them, and Lord Cranborne's proposals were fully accepted by the House, and had been as fully carried out; and that being so, he did not think it would be right to affirm, in any way, that any officers should receive more money than had been awarded to them by the responsible officers—especially when the money to be paid for the purpose was to come out of the hands of people not represented in that House. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed, but that a satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at by the ordinary Government machinery for the purpose.

said, he hoped the House would not accept the views of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon as being shared by those who sat behind him. There was a wide difference between the officers in the English Army who could have their position and mode of service changed at any moment, and the officers of the Indian Army who had been taken over from the East India Company, and with whom the British Government had on many occasions broken faith in the most glaring manner. The fact that that was being done was perfectly well known to the Native populations, who not unnaturally asked themselves whether they were not likely to share the fate of the Army which was charged with the maintenance of the Empire. It would have a bad effect upon them, which was very impolitic, when it was considered that the amount of money at stake was really very small. The Government had paid large sums of money to English officers in respect of purely illegal transactions, whilst they refused that small consideration to the Indian officers, who had right on their side.

would be glad if the Government could see their way to modify their policy with regard to the claims of the Indian officers. He would be prepared to support a substantial proposition to compensate those officers who had suffered loss by the abolition of the bonus system.

thought it a scandal that officers should be promoted, not according to the requirements of the service, but by seniority, without any reference to their particular merits or usefulness. There could be no doubt that the Indian Army was less efficient than it was in former times. He was one of those who thought that it was only in cases of extreme urgency that the House should take upon itself the grave responsibility of interfering between the Government of India in India, and itself, and he also concurred in the opinion expressed—that no man could be more fitted to take up this question than Lord Northbrook. He was afraid that the Indian Office at Home had been smitten with an apathy on this subject, and thought that they should be now aroused to the necessity of greater activity. He joined cordially with those who had preceded him, in thinking that the question should not be allowed to sleep, and that before another Session of Parliament they would receive an assurance to that effect.

understanding that the subject was now being considered by the Government, begged leave to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]

in consequence of the lateness of the hour (one o'clock), said, he would postpone a Motion which stood in his name on the Paper until Tuesday next, having reference to Custom House Clerks at the Outports.

in rising to call attention to the operation of the valuation sections of the Licensing Act upon the property now invested in existing Beer Houses; and to move

"That the owners and occupiers of beer-houses who have invested their money in premises licensed previously to the passing of the Act of 1872 ought not to be subjected to the forfeiture of their property by the imposition of new and more onerous pecuniary conditions in respect of the renewal of their licences,"

said, he wished he could consistently take the same course as the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) who had just postponed his Motion; but the grievance to which he desired to call attention should be remedied at once, if it was to be remedied at all. In the Licensing Act of last Session various regulations were made with respect to beerhouses which placed them in a different position to other licensed public-houses. The point at issue was, whether those beerhouses should continue in the exceptional position which it appeared they had been placed in by that Act. He believed that it was not the intention of the Legislature to place those houses in the position the owners now found themselves—that the legislation was intended to operate in futuro, and did not apply to houses which previously possessed licences, but who might rind it difficult, if not impossible, to find new premises or extend the old ones, so as to comply with the new regulations as to rateable value. By the Act the rateable value had been changed to the annual value of the premises; but in taking that annual value, they excluded the fact that the house had a value above the annual value in consequence of being a public-house.

said. the hon. and learned Member misapprehended the real state of the case. The point referred to affected public-houses, and not beerhouses.

contended that in consequence of the decisions which had been arrived at last September a great hardship and injustice had been inflicted on the owners of beerhouses. Whether it was desirable that those houses should exist or not was not a question into which he was going to enter. All he contended was, that having under the old law obtained a certain status, and having invested their capital and applied themselves to that occupation as a means of living, they ought not to be arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of those means by a new system of valuation. He might refer to the debate which had just closed as an illustration of the injustice which had been and would be done to beerhouse keepers. In the case of officers of the Army, it had been agreed not only to pay regulation prices, but over regulation prices, in consideration of previous existing facts. Why should the occupiers of beerhouses be treated in a different spirit? But he did not ask any favour for them; all he asked was that they should be treated justly, and that, by what he thought was an accidental and unintentional operation of a particular clause in a Bill, those people should not be deprived of their means of living. Last September many of those, houses were closed under the operation of the Act. Next September, when the licensing sessions were resumed, unless some action were taken in the matter, the whole of them would be shut up without any fault on the part of the occupiers. That would be the case in every parish throughout the country, and those houses would not be the worst, but the best of their class. He did not believe that the advocates of the Licensing Act themselves intended this to be the result of their legislation, and he confidently appealed to the Government for an immediate remedy to an urgent grievance. The hon. and learned Member having been informed by Mr. SPEAKER that according to the Forms of the House his Motion could not be put—

