Commons Sitting of 8 April 1856

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Nawab of Surat.

MEDALS, &c., FOR THE ARMY IN THE EAST—QUESTION.
MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, whether it was ever contemplated by the Governments of France or Turkey to give a medal to the officers and soldiers of the British army in the East? and, if so, whether such medal had been declined by the British Government? also, whether the new medal, the order of merit, was likely to be issued; who were to be the recipients thereof; whether it was to be given
640
for future services only, or to be accorded to those officers and soldiers already mentioned in the various despatches since the commencement of the late war?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had the greatest satisfaction in accepting the offer made by the Emperor of the French to confer the war medal of France on the English army which had served in the Crimea. The medals had been transmitted to this country, and directions had since been given for their distribution to the troops. He understood that the Sultan of Turkey also intended to bestow a medal on the British army in the East; but no official communication to that effect had yet reached our Government. With regard to the new Order of Merit, any acts of gallantry performed since the commencement of the war would be sufficient to qualify any person to receive this decoration. He was yet unable, however, to state when the preliminary arrangements for the first distribution would be completed.
MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would now ask whether a claim made for the effects and medal due to private No. 2,514, John Martin, late of the 95th Regiment, who was engaged at Alma, and, it was believed, also at Inkerman, who died in camp before Sebastopol on the 7th of November, 1854, had been refused on the ground that the soldier was of illegitimate birth? and, whether the money and Crimean medal due to private No. 3,310, James Blanchard, late of the 1st battalion Rifle Brigade, who landed with the British army in the Crimea in September, 1854, and was killed in the trenches before Sebastopol on the 22nd of August, 1855, had been refused on similar grounds?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that both the claims to which the hon. and gallant Member referred appeared to have been disallowed upon the ground he had mentioned. The usual, practice, however, was, when a mother made a claim for the effects of an illegitimate son, to allow such claim provided she was able to produce a certificate showing that she was the mother of the person deceased.

INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that before bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, he hoped he might be allowed to read a letter he had received from a gentleman in Ireland, whose name he only knew from the receipt of that letter. The

641
writer was a clergyman, who stated that he was the rector of a small parish near Dingle, and his whole income was £158 a year, out of which he had to pay poor rates amounting to £45 5s. 7d., and £10 18 s. 9d. for income tax, so that, after paying £62 for life insurance, he had only £40 left for the support of his family. The writer also stated that he had submitted his case to the Income-Tax Commissioners, in the hope that they would modify their demand, but his appeal had been fruitless. He therefore hoped that some modification of the tax would take place. He (Mr. Muntz) knew that not only in Ireland, but in many other parts of the kingdom, the operation of the tax was equally oppressive. He regretted to say that he was old enough to remember the effect of the income and property tax in the former war. In 1814, 1815, and 1816, there was a strong feeling with regard to its inequality. Not that he objected to an income tax, or rather to a property tax, in the strict sense of the term; but it was because the present income tax was so unjust, and it was so impossible to make it just to society at large, that he objected to it. When the income tax was reimposed in 1842, by the late Sir Robert Peel, he (Mr. Muntz) supported it, because, under the circumstances in which the finances of the country were placed, there was no other remedy; and, unjust as he thought it, he preferred an attempt to restore our finances by means of a temporary income tax rather than by taxes on the necessaries of life, which would have pressed with great severity upon the poorer classes. He supported it, therefore, on that ground, though he thought, and stated that he thought, it inquisitorial and unjust in its nature. He had thereby subjected himself to much obloquy, and the Whigs, who then opposed it, abused him because he voted for it. But he supposed that when the time at which Sir Robert Peel had pledged himself to remove it—and but for that pledge he would not have supported it—he supposed when that time came that the parties who had abused him for voting for the income tax would have got rid of the tax, but, instead of that, every one of them voted for it; it was reimposed, had continued ever since to the present day, and had been added to, the last addition being for the purpose of carrying on the war, which was, no doubt, a good reason for continuing it. In his opinion, a tax on property was about the best you
642
could have, for it forced people to pay a large amount who could afford it, and you got it from many persons who would not otherwise contribute to the support of the State. There was, however, a wide difference between a tax upon property and a tax upon income, and he thought it most unjust to levy the same rate of taxation upon industrial and professional incomes and upon real property. It was only fair that those who had property to take care of should pay higher taxation than those who had no property. There was an old saying, that the wise conquered difficulties by daring to attack them, while the slothful and foolish shivered and shrank at the sight of toil or danger. So it was in the case of this tax. Unjust and unequal as its operation was, no attempt had been made to remedy it. Some time ago a Committee recommended that some alteration should be made, but nothing had been done. It was not at all an uncommon case for his constituents to apply to him in order to ascertain whether they had any remedy for the injustice and oppression to which they were exposed under the present Income-Tax Act. A demand was made upon those persons for a certain amount of income tax, to the payment of which they objected, on the ground that the demand exceeded the amount for which they were liable. The only resource they had was to show their books to the Commissioners; but those Commissioners, in the majority of cases, were either opposed to them in trade, or their bankers. Consequently, they often declined to produce their books, and the result was a denial of justice; for to make a man rob himself was as gross an act of injustice as could possibly be perpetrated. The next question for consideration was, if the tax could not be collected fairly, ought it to be maintained? He contended that it ought not; but he believed that it could be collected honestly in England as in other countries. No difficulty was experienced, for example, in the State of New York, where, if a man objected to his assessment, he had an opportunity of making an affidavit, which was held to be final. He saw no reason why the same system should not be adopted in England. Another grievance connected with the tax was that certain kinds of property did not pay at all. Furniture, plate, jewelry, and property of that description escaped the tax; but a poor man, who had none of these things, was called upon to pay on what he earned. In short, the rich were

643
allowed to escape a portion of the tax, while the poor were compelled to pay to the utmost farthing of their incomes, and in many cases even more. Within the last few months the case of the engine drivers on the railways had been represented to him. They had shown clearly that they were not paid £100 a year, after deducting certain things which they were obliged to provide at their own expense; but the only redress the poor men had been able to get, so far as the past year was concerned was, not that they should be exempt from the income tax, as they ought to be, but that they should only be taxed on an income of £100 a year, while they were not legally liable to the tax at all. The levying and collection of this tax was pursued as a mere matter of expediency, with the determination to get as much as could be got by it, whether right or wrong; and a man in business must submit to be surcharged year after year, if he did not like to expose his books and all his affairs to the world. Such a system could not be advocated by any man who had a respect for justice. Again, the tax pressed with undue severity upon the owners of house property. Take the case of a man deriving a gross annual income of £100 from, say, three houses. His payments were—property tax, £6 13 s. 4d.; ground rent, £12; insurance on £600, £1 7s.; repairs, £6; probable loss of rent in case of voids, £2 10 s.—in all, £28 10 s. 4d.; leaving a net income of £71 9s. 8d. Yet he was taxed upon a rental of £100, or at the rate of 1s. l0½d. in the £1 on his net income. In the case of small house property the injustice of the tax was still more glaring. Take, as an example, thirteen houses at 3s. per week rental, giving a gross annual income of £101 8s. The payments were—Property tax, £6 13 s. 4d.; ground rent, 612; insurance on £600, £1 7s.; repairs, £13; voids and runaways, £10; poor rates, £6 13 s.; borough taxes, £6 13 s.—in all, £56 6s. 4d.; leaving a net income of £45 1s. 8d.; on which the owner was called upon to pay at the rate of 2s. 11½d. in the £1. Thus it appeared that while landowners and fundholders were taxed at the rate of 6½ per cent, the owners of middling and small house property were compelled to pay at the rate of 10 and 15 per cent. That certainly could not be called just or right. There were other classes—for instance, those who carried on what was termed jobbing business,
644
who were not required to pay at all; in short, the present system of collecting the tax was most unjust and oppressive, and the sooner it was changed the better.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHART,in seconding the Motion, said he did not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that landowners did not pay their fair proportion of their tax. In the case of land the expenses of management and other necessary charges amounted to a considerable proportion of the rental, and thus the proprietors were taxed to a greater amount than they ought to be. The tax was particularly hard upon those landowners whose estates were incumbered, for they had to pay not only to the full extent of their incomes, but even upon the sums which went to their creditors. It would be impossible to exaggerate the severity with which the tax pressed upon professional incomes and life annuities, and it was the manifest duty of the Government to capitalise all incomes, and thus make the tax fair and equitable. An attempt had been made by the Government of Lord Derby, in 1852, to modify the system, and he believed that the real reason why that plan did not give satisfaction was to be attributed to the construction of the schedules; but he was quite convinced that it was possible so to modify the present system as to greatly remove its unjust operation. If the income tax was merely a temporary tax—if it was merely a financial experiment, or even a war tax, inequalities might be allowed to exist; but believing, as he did, that in consequence of the system of commercial policy commenced in 1842, and which must be carried even still further than it had at present extended, the income tax must form a permanent part of the system of taxation, he was satisfied that it was absolutely necessary it should be considerably modified, and he sincerely hoped the Government would consent to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, an equitable adjustment of the Income and Property Tax is essential to the interests of the country, particularly as regards the rates of payment upon industrial and professional incomes, compared with those derived from fixed property."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would be difficult, Sir, for the House to exaggerate the importance of this Motion, although the hon. Member for Birmingham has not gone very fully into the subject nor stated either at any

645
length or with great distinctness the grounds upon which he asks the House to agree to reverse the policy which has been followed by this country with regard to the income tax since it was introduced by Mr. Pitt; and yet his Motion is of such extent, that, although it is brought forward in the form of an abstract proposition, it would, if agreed to, pledge the House to undertake the arduous task of the reconstruction of that tax. I will first state shortly what is the present condition of this tax. The present income tax is at the rate of 1s. 4d. in the pound, which is £6 13 s. 4d. per cent, and by the existing law it is to be continued for one year from the 5th of April succeeding the ratification of peace. From April, 1858, it will fall to the rate of 5d. in the £1, and, according to the same law, it will altogether cease in 1860. Under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman invites the House to take a course which would render it necessary to enter upon the task of making an alteration in the principles of the existing law, and, in calling upon the House to commence that arduous undertaking, he has abstained from indicating anything beyond the most general principles upon which that reconstruction is to be effected. Hon. Members will doubtless remember that Dr. Johnson, in his Lives of the Poets, referring to a criticism upon Dryden's translation of Virgil, at the end of which the critic had placed a translation of his own, to show how it ought to be translated, says, that, whatever we may think of his verses, at all events, he is entitled to the praise of being the fairest of critics. Now, I wish I could bestow a similar praise upon the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz). I wish that, while he was condemning the principle and details of the income tax, he had at the same time told us what was the nature of the tax which he would wish to substitute for it. In a Committee of Ways and Means, when we come to consider how we may best provide for the service of the year, it will be quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to move Resolutions on the subject, and if he do so, I hope that the nature of the tax which he proposes to substitute may be indicated. All taxes, whether direct or indirect, are open to serious objections, and there is no person possessing any ingenuity or any knowledge of the subject who may not be able to point out disadvantages in each individual tax. It is the very nature of
646
taxation that every tax will produce some inconvenience, but as it is allowed that, on the whole, Government is a useful institution, and at the same time that it cannot be carried on without taxation, the only question left to be considered is what are the least bad taxes which a Government can impose. If a Finance Minister were to wait until he had discovered a tax which was absolutely perfect, or one to which no specious objection, or one to which even no valid or sound objection could be offered, I am afraid that he would have to present himself annually to the House with an empty Budget. Now, with regard to the income tax, the sum derived from it last year was £16,418,000, and it is very natural that a tax producing so large a revenue should not be levied without giving rise to many complaints; but those complaints would not justify this House, upon the general principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman, in consenting to abolish this tax before they have any opportunity of comparing it with the tax which is to be substituted in its place. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, although they differed upon some points, agreed in the principle that the rates of payment upon industrial and professional incomes ought to be lower than that upon incomes derived from fixed property. The subject appears to me to resolve itself into the question whether we should have an income tax or property tax; and, as I understand the hon. Member for Birmingham, he wishes the income tax to be repealed and a property tax substituted for it. Now, in the first place, I would wish to point out for his consideration some facts connected with the introduction of this tax. It was first introduced by Mr. Pitt during the late war, and after its introduction it underwent various alterations from 1797 to 1816, when it was repealed, having furnished the sinews of war during that great contest in which this country was then engaged. In the year 1842, the late Sir Robert Peel, profiting by the experience of Mr. Pitt, introduced it in its present form, departing in some particulars from the tax as instituted during the war, but in the main adhering to its principles; and now the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) calls upon us to depart from a system founded upon long experience, and substitute for it one of which he tells us little or nothing. I will call the attention of the House as shortly

