Commons Sitting of 30 March 1860

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment.

COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH FRANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Supplemental Treaty has been arranged between this Country and France on, the subject of the Duties on goods admitted from this Country into France; and if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there was no such Supplemental Treaty.
MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask whether such Treaty was in contemplation?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Government had no intention at present of entering into any such Treaty.

THE SAN JUAN QUESTION.—QUESTION.
MR LONGFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards a settlement of the San Juan question, and to produce (if there should be no objection on public grounds) any correspondence which may have recently taken place between the British and American Governments on the subject?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the only progress which has been made towards the permanent settlement of the San Juan question is that an arrangement has been proposed on each side, but it has not yet been concluded. The last Despatch on the subject went from this country, and I expect that an answer will be made to it on the part of the Government of the United States. I must say that the conduct of General Scott, on the part of the United States, has been most conciliatory. About 800 American troops and a battery of guns had been placed on the island;

1617
but the number of men has since been reduced to 100, and the battery of guns has been entirely removed. It is also understood that 100 marines are to be stationed there on the part of the British Government, in order that there may be a joint occupation until the question is finally settled.

CENTRAL ITALIAN STATES.—IRISH BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that to put himself in order he should move that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next. He did so because he wished to make a statement to the House as well as to ask a question. The question related to the annexation of the States of Central Italy to Sardinia; and he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a despatch which appeared amongst the official correspondence on Italian Affairs, and which he had received from Earl Cowley, dated the 5th of February. In that despatch Lord Cowley gave an account of a conversation which he had had with M. Thouvenel, the Foreign Minister of France, in which the latter stated that, "if Her Majesty's Government were ready to admit that the annexation of the Central States of Italy to Sardinia should depend on the consent of the Great Powers, the Emperor would subscribe to the same rule as regards Savoy and refrain from annexing that country, unless he had obtained the consent of the Great Powers. The principle in fact was the same in both cases." To this Lord Cowley replied, with the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government, that there was a distinction between the two cases, and that the British Government could not agree to the proposed Congress. It will thus be seen that M. Thouvenel threw upon the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the onus of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. With that brief explanation he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had advised Her Majesty to recognize the annexation of Bologna, Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, to the kingdom of Sardinia; and if so, whether he was prepared to state the reasons which had induced the Government to tender such advice to Her Majesty? He should now pass to another subject. Those who were familiar with the records of the House must know that at the close of each
1618
Session their proceedings became embarrassed and complicated, chiefly by the accumulation of Irish business. The late Government had adopted the prudent course of taking a large quantity of the Irish business early in the Session, and the Irish Members very naturally expected that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would follow that example; but so far from doing so, the right hon. Gentleman opposite might be said to have treated the Irish business with unexampled contempt. Until half-past twelve of the previous night, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had laid before the House only one Bill of any importance relative to Ireland, and that (the Reform Bill) was a purely political measure. There were various social matters in which the people of Ireland took an interest, such as the Poor Laws, Medical Charities, Re-formatory Schools, Agricultural Improvements, and sanitary arrangements; but the right hon. Gentleman had entirely neglected the social wants of the country. As a set-off for neglecting the social interests of the people the Chief Secretary brought in a Reform Bill. It might be interesting to the House to know, that only four petitions were, presented in favour of the Irish Reform Bill. The first was presented by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and was signed by one person only. The second, also presented by the right hon. Gentleman, was likewise signed by one person only and that one person an Irish Peer. [Cries of "Name, name."] The name of the solitary petitioner was Lord Monck. The third petition was from the students of the Queen's University, signed by 185 of those gentlemen, praying for the representation of that institution in Parliament; and the fourth petition—the strangest fact of all—was the first petition presented over again, no doubt through mistake, by the hon. Member for Kildare. Great agitation prevailed in Ireland on the subject of education, the poor laws, and other non-political matters, but no attempt to legislate was made. Indeed, the subject of education had been very much complicated by the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland. It was hardly twelve months since that right hon. Gentleman appeared before the altar of a Catholic chapel in Cork, and in the presence of four bishops in their robes, solemnly denounced the system of mixed education. The Government, on the other hand, were pledged to the principle of mixed education, and the people of Ire-

1619
land did not know what to think, seeing the discrepancy between the sentiments of the Government and of their Attorney General. But there was no excuse whatever for the neglect of the poor-law question. The present Poor Law system was destroying the people of Ireland. He (Mr. Hennessy) would urgently urge the Government not to continue the powers of the Commission, but to establish in Ireland the English system of extensive out-door relief. It was not long since the extraordinary scandal was exhibited of the Irish Poor Law Board being brought into the Court of Queen's Bench and prosecuted by a Catholic chaplain, when the Judges of that court decided in favour of the plaintiff, and against the Government. In spite of that decision the Government had taken no steps to remedy the evil complained of by the chaplain. They were all familiar with the distressing and disgraceful stories about the removal of Irish poor from England. A debate took place on that subject a few nights ago, in which the Attorney General took no part; nor when he (Mr. Hennessy) made a Motion on the subject of the Bailey borough Union was either the Attorney General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland present. A very wholesome lesson had been read to the Government last night on the subject of Irish tenant right. The Chief Secretary's measure was condemned on all hands. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked at what had been done by his predecessors in 1852, he might have produced a much more satisfactory Bill. There were other matters which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had neglected, and he (Mr. Hennessy) wished to give him a fair opportunity of informing the House what steps he intended to take. The English Registrar General complained for instance that the vital statistics of the British islands were in a worse position than those of any other country, simply because of the neglect of the statistics of diseases and mortality in Ireland. In conclusion he was bound to bear testimony to the courtesy and attention of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was also compelled to add that those qualities could not make amends for his inevitable ignorance of Ireland and the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member of that House; but when he went to Dublin he was surrounded by a clique of place-hunters who shut him out from the Irish people, and effectually prevented him from
1620
learning anything of their real habits, temperament, or wants. The right hon. Gentleman was as little able to cope with the diplomacy of that clique as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was to encounter the diplomacy of Vienna or of Paris. He begged to move that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not rise to debate with the hon. Gentleman either the question of Savoy, or that of the Irish business and its position at this moment. Those who remembered how large a portion of the Session was occupied a few years ago by Irish business, to the exclusion of both English and Scotch affairs, would perhaps be inclined to agree with him in thinking that the altered state of things afforded no bad augury of improvement in the internal state of Ireland. His object in rising was simply to object to the Motion with which the hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech, because it was necessary that the House should sit on the next day in order to receive a commission. He might at the same time inform the House that it was not the intention of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to propose the resumption of the adjourned debate upon the Bill for Amending the Representation of the People that evening, because there was no probability that if renewed it would be continued. His noble Friend would state on Monday to what day after Easter he would propose that the debate should be resumed.

THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF THE COUNTY OF LONDONDERRY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he rose to draw the attention of the House to the recent appointment of Mr. Lyle, at present Receiver-Master of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, to the dignity of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Londonderry, and to the circumstances under which such appointment was made. He believed that it would be admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that no gentleman had held that office so long as he had done with less opposition from the body of Irish representatives. Having been in office himself, and having suffered from an unscrupulous opposition, he should be very unwilling to make an un-

  1621
  fair attack upon any one so courteous as the right hon. Gentleman had always shown himself to be; but the matter to which he was about to call attention was one which he thought the House would be of opinion ought to receive a satisfactory explanation. Within the last fortnight the death of a very old and respected Member of that House, Sir R. Ferguson, had created a vacancy in the representation of the city of Londonderry and in the Lieutenancy of that city and county. The Lieutenant of an Irish county—which office was created in the early part of the Feign of William the Fourth by Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne, with the assent of the Duke of Wellington—commanded the Militia, appointed its colonels and other officers, was the custos rotulo-rum of the county, nominated the clerk of the peace, and, being supposed to be the man of most eminent station in the county, he recommended to the Lord Chancellor such of the gentry as he thought ought to be made magistrates. The Chancellor was not disposed to act without his recommendation, and therefore he acted as a check upon that high officer to prevent his appointing unfit persons. In fact, he was the first man in the county. Shortly after the office was created, a Member of that House complained of the appointment of Lord Dun-cannon to be Lord Lieutenant of his county, on the ground that he held an inconsistent office, he being at the time First Commissioner of Works. In the debate upon the subject Mr. Stanley, defending the Ministry, said:—
  "The rule laid down for the selection of Lords-lieutenant was to appoint the most respectable persons, whether noblemen or gentlemen, connected with the county by fortune and respectability. The object of the Government in bringing in the Bill had been to appoint persons residing in or contiguous to the counties, who, by their influence with the particular district, and by their residence, would be better able to attend to the interest of Ireland. It was certainly said that the preference should be given to peers, because they wished to select persons of the highest rank, that there might bean avoidance of jealousies, which would have been created if commoners were appointed when there were so many in one county of equal rank."
  The contest for Londonderry city was proceeding that day. He did not blame the Government for wishing to preserve the seat for the maiden and unconquered city; nor did he indulge in the political prudery of supposing that they would not exercise any legitimate influence they possessed in
  1622
  support of their Friend. The other night the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs warned them not to place implicit reliance upon telegrams, and when he received by that means an announcement that a gentleman whom he left at his desk in an office of the Court of Chancery in Dublin, busy settling the accounts of the receivers, looking after defaulting tenants, and seeing that balances were lodged in court, had been pitchforked into the Lord Lieutenantcy of the county of Londonderry, he said to himself that he would not believe it, and would put no question upon the subject until he was better informed. On the following day, however, he looked into a Dublin newspaper, and there he saw a paragraph stating that "the newly appointed Lord Lieutenant of Londonderry, Mr. Lyle, his son and son-in-law, had left town en route for Derry, where it was said the new Lieutenant would use all his influence in support of Mr. Greer, the tenant-right candidate, in the contest then going on." This made him think the matter more probable, and soon afterwards he received a letter, from a gentleman in Londonderry, stating that Mr. Lyle had walked into the grand jury room and announced to the gentlemen present that he was the Lord Lieutenant of the county, an announcement which, as his letter stated, "they received in solemn silence." Now, the Receiver-Master was bound by law to be in his office so many hours every day, though, no doubt, in an Easter vacation he might be at liberty to assist at an election; but surely, if objection could be taken to the appointment of Lord Duncannon, it must apply still more forcibly to that of an official of the Court of Chancery who was withdrawn from his duties to be manufactured into a Lieutenant of a county. He objected to it especially if it were done at the present moment in order that the influence of the Lieutenant of a county and city should be thrown into the scale in support of a candidate at a closely contested election, whom the Government were disposed to favour. One of the duties of the Lieutenant of a county was to recommend magistrates to the Lord Chancellor and to act as a chock upon his appointment of them. How could such functions be exercised by a person whose very office it was to execute the orders of the Lord Chancellor? This question he put to himself, and having no one to reply to it he answered it himself—"He is going to retire."

  1623
  If there was an election to be carried, the Government, despite the defaulting Exchequer, would not stick at trifles, and he therefore ventured to think that Mr. Lyle would get his retiring pension of £2,500, the amount of his salary. He had no doubt that Mr. Lyle was entitled to his full pension, as when he ceased to be Remembrancer and was transferred to the Court of Chancery, it was fairly arranged that his time as Remembrancer should be reckoned in his services in the Court of Chancery. He would not grudge him his pension, nor any mark of personal respect that could be paid to a useful, diligent and punctual servant of the Crown. But what was to become of his office in the Court of Chancery? That was a very nice point. The House ought to be informed that whenever a Gentleman contested a county or a city in Ireland, and was defeated, it was necessary to soothe his wounded feelings with a lucrative place. The Earl of Carlisle had been more patriotic and benevolent in that respect than most of his predecessors. The Gentleman who contested the county of Dublin in the Whig interest at the last election was now a Commissioner of something or other, it was immaterial what,—gaols or lunatics, it was all the same. The son of the Lord Chancellor contested the city of Dublin and was defeated; by a like equity he must be provided for. However, there was some difficulty as to whether the Chancellor could make his son Receiver-Master in his own court, but parental feelings were universally respected and the rumour was that an excellent Gentleman, and a friend of Lord Carlisle, the Commissioner of the Bankruptcy Court, was to be transferred to the office of Receiver-Master in the Court of Chancery, and the Chancellor's son was to be appointed to the vacant Commissionership. Then they had—what? A Lord Lieutenant, who was Receiver-Master of the Court of Chancery, or if not, who was the pensioner of the Crown, the Crown paying the salary of that Gentleman, and that also of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be appointed. Who was that Gentleman? He was informed it would not be the son of the Chancellor, but Mr. Berwick, who was to be transferred to that office from the Bankrupt Court, so that the Gentleman who had contested the city of Dublin might be suitably provided with a place. Did the Chief Secretary expect to govern Ireland upon such principles? When the
  1624
  office of Lieutenant was created in Ireland, it was objected to on the ground that the Lord Lieutenant of a county might interfere in elections. The answer was, that peers would generally be appointed, and that, as it was a breach of privilege for peers to interfere in elections, the apprehended danger would not arise. What had taken place in the present case? It was stated that no sooner had Mr. Lyle received his appointment than he proceeded straight to Londonderry, where a hot contest was raging, and gave his support to Mr. Greer, a gentleman who advocated those tenant-right views which had met with no sympathy in the House of Commons, but whose vote might always be depended upon by Ministers. Hitherto none but noblemen and gentlemen of influence in their respective counties had been appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant. Was the Chief Secretary authorized to state that, unless Mr Lyle had been Receiver-Master, and had held opinions similar to those of the Earl of Carlisle, he would ever have been made Lieutenant of Londonderry? The appointment was one of which the Chief Secretary might not have heard, yet he was responsible for it. The law officers of the Crown were not consulted upon such occasions. Why had the Earl of Carlisle passed over the Marquess of Waterford, Lord Garvagh, Sir Harvey Bruce, Mr. M'Causland, and many other gentlemen owning large estates in the county of Londonderry? Mr. Lyle was a younger son of a respectable family in Londonderry, a member of the bar, and a gentlemen who had long discharged the duties of a public office in an exemplary manner; but the gentry of Ireland had to ask themselves whether the place of Lord Lieutenant of a county was properly filled at the moment of a contested election either by an actual Receiver-Master in the Court of Chancery, or by a pensioned officer of the Crown. Such an appointment was utterly unjustifiable; it was unprecedented, and it was contrary to all principle. Mr. Lyle had a model farm in Londonderry, the best cultivated in the county, on which, in his leisure moments, he had certainly spent some time and money; but he did not possess a considerable estate in the county, such as would justify his appointment to an office of so much importance. Why had he been made Lord Lieutenant, in the middle of a contested election, by a clique in

  1625
  Dublin, headed by the Earl of Carlisle, in preference, not only to the noblemen and gentlemen whose names he had already mentioned to the House, but to the two Members for the county, one a relative of a distinguished statesman, and the other the descendant of a chief magistrate of the metropolis? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they ought to apply rules framed on the highest standard of morality to elections. How could he reconcile his principle with the practice of the Government, who had made an appointment such as never was made before, and which he was quite certain, if that House did its duty, would never be made again.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he desired, in the first place, to return his acknowledgments for that part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech in which he claimed for himself, and those who acted with him, the credit of having shown towards himself (Mr. Cardwell), since he had the honour of filling his present office, every possible courtesy and consideration. He acknowledged that fact thankfully; and he also acknowledged that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the most perfect right to hold him responsible for every act of the Irish Government. Having made those acknowledgments, he would proceed to state what he understood to be the charge brought against him. As he understood the charge, it was that of having sought to put into the Lord-lieutenancy of a county a political partisan at the moment when a contested election was going on, and of contriving, at the same time, to provide for a relation of the Lord Chancellor. He would answer the two charges clearly, simply, and categorically; but before doing so, he would beg to state precisely what had been the case with regard to the vacant Lord-lieutenancy of the county of Londonderry. The first he had heard of it was an expression from his noble friend, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of the extreme pain and regret with which he received the announcement of the vacancy created by the lamented death of Sir Robert Ferguson. He could assure the House that his noble Friend exercised the utmost care in the selection of a successor to the office left vacant by the death of that gentleman. The property of the county of Londonderry was largely held by great Companies in London. Upon the list of the deputy-lieutenants of the county there were the names of only two peers,
  1626
  one who had property in the county, but did not reside there; and the other, who did reside there, but upon property the succession to which had not yet fallen in, and which was not yet his own. There were no other names of Peers on the list. Among the commoners of the county his noble Friend, therefore, had proceeded to make the selection which the law vested in him, and for the exercise of which he was responsible. He selected a gentleman who he (Mr. Cardwell) believed would be acknowledged by every one who knew him to be a man of the most unblemished character. His (Mr. Cardwell's) understanding with regard to Mr. Lyle's property did not conform with that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He believed that he was a gentleman of considerable landed property, highly respected in the county of Londonderry, residing in the county, and taking a great interest in its affairs. With regard to the statement that this was done from a wish to create a vacancy, his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle) was in communication with Mr. Lyle some months before, that gentleman being then extremely desirous to resign his office, with the intention of going to reside in the county of Londonderry. He was persuaded to retain his office for a short period. This occurred some time before the death of Sir Robert Ferguson. Mr. Lyle, as he before said, consented to remain; stating, however, at the same time, the period for which he would continue in office. At the termination of a few months it was fixed that he should retire, and it was, therefore, as a gentleman, who had previously avowed his determination to reside upon his estate in Londonderry, that his noble Friends elected him to fill the position of Lord Lieutenant for the county. With regard to Mr. Lyle's interference in the election, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) himself referred to the well-known fact that many distinguished Members of that House had themselves filled the high office of Lord Lieutenant; and he (Mr. Cardwell) was not aware that it was any reflection upon the Lord Lieutenant of the county, if he should exercise in the ordinary manner, and without any circumstances which could be alleged against him as a charge, the ordinary political functions of a voter in the county. The House might imagine, from what had been said, that a keenly-contested election was going on between a warm supporter and a strenuous opponent

