Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the gentlest possible way, that, as the addition was to be exactly twopence, of course the mode of computing the Income-tax by a percentage (which had been another change proposed by Mr. Lowe) would not be necessary, and would stand over" for an impartial expression of public opinion.' The transparent veil thrown by Mr. Gladstone over these two last defeats roused inextinguishable laughter.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Disraeli followed him by a demand that the consideration of this completely transformed Budget, of which the leading feature was, as he remarked, "a sweet simplicity," should be postponed for a day or two. The new Budget proposed, he said, to raise the whole deficiency of the year, 2,700,0007., by direct taxation. Last year the indirect taxation had been reduced by 3,000,000l. This year the direct was to be increased by nearly the same amount, making a relative difference of near 6,000,000/. between the indirect and direct taxation in two years. But this was not all. Usually it might be said that "sufficient for the year are the burdens thereof," but this was hardly true of a year in which the Ministers had directly stated that so many of their plans would involve either a further loss of a revenue or a further increase of revenue in the year beyond. Nearly 900,0007. of the miscellaneous revenue of this year could not be expected next year. A further sum of 600,000%. would be wanted next year, beyond what was wanted this year, for extinguishing purchase. Again, 1,200,000l. of house-duty was proposed to be surrendered next year to the local taxation. These sums made up together a further sum of 2,700,000l. of extra deficit for next year, so that the deficit of next year might reach 5,400,000. How to meet this startling deficit Mr. Lowe had, of course, made no suggestion; but he had thrown out unpleasant hints of withdrawing the exemption from "agricultural horses and carts" a theme which would find employment, said Mr. Disraeli, for those Chambers of Agriculture which are sometimes taunted with having nothing to do. Then there was the suggestion that consanguinity ought to make no difference in the rate of legacy and Succession-duties-a hint odious to all the cherished ideas of English family life. Of course, time must be asked and taken to consider so very unpleasant a financial situation, pregnant with so many threats for the future.

Mr. Lowe replied briefly, disclaiming utterly the character of financial "hints" which had been attributed to his various expressions of private opinion; but conceding that a good deal of reference to "prospective" finance was, under the circumstances, justified. Then arose private members to congratulate or taunt the Government on having given way-Lord George Cavendish, fully conscious of wielding great Cavendish influence, and treating the Government like the "heavy father" of comedy, who has been justly offended, but is not implacable. He was much cheered as he took the Government once more to his bosom, and bade it not think of Succession-duties again. Then Mr. Fawcett, lofty and implac

able, denounced the Government for falling from sin to sin, and by placing all the iniquitous amount of new taxation on the Incometax, trying to teach the democracy the evil lesson that they could be extravagant without cost to themselves.

Mr. Osborne, who declared that it was his poverty and not his will that consented to his sitting among advanced Liberals and retrograde democrats-below the gangway-condoled with the Ministers upon the manner in which Lord George Cavendish had helped a lame dog over a stile; and, comparing Mr. Lowe to a Jonah who had been thrown overboard with all his sins-for he called the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. gentleman had not repented of any of his offences-professed that he did not envy the fish who had to swallow him. He did not

agree with Mr. Fawcett, whom he described as the "Tory democratic member for Brighton," in his opinion of the new proposal; and asserted that the only way to secure the reduction of expenditure was to make the upper classes pay for the luxury of panics in which they chose to indulge.

In the discussion which followed, a dozen or so of members addressed the House, all expressing satisfaction at the course which had been adopted by the Government, and reflecting with more or less severity upon the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Towards the close of the debate, Mr. Auberon-Herbert rose to defend Mr. Fawcett against the attack made upon him by Mr. Osborne. While complimenting the member for Waterford upon his ability as a joker, and assuring him that if he were a giver of dinners he should always keep an empty chair for him-an intimation which drew from Mr. Osborne a very audible remark, "I don't think I would come if I were asked," followed by a loud laugh-he reminded him that politics were something more than an arena in which every man should fight for his own hand; and, referring to a remark made by the hon. gentleman that Mr. Fawcett was the only member in the House who was willing to wear the Phrygian cap, suggested, amid cries of "Oh, oh," that the more appropriate headdress for Mr. Osborne would be "the cap that makes music as it goes."