647
as I can to the grounds on which this great change seems to be recommended. I believe that the persons who engaged in the discussion of this question, on both sides, assumed as an axiom the well-known dictum of Adam Smith upon the subject of taxation; it was taken as the principle to which each party agreed to refer the solution of the question. Adam Smith says, "that the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities." Well, Adam Smith goes on to explain his meaning as follows—"that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." Now, he does not say in proportion to the property which they respectively possess under the protection of the State, but he says, in proportion to the revenue which each subject respectively enjoys. That is a distinction to which the attention of the House should be particularly directed. In imposing a tax of this sort, the State ought to look not to property, but to income. The ability of each person to pay ought, in my opinion, to be measured simply by the annual revenue which he possesses. The bargain which the State seems to make with the taxpayer is this:—"We will give you protection for a year, and you will pay your taxes for a year." Beyond that period, or some other such limited period, the State cannot be held responsible for extending protection to private property. Taxation, in my opinion, cannot be considered prospectively. It is not what may be the prospective value of the property to the owner on which the property tax is founded. What alone ought to be regarded is the present value of the income which the owner has to enjoy and use, and not what may be its value if it were to be sold. The question of market value is quite irrelevant to the argument as a matter of taxation. But if, on the other hand, you adopt the principle of the hon. Gentleman, and tax not income, but property, let us see what consequences it will involve. I will, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a Report which the late Mr. Hume proposed to be adopted by the Committee appointed to inquire into the income and property tax in 1852, in which Committee the question of property as contra-distinguished from income was very fully considered. The views of Mr. Hume were
648
fully embodied in this Report, and with this recommendation concludes:—
"Your Committee submit, finally, that the taxation of this country is not based on any intelligible principle; and that it becomes more and more apparent every year, especially if the property tax is to be a permanent tax, that the whole of the present system of taxation must be revised; that the best tax, the tax most easily levied, offering the fewest obstacles in the collection and the least likely to encourage evasion and fraud, will be found to be an equal tax on the realised and industrial property of the United Kingdom."
I believe everybody who reads that passage will come to the conclusion that, if the principle of that Report be worked out, we must sweep away the whole of our present system of taxation—Income Tax, Stamps, Excise, and Customs, and substitute for it a simple and equal tax on the realised and industrial property of the United Kingdom. That seems to be the legitimate conclusion to which this doctrine must lead, and which my hon. Friend, I infer, is ready to adopt. Sir, the distinction indicated in the Resolution before the House is that commonly drawn between permanent and precarious incomes. But it appears to me that those who argue upon the distinction of permanent and precarious incomes resolve all property into incomes consisting of those two sorts, and assume that it is correct to say that there is a certain set of incomes which are permanent and a certain set of incomes which are precarious, and that under one or the other of these two heads all incomes must fall. Now, I confess that that assumption appears to me to be founded entirely in error; and that no such distinction does exist in any other sense than this, that there is a scale of income arising from sources of the most permanent to the most precarious nature; but that between these two extremes there is an infinite number of degrees, and that it is scarcely possibly to define where the sources of a permanent nature end and those of a precarious nature begin. Therefore, though when we speak in general terms of permanent and precarious incomes, we know what is meant; yet, when an attempt is made to establish a system, of taxation on that distinction, then I contend that the greatest inequalities will immediately be found to result. I will just suggest one of those obvious cases as illustrative of what must inevitably occur were such a system to be acted upon. Everybody knows what an estate in fee simple is. The owner sells it for the

649
highest marketable price which he can obtain for it, estimated by so many years' value. We also know what is meant by a professional income, and that its value depends upon the exertions of the individual—upon his health, skill, and capacity, whether he be a barrister, a physician, or of any other profession. On these two bases—an estate and a profession—the revenue of each party rests. But between these two descriptions of incomes there are a variety of intermediate cases. Such, in regard to land, is the very common case of an estate for life. Now, is an estate for life a precarious or a permanent property? It is a freehold estate according to the law of England, but, nevertheless, a life estate is oftentimes a very insufficient provision for a man and his family. For instance, a parson of a parish has an estate for life in the benefice which he holds, although the income arising from it may not exceed £150 or £200 a year; and is he to be called upon to pay the full rate of the property tax, while you allow the banker or the merchant, who is receiving a profit of perhaps £20,000 or £30,000 a year, to be exempt from taxation, because theirs is a precarious income, being derived from business? Everybody must see, if you wish to construct an income tax upon principles of justice, that that is not a case that will suit your purpose. But there is an infinite number of estates which can be carved out of a fee simple estate by means of marriage settlements, wills, and other descriptions of legal instruments. There are estates in reversion, estates for life in remainder, estates for life expectant, estates for life conditional, all dependent upon an existing life interest; in what way do you propose to deal with the interests of persons situated in that manner? If the House were to attempt to adopt a property tax to meet all these various interests, it would find itself involved in an undertaking in which the human mind would find itself absolutely bewildered. According to the principle of the hon. Gentleman, all incomes derived from trade are to be held precarious—that is to say, all incomes derived from banks, from distilleries, from breweries, from trading companies—some of which establishments have a character of stability, stamped most strongly upon them, and which enable those who are interested in them to enjoy large incomes during their own natural lives, and to make provisions for their
650
children after them. Yet it is proposed to hold all these incomes precarious! But, Sir, if by "ability" you mean to make a distinction between a man's income at the present time and what may hereafter be the probable demands on a man's income, you must take into consideration a number of circumstances, besides the permanency or precariousness of its source. You must take into consideration his family circumstances and his means of obtaining assistance from others. There are hardly any two cases, if you were to go into an accurate investigation of a person's ability to pay, in which you would not find it necessary to make a distinction when adapting an income tax to them. In the Income Tax Act of 1805, it was attempted to make an allowance in certain cases—namely, abatements were made to persons having more than two children; where the annual income was £60 and under £400, for each child above two the abatement was 4 per cent; £400 and under £1,000, the abatement was 3 per cent; for £1,000 and under £5,000, the abatement was 2 per cent; and for £5,000 and upwards, it was 1 per cent. But that enactment was not of long duration. It was repealed in the year 1807, and never afterwards revived. But when you endeavour to estimate with critical accuracy the precise measure of a man's ability, it is essential that you should not only regard his sources of income, but the demands upon them. An attempt to construct the income and property tax upon principles of strict justice would involve the necessity of making a special schedule for almost every taxpayer in the kingdom. So various are the circumstances of each individual, that, unless you descend to a degree of minuteness such as fiscal legislation has never yet attempted, I doubt whether you will make the least approach to a satisfactory solution of the problem which the hon. Member has submitted to the consideration of the House. How are the principles of sparing particular descriptions of revenue and of imposing additional taxation upon permanent sources of income consistent with our system of indirect taxation? If we are to adopt the doctrines so strenuously advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, how is it possible that we should go on levying one single indirect tax? From the very necessity of the case, such a tax falls with equal pressure—as far as amount is concerned—on the landowner with £100,000 a year and on the mechanic, whose wages do not

651
exceed 15 s. a week. They each pay the same duty on sugar, coffee, and tea. No attempt has ever been made to adjust the impost in proportion to the relative circumstances of the persons who are liable to it. But this must be all changed, if the arguments of the hon. Member are allowed to prevail. If he means to be consistent in his views, he must abolish all taxes imposed under the heads of Customs, Excise, and Stamps. Nor is this all. He will also have to remodel all the local taxes. Those taxes, which yield a revenue of more than £10,000,000 a year, are not levied on the principle of the property tax, but strictly on that of the income tax. They are charged to the occupier in proportion to the annual value of his land or house to let. The occupier who is an owner pays no more than the occupier who is not an owner. If the views advocated by the hon. Member should find favour with the House, and if we should declare, as he calls upon us now to do, that the principle on which the income tax is founded is unjust and inequitable, it is manifestly impossible that we should leave standing, and without alteration, a system of local taxation which yields upwards of £10,000,000 annually, and which, as I have already remarked, rests upon the basis, not of the property, but of the income tax. The produce of Schedule D during the last year was £5,101,000; of Schedule A, £7,666,000; of Schedule C, £1,852,000. The number of persons who contributed under Schedule D was upwards of 282,000. With regard, however, to that schedule, it should be borne in mind, when comparing it with the others, that all taxation under the others is charged on property before it comes into the hands of the taxpayer. It is impossible that any such practice should prevail in the case of Schedule D, which, be it remembered, is a self-assessing schedule. I am far from desiring to cast any imputation on the honour or integrity of the professional and commercial men who are classified under that category, but it is in human nature that when men are required to assess themselves for the purposes of a tax they should make their calculations on principles more lenient and indulgent than they would be likely to adopt if they had been required to perform the same duty for other people. It may safely be assumed that in cases of uncertainty they will not hesitate to give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and that they will put upon
652
their own liability as limited a construction as possible. It should also be borne in mind that no inconsiderable quantity of property, which may justly be regarded as commercial, is included under Schedule A—such, for instance, as quarries, mines, ironworks, gasworks, waterworks, canals, railways, and fisheries. There is in many respects a great analogy between this class of property and that included in the commercial schedule; yet the hon. Member for Birmingham would draw a marked distinction between them, and apply a very different rule of treatment to each. Nor must we, in contrasting these schedules, forget that, since the discussion which took place some four years ago on the subject of the income tax, a new tax has been proposed, which to a certain degree alters the relative positions of Schedules A and D—I allude to the tax upon successions. That is an impost of very considerable magnitude, paid at certain periods in large sums, and which falls exclusively upon property classified under Schedule A. All these compensating circumstances must be taken into account, and, when we have examined and contrasted the claims and conditions of each schedule respectively, we shall probably arrive at the conclusion that taxation, under whatever system, is at best but a rough adjustment of rival rights and liabilities. In entertaining a proposal the effect of which would be most materially to diminish the burdens in Schedule D, and to aggravate those in Schedule A, it must not, I repeat, be overlooked that since the time when this question was last under discussion a new tax has been imposed which disturbs not a little the proportions then existing. Bearing in mind this fact, and remembering also that the treatment of this question by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) when the matter was first mooted, was so minute and ample as almost to have exhausted the subject, I had hoped that the question would not have been so soon again renewed, and that we should have been spared the not very profitable discussion which the Resolution of the hon. Member for Birmingham has this evening provoked. I have stated the reasons which appear to me to show that this is not a favourable moment for the entertainment of this subject, and I trust that a dispassionate consideration of all the circumstances of the case will deter the House from adopting

653
an abstract proposition which could never be advantageously reduced to practice. Now that the chief object of the hon. Member for Birmingham has been attained—that of subjecting this matter to periodical discussion—I hope that he will rest satisfied, and not seek to pledge the House to a proposition the consequences of which may be far too vast and too important to render it desirable that the question to which it relates should be decided upon a partial and limited view. I shall therefore conclude my observations on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman by moving the previous question.
MR. LAINGsaid, that if the Motion were pressed to a division, he should certainly vote against the Resolution of the hon. Member for Birmingham on the simple ground that, however legitimate or convenient it might be for the House to affirm a broad principle on certain general questions of policy, and leave to the Government the responsibility of working it out in detail, such a course was wholly inapplicable to financial subjects. No tax could be named against which very plausible objections could not be urged; and therefore nothing could be more dangerous than for the House, by coming to popular votes of this description, to assert abstract principles without seeing its way to a substitute for the impost proposed to be remitted. Indeed, it would be well for the House to adopt it as an axiom that it ought not to judge any particular tax merely upon its own merits, but chiefly in relation to the mode in which the void in the Exchequer which its repeal would occasion was to be supplied. That, however, did not imply that the income tax was perfect in all its arrangements. So far from that being the fact, it was indispensable, before this impost was incorporated with our permanent system of taxation, as would, no doubt, have to be the case, that those portions of it to which public opinion was most repugnant should undergo revision, with a view to render them more acceptable to the country. It was impossible to deny, as an abstract proposition, the distinction existing between incomes derived from precarious sources, such as trades and professions, and those obtained from realised property; and it was hardly fair to charge those who advocated a modification of the present system with aiming, in a matter of this complexity, at such chimerical objects as the assessment of the country on principles of theoretical
654
equity, by which every man would have to pay in an exact ratio to his ability and means. The substitution of a property tax for one on income was no doubt a visionary project, and we must, therefore, take income as we found it, and levy a certain impost from it; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself pointed out the broad line of demarcation between Schedules A and D, the latter, unlike all the rest, being a schedule under which the taxpayer assessed himself to the amount on which he should be chargeable. Thus the Government was placed between the alternatives of a severe and stringent inquisition into the private affairs of individuals on the one hand, and of the opening of the door to extensive frauds on the other. That was a state of things which it was most desirable to correct. Much of the difficulty encountered by eminent financiers in mitigating this evil arose from the impost not being calculated upon by them as a permanent part of our fiscal system. Introduced in 1842 by Sir Robert Peel for a limited period, it was subsequently renewed from time to time; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) propounded his celebrated financial scheme as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that ex-Minister looked forward to its gradual extinction at no distant date. The time was, however, now come when we ought to make up our minds to the continuance of this tax, at least for the lives of the present generation. At the same time, it was certainly his opinion that its pressure might be considerably alleviated and its machinery readjusted, so as to check fraud and evasion while obviating its obnoxious inquisitorial operation. With that view it might be found practicable—following a suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford—to raise a part of our revenue by a system of licences for trades and professions in lieu of assessment under Schedule D. Whatever might be done in this or in any other way to make the tax more palatable, could not, however, be successfully achieved unless it were carried out under the direction of the Government. The construction of the forthcoming or any future peace Budget would present a great and honourable task to the laudable ambition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it was earnestly to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who now filled that important office would