  1627
  of the Government. Now, if he were correctly informed, Mr. M'Cormick's opinions would not be found to correspond with those of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had not had an opportunity of referring to Ireland, but he believed that Mr. M'Cormick and Mr Greer had expressed the same political opinions. It therefore appeared that, so far from there being a desire to create a vacancy, there had been a desire to prevent a vacancy. With regard to the way in which that vacancy had been filled, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) seemed to have had much freer access to the intended appointments of his noble Friend, for which he (Mr. Cardwell) was also responsible, than he could pretend to have, if he (Mr. Whiteside) could vouch for the statements which he had given to the House. All he (Mr. Cardwell) could say was, that no intimation had reached him, either from his noble Friend or from the Lord Chancellor, that there was the slightest wish of any advance of either of the two gentlemen to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. He (Mr. Cardwell) could only conceive, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been indebted to mere rumours, which the imagination of some persons, not acquainted with the subject, had occasioned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he rose to put to him a direct question—which was, would Mr. Lyle have been appointed to this office if he had not been Receiver General in the Court of Chancery? He (Mr. Cardwell) could answer that question most completely. Mr. Lyle was the choice of his noble Friend, on the grounds to which he had referred, and the only difficulty which occurred to his noble Friend was, whether the continuance of his holding that office for the short period to which he had referred was or was not a difficulty which ought to have prevented that appointment. Considering, however, that the period was both brief and fixed, his noble Friend regarded it as not a sufficient objection, and made the appointment. Now that he had answered the question put to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would make a short reply to the statement so courteously introduced by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hennessy). The hon. Gentleman was not quite so well informed on the state of the subject as he supposed himself. With regard to Irish business, experience showed that at the end of a
  1628
  Session they were very much encumbered with Irish business, and Bills frequently brought in were dropped at the close of the Session. He (Mr. Cardwell) regretted that such should be the case, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, that when he referred to former Sessions he could not say that those who, at the present moment, were responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs, were responsible for anything which occurred in former Sessions. If it had been possible to have introduced Irish business early in the present Session, it would have been of the greatest satisfaction to him but he was sure the judgment of the House would be, that it would have been highly inconvenient and impossible to introduce measures about which there was any contest, until the more pressing public business of the country had been disposed of. When the hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Cardwell) had not brought in any Bill on the subject of education in Ireland, and put a question as to whether he intended to bring in a Bill upon the subject, he answered him that no Bill was required to carry out any change. It was only within a week that he received the rejoinder of the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland to the communication addressed by the Government, and it was quite obvious, as he had stated before, that when he introduced the Estimates was the proper time to make a statement upon the subject. With regard to the poor law in Ireland, the Poor-law Amendment Bill was introduced last night, and would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members. As to the question of poor-law removal, his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor-law Board, on a former occasion, had fully laid before the House the state of that question. With regard to the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, he (Mr. Cardwell) had, very early in the Session, announced his intention of bringing in a Bill on that subject, and he was only prevented from introducing that measure for the want of an opportunity. All he could say was, that as soon as it was the pleasure of the House to proceed with the Irish business, it would be of the greatest possible convenience and satisfaction to himself.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, I should not have addressed the House on the present occasion had I not been personally alluded to in the course of the debate, and was it not for the fact that, amongst the reasons assigned by the Press

  1629
  to the public for the appointment of the new Lord Lieutenant of the county of Londonderry is the following, namely,—
  "That there is not one nobleman or gentleman of sufficient position and character in that county to qualify him to fill the high and responsible office of Lord lieutenant."
  I do not mean to state, Sir, that this was the motive that actuated the Government, but I must say that the appointment of a gentleman, however respectable, holding a high legal situation in the Irish Court of Chancery, and therefore almost constantly resident in Dublin, would naturally lead to the supposition that there was no one else in the county qualified for the post. This is an imputation, Sir, that on behalf of those noblemen and gentlemen, I indignantly repudiate. It is true, as has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, that a large part of the county I have the honour to represent is the property of the London Companies, who from their constitution, although in general represented by excellent agents, are, and must be, in the position of absentee landlords, and unable to fill any public situation. Still, Sir, all who are acquainted with the County Derry know perfectly well that there are many most respectable noblemen and gentlemen of large property in the county— many of them constantly resident—who are of the class, both by position and character, usually selected for offices of the nature in question. I do not make these remarks, Sir, with the least intention of saying one word against Mr. Acheson Lyle. On the contrary, from what I have the pleasure of knowing of that gentleman, I believe him to be both a highly honourable man and one who, by his good sense and business habits, is well fitted to transact the business of any situation in which he may be placed. But, Sir, I am afraid that the real reason of the appointment is not avowed by the Government, and that political considerations are the chief things considered. In this view, Sir, the nobility and gentry of the county, with hardly an exception, undoubtedly do possess the disqualification which it is impossible they can surmount—it is, Sir, that they have not the happiness in general, to take that sanguine and complacent view of the merits of the present Government that, I suppose, they ought to do. I should have thought, Sir, that if it was desirable that magistrates should be appointed, irrespective of political considera-
  1630
  tions, it was equally important that he who has the nomination of those magistrates should also be selected without regard to party, or to the political opinions he may happen to hold. Before sitting down, I must correct the statement of the Secretary for Ireland, that the three candidates for the representation of the City of Derry hold the same political sentiments. I believe it will be found that Mr. M'Cormick, if elected, will undoubtedly take his seat on the Opposition benches. I should not have said a word on this subject had I not felt that the gentry of the County Derry had been unjustly attacked; and I will close my observations by adding my humble tribute of respect and regret for the loss of the late Sir Robert Ferguson, so highly esteemed as a Member of this House, and who discharged the duties of Lieutenant of the County Derry for so many years, by universal consent, with impartiality and justice.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, the House was indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), for having called their attention to the subject of the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant for the county of Londonderry, because he (Lord Fermoy) thought they ought to settle the question upon what principle were appointments to be made in future to those high offices. He meant to say nothing against Mr. Lyle, for he knew nothing about him, but he was willing to believe that he was a most excellent officer in the Court of Chancery, and had served his country usefully. That might be a reason for allowing him to retire upon full pay, if he chose, but it was no reason for appointing him to an office in a county, the due fulfilment of which required two things— namely, the respect of all parties in the county, and a thorough local knowledge of that county. If Mr. Lyle, however, had honestly and carefully discharged his duties in the Court of Chancery in Dublin, it was perfectly impossible he could have acquired a thorough knowledge of a distant county. Even if that Gentleman did now possess a large property in the county, he had been absent from it for the greater portion of his life, and therefore could not possess the local knowledge to fit him for the office of Lord Lieutenant. He was prepared to go the length of saying that where two men highly qualified by rank and a knowledge of the district presented themselves for the office of Lord Lieute-

  1631
  nant, and one agreed with the Government in political opinions and the other did not, they might appoint the man who agreed with them. Further than that they should not allow political opinions to enter as an ingredient into the question as to who should be appointed a Lord-lieutenant of a county. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had asked whether Ireland was to be governed upon that principle, but he (Lord Fermoy) wished to ask upon what principle was Ireland to be governed. They must recollect the position of affairs in Ireland at the present moment. In that country they had a large body of men representing the Ultramontane Catholic party, whose confidence the Government did not nor ever would possess. [Mr. BOWYER: Hear, Hear!] Therefore, in order to manage affairs in that country, the Government must possess the confidence of the moderate Catholics and the Protestants; but the policy that had been pursued was not at all calculated to secure that confidence. What measures relating to Ireland had been proposed? After the application of the screw Parliamentary, two Bills had been introduced, but had not progressed further than a first reading. But surely if they held out to the people of Ireland the idea that they were going to legislate for their benefit, they were bound to carry that intention into effect. He asked what had become of the Endowed Schools Bill? A Commission which sat on the subject of education had shown to them that the endowed school system in Ireland was a monstrous job. They had £80,000 a year which was misapplied, and still the Government had not attempted to deal with this question. He believed, however, the late Government, before they left office, had showed a disposition to deal with this question. Another question of great social importance to Ireland was the Fairs and Markets Bill, which had not been dealt with. True, the Government had brought in a Reform Bill; but a measure which had received less approval from the Irish people, he believed, never was brought into the House. He had endeavoured to induce the Government to grapple with the question of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which in England as well as in Ireland, was a monstrous nuisance. They impeded the whole administration of justice in Ireland. [Cries of "Question."] That was the question. It was disagreeable to many hon. Mem-
  1632
  bers in that House to hear subjects of that nature discussed, but they must excuse him if he told them that while they were neglecting all those material interests in Ireland, the country was slipping from them; there was no public opinion in their favour, and they should recollect they had laid down this principle in dealing with other countries, that dynasties might be abolished and dependencies might be set free by universal suffrage. The day might come when this country would want the support of the independent Catholic and Protestant party in Ireland, and the only way to obtain that support was by applying those useful measures of social legislation to Ireland. If they did not do that, public opinion in Ireland would desert them, and a Minister of some foreign country would be sending them a well-written despatch, calling upon them to appeal to universal vote in Ireland. He feared very much, when that day arrived, men like himself who had an interest in the country, and wished to see Ireland governed upon moderate, fair, and reasonable principles, would find themselves deserted by the country, and the decision of the whole people of Ireland would be against connection with England.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION AT WAKEFIELD—QUESTION.
MR. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, he wished to inquire what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the Report of the Commission on Corrupt Practices at the Election for the Borough of Wakefield. The subject was one of importance, and, as the Reform Bill could not be proceeded with until after Easter, he hoped the House would take advantage of the interval to clear its conscience, for having allowed this important matter to sleep so long. In consequence of the Report of a Committee of that House, a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances of the Wakefield election had been appointed, and the Commissioners presented their Report on the 28th of last January. Their Report had consequently been on the table of the House for two months. Its contents were well worthy of serious consideration, especially now that the question of reform was under discussion. The Commissioners reported that at the election of 1859 the constituency consisted of 866 voters, of whom 809 voted; and that the election was conducted by, and on the part of

1633
each of the candidates in a corrupt and illegal manner. As between the two candidates, one being a Conservative and the other an ultra-Liberal, it seemed that with regard to the amount of corruption, it, in common parlance, was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. The sum of money spent on either side was much the same. In all, the Commissioners found that £8,050 had been spent on the constituency by the two candidates, of which amount £6,900 had been spent for purposes of corruption; £3,500 of it had been laid out in direct bribery, and £3,400 for other matters closely connected with illegal and corrupt practices. The Commissioners went on to say that the candidates had provided these large sums of money with the intention of the money being employed in bribery and corruption; that the sum of £3,500 was paid in bribes to eighty-six persons, who had received on an average about £40 a head, but that in all there were 142 persons bribed or corruptly dealt with. The Report of the Commissioners, in its concluding paragraph, stated,
"Lastly, we find, having regard to the length of time before the ejection at which the preparations for the work of corruption were commenced, to the large proportion (142 out of 866) of the whole constituency engaged in corrupt practices and guilty of bribery, to the number of persons (including fifty-six, themselves electors) who voluntarily joined in the work of offering and giving bribes, to the zeal and skill they exhibited, to the readiness with which their services were received and their acts adopted, to the open way in which bribery was carried on by the canvassers and discussed among all classes, and to the manner in which the voters received and bargained with the canvassers on both sides, that large numbers of the electors were then not for the first time engaged in the like operations of gross corruption."
By the Corrupt Practices Act, under which the Commission was issued, express provision was made for the exemption of persons who gave evidence before the Commissioners in such cases, from any penal consequences attached to acts which they themselves might have disclosed; but the Act at the same time contemplated that wherever the Commissioners thought fit to refuse a certificate of indemnity, the persons should still remain open to prosecution. Now, to the Report of the Wakefield Bribery Commissioners was annexed a schedule containing the names of the persons who had been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices there, distinguishing those to whom the statutable certificate had not been awarded by the
1634
Commissioners. In that list, and without such certificate, he found the names of the two candidates, who were stated by the Commissioners to have spent £8,000 in bribery at Wakefield. Now, he would refer to what was done last year in the case of the Beverley election. In that case, likewise, it was reported that bribery had prevailed, and the names of certain persons were reported by the Committee as having been guilty of it; and on the Motion of the Chairman of that Committee, the names of two of those persons were specially brought before the House, and the Attorney General was directed to prosecute them. Those persons were two men named Boyes and Taylor, whom the Committee had found guilty, the one of giving a bribe of £20 amongst nine persons, and the other £4 7s. between two persons. When the Motion for prosecution was brought before the House, the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour) moved as an Amendment,
"That, as the recent Commissions have clearly demonstrated that many persons of higher social rank have been involved in graver criminality, it would not be expedient to limit the direction to Her Majesty's Attorney General to the prosecution of Boyes and Taylor."—[3 Hansard, clvi., 489.]
The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis), in supporting the original Motion, said,
"As far as the present case went it was quite clear that it would be a precedent for the prosecution of others guilty of a greater amount of bribery. If it were right that persons reported against by other Election Committees, or by the recent Commissions issued in respect of Wakefield and Gloucester, should be prosecuted, he was sure that the House, if those persons had not received certificates from the Commissioners, and if there appeared a prospect of success in the prosecutions, would listen to any hon. Member who should feel disposed to bring the subject under consideration. It was, therefore, a reason in favour of the present Motion that it established a principle applicable to all cases."—[3 Hansard, clvi., 494.
In the eyes of the public a rather unfavourable contrast would appear between the course which the House took then with those two humble individuals, who had been employed to offer inconsiderable bribes on behalf of others, and the course which was now taken in passing over the conduct of two wealthy persons, who were proved before the Commission to have produced and applied the sum of £8,000 for corrupting and debasing a whole constituency. In the one case the House had been very eager to punish the subordinates, but if when the principals were

1635
detected, which could but rarely occur, they did nothing, the public would look upon the House as desirous of screening these persons, and shirking the application of the rule they had been ready to apply to their agents. He wished to know why a different rule should be applied to the Wakefield case, where two persons were reported against as having been guilty of corrupt practices for their own purposes, from that which was applied to the Beverley case, where two persons had been employed in a similar transaction for the advantage of somebody else? With such an inequality of dealing, it was but natural that doubts should prevail out of doors as to the purity of the intentions with which the House took up the question of Parliamentary Reform, when such a report as that of the Wakefield Commission was lying on the table unnoticed side by side with the Reform Bill. They talked of lowering the franchise to £6. Now, Wakefield was the creation of the old Reform Bill, and its constituency, composed of £10 householders, was a pure one, and uninitiated in corruption, until it was demoralized by some wealthy persons. But did the House think that if the constituencies of Wakefield, Gloucester, or Berwick, had been composed of £6 instead of £10 householders, the bribery there would have been less? On the contrary, was it not evident that the list of bribers would only have been enlarged? Before going further into the question of Reform, the House should justify itself from such slurs as were cast upon its character when a Report like that of the Wakefield Commissioners was left unnoticed. He had no fear of the result of extending the franchise if they gave the voter fair play; but, if they left him exposed to every sort of illegal appliance, it was his opinion that, instead of conferring a benefit by the enlargement of the constituencies, they were only increasing a class which, politically, —if there was any truth in these Reports of numerous Commissions—was already much demoralized. He did hope that the Government would show their sense of justice and honesty of purpose by taking care that if the delinquents in the Beverley case were punished, the Wakefield Report was also acted upon, and that the Attorney General would be instructed to prosecute the two principals who were compromised by it.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to correct one error into which his hon.
1636
Friend had fallen, in supposing that the House or the Government were disposed to apply a different rule in these cases according to the station of life of the persons implicated in them. It was a mistake to suppose that it had in former cases been the practice of the House to direct the Attorney General to prosecute all persons who had been reported by an Election Committee to have been guilty of bribery. That course was confined to the cases in which the Committee reported, not only that certain persons had been guilty of bribery, but that in their opinion the Attorney General ought to be directed to prosecute; and in the Beverley case the Committee having reported to that effect, the Chairman moved a Resolution of the House directing that the Attorney General should institute a prosecution. There were many other persons who during the last Session had been reported to have been guilty of bribery, but in those cases no such action had been taken. With regard to the Wakefield Commission, the hon. Gentleman had not stated the case very correctly. No doubt the Commissioners expressly pointed to certain persons, whose names appeared in the schedule, as guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, and the names were also specified of those among them to whom the Commissioners had refused the certificate which alone would protect them from any prosecution or penalty. Under these circumstances it was obvious that the persons to whom certificates were refused were open to prosecution, provided the evidence was sufficient to insure a conviction in a court of law for the crime of bribery. But independently of the certificate of indemnity given to persons who spoke the whole truth to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, there was a clause in the Act which prevented the evidence given by any person on compulsion before the Commissioners from being used in evidence against him on a prosecution in a court of law. If, then, in the Wakefield case the persons from whom certificates of indemnity were withheld were proved by their own evidence only to have committed bribery, that testimony would not be available against them in a court of law. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, after having given a careful consideration to the Report of the Commission, had referred it to the law advisers of the Crown, calling their attention to the fact of a

1637
large number of persons having been reported guilty of acts of bribery, and also to the fact that to some of them the certificate had not been given. The law officers of the Crown had, therefore, been called upon to consider whether they considered there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. But independently of any proceeding on the part of the Government, the Report having been laid before the House, any hon. Member might move that the Attorney General be instructed to prosecute. On the general question he stated the other night that it was not expedient that these corrupt practices, carried on so extensively, should be overlooked, and that the writs should issue after a short temporary suspension. In Wakefield, especially, the Commissioners stated that although there were not more than 200 persons who had actually received bribes, they believed that the corruption was at all events connived at by the great bulk of the constituency, and that it was not confined to the lower class of voters, but pervaded all classes. He (Sir George Grey) believed that the most effectual means of checking those corrupt practices would be to enact that for a given term of years boroughs so circumstanced if not absolutely disfranchised should be prevented from returning Members to that House, by which means Parliament would mark its sense of the corrupt practices to which the constituencies had been proved to have resorted, and time would be given for correcting the corrupt practices. But there being now a Bill before Parliament the effect of which would be to add to the constituencies of both the boroughs in question, the Government did not think it would be right, while proposing that addition, to invite the House at the same time to suspend the exercise of the franchise in these boroughs for any lengthened period. Under the circumstances the Government recommended that no new writ should be issued for either of those boroughs during the present Parliament, and for that purpose he apprehended no Act of Parliament would be necessary, as the object might be effected by the Resolution of this House.