On a later day, Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens was defeated only by a majority of fifty in a full House on a motion for limiting the increase of the Income-tax to a penny, and for providing the remainder by suspending the conversion of the debt. But for the natural and legitimate restrictions on the expression of individual opinion, Mr. Torrens' proposal would have been carried by a large majority. A Ministerial party habitually supports the financial proposals of the Government, and, after the rejection of two successive Budgets, a third defeat would have compelled a resignation.

So the increased Income-tax was carried amidst a general and deep feeling of disapproval, nor was the scandalous injustice and crudeness of the scheme rendered less distasteful in consequence of the promulgation by some of Mr. Gladstone's satellites of a theory

that the poorer classes have no interest in the independence of the country, and no moral liability to share in providing for its defence. The administration of the Admiralty gave rise to many changes and difficulties during the session. Mr. Childers was forced, by the state of his health, to retire from the post of First Lord, and was succeeded by Mr. Goschen, Mr. Stansfeld becoming President of the Poor Law Board, with a seat in the Cabinet, and Mr. Baxter taking the office of Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Winterbotham thereupon accepted the Under-Secretaryship for the Home Department in the place of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who went to the Secretaryship of the Admiralty to help Mr. Goschen. The appointment of the latter gentleman elicited at first much hostile criticism and even ridicule; but he soon proved himself well qualified for his post even by the general admission of his opponents, and effaced to some extent the memory of his Local Taxation Bill. Within a few days of his accession to his new office he introduced the Navy Estimates in a speech which proved that he had already made himself conversant with the details of his new duties; and on Easter Monday, in returning thanks for her Majesty's Ministers at the Lord Mayor's dinner, he distinguished himself by making a remarkable speech, terse, weighty, and couched in a peculiar tone of dignity and selfreliance. He expressed the regret of the Ministers that after two sessions and a half of hard work they had achieved so little. The truth was that the stupendous events happening abroad had arrested the attention of the Government and the country. "And what had we to do now?" he said. "We had to buy back our army, which belonged at this moment to the officers, and not to the nation." It would cost much, but the result would be adequate to the expense. He did not think the foreign policy of the Government had been "other than honourable" to the country. They had pursued a policy which had been called a policy of isolation, but which was at least one of unselfishness, and he believed there were many countries in Europe which would prefer "the disinterested neutrality of England to the sinister policy of some Continental States." England was never credited abroad with simple honesty in her foreign policy. Some Machiavellian design was always imputed to her. Europe would have it that we abolished the slave trade because we were jealous of the competition of the French and Spanish colonies, and that we sided with Denmark because we feared the result of the harbour of Kiel falling into German hands. But he held we were more single-minded in our foreign policy than any other nation, and thought Europe foolish to be taken in by our habit of selfdepreciation. Public opinion in this country was like a good strong horse rather out of condition with being fed only on green meat. Recent events in Europe should teach us to rely not on treaties or alliances, which often fail when the pinch comes, not on the word of statesmen-for secret treaties shake confidence in that--but upon ourselves. We ought to take measure of ourselves, and, if necessary, to hold every man to his duty of maintaining the honour and

glory of England "at the same height at which it had been held through many generations."

Mr. Goschen found himself saddled with a duty not so agreeable in defending the conduct of his predecessor in a matter which had caused much discussion. Vice-Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson, Third Lord of the Admiralty, and one of the most distinguished officials connected with that department, had been dismissed from his post by the Premier in consequence of differences with Mr. Childers. A long correspondence, in which Sir Spencer Robinson, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Gladstone had among others taken part, was published in the newspapers, and did not reflect any high credit on the Ministers. One letter of Mr. Gladstone's, in which he took the extraordinary step of requesting Sir Spencer to alter the date of one of his letters for publication, was the source of much amusement to the public, especially to those interested in the complexities of the Premier's character. It seemed only too clear, on the whole, that Sir Spencer's dismissal was referable to the sad loss of the "Captain," of the peculiar mode of construction of which vessel, as of Captain Coles's system generally, which Mr. Childers had strongly advocated, Sir Spencer had as strongly expressed his disapproval. The matter led to a discussion in Parliament, which, but for the illness and absence of Mr. Childers, would probably have taken a much more severe turn. As it was, Mr. Bouverie gave expression to a very general feeling when he said that Sir Spencer Robinson had been treated " unjustly and ungenerously." It cannot indeed be said that justice and generosity were this year conspicuous in the measures and conduct of Mr. Gladstone's Government.