655
address himself to the revision of our entire system of finance in a comprehensive spirit, and with a desire to place it on a sound and healthy basis, and one calculated to endure throughout the long and prosperous career of peace which it was to be hoped lay again before this country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to a hardship in the working of the present measure which he thought had only to be mentioned to be altered. He knew that when the weekly wages of working men did not amount to £100 per annum some of the assessors had taken into account the little extra gained by these men working over hours, and this brought them within the impost, whereas in other districts the assessor did not adopt that plan, and those men were relieved from the payment of a tax which the others were subject to. He therefore hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this, and give instructions to the assessors not to calculate the incomes of hard-working men in the manner he (Mr. W. Williams) had stated.
MR. SPOONERfully agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham that, according to the terms of his Motion, "an equitable adjustment of the income and property tax is essential to the interests of the country," but he could not concur in the declaration contained in the Resolution, that such an adjustment was particularly needed "as regards the rates of payment upon industrial and professional incomes compared with those derived from fixed property." Unquestionably great injustice and great inequality prevailed in the mode of assessing professional incomes, but was there no such inequality in the case of the possessor of landed property? A person possessing an estate of £1,000 a year paid income tax upon the whole of that amount, although he did not receive it, for any one acquainted with landed property knew that the charges upon it amounted to at least twenty per cent. If they took the case of a mortgaged estate, the mortgagor received the interest of the money he had lent without any deduction except for property tax, and had no county contributions to bear and no expenditure for repairs to meet. A person, also, who had money in the funds paid the property tax simply upon his receipts, and was not subjected to any of those other deductions which pressed upon the landed proprietor. He (Mr. Spooner) could not, therefore, agree to
656
that portion of his hon. Friend's Resolution which declared that the inequality of taxation applied entirely to the commercial and industrial interests, as if landed proprietors had no reason to complain of such inequality. It must be remembered, too, that landed proprietors had to pay the property tax of their tenants as well as their own, for when a man took a farm of course he calculated the payments to which he would be liable as an occupying tenant, and deducted certain items from his calculation of the amount of rent he ought to pay. He (Mr. Spooner) regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not exhibit any inclination to consider whether the property tax might not be rendered more equal in its operation than it was at present. Compare, observed the hon. Gentleman, the difference between a gentleman possessing a landed property of £400 per annum, and a clergyman possessing a living of the same amount. In the former case the property is worth thirty years' purchase—in the latter perhaps three, four, or five years, varying acccording to the age of the incumbent—yet these individuals are taxed to the same amount under the present law. To do justice they ought to deduct from the income of the clergyman such a sum as was sufficient to provide for his family when that income should cease. The former transmits his property to his family, while in the latter case the whole is gone. The hon. Member for Birmingham had very properly called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the different modes of assessment adopted in various parts of the country. He (Mr. Spooner) might mention that some railway companies paid their servants a given sum of money for wages, agreeing at the same time to allow them a further sum for clothes, for travelling expenses, and for other purposes. In many of these cases the actual wages were below £100 a year, but the allowances for clothing brought the income above that amount. In some instances the surveyors had held that persons in this position were liable to the tax, while in others persons so situated had been exempted; and he thought it most desirable that some definite rule should be adopted on the subject. The inquisitorial powers which were frequently exercised by the assessors occasioned loud complaints and great dissatisfaction. It not unfrequently happened that honest men were required to submit their books

657
to inspection, and if it became publicly known, as it sometimes did, that they had not made certain profits, their interests were very injuriously affected. He thought it would be well to allow persons, under such circumstances, to make a solemn declaration that, after having allowed for all the deductions permitted by the Act of Parliament, their income did not exceed a certain amount; the deductions authorised to be made being clearly and specially laid down. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider whether it was not possible to make some change in the law in this respect. If the House went to a division, he (Mr. Spooner) would vote for the previous question.
MR. MACKIEsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that last year he had promised to relieve the Scotch landlords from a grievance with respect to this tax which a deputation had pointed out to him.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit that the Scotch landowners had some claim to the consideration of Government. He had given their claim his attention, and when the proper period arrived it would be taken into account. It was not competent, however, for him to propose a separate measure.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to the inequitable operation of the tax upon property in the public funds. Long Annuities, which expired in 1860, when it was assumed the income tax would terminate, were taxed the same as perpetual annuities, thus making them pay a tax of twenty per cent. This was nothing less than extortion and robbery, and could only be justified by the overwhelming necessity of war. If the hon. Member for Birmingham wished his Resolution to be supported, he should extend it to all cases in which injustice was felt. Inequality pervaded all the schedules; and if there was one case of hardship greater than another, it was the one he had mentioned under Schedule C.
MR. MUNTZ,in reply, said, it was a mistake to suppose that his objections to the tax were confined to any one class of the community. He believed that all were robbed alike, and that the landowners had a claim for redress as well as professional men and traders. All he asked was that the House should express its opinion that an equitable adjustment of the income and
658
property tax was essential to the interests of the country.
Whereupon Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 63;Noes, 194: Majority, 131.

THE EXPENSES OF THE CHINESE WAR —QUESTION.
SIR JAMES W. HOGGsaid, he hoped to be able to save the time of the House with reference to his Motion relative to the amount due to the East India Company from Her Majesty's Government for the cost of the Chinese war, by asking the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to state if the accounts had been gone into, and with what result? He hoped it would be such as to render it unnecessary for him (Sir J. Hogg) to trouble the House on the question.
MR. WILSONsaid, a difference had existed between the East India Company and the Government as to the principle of settling the cost of the war. The Government had kept the accounts separate from those of the East India Company, and he was happy to say that between the two there was only a difference of little more than £200,000, and he hoped the House would consider that under the circumstances, it was not worth while for the hon. Member to go on with the Motion.
SIR JAMES W. HOGGsaid, that being the case, there being but a difference of £200,000 on the claim of the East India Company of £800,000, he should not proceed with his Motion on the subject.

CASE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL HARNESS.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he would now beg to move for a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between the Clerk of the Ordnance and Lieutenant Colonel Harness, respecting his removal from his military position. His object in making that Motion was not alone to procure the production of the correspondence in question, but also to bring under the consideration of the House the evil consequences resulting from the adoption of the new system of making the military departments of the Ordnance subservient to the civil. The House would remember that on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk to the Ordnance, in answer to a question which he had put to him, stated that Lieutenant Colonel Harness had been removed from the position

659
of Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications in consequence of a misunderstanding with him, and he went on to pay a high tribute to the professional abilities of that officer, and stated that he had been sent to Malta; and he went on to add, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) that he hoped that military etiquette would not interfere to prevent the best man taking the position for which he was adapted. In referring to the case of Lieutenant Colonel Harness as an exemplification of the disadvantages of the system he had just alluded to he might be allowed to observe, that although he had, for a long time, been well aware of the high reputation which Lieutenant Colonel Harness bore in his profession, yet he had never met him. Very soon after Lieutenant Colonel Harness had entered the service be had been taken away from the regular duties connected with his regiment and had been appointed commissioner of roads in Wales; the labours of which position he had discharged so efficiently that he had, after the lapse of a short time been made a commissioner of railways under the Board of Trade. He had afterwards occupied the situation of second master at the Mint, and having set the Mint to rights, had recommended to the Government the abolition of the office which he filled, as one of the changes expedient to be made in reducing the staff generally. He had then been appointed one of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with a salary of £1,000 a year, which situation he continued to occupy until his appointment to the office of Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications, He had been selected for that laborious office out of the whole corps of engineers, at a salary of £600 per annum, and it appeared that in the discharge of the duties of his new position some correspondence had taken place between him and the Clerk of the Ordnance with reference to the appointment to some minor situation under his direction. Lieutenant Colonel Harness had made a statement in writing to the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with the matter, and in that statement had used some phrase which he had been called upon to withdraw. That phrase, it seemed, he had withdrawn, and the dispute he (Captain Vernon) believed had been made up between the parties. The Clerk of the Ordnance might, therefore, be said to have condoned the affair; but, be that as it might, Lieutenant Colonel Harness had shortly afterwards been requested to
660
send in his resignation. With that request the gallant officer had declined to comply, and he had thereupon been removed from his situation and sent out to command the Royal Engineers at Malta. The Government, in taking that course, had caused Lieutenant Colonel Harness to supersede a gallant officer perfectly competent to the discharge of the duties of commander of the Royal Engineers at Malta, and those changes had been the result of the necessity for consulting the convenience and comfort of the Clerk of the Ordnance by removing Lieutenant Colonel Harness from his position as Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications. It was in order that civil etiquette might be observed that military etiquette had been violated in superseding the officer of Engineer at Malta. Those observations naturally led him to the more general question, that of making the military subservient to the civil department in the state. Under the present system of military organisation, the Clerk of the Ordnance might be regarded as Master General of the Ordnance. Indeed he possessed all the power and patronage of the latter functionary, without any of his responsibility. The existence of that state of things must lead to results the most disastrous, and, in his (Captain Vernon's) opinion, nothing could be more productive of inconvenience than to set aside the ordinary channels of departmental communication. To the adoption of a contrary course might be attributed the removal of Lieutenant Colonel Harness from his former situation to supersede a brother officer, in contradiction to every rule of military etiquette.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Correspondence between the Clerk of the Ordnance and Lieutenant Colonel Harness, Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications, respecting his removal from that military position."
MR. MONSELLsaid, in answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, that he must beg to inform him that there was no official correspondence that had passed between Lieutenant Colonel Harness and himself respecting the removal of that gentleman from his military position. Undoubtedly there had been some correspondence between them, but he should not be justified in producing it without Lieutenant Colonel Harness's consent. With that consent he should not object to produce it, though he thought it

661
was not altogether conducive to the well-working of the different departments of the Government that such correspondence should be laid on the table of the House. With regard to all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated as to the military ability of Lieutenant Colonel Harness he (Mr. Monsell) entirely concurred. He (Mr. Monsell) had had the gratification of introducing that gallant Officer to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications. He was not acquainted with anything that could affect the high character of Colonel Harness. He would retract no opinion which he had ever expressed in regard to his professional merits. At the same time he considered that his noble Friend Lord Panmure had exercised his just right in the course he had taken with regard to the removal of Lieutenant Colonel Harness to Malta. He had met Sir John Burgoyne, who had expressed to him that there was not the slightest difficulty in removing Colonel Harness to Malta. As to the idea that seemed to be floating in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member that there was an intention to make the military departments entirely subservient to the civil, he could assure him that no such intention was entertained. The military Deputy Inspectors of Fortifications had to discharge their duties in obedience to the Commander in Chief and the Inspector General of Fortifications. Everything with regard to plans and the site of fortifications was to be decided exclusively by military men, and afterwards to be submitted to the Government. The duty he had to discharge in the office which he had the honour to hold was one of a financial character; and certainly nothing would be more contrary to all principle than that the military departments of this country should be removed from all responsibility to the House of Commons. There was one observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vernon) which ought not to pass unnoticed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there appeared to be a desire on the part of Lord Panmure to interfere with the organisation of the gallant and distinguished corps to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself belonged, and to supersede it by the formation of the Army Works Corps. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no such idea ever entered the mind, either of his noble Friend or himself. Both he and his noble Friend were fully alive to the merits of the body to which the hon. and gallant
662
Gentleman belonged. It was quite an error to imagine that there was any want of respect towards that corps, or any undue preference felt for the Army Works Corps, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had asserted on a previous occasion. But the formation of the latter body was actually forced upon the Government by the injudicious extent to which the corps of Sappers and Miners had been reduced. In the course of this year 1,140 men had been added to the corps of Sappers and Miners, and when he moved the Estimate he stated that that was done with a view to prevent the necessity of embodying an Army Works Corps, and he at the time expressed his opinion that it would be infinitely better if they had a sufficient number of Sappers and Miners to perform the siege operations at Sebastopol. Therefore there was not the slightest pretence for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to suppose that the Government wished to substitute for the Sappers and Miners any body of civilians. The hon. and gallant Member had also referred, on a previous occasion, as an illustration of the policy he attributed to him, to the course which he had thought it his duty to pursue in recommending Captain Boxer to an appointment. He could only say that, if there was ever anything in which he felt proud in having done, it was in having placed so efficient an officer in a position in which he was able to render essential services to his country. It was utterly impossible to overrate the value of the services which that distinguished officer had rendered in enabling many important military operations to be carried out. He would only repeat in conclusion that he had no objection to the production of the correspondence which had taken place if Colonel Harness should desire it.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the House had a right to be made acquainted with the grounds on which Lieutenant Colonel Harness had been removed from so important an office as that of Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications. The matter was the more deserving of attention, as, in consequence of that removal, Lieutenant Colonel Harness had been promoted to a new and high office at Malta, over the heads of three distinguished officers. Such a transaction ought to have been the subject of an official correspondence, and the very fact that it was only recorded in a private letter showed, in his (Colonel Dunne's) opinion, that the mode of managing