THE EXPENSE OF THE DEFENCE OF THE COLONIES.—QUESTION.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid he was sorry to be obliged to add one more subject to the heterogeneous discussion which had already taken place; but the Question of
1638
which he had given notice was, he thought, of so important a character as to justify him in asking the Secretary at War for an immediate explanation. If the answer to his question should not be satisfactory, he should ask the House to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject after the Easter holidays. His question had reference to a better apportionment of the expenses for the defence of the Colonies between the Imperial and Colonial Treasuries. He was of opinion that the present system of charging those expenses almost wholly on this country was not only burdensome to this country, but was mischievous in its effects to the Colonies themselves. The facts were these—that for the purpose of the military defences of the Colonies there was thrown upon the English taxpayers a burden of nearly £4,000,000 a year, whilst the amount contributed towards that object by the Colonies themselves was somewhat less than £400,000 a year, being less than one-tenth of the whole sum required. It seemed to him that that was a most unreasonable state of things, and that the House would do well to consider it with a view to a more just and satisfactory arrangement of the matter. The taxpayers of the mother country derived no advantage from the contribution of that money, whilst the exemption of our Colonies from their own taxation was indefensible and injurious, if not seriously mischievous to themselves. The two colonies of New South Wales and Victoria no doubt contributed somewhat more than our other Colonies towards the expense of their defence. He could not understand the reason why the British Colonies should be the only part of the empire—indeed of any empire in history — exempted both from personal service and money payment for the cost of their own defence. The effect of the arrangement was to weaken this country by occasioning the Queen's forces to be scattered in small detachments all over the world. The number of our troops supposed to be appropriated to the defence of the Colonies was 42,000. Those were scattered over a great number of the Colonies, and were lost to this country when their services were really wanted. In time of war we were obliged at the risk of incurring a bad understanding with Foreign Powers to resort to German and Swiss legions from the circumstance of being unable to avail ourselves of all our own troops. But with regard to the Colonies

1639
themselves it did a still greater injury. In the first place, these few soldiers could not really defend the Colonies. Their numbers being totally inadequate, and there being only two or three companies often in a large tract of country, the colony trusting to such defence would be at the mercy of any enemy who had anything like a competent naval force; whereas if the Colonies were obliged to depend on their own resources they would provide a sufficient force for their defence. The great inequalities, too, of the system—some of those colonies, often those the least responsible, being required to contribute more than others—naturally created a feeling of jealousy, and an impression that injustice was done to the former. Another anomaly of the system was shown in the colonial allowances made to English troops—allowances being granted liberally by some of the colonies, whilst others made no such allowances. The consequence was that the British Treasury had to make up the difference to Her Majesty's troops when stationed in the liberal colonies; and the troops stationed elsewhere complained. Last year the late Secretary at War, whilst referring to this question, complained of the present system being unjust, capricious, wasteful, and mischievous. Some colonies were not even required to pay for their own local forces, and very few had raised any local militia whatever. When he brought the question on the last occasion under the consideration of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said that a Committee had been appointed to investigate the subject. That Committee consisted of the Secretary of the Treasury, the permanent Secretary of the Colonies, and the permanent Assistant Secretary of the War Office, who were required to state the existing system, and to make some suggestion as to a better principle of apportionment of military expenditure in Colonies between the Imperial and the Colonial Treasuries, and as to the best mode of carrying out that apportionment. He had asked for the Report of that Committee; but he was told that it was a Departmental Report. He, on the other hand, held it to be the property of the House, because it had been so referred to in that House, and made a pretext for stopping his intended Committee of Inquiry; and the less right had the Secretary of State for War to withhold it when it was remembered that the Committee was appointed by his predecessor
1640
in office (General Peel), and was actually sitting when he went out of office. He, therefore, now asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was still disinclined to produce that Report, and, if so, whether he, on the part of the Government, would offer any objection if he (Mr. Adderley) should think it his duty to move for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject, in order that he might obtain and lay before the House the same information as was probably contained in that document?

THE POLISH REFUGEES IN THE CRIMEAN WAR.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to call attention to a Petition from certain Polish Refugees, who, having served under the British Government in the Crimean War, complain of injustice being done to them, and ask for inquiry and redress. He would not occupy the attention of the House for more than a very few seconds, for he was as anxious to listen to the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) as any Member in the House. The case to which he had to call attention was one of charity and justice, which involved the honour of the British Government. It related to the claims of forty-one unhappy Polish refugees who had served in the Crimean War. They complained of the gross injustice which had been done to them, and sought redress from that House. The statement of their case which had been placed in his hands had been drawn up by a most accomplished lady, the daughter of a Polish nobleman, and he would just refer to one or two facts stated to show that the case called for investigation. It would be remembered that in the difficulty which this country experienced to get men to fight our battles, and when our agents all but embroiled our relations with America by recruiting in the United States, the services of a German and a Polish Legion were engaged. The German Legion had been well treated; the Polish had been scandalously misused. The Petition stated that the petitioners had served in the Crimean War in the Polish Legion under the British Government, and up to this day they had not received their full payment, which they had never ceased to demand. Before they entered the Legion they had been told by an agent of the Government that great benefits would accrue to Poland from the war, and that all would receive the protection of the Government, as well as the promised bounty—a year's pay, and a

1641
free passage. They asserted that they only received £1 of the bounty, although the Germans were paid £6. When the Legion was disbanded in July, 1856, General Storks said they would receive all that was promised them; but only one-tenth part of them received it; and many thousands of them were obliged to turn shepherds in Bulgaria. Those who had received their passage money were obliged to submit to its deduction from their year's pay. Their good clothes were taken from them, and inferior clothes were given them. And as there was no room for their baggage, their good clothes were cast overboard. One of those gentlemen, Lieutenant Alexander Goman, stated that he was born in Cracow, and made prisoner of war by the Russians in 1831. In consequence of having served against Russia he was doomed for life by the Government of that country to serve as a private soldier; but in consequence of his exemplary conduct he was subsequently raised to the rank of lieutenant. Being tempted by the agents of the British Government, who were abroad to procure men to fight their battles, he entered the Polish Legion formed under the authority of the British Government: he served during the war in the Crimea until the 11th June, 1856, when the force was disbanded. At that time there was £104 due to him, but in consequence of some private quarrel a portion of that money was detained from him by the commanding officer of the Legion. He demanded it from General Storks, who promised to get it for him, but he had never obtained it. He was now reduced to the most abject poverty, and condemned to work at manual labour with his health shattered. He (Mr. Maguire) had seen two or three of the petitioners himself, and more pitiable and wretched objects he had never beheld. They were almost walking skeletons, and their whole condition was such as to excite commiseration. He asked the earnest and honest consideration of the Secretary of State for War to this case. Let some trustworthy person be employed to make inquiry, and if there was any truth in the statements made he conjured the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of those unfortunate people, as well as for the honour of the British name, to do them justice.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that with regard to the request of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley), who wished to have a copy of the Report of a Parlia-
1642
mentary Committee appointed by the War Office, the Treasury, and the Colonial Office, by his predecessor, the gallant General (General Peel) opposite, he had stated to him the other day that he thought, as a general rule, there was an objection to publishing the Reports of such a Committee; but it was also true that last year, when his right hon. Friend brought the matter before the House, he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had stated his opinion on the general subject; he stated the injustice in some cases and capriciousness with which these payments were distributed, and expressed the hope that some remedy would be found; and the Government were pursuing inquiries with that view. Generally speaking, he was opposed to making the Reports of these Departmental Committees public; but, as the one in question had been announced as occupying the attention of the Government, and as the foundation of some measure on the subject, he had in this particular case, having consulted the Colonial Minister, no objection to the production of the document. It would be found to be a document of great ability; but, of the three Members of the Committee, two had signed a Report opposed to that of the other. With respect to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) as one of charity and justice, he had to state that it was really a case of charity, not of justice. He believed the hon. Gentleman could not overstate the destitute condition to which these unhappy persons were reduced. Their case had been taken up by a lady who was a Russian subject, and who was now in this country on a very unfortunate mission connected with painful family circumstances. These men had entered the Turkish service originally in the regiment known as the Cossacks of the Sultan, and were subsequently taken into British pay; but the whole question was simply one of compact. The Government raised through an English agency a certain number of men to be added to that legion. These men were promised no bounty whatever. The complainants were either deserters from the Russian army, who were transferred where they were without the necessity of providing outfit for a long voyage, or they were prisoners taken from Bomarsund, and sent out at the expense of the Government to join this Cossack Legion. The contract with them was, that the officers should receive the pay of French officers, and the men of Turkish privates. That they re-

1643
ceived, and at the expiration of their service a certain gratuity. Some came back; others remained in Turkey. Those who came to England received all that was due to them, and gave a receipt as having been paid in full. They never made any complaint until last autumn, when they found that others who had enlisted in the same legion at a greater distance had received more money in order to compensate them for the expense of reaching it. The lieutenant who had been referred to had been dismissed from the service for some misconduct by his superior officer, who was the proper person to decide upon the case.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the subject of which I have given notice—the recent annexation of Savoy to France. It is a subject in which I take great interest, and I trust that, under the circumstances, the House will kindly bear with me in the statement I am about to make. Nay more, I believe the House will concur with me in thinking that, looking at the embarrassed state of foreign affairs at this moment, it is desirable, before we adjourn for the Easter vacation, that some expression of opinion should be made with reference to the position of Switzerland; and that we should have an opportunity of considering and weighing the immense and immediate danger with which the neutrality and independence of that country are now threatened by the annexation of Savoy to France. My object in rising to-night is, I may say, to endeavour to save Switzerland by a generous expression of sympathy on the part of this House and this nation, for I do think that she is greatly menaced by the position of France in her immediate neighbourhood. Individually I own I take a lively and very natural interest in the welfare of that country, having lived there for several years in a very impressionable period of my life. But I put that on one side. I come here as an Englishman, in the free Parliament of a free people, to advocate the principles of liberty wherever it may concern this country, and to maintain those principles wherever imperilled; and I shall be satisfied if, when I resume my seat, I shall have contributed to draw attention to, and thus serve the cause of that country whose rights and liberties are now imminently
  1644
  endangered. At the outset I must say that the repeated insinuations of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) against those who have advocated the interests of Europe in opposition to the aggressive policy of France are most unfounded. That hon. Gentleman is very severe in his criticism of those who venture to differ from him on political questions. We know the candour of his censures; but I am convinced almost every Member of this House dissents from the un-English policy which the hon. Gentleman would recommend Her Majesty's Government to pursue at this moment. That hon. Member repudiates the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) as well as those which I and abler Members of this House have expressed on several recent occasions on this question. But, mark you, those opinions are now the opinions of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Birmingham the other night said he repudiated those views because he represented a great English constituency; but, remember, we all of us form the collective representation of the entire constituent body in this country; and I say the hon. Gentleman, in disowning our views and the views of Her Majesty's Government, disowns the sentiments of nine-tenths of the town which has sent him to Parliament. That, however, is the hon. Member's own affair, and he had better look to it. I venture to tell him that if the new Reform Bill passes he will find himself very much in the position of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson)—the late Member for Manchester. But when the hon. Gentleman endeavours to persuade us that we have no direct interest in this great question, I believe he grossly misrepresents the general feeling of this country, and egregiously undervalues the depth of that feeling. I wish also now to state that, in bringing this subject before the House previous to the adjournment for the Easter Recess, I am certainly not actuated by any unfriendly feeling towards Her Majesty's Government. I only desire, as was said the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald), to strengthen their hands in the present emergency. I only desire to see them pursuing a policy worthy of this country and the grave responsibilities under which they are placed. They have shown much hesitation on several occasions in answering questions relating to

  1645
  foreign affairs; but I believe they could lose nothing by a generally diffused knowledge of what their policy has been within the last few weeks. Certainly I think the opinions expressed the other night by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary have had a very great effect in this country. Those opinions have immeasurably enhanced the confidence of the nation in the straightforward course which that noble Lord will unquestionably take in the conduct of these affairs. But why not let us know what has been the answer made to M. Thouvenel? It was promised to be laid on the table the other day; but we have never seen it? It is said in the streets that it is very spirited. Let us see, then, what your spirited answer is. Observe the difficulty in which Members of the present Government are placed by not informing the country what their policy has been. When in 1857 Mr. Cobden proposed a vote of censure on the Government, I think his expression was that their foreign policy had been "turbulent and aggressive." They were turned out of office in consequence. The year following, Mr. Milner Gibson,—the right hon. Member for Manchester then—moved another vote of censure against the Government for not having been, as he called it, sufficiently prompt in vindicating our national honour. That is to say, in 1857 the Government were too turbulent; and in 1858 they were not turbulent enough. All this comes of the country not knowing what your policy really is. But the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's memorable Motion is really worth recalling when we are considering the Government's hesitation to show us their despatch. The then right hon. Member for Manchester declared:—
  "This House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have not felt it their duty to make some reply to an important despatch received from the French Government on the 28th of January, 1858."
  Here we are in almost the same position. The right hon. Member for Ashton, sitting on his present comfortable bench, may, perhaps, not like to take the matter up now. But this important despatch has not been produced, and we are ignorant of its contents. I dare say it is "spirited," if it accords with the tone used the other night by the noble Foreign Secretary. There may be, however, doubts about that, but of this there can be no doubt, that a wanton outrage, fraught with the gravest consequences to the peace and happiness
  1646
  of nations, has just been offered to the Powers of Europe and the principles of justice. Within the last three days I think that last act has been signed, the effect of which must be, unless this country and the rest of Europe protests against it, to subvert the independence of Switzerland. What have been the assurances of France all this time? We all recollect the famous declaration, "L'empire, c'est la paix!" The French Government had over and over again solemnly declared that it aimed at no personal objects—that it sought no territorial aggrandizement. In his proclamation issued at Milan, the Emperor told the people of Lombardy:—
  "Vos ennemis, qui sont les miens, ont tenté de diminuer la sympathie universelle qu'il y avait en Europe pour votre cause, en faisant croire que je ne faisais la guerre que par ambition personnelle, ou pour aggrandir le territoire de la France."
  In his speech from the Throne, on opening his Chambers, on the 1st of March, the Emperor said, "La France ne menace personne;" and then went on to avow his hope, by the expansion of the resources of France and by the extension of liberty, "to console and reassure humanity." And this is the way in which he "consoles and reassures humanity." I think we have too long and too credulously listened to his good assurances; that we have too ingenuously accepted the good faith of his intentions. Whatever may be the consequences—and grave, I fear, they may be—of the present complications, certainly, as far as is consistent with the honour of this country, and the material interests of Europe, peace must be maintained. The House, I am sure, would be sorry to urge Her Majesty's Government to adopt a policy involving war, and all those painful concomitants of war with which, alas! too many of us are familiar. But, whether it be necessary by peace, or by a firm and rigorous attitude to encounter a policy on the part of France which is producing distrust tending to war, I think we all ought, as far as possible, consistently with peace, to strengthen the hands of the Imperial Government, which is responsible to Parliament for the safety of our interests and the maintenance of our honour. Nay, I go further than the hon. Member for Birmingham went the other night, and say that, whatever may be the particular interest of Russia, of Austria, of Germany, or even of Switzerland, I should be very sorry to see the Govern-

