that we had zem 300,000 men under aims, and needed nothing but the organisation, which, if Purchase were but abolished, the Govern

The Peers rose above the Commons in the width of the considerations they expressed and the same high tone was preserved throughout the debate. The form of the motion enabled the Lords to avod a direct mente in favour of Purchase, but the speeches of the majonty all showed that their wish was to protect that mode of promotion.

The Duke of Rutland's peint, for example, was that purchase and professional education were quite compatible things; Lord Hardinge held that purchase secured "a rapid flow of promotion;" Lond Vivian believed that better officers could not be found in Europe than those of the British army; the Duke of Beaufort thought the feeling of officers was against abolition; Viscount Melville could not see how Purchase interfered with the effectiveness of our forces; the Dake of Manchester believed that if properly carried out Purchase would do no harm; Lord Carnarvon, though in theory condemning Purchase, stated that in practice it had prevented the conversion of the officers into a separate caste, that they had hitherto been English gentlemen, rather than professional men with professional politics: Lord Abinger frankly avowed that he was opposed to change because officers liked the system: Lord Luean thought it his duty as a soldier to uphold Purchase as long as he could; the Duke of Northumberland objected to every other system of promotion; Lord Stratford de Redelitfe thought high professional opinion was in favour of Purchase; Earl Brownlow said selection dissatisfied the Navy; and Lord Strathnairn utterly condemned the stagnation of promotion caused by every system except Purchase. Lond Derby, alone of Tory peers of consequence, took a different line. He disposed of the question of expense in a sentence, by saying that unless the Army were reduced, the expense of abolishing Purchase would be as oppressive years hence as now, and might be even increased. As to delay, where was the dignity of delaying an inevitable reform, inevitable because no institution could now stand which did not admit of defence before a partially educated electorate? If you asked twenty people in the street about Purchase, ten would not know what you meant, and ten would suppose that Government kept a shop for the sale of commissions. It was fair to say Government was now pledged to pay over-regulation prices, but who had pledged that final and very different tribunal, the electorate? The Army had been offered fair terms, and on the experience of many years he urged the Peers to accept them, more especially as he had high legal authority for saying their consent was not required, and Purchase could be abolished by Warrant from the Crown.

The Duke of Argyll quite appreciated the sub-tone of the debate, the dread entertained by the House of abolishing Purchase, and made in reply a very able speech. Without exaggerating, he

showed that the existing system of promotion was one of seniority qualified by money; that, although not irrespective of merit, it was irrespective of comparative merit; that it prohibited rejection, except in extreme cases of bad temper or bad military character, (there had been no case of veto for five years); that the system made the Army one vast web of pecuniary interests nearly impossible to reach; that Colonels of distinguished capacity could not be selected; that the system prohibited the best method of increasing the Army, that of doubling the battalions; that, in short, it was fatal to the very demand made by the House for a thorough scheme of reorganization. Lord Salisbury closed the attack upon the Bill in a speech of singular acrimony. He declined to discuss the question upon the sole ground of the interest of the British officer. Dismissing with contempt the allegation that if their lordships adopted this amendment the next Bill might not provide for the payment of over-regulation payments, he pointedly alluded to Lord Derby's description of the constituencies, as indicating that he was not quite satisfied with his own work in the late Reform Bill. If the constituencies were so bad as to refuse to sanction the terms of the Government, then "God help the public creditor, for he will be the first person to suffer from this desire of the constituencies to spoliate the rich on the first plausible pretext." He declared that, whatever statements had been made to the contrary notwithstanding, the officers of the Army were opposed to this Bill, and were anxious that it should not pass. It was possible that if we were all thrown upon a desert island, purchase might not be set up as an institution, and he was not quite sure the Duke of Argyll himself would be an institution that would be set up under such circumstances. Denying that Purchase was the issue upon which they were going into the lobby, he said that Purchase did provide a system of retirement, and that he and those about him had a right to ask how those objects were to be accomplished if it were abolished. Passing in caustic review the relations between the Ministerial leaders and their followers in the other House, he hinted at the improbability that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go on throwing away 1,000,000l. a year on military retirement. Party influence was the blot of the political system of the United States, and this was also the great danger of our political future. If Purchase had been described as a system of seniority tempered by selection, the more correct formula of the proposed system was stagnation tempered by jobbery. It was the especial duty of that House to protect the country against rash and imperfect legislation, and he exhorted their lordships not to abandon the Army to the influence of combined senility and corruption. The Bill was urged forward by the Prime Minister to redeem the barrenness of a useless session, but their lordships, by adopting the amendment, would confirm their title to the affection and esteem of the country.