663
business in the office of his right hon. Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance was not what it ought to be. He had himself invariably experienced the utmost courtesy and consideration from his right hon. Friend in the course of any communications which had ever passed between them; but he could assure his right hon. Friend that some of his appointments created considerable dissatisfaction among the officers of the profession, and that many of those officers felt they were not treated as soldiers ought to be treated. The belief among them was that his right hon. Friend was led away by his excessive confidence in certain members of the profession; but he (Colonel Dunne) could not undertake to say how far that belief was well or ill founded.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he understood his right hon. Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance to state that as no official correspondence had taken place none could be produced. The correspondence was private, and he therefore hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, as, if it were carried, the return to it would, he apprehended, be nil.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON: I do not wish to press the Motion. If the correspondence I want does not exist, of course I cannot have it.
MR. WISEsaid, he thought the Clerk of the Ordnance had stated that he was willing to produce the correspondence if Lieutenant Colonel Haines desired it.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he regretted the existence of any clashing between the departments; such a state of things could not but be detrimental both to the country at large, and to the public service. With respect to what had occurred with regard to pointing out the merits of military officers, as far as their merits were concerned military officers were the best persons to discover those merits. Civil officers might receive and act too hastily on incorrect information, and make appointments exceedingly galling to military officers. He thought, therefore, that, for the good of the public, concessions should be made between the departments.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would now beg leave to introduce two Bills, upon the subject of Education in Scotland. The one was entitled a "Bill to regulate and make further provision
664
for Parochial Schools in Scotland," and the other, a "Bill to make provision for Education within Burghs in Scotland." A long contest upon the question had taken place last Session, but the time and labour of the House had, much to his regret, been thrown away. The Bill he had then introduced was supported by many hon. Members, Scotch as well as English; but, although it was successful in that House, it did not pass through the other House. He did not think it would be expedient to resume year after year the conflict of last Session, and therefore, although he was not prepared to surrender to any extent the general principles then affirmed by the House, he thought it would be desirable to endeavour, by dividing that Bill and altering some of its details, to make some improvement in the present state of education in Scotland. He had heard with great satisfaction a remark from a right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), whom he did not now see in his place, that the question of education had ceased to be one in the category of party questions. He could not, however, but remember that, during the twenty-five or thirty divisions which had taken place last Session upon his Bill, it had been treated otherwise than as a party question, and he did not think the right hon. Baronet had voted with him upon any one of those divisions. He did not wish the other side of the House to support these Bills, or any portion of them, with which they could not agree, but he appealed to them, if the principle of the Bills were affirmed by the House in a clear and decided manner, not to wage a protracted contest upon every clause, but to discuss the details in the Committee, and give the measure in Committee a fair and candid consideration. The question divided itself into two branches. He proposed, as the titles of the Bills showed, first, to deal with parochial schools in Scotland, and secondly, to make provision for education within burghs in Scotland. He would now endeavour to explain the provisions of the two measures. In approaching the question of parochial schools, he would lay it down as a principle, that it was impossible longer to maintain the exclusive character of those parochial schools. The House of Commons had upon several occasions declared that principle, and it was impossible to deal with the question and to leave the exclusive tests in existence. He therefore met that obstacle at the outset, since he

665
must clear it out of his path, and the sooner that question was brought to an issue the better. The tests were indefensible, and, except by a very few people, the principle was not maintained or defended by persons of any opinion. The Bill would abolish, and he trusted for ever, exclusive tests. In districts where the parochial schools were deserted it was impossible to defend them. Anxious as he was, however, to clear away those obstacles, he did not propose to make greater changes in the parochial schools than were required. Where the master was appointed by the minister and heritors, he proposed that the right of the Presbytery to initiate prosecutions against him should be abolished; since the Presbytery, being judges, ought not to be prosecutors at the same time. In the next place, he proposed that in trials for moral delinquency the heritors and the minister might be the judges, and that either the inspectors of the district or the heritors might take up charges and suspend the master. If the master thought himself aggrieved, he might appeal to the sheriff of the county. The Bill, therefore, provided that the Presbytery should not initiate proceedings against the master in the cases he had mentioned, but that it should be in the power of the heritors and the inspectors to entertain accusations against the master, and they might either suspend or dismiss him. He was not in favour of making the prosecution of a schoolmaster for delinquency a great State matter, in which the Lord Advocate and the Procurator Fiscal should be called in. Such an arrangement would, he thought, exercise a prejudicial effect upon the school and its management. Let those who superintended the school come down and remove the schoolmaster if he was unfit to perform his duties. He did not propose to interfere with the right of examination of schoolmasters, except where the minister and the heritors chose a schoolmaster not of the Established Church. In all those cases where the heritors and the minister thought that the schoolmasters ought not to be of the Established Church, there the right of examination of the Presbytery should be abolished. Of course, if the schoolmaster belonged to the Established Church, there would be no hardship in submitting him to the examination of the Presbytery. He proposed to make provision for the inspection of the schools by the Government inspector, and for the examination of the masters. He trusted
666
that, in clearing away the exclusive tests, Parliament would be opening the doors to a more liberal view of the whole subject. With regard to education in burghs, his proposals were simple. It was proposed to give the town councils of burghs the right to assess the property within the burgh for schools and education up to a certain amount. He did not propose to lay the town councils under any restrictions, for he thought those bodies might safely be trusted with the power of administering the funds of the schools. He only proposed that where the town councils intended to avail themselves of the powers given by the Bill, the Resolution to that effect should be moved before the month of August in any year. The resolution would then be passed prior to the annual election of new members of the town council in October, and if those new members also adopted the resolution the Bill would take effect. He was certain the funds raised under the Bill would be by those bodies administered to the advantage of the inhabitants of the burghs. Whatever might be the case in other quarters, there were no corporate bodies who had more at heart the instruction of the lower orders, or were better fitted to manage it, than the town councils of Scotland. He had omitted to mention in its proper place one part of the Parochial School Bill, which gave an increase of salaries to the schoolmasters and an increase of comforts with regard to their dwellings. In that he followed the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr. Stirling). He did not propose to take anything from Government resources—the necessary provision would be made by the landowners in the counties and by the ratepayers in the boroughs. But he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Kinnaird), and impose on heritors such an increase of salary, as it was understood in the discussions upon the question last year they were all willing to pay. He might fairly tell the House that, when he proposed to sweep away the whole parochial system and found the basis of a great national system, he thought it perfectly fair the Government should bear a portion of the expense. But it would be unreasonable now to propose the same amount of Government assistance; and he was not without the hope that the absence of provisions of that kind would have the effect of making the Bill more popular. From Glasgow representations had been

667
made to his noble Friend at the head of the Government by some of the most influential men there, the late Lord Provost, Messrs. Ballantyne and Watson, and two gentlemen at the head of the medical profession, complaining that the means of education there were greatly inadequate. A rate there, limited to one penny in the pound, would be productive of the greatest possible advantage. Having glanced at the main features of the measure, he might now state that he did not mean to stop here; but he could not, without some degree of repugnance, launch into such a sea of discussion as that of last year. But if the two Bills were received favourably, if the question of tests raised by the first Bill were settled, he would then state to the House what he proposed as a more general measure of education. He might, however, take that opportunity of stating that, if they settled the parish schools on the footing of his Bill, he did not propose to interfere further in their management, and any general management would be substantially confined to new schools and borough schools. If they came under the general system, he proposed to have the nomination of inspectors, the survey by inspectors, and the reports to Parliament, as proposed last year. But since last year a very important alteration had taken place, because it had been proposed, and would, he presumed, be carried, to have a Minister of Education responsible for the conduct of that department. A great deal of discontent was excited against the Board of Education which he proposed last year. There were only three courses open—either to leave the local authorities without control, or to have the control in Edinburgh, or to have the control in London. He thought the leaving the control in Edinburgh the best mode, but that was objected to; and, now that there would be a responsible Minister in that House, the difficulty of leaving the whole matter in the hands of the Council of Education would be removed. He should propose the Board of Inspectors as the central authority, so far as there would be any central authority, subject to the superintendence of the Minister of Education. The inspectors would report, in the first instance, to the Minister of Education what parishes required schools; opportunities would be afforded to the parishes to state any objection; the four inspectors would make separate inquiry, and, if they reported that schools were required, the schools would
668
be established. Before 1858 the inspectors would lay on the table of the Houses of Parliament a detailed statement of the state of education in Scotland and what new schools were required, and within six months afterwards an order would issue from the Council of Education where the schools should be established, with a rate to support them. He should also propose in that Bill that regulations be drawn up for the general management of the new schools, and that the Government money given for education should be given to such schools as should adopt those regulations. He would, therefore, now move, in the first place, for leave to introduce the Parochial School Bill; and, in the second place, a Bill for Education within Scotch Burghs. With regard to the general measure of education, as the discussion on the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) Resolutions would come on immediately, when the whole of this great question would be considered, the House would think he had exercised a sound discretion in not including it in the present notice. He hoped that, having explained the course he proposed to follow, the House would assent to the introduction of the two smaller measures, and so far aid in the suppression of ignorance and crime in Scotland.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he regretted to find, from the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that they were not sufficiently agreed in reference to that great question of education to enable them to adopt some really liberal and comprehensive system for its promotion. He could not help thinking that their differences upon the subject consisted more in words than in realities, and that if they would all think less about their polemical differences a large proportion of their difficulties would at once vanish. He believed that a very general feeling prevailed in Scotland last year that the House had attached too much importance to the memorials of clerical combatants. He hoped that all parties in the House would eventually unite in a spirit of conciliation to frame an educational measure for Scotland, which would reflect credit upon themselves as legislators and at the same time be of essential benefit to the country. He must confess, however, that although the present Bill fell short in his estimation of what was required, and might truly be considered illiberal and unjust to the great dissenting denomination, he could not object to the Bill in toto, because he would not consent to throw away a

669
measure that really contained the elements of good, because he himself aimed at something better and higher. In his opinion the entire management of the parochial schools in Scotland ought to undergo a change, and, therefore, he certainly should be extremely sorry to see that system extended over an indefinite period. Still he should be equally sorry to see a system which had worked well rashly interfered with; and if the question solved itself into the continuance of an educational system connected exclusively with the Church of Scotland, or none at all, he should rather choose to bear the evils resulting from that exclusiveness than fly to others which Scotland happily knows nothing of. They were, however, asked to continue the present system for a limited period only, and he hoped that no hon. Gentleman, however fond of change, would be disposed to interpose difficulties in the way of so reasonable a measure. The condition attached to this proposal was, that the test was to be abolished, and that persons should be eligible for masters although they might not be members of the Church of Scotland. That principle was already admitted in the case of the Universities, and had been recently sanctioned in various Acts of Parliament, and as hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had never pretended to uphold the present system in all its integrity, he hoped they would accept the offer now made. The second Bill gave boroughs permissive powers to tax themselves. This was what so many of them asked during the discussions which took place last Session; and its introduction now met, in the opinion of many, but not in his, all the exigencies of the case. He was glad that his right hon. and learned Friend intended to introduce an inquiry by inspection into the condition of the schools, because he was sure that such a proceeding would be satisfactory to all parties, for it would show both Churchmen and Dissenters how far they were right or wrong, and would bring to light many facts which had been hitherto neglected and forgotten. One thing, was certain, namely, that it would prove the miserable inefficiency of a class of men, who took upon themselves the important office of public instructors of youth in the suburbs of large towns, and would reveal an amount of ignorance even in boasted Scotland that would astonish them. It would prove that the system of religious tuition, although the bone of contention, was really the same all over Scotland, and,
670
above all, would most materially strengthen the conclusion at which many had arrived, that eventually some sort of educational test should be required from young parsons obtaining employment either in shops or factories, either as domestic servants, or as workers on a farm. On the whole, he hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would persist in the moderate course which he was by this measure pursuing, and that he would be met in a conciliatory spirit by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
MR. BLACKsaid, that having been for a long time in connection with persons in Scotland who took the deepest interest in this question, he thought it his duty to state what they considered were the principles upon which a national system of education should be established. They thought that such a system ought not to he exclusive, but national—not denominational, but unsectarian. The parent was the person responsible for the education of his child, and especially for the religious instruction which it received. The parochial schools of Scotland possessed at one time great merit, and had undoubtedly done good service to the country; but they no longer satisfied the requirements of the age, and the enthusiasm with which some hon. Members occasionally alluded to them resembled the admiration which, forgetful of the change that time had made in their looks and constitution, we still delighted to bestow on those whom we had known in the days of their youth and beauty. When those schools were instituted, the population of Scotland was about 1,000,000; it was now nearly 3,000,000, and in the interim, dissent had so greatly increased, that the Established Church did not low comprise more than one-third of the population. Fully two-thirds of the people were now disqualified by the religious test from the office of schoolmaster. Sectarianism was the bane of the educational system in Scotland, and it would so continue until the test was abolished. He was for educating all the children of a district in the same school, where the children would sit on the same form, learn the same lessons, engage in the same games, and form friendships which, in after life, would smooth the asperities of sect and party. The greatest obstacle to an improved system of education was supposed to be that offered by the religious element; but that difficulty, when it came to be manfully grappled with, would doubtless give way,