  1647
  ment of England adopting a policy calculated to plunge us into a war for no object of general interest. But is there no principle of common interest affecting this country at stake in what is now going on? I believe there is. Many hon. Gentlemen, here and out of doors, think Her Majesty's Government have connived in some way or other at the aggression and annexation now being pursued by France. I do not concur in that suspicion, and I have said so from the beginning. Appearances have been strongly against them, I admit. I think they have carried forbearance to its extreme limits. But I believe they have been deceived—grossly deceived. In fact, they have confessed as much themselves. But mark you, they have been deceived by a Power whose good faith and good intentions they were bound to accept after the repeated assurances they had received. Is there, then, I repeat a principle of common interest at stake? I believe there is. I ask the House to observe the position in which Europe is now placed. Is it likely that the Emperor, having rejected all the friendly remonstrances of this country and of others, having by his desperate policy plunged France into a system of aggrandizement and territorial aggression, will now stop and be satisfied with what he has obtained, even if he be able to curb the further progress of the revolutionary—for it is revolutionary—policy which he is pursuing? It is the revolutionary policy of 1848, which was adopted by M. Lamartine and by M. Louis Blanc; and I ask you, as we know that ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute, whether it is not most probable that, having tasted the pleasures of ambition, and witnessed "the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war," the Emperor will take the first opportunity of proceeding to some conquest which will more materially affect the interests of Europe. If that be so, we have at this moment the great and important duty to perform of endeavouring, with the assistance of the rest of Europe, to cheek his progress. What is the feeling of Europe at this moment? Does Europe feel with us? The hon. Member for Birmingham thinks that it does not. The other night he said, to my astonishment, "Russia takes no interest in this miserable question." The hon. Member for Birmingham calls that "a miserable question" which concerns the liberties of half a million of people. He said, "Does Russia take an interest,
  1648
  does Austria take an interest in it? Austria won't join you in a quarrel about Savoy or Switzerland, when not one word has been said about her own dismemberment." He must not think that every Power has that feeling of jealousy and nasty spitefulness. I believe that Austria, although she has suffered severely, has sufficient manliness still to come forward in the interest of the rest of Europe to endeavour to vindicate the right, and to defend the principles which she has herself sworn to adopt. The hon. Gentleman says that you can't get up any interest in the question in this country. In answer to that assertion, I may appeal to the state of the House at this moment; I may appeal to this crowded assembly, called together by no words of mine, but by an active and determined interest in the welfare of Switzerland. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that you can't get up an interest on this subject; adding that there is some little attention paid to it by one newspaper, but that it is a newspaper notorious for a mixture of piety and ruffianism. That is the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham speaks of a free press. He says that day after day that newspaper endeavours to stir up the passions of the people by vituperations—I am referring to what I have read in the newspapers—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Baronet not to refer in detail to a past debate.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Of course I bow with submission to the Chair. I was merely alluding to what I read had taken place. One thing I recollect having seen in the newspapers, and that was, that it was insinuated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) that the guilty instigators of these vituperations were princes of the House of Orleans. Now, I do think that that was a most unjust and ungenerous imputation for any man to cast upon a family like the House of Orleans. They are princes of an exalted family, and I am assured that I speak the sentiments of the House, when I say that, weighed down as they are by the bitterest visitation with which Providence could afflict a family, they have, during all the time that they have resided in this country, conducted themselves with a nobility of character, and more than a nobility of character—with a dignity of demeanour which has gained for them the sympathies of every one, except the hon. Member for Birming-

  1649
  ham, who, coupling them with the Savoyards, is so ready to cry down and afflict them. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman himself may never be placed in such a position as to learn what it is to be deprived of his home and of the country of his birth. [A laugh]. I do not mean to say that he is ever likely to become a Sovereign. Let me now call back the attention of the House to the inquiry, "Is the feeling of Europe opposed to the consideration of this question?" Russia, they say, is cool about it. Why, Russia is at this moment occupied with a great question of domestic policy, and of course she is more ready to turn her attention to the East than to the West. But take Prussia. Take Prussia, with her well-organized army and her loyal people; what are the feelings of Prussia? Were they not nobly expressed in that despatch of Baron Schleinitz, which was quoted the other night? I have not it by me, but it was a generous and noble expression of feeling on the part of the Chief Minister of that country. Recollect that that is a country which has never forgotten, and I hope never will forget, the injustice and indignities which were heaped upon it by the First Napoleon, until the genius of the Duke of Wellington and the sword of Blucher vindicated its national honour. The Prussians must feel very deeply when they are told that the Rhine is threatened now. Do not tell me that the whole of Europe is perfectly indifferent to what may take place! Above all, do not tell me that Prussia, with its devoted army, and its loyal people, is contented to assent to the aggressions of France. Well, then, I come to Austria. They say that Austria won't make any move with regard to Switzerland, because nothing was said when her own territory was dismembered. It is true that Austria has had to suffer a very heavy calamity; but I believe that any one who studied the campaign in Italy will admit that nothing could have been more heroic than the way in which the Austrian soldiers fought throughout that campaign. Of course our sympathies were with the Italians; but at the same time we admired the way in which the Austrians fought under the direction of men who were unequal to the emergency. The Austrian army showed itself worthy to be the army of a great empire, and I am satisfied that if it had been better organized it would have contended with greater success even against the forces of France. But what is the
  1650
  condition of Austria at this moment? There are two causes which prevent Austria from taking any active interest in this question, religious discord and financial embarrassment. Any one who has watched the affairs of Austria will know that ever since 1855, when the concordat with Rome was concluded, there has been much religious dissension in that country. The Austrian empire contains a population of 35,000,000, of whom 3,000,000 are Protestants, and they conceive that their religious feelings and religious rights have been very much compromised by the concordat. That is an element of discord against which it is most difficult for any Power to contend; but there is another embarrassment, which is still more important, because it concerns the supply of the sinews of war. Every one knows that Austria is at this moment labouring under the greatest possible burden of financial difficulty. I believe that I am correct in saying that within the last eleven years the public debt of that country has increased 150 per cent, and that at this moment it amounts to more than eight times the annual revenue. Nay, to show the difficulty which Austria has in raising money, I believe that the last loan she attempted to negotiate failed upon every bourse in Europe. I ask you then, is it likely that she should take any active part in assisting us to arrest the aggressions of France? But this I will say, that I believe her sympathies, that I believe the sympathies of Germany, are entirely in favour of Switzerland. Let us see for a moment how it is that all these difficulties have fallen upon Switzerland. Just consider for one moment what it is that presses down that country. It is this unhappy policy of France. I, in common with everybody else in this country, hoped that France was acting a noble part towards Italy, that she was acting disinterestedly, that she was really desirous to free that country; but there has been this arrière pensée all through her transactions. From the very beginning she has been seeking to obtain what she calls un territoire de très peu d'étendue, but what is both politically and strategetically of great importance to Europe. France has always been desirous to obtain possession of that. Her expression was that she wanted nothing that need alarm Europe, nothing but un territoire de très peu d'étendue; and that neither by military operations nor by insurrection would

  1651
  she seek to acquire these provinces. These are the provinces which abut upon Switzerland, which are absolutely essential to the salvation of that country, and which for 230 years have been considered absolutely necessary to its welfare. Savoy un territoire de très peu d'étendue! Why, Sir, this is the territory that in 1814 Lord Castlereagh and Capo d'Istria were both determined that France should not have. France desired to have Chablais, which abuts upon Switzerland, in order that she might gain a footing upon the Lake of Geneva. Russia and England, represented by Capo d'Istria and Pozzo di Borgo, by Lord Clancarty and Lord Castlereagh, prevented her from then acquiring that territory, but she has now taken it without asking. I wonder whether the Emperor of the French ever reads his Bible [A laugh]. It is a very serious matter. If he does, I wonder it does not recall to his recollection that small territory which Ahab the King wanted to take from Naboth the Jezreelite. That was un territoire de très pea d'étendue. Ahab wanted it for money, and took it with blood, and what was the consequence? The cry of the weak rose like a sacrifice to the Almighty, and the expectations of the rich man were blasted with disappointment. Such, I believe, will be the case in the present instance. We do not live in a period when miraculous interpositions take place, but I hope that the cry of the weak will still find an echo with the Government of this country; sure I am that it will find an echo in this House of Parliament. You ought not to disregard national feeling. This country never has disregarded national feeling in Europe. I well recollect to have read in the speeches of a great Parliamentary leader, when some Members of the House of Commons were urging the Government to adopt a policy of cowardice and cringing towards the first Emperor of the French, of which I hope that we shall have no examples in the present day— I well recollect that when those Members of the House of Commons were attacking the Duke of Wellington, and arguing that, after all, Napoleon would govern the Spaniards a great deal better than the Spaniards governed themselves, Mr. Canning, with that magnificent élan of character which always distinguished him, said, "National feeling ! National feeling is prior to and paramount over every consideration of political conveni-
  1652
  ence." And I, Sir, think the national feeling which has been aroused not only in Switzerland but in every country of Europe by the aggressive policy of France is worthy of the attention of this House and the country. What are the reasons which M. Thouvenel gives for the annexation of Savoy and Nice? At first he said the people would be consulted; — the people are against annexation. Then he said he would consult the municipalities;—the municipalities agree with the people. Then he promised to consult the Powers of Europe;—the Powers of Europe are of the same opinion as the people and the municipalities; but before they have had time to return an answer France has accomplished the annexation. The conduct of M. Thouvenel has been marked throughout by a duplicity unworthy the Minister of a great empire. He says in a despatch to the French Minister at Berne, "Historical traditions favour the annexation of Savoy to France." Really, Sir, I should have liked to answer that despatch. It is a total perversion of the truth. He tries to show that France has always wanted Savoy. Why, Sir, the conduct of France towards Savoy has always been the very reverse. Charles Emmanuel was Duke of Savoy when Henry IV. was King of France. Charles Emmanuel, profiting by the internal dissensions of France, endeavoured to extend the limits of his Duchy. Henry IV. attacked him, and took the whole of Savoy; but what was his policy? He was generous and politic, and having inflicted this lesson upon Charles Emmanuel returned Savoy to its Duke. How can M. Thouvenel say that "historical traditions favour the annexation of Savoy?" Louis XIII., in 1628, acting under the advice of Richelieu, also took Savoy; Hastening to Italy to arrest the progress of Austrian influence, and advancing through Savoy with the view of crossing into Italy, he demanded the passage of the Alps, then in the occupation of the Duke of Savoy. This was refused, and although defended with heroic courage, a passage was forced by the French Army through what is called the Pas de Suze. But, generous and politic, Louis XIII. did not, any more than Henri IV., seek to retain these versants Francais des montagnes; but he, too, gave Savoy back to the Duke,—another conclusive proof that historical traditions are not in favour of the annexation of Savoy to France. It is only

  1653
  since the dynasty of Napoleon has arisen that any attempt has been made to take permanent possession of that which has for so many centuries belonged to the Dukes of Savoy. But in a despatch to M. Persigny, the French Minister particularly alludes to this question. He there says that circumstances had compelled the Emperor to interfere in Italy, and that the annexation of Savoy and Nice has been considered by several of the principal Powers of Europe as a compensation due to France. That statement is also without foundation. Castlereagh and Clancarty, Capo d'Istria and Pozzo di Borgo, were all desirous of preventing Savoy being annexed to France. I trust that the House will excuse me if I enter into the details of this question yet more at length; but I have now to inquire how the King of Piedmont could have been induced to part with those provinces which abut upon Switzerland, and which he was bound either to keep or to return to Switzerland? I maintain he has no more right to part with Savoy to the Emperor of the French than the Sovereign of this country would have to part with Gibraltar, or than Charles II. had to part with Dunkirk. It was given to him as a defence against France, and he was paid 10,000,000 francs, to fortify it, as an inducement to keep it. Count Cavour hopes the declarations of M. Thouvenel will be satisfactory to the Powers, as they are satisfactory to the Savoyards. What, I ask, is the truth of the case? The people of Savoy and of Piedmont, it is said, have given an expression to their opinion; but, Sir, I hold in my hand a manifesto and a declaration from the provinces of Haute Savoie containing some 12,000 signatures, and in a letter which accompanies that declaration, I read that those signatures comprise the bonâ fide names of the inhabitants of the provinces named, and they are stated, by those in authority, to be chiefly composed of small landowners and a few avocat s. My correspondent adds, that the names of the Savoyards resident in Geneva are not included. A more remarkable manifestation of opinion never occurred, and its importance is increased by the fact, which has been communicated to me from Chambery, that the French agents are doing everything in their power to get up a movement in favour of France,— —Les agens de France font dans ces vallées une propagande formidable— and have bought nearly all the newspapers, which,
  1654
  consequently, give a very false idea of the feelings and wishes of the population. I cannot understand a policy which gives liberty to Italy and destroys it in Switzerland and Savoy, and it is impossible not to contrast the conduct of the King of Piedmont in 1814 with that of the present sovereign. France had annexed Savoy in 1792, and for 22 years it had been separated from the rule of the Victor Emmanuel of that day. In 1814 the Powers had the greatest difficulty in inducing the King of Piedmont to give up a portion of his territory, upon the understanding that it should be comprised in the Swiss neutrality, because, he said, he could not think of separating himself from "old, faithful, and loyal subjects." These are the very words. The Plenipotentiaries of the Powers addressed themselves to the King of Sardinia to obtain from him the cession of this part of his hereditary dominions, but they experienced the greatest difficulty, "dans la repugnance qu'eprouvait Victor Emmanuel de se séparer de bons anciens et fidèles sujets." The Victor Emmanuel of the present day is ready to make any sacrifice in that respect, and I cannot help thinking that his conduct shows he is little worthy to reign over that brave and devoted race. The House of Savoy should have one resemblance to the glaciers of that country. As the glaciers take their form from the womb of the mountains out of which they burst, so the House of Savoy ought to bear the stamp of the people among whom it sprang into existence, and over whom it has reigned for so many centuries. But the hon. Member for Birmingham exclaims, "Perish Savoy!" and he says to the Savoyards, "The industry of Lyons will double your incomes, and therefore you can easily shunt your loyalty." The hon. Member must have been thinking of the loyalty of the House of Savoy, and not of the loyalty of the people. "Perish Savoy!" I should rather say—Perish the future destinies of a Power which seeks to enlarge its boundaries by sacrificing the liberties of half a million of people who for eight centuries have been the mainstay of its existence and the rock of its defence! Savoy has been called by the Ambassador of France a barren rock. When I heard that phrase, I declared that every time I alluded to the subject, I would bring that expression to the bar of public opinion and stigmatize it as it deserves. The people, Sir, are poor, but

  1655
  the very rocks among which they live make them place a higher value upon liberty and independence than upon the industry of Lyons and the duplication of their incomes. I am almost afraid it is all over with Switzerland, and Savoy is already gone. A deputation from Savoy went to the Emperor to offer him the country, and it is quite amusing to read how the Emperor received this deputation. I do not know where the deputies came from, but they arrived in cabs at the Place Vendome, dressed in the national costume. Having dined with the Emperor, they received a photograph of the Imperial Family, signed in memoriam, 24th March, and since then they have not been heard of. It is a very curious thing that the Emperor, when he received them, made a most striking remark to one of the deputies from Chablais, which is close to Switzerland. He said, "By the way, Député Savoisien, are there any barracks in your country?" "Yes, Sire," replied the deputy; and then the Emperor exclaimed, "Ah! Je vais vous envoyer des troupes, dont la présence donne toujours de la vie et de l'animation aux pays." That is charming —that is the way in which the liberties of these people are going to be got rid of, and the manner in which they are to be deprived of what they at present enjoy. I am afraid that they will have but a slight enjoyment of the liberty which they expect to receive from the Emperor of the French. It is curious to observe that the family of Napoleon are always talking about liberty and national feeling. I recollect a famous letter of the first Napoleon, which was published the other day, and the present Napoleon is following precisely the policy of the dynasty. It is only surprising that we cannot be on our guard against what must be the infallible consequences if we allow that policy step by step to advance. There was a letter, which the first Napoleon wrote to his brother Joseph, who was a quiet man, and not in favour of violent measures. In this letter the first Napoleon wrote,— "Mind you favour national feeling." But, at the same time, in a private letter he said, "Crush every sign of national feeling; enfin faites brûler les maisons, trente des principaux de chaque village et distribuez leur bien à l'armée. Livrez au sac deux ou trois gros bourgs cela servira d'example, et rendra aux soldats de la joie et de la gaiété." These Savoyards will have to undergo the
  1656
  same consequences, and the people of, Switzerland are in the same danger. La question Suisse, let me remind the House, is a different thing from la question Savoisienne. The question of Switzerland is one of the deepest moment. From the earliest time the President of the Swiss Confederation impressed upon Captain Harris "that it was of vital importance to the safety and independence of Switzerland that Savoy, and especially 'Haute-Savoie,' should never be annexed to France; for if that took place the flank of Switzerland would be completely open, and Geneva would inevitably follow." "We know," he added, "what passed in 1792." Why in 1792 France annexed Savoy, and in 1798 France annexed also the town and territory of Geneva. The President of the Swiss Confederation clearly foresaw that this must happen again. The hon. Member for Birmingham has said that Savoy is politically worthless. That expression shall not go forth without correction, and so I have quoted what the President of the Swiss Confederation says with regard to the annexation of Savoy to France. Louis Napoleon in one of his writings says, "Not only will Savoy augment the French territory, but it will open the great Simplon road, and give to France la liberté des Alpes, et en cas de guerre un magnifique champ de bataille pour une lutte offensive et defensive." When the first Napoleon annexed Savoy, did he think it unimportant? This only shows how the hon. Member for Birmingham makes statements without the slightest foundation. The first Napoleon, directly after he took Savoy, he himself stated that he considered the occupation of Switzerland as a thing absolutely necessary on military grounds, and he came to the same conclusion on political grounds. For these reasons he commenced his intrigues against Switzerland, occupied its cantons and laid contributions on them, seized the public treasure, the Government funds, plundered the magazines and arsenals of stores of all descriptions in fact, according to official documents he robbed Berne alone of no less than 45,000,000 francs. Can Switzerland forget the horrors inflicted by the French troops? Can the Swiss ever forget how Brune, Schauenberg, and Rapinat, generals under the direction of Bonaparte, behaved towards them. Can Europe forget that Bonaparte, before the close of that very year 1798, compelled the Swiss to grant him two roads for the passage of his