CHAPTER III,

The History of Purchase-Debates upon the Army Bill-Its altered form-Debate in the House of Lords-The Duke of Richmond's Motion-Speeches on the Motion-Majority against the Government-Abolition of Purchase by Royal Warrant Effect of the Proceeding-Vote of Censure on the Ministry passed by the Lords-The Army Bill passed-Proceedings in the Commons-Letter of Sir Roundell Palmer-Article in the "Journal des Débats "-The Ballot Bill-Conservative Tactics-Meeting of Liberal Members-Their Policy-The Bill thrown out by the Lords-University Tests Bill-Mr. Fawcett's Bill relating to Trinity College, Dublin-The " Megara "-Epping Forest and the Thames Embankment -Deceased Wife's Sister's Bill-Female Suffrage-Mr. Miall's motion for the Disestablishment of the English Church-Mr. Bruce's Blunders-The Washington Treaty-History of its Discussion-The Berkshire Campaign and its Abandonment-Privy Council Bill-Elections for East Surrey and Plymouth. In the year 1683, a Royal Warrant was issued ordering the payment of 18. in the pound on the surrender of a commission to the person surrendering, and by him to whom the surrender is made. Ten years subsequently, William III., by a warrant, interdicted the payment " of any present or gratuity" for obtaining a commission, every officer being obliged to take oath that he had

neither directly nor indirectly given any money to any one for his commission. The oath was omitted in the Mutiny Act of 1701, and in the following year purchase was legally recognized by the decision in the case of Ive v. Ash, where a lieutenant who had repudiated his engagement to pay 6007. for a company was bound to perform it, the Court of Chancery overruling the plea that the transaction was a fraudulent one. In 1711 Queen Anne issued a warrant interdicting the sale of commissions without the royal approbation under the sign manual, and in no case under twenty years' service, or unless the intending vendor were disabled while serving. In 1719-20 some important regulations were issued limiting the sale of commissions to military purchasers; in 1725 a commission was appointed to inquire into the practice of over-regulation payments; in 1765 another commission was appointed under Lord Ligonier with the same object. One result of this commission was a fixed scale of prices, by which it appears that an ensigncy cost 4007., and the command of a regiment 35002.

Large over-regulation sums, however, continued to be paid, a practice which was rendered penal by an Act passed in 1798, the interference of all persons with the sale of commissions save authorized army agents being at the same time interdicted. In 1833 the Duke of Wellington addressed a famous Memorandum to a Committee on Army and Navy Appointments, in which he extolled the Purchase System. In 1840 the Report of Lord Melbourne's Commissions was issued, bearing the signatures of the most eminent soldiers of the day. This Report dwelt upon the advantages of the Purchase System as furthering promotion and retirement, and thereby securing physical efficiency among officers. In 1850 the Report of a Committee on Army and Ordnance Expenditure contained the approval of purchase by the Duke of Wellington, Lord Raglan, and Lord Panmure. Further commissions were appointed in 1854 and 1856, the Report of the latter recommending the cessation of the sale of commissions at the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Among the witnesses examined by this commission were " Jacob Omnium” and Sir Charles Trevelyan. During the following years various commissions were appointed for the consideration of such questions as promotion in the higher ranks (1858), distinguished service colonels (1863), retirement (1867), supersession of colonels (1870), promotion and retirement in the ordnance corps (1870), and overregulation prices (1870).

Such briefly is the history of the Purchase System in the British Army, an anomaly which it was clearly impossible to maintain after the Government of the day had declared that its abolition was necessary, and when the House of Commons was prepared to deal justly and liberally with the private interests which were affected. For Parliament was invited to compensate officers, not only for the legal value of their commissions, but for the excess of prices beyond the regulated amount which they had paid in accordance with the usage of the service. Mr. Cardwell may, perhaps, have fallen into

« PreviousContinue »