671
and be found to be nothing but an idle bugbear. He was strengthened in his belief by the fact that in the High School of Edinburgh at present there were teachers connected with the Presbyterian establishment, with the Free Church, and with the Episcopalian denomination; and yet no one intending to send a son to that school ever dreamt of inquiring to what sect the masters belonged. The same thing would most probably happen in regard to the national schools when they were once fairly set in motion. The opinion of the people of Scotland on the question of education had of late years been strongly in favour of obtaining the best teacher for a school, no matter what sect he belonged to; the only test they wished to retain was that of qualification for his office. It must also be recollected, that although a number of new schools had certainly been established, it did not necessarily follow that the amount of education was greater, because it unfortunately happened that, from sectarian asperity, the schools became rivals, not assistants, and, in point of fact, in many cases the establishment of a new school in a particular locality had greatly injured the old one, without doing itself any perceptible good; so that, if a general system could be established, and the existing schools could be fairly apportioned over the whole country, not only would a general system of education be established without increased expense, but the amount of education given would, in all probability, be greatly increased and its quality improved. There was no occasion, in his opinion, for teaching sectarianism at schools, for such was the nature of the human mind, that different opinions, especially on religious subjects, could not fail to be adopted after leaving school, but, by a general system of education, friendships would be formed, and a spirit of conciliation nurtured which would alleviate the bitterness of religious animosity and enable the educated man to enjoy his own convictions, while he extended a due measure of respect to the differing opinions of his neighbour. He fully admitted that, up to the present moment the religious, or rather sectarian, element had been the chief obstacle to the formation of a general system; but he believed that, if it could be once established, it would greatly conduce to the results which he had indicated. He was satisfied that no school could exist in Scotland from which religion was excluded; and although the word religion
672
was not so much as mentioned in the statute, it would certainly form a part of the instruction in every school. He was sorry that his right hon. and learned Friend was unable to carry out an educational system upon a more comprehensive scale, but he accepted the measure as a step in the right direction, for he thought, if they could get the test abolished, it would open the way to greater improvements, and be well worth the struggle they had made to effect the object.
MR. MACKIEsaid, he gave his most cordial approval to the measure which had been that night brought in, especially to that portion affecting burghs, and making the education compulsory there, for he was shocked to say that in the closes, alleys, and wynds of Glasgow alone there were no less than 15,000 children growing up in a deplorable state of ignorance and neglect. He disapproved of maintaining the present system of tests, because he was of opinion that the best men should be selected as teachers; but he wished it to be understood that he was of opinion that none should be chosen to instruct the youth of the country who were not firm believers in the broad truths of the Gospel.
SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, the measure of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was being watched with the most intense anxiety by the entire population of Scotland; and though he should have wished to have seen it carried a little further, he thought it could not fail of giving satisfaction, for it was a Bill which, if carried in its present shape, would eminently conduce to the maintenance of peace. The light in which the question of education should be considered was not whether the parish schools of Scotland had effected much good, or whether they were of a sectarian character, but whether at present they possessed the confidence of the great body of the people. Now, it was notorious that parish schools, as at present constituted, had not the confidence of the great majority of the population; but, the existing test once got rid of, they would no doubt, speedily recover their pristine efficiency and popularity. The school maintained by the Free Church did not really supplement the deficient educational machinery of the establishment, for, being frequently situated almost side by side with the parochial schools, instead of occupying localities which they left vacant, they were mere rivals to them on their own ground. The repeal of the test would therefore do

673
great good if it put an end—as it was likely to do—to this unseemly state of things. The measure, so far from inflicting a heavy blow on the Presbyterian establishment, would strengthen the position of that Church, by removing the discontent and jealous feeling with which it was at present regarded. The Government object being to enable all classes to partake of the advantages afforded by parish schools, he thought a more moderate measure than the present could not be conceived, and he hoped sincerely that it would not meet the fate of former measures for the improvement of education in Scotland. He thought that no reasonable fear could be entertained by the Opposition that this was an attack on the Established Church of Scotland, and that it was only getting in the thin edge of the wedge, preparatory to an attack of a similar character in this country, because there was nothing analogous in the influence of the two Churches upon education. The Church of England did not profess to have the control of education in this country, and the present measure could not in the remotest degree affect its interests. He therefore entreated all parties to accept this very moderate measure, which he hoped would for ever put an end to all bitterness of feeling with relation to the most important question of education.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he did not mean to follow the example set by hon. Gentlemen opposite of discussing the merits of a Bill the provisions of which were not before them; but he was glad that the right hon. and learned Lord had followed the advice given him by Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House last Session, namely, to leave these parish schools in pretty much the same position as they were at present. Of course they all wished to improve the social status of the teacher; but other matters, such as those relating to the management, had better be left alone. He had told the right hon. and learned Lord, over and over again, that religious instruction must be given in the parish schools, and, of course, there might be some examination by inspectors. He trusted, however, that no compulsory powers would be placed in their hands, and that the entire management of the schools should rest, as at present, with those from whom they derived their chief support. Further than this he declined to enter into the consideration of the measure in its present stage.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he thought hon. Members might thank the Gentlemen on his side of the House for any improvement in this measure upon that of last Session. Discussions on subjects like this, which involved a great many social questions, were not very likely to moderate men's opinions, and therefore the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was the more to be commended for the moderation he had displayed on the present occasion. Last year an hon. Friend of his, the Member for Elginshire (Mr. C. Bruce), had moved, on going into Committee, that the Bill should be divided into two parts; but the Lord Advocate had done more, he had divided the Bill of last Session into three separate Bills, the third of which was, perhaps, the most shadowy, because they were told it was not to be considered till after the House had affirmed or rejected the principle of this. Undoubtedly he thought that were it not for the existence of religious differences, the question of Scotch education might be settled either in a Committee-room upstairs, or at the offices of the Committee of Council on Education. He fully admitted that in burghs it was justifiable to establish schools without the superintendence of the Church of Scotland; but with respect to the rural districts the case was entirely different, because in them the Church of Scotland was the sole author of a system of education. They had heard a great deal of the necessity of education in Scotland, and he should be the last person to deny the existence of the want; but he was of opinion that the particular schools which ought to be extended were reformatories rather than any other, and for that opinion he had the very highest authority. He would refer the House to the Minutes of the Committee of Council upon Education, in which every one of the Inspectors that spoke for Scotland, spoke with the greatest respect of the present system and machinery, and not one complaint was made that it was defective. He considered that the existing system of education in Scotland was in a very satisfactory state.
Leave given; Bills ordered to he brought in by the LORD ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Viscount DUNCAN.

LOCAL CHARGES UPON SHIPPING.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. LOWE be a Member of the Select Committee on Local Charges upon Shipping."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYobjected to the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, with the view of calling attention to the habitual exclusion of Members for Irish constituencies from public positions calculated to give them their due weight in the House, and enable them to protect the local interests of Ireland. This was not the first time that he had been obliged, from a sense of duty, to complain of the exclusion of Irish Members from important Parliamentary Committees, and other public positions, both in and out of the House. He did not assert that his countrymen had been, made the objects of intentional slight in the present instance, but it was curious that so many similar oversights of them had already occurred accidentally on purpose. The proposed exclusion of all Members for Irish constituencies from this important Committee was perhaps another of those premeditated accidents to which he had directed attention on former occasions. In the course of last Session, the Solicitor General for England had proposed to constitute his Select Committee upon the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill exclusively of English Members; but upon his attention having been called, by a Motion similar to the present, to the fact that the measure embraced Ireland as well as England—a circumstance of which he did not seem to have been aware—he most properly yielded at once, and added five Irish representatives to the eight or nine English Members whom he had previously proposed to nominate. Therefore, he (Mr. Scully) did not then call further attention to the general subject, but on the last day of the Session gave notice that early in the present Session he would move a substantive Motion regarding it. It was now with much reluctance he availed himself of the present opportunity to raise a discussion. Here was a proposition to nominate a Select Committee to consider the Local Charges upon Shipping, and, although among the fifteen names on the list he observed those of some Scotch Members, he could not discover the name of a single Gentleman who represented any of the ports of Ireland. One would really suppose, on reading the names of this model Committee, that the Vice President of the Board of Trade was ignorant of the geographical position of Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that it was some province in the centre of India, or that the people were a species of Australian
676
kangaroos? Not many weeks ago there was an announcement in the newspapers—the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House whether it was correct or not—that he was on a visit at Newtown Anner, near Clonmel, the seat of his Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty; and, unless he had dropped down upon that hospitable mansion from the clouds, he must have entered Ireland by one of its numerous ports. At all events, his Friend the Secretary could have informed him that Ireland possessed some of the most noble harbours in the world, presenting a remarkable contrast to the famous borough of Kidderminster, which, perhaps, could boast of nothing finer than the wretched river Stour, or some miserable canal bearing a bumboat on its slimy and sluggish bosom. The county Cork, which he represented, contained at least half a dozen seaports, each of which would bear a favourable comparison with the inland port of Kidderminster. The proposal to exclude Irish Members from the Committee on the Local Charges upon Shipping was one of the most impudent—he used the word in a Parliamentary sense—ever submitted to that House; but similar propositions had been made before, and it would be unfair to blame the Vice President of the Board of Trade more than his colleagues. That very evening a Cabinet Minister—the Home Secretary—had nominated a Select Committee on transportation, on which there was only one Irish Member—namely, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick City (Serjeant O'Brien), who, perhaps, in the present relative condition of crime in Ireland, sufficiently represented the proportion of persons liable to be banished from that country. With regard to the Committee now under consideration, the right hon. Member could offer no excuse for the exclusion of the representatives of Irish constituencies, except to say he had quite forgotten them, and so add insult to injury. That right hon. Gentleman would not venture to assert that it was impossible to find among the Irish Members on either side of the House any Gentlemen who, from their mercantile knowledge and their acquaintance with shipping, could render valuable assistance to the Committee. What objection could he have to the two Members for Cork (Mr. Fagan and Mr. Beamish), a city which possessed the finest harbour in the three kingdoms—both persons of great mercantile experience, and in every

677
respect qualified to take part in such an inquiry? The same observation applied to one of the Members for Limerick (Mr. Russell), who had an extensive acquaintance with commerce; and to the Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk), who was well known to be a shrewd, hard-headed Gentleman. On the opposite side of the House were the Members for Waterford, Drogheda, and Dublin (Mr. Meagher, Mr. M'Cann, and Mr. Vance), than whom it would be difficult to select Gentlemen better fitted to represent Irish interests in such a Committee, or more entitled to express an opinion on any question affecting the commerce of the country. Irish Members were sometimes put upon irksome Committees upon which English Members were unwilling to act, and then, when they complained, they were reminded of the story of the drummer, and were told that "hit high or hit low" they were never satisfied. He presumed this was a specimen of low hitting. He was quite sure he could supply a better Committee from the Irish Members alone; but suppose—if it were possible to suppose such a contingency—that an Irishman occupied the position held by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and proposed to the House to appoint a Committee consisting exclusively of Irish Members, how great would be the outcry raised against such a proceeding. He did not confine his complaint, as to the habitual exclusion of Irishmen to mere Parliamentary Committees, which, after all, were not so important as other public positions, such as Cabinet offices, to which they were seldom or never admitted. He now distinctly challenged the right hon. Member to justify or excuse the course he had taken in proposing to exclude all Irish Members from this Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the Government fully recognised the insular position of Ireland, and did not deny the existence on its coast of numerous ports and harbours which had important interests that deserved the consideration of the House. He could also assure the hon. Gentleman that there was on the part of the Government no disposition to treat the Irish Members with any want of consideration or respect. The hon. and learned Member was doubtless aware that Ireland, although indirectly interested in this inquiry, had directly but an extremely limited
678
pecuniary interest in its result. Offers had, however, been made to two Irish Members, the hon. Members for Belfast and Kerry, but they had both declined to sit on the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained that on the Transportation Committee there was but one Irish Member. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that upon that Committee were Mr. Serjeant O'Brien and Mr. J. Greene, and also Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, who, although he did not represent an Irish constituency, was connected with Ireland by property. It seemed to him, therefore, that on that Committee Ireland was very fairly represented. He thought that Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree with him that no discussions were less agreeable than debates as to the comparative merits of different Members of that House; and he should, therefore, propose, in regard to this Committee, that the number of Members should be increased from fifteen to seventeen, and that the names of the hon. Members for the city of Dublin and for Newry should be added to those which had been already proposed.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was very sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully) should have revived a feeling in regard to the position of Irish Members of that House which he had hoped had been extinct. He was quite sure that in this instance there had, on the part of the Government, been no intention to treat them with any want of respect; and, having had some knowledge of the original scheme of the Committee, he could bear testimony to the truth of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the claims of Ireland were recognised by the offers made to two distinguished Members of the House. He was aware that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) had been invited to become a Member of it. He much regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not find it consistent with his other engagements to accept the invitation. He would not oppose the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the Committee, as it was made in a conciliatory spirit to obviate any objection, but he thought a Committee of seventeen Members was too numerous. It would be better, in his opinion, to diminish rather than to increase the number. He would not have felt it