  1657
  army, one by the Lake of Constance, the other the route du Simplon through the Canton of Vallais. It is singular that while the President of the Swiss Confederation was continually pointing out to Captain Harris that there was great danger for Switzerland; that Captain Harris, on the other hand, replied that there was no occasion for alarm; that no change would take place of a neutral territory without the entire consent of the parties to the treaties. The President of the Swiss Confederacy, however, insisted upon the danger, and said that without consulting the Powers these important provinces would be annexed. On the 19th January, Captain Harris wrote to the noble Lord, describing the fears of the President; but he added that he (Captain Harris) had told the President that he ought to have confidence in the opinions expressed by Her Majesty's Government. Events have shown that, whatever confidence he might have had in the assurances of Her Majesty's Government, the result to the independence of the country from the aggression of France is likely to be most fatal. Very great satisfaction has, indeed, been afforded by the answer given by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a question I put to him sometime back. I asked the noble Lord whether the Government were prepared to abandon the neutrality of Switzerland as guaranteed by Great Britain in common with the other Powers, and the noble Lord replied in language worthy of himself and his country,
  "That the Swiss Government have asked us whether, in case of such annexation (of Savoy), we are prepared to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and to provide in such a manner that the neutrality should in no way be injured, and we have always replied that we have determined to do so; that Chablais and Faucigny were parts of the general arrangements for the guarantee of Switzerland; and that if separated from Sardinia they ought to be annexed to Switzerland."
  It is a curious thing that M. Thouvenel at one time made the same assertion—I have forgotten the date, but I think it was on the 5th of February—for he told Earl Cowley that if Savoy should be united to France the provinces of Chablais and Faucigny should go to Switzerland. But the French Government and M. Thouvenel have strangely changed their opinions; and in point of fact it is impossible to expect them to abide for one week by their declarations. One of the most unworthy documents I ever cast my eye over is the answer of M. Thouvenel to M. Turgot at
  1658
  Berne. He says, for instance, that the principle of sovereignty implies the right of the sovereign of any nation, from whatever motive, to cede the whole or any part of his states, and that none would be justified in opposing such measures unless they should result in a disturbance of the balance of power in Europe. This is a most extraordinary doctrine to hold in the middle of the nineteenth century. That a sovereign should be entitled to give away his people as he may desire—can this be maintained in the nineteenth century? It is a re-establishment of the divine right of kings; and I, for one, will never give my adhesion to a principle which gives up a people who have for centuries been accustomed to the enjoyment of liberty into the hands of a man who governs under the most severe of despotisms and for the most ambitious purposes. M. Thouvenel said the neutralization of the districts in question had not been originally arranged with a view to the protection of the Swiss frontier, because that was sufficiently defended by an impassable barrier. This means the neutrality guaranteed by Europe. Nothing can be more futile than such an assertion. I will not, however, enter more fully into the question. But I am bound to say that I think we should interfere, if we can, at the present moment. I do not like to see this country interfere in matters in which its interests are not concerned. For instance, there was recently an attempted interference between Spain and Morocco. I do not approve that. Again, there are some passages in the despatches of Mr. Elliot from Naples which I think are far from satisfactory. On one occasion Mr. Elliot tells the King that such and such a thing has occurred. The King says that his Ministers have told him just the contrary, upon which Mr. Elliot replies in the most overbearing manner, that what the Neapolitan Ministers say does not matter to him; the King may believe that what he has told him is the case. Into the Neapolitan question I do not wish to enter, but the position assumed by our representative cannot, I think, be altogether justified. But the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) says that England has always ignominiously failed in the exercise of its influence with foreign countries. I do not agree with him. Did Mr. Pitt ignominiously fail when he endeavoured to use the influence of this country in Europe? Did Lord Castlereagh, did Mr. Canning, did the Earl of Aberdeen, did Sir Stratford

  1659
  Canning ignominiously fail? In 1830 Viscount Palmerston was Foreign Minister. I allude to an historical circumstance, and therefore mention the noble Lord's name. He did not ignominiously fail in making the influence of England felt in Europe. The question of Belgium had then to be treated, and, through the influence of England and of Europe, Belgium has for thirty years enjoyed the blessings of constitutional Government, under a wise and liberal Sovereign. Again, did Viscount Palmerston fail, during 1838–9 and '40 in making the influence of this country felt as regards the affairs of the East? Then I say that what we want now is a generous and a vigorous protest on the part of the British Government. I recollect in 1847, when the question of Cracow arose, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) made a protest, from which I wish to read a sentence. He said:—
  "I consider that in late transactions in Europe, although on more than one occasion, and by different Powers, our wishes have not been complied with, our desires have not been listened to, our protests may have been disregarded, yet there does remain with us a moral strength nothing can take away. … We are ready in the face of Europe, however inconvenient some of those stipulations may be, to hold ourselves bound by all our engagements to keep the fame and the name and the honour of the Crown of England unsullied, and to guard that unsullied honour as a jewel which we will not have tarnished." [3 Hansard, xc, 894.
  That was the protest of the noble Lord against the conduct of the three Powers in 1847 with regard to Cracow, and I hope to see that the English Government has not retrograded since then. I hope also to see a vigorous protest from this House. We are not, as the French paper said, the nominees, the écuyers, and the chambellans of an Imperial Court, but we are the free Parliament of a free people. This House is a great assembly, and ought to exercise the rights which belong to it as the representative of a great country. We have always been battling against France. It has been the policy of this country to counteract the policy of France, and we have done so successfully. We checked the aggression of Louis XIV. and of Louis XV.; we curbed the ambition of the First Napoleon, and are now called upon to check the unhappy policy which the present Emperor of the French seems desirous of inaugurating. I hope the Emperor will not, like his uncle, curse Europe with the destruction and the desolation which swept over its face in the last great
  1660
  war. If he does, and if we resist him, our quarrel will be a just, our cause a good one, and worthy of this country. Shakspeare says,—
  "Thrice is he arm'd who hath his quarrel just, And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."
  I believe that to be the corruption which now infects the Imperial policy; and that injustice sooner or later will bear bitter fruits in the retributive condemnation with which it will be met. This very night I have been told that perhaps there may yet be some hope for Switzerland, and that the union of Chablais and Faucigny with France is not yet accomplished. If that be so, I ask the House to join me in a protest which shall vindicate the interest and the liberties of Switzerland. I ask the House to allow me to be its interpreter on this occasion in favour of a liberty-loving nation and of a most loyal Republic. I ask it to allow me by anticipation to give expression to its feelings, and I think the House will then concur with me when I say in the name of public opinion in this country, that upon every principle of justice, of honour, and of right it is absolutely necessary that these provinces should be annexed to Switzerland, or otherwise you will infallibly see that Republic sink into the lowest depths to which it can descend, the consequence of its absorption into the Imperial domains, and of its subjection to the Imperial dynasty of France.
  Question, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next," put and negatived.

INCOME TAX BILL.

  CONSIDERED AS AMENDED.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th March, "That the Bill as amended in the Committee, be now taken into consideration."]
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be convenient to know when the Government intended that the adjournment for the Easter holidays should take place.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the Government hoped to move the adjournment of the House on Tuesday next, if the state of business would allow it, but at all events Wednesday.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had a suggestion to make to the noble Lord (Lord J. Rus-

  1661
  sell) respecting the state of public business. It was unfortunate that the Budget, involving as it did an unusual number of questions, should be mixed up with the question of Reform; and he suggested that it would be better to go on with the Budget and get all those subjects disposed of, and then proceed with the Reform Bill from day to day. He knew that the Reform Bill was put off until after Easter, but the same difficulty might occur then, unless some such plan were adopted. The repeated adjournments which had taken place of late were not just to the Government, to the House, nor to the question of Reform.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the course which the hon. Gentleman recommended was that which he intended to take. He proposed to fix the Reform Bill for the 19th or 20th of April. By that time he hoped that the principal questions involved in the Budget would be gone through, and it would not be advisable to postpone the Reform Bill any longer. The second reading of the measure would then be taken, and at the end of April he hoped they might go into Committee. When the adjourned debate was resumed it would certainly continue from day to day on the evenings at the disposal of the Government.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that an important Bill—the Church Rate Bill—was fixed for Thursday, the 19th of April.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in that case, he would fix the Reform Bill for Friday, the 20th.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to take the opportunity of protesting against the unfair taxation to which Ireland was subjected as compared with England, and which was quite opposed to the spirit and the terms of the Act of Union. The revenue derived from Ireland last year was £7,000,000, but that did not represent the whole of Ireland's contributions to the Imperial exchequer. Nearly all the articles paying Customs' and Excise duties consumed in Ireland were imported from England, where those duties were paid, and were included in the taxation of England, but, of course, the Irish consumer was the person who really paid them. The amount of those duties could not be less than £2,000,000, making £9,000,000 of taxation; but to that was to be added at least £4,000,000 drawn annually from Ireland and spent in Eng-
  1662
  land by absentee proprietors, thus making a total drain of £13,000,000 from Ireland. Then, again, as to the expenditure, he found that nearly all the great Government establishments were in England, and the money paid to support them was again distributed over the country. He found by a Report laid before Parliament, that after paying for the different charges of Government in Ireland, no less than £2,252,000 was remitted to this country, leaving still a balance of about £1,000,000 to the credit of Ireland. By the Act of Union, the debts of the two countries were to be kept separate, but since 1824 no distinction had been made. He knew it was said to be productive of real amity between the two kingdoms that all distinctions should cease; but while he desired a real union he did not wish it to be upon the basis of considering Ireland as a province of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked of the increase of wealth as justifying the increase of the income tax, but he (Colonel Dunne) denied that there was any increase of wealth in Ireland. He found from the Returns that between 1854 and 1859, although there had been an increase upon schedule A, there had been a decrease upon schedules B, C, and D. He therefore totally denied that the prosperity of Ireland was increasing after the ratio mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. There was actually—astounding as might be the fact—500,000 acres less land cultivated now than were under cultivation in 1847. It might be true that the farms were larger, but making them so had added to the misery of the people by necessitating evictions. Had commerce advanced in Ireland? At that moment the value of the exports and imports did not amount to more than £300,000. No doubt there had been an increase in the trade with England, for if there had been no such increase there would be no prosperity whatever. It was, however, remarkable, that the foreign exports and imports from and to Ireland were considerably less now than in 1790, ten years before the Union. At that time they were then no less than £1,000,000. Where, then, was the enormous prosperity of Ireland, which was to entitle the right hon. Gentleman to add to its taxation? There was no ground on which to base it, nor any reason to suppose that the people were more able to pay it than they had formerly been. It was true that they had

  1663
  removed the duties on butter and some other things. The value of the butter exported from Ireland was about £1,000,000. That was the trade between England and Ireland chiefly; but by the removal of differental duties they had admitted the competition of all the world. In other words there was free trade. In these days the mere mention of free trade seemed to be an excuse for everything, and that was the great cry which had been raised to force through the late commercial treaty with France, by which she gained and England lost everything. But then it was said, "O, this tax is necessary for increasing our defences." What had they added, he would ask, to the defences of Ireland? Had they sent her a single additional gun or raised a single additional fort? They were not even allowed to raise volunteer corps in that country. Why did not the Government, if they distrusted the Irish, tell them so at once. Yet there was no part of the British nation more loyal or more willing to come forward in defence of the country than were the Irish. The Irish, besides, had no occasion for that extraordinary preparation for defence. They had never nourished a feeling of national antipathy to the French; on the contrary, there were reminiscences and associations which connected almost every family in Ireland with France, and there was not that hostile feeling which continual wars had fostered between England and France. While, therefore, he asserted that the agricultural wealth and commercial prosperity of Ireland were not such as to justify the imposition of an additional income tax, he asserted also that there were not sound reasons for the expenditure of large sums for defence in that country. If, however, war broke out between France and England, the Irish would readily assist in the defence of England, although they objected to pay additional taxation for purposes of defence—not in Ireland, but in England. He hoped that ere long every Irish Member would come to Parliament pledged to settle the fair proportion of taxation to be borne by Ireland; but, until that arrangement was made, every Irishman ought to object to any additional taxation whatever. He submitted that it was high time that taxation as between Ireland and England should be settled on a proper basis, because at present he was perfectly satisfied that they paid what was not fair. Those were Irish
  1664
  considerations; but he thought also that there were strong reasons why this additional income tax should not be imposed upon England in order to fill up the deficiency occasioned by the repeal of the paper duty. Indeed, he had strong doubts whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to pass his Paper Duty Repeal Bill without imposing a foreign import duty. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was not then the same disposition in favour of his Commercial Treaty with France as existed two or three weeks previously, before the nature of the bargain was fully known, and before the manifestation of French policy in the annexation of Savoy, which had created universal distrust. He reminded the House that not only had France gained everything in the Treaty, but that for years she had snatched at and obtained every commercial advantage, while she had surrendered none. The people of this country were, therefore, not so favourably disposed towards the Treaty, and did not see why—for the very problematical advantages this country was to receive—an additional income tax should be levied, in direct contradiction to the assurance given in former years by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should come off in 1860. The subject was, therefore, a fair one for reconsideration, and he proposed that the income tax should be 9d. instead of 10 d.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "Ten Pence," and insert the words "Nine Pence," instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had anticipated the view which Her Majesty's Government must necessarily take of the Motion he had made. His speech was broader and larger in its views than altogether suited the occasion, and, on the other hand, his Motion, though one of great importance, did not seem to belong to his speech. The gist of the gallant Gentleman's speech was, that there was no cause for assuming the capacity of Ireland to bear equal taxation, and that Ireland had a right to complain of being subject to the same taxation as England. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should say at once that it was a legitimate course for the gallant Gentleman to bring that reasoning under the consideration of Parliament, but he did not raise the proper issue in moving a universal reduction of the tax. The logical