Lord Granville regarded the speech just delivered as illustrating how far one of the ablest Members of their lordships' House could

push sarcasm and invective. Replying generally upon the whole debate, he stated authoritatively that, although the Government would not be unmindful of economy, the War Office would with all speed apply itself to enforce the plan laid before the House and the country in this debate. If the Government desired a mere party triumph they could not wish for a more favourable state of things than to appear to be engaged in a struggle, in which they were certain to be victorious, to prevent the removal of an abuse which was supposed to be connected with the class interest of that House. But, owing as he did more than, perhaps, any one else to their lordships' House, he besought them to pause, and to remember the position held by that House during the Conservative leadership of the late Duke of Wellington and Lord Derby respectively. The policy of the Duke was to avoid collision as much as possible with the other House, while all the victories won under the late Lord Derby were sterile, and the present division would certainly come under this category.

"the

The division which followed gave a majority of twenty-five against Government-155 to 130,-but it was stated that among Peers of the realm" Government gained a positive majority of one (146 to 145, including pairs), and were defeated only by the representative Scotch and Irish Peers, who, having been virtually nominated by the Tory leaders, were almost unanimous in their opposition,-29 of them voting for the Duke of Richmond, and only 3 for Government, these numbers also of course including pairs.

If nothing further had occurred this vote would have been equivalent to the rejection of the Bill; but the disapprobation with which thoughtful and dispassionate politicians regarded the decision of the House of Lords was immediately afterwards diverted to another object. A serious collision between the two Houses was feared, but few had anticipated any thing so grave and startling as was in reality to occur. When the Commons met, on the second day after the adverse vote, the Prime Minister made the surprising announcement that Purchase was already abolished by a Royal Warrant, which her Majesty had been advised to sign. The announcement was made in answer to Sir George Grey, who asked whether the violation of the law in the payment of over-regulation prices was to be prohibited, and, after narrating what had happened in the Lords, Mr. Gladstone pointed out that it did not amount to a rejection of the Bill, but simply to a postponement of the second reading until certain information had been laid before them, and that it was open to any peer to move the second reading. Next he reminded the House that by statute there was no Purchase but what was permitted by the Queen's Regulations, but that the intervention of the House would be required to find a pecuniary indemnity for the officers affected. Though the Government would never have thought it reasonably within their competence to take any vital step without consulting the House, having now got its

definite judgment against Purchase, and having before them the declaration of the Royal Commission, that over-regulation could not be got rid of except by abolishing Purchase altogether, the Government had advised her Majesty to cancel the Warrant under which Purchase is legal. This advice her Majesty had been graciously pleased to accept-a new warrant had been framed-and therefore, said Mr. Gladstone, amid loud cheering, "after November 1 next Purchase will cease to exist." After defending this resolution as consistent with constitutional usage, and best calculated to put an end to a state of suspense dangerous to the discipline of the Army, he went on to comment on what the House of Lords might be expected to do in the altered state of circumstances. In the hope that they would be disposed to go on with the remaining (compensation) clauses, a sufficient time for consideration would be allowed, but he declined, at present, to say what the Government would do if they failed to prosecute the Bill to its legitimate end. He closed his speech with this remark : "But one thing I must state on the part of the Government, and that is, that come what may, under all circumstances, we shall use the best means in our power, mindful of the honourable pledges we have given, to secure the ends which Parliament has had in view, and just and liberal terms for the officers."