679
his duty to take any part in the discussion, but for the extraordinary character of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, who had most unnecessarily sought to revive a feeling which he hoped had long since died away in the House. Even if there was any foundation in fact for his statements, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have refrained, but they were not founded on fact. He (Mr. Disraeli) denied that Irishmen, or Members for Irish constituencies, were habitually and systematically prevented from obtaining high places in the administration of the affairs of this country, or were excluded from enjoying the favour of the Sovereign or the sympathy of Her subjects. They were not the class of men least fortunate in that respect. On the contrary, he believed he could show that Irishmen had been of late years, peculiarly fortunate—more so than Englishmen—in attaining eminent positions in the State. Nothing could be more unfortunate than the attack made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, more especially with reference to the particular office held by the right hon. Gentleman whose name stood first on the list of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had sneered at the idea of an Irishman holding that office. When he (Mr. Disraeli) entered Parliament, that office was held by an Irishman. The then Vice President of the Board of Trade was Mr. Sheil, an Irishman, a brilliant orator, and an eminent professor of those extreme opinions which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not yet entirely repudiated. It was much to be regretted that, after such a long interval, any Member representing an Irish constituency should take such an opportunity of embittering the feelings of the House and country on the plea that the position of Irishmen was not properly recognised, and that they had not opportunities of gaining the position which was the ambition of all Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. and learned Gentleman had fixed on the office of the Vice Presidency of the Board of Trade, but many could recollect when it was filled by an Irishman, which was a sufficient answer to the allegation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All must regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have unnecessarily revived a source of bitter feeling, but it was clear that nothing could be more unfortunate for him than the instance he had Drought forward to illustrate his position.
MR. WATSONsaid, he was quite of opinion that Ireland ought to be represented in the Committee; but he had great objections to its constitution and its appointment. Looking at its objects, the number of fifteen, as originally intended, was, in his opinion, too large, and it was now to be augmented to seventeen. What would be the subjects of its inquiries? The title of different corporations to their dues upon shipping. There would be serious questions of law whether there could be property in those dues—which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade denied; and whether the corporations in question had such property; and, if so, whether it could be confiscated without compensation. Those were grave questions, and they were to be considered by a purely partisan Committee. It was extraordinary that not a single impartial or unpledged Member was to be appointed upon it. There were not less than five Gentlemen now, or lately, Presidents or Vice Presidents of the Board of Trade to be upon it. Then there were two lawyers and several Members for mercantile towns known to entertain particular opinions upon the subject one way, and others known to have opposite opinions upon it. All were biassed and interested one way or the other, and what effect could the Report of a Committee have consisting of seventeen partisans—nine one way and eight the other? There was not a single unpledged vote on the Committee, and he would undertake to write their Report beforehand, and to point out how each Member would vote on every question which might arise. The Report of such a Committee would have no possible effect with the country or with the House, and even for the collection of evidence it was completely valueless. He would suggest that a Committee of seven should be nominated impartially from both sides of the House, and that there should be, as in the old Election Committees, two nominees—one for the Board of Trade, and one to represent the great commercial ports. That would be a judicial body, and its opinion would command universal respect. The subject had become of much greater importance than it was at the commencement of the Session, when the Government Bill was introduced. There were few corporations in the country which did not possess tolls of some sort or other, and they were all alarmed at the commencement of a system of confiscation the end of which they

681
could not foresee. The idea which seemed to have been taken up by the Board of Trade upon the subject rendered this alarm very natural, and it would be unwise to appoint a Committee whose Report could have no weight with the country.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he would mention, as an illustration of the manner in which Committees were nominated, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had recently placed his (Mr. Scott's) name on a Committee after he had distinctly assured the right hon. Gentleman that he should not serve on it.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he regretted that the Bill which had been introduced had been so suddenly thrown up. When he was at the Board of Trade, no Bill was ever prepared by that Board that did not pass. He did not say that because he was the author of the Bills. He thought that, as a general rule, Irish Members, when placed in positions in which they could be of use, performed their duties remarkably well; he considered that the case of Mr. Sheil was rather an unfortunate illustration, as that gentleman, although of great ability and of great oratorical power, himself admitted that when at the Board of Trade he always felt miserable, and, in fact, never signed his name to a single Bill. He would recommend the Government to abandon the Committee, and form one in which the seaports were fairly represented. As to the Bill itself, which was to form the subject of inquiry, it was an attempt at confiscation, unprecedented by anything but the spoliation of the monasteries by Henry VIII.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he could not understand what the hon. Member meant by confiscation, when the legality of those local charges was denied. But he wanted to know how it happened that of the seventeen Members to be placed on the Committee, there was only one who had any connection either with South Lancashire or the manufacturing towns of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Those were the places that paid the bulk of those local charges; and yet, with the single exception he had referred to, there was not one of them represented in the Committee. On the other hand, the parties interested in continuing the tax were amply represented, and he asked whether that was fair; but, whether it was or not, it was quite sufficient to silence those who said
682
the Committee would be inimical to the interest of the seaport towns.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he thought that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was quite desirous to do justice in the appointment of the Committee; but, at the same time, it was perfectly clear that there was a decided majority in favour of the Bill upon any question that might arise. He also agreed that it would be better to withdraw the Committee and appoint a new one. He was glad, however, that the discussion had been taken upon the first name, which was that of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, because no one in the House could object to his sitting on the Committee, and therefore everything like personality was avoided. The right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) was the author of the original Committee, and might be said to have laid the egg—the right hon. Member the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) was the hen who brooded over it, while the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe) might be said to have hatched it. All three Gentlemen were Members of the Committee. He thought a proper constitution of the Committee would be to take Members from either side of the House, who would be in a position to act fairly between all parties interested. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consider the matter, so that a Committee might be appointed which would fairly represent the interests of all parties, and be in a position to make a Report satisfactory both to that House and to the country at large.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that from what had just fallen from his right hon. Friend, there seemed to be a misconception of the objects and nature of the Committee to be appointed. His right hon. Friend talked of this being a judicial Committee; but he (Lord Palmerston) never understood that to that Committee was to be referred the question of deciding whether the measure which had been proposed on shipping dues was or was not to be adopted by the House. The history of the matter was this:—When the Bill came on to be discussed, different Members got up and stated cases of hardship with respect to particular localities, which they said had not been sufficiently understood by the House or explained to the Commission; and what was proposed was, that whereas it was impossible to enter into

683
those details in debate in the House, a Committee should be appointed, not for the purpose of suggesting to the House whether or not the measure should be carried into law, but of inquiring into the circumstances of those particular towns, of reporting the facts, and thereby enabling the House to judge afterwards more accurately as to the merits of the measure proposed. For that purpose, he thought that the Committee, as now constituted, was well adapted to perform its duties. Undoubtedly that which had passed that evening showed that it was not a very easy or light matter to satisfy the House in regard to the appointment of Committees, because the number of conflicting recommendations rendered it impossible to satisfy everybody. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) laid down the rule, which was a very sound one, that a numerous Committee was not a good instrument to perform the duties assigned to it. The right hon. Member said that, generally speaking, fifteen Members on a Committee were better than a larger number, but on the present occasion, he (Viscount Palmerston) thought that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown good grounds for extending the number to seventeen. Well, one hon. Member said that a greater number of lawyers should be added to the Committee; another that there should be an infusion of Irish Members; and another maintained that there was not a sufficient number of Members representing manufacturing districts on the Committee. Now, if all those various demands were to be satisfied, the Committee must be increased to twice or three times the number of seventeen Members. The hon. and learned Member for Hull (Mr. Watson) complained that the Committee was improperly constituted, inasmuch as it contained partisans on one and on the other side of the question. With all deference to the hon. and learned Member, that was precisely the sort of Committee fitted to perform efficiently the duties for which it was appointed, by accurately examining and probing to the bottom the case brought before it by collecting in their Report a mass of evidence which would enable the House to judge properly with regard to the question. Therefore he strongly recommended the House to adopt the Committee as now proposed with the augmentation recommended by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he
684
thought that it would be found that the Committee so constituted would be an efficient instrument for procuring the desired evidence, and laying before the House, not opinions to guide its decision, but information as to facts to enable the House to form its own judgment on a matter of great importance and interest.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he fully concurred in every word which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Hull (Mr. Watson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring); but, on the other hand, he could not find words to express his surprise at the doctrine just laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He (Lord Hotham) had sat in the House of Commons for a number of years, and he believed the noble Lord had been a Member of it for nearly half a century; but he ventured to say that, until that evening, a Minister of the Crown had never recommended the appointment of a partisan Committee. A Committee constituted as the noble Lord suggested ought not to be authorised to send for "persons, papers, and records," but, prohibited from sending for anything, should be required to Report "forthwith." The Committee, as at present constituted, would be as well able to report in forty-eight hours as if they sat for three years. His own name had been placed on the Committee, he presumed, because the locality with which he was connected was likely to be affected by the Bill. Thus circumstanced he had no alternative but to serve, and do his duty to the best of his ability. But were his situation different, no consideration on earth should induce him to serve; for a Committee so constituted to inquire was a perfect absurdity; and, if such a tribunal was to be described, it could only be described in the language of the late Lord Denman as "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare."
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that when there were great complaints about the composition of a Committee from both sides and different sections of the House, that was rather a proof to him that the Committee was probably a fair one, nobody being satisfied that he would have entirely his own way in it. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was not satisfied, neither were the hon. Members for the seaport towns. He, for one, must express some dissatisfaction himself that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay),

685
who had paid great attention to this question, was not placed on the Committee; but he wanted to know on what it was assumed that the Gentlemen named would keep their minds impervious to all the evidence produced before them, and would insist on reporting according to certain preconceived opinions? He believed that if a number of Gentlemen assembled in a Committee room they would not make Reports in direct opposition to the evidence brought before them; and he also thought that one active Member in the Committee was as capable of eliciting all the necessary information on any public question as half a dozen. The Committee would have to inquire into a great number of different cases, resting on totally different grounds, and he did not believe that it could be predicted which way the Members would vote on any one particular case. He was of opinion that the proposed Committee was as fair a one as could be appointed, though he regretted the absence from it of the hon. Member for Tynemouth. After all, the House would be guided by the evidence; and if it found that the Report of the Committee was not justified by the evidence, the House would not be guided by the Report. He therefore hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would stand by the proposed Committee.
MR. VANCEsaid, he could assure the noble Lord at the head of the Government that there were several ports in Ireland that paid local dues. He rose, however, principally to say that having been proposed as a Member of the Committee he should accept the nomination under the peculiar circumstances, though at a considerable personal sacrifice and detriment to his avocations. But he had an objection to make to the appointment of the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk). He was quite willing to testify to the general intelligence of the hon. Member; still he was already acting upon two other Committees, and therefore it was impossible to expect he could adequately discharge his duty upon a third. He thought that one of the Members for the City of Cork, or the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), who took a great interest in everything that concerned that city, might with advantage be substituted for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newry.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he could not at all agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) that, because a general feeling of dissatisfaction was
686
expressed against the constitution of a Committee, therefore it was likely to prove an efficient and impartial one. He certainly should have rejoiced if the noble Lord at the head of the Government had answered the appeal made to him by consenting to reconsider the constitution of the Committee. He (Mr. Horsfall) represented a large constituency, that was more deeply interested in the question than any other constituency in the kingdom. On that account he was most anxious that the Committee should be fairly constituted, and although the noble Lord had told them that there would be nothing of a judicial character attaching to the Committee, nevertheless it must make a Report to the House, with a view of enabling it to form a judgment, and in that sense the Committee must be considered a judicial one. He was very unwilling to submit an Amendment upon the Motion before them, but unless the noble Lord would consent to postpone the nomination of the Committee for a week, with a view to its reconstruction, he should move the adjournment of the debate until that day week.
MR. FRANCIS SCULLYseconded the Amendment, upon the grounds that no Irishman had been named on the Committee, and the Report of such a Committee could not recommend itself to the confidence of the House or the country. Indeed, several hon. Gentlemen nominated on the Committee had been heard to declare that they could have no confidence in its Report—an announcement on the part of Members so placed which, within his (Mr. F. Scully's) experience, he must declare to be perfectly unparalleled. He thought, therefore, it would be impolitic on the part of the Government to persevere with the Committee as at present constituted. He thought it would have been more becoming in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, if he had abstained from indulging in his sarcastic remarks upon the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ireland was very much interested in this question. There were very large mercantile and manufacturing interests in that country which were wholly un represented on this Committee; interests which his hon. Friend (Mr. V. Scully) might well be justified in defending. It also appeared that no manufacturer was put on this Committee, a very important fact, when it was considered