  1665
  sequence from his promises would have been to introduce a distinction in favour of Ireland in proposing an income tax. Not that such a Motion would have met with a more ready assent from the Government, because he was prepared to contend, that there was no real equality of rights and liberties without an equality of taxation, and he must say that the manner in which the income tax had all along been borne by Ireland showed that the people there were well aware that that was a sound political doctrine, and that exemptions and privileges granted to a country in matters of taxation were nothing more than the note of political depression and degradation. The Government always set out with assuming that it was the intention of the House to maintain the public credit and to provide so much revenue as would be necessary to meet the estimated expenditure. On that principle they could not part with the penny which the gallant Gentleman proposed to take off the tax without leaving the exchequer involved in a probable deficiency; at a time, too, when the expenditure was more than usually uncertain; because, though we were not in a state of war, yet we had a military expedition on hand which might issue in war at a distant part of the globe, and if it did issue in war there would be an imperative call for a considerable expenditure for that purpose. The provision already made for that expedition was very considerable, and in that event it would have to be increased still more. He thought it enough to state, what was undeniable, that according to all the best estimates that could be formed of the revenue and expenditure of the year, the loss of £850,000 in round numbers, which the Motion of the gallant Gentleman would cause, if carried, would leave the Government in a deficiency of about £500,000. It was true that in his speech on the Budget in the beginning of February, he assumed a surplus of £460,000, yet since then some few of the proposed minor charges had been modified, which would reduce the surplus to £360,000, and if £850,000 more was deducted there would be a deficit of half a million. He was convinced it was not the wish of the gallant Gentleman to assist in bringing about such a result. He hoped the gallant Gentleman would not believe that he was slighting his Motion. The whole argument, in fact, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had just stated it, was summed up in a
  1666
  couple of sentences, and it was his duty to Oppose the Motion.
  Question, "That the words 'Ten Pence' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to beg leave to modify Clause 8 in such a way as that incomes under £150 a year should be exempted from income tax. When this tax was first proposed by Sir Robert Peel he considered it would be an act of great oppression to impose it upon incomes under £150, and this exemption continued from 1841 to 1853, although several renewals took place by different Governments in the course of that period. In the year 1853 the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a great financial scheme in which he proposed reductions of taxation on several articles which entered largely into the consumption of the great mass of the common people, and he made out that those reductions would, in the consumption of ordinary families, more than counterbalance the imposition of 5d. in the pound on incomes between £100 and £150. The right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him; but what was the consequence? In less than twelve months the taxes on the necessaries of life were increased to an enormous extent, as well as the tax upon incomes between £100 and £150, so that all the principles upon which the right hon. Gentleman obtained the sanction of the House were completely violated. In 1853 the tax was 5d. in the pound, but now in the year 1860—when, according to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, the income tax was to cease altogether—it was made 7d. in the pound on those incomes, and, the taxes on the necessaries of life, such as tea, were kept considerably above what he had proposed. There were several classes, such as labouring men who worked extra time, clerks, small tradesmen, clergymen, and retired officers of the army and navy, to whom this tax was a severe burden, and greatly interfered with the maintenance of a respectable position, and even with the education of their children. But what was the cause for those taxes? It was to be found in this, that the Estimate for this year for the army and navy amounted to £18,000,000 more than had been required by the most eminent men that ever governed this country,—Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. The necessity for this increase of £18,000,000 he believed nobody, except Her Majesty's Government, understood, Probably they had

  1667
  an apprehension of a war; but, if war should arise, they might come down then and ask for an increased grant from the House. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Army Estimates to be referred to an impartial Committee, he (Mr. Williams) would undertake to show that a reduction might be effected without lessening the strength or efficiency of the army in any respect. And he would say the same of the Miscellaneous Estimates. For these reasons he begged to move the modification of which he had spoken, and he should take the sense of the House upon it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, after the words "one hundred," to insert the words "and fifty."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, there could be no doubt of the extreme pressure of this tax on the lower class of incomes. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplated the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the inequalities in the operation of the tax. Some such course ought to be pursued, for the present Budget left the tax in a most uncomfortable position. The extremely unequal pressure of the tax on all property in Schedule A was indisputable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself proved that the 7d. income tax was nearly a 9d. tax on property under that schedule; and he believed that the 10 d. rate about to be imposed would operate at the present moment as a rate of 1s. on all real property. In a town in which he was himself interested—Leamington—there were two rentals in the ratebook—one the net and the other the gross rental. Those who paid upon the gross rental paid, in point of fact, a tax upon a tax—they paid not merely upon their income, but upon their income and taxes as well. Under the exigency of war an income tax might be tolerated, and even in peace a small tax of, say, 5d. in the pound, might be borne; but to levy so heavy and unequal a tax as 10 d. in time of peace upon all incomes was contrary to the first principles of justice. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would announce their intention of endeavouring to grapple with the subject, and remove at least some of the most glaring injustices.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought that to enter upon any one or two or three of the many anomalies of the income tax would simply be to detract from that inquiry which must take place at a future
  1668
  period, and which ought to be attended with greater deliberation than could then be given to the subject. At that juncture a lengthened debate on the subject would be neither for the interest or convenience of the country, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so situated that the passing of this measure was a matter of necessity. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some information as to the feelings with which the tax was viewed by the Government. It was a grave consideration that the income tax was about to be imposed for one year only. That a tax producing £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, so full of injustice that no statesman could justify it, should be levied for only one year, was a state of things productive of much apprehension, and the House ought to know by what means the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to provide at the end of the year for the revenue of the country. The Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth was objectionable because its effect would be materially to lessen the productiveness of the tax, which the right hon. Gentleman could very ill afford. He objected to the Motion, however, upon principle. He thought that where the wages of unskilled labour ceased, and higher wages began to represent a combination of skill and capital, there Parliament might begin to levy an income tax. The incidence of the tax might fairly begin at £100, and the interval between £100 and £150 was, he thought, not unwisely chargeable with a diminished ratio of tax as compared with incomes exceeding £150. The House had nothing to do now but to pass the Bill and to assist the Government out of the difficulty in which they had placed themselves by the unwise remission of indirect taxation. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would concur on some subsequent day in the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, who might recommend some revision of the tax, so as to make it less objectionable, for use it at present he feared we must.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted the money, and that the House must provide for its payment; but still he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman something of the injustice he was about to commit, not intentionally, but of necessity, and thus he (Mr. Roebuck) would show the justice of the proposition made by the hon. Member for

  1669
  Lambeth. The income tax was most incomplete and unequal in its operation. Take, for instance, a man possessed of many thousands in the funds, or so many acres of land, and then place under the operation of the schedule a man of brains, making £5,000 a year—and that was a high figure for a man of brains to make, let him be either a physician or a lawyer. Suppose the latter to go on from day to day, perhaps from year to year, and then all upon a sudden there came upon him a fit of apoplexy. He was destroyed, and his £5,000 a year melted to nothing, and though he might have been living like a man of £5,000 a year from land, he was from that moment rendered null and nothing. Then the lower they came, and the smaller the sum taxed, the greater was the injustice inflicted. A man who had only £150 a year spent that £150. Compare that man with the artizan. He was obliged to make an appearance in the world. Suppose that he had a family—a wife and two or three children—he must live in a particular kind of house and maintain a certain kind of appearance, and it would be found that at the end of each year his £150 had disappeared. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed this man upon his outgoings by indirect taxes he would get out of his income all that he could. By the income tax he cut off a portion of that man's enjoyment, but it did not increase the sum in the Treasury by one penny, because the tax had diminished his power of contributing to the indirect taxation. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as he had done before, though he knew his necessities were quite equal to those of the men whose cause he (Mr. Roebuck) was endeavouring to advocate. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a most pitiable condition, and that he was providing from hand to mouth. This year he made an effort—grand he (Mr. Roebuck) would allow, pertinacious everybody would acknowledge, and successful he hoped it might be. What might follow next year? He hoped it would not be the injustice of the present year. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would draw a distinction which he (Mr. Roebuck) had pressed on the late Sir R. Peel, when that great Minister first introduced the income tax to the House. He (Mr. Roebuck) pressed upon him the justice of making a distinction in the charge on the income of men of skill, art, and science, and that on men of
  1670
  fixed income. Sir R. Peel told him plainly that he could not answer him, but he wanted the money. He would acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the same necessity at that time, but he hoped for some more justice hereafter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pounced upon the poor clerk, upon the poor gentleman, who was obliged to keep up an appearance in the world; he fixed his fangs upon him, and made him writhe and twist in very agony while he took from him, perhaps, his last shilling. The right hon. Gentleman could however draw from the country an equal income without producing the same injustice, and he, (Mr. Roebuck) hoped next year to see the right hon. Gentleman in his present seat, though in these times the transitions of governments were so frequent that no man knew what might come to pass, and he would entreat of him meanwhile to consider the circumstances of this tax.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would suggest that orders should be given to the assessors to do their duty with all possible forbearance. Nothing could be more disagreeable to gentlemen who acted as Commissioners of the income tax in the country than the ordeal which small tradesmen had to undergo before them under cross-examination. The grocer was required to disclose all his transactions both with his customers and with the wholsale dealer. The publican, in the same way, had to give the quantity of beer and spirits, and the profits were then calculated. The same with the baker and his transactions with the miller. Such a mode of examination was painful to everybody, while it was lowering to the character of the Government that imposed the tax. A small amount of forbearance on the part of the assessor would afford a considerable mitigation of the grievance. He knew it was a great difficulty to make the income tax palatable to any one. But the word of a gentleman or a merchant was taken without question, whereas these country traders, with small incomes, were rigorously examined. In short the tax was most obnoxious from its inquisitorial character.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was most anxious that the incidence of the tax should undergo a thorough investigation, with a view to relieve incomes between £100 and £200 from paying the full rate of income tax. He suggested to the Government that it was desirable such an in-

  1671
  vestigation should take place in the course of the present year, in order that they might have an opportunity of considering the proportions in which the tax should be levied in a future year.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he would have saved himself and the public business much inconvenience had he consented to the appointment of the Seleet Committee which he (Mr. P. Urquhart) had proposed at the beginning of the Session. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see that the sooner he consented to the appointment of that Select Committee the better. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that incomes of £150 a year deserved the greatest commiseration, for to make use of the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) there was no class of society which felt the pressure of the income tax more than that "where the fustian jacket ends and the cloth coat begins." He sincerely hoped that a Select Committee might be appointed as soon after Easter as possible, with a view to soften the inequalities of the tax, so generally complained of.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take into consideration the propriety of adopting the scheme proposed by Sir Robert Inglis some years ago to the effect, that relief should be given to small incomes by applying the tax only to the amount by which they exceeded the point of exemption. In this way, if a person had £150 a year, £100 would be deducted, and he would be taxed only on £50, and the same rule would apply to other incomes up to a certain amount. If that proposal were applied to incomes up to £300 or £400, it would afford great relief to those persons to whom allusion had been made, namely, clerks, clergymen, and others, whose small incomes were so deeply affected by this tax.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that before he gave his vote he should like to know what difference was likely to be effected if the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth were carried. He (Mr. Sheridan) was of opinion the difference would be in amount almost equal to that given away by the repeal of the paper duty, if not a great deal more.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he entirely sympa-
  1672
  thized with the views and arguments of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and would be most happy if he could relieve from the pressure of income tax those who were immediately contemplated by his Motion. But then they were in duty to the country bound to maintain the Budget which had been brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, based on certain principles, and on that ground he should reluctantly be compelled to vote against him. He had another reason. The House was to a certain extent guilty of great extravagance, and he did not care how universal was the outcry against taxation re-echoed in that House if it would only lead to something like care in the public expenditure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Without referring to all the statements and arguments that have been urged in the course of this conversation, I will ask the permission of the House to allude to some of the principal points that have been raised; and, first, I will take the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard). He absolves the Government from the duty of shadowing out their policy for seven years to come, but confidently hopes they may not refuse to sketch out the general view of what they are likely to propose in 1861. Now, in point of fact, if we were in a condition which would permit us to state by anticipation what we were likely to do in 1861, perhaps we should not find it so difficult to go further; but the truth is this, that in times when the expenditure of the country is in a stable and what may be called normal condition—when you have no reason from the state of public affairs and the public mind to anticipate any great change in the scale of national expenditure, nothing could be more reasonable than to endeavour to form plans for a more extended future than that of twelve months only with respect to taxation, and to sketch out its probable operation and effects; for then you have got a certain basis to work upon, inasmuch as the expenditure of the country must regulate the amount of taxes to be imposed. Those who think that the expenditure of the country is now in a normal state, may very well draw from that opinion the further conclusion that it is reasonable to assume that the expenditure is a fixed quantity, and that a permanent provision may be made for it accordingly. But that is not my view. I do not assume that our expenditure is in a normal state. I doubt

  1673
  the wisdom, I doubt the safety, I doubt the possibility, without serious danger to the country, of continuing such an expenditure in time of peace; and on that account the Government have not thought it wise to attempt to sketch at the present moment the future of the case when the most important elements are necessarily in a state of some uncertainty. For that reason I think it impossible to venture on any distinct indication of what might be the view of Government, supposing them to hold office twelve months hence, with respect to the expenditure at the time which will then have arrived.
  Then, with respect to another point of great importance, namely, the inequalities of the income tax, which has been raised and discussed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and others, I have only to say that in the main I admit what is stated with respect to those inequalities. I think, however, that upon a minute and careful examination, we shall find that other taxes have likewise many gross inequalities in their operation, which, however, are veiled and concealed in a very considerable degree; while those of the income tax have, at any rate, the merit of being tolerably patent on an examination of the case. Apart from the great and vital question whether it is just to tax incomes at a uniform rate without any reference to how far they are permanent, there are great inequalities in the income tax. If you take the single case of Schedule A, there is a great inequality between houses on the one hand and lands on the other; and house property, no doubt, is much more severely taxed than landed property. If, again, you take house property of different classes there is very great inequality; because the repairs of houses, according to their condition, and the period at which they were built, according to climate and exposure, and many other circumstances, will vary from 5 to 25 or 30 per cent. Now, the question is asked whether Government are prepared, on their own responsibility, to propose a Committee to inquire into the income tax with a view to the removal of these inequalities. I am bound to say, on the part of the Government, that we are not prepared to propose any such inquiry, and for a reason which I will distinctly state to the House. I do not think it the duty of the Government to
  1674
  submit, on their own responsibility, the subject of a great, gigantic tax like this to the scrutiny of a Committee of the House of Commons with a view to the removal of certain evils and defects, unless the Government be conscientiously persuaded that it is in their power to make proposals to the Committee and lay plans before them which are likely to undergo the ordeal of examination and issue in the removal, or at any rate in a great modification of the defects and evils of the tax. If we could see our way to such a result, I admit nothing would be more rational than to invite the attention of a Select Committee to this subject. But we do not see our way to such a result, and, until we do, I think it will be admitted that it would be an unworthy attempt to escape from our proper responsibility and catch popularity by encouraging an expectation with regard to our own views and opinions as to the income tax, which the issue might not fairly justify. But what has been stated with respect to inquiry during the present Session has been this—There are many Members of this House, hon. Gentlemen of experience and ability, who represent large bodies of the people, who are more sanguine in their views with regard to the great question of the reconstruction of the income tax than the Ministers of the Crown now happen to be; and it is my duty, on the part of the Government, to state that we look on the position of the House of Commons, with respect to an inquiry of this kind, as by no means the same with that of the Government; because, if there be a strong desire on the part of the country, and a large portion of the House to institute an inquiry of this kind, the legitimacy of the object—namely, the removal of the inequalities of the tax being admitted, it may be very proper that such a desire be gratified, and such a Committee be instituted. Under those circumstances, therefore, the Government would certainly not think it their duty to oppose any resistance to the appointment of a Committee. In 1851, when my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary was at the head of the Government, such a Committee was instituted, although I am not aware that any sanguine expectations or definite view were then entertained that it would be practicable to reconstruct the tax or the mode of assessment, but the question was very properly and becomingly submitted to the House of Commons; and always

  1675
  assuming that the Committee will be composed of men of sincerity of purpose, who will go fully into the question, and develope the whole difficulties of the case with the view to find out, if possible, a good plan which they may recommend, whatever the result may be, that will of itself do something to give contentment and satisfaction to the country, which never expects of its representatives more than what is practicable relief. That is the position of the Government with regard to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the income tax. There are two great questions that may be raised besides those of the inequality and justice of the income tax—one is the adjustment of the schedules according to the nature of the income which those schedules represent; and the other is the exemption, or partial exemption, of lower incomes from taxation. The question of the adjustment of schedules, opened to-night by several hon. Gentlemen, is one which would no doubt come under the view of a Committee, and would probably be one of the principal objects of the Committee. Upon that, however, I do not feel it necessary to enter, especially as it has been my duty at other times to trouble the House at great length by stating in very full detail the reasons why I am not prepared to be responsible for making any proposal to that effect.
  With respect to the other subject—that of the Amendment now before us— the hon. Member for Lambeth has moved that we should make a total exemption of all incomes under £150. An hon. Gentleman has asked, and asked very properly, what difference the Amendment would make in the receipts of the tax. The hon. Member for Lambeth is perfectly convinced that the practical effect would be such a reduction of expenditure as would render the adoption of his Amendment entirely innocuous. I do not doubt the honesty of his conviction, but what likelihood is there that he will succeed this Session in imparting the same conviction to the majority of this House, so as to induce them to adopt in a working form such a reduction of expenditure? I cannot, therefore, say I am prepared to part with some £500,000 or £600,000 a year on the speculation that the hon. Gentleman will be able to bewitch the House into doing with extraordinary celerity what seems so impracticable. I must be content, then, to meet the proposal by saying that its adoption would impale the financial provision
  1676
  for the service of the year, and leave a balance on the Wrong side of the account. I think we could not estimate the loss to the revenue from this proposal at less than £600,000 a year; and I am afraid that amount could only be made up by what I am almost afraid to mention—a further addition to the tax on the other classes of incomes. I admit that this Motion is not to be disposed of by a simple reference to temporary difficulties. It practically involves the most painful portion of the whole case. Everybody must feel that perhaps the most dangerous of all propositions that could be made in a country like this would be an attempt upon abstract principles to devise a graduated tax on incomes, aiming at an adjustment of different rates of assessment, according to the means of the taxpayer. On the other hand, to a very limited extent, and cautiously guarded by wisdom and experience, the income tax does contain, and always has contained, a principle of total or partial relief in favour of the most numerous class in the community. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) said that the limit of £100 a year is the dividing line between skilled and unskilled labour. I think it would be more just to say it is, on the whole, the point that divides between the labouring classes, who subsist on weekly wages, and those who derive their subsistence either from property or from labour employed in other forms. From the time when the income tax was first introduced by Mr. Pitt down to the year 1815, when it underwent considerable alteration, the principle of remission was applied up to a point higher than that which it now applies, because at present everybody with £150 a year and upwards pays the maximum rate, whereas, until 1815, there were remissions for incomes under certain schedules up to £200 a year. Without giving countenance to the general principle of a graduated tax, it may yet always be a question for fair consideration by the House up to what point total or partial exemption should be carried, subject, however, to the most vigilant maintenance of the rule that we will, on the whole, confine ourselves within the limits which our forefathers adopted for themselves, because prescription and experience are better guides in determining what is safe than any abstract idea or opinion of the moment. When he introduced the present income tax, in 1842, Sir Robert Peel, in lieu of the old system of exemp-