said, he could not understand the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view in bringing forward this subject. An Act of Parliament was passed last Session making certain provisions with respect to beerhouses. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had carried that Resolution of which he had given Notice, what effect would it have on the proceedings before the Justices at the next Brewster Sessions? When the Bill he referred to was introduced, notice of it was given to the keepers of beer-houses throughout the country, and that particular provision was distinctly mentioned by Lord Kimberley in introducing the Bill in the House of Lords, and although objection was taken to many parts of the Bill, no objection was taken to that one. When the Bill came down from the other House he (Mr. Bruce) also referred to the provision in terms as distinct as those of Lord Kimberley. Some discussion was raised on the Motion by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson; but only with the view of making the restriction greater, by excluding from the rateable value for qualification that of any fields which might be attached to the House. In the case of public-houses, it had been assumed that magistrates would exercise their functions to ensure that these houses would be of the proper rateable value; but the case of beerhouses was different—a low class of beerhouses had come into existence, and so strong was the feeling on the subject, that not the slightest objection was taken to this provision as regarded beerhouses in either House of Parliament. Then, did they act harshly with the beerhouses in calling on the magistrates to see that they possessed the rental required by the Act of Parliament? That was done in the case of public-houses; but in that of beerhouses, the only security they could have was by seeing that they were of the proper rateable value, and requiring them to bring their houses up to the required rateable value within a given time. To him it seemed a just and fair provision. And when his hon. and learned Friend compared the case of the beerhouses with that of the officers, he would remind him that the officers were at least of some value to their country, and that it was just they should be compensated—which could not be said of these houses. He failed to see any advantage that his hon. and learned Friend proposed in bringing forward this question.

said, he was astonished at the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, for anything more unjust he had never heard in his life. His remarks might very well apply to the state of things which originally existed, when the beerhouse licences were first issued 30 years ago, when they were not under the control of the magistrates. That was not their fault, and the Government were now taking advantage of a sin of their own creating. But the Home Secretary ought to have recollected that that did not apply now, for the beerhouses had for 12 months previously been placed under the control of the magistrates, and he would appeal to the testimony of any Chief Constable to say whether they were not as well conducted as the fully licensed houses if they were to require a beerhouse to come up to a certain standard of value, they would in many country districts require a very large place; but it was monstrous to place such a restriction upon a poor man, who intended to sell beer to poor men. The result would be that the whole trade would be handed over as a monopoly to the brewers. They had only to look to the Act to see that it was only intended to deal with future licences, and that there was not the slightest idea or intention of making it retrospective. He had recently purchased a beerhouse, and if the licence was refused on this ground he intended to try the case by applying for a mandamus, and he had been advised by eminent counsel that he had a good case. All this showed with how little reflection the Act of last Session was passed. When once a dog was given a bad name it was as well to hang him, and that was the principle on which the Home Secretary appeared to he dealing with the beerhouse keepers. The Act was so unjust that it could not possibly last. He would appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to say whether the beerhouse which supplied beer to the poor man was half so bad as the full licensed house which supplied spirits; and he should call on the hon. Baronet to support the Motion, which he regretted could not by the Forms of the House be put. If it could, he was certain the Home Secretary would have been left in a minority.