687
that the Bill in question affected their interests so deeply. He felt that this Committee ought to be composed of Members fairly representing the great manufacturing and commercial interests of the United Kingdom, and that Ireland should have its proper representation upon it. Allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacGregor) to a relation of his, the late Mr. Sheil—though in very creditable terms. Now, it appeared from the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow, who was in office along with Mr. Sheil, that while Mr. Sheil was Vice President of the Board of Trade he never signed his name to an official document, or had it in his power to do any act beneficial to the country. This he (Mr. Scully) considered a most important circumstance, and a great loss that such abilities as he was acknowledged to possess should have been thrown away in so subordinate a position. He could only say that had Mr. Sheil not been an Irishman and a Roman Catholic he firmly believed that his talents would have raised him to the position of Cabinet Minister. With these few observations he begged to second the Amendment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that there were no discussions of a more disagreeable character than those which encouraged the canvassing of the names of particular Members of that House, and treating their peculiar fitness for a particular purpose. If, however, anything could add to the disagreeability, it was the introduction of extraneous topics not of the most conciliatory kind. He should endeavour to confine himself to the question exactly before the House—namely, the composition of the Committee. The noble Lord the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham) stated, in reference to what fell from the First Minister of the Crown, that it was the first time he had ever heard of the advantage of constituting a "partisan Committee" of the House of Commons. Now what he (Mr. Labouchere) understood by a "partisan Committee" was a Committee whose Members were all on one side. He would admit that a Committee so constituted would be constituted upon erroneous principles; and he should be surprised if any one with even much less experience than that of his noble Friend should proceed upon such a principle. But the accusation heard on all sides in the course of the evening had
688
been, not that the opinions of the Committee were one-sided, but that it contained Members holding the most opposite opinions. What his noble Friend had really said was, that there was a positive advantage in constituting the Committee of such diversified elements. And when the noble Lord opposite told them that the Committee did not contain a single Member who was not thoroughly pledged to a particular view of the question, and was unable to exercise an independent judgment, he (Mr. Labouchere) must beg entirely to differ from that description of the Committee. In the first place, it should be observed that the Committee was composed of Members of great weight and character, and was emphatically what, in the language of the House, was termed a "strong Committee;" and he thought the Members of it were extremely unlikely to sacrifice their character and intelligence by subscribing to a merely partisan Report. Besides, there were many Gentlemen on the Committee who had never expressed an opinion upon the subject; indeed, he was not aware what were the opinions of certain among them. The noble Lord himself (Lord Hotham), for instance, representing as he did partly a mercantile and partly a consuming constituency, could not be considered to be in a state of mind that would prevent his exercising an unbiassed judgment when he came to report upon the subject; and what he said of him might be said also of other hon. Members. He, therefore, thought that no case had been made out for constituting the Committee upon a different principle from that followed by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade, who, to his knowledge, had done all in his power to form a fair and impartial Committee. Reference had been made in the course of the discussion to a friend of his, now no more, who, while he lived, was a great ornament to that House and the country—he meant the late Mr. Sheil. It had been stated that Mr. Sheil, having been placed at the Board of Trade, was thus entirely thrown away, as not possessing those qualifications that would have enabled him usefully to have served the Crown and the public in that department. Now, he would not pretend to say that a gentleman of the brilliant abilities of Mr. Sheil might not have been placed in a situation more befitting his capacity than a subordinate office at the Board of Trade; and no doubt, if his valuable life had

689
been spared, he would infallibly have arrived at such a situation. Still, Laving been his colleague at the Board of Trade for several years, he begged to say that upon all occasions he had found him most anxious to render service to the public, and that while connected with the department he did render most useful service. With regard to his not having signed papers, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, especially when the President had a seat in that House, was never called upon to sign papers. He believed it was a very common mistake to imagine that the brilliant and rare gifts of genius were inconsistent with practical industry in the public service. Nor could he forbear from offering as a testimony to the memory of his deceased friend that he had throughout their intercourse invariably found Mr. Sheil's judgment as sound, and his desire for the public service as great, as that of any man he had ever met.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he would only say, as a Member of the Committee, that he was entirely unpledged one way or the other. The town of Dundee, which he had the honour to represent, was interested in the question to the extent of £800 a year, and he should not attempt to deny that he would endeavour to get the town compensated for the loss with which it was threatened. At the same time he could pledge himself to act impartially upon the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he wished to correct a mistake into which the hon. Member for the county Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully) had fallen, relative to a supposed slur cast upon the hon. and learned Member for the county Cork (Mr. V. Scully) by his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). All that his right hon. Friend had done was to accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of a want of memory, and to correct a mistake, appearing throughout the greater part of his speech, in declaring the difficulty in the way of Irish Members rising above the gangway. There was very little in the argument, but the right hon. Gentleman had met it by citing the case of Mr. Shell. Constituted as it was, he thought the Committee must be a failure. He himself had done his best by a reference to both sides of the House to assist the Government in the formation of as strong a Committee as possible. He had, however, been overcome by insurmountable difficulties, as several Gentlemen
690
best qualified to act on the Committee were prevented from doing so through other engagements. He thought the best thing that could be done under the circumstances was to postpone the nomination for a week, leaving the question to be decided either by the Committee of Selection or according to the manner that would most satisfy the House.
MR. BASSsaid, he must also confess that he was not at all satisfied with the Committee. There were four Gentlemen representing seaport towns upon it, every one of whom was ready to declare that the object of the Bill introduced by the Vice President of the Board of Trade was to perpetrate a robbery on those towns; while, on the opposite side, there were six or seven other Gentlemen ready to declare with equal pertinacity that to leave the law as it was, involved the robbery of their constituents.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the House was prepared to come to a decision, and that nothing would be gained by an adjournment. The Committee was not a Committee to judge the question, but to obtain information, and to report that information to the House.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 108: Majority 41.
Question, "That Mr. LOWE be a Member of the Select Committee on Local Charges upon Shipping," put, and agreed to.
Upon the Question that Mr. HARDY be a Member of the Committee,
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he thought it would be better to substitute for Mr. Hardy the name of some mercantile Member representing one of the seaports in the south of Ireland. He had not the pleasure of knowing that Gentleman, but believed he was of the legal profession, and quite inexperienced in Parliamentary matters, having only been elected a Member of that House during the last month. Two Irish representatives out of seventeen did not form a fair proportion, and the Members for Dublin and Newry (Mr. Vance and Mr. Kirk), should they be added by Government, would still leave the whole south and west of Ireland unrepresented on the Committee. He considered there should be at least three or four Irish Members on it; but presumed that, after the declarations made by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli),

691
expressing his dissatisfaction with Government for having consented to add even two Irish Members, it would be vain now to urge that a third should be inserted. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's observations, that he had indulged in bitter remarks, he begged to deny the imputation, and to state that neither on that nor any other occasion had he used a vituperative or bitter style in addressing an assembly of gentlemen. As a general imputation, it was more applicable to the right, hon. Member himself. As to the late Mr. Sheil, it was well known that but for his country and creed he would have occupied the position which his eminent talents fully entitled him to hold, that of a Cabinet Minister, instead of the inferior post of Vice President of the Board of Trade, with the "padlock on his lips," which he had often complained of. He presumed this padlock had descended to his present successor in that office, from the obstinate silence maintained that evening by the right hon. Gentleman, though repeatedly challenged to defend or excuse his conduct.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREhoped the Government would not withdraw the name of Mr. Hardy, who, though a young Member, displayed considerable ability, and entered the House with a reputation which he bade fair to maintain.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that on account of the character given of the hon. Member he would withdraw his objection, especially as he saw no prospect of adding another Irish Member to the proposed Committee.
Mr. HARDY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. FENWICK, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. WATSON, Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. CARDWELL, Sir JOHN DUCKWORTH, Mr. DUNCAN, Lord HOTHAM, and Mr. MOFFATT, nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
MR. BOWYER: Sir, I rise pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the subject of Audit of Public Accounts. It will be in the recollection of the House that when the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he stated, in bringing forward his Budget, that the public accounts and the system of audit would be taken into consideration by him, with a view to improving that important
692
part of the public service. The country looked with great satisfaction and lively hope to the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman was about to apply his consummate ability and his great powers to that subject. But soon afterwards the Government to which he belonged resigned, and no more has been heard on the matter from that day. This was a disappointment to those who felt the importance of the subject. But I should hesitate to bring the matter before the House if it were not for two circumstances which force it into public notice. For the last two years the Estimates have exceeded in magnitude those of any other period, since the great struggle which was terminated by the treaties of Paris and Vienna; and even now, when the blessings of peace arc restored to us, we cannot hope that for some time to come the Estimates will return to the limits which belong to times of complete security. This is a reason why the due management of the public accounts should be brought before the minds of thinking men. But there is this further circumstance. The House will remember that, when the Estimates for the Audit Office were proposed, it appeared that thirty-six clerks had been transferred from that department to the War Office. The reason given by Her Majesty's Government for this change was, that, as the Commissariat was transferred from the Treasury to the War Department, it was right that the audit of the Commissariat accounts should be transferred to the War Department also, and for this purpose those clerks were taken from the Audit Office and placed in the War Office. It seems to me that the reason given leads to the directly contrary conclusion. The fact that the Commissariat has been transferred to the War Office is the very reason why the War Office should not audit the Commissariat accounts. I am, moreover, informed that, although the removal of the Commissariat accounts has diminished the business of the Audit Board, the withdrawal of thirty-six clerks renders that Board inadequate to discharge its business. The last returns of the state of business in the Audit Office laid before Parliament in 1839, shows a great arrear, sometimes of eight or nine years. And, I fear, that the change just adverted to will render the arrears still greater. Various improvements have from time to time been made in this department, but those measures have been ineffectual, because the real

693
defect has not been dealt with. That defect is the want of power in the Audit Board over the business confided to it. The Board is merely passive. It is not invested with power to compel accountants to bring in their accounts in a proper manner and at proper times, and to make them pass those accounts completely and regularly. I will show that this defective state of the audit is no part of the old constitutional law, and that it arose entirely from circumstances of an historical character. According to the old constitutional law, the Exchequer had complete control over all the accountants of the Crown. The principal accountants were the sheriffs and escheators, and the customers, who received the revenues of the State. The sheriffs especially were the greatest accountants. They managed the landed property of the Crown, and received the rents, and also received the revenues arising from the incidents of feudal tenures, as well as the aids and scutages granted by Parliament. All these officers were compelled to account to the Exchequer, and were under the control of that Court, from which, after passing their accounts, they received their quietus or discharge. Thus there was then a court of accounts, having entire control over the business which it had to transact. Subsequently the old feudal revenue dwindled and became insignificant, especially after the statute of King Charles II. abolishing military tenures, and new branches of revenue sprang up, and new officers were created for its collection and management. These new officers did not account to the Court of Exchequer, as the old officers did, but they rendered their accounts according to an imperfect system before the Auditors of the Imprest, and then before Commissioners appointed under Acts of Parliament, without the powers which belonged to the Court of Exchequer over the sheriffs and others. The Commissioners of Public Acts in 1785 pointed out this evil in their eighth Report. They stated that the power of compelling accountants to come in and account was lodged in the Court of Exchequer. This was done by ordinary process or by extraordinary process. The ordinary process was called distringas ad computandum, which issued periodically in every issuable term. The extraordinary was called capias ad computandum, which only issued by special order of the Court of Exchequer where money to be accounted for
694
was in danger. The distringas was merely formal. It was issued to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, within whose bailiwick all accountants were supposed to be, and they regularly returned nulla bona, and non est inventus. The Commissioners then proceed to examine the office of the Auditors of Imprest. They state that the power of those officers was restricted to the examination of accounts. They had no power to bring accountants before them. If not compelled by Exchequer process, those accountants come at their own pleasure only. The Commissioners report, that the first cause of delay in the office of audit is, the want of an effectual power to bring persons to account. "This," they report, "is the source of delay which extends to every account subject to be passed in the auditors' office."They therefore recommend that the writ of distringas should be properly executed, and the accountants summoned before the Barons of the Exchequer to give reasons for their delay. The remedy thus suggested is, however, manifestly ineffectual. For it does not give the auditors a proper control over their own business, but leaves them with incomplete functions and entirely dependent on the Court of Exchequer. The statute 25 Geo. III. c. 52, passed in accordance with this suggestion, gave increased powers to the Audit Department. It abolished the Auditors of Imprest, and gave to the Crown power to appoint five Commissioners to audit the public accounts. Section 9 provides that the Commissioners may call accountants before them by precept under their hands. But the statute gives them no power to compel obedience to the precept—to compel attendance, or production of vouchers, books, and papers, and the like, without recourse to the Court of Exchequer. By Clause 19, only the Court of Exchequer has power to compel accountants to bring in their accounts. The Act gives no power to the Commissioners to enforce the various requisitions necessary for passing the accounts, such as answering queries, producing papers, and securing balances. By statute 46 Geo. III. c. 141, the number of Commissioners was increased to ten. The power of issuing precepts was extended, but the Act still leaves the auditors dependent on the Court of Exchequer. I come now to the last statute—1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 121. This statute abolishes the ordinary process of distringas ad computandum, and renders the process of