  1677
  tions, adopted one fixed limit of £150 a year. That plan was recommended by simplicity of operation, and also by the circumstances under which the tax was reimposed, the rate being moderate, and there being an obvious prospect—which was afterwards realized—that at the end of a certain number of years the House might be enabled to dispense with it if they thought fit. In 1853 the aspect of things had materially changed, and there was not the same probability that the tax might be got rid of at an early period. There was, then, an impatience of the impost on the part of those who were paying it; and, on a careful examination of the effect produced on the expenditure of different classes by the large remissions of duties that had taken place since 1842, it was found that the saving to those whose incomes were between £100 and £150, as the consequence of the new commercial policy, was so large as to render it only just that they should be called upon to bear their fair share of this national burden. In the main, I think, the same thing still holds good. It would be inflicting, not remedying, an injustice to pretend now to revert to the form of the tax introduced by Sir Robert Peel, and to say that all those receiving less than £150 a year have derived so little from the remission of duties, and are so unable to pay, that they shall be relieved altogether, but that all those receiving above £150 have derived so much benefit from that remission, and are so well able to pay, that they shall be left liable to the maximum amount. I do not think that would be a reform or improvement in the incidence of the tax at the lower extremity of the scale, where, unquestionably, its chief difficulty arises. The discussion, however, of changes in the form of a tax is more opportune when you are proposing to renew it for a term of years, instead of, as in this case, merely for a twelvemonth. Another modest remission suggested by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir M. Farquhar) is, that a sheer deduction of a certain amount from the lower incomes should be made, leaving the residue subject to assessment. That proposal likewise deserves a careful consideration, if the House should entertain any plan for mitigating the burden on the lower incomes. Something, however, may be said against it. No doubt, as has been stated, it would be satisfactory to a man with £105 a year to know that he had to pay on the odd £5 only; but those charg-
  1678
  ed with the care of the public revenue would hardly view the matter in the same light, for such a tax would not nearly cover the expense of collection. When Sir R. Inglis proposed a deduction of that kind his idea was to apply it to all incomes, those of the millionnaire included. But it can hardly be said that the circumstances of a man with many thousands a year required that £100 or £150 should be deducted from his assessment. Such a principle is obviously absurd, and would only inflict a great loss on the Exchequer without good reason. My hon. Friend, however, proposes that this deduction should only be made on incomes up to £300 a year. That would not avoid the difficulty, that a man with a lower income will be richer than a man with a higher income, because, if at present the man with £99 a year is not so rich as the man with £100, the same thing will happen if your transition point is fixed between £299 and £300. A person once made the statement to me that his employers, without his solicitation, fixed his salary at £149 that he might escape this tax at the time when it did not go below £150. This man, taking a very strict view of his obligations, insisted on paying up his arrears of the tax for all the years during which that arrangement was in force, and he even offered to give the Government interest on the money besides. Certainly that was a very remarkable case of conscientiousness. I think I have given conclusive reasons why we should not now entertain any proposal of this kind, and why, if we ever do entertain it, we should follow the safe guidance of experience and tradition rather than lay down new and arbitrary methods of settlement.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am hardly satisfied with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman respecting the tax now under consideration. The trumpeter gives an uncertain sound. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be quite prepared to assent to, though not to propose, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the character and incidence of the income tax. He says that ten years ago, when the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was First Minister, such a Committee was proposed and carried in this House. It is quite true. The tax had then been some ten years in existence, and there had been no Committee to inquire into its character and operation. When Sir Robert Peel revived the tax,

  1679
  after an interval of thirty years, he was guided in the regulations which he established by the traditionary experience which he found existing in the public offices; and, applying that with admirable tact and talent to the circumstances with which he had to deal, he framed an Act which, upon the whole, operated, so far as the revenue was concerned, very satisfactorily. It was only after some years of experience, after the country had been disappointed in its expectation that the burden would last for but a limited time, and when it seemed probable that this tax must continue for a considerable period, that there arose that general feeling of discontent which about 1850 was so strong both in the country and in this House. Then it was that the Government assented to inquire into the principles and operation of the tax. But what was that Committee? The right hon. Gentleman says that a Committee to inquire into such a subject ought to be formed of men highly qualified by their earnestness of purpose and scientific acquirements for the investigation of such a question; and that its investigations ought to be conducted with an entire devotion of time and ability. Well, what was the Committee of 1850? It was formed of the best men in the House. Its proceedings were chiefly conducted by the late Mr. Hume, a very earnest man, one who had had great experience upon financial subjects, and one who took an interest in the operation of this tax which, as will be remembered by those who sat in Parliament with him, was of a remarkable character. That Committee sat for two years, and if ever any Committee exhausted a subject it was that Committee on the income tax. There was not a philosopher, there was not a practical man, whose information or whose thought was calculated to enlighten us, who was not examined before that Committee. You had examined great economists, like Mr. Mill, and the most experienced actuaries, like Mr. Newmarch. You had these characters multiplied before your Committee to give you the result of their labours, their knowledge, and their experience. As I have said, that Committee sat for two years, and you have in your library the valuable results of its labours and its lucubrations. What was the practical consequence? Very shortly afterwards there was a change of Government. Of the Government which was in office when the in
  1680
  come tax expired I happened to be a Member. There was then in the country great discontent with the tax, and in this House a feeling which I am not exaggerating when I say that it was one which no Government could pass by with indifference. The Government, after deep deliberation, determined to make a moderate, but absolute difference between the assessments under Schedule A and Schedule D. On what condition did they make that difference? But on condition that you should entirely put an end to all exceptions, to all remissions, and to all exemptions, and that you should levy the tax upon incomes as low as was consistent with the collection of the tax. I do not say whether we were right or wrong, but at any rate the principle of making a difference between permanent and precarious incomes was applied with moderation, and upon conditions of the most rigid character, and totally opposed to those propositions that we now hear of from both sides of the House. Why, where is the man who can draw the line between wages and income? Who can define what is manual labour? Is the clerk who gains £150 a year by the hand which is always driving a quill to be plaecd in a different category from the man who uses a spade or operates as an auxiliary to a machine? Well, Sir, we arrived at that conclusion. Right or wrong, it was not arrived at without deep consideration, and was not adopted except upon rigid conditions, the essence of those conditions being that there should be an end for ever of exemptions, exceptions, and remissions. Our policy was opposed. It was opposed, Sir, with great ability and with success by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He separated the income tax from all the other taxes of the country, and said, "This is an immoral tax. This is a tax not to be tolerated except for a moment in an emergency of the country—at some public exigency, when, in fact, philosophical and scientific criticism on the principles of taxation ceases, and all men are ready to make sacrifices for the assistance of their country. This is a tax, he said, which is not to be tolerated as a permanent feature of the taxation of any country, and the policy which you recommend must be stigmatized and put an end to." What was the policy which we recommended? It was our opinion that an income tax of moderate amount must be—

  1681
  I do not say a permanent feature, because that might be looked upon as an extravagant phrase even in these days, but that it must be a feature of our financial system for a considerable time. Therefore, we had to deal with a tax which we thought must be a feature of our financial system for a considerable time with reference to public opinion and upon conditions which we thought would be conducive to public safety. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then in Opposition, would not listen to anything of the kind. He said, "This is a moral enormity. We find it a necessity owing to the state of the finances of the country; but we cannot at all adopt your principles of financial policy. We must put an end to this tax. We must find a Government that will terminate its existence, and will grapple with the question in a statesmanlike and efficient manner." Well, you have grappled with the question in an efficient manner. The Government of 1852 were turned out of office because they did not deal with the income tax in a scientific and satisfactory manner, and because it was necessary that that tax should not be a permanent feature of your system of taxation, but that an expeditious method should be had recourse to to abolish it for ever. Then you had that great scheme upon which I need not touch, which is known as the subject of the most successful oration of modern times. Since the oration of Demosthenes' De Coronâ nothing has been more successful. It gained for the eminent orator who delivered it a fame which has lasted for seven years. For seven years he has been the idol of the country, because the people knew that in 1860 they would be relieved from the income tax. I must say that in the history of man I know no destiny so much to be envied and so successful as that of the right hon. Gentleman. The bottle conjuror was successful, but he was successful for only forty-eight hours. No doubt those forty-eight hours were hours of great excitement. That the country should believe that at the end of forty-eight hours he would be able to enter into a pint bottle was an amount of credulity that must greatly have elevated the man who had produced it in his own opinion; but the right hon. Gentleman has enjoyed the position of the bottle conjuror for seven years. That is a long time. You take a house for seven years; it is the term of a lease; and the person who has been the hero of a popular delusion for seven years
  1682
  enters into one of the first categories of human achievement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not allow even these passing remarks upon the events of his distinguished career, because he says that circumstances occurred after he had entered into this engagement with the country which entirely released him from the promises which he had made to an admiring nation. We have all touched upon that subject once or twice, and it is quite unnecessary to dwell upon it. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always defend himself, which is remarkable in a person of his surprising abilities, because if he did not defend himself, his position would be a very good one. We all recollect that in 1853 he most unnecessarily entered into a compact with the country. It was not a contract that in 1860 the income tax should be put an end to. It is absurd for a moment to suppose that. A Minister must of course defer to the circumstances with which he has to deal. He is the creature, and often the slave, of events which are ever occurring. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer found in 1860 that the finances of the country did not permit the repeal of the tax, the continuance of which he had impressed upon the nation would sap the morality of the country, he would have appealed to the people not in vain upon high reasons of State to bear it a little longer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into a special contract with the public. He told them that in 1860 there must necessarily be a considerable remission of taxation by the falling in of terminable annuities to the amount of upwards of £2,000,000. He stated that those £2,000,000 would form a fund upon which the country might count, and that there was a fair certainty that his prescient policy would be realized and consummated. But the right hon. Gentleman this year has actually come forward and with those £2,000,000 in his hands has ostentatiously appropriated them to another purpose and for another result. I have never heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the moments—I will not say of his insolent, but of his triumphant, rhetoric, or of those milder tones in which he addresses us over the table when he tries to persuade us that the income tax is the best tax in the circumstances, an answer on that subject. To-night, instead of denouncing the income tax as an immoral tax, as an unconstitutional tax, as a tax

  1683
  which saps all the principles of domestic happiness and public security, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us there is a good deal to be said against the income tax, but, after all, the same may be said against every tax. Contrast this confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with those oratorical invectives which in the seven years during which the country has been so fondly expectant of the felicitous consummation of 1860 we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman. But I am not doing justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I say that he entered into a contract with the public upon which he has successfully traded that he would, at least as far as the terminable annuities were concerned, attempt to relieve the country in 1860 of this burden. Hon. Gentlemen who were then Members of the House must recollect his speech on the Budget of 1857. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us now that circumstances have occurred which have prevented the accomplishment of his promise and the fulfilment of his policy. I shall not stop to say that the circumstances to which he refers, and by which a great increase of the National Debt has been occasioned, were brought about mainly by a Cabinet of which he was an eminent member, and by his influence in the Cabinet on the subject of our finances, which I believe was injurious to the honour and interests of the country. Let that pass. But in 1857 you had a Budget brought forward by a right hon. and much respected Gentleman who is now a colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I mean the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. You heard that Budget; it was received with great respect and listened to with great attention; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then sat below the gangway, could not contain his indignation at that Budget. He denounced it, he denounced all the principles of taxation which had been laid before us by his present colleague as worthy of our acceptance; but the right hon. Gentleman did more than that. In 1857 he adhered to the policy of 1853, the policy which, during the interval he had always sustained, and he told the House that if, by any combination of circumstances, he should preside over our finances in 1860—which was then less likely than it has since turned out to be—he would be prepared to consummate the policy which he had laid down in 1853—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It may be convenient I should state that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely at fault as to what I said.
  MR. DISRAELI: Matters of fact are stubborn things, and they are not disposed of when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rising in a very irregular manner, gives you to understand, on his ipse dixit, that you are mistaken. I make that statement upon my recollection, upon the authority of the records of this House, and I believe upon the recollection of every hon. Gentleman now present who was a Member of the last Parliament. We are now told it is not convenient to deal with a tax of these gigantic proportions. A tax of gigantic proportions! Who, let me ask, has made it so? There was a Minister once who said it was a tax so intolerable, so immoral—for that was the favourite anathema—one so injurious to the domestic happiness and so fatal to the public spirit of the country that, not only it could not be tolerated except in an emergency, but that immediate steps must be taken for its gradual and certain abolition. You have an Act of Parliament framed for that purpose. Can it be believed that the same Minister who took measures to insure that every year a portion of this tax should cease has come forward in 1860 virtually to propose doubling that tax, and accompanying his proposition with what statement, let me ask? Does he tell us, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tells us every night, that the country is in danger, and that we are on the eve of grave events? On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he could not feel justified in making this proposition if he thought it likely to be a permanent arrangement. I want to know on what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it will not be a permanent arrangement. But what I wish the House to observe is that after all the promises and professions we have had as to the reduction of a tax which struck at the morality of the country we have this tax now proposed to be doubled by the very same Minister who has for seven years obtained and enjoyed the confidence of the public because we believed it was his policy to terminate the obnoxious impost. And how is this proposition introduced to our notice? Strange to say, by a declaration that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman can judge, though there are great objections to the income tax, these are

  1685
  objections to which every other tax is liable. What, then, is the conclusion to which we must arrive? We must believe either that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853 had not sufficiently considered this question, had not gone into all the bearings of a tax of which he spoke in language so unmeasured, or that his conduct must have been, what I do not believe it could have been, characterized by a little of that immorality which he ascribed so freely to the income tax. That is totally impossible, and therefore I can only suppose that in that eager moment, on that memorable occasion in 1853, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down his policy respecting the income tax, he had not considered the subject sufficiently, and that he spoke in a crude and immature spirit. The only other conceivable supposition is that the right hon. Gentleman, after the experience he has had, feels it his duty to come forward now and propose that which he denounced before, and which I myself believed to be most unwise—namely, that he should throw off himself and the Government the duty of directing the country upon this important tax, and should endeavour to lay upon the House of Commons, by appointing a Committee of inquiry, a responsibility which no Minister, but, of all Ministers, which he should never for a moment attempt to relinquish.
  Question put, "That the words 'and fifty' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 174: Majority 150.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.

  CONSIDERED AS AMENDED.
  Bill considered, as amended, in Committee.
  Clause 17,
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he proposed to ask the House to omit this clause. It repealed the 7th of George II., which was framed for the express purpose of putting an end to the practice of gambling in the funds, commonly called time bargains. The enactment was originally passed for three years, but it worked so beneficially that it was made perpetual, and had been in operation up to the present time. To repeal the enactment because it was to a certain extent inoperative was not the proper mode of proceeding, for that would countenance every description of gambling that the ingenuity of man could devise,
  1686
  and they would have no right afterwards to break into houses on suspicion that gambling was carried on, or to punish the detected parties. The proposition in short struck a heavy blow at the morality of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was more remarkable for his eloquence than the extreme courtesy with which he treated opponents, did him the honour of saying that there was extreme confusion in his mind on the subject of this Bill; but he, on the other hand, believed that the ideas of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were marvellously at variance with all sound reason and practical sense. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on his first argument; he said none of his distinguished constituency had remonstrated against the announced intention of repealing Sir John Barnard's Act. Probably that distinguished constituency had never even heard of the Act; the law as to time bargains was not likely to be much discussed in that seat of piety and virtue which the right hon. Gentleman so ably represented. It was, therefore, not a very sound argument. He then contended that time bargains stood precisely on a par with the purchase and sale of shares in railway or other companies. Now, time bargains were exactly the converse of such transactions. The sale of shares was a bonâ fide transfer of property. The right hon. Gentleman who seemed to know everything, really did not know what a time bargain meant. It was a vicious arrangement between two persons, both of whom might be equally penniless, by which they agreed to run the chance of which should lose and which should win on the contingency of the price of stocks on any given day and the price of that day week. It was said that the law against these bargains was a dead letter; to a certain extent he admitted it, but that was no reason why the law should be repealed. It was rather a reason why the House should remodel it and make it effective. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked a most extraordinary question. He asked, as if in doubt, whether making time bargains could be considered an immoral practice or not. If he could not see that it was immoral, could he perceive the immorality of any species of gambling? Then, with that extraordinary method of arguing peculiar to the right hon. Gentleman, he pleaded that the gentlemen connected with money transactions in the city were highly respectable individuals.