said, that if his recollection of the debates of last year was correct, there was a general desire to avoid any possible mistakes. It was certainly his belief at the time the Bill was under consideration last year, that its object was, as far as possible, to protect existing interests, and that the clauses under consideration were not to affect the old, but only new licences, and he was convinced that they were discussed by hon. Members under the impression that they were only dealing with the new, and not with the old beerhouses. He believed if it had been generally known when the Licensing Act was before the House, that so large an amount of rateable interests would be affected by the change proposed, there would have been more minute discussion, they would have taken greater care of those vested interests, and they would have guarded against the mistakes which had been made. During the discussion on the Bill the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had called attention to the fact that in many mountain districts there were only a few houses of low rateable value that practically afforded to a comparatively large population any accommodation whatever. For many years previous to the passing of the Licensing Act, in some districts the rateable value of beerhouses was made up of many ingredients, and practically the value of those houses was of low standing indeed. That state of things, however, did not apply to a large number of beerhouses which the passing of the Licensing Act affected. In many towns an immense number of houses would be swept out of existence at the next licensing sessions. In that case, a great injustice would be done. In many towns, at the corners of streets laud could not be had for the purpose of extending existing beerhouses, so that it was perfectly impossible to bring the annual value up to £15. Though they were conducted respectably for generations, they would be refused licences, because they were below the required rateable value. It did seem a great hardship, indeed, that houses of this character should be swept away. In one town within his own knowledge, at least 200 such houses would be swept away, as they could not build up to the rateable value required by the Act. The Legislature would act wisely, if the attempt were limited to wipe out beer-houses or public-houses. The question of renewing licences ought to be affected by the fact whether they had been properly conducted. If they had been badly conducted, then he was free to confess that their licences ought not to be renewed; but when they had been respectably conducted for generations—when they had been carried on within the legal requirements of the Act—it did appear to hint a very great hardship indeed that they should be swept away simply on the ground of rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said, he could not see what good could result from the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford as, practically, it was too late to take action in the matter. But that was not the first time during the present Session that the attention of the Government had been called to the grievance complained of. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had himself urged the necessity of doing something in the matter; but he felt as a private Member the difficulty he would have, unaided by the Government, in dealing with the question. He thought the Home Secretary would act wisely if by a short Act passed during the present Session, he and his Colleagues in the Administration rendered impossible that which must be admitted to be a great injustice.

said, the language of the 46th section of the Act was so clear that it never could have been for one moment doubted by anyone who paid attention to the Bill when before the House that the Licensing Act was intended to have a retrospective effect on the point of rateable value with regard to beer-houses. He knew there were cases where from the houses having changed owners injustice would be done, at the same time it must be remembered that if the value of the house had been properly stated when the licence was granted, no injury could be done. There must have been misrepresentation in obtaining the licence, which was frequently done when the licence was granted by the surveyors of taxes. He thought that some discretion should have been left to the magistrates in dealing with this particular class of houses instead of binding them down as they were by the 46th and 47th sections. At the same time, he could not concur in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.

said, he had a Notice on the Paper—

"To call attention to a notice of the extension of compulsory registration to letters and packets containing bank notes, postage stamps, jewellery, or watches, issued by command of the Postmaster General and to move—That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable that letters, not duly tendered for registration, which contain bank notes or postage stamps, should be subject to a double registration fee of eight pence."

At that late hour, however, he would not trouble the House on the subject. He believed he would have an opportunity on Monday, on the Post Office Estimates in Committee of Supply, to draw attention to the matter, and he wished now to give Notice that he would then ask the Postmaster General to withdraw the new regulation, so far as it referred to bank notes and postage stamps. If he did not receive a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Monk) would, on the Report of Supply, move the Resolution which he had put upon the Paper for to-day.

said, the regulation in question was a most monstrous one, and he hoped no time would be lost in calling the attention of the House to it. He trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monk) had ascertained that he would have an opportunity on Monday of bringing the matter before the House.

moved a new clause, requiring the consent of Governing Bodies to applications of apprenticeship fees, and other benefits under certain limitations.

admitted that if the Governing Bodies had a strong opinion on these matters, the Commissioners ought to pay special attention to their views.

moved to amend Clause 13, by inserting words to render it incumbent on the President or Vice President of the Council, in the event of a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent from a proposed scheme of the Commissioners being made in either House, to move the assent of such House within the period of two months prescribed in this clause.

objected to the Amendment.