Lord Granville made a similar statement in the House of Lords; and both he and Mr. Gladstone were careful to explain that the Queen had acted, not in the exercise of Prerogative, but in virtue of a statutory power conferred by an Act of George III. Affecting to adopt the view which the Opposition had for the most part professed to take, that the Bill did not turn on the maintenance or abolition of Purchase, Lord Granville begged the Lords to cooperate with the Ministry in doing justice to the officers, "under the altered circumstances," when dealing with the compensationclauses.

The announcement of the Ministerial policy created great and general excitement. Mr. Disraeli denounced it in the Commons as "part of an avowed and shameful conspiracy against the undoubted privileges of the other House of Parliament," words which he recalled on a hint from the Speaker, but which supplied his party with a good rallying cry. Not only the Conservative, but the leading Liberal journals expressed utter disapproval of the Warrant. The country, however, failed to take any great interest in the matter, notwithstanding the gravity of the step now taken by the House of Lords-which would have been graver if immediate.

Lord Northbrook having laid on the table the Royal Warrant for the abolition of Purchase, the Duke of Richmond appealed to the Government to fix the second reading for Monday, July 31, and gave notice that, on the motion that the Bill be read a second time, he should move to add the following words :-"That this House, in assenting to the second reading of this Bill, desires to express its opinion that the interposition of the Executive, during the progress

of a measure submitted to Parliament by her Majesty's Government, in order to attain by the exercise of the prerogative, and without the aid of Parliament, the principal object included in that measure, is calculated to depreciate and neutralize the independent action of the Legislature, and is strongly to be condemned; and this House assents to the second reading of this Bill only in order to secure the officers of her Majesty's army compensation to which they are entitled consequent on the abolition of Purchase in the army." In other words, the Lords, resolved to pass a vote of censure on the Ministry, but deferred it until after the Goodwood races. The debate on the subject, however, when it took place, was worthy of the subject and of the occasion, considered as an exhibition of oratory.

The Duke of Richmond said that the abolition of Purchase by Royal Warrant, when their Lordships had not refused to pass the second reading of the Army Bill, but had only asked for further information, was an event which, for importance, could scarcely be paralleled in our parliamentary history, and which imposed upon their Lordships a corresponding responsibility to maintain the honour and dignity of that House. Declining altogether to enter upon the merits of the Army Bill, he recapitulated the parliamentary proceedings in regard to that measure, and briefly sketched the joint action of the Executive and the Legislature in regard to army purchase from its commencement. Under such circumstances the Crown ought not to have been advised to exercise the Royal Prerogative without reference to any Act of Parliament. If the Crown were advised that it was acting under statute, as had been asserted by Lord Granville on the evening the warrant was signed, it had been improperly advised, and her Majesty's signature had been improperly obtained. Although it was in the power of the Crown to set up the network of vested interests created by Army Purchase, he maintained that the Crown could not alone, ex mero motu, get rid of them, and that it was a distinct interference with the legislative functions of their Lordships to take the matter out of their hands while the Bill was still before them. Was that House a deliberative assembly or not, or was its opinion only to be taken when it coincided with that of the Government? He asked their Lordships to enter a protest as strong and as decorous as Parliamentary usage allowed against a course which threatened to render all discussion liable to be arrested by the "sic volo, sic jubeo" of an imperious Minister.

Lord Granville, after a pleasant reference to the brightest gems of the Duke's speech, which he declared to be his quotations from three of the speeches of his colleagues at the Mansion House, examined the alternatives before the Government, and declared that the only course open to them was to deal with Army Purchase by the Royal Prerogative. The Government were asked why, if they had this power, they did not exercise it six months ago; but uld it have been wise to abolish Purchase before obtaining the ent of the House of Commons? Feeling that the effect of the