695
the Court of Exchequer more effectual, but still leaves the Board of Audit dependent on that Court, and unable to enforce its own authority. By Clause 26, persons refusing to attend and be examined on oath, or to produce papers, books, & c., or to obey the lawful requisitions of the Commissioners, are made liable to be fined by the Court of Exchequer, on the application of the Commissioners or the Attorney General. Here the House will observe that even the Court of Exchequer has only the power to punish disobedience, and that by a circuitous mode, on the application of the Commissioners to the Court or to the Attorney General; but there is no mode to compel obedience. The consequence of this imperfection of the powers of the Board has been great inconvenience to the public service, and considerable arrears in the Audit Office. The great defect which I have pointed out is a sufficient cause of that inconvenience and those arrears. It is a fundamental principle in administrative science that every department ought to have within itself all the powers necessary to give it a full control over the business which it has to transact. But how is it with the Audit Board? That Board has no power to compel obedience on the part of those over whom it is placed. It has no power to compel them to bring in these accounts. When these accounts are brought in, if an account is not satisfactory, the Board query it and send it back, and may surcharge the accountant. But the Board has no power to compel an immediate answer to the queries. Thus the Audit Office, in a letter to the Treasury of the 28th of February, 1849, complain of the want of anxiety of the accountants to answer the queries put to them, and recommend provisional surcharges to remedy that evil. Then, there is no power in the Commissioners to compel the immediate production of particular papers or documents, and none to arrest accountants and secure balances of public money without a slow and circuitous proceeding through the Court of Exchequer. Another defect must not here be omitted. Dr. Bowring, in his Reports on public accounts, points out that accounts are not audited in the form in which they are brought into the office. They are carried in in the form of the accounts of the particular department from whence they come, and then they have to be stated, being altered and put in the form required by the
696
rules of the Exchequer, and then so declared. Now, Dr. Bowring and Sir H. Parnell both recommended a perfect uniformity of all accounts in every department—according to the Italian or commercial system—and that the account should be carried in in the form in which it is to be audited. This would save much time, for the process of stating the account after it is carried in, sometimes takes a month or even more. But the chief defect of the system pointed out by those gentlemen is, that the Board of Audit is not an independent efficient department, for want of power over its own business. Dr. Bowring, in his Reports, refers to the French Court of Accounts as a model of what a Board of Audit ought to be. That Court has no arrears. It audits the public accounts of France punctually from year to year without leaving any arrear. At this late hour of the night, I ought not to go into details. I shall, therefore, only make a very few more observations. The Court of Accounts is a regular body of independent Judges, who have all the machinery necessary for the audit of the public accounts. The Court has full jurisdiction over all accountants, and power to enforce its orders and decrees, both to compel accountants to bring in their accounts, and to enforce all its requisitions and orders during the process of audit. Thus the Court of Accounts has entire control over the business with which it is entrusted by law, without reference to, or dependence on, any other power in the State. In some cases it sits publicly, and hears judicially matters arising between the Crown and accountants. This remarkable institution also performs divers other duties, arising out of the audit of accounts, and highly advantageous to the public service. I am anxious to direct the attention of the House and the Government to it as an important example contrasted with the imperfect and comparatively inefficient system existing here. I speak of the system, because the persons employed in the Department of Audit are in no way to blame, and they will bear comparison with any other class of public officers. It is to the defects of the system that I desire to call the attention of the House. I have now only to thank hon. Members for patiently listening to my observations on this dry subject, especially at so late an hour of the night.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he fully admitted the importance

697
of the subject, and his attention had been directed to it. The hon. and learned Member's remarks raised two questions: first, the state of legislation affecting the constitution of the Board of Audit; and, secondly, the administration of the whole system of audit under the existing law. He had had under his consideration the consolidation of all the various Acts relating to the audit without making any alteration in the audit itself. The question was, should the character of the audit, which, by a long series of statutes, had led to the establishment of the present Board of Audit, be changed? There were a number of departments consolidated in that Board, but its powers were not so extensive as the Chamber of Accounts in France, which possessed judicial powers as well as the powers of an ordinary audit. The present administration of our Board of Audit under the able superintendence of Mr. Romilly was anything but inefficient. At the same time, he was not aware that the Board as it existed was not efficient for its purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that the transfer of the duties of the Commissariat to the War Department was detrimental to the public service. That subject had been discussed on a former night in Committee of Supply, and since that debate a full explanation of the manner in which the transfer from the Commissariat to the War Department, and the retransfer to the Treasury, and the grounds upon which it had taken place, had been laid upon the table. The transfer was consequent upon the consolidation of the business of the Commissariat with that of the War Department. In the business of the Commissariat there might be said to be two distinct operations. One was in the nature of banking, it being the duty of the Commissariat to keep the military chest supplied in all parts of the world. This business was transferred to the War Department, but it being found that that department was not fitted to transact it, it was retransferred to the Treasury. The other department of the Commissariat was that which had to do with provisions, clothes, fuel, and the transport of men and stores. That which was more of a military character, used to be managed by the Treasury, under the responsibility of the assistant secretary, but was transferred to the War Department when the various branches of that department were consolidated. But the Treasury had no separate
698
audit, and, as the most convenient course, those accounts were referred to the Audit Office, where they were audited by a special staff of clerks. When, however, the transfer took place, there was no longer any necessity for keeping up this department. The details of the naval and military accounts had been always conducted by those departments themselves—the Admiralty auditing the one, and the War Office the other; but when the transfer took place it was found convenient to place the audit of the whole of the naval and military accounts in the same hands. Those accounts were accordingly sent to the Audit Office, where they underwent a full investigation; the vouchers were examined, and every item was placed under its proper head in regard to appropriation, so that there was an audit of appropriation as well as of authentication of payment. The whole mass of naval and military accounts were subjected to this ordeal, which he submitted was sufficient.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: said, at that period of the night it was impossible to discuss a question of this nature, but the audit of the army accounts was undoubtedly a subject of great importance. He confessed he did not precisely understand what was the present state of that audit, but he hoped that before the Estimates passed through the House a full discussion would take place upon the question, and he might at the same time observe that he had given notice of a Motion which would bring the whole subject under the consideration of the House. He was glad to find that the Commissariat accounts, or what was called the Commissariat chest, had been retransferred to the Treasury, for he had always been of opinion that those accounts could not be satisfactorily kept by the War Office. So far as his recollection served him, the details of the Commissariat accounts had formerly been audited at the Treasury, and he believed they were subsequently transferred to the Audit Office. It was thought at that time that all public accounts should be audited by the Audit Board, and many accounts were transferred from separate auditors and controllers, and were handed over to that Board. He thought that was a right principle, and that the Audit Board ought to be auditors of all public accounts. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the naval accounts were audited by the Admiralty, and

699
it was true that the accounts were checked there; but clerks of the Audit Office were present, by whom those accounts were overhauled. Although, therefore, the accounts of the navy were not actually audited at the Audit Office, they were audited under the eyes of the Audit Board. Some years ago, at his recommendation, a Commission was appointed, at the head of which was Mr. Larpent, of the Audit Board, in order to ascertain to what extent the army accounts could be placed under the control of that Board. Some alterations were consequently made, with the nature of which the House was not sufficiently acquainted, and he did not know how far the Audit Board exercised any control over the accounts of the army. For his own part, he thought such a check ought to exist, and that the Audit Board ought to possess the same check with regard to the Commissariat expenditure that they exercised with respect to the naval expenditure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to lay upon the table the Report of the Commission over which Mr. Larpent presided in 1841 or 1842, and also copies of the Minutes relating to the transfer of the Commissariat accounts. He regretted that the House showed so little anxiety with regard to this subject, which, in his opinion, was one of the most important that could engage its attention.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the subject now under consideration was one of very great importance, and he thought they were much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought it under the notice of the House, although he had done so at a moment which was not favourable for a full discussion of the subject. He had been glad to learn from the observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) that on a future occasion the attention of the House would again be called to the question. He did not rise for the purpose of continuing the discussion, but merely with the view of showing that respect which he thought the House ought always to evince towards any hon. Gentleman who brought under its notice subjects of importance which, from accidental circumstances, did not receive the attention to which they were entitled. The Audit Office, like everything in this country, had been the creation of time and circumstances, and had very gradually attained its present importance. In the first
700
instance only one or two accounts were subjected to its revision, but it now exercised control over a large portion of the public expenditure. There could, however, be no doubt that the position of the Audit Office, considering how vast the expenditure of this country had now become, was not of so satisfactory a description as it ought to be. In his opinion an audit administration should be complete and independent. The whole accounts of the country should be placed under its control, and it ought to be directly responsible to that House. The taxes were voted by that House, which represented the people by whom those taxes were paid, and he conceived that the auditors of the public expenditure ought to make their reports directly to that House. He thought, at all events, there could be no difference of opinion as to the importance of rendering the audit administration complete. He hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to this question, and, although this was the first discussion he recollected on the subject, he trusted that it would be followed by others which would lead to a more efficient audit of the public accounts.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, no doubt nothing could be more important than that there should be a good and complete audit of the public accounts, and most especially of the army accounts, but it was a great mistake to suppose that the audit of the military accounts was not complete and effectual for its purpose. It was not conducted by the Audit Office, and in his opinion it could not be. He was speaking of that great mass of the public expenditure which consisted of the money voted for the army's service—that was to say, for the pay and allowances of the regular Army, the Militia, and Volunteers. Now what was the audit that was required for that service? The whole of the money voted for the pay and allowances of the troops was issued through the regimental paymasters, periodically, upon estimates which they sent beforehand of the probable expenditure of the next month or two months. But it was issued to them in conformity with regulations framed and issued by the War Office, involving most minute details and providing for every variety of circumstances attending the services in which officers and men could be employed. When the accounts of the regimental paymasters came in, what was the object of the audit? It was twofold:

701
in the first place, to ascertain that no sum had been issued for which the paymaster had not a voucher to show that it had been actually expended; but next, and almost equally important, was to ascertain that it had been issued in conformity with the regulations. Well, now, the Board of Audit were not competent judges of that matter. They did not know the regulations of the army. The War Office was the easiest and readiest judge of whether the sums issued and vouched for, as having been expended, had been issued in conformity with the regulations. The business of the very able men who composed the War Office was to check those accounts, and to report to the Secretary for War those issues which had been made, but not vouched, or which, if vouched, were not in conformity with the regulations of the service. If the issues had been made, and were not vouched, the case was very simple. The paymaster and his sureties were liable for the amount. But it constantly happened, and in an infinite variety of cases, that issues were made, and properly vouched that the money had passed out of the hands of the paymaster, but issued in a manner not in conformity with the strict regulations of the service. Those cases were referred to the Secretary for War, for him to determine whether they were justified by the particular circumstances of the case. That the auditors could not possibly be competent to determine; it could only be determined by the authority that issued the regulations, and therefore when hon. Members thought that the great bulk of the army expenditure could be audited by the Board of Audit, he could state that such an arrangement would involve a great amount of correspondence and delay. What would happen? The auditors would find a charge made by the paymaster not in confirmity with the strict regulations of the service. They could not judge whether it would be proper to allow that charge, and they would have to refer to the Secretary for War, and ask him whether, after the explanation of the paymaster, the charge should be allowed. The Secretary for War would write to the auditors to tell them what they were to do, and instead of being an efficient audit, it would only involve much correspondence and delay. He spoke from some knowledge of the matter—he held for some years the office of Secretary at War, and he knew that it was impossible for anything to be more strict and more prompt
702
than the audit of the accounts of that part of the public service which related to the pay and allowances of the troops, which of course constituted the great bulk and almost the whole of the Army Estimates. In the present year other services had been combined—namely, those that belonged to the Ordnance. The accounts of the Commissariat and stores were of a different description.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it was quite plain from the statement of the noble Lord that the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) could not rest where it was. From that statement it appeared that the Minister for War was to make regulations, to see whether they were complied with, and, if not, to decide whether they should be relaxed. Now, it had always been understood that it was the duty of the Treasury to check and control the other departments whenever the Audit Board reported that anything was amiss. The noble Lord had given a strong opinion as to the issue of pay, but had passed slightly over the Commissariat and Ordnance, though the House ought to know by an independent audit whether the sums voted for those branches were applied to the purposes for which they were intended.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the whole of the expenditure in the Commissariat and what used to be Ordnance Departments came before the Board of Audit, which saw that every charge had a voucher, and that every item was brought under its proper head in the Estimates, so as to correspond with the Appropriation Act.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the arrangement was a very convenient one, and ought to be brought before the House more clearly than it had hitherto been. Nevertheless, with respect to the large sums payable in the army and Ordnance he still thought there should be an independent audit, to decide, among other things, in what cases there should be a departure from the established regulations.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the present state of the audit of the accounts was very unsatisfactory, and the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that some great amendment was necessary. It appeared to him that they would never arrive at a true audit till a power was vested in the auditors to demand that within a certain period of time accounts of

703
all the moneys voted by that House should be laid before them. It was with regard to the army there would be a difficulty, because the regulations were made by the War Office; but why should not the regulations be laid before the auditors?
MR. BOWYERsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would lay before the House certain Returns made in 1849, of the accounts then in arrear at the Audit Office. The House would then know better what it was about than it did now. If there was an independent Audit Board, like the Board of Accounts in France, it would be the duty of the Secrefor War to lay before it the regulations made by him involving expense, and then there would be no difficulty in the audit.
Subject dropped.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.