Commons Sitting of 15 April 1875

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Metalliferous Mines* [120]; Falsification of Accounts* [121].

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN LOANS—LETTER OF M. HERRAN.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish to give Notice, that on the Order of the Day to-morrow I shall move this Resolution—
  "It having been stated in" The Times "and" Daily News "newspapers of the 9th instant, referred to in the Order of the House of the 13th instant, that a letter, professing to be written by M. Victor Herran, Honduras Minister in Paris, and addressed to the Right honorable Robert Lowe, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Loans, was read and made part of the proceedings before the Select Committee on Foreign Loans on the 8th instant, that it be referred to the said Committee to report to the House whether such letter was produced and read before the said Committee and under what circumstances, and whether any copy of the said letter was communicated by or on behalf of the said Committee to the said newspapers or either of them."

DOMINION OF CANADA—NEWFOUNDLAND. QUESTION.
MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any negotiations are, or have been, in progress for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with provision

969
made in "The British North America Act, 1867?"
MR. J. LOWTHER: Since 1869, when proposals for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion failed to obtain the sanction of the constituencies of that island, no fresh negotiations have been entered into. The question is, of course, one of undiminished interest to Her Majesty's Government, and to the Governments of the Dominion, and of the colony concerned; but it is understood that public feeling in Newfoundland is not at present distinctly expressed in favour of this step.

VALUATION BILL—TITHE ASSESSMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Government propose to introduce in this Session a Valuation Bill; and, if so, whether, in the assessment of tithe, not the property of laymen, an allowance will be made by way of deduction from the gross assessable value for the outlay incurred in the employment of curates?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I prepared a Valuation Bill in the Recess, and should be happy to introduce it, if there appeared any reasonable probability that it could be passed into law within the present Session. It would not be convenient that I should state by anticipation any of its provisions; but I may say that the subject of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry was fully considered in framing the measure.

IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN ANIMALS—THE REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLESW. DILKEasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the regulations framed by the local authority in London under the 37 and 38 Vic. c. 67 will be ready for issue; whether in the regulations as submitted to the Local Government Board for confirmation provision has been made for the temporary detention of animals intended for slaughter; and, whether it would be possible to lay the regulations upon the Table of the House before they are finally confirmed and issued?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I cannot say when these Regulations will be ready for issue. They were submitted
970
to the Local Government Board some time since, and have been returned to the Metropolitan Board of Works, with certain amendments for their consideration. There was no provision in the Regulations for the temporary detention of animals intended for slaughter; but I am aware that a suggestion to that effect has been submitted. I do not doubt it would be possible to lay the Regulations on the Table, though I think such a course might be inconvenient as a precedent; but my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James Hogg) which is the local authority in question, would be better able to answer that inquiry.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS OF MILTIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an Adjutant of Militia, who on retiring from the adjutantcy has accepted a commission as Major in the regiment, would, on the command of that regiment becoming vacant, be eligible for promotion to that rank and command; or whether, as heretofore, the vacancy would be filled by a half-pay Field Officer from the regular forces; and, whether he would be willing in any cases to commute for cash the pensions to which adjutants may be entitled?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the adjutants would be eligible in the same way as lieutenant colonels, and each case would have to be decided on its merits. He had already stated that the Commissioners had already commuted for cash the pensions to which adjutants were entitled, and he had no reason to doubt that they would continue to act on that principle.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP REGULA-TION ACTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—WOMEN IN FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILLIAM HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as no reference is made to adult women in the Royal Commission issued to inquire into the working of the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts, it is intended to exclude their case either from the proposed inquiry

  971
  or from the recommendations to be made by the Commissioners in respect to the alteration and amendment of these Acts; and, if so, will he be good enough to inform the House how he proposes to meet the case of adult women who, under existing Acts, may be employed in bleach-works, print-works, finishing-works, and other branches of industry for sixty (and under certain circumstances for sixty-three) hours per week, while women employed under much more favourable conditions to health in textile factories are restricted to fifty-six hours and a half per week by the Factory Act of 1874?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to control in any way the inquiry of the Royal Commission. Neither was there any wish to impose, as a general rule, any restrictions on the labour of adult persons. But, no doubt, the case of adult women might be made a subject of special provision in special eases. Where the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts were not in operation, that would be a subject for consideration.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can state to the House the effect of the Education Act of 1870 on voluntary schools, in the following respects: 1. The attendance of scholars; 2. The fees of scholars; 3. The amount of the voluntary contributions; 4. The Government grants?
VISCOUNT SANDON: In reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman it will, of course, be understood that the only answer I can give will be respecting those voluntary schools which receive a Government grant. Respecting the numerous voluntary schools which do not receive a Government grant, I am not able to give the information required. 1. In 1870 the average attendance in all public elementary schools, which were then all voluntary, was 1,226,034, of which 1,152,389 was in day schools. In 1874 the average attendance involuntary public elementary schools alone was 1,585,372, of which 1,540,466 was in day schools. 2. The fees paid in 1870 in day and in night schools were
972
£502,022, or 8s. 8d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 the fees amounted to £762,184, or 9s. 10 d. per head. 3. The voluntary subscriptions to day and night schools in 1870 amounted to £418,839, or to 7s. 3d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 they amounted to £601,172, or to 7s. 9d. per head. 4. In 1870, before the new Code came into operation, the Government grant to day schools was £562,611, or 9s. 9d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 the day voluntary schools received under the new Code £956,347, or 12 s. 5d. per head. The grant to night schools in 1870 was £24,879, or 6s. 9d. per head. In 1874 it was£17, 178, or 7s. 6d. per head. In addition to the Question put on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman, I may add that the night schools in 1870 were 24,000, and in 1874, 17,000.