  1687
  Why, what had the respectability of persons engaged in large mercantile affairs to do with the malpractices of men who met on the Stock Exchange solely for the purpose of gambling? The right hon. Gentleman said he was not prepared to admit that time bargains were wrong in the sense in which he (Mr. Bentinck) had spoken of them. He had described them as the worst and most pernicious mode of gambling ever devised; if the right hon. Gentleman could not see it, his ideas on the subject of gambling must be of a very peculiar description. He asserted that dealing with all kinds of property involved a certain amount of hazard, and had instanced the practice of forestalling and re-grating; but they were nothing like time bargains. Actual property was bought and sold, and the seller got money for money's worth. It should be recollected that these time bargains materially affected the value of all funded property; the small property of those who had invested all they possessed in the funds was influenced and altered by the practice which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to countenance. That of itself was a sufficient ground for objecting to the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act, which was proposed solely to obtain the penny for the stamp on each time transaction. The proceeds would be excessively small, and for this they were asked to sacrifice the character of the Government and the country. Again, the law as it stood was by no means inoperative. The brokers having no means of recovering any sums of money which they might risk in time bargains were extremely averse to have anything to do with them unless they were perfectly satisfied as to the solvency of the parties who sought to employ their services. Was the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who took such an active part in 1853 in trying to put down gambling in London, prepared to carry out the singular views of his colleague on the practice? Would the noble Lord hazard the reputation he acquired in 1853? Sir John Barnard, he understood, was, by a singular coincidence, one of the noble Lord's ancestors; if he consented to this clause it would be enough to make the shade of his ancestor blush. It would give a legal stamp to a kind of gambling with which more villany was mixed up than any other, for the sake of a few wretched pennies of revenue.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 17.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that he did not agree with the arguments which had been used by the hon. Member, but still he thought that some explanation was required, as the clause under notice was utterly inoperative, and not worth the paper on which it was written. It professed to repeal the 7th of George II., but the Act only lasted three years, and was succeeded by the 10th of George II., which perpetuated it. The clause, therefore, repealed an Act which had expired three years after it passed, and left untouched the only Act on the subject which was now in existence. With respect to Sir J. Barnard, every Gentleman knew that Sir J. Barnard took part in the great debates of 1733, and was the person who opposed Sir R. Walpole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day was burned in effigy, Sir It. Walpole was assaulted in passing through the Court of Requests, and Lord Chesterfield was dismissed from his office of Gold Stick in Waiting, because he opposed Sir R. Walpole's measure for turning the system of Customs into a system of Excise. If they wished to repeal the 10th of George II., it seemed to him that it was not by a clause in a Stamp Duties Bill that it should be repealed. The Act of Sir John Barnard was become perfectly nugatory. It had been decided, over and over again, in the courts of law, that it did not apply to the great system of gambling in foreign funds, but only to gambling in the funds of the day, which were English funds. There was the 7th and 8th of Victoria, which applied to such transactions, and all the courts of law held that they applied to all gambling, and all wagers, whether in cases of stock jobbing, or railway scrip, or foreign bonds. Therefore he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Sir J. Barnard's Act was perfectly useless. It was a sort of Act which, when pupils with pleaders, young lawyers always made use of when they wanted a sham plea. It happened once, when a tailor sent in his bill, a sham plea was put in that a Bengal tiger had been delivered in satisfaction of the debt, and an attorney's clerk having made affidavit to that effect, a verdict for the defendant was returned. He was opposed to the clause as a useless one.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend must feel that he had made the most of the very notable discovery on which he had hit. He could not dispute with his learned Friend

  1689
  that the 7th of George II., c. 10, had been enacted to endure only for three years, and by another Act, the 10th of George II., c. 8, the former Act was made perpetual, and the latter had no operation except to perpetuate the earlier Act. That being so, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it might have been better not to have made an express reference to the former Act, but only to the Act which perpetuated it. Still he could not allow that the clause would be a dead letter on account of its reference only to the 7th of George II., because he did not see what operation the Perpetuation Act could have if the original Act was annihilated. There would, however, be an opportunity afforded of correcting any defect in the clause either at the present stage or on some future occasion. As to the objections of the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) to the seventeenth section, he did not think them well-founded. The Act to which they referred, whatever its merits, had been undoubtedly, almost from the time of its having passed into law, a dead letter. The Act began by a very vituperative preamble against a class of people, not then in such good esteem as at present, the stock-brokers. So far as it applied to stock-jobbing, he need not say that it had been utterly inefficacious; and when the hon. Member opposite asked for its continuation, he did not of course desire that the class of persons in the City of London engaged on the Stock Exchange should be put an end to. He rather applied his objections to the second provision of the first section, which provided for the rendering void of all contracts in the nature of wagers and other contracts, of a particular description, being gambling contracts, with reference to dealing in stock. Sir John Barnard's Act was provided for those purposes, with the most cumbrous and entirely useless machinery, principally to be exercised through qui tam actions at law, and by Bills in Chancery. With respect to that machinery the Bill appeared to have been absolutely a dead letter. For the last 100 years there had not been shown in the Court of Chancery any practical, or, at all events, any successful, application of its provisions for these purposes, and, at law, the Act had been equally nugatory. It remained, therefore, for him (the Solicitor General) merely to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member as to repealing such sections of the Act as seemed to prevent or restrict gambling or wagering in stocks. The hon. and learned Mem-
  1690
  ber for Marylebone had anticipated him in reference to that point, by mentioning that the dilatory and unsatisfactory mode of procedure to which he had referred had been superseded and rendered unnecessary by a recent Act, the 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, generally known as the Gaming and Wagering Act; the 18th section of which provided that all contracts or agreements, whether in writing or otherwise, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be for all purposes and under all circumstances void. This Act was in full force and vigour, and therefore, in repealing an old enactment, prohibitive of a particular class of gaming and wagering, they were in no way interfering with that later Act, which would continue in operation, and which absolutely and entirely put an end to every contract having reference to gaming or wagering. The effect of the present measure, by which the former Act was to a certain extent repealed, was virtually little more than to get rid of an abusive and vituperative preamble which had proved obnoxious to stockbrokers and others whose pursuits brought them into connection with the Stock Exchange.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, it was natural that mistakes should at times be made, more especially when dealing with the cumbrous volumes of Acts of Parliament, but when a mistake had occurred he thought it much better that it should be at once confessed. He had been amazed to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor General argue the proposition that a clause which repealed an Act that had come to an end somewhat more than 100 years ago could be stretched be as to repeal a wholly different Act, which made the former one perpetual; and as the Act prohibited time bargains in the stocks at the present day he would not insult the good sense and understanding of the House by debating a question which was not arguable. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone in thinking that this clause, if it passed, would become a perfectly dead letter, and would not alter the existing state of the law. But since the Solicitor General had addressed the House the question had assumed an entirely new shape, and it was consequently most important that before going further the history of this clause should be distinctly remembered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, as a part of his financial scheme, to impose a tax on contracts for the purchase and sale

  1691
  of stock. The gentlemen connected with the Stock Exchange, who were he believed of the highest respectability, contended that if a tax was thus about to be imposed on their transactions, they ought, at all events, to be relieved from the difficulties under which they had hitherto laboured, because by Sir John Barnard's Act time bargains could not take place with any faith in their validity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to this proposition; he stated that in his view Sir John Barnard's Act was unwise in prohibiting bargains of this kind, and that he was prepared to propose a Bill repealing that Act. Time bargains, as every one knew, were contracts in which one party agreed to sell at a future day stock which he did not possess and which he did not intend to buy. This circumstance being well-known to the other party, they mutually intended to settle on the day fixed upon, according to whether the price of stocks had risen or fallen in the meantime. This was the class of contracts distinctly struck at by Sir John Barnard's Act, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his willingness to repeal. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, told them it was a delusion to think that time bargains or wagering contracts were to be made legal; and he stated that the only object of the present Act was to remove from the statute-book a preamble which was offensive to the stockbrokers, through its describing them as a highly discreditable set of people. He hoped the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange would like the description which had been given; but they certainly would find that they had been hitherto in a fool's paradise, for, trusting in the promise which had been given, they believed a new vista was opening and that they were to have the power of making time bargains to any extent in return for the 1d. which they would contribute to the Exchequer on each of these bargains. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, however, declared that they had no need to go back 100 years to Sir John Barnard's Act, as there had been recent legislation on the subject which rendered a time bargain, as a contract made by way of wagering, null and void; and that not by any cumbrous process of the Court of Chancery, but by a fresh, vigorous, green statute of the present reign. He was quite willing to accept that description, and it was therefore clear that the House was called on to pass a Stamp Act, not for the
  1692
  sake of imposing or renewing duties, but in order to expunge from the statute-book an offensive preamble—a purpose to which he had never before known a Stamp Act to be applied. A solemn explanation had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the reasons for postponing the measure to that evening; and now they were told by the Solicitor General that this had all been much ado about nothing, that the law was not to be altered, but the sensitive minds of stock-jobbers were merely to be relieved from the disagreeable terms in which Sir John's Barnard's Act spoke of them. More ludicrous treatment of a grave question he had never known. The clause as it stood, the hon. Member admitted, was not worth the paper it was written on, for it would leave the old Act untouched, while the cumbrous proceedings in Chancery, which had never been resorted to before, would never be resorted to again. As time bargains were not to be legalized, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with the observations which he should otherwise have felt it his duty to make.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he conceived that the imposition of the stamp duty on contracts, if it were expedient, ought to have been made without any consideration given or received by the Members of the Stock Exchange, and that if Sir J. Barnard's Act were objectionable it ought to have been repealed independently of anything in the way of concession. He could not agree with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, for he believed the Act to be a standing disgrace to the statute-book. It was the remnant of an antiquated and bigoted policy. It struck at the very root of liberty in transactions of buying and selling. Nothing tended more to maintain the steadiness of the funds in this country than the existence of a large body of men who were always ready to enter into operations in that particular article. It was a mistake to suppose that the operations were all in one direction. There were habitually as many ready to buy as to sell. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs made a speech the other night reflecting in severe, but not too severe terms on the conduct of a near political neighbour of ours. The next day on returning from the City he was asked by several Members—"Was there not a great panic on the Stock-Exchange to-day? Did not the funds experience

  1693
  a great fall?" But his answer was, that, though there certainly was a feeling of agitation and apprehension, the funds had only fallen about a quarter per cent. The existence of a body of men, ready to take advantage of any depreciation in the funds, had, no doubt, arrested the fall at a quarter per cent, when it would otherwise have been 3, 4, or 5 per cent, considering the formidable nature of the speech. In fact, but for the presence of those men, and the operations deprecated by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) the very event which he most dreaded must occur. He begged to differ with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that side of the House (Sir H. Cairns), who, when he told the House what constituted time bargains, said that they were mere gambling transactions. He stated a time bargain to be an offer for sale of £100,000 stock by one man, stock which he never had or would have, and which was offered to a man equally unprepared to take it. He (Mr. Hubbard) did not deny that isolated transactions of this kind might occur—but such were not the transactions which ordinarily took place on the Stock Exchange. The ordinary course of dealers was to sell for the next settling day, at the middle or end of the month, a certain amount of stock which they had in their own engagements purchased. But the operations of Sir J. Barnard's Act was to make illegal every transaction which was not consummated upon the spot. Unless a man could at once deliver over the stock sold he became the participator in a time bargain. But this disability was not confined to stocks and shares; it operated on all kinds of bargains. The whole of our foreign commerce was carried on by time bargains. It was impossible to sell upon the spot. Cargoes were bought in foreign countries to be delivered at a distant day; and were they to be told that these operations were illegal? While the necessities of commerce and the stimulants of common interest led traders to make these bargains, there had not been wanting men who, adverting to this act of disability, had tried to evade those bargains when it suited their purpose. And it had led to the further inconvenience that, in the event of the buyer's insolvency, the honest merchant had been defrauded of his dividend. The most honest and straightforward merchants in the City of London had had their transactions branded as illegal on account of the interpretation of this law in the Bank-
  1694
  ruptcy Courts. He hoped that the Government would not allow the matter to rest where it was, but would remove the disability from time bargains in stocks and shares as well as in goods.
  MR. BUTTthought it would be absurd to pass the clause if, as the Solicitor-General had stated, the effect of the Wagers Act would be to leave time bargains exactly in the same position as now. His great objection to the clause, however, was that it was tacked to a money Bill, and if the House of Lords attempted to exercise the discretion which they undoubtedly possessed, and struck it out, the House of Commons might be disposed to treat it as a breach of their privileges, and refuse to pass the Bill altogether.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not much moved by the objections made to this particular clause; and he thought the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite showed that he did not quite clearly understand either the operations of the Stock Exchange or what fell from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. No demand had been made by the members of the Stock Exchange for an amendment of the law. But, after the stamp was proposed on contract notes, a communication was made to him through the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), that the Act of Parliament known as Sir John Barnard's Act might be repealed, as by that Act transactions which entered into the daily course of their business were prohibited, though the Act itself had grown obsolete, and they thought it was but just that they should be free from this bond when it was proposed to put a stamp upon the notes by which these contracts were carried on. The Government thought it was but fair to comply with that request. But now the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had raised an objection to the clause, appearing in this Bill, which he thought a perfectly good one. In truth, it was his intention to have proposed the repeal in a separate Act; but finding the clause inserted in this Bill as it was drawn up in the Revenue Office, he allowed it to pass. He quite saw the force of the objection, however, that the fact of this clause being inserted in a Money Bill would oust the jurisdiction of the House of Lords; and therefore he would withdraw the clause, and would give notice of his intention tonight to move for leave to introduce a new Bill on the subject to-morrow.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of the views of the Government whether time bargains were illegal or not. The Solicitor General said that the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act would leave these time bargains exactly where they were before; that they would not be legalized, but that the Wagers Act would apply to them. But the right hon. Gentleman had not told them what was the opinion of the Government on this point, which was not an unimportant one. The discussion began in the complaint that Government was about to legalize gambling by putting on it a penny stamp. Well, was that the intention of Government or was it not; and if so, did they mean to repeal the Wagers Act, as well as Sir John Barnard's Act? He wished further to know whether Government intended to reprint this measure, for there had been so many Amendments proposed by the Government, and those Amendments had been made in such confidential whispers between the Secretary to the Treasury and the Speaker, that he believed there was no Member of the House who now knew how the Bill stood.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that, as direct reference had been made by the hon. Member for Norfolk to the part he took in the passing of the Act for putting down gambling-houses, he would offer a few observations to the House. But he thought he could give the hon. Gentleman another instance which was more appropriate. In the time of Charles II. a law was passed making all bets on horse-races above the value of £20 illegal, and subject to a penalty, which might be recovered by a qui tam action. The hon. Gentleman's lamented relative (Lord George Bentinck) was actually sued under that Act, and when a Committee of the House was appointed to sit on this subject, of which he (Viscount Palmerston) had the honour to be Chairman, a Report was made, and in consequence of that Report it was felt that this was an obsolete system of legislation which did not belong to the present age. Consequently an Act was passed repealing that statute, and relieving from any penalty those who made wagers upon a horserace. He thought the present question was to be viewed upon precisely the same principle. He would not enter upon the legal question, but would take the hon. Gentleman upon his own ground. Viewing this as a simple question of a wager
  1696
  upon the future price of a given amount, of Stock, it fell, in his opinion, within the same category as a wager upon a horserace; and upon the same principle as that by which the House of Commons thought fit to relieve persons who made wagers upon horse-races, he said they should also relieve from liability those who entered upon time bargains. By so doing he thought they should not be disparaging the memory of Sir John Barnard, who introduced an Act no doubt very well suited to his own age, though not to the present.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the clause, and hoped he would take more time to consider the points that had been raised. At present bargains might be made in reference to all kinds of merchandise, without being liable to the penalties for gambling.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the few Amendments that had been introduced were intended to carry out the various suggestions that had been made in the course of conversation on the previous evening. At present the Wagers Act applied to many transactions upon the Stock Exchange, without which it would be impossible to dispose of the immense quantities of stock that were in the market. It was for the convenience of the public that these transactions should take place; and the object of the present measure was to render legitimate the operations of the middle men, who acted for the public convenience.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he must deny that wagers on horse-racing were at all analogous to time-bargains. But what he rose for was to point out the services which his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk had rendered to the Government, in preventing them from proceeding to legislate in too hasty a manner, and thus avoiding the blots which had been pointed out to-night, and which they had corrected, but which would have been inserted in the Bill, if the Government had been allowed to proceed in the hasty manner they at first insisted on doing.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he would suggest that, as it was admitted that this Bill had received neither the assent of the Solicitor General nor the Attorney General, it should now be remitted for their Amendments.
  Question, "That Clause 17 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  In reply to Mr. T. BARING,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the 3d. stamp could not apply to dock warrants.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.