INDIA—BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any portion of the Banda and Kirwee prize money in the hands of the Government; and, if so, will he inform the House when it will be paid to those entitled to it?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A complete account of the prize has not yet been received from India; but it is believed that about £30,000 of that booty is still in the possession of the Government. It is probable that this will not be more than sufficient to meet the outstanding claims arising on the distributions already authorized. It is therefore not likely that any further distribution will be made to those whose authorized claims have been already satisfied.

INDIA—VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF WALES TO INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended by the Government, in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, to propose to Parliament to make such provision as will enable His Royal Highness to discharge such duties as may be considered befitting his position as the representative of Her Majesty with becoming dignity?
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman, in his hypothetical Question, makes an inquiry of a somewhat ambiguous nature. The hon. Gentleman inquires—
  "Whether it is intended by the Government, in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, to propose to Parliament to make such provision as will enable His Royal Highness to discharge such duties as may he considered befitting his position as the representative of Her Majesty."
  I apprehend that in the event of His Royal Highness visiting India he would not visit it as the representative of Her Majesty. The Viceroy would continue to fulfil the duties which are attendant on that office. But I may say generally to the hon. Gentleman, that in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, and in the event of Her Majesty's Government having to make any public communication on the subject, the House of Commons will be the first body in the country to whom that communication will be made.

TWEED FISHERIES ACTS—REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the note appended to the Report of the Special Commission on the Tweed Fisheries Acts, at page 201 of the Index, in which the Commissioners state that—
  "They are satisfied that the additional constables engaged in the protection of the river may be supplemented, and, in point of fact, are supplemented, by the county police, who are so far liable to be withdrawn from their special duties;"
  whether he has noticed the evidence given before that Commission by the Sheriff Substitute of Roxburghshire, to the effect that "the efficiency of the police is considerably injured" by their employment as water bailiffs; and, whether he is prepared henceforward to permit that members of the regular county police should assist the constables paid from the funds of the Tweed Commissioners in their duties as water bailiffs?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the Report to which his hon. Friend alluded; but he had not yet been able
  974
  to give it that attention which it deserved. He might say, however, with respect to the supplementary force for the protection of rivers, that before the presentation of this Report he had been in communication with the Inspectors of Police in England on the subject, and the attention of the Government was directed to it.

WATER SUPPLY.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having in view the inadequate supply of water for drinking and other purposes in many towns, rural villages, and districts throughout the Country, Her Majesty's Government are prepared during the present Session with any measure to remedy this evil; and, if not, whether the Government will consent to an inquiry into the subject by a Royal Commission, for the purpose of ascertaining the wants of various rural districts, and the best method of storing water where needed?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I stated very recently, in reply to a Question addressed to me in this House, what new powers and facilities in respect of water supply were proposed to be conferred by the Public Health Bill of this Session. The Government have no further legislation to propose on the subject at present. In reply to my hon. Friend's further Question as to a Royal Commission, the Government have not yet had time for its consideration. In considering it their object would be to adopt such a course as might lead to a practical conclusion with the least delay.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869.—QUESTION.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether, in the monthly return published by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council Office, under section 22 of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869,"—he would state in addition—(1.) Whether the foreign ports from which the animals are brought are in scheduled or unscheduled countries; (2.) The number of the healthy animals brought in the same vessel with the diseased animals, and the mode in which such healthy animals have been disposed of, whether by slaughter or otherwise?
VISCOUNT SANDON: In answer to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the matters he has referred to do not come within my Department. I, however, brought the subject before the Lord President, and he has authorized me to say that he will be happy to direct the additions to be made to the monthly Return which my hon. Friend desires, and, if possible, will have them added to that of next month.

INDIA—THE BENGAL FAMINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is intended to bestow any honours or rewards on any of those who fought the Indian famine for us, or if there is any regulation limiting such honours and rewards to strictly military services?
  MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Gentleman apparently assumes in his Question that the honours and rewards conferred by Her Majesty are conferred only for military services; but that is not the case. On the contrary, many honours and rewards have been conferred, even recently, by Her Majesty for services which are strictly civil. There were, I think, three Knights Commanderships of the Bath conferred for Civil services even in this year, besides several Commanderships and Knights Commander-ships of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and many Knighthoods for Civil services, or for distinction in science and otherwise, by which public respect is gained. There have also been some hereditary honours conferred for Civil services; and therefore I do not think the hon. Gentleman right in his assumption that the honours and rewards conferred by Her Majesty are strictly for military services. With respect to the great labours of those who successfully contended with the Indian Famine, I may say it is but very recently that their success has been attained. On all these occasions—I am not now speaking with reference peculiarly to the labours connected with the Indian Famine, but to labours of this character when the conduct is performed in a distant country and the exertions have been shared by many individuals—it is of great importance that the utmost care should be taken that no mistake is committed—that you should not, for instance, reward the wrong
  976
  people—a mistake that is sometimes made and not easily remedied. I may also say to the hon. Gentleman that when you are considering such circumstances it should be remembered that all honours, excepting hereditary honours, are with very slight exceptions limited in number. It is not sufficiently known by the country—and, if I might presume to say so, even by the Houses of Parliament—that there is no Order of Knighthood which is not limited in its numbers, and vacancies may not occur for some time. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that there are a great many considerations which have to be taken into account when the distribution of honours or rewards for services of the kind referred to has to be made; and I would say humbly to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, considering the difficulties attendant on a satisfactory distribution of such honours and rewards, it is best to leave the exercise of that Prerogative to Her Majesty and her responsible Advisers.

FRANCE—DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.—EXPLANATION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I have to ask the House to allow me to offer an explanation in respect to the vote taken on the Previous Question, moved by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), when I brought under notice the Declaration of Paris, on Tuesday evening. It has been suggested to me that I acted disrespectfully to the House in leaving the House when the Question was about to be put to a division taken upon it. I wish, therefore, to explain that I had stated that I wished to withdraw the Notice I had given, but was not prepared to divide upon the Previous Question, which did not meet the merits of the case. I venture to think that if the division had been taken upon my own Motion, instead of upon the Previous Question, the result would have been very different.
PRIVILEGE—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—THE PRITTLEWELL PETITION.

  SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Order for Consideration of Special Report read.
  MR. DISRAELI: It becomes my duty to ask the House to consider this

  977
  Report of the Committee, and to suggest the course which, on reflection and due investigation of the circumstances, I think it is for the public interest and the honour of the House they should follow. I will not move that the Petition be read at the Table. If hon. Gentlemen wish it, it may be done; but by taking that course, we should really give that stimulus to improper addresses to this House which is obtained by notoriety. I think I can accurately and impartially convey the contents of this Petition to the House without reproducing all those expressions and that tone of feeling which has arrested the attention of our careful Committee on Petitions. Now, Sir, this Petition has one remarkable characteristic. It is really two Petitions in one—that is to say, there are two prayers. Not that there are really two prayers conjointly at the end, but after a certain statement of facts is made, a prayer to the House is introduced; then follows a new statement of facts, and the Petitioners again address a prayer to the House upon that point. It cannot be said to be wholly unconnected with the previous prayer; but still it is a distinct and independent one. The Petition itself is a Petition which impugns the conduct of the three Judges who presided over the Trial at Bar of the convict Orton. It believes that there was not a fair trial; it gives, under three heads, the feeling, or the reasoning, if by courtesy it may be so called, by which the Petitioners have arrived at that conclusion. They state that the three Judges had prejudged the case—that by the expression of their opinion before the trial they had shown that they were hostile to the Claimant or Defendant. In the second place, they state that, in consequence of conducting the trial with this foregone conclusion, witnesses were brow-beaten, the jury prejudiced, and at times coerced; the Defendant's Counsel insulted, and interfered with, so that he could not do his duty to his client; and, thirdly, they declare that the summing-up was dishonest and corrupt, and they impute in some detail corrupt motives throughout to the Judges in this transaction. This part of the Petition concludes with a prayer that this House would address Her Majesty to remove—these three Judges from the Bench. Well, now, so far as we have proceeded, I do
  978
  not think this House will have any difficulty as to the course it should adopt. This is not the first Petition in the records of Parliament—of this House—which has been addressed to it, and in which the conduct of the Judges has been inpugned. I felt it my duty to search the Journals of the House in order that the House might have information as to precedents at its command; and I think it more convenient and more likely to lead to an earlier completion of the business if I place this information at once as briefly as I can before the House, that the House shall have at once in its possession all the information which will enable it to arrive at the conclusion which I wish to propose that the House shall adopt. The precedents to which I refer commence in the year 1816. On the 8th of May there was a Petition of Mr. Taaffe, complaining that the President of the Court of Session had been guilty of various acts of malversation in the administration of justice. The Motion that the Petition do lie on the Table was negatived. On the 11th of July, 1817, a Petition was offered to be presented complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Day. A Motion was made that the Petition should be brought up, but it was, by leave, withdrawn. On the 22nd of December, 1819, a Petition was presented complaining of the conduct of magistrates, and praying for inquiry, and it was rejected. That instance is memorable, because Mr. Huskisson took part in the debate; and he said—
  "The House could not think of entertaining and retrying a case which had been already disposed of in a Court of Justice."—[1 Hansard, xli. 1447.]
  On the 23rd of February, 1821, there was a Petition of Mr. Thomas Davison, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Best in fining him while he was on his defence. That was offered to be presented. There was a division on the Motion, and the presentation was negatived. It may be said that these instances occurred in somewhat hard times, when there was not that sympathy with popular rights and popular sentiments which, at present, happily exists in this country; but it was necessary I should place them before the House; and the precedents which I will now quote are of sufficiently modern date.

  979
  On the 28th of July, 1870, the House was moved—
  "That a Petition having been presented to this House upon the 10th day of June last, from certain inhabitants of the city of Waterford, containing grave charges against Baron Hughes, one of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in respect of his judicial conduct upon the trial of the late Election Petition in that city, and praying for inquiry, and no action having been taken thereon by any Member of this House, order made on the 10th day of June last that the said Petition do lie on the Table might be read; and, the same being read: Ordered that the said Order be discharged;"
  and it was further ordered that so much of the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Petitions as contained the Petition should be cancelled. On the 3rd of July, 1874, notice having been taken that a Petition of the Rev. James Thwaytes, rector of Caldbeck, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 22nd of June last, contained imputations on the conduct of certain of the Judges, and also statements affecting the social and legal position of individuals, the Order made on the 22nd of June last "That the Petition do lie on the Table" was read, and discharged, and it was Ordered, "That the Petition, as printed in the Appendix to the Seventeenth Report on Public Petitions, be cancelled, and that the Petition be withdrawn." These are precedents which completely apply to the present case. I am bound to say for myself, and for my Colleagues—whose advice I have had the advantage of obtaining—that we are not at all inclined to put a strict interpretation upon the language used in the Petitions which complain of the conduct of Judges of the Realm. We should pass over much violent and coarse language if an accusation were distinct and not vague, and if the Member who presented the Petition gave security for its authenticity by announcing to the House that he intended to proceed upon it. The administration of justice—the just administration of the law, I would rather say—is, I believe, one of the sources of the great content which prevails, and has long prevailed, in this country. It is one of those blessings that every Englishman duly feels, and of which he is proud; and I am of opinion that we should not too severely scrutinize the language of Petitions which refer to the conduct of the Judges of the land, and impute to them
  980
  an improper and corrupt motive, provided the charges are distinct and not vague, and that the Member who presents these Petitions announces to the House that he intends to take immediate steps to ask the opinion of the House upon the subject. Therefore, so far as this Petition impugns the conduct of the Judges in the particular case concerned, I have nothing further to say, except that if the Gentleman who presented the Petition, who, I believe, is my hon. Friend the Member for the county of Essex (Colonel Makins), announces that he is prepared, having presented that Petition, to ask the opinion of the House upon its contents, I should not, so far as I have gone, oppose the receipt of that Petition. The next point to which I have to call the attention of the House is, in my opinion, of a much more serious character. I refer to the second portion and the second prayer of this Petition. Having concluded their prayer that this House would interfere for the removal of the three Judges, this Petition proceeds to announce that the Petitioners have heard with alarm and surprise that no less a personage than you, Sir, the most eminent Member of this House, had announced that Petitions complaining of unfair trial cannot be received. It is not necessary for me to say that no such opinion was given by you. I am not at all wishing to influence the House in the course I am recommending to them, nor to aggravate the case before us, by showing that it touches so exalted a personage as the right hon. Gentleman who presides over our deliberations, and appealing—as I know I should successfully do—to their conviction that the best feelings and highest interests of this House are involved in maintaining the authority of the Chair. It is certainly not necessary for me to refer at all to this point with the view of ensuring its due influence on our deliberations. Having made the statement that they have heard with astonishment, alarm, and surprise that this expression of opinion has been made by Mr. Speaker, they proceed in a style of invective on the subject, and they end by a prayer that the House of Commons will take measures for the impeachment of Mr. Speaker. I would have the House to observe that in the second part of this Petition there is involved a violation of our most im-

  981
  port and cherished privilege. It is not a question of Breach of Privilege, like that which we may unfortunately have to discuss to-morrow, and in which we are obliged, on the whole, deeming it for the public advantage, to expedite the course of fair play and justice by referring to the obsolete, yet necessary, machinery; but it involves a Breach of the highest Privilege of the Members of this House—namely, that they should not be called in question by persons out of this House for words which they have used in this House. That, indeed, is the only security we have for free discussion and freedom of debate, and that has always been looked upon as the most precious privilege of Members of the House of Commons. They cannot be impugned; they cannot be proceeded against on account of words which are used in this House. Now here is a distinct and gross violation of that Privilege of the House, for the words of a Member of this House, uttered in it, are impugned and threatened by those out of the House, and that in regard to a Member, the most eminent in position, whom the House of Commons are called upon to visit with the penalties of impeachment in consequence of those words. The House will see in a moment—it is not necessary for me to dwell upon it—that if this privilege of free speech is not most rigidly and sacredly guarded in this House, opportunities may be taken by persons of authority and power—whether they be Monarchs or Mobs—the difference would not be great—to crush the freedom of discussion in this House, upon which the liberties of the people and the welfare of this Realm mainly depend. Therefore, as this Petition contains a gross violation of the Privileges of this House by calling into question words used in this House by a Member, I move that the Order for this Petition lying on the Table be rescinded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order that the Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood [presented 6th April] do lie upon the Table, he read, and discharged."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  COLONEL MAKINS: As I am the Member who presented this Petition, the House will, perhaps, allow me to say a few words in explanation. I believe the best course which any Member of this House can adopt when he
  982
  finds that he has by inadvertence or carelessness committed an error, is frankly to avow it, and throw himself on the indulgence of the House. That, Sir, is my case. The history of this Petition, so far as I am concerned, is very short and simple, and if the House will allow me I will relate it. I received a letter from a constituent living at Prittlewell, a day or two before the Easter Recess, asking me whether I would present a Petition for the release, as he termed it in his letter, of "that unhappy nobleman now languishing in prison." Secondly, I was asked whether I would support the prayer of the Petition; and, lastly, whether I would give the hon. Member for Stoke a patient hearing when he brought his Motion before the House. I replied to those Questions categorically, that I would present the Petition; that I could not support its prayer; and that I would not interrupt the hon. Member for Stoke. On my return to town after Easter I found the Petition; and I am sorry to say, without carefully looking at it, or making myself fully acquainted with the contents or the nature of the language in which it was couched, I presented that Petition. I have nothing more to say. I do not intend to take any course with regard to the Petition; I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, except that I only wish to say this—that there is no Member of this House who would feel more regret than I do at having inadvertently become the means of conveying through the Forms of this House an unmerited censure upon the Bench and upon you, Sir. There is no Member of this House who has a greater admiration for the diligence and the ability with which Her Majesty's Judges discharge the most sacred duty of administering justice in England. There is no one who has a profounder faith in the impartiality and integrity with which those duties are discharged. And I am sorry to say there is no one who has a profounder—I was going to say, contempt, but I would rather use the word pity, than I have for the victims of that monstrous delusion, of the existence of which this Petition is evidence—I mean the delusion that the person referred to in the Petition has been the victim of a persecuting conspiracy, whether aristocratic or Jesuitical, and that he has not

  983
  had a fair trial. Thanking the House for having listened to my explanation, I beg to express my regret that I should have presented the Petition.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee his duty in this matter was simply a Ministerial duty, and must be held to have been discharged with the presentation of the Report, which at the request of the Committee he had laid on the Table on Monday last. The matter then passed from their hands to those of the Government and the House. He wished to correct a misapprehension which prevailed as to the functions of the Public Petitions Committee. He was asked why some of the Petitions on the Tichborne Case were not summarily rejected by the Committee. They had, however, no power to reject any Petition which had once been received by the House except on the ground of informality; and therefore it was most desirable that Members undertaking the presentation of doubtful Petitions should, at the time of their presentation, call the attention of the House to the subject-matter, in order that when the Question was put from the Chair that the Petition should lie upon the Table, the House might, if it thought fit, give a negative vote, and thus obviate the necessity and trouble of a proceeding like the present. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that in the case of the Petition complaining of the conduct of Baron Hughes, to which allusion had been made, the ground there given for discharging the Order was that no action had been taken since the presentation of it. Speaking for himself, he might say that, notwithstanding the strong language of the Petition under discussion, he could not have voted for the discharge of the Order if the hon. Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) had stated in his place that it was his intention to follow up that Petition by a Motion. The right of Petitioners to approach that House was an ancient and constitutional right, which did not admit of question. But while the House was always prepared to give every facility for the exercise of that right, it had ever shown a disinclination to allow its Forms to be made use of for the purpose of circulating charges and attacks which it was not intended seriously to follow up. It was scarcely necessary for
  984
  him, on the part either of himself or of his Colleagues, to disclaim the slightest animus in the Tichborne Case. In the discharge of their functions the Committee had but one wish, and that was to discharge their duties in strict accordance with the regulations and practice of Parliament as they understood them, and to mete out to all Petitions that came before them equal justice and courtesy.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I venture, Sir, to differ from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, though I cannot conceal from myself that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is shared by a large majority of the House. A Petition which prayed for the release of the prisoner in question has been adopted by a large majority of the inhabitants of Leicester, and has the signature of 15,000 persons. Here I wish to say that in their views I have no sympathy or belief whatever; but the right of Petition is an ancient and sacred right. It is much more than a right; it is a duty which it is eminently for the interest of the House to cherish and encourage as much as we can, and to hinder and relax it as little as possible by the suggestion of technical difficulties. It is important in the interests of good order that the people of this country should feel that the House of Commons is the Great Inquest of the Nation, before whom they can bring complaints and demand inquiry or redress. It is therefore most important that the right of Petition should be preserved and encouraged, and this is the natural result of free discussion. Now, Sir, it is said that this Petition contains gross libels against the Judges, and against many other individuals. I believe it with all my heart. But what then? All charges against public functionaries must contain libels. The question of acting upon these Petitions, or of receiving them, is, I submit, an entirely different thing. If the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) or the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) founded a Motion on these Petitions, I should unhesitatingly give my vote against them. But that is no reason why great masses of the people should be cut off from petitioning. I believe that this Petition contains libels; but it is not impossible to conceive that there might be such things—indeed, there have been such things—as corrupt and unjust Judges;

  985
  and, that being so, to whom did the people come but to this House to protest, and to seek their removal. I believe I am right in saying that for a period of 200 years—from the time of William and Mary—the Judges have not held their offices according to the pleasure of the Crown, but quamdiu se bene gesserint; and therefore to whom are the people of England to come but to this House, to say that they believe injustice has been done and to ask their Representatives to join and assist them in presenting an Address to the Crown? The right hon. Gentleman says he would not have moved that this Petition should not be received had the hon. Member who presented it (Colonel Makins) declared his willingness to bring forward in this House a Motion in accordance with its prayer. I consider that in that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to do great injustice to the Members of this House as well as to the people who send Petitions here. We have heard of a Petition signed by 15,000 infatuated people at Leicester, but it would be gross injustice to compel the hon. Member for Leicester to bring forward a Motion in accordance with it. The strongest part of the case of the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly the unwise, foolish, and even insulting observations upon yourself, Sir. I shall not show any disrespect for you, Sir, because here, in your presence, I do not lavish terms of laudation. I will only say that your position is such as to enable you to pass by such folly without a word. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) made a great deal more of this matter than he need have done, because he admitted that the words used in the Petition, and attributed to the Speaker, were not used by him, and therefore the rudeness towards you, Sir, was but an hypothetical rudeness. Sir, I give an emphatic "No" to the Motion.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Sir, I assure you it is with great reluctance that I address the House upon this question, and I do so, I hope, with a sense of the responsibility due to the position which I assume. Although I have been sitting by the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), my resolve in this matter has been come to without any sort of concert with him. I think we had better look at this matter before it grows to larger dimensions, and before
  986
  it becomes a question which may very much trouble us, as it has already troubled the constituencies of the country. I am in the same position as the hon. Member for Leicester in this respect, that I am threatened with a Petition to present in the same interest, worded exactly as this is, and founded upon the same delusions. I disclaim any sort of belief in any part of the Petition; but how is the mischief to be cured? What is the mischief that is proceeding? I beg the House to beware of it. It is this—that for nearly a year past the foullest slanders have been allowed to be published, and there has been no hand raised, no Ministerial voice expressed upon this matter; and with the exception of the rejection, Sir, by you, in your capacity of Speaker of this House, of a Petition last year, I do not suppose there has been the slightest notice taken of that which is fermenting in the country. Now, if these slanders are allowed to be stated, what must be the inference in the minds of men who read them daily or weekly? It must be this—first, they are in print, and that to comparatively uneducated minds may give them an authenticity that they would otherwise want; and when they read them, as they do, they must arrive at this conclusion, that if not true, those who disseminate them should be at once prosecuted. But if they are true, is it because you are afraid to prosecute that you do not proceed? Then, if such is not the case, how can you complain of the constituencies believing these statements to be true? If they are true, then I say it is noble and generous of the people to believe them, and they do right to come here to this House and present Petitions, couched although they may be in terms which we might take exception to, but certainly conveying specific charges with which it is for this House to deal. Now, what does this Petition do? It states certain matters which might be inquired into. Where can they be inquired into? Where so fittingly as in this House? A verdict given by a Committee upon these charges would yield comfort to this country. One of the precedents adduced by the Prime Minister was when the House refused to try a criminal over again, and I quite agree with such a precedent as that, but it does not govern this case. In this case it is charged that certain persons in high

  987
  office exhibited misconduct in the course of a certain trial, and four instances of similar charges have been enumerated. But the question is, are the charges true or not? I submit that this House is the only tribunal which can set this ferment at rest, and it can only do so by referring this question to a Committee. These matters should be inquired into. I have only further to say, Sir, with regard to the reflection upon the office which you hold, I really think that that has been brought into too much prominence. The only thing to be done is to deal with this matter in the manner suggested. Nothing else will give peace, or put a stop to that with which we are threatened—namely, a continuance of that which is generous on the part of those who believe it, but which is in the highest degree evidence of their credulity.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There are lawyers in this House, perhaps, who are not unfamiliar with the precedents which have been brought forward by the Prime Minister, and I venture to think that any who have examined the precedents bearing on this case, even though they should be, like myself, humble and unlearned Members of this House, must nevertheless have grave doubts as to the applicability of those precedents to this matter. And one cannot but discover that if there are some precedents which are in favour of the rejection of this Petition there are others which go the other way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) has pointed out that one of the precedents quoted by the Prime Minister has no bearing upon this case, inasmuch as it was a Petition praying for the retrial of a case which had been already decided in the Courts of Law. But there is another precedent which was brought forward by the Prime Minister, which also, I think, has little bearing on this case. He quoted the precedent of a Petition against Justice Best in 1821; and he said that that Petition was rejected after coming to a Party division upon it. But he did not point out that in the same year other Petitions were rejected by this House also upon Party divisions, in which the conduct of Ministers alone was called in question. It is quite clear that in that year, and also in 1819 and 1820, it was by no means uncommon for this House to reject, on Party divisions, Petitions which would
  988
  be received at the present time. Another precedent was that of 1870, four years ago, when a Petition was presented on the 10th of June against the conduct of Baron Hughes, and the reason stated in the Journals for the rejection of that Petition was, that no Member had made any Motion about it in support of the charges which it contained. We are not at the present moment aware whether it is not the intention of some Member to make a Motion upon the subject which this Petition does contain. When the Prime Minister asks the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) whether it is his intention to make a Motion founded upon this Petition, I ask the great Constitutional authorities of this House, whether it is or is not the case that any other Member has just as much right to make a Motion founded on these charges as the hon. Gentleman who presented the Petition? There are one or two precedents which bear strongly in favour of this Petition. On the 23rd of May, 1689, a Petition, alleging the most grossly unfair treatment of a prisoner by the Judges, was received by this House. In 1701 the famous Kentish Petition was presented. It was unconstitutional, because it prayed for war, and was rejected; but a great storm was created about it, and it was afterwards held that it was unwise to reject it, rather than by a Resolution to declare it frivolous and unconstitutional; and in a note appended to the passage in Hansard it is stated that—
  "The same privileges by which the Members in Parliament claim to speak, gives every commoner the right to speak to this House."—[Hansard, Parl. History, 5.]
  In 1725 a Petition was presented to this House from Lords Oxford and Morpeth alleging gross injustice against a Master in Chancery; and there is also the case of the famous Wilkes Petition, in 1768. Mr. Wilkes was, at the time, a Member of this House, and, having consulted Constitutional authorities on this point, I believe I am justified in saying that it was held that the fact of his being a Member of this House made no difference in his position. The Petition brought a charge of subornation of perjury against Mr. Secretary West, and it was received by the House; and many weeks afterwards, on a Resolution being submitted to the House declaring that Petition to be frivolous,

  989
  the Resolution was adopted. On the 10th of December, 1779, at the time that Lord North was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Petition of the freeholders of Middlesex was not rejected, although it preferred a formal charge against Lord North of the most wanton and arbitrary use of his power, to the utter subversion of the free election of Members to the House of Commons. That Petition, also, was received. In 1804 there was a Petition impugning the conduct of Mr. Justice Fox, who was then a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, in Ireland. That Petition charged Mr. Fox with the most gross and wilful violation of the rights of the subject, and in this respect it was entirely on all fours with the allegation of the present Petition against the Lord Chief Justice, and that Petition also was received. I think, therefore, the right course to pursue on this occasion ought to be pointed out to us, not only by the Prime Minister, but by those to whom we are expected to look for guidance upon all Constitutional questions. I cannot but perceive from the tone of the Prime Minister that there is some doubt as to the line which ought to be taken; and I should not have presented myself before the House had the Constitutional authorities informed us what was our duty on this occasion.
  MR. HERSCHELL: As a lawyer, I desire to say a few words on this question. No one in this House more than myself feels that it is of the utmost possible importance that freedom of Petition should remain to the people of this country. I feel that it would be utterly impossible to do anything more calculated to produce mischief hereafter than to throw any doubt upon the right of the subject to petition this House in a matter that concerns the administration of justice in this country. I cannot doubt, therefore, that it is within the province of any subject of Her Majesty to petition this House, that an Address may be presented to the Crown for the removal of any of the Judges who, it is alleged, have acted improperly or corruptly; and I cannot doubt that the Petition in question ought to be received, if the language used in it be not disrespectful to this House, and if the facts stated in it be germane to the prayer of the Petition. That seems to me to be the essence of the case. I can understand its being said that the Petition, containing scan-
  990
  dalous charges against the Judges, concluded with a prayer to which these charges had no sort of reference, and that, therefore, the Forms of this House were being made a mere vehicle for abuse. But when the allegations in the Petition are germane to the prayer of the Petition, and when the prayer is one which may be legitimately addressed to the House, I do not see how the House can take exception to the Petition; because they may disagree, as I utterly do, with the charges contained in it, or because they may have the deepest and best founded belief that those who are presenting the Petition really are not bringing forward the facts of the case. Nobody can doubt that the charges made in the Petition have the strictest reference to the prayer with which it ends, so far as that prayer relates to the removal of the Judges; and I feel an indignation which it is difficult to repress at hearing the scandalous charges which are scattered broadcast throughout the country against those for whom I have, from almost daily contact and experience, learnt to respect and honour. It is difficult under such circumstances to keep one's judgment calm and restrain one's indignation so as to keep within the legitimate constitutional course. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that it may be desirable at some time or other to deal with and settle this question once for all. It is a matter which, if fairly discussed in the light of day, need not be afraid of that discussion, and it will be a far better course to have these charges dragged into the day-light than left to simmer as they do now. But I cannot agree that the proper course would be to refer this Petition to a Select Committee. As far as I can see there is one way, and only one legitimate way, by which this question can be set at rest for ever, and that is, by moving an Address to Her Majesty for the removal of the Judges whose conduct is impugned. And then comes the question, what should be done with this Petition? I do not understand that the Prime Minister, in his Motion, has in any way disputed the propositions I have laid down as to the first part of the Petition, neither do I think that they will be contested by the hon. Members for Leicester and Stockport. I understand the Prime Minister to acknowledge, in the fullest way, that there is a

  991
  right to petition with reference to the removal of the Judges, even though the statements referring to the subject might be offensively worded. I do hope, therefore, that we shall clearly know what we are proceeding upon. The right hon. Gentleman asks the House to discharge the Order for this Petition on different grounds, which I think bear upon the point upon which I have been addressing the House. It is said that this Petition contains charges against a totally different person, to whom the prayer does not apply, and that it is a Breach of the Privilege of this House, that any hon. Member should have scandalous accusations made against him by reason of his conduct or speech as a Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman who occupies the Chair as the Speaker is not less entitled to protection than other Members are, and surely there is no danger whatever in laying down this proposition—that if a Petition presented to this House infringes against that rule and attacks a Member of this House, that is a Petition which ought not to be received by this House. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) says that, after all, the charges made against the Speaker are not very grave. Be it so. But then are we to overlook them? By rejecting them we shall not be limiting the right of the people to petition this House, and to state the grounds on which they petition it, however vague the charge which they may convey against the persons attacked. I trust, therefore, that it may be possible for the House to come to a unanimous decision on the question before it.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) there is no point in the Petition which could quite properly come before this House. I fully agree in all that has been said as to the manner in which it violates all the Rules of the House. If a Petition is laid before the House praying for the removal of the Judges, it ought to set forth distinctly the grounds on which such removal is prayed for, in the same way as in any Petition presented in the Court of Chancery. Now, I had an opportunity of carefully reading this Petition, and after a careful perusal, without any bias whatever, I venture to say that no person can read it without coming to the conclusion that there is
  992
  no ground on which this House can act. The allegations in the Petition are such as would be rejected in the Court of Chancery as scandalous and irrelevant. The language used is coarse, low, vulgar, scurrilous, and libellous against some of the most eminent persons in this country. I regret that the Petition has been allowed to be presented, and its rejection by the House may at least have some effect in stopping the progress of this wretched business, and dispel delusion. My creed is that of Dean Milman, who said, "I believe in the immortality of humbug;" but the proceedings of this House have had—and I hope always will have—a considerable effect upon public opinion, and we may do something to stop the spread of the delusion, though we cannot entirely put it down.
  MR. WHITBREADsuggested that they ought to consider what should be the position of the House with regard to the reception of Petitions similar to the present one, but making no reference to the Speaker. He thought such Petitions ought to be received, and that hon. Members presenting them ought not to be required to bring the charges they contained under the special notice of the House. At the same time, it would be unjust to the Judges and undignified on the part of the House to allow these Petitions to remain indefinitely upon the Table. If there was any Member of the House ready to substantiate the charges, let him name an early day and bring his charge; but if, after a Petition had been for some reasonable, and not long, time upon the Table, nobody was found ready to bring its allegations to the test, then it should be the duty of the Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, to move that the charges appeared to be without foundation, and that the Petition be rejected.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The speech which we have just heard confirms me in the belief that the Motion which I am about to submit is a proper one. I venture to propose what may be called a middle course—which is, perhaps, not a course I often take. I have a difficulty in making up my mind upon this subject, for the advice we have received has been so various that, while we well know that doctors differ, we have equal reason to say that lawyers differ. But we have had a want of advice from one quarter, I want to have some advice

  993
  from my natural Leader. I have seldom this Session seen the front Opposition bench so well filled as it is to-night, but its occupants all sit silent; not a word of advice do we get from them. Yet they are not always silent. My noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition dined out last night with the Fishmongers. I read his speech this morning, and I was very much impressed by the manner in which he expressed his sense of the excellent and admirable qualities of Her Majesty's Government. Now, does he think they are so excellent in the course they take that they are able to carry on the affairs of this House without any assistance at all from the Opposition? I hope he will get up and give us a word or two. We ought to be told what is the policy of the Liberal Party on this question. I do not want and certainly do not mean to discuss this question as a lawyer. It appears to me to have a wider aspect than the legal aspect. We ought, I think, to consider what will be the effect of the proceedings of this House upon public opinion out-of-doors, especially with regard to the monstrous and, I am afraid, spreading delusion about the Tichborne Case. I do not believe for a moment that any Resolution we can pass or any step we can take in this House would effectually quell that delusion, because my creed is the same as that expressed by Dean Milman when he said—" I believe in the immortality of humbug." But the proceedings of this House have, as I think they always will have, a considerable influence upon public opinion, and we may do something to check the delusion, though we cannot entirely put it down. I do not think we are at present taking the right way to do that. I think I could see all through the speech of the Prime Minister that he felt he had put his foot in it. He saw that the proceedings to-night would do nothing to quell the Tichborne demonstrations. Now, if these charges against Judges and other men high in authority which are going about are not true, I say let those people come out and prosecute the libellers. That is the proper thing to do. So far as we are concerned, if they are not true, as I believe they are not, let us treat them with utter and complete contempt. The charges consist partly of attacks on juries. I see before me the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan).
  994
  He has been in prison—like most of the Irish Members. I do not—and I say it candidly—I do not honour my hon. Friend a bit the less for his having been in prison. I am, on the contrary, glad to see him here. But why was he put in prison? It was because in a time of very great political excitement he wrote an article in his paper condemning the finding of a jury with regard to the Fenians who were subsequently hanged at Manchester. But he did nothing half so strong as has been done by the hon. Member for Stoke and his friends. He alleged no corruption against anybody. He simply said that the jury had acted under a panic. We have got wiser now, and do not imprison people for writing all this rubbish. In those days Sullivan was sent to prison; in these, Kenealy is sent to Parliament. Now, let us treat all this matter with the contempt it deserves. Sir, I only wish to make one more remark by way of justifying the Motion with which I am going to conclude. The strong point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that which had reference to the insulting imputation cast by the Petition upon you. I am not going to make a speech in your favour. As the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) has said, that is entirely a work of supererogation. But I do wish to say that a requisition in a Petition to this House that we should impeach you is so utterly outrageous and absurd, that, as sensible men, we ought not to consider it for a moment. Let us go to the Budget, which we are all anxious to hear, and let us dismiss from our minds all this contemptible rubbish, which has been occupying our attention for the last hour and a half. For the purpose of facilitating that step, I beg respectfully to move the Previous Question.
  MR. POTTERseconded the Motion.
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not vote for the Previous Question, but must vote with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) for a direct negative. It ought not to be allowed to go forth to the public that the House of Commons would in any way permit the right of Petition to be questioned. Though those

  995
  who signed this Petition had made a mistake and done wrong in the allusion to the Speaker, yet it could not be denied that a feeling had become very general that there had been corrupt conduct on the part of the Judges. It ought not to be allowed to go forth that when the people complained of unjust conduct on the part of the Judges, the House would not allow it that consideration which it ought to have. He wished to correct a false impression which the Prime Minister's speech—although, of course, unintentionally—might give rise to. The Petition did not pray that the Speaker should be impeached. It was simply a hypothetical statement that if the Speaker had used words which he did not use he ought tobe impeached. The prayer of the Petition, as he understood it, was the legitimate opinion of the people who signed it. Therefore, in defence of the right of Petition, he should vote with the hon. Member for Leicester against the rejection.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has appealed to me in order that he may know what is the opinion of Gentlemen who sit on this bench. I do not know that I can give him any assurance of absolute unanimity here any more than among his friends the doctors or lawyers; but on one subject I am sure I can give him the unanimous opinion of this bench, and that is that this question ought not to be treated in any sense as a Party question. I can assure him that his allegiance as a Party follower will not be tested on this occasion by any appeal to him in that capacity. Sir, I do not suppose that any Member of this House—certainly no Member who sits on this side of the House—would wish in any degree whatever to restrict the undoubted right of Petition. Various precedents and authorities of great weight have been urged in the course of this debate. There are, however, two Resolutions of the House which appear to be so apposite to this question that I will call attention to them. In 1669 two Resolutions were passed by the House. The first declared—
  "That it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same."
  And the second declared—
  996
  "That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine concerning the nature and matter of such Petitions, how far they are fit or unfit to be received."
  Now, these Resolutions maintained in the widest possible way the right of every subject to Petition, and the equal right of the House of Commons to consider, discuss, and decide how far such a Petition was fit to be received. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has stated, in general terms, the grounds on which he thinks that this Petition is unfit to be received, and I certainly am not going to take any exception to the general conclusion at which he has arrived; but I must say that upon some grounds I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it inexpedient that the Petition should be read from the Table. I admit the force of the objection that it would probably have been some satisfaction to the persons who prepared this Petition that their libellous charges against the Judges and the Speaker of this House should obtain the notoriety of having been read publicly here and subsequently printed. At the same time, I do think that there is no very great advantage in being so extremely punctilious. I feel that the character of the Judges who administer justice in the Courts of Law, and the character of the right hon. Gentleman who presides over our deliberations, and the character of this House, are such that no harm whatever can have resulted from the widest publication of this Petition and the libels it contains. I think the course suggested to us may be open to the objection that it should go forth to the world to-morrow that the House of Commons refused to entertain a Petition, without having it read at the Table, upon the mere statement of its contents by the Leader of the House. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was right in his criticism upon one part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as my recollection of the Petition goes I do not think that the second part of it concluded with any prayer for the impeachment of the Speaker. On the contrary, it appears to be open to a charge of informality on the ground that it makes an assertion about the right hon. Gentleman without making any prayer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Petition is divided into two parts. As to the

  997
  first, which relates to the Judges, I have had an opportunity of perusing it and forming my own opinion. The Petition contains language of a character which renders it unfit to be received by this House. It does not contain definite charges supported by statements as to facts within the knowledge of the Petitioners, and it appears to me that the charges, such as they are, are couched in very violent terms of an insulting character; therefore, I have formed the opinion that the Petition on this ground is one that ought not to be received. At the same time, I must admit that, in the unfortunate state of feeling of a certain section of the population with regard to what they may believe to have been a failure of justice in the Tichborne trial, I think there is a certain danger in allowing this Petition to be rejected without its being very clearly understood that it is rejected on account of the exception taken to the mode and manner of the statements, and not on account of the statements themselves so far as the alleged misconduct on the part of the Judges goes. I think it should be distinctly understood that Petitions have been already received imputing misconduct, and that no Petition will be refused by this House, although making grave and serious charges against Judges, so long as it is couched in temperate language. The right hon. Gentleman lays down that no Petition even couched in proper and respectful language ought to be received unless the Member who presents it is prepared to take action on it; but I do not understand that any Constitutional authority supports that view. Certainly, some of the precedents he referred to do not apply. He mentioned the case of Baron Hughes, but there the Petition was presented and lay upon the Table for six weeks, and at the expiration of that time it was moved that the Order be discharged, not be-cause the Members present did not vote upon it, but because no Member founded any Motion upon it. That I take to be the proper and usual practice of this House; and if a Petition were presented which contained offensive allusions to the Speaker, that would be quite sufficient ground for rejecting it; but I do not think we need trouble ourselves with a hypothetical case. There can be no doubt whatever that the way in which the Speaker is referred to affords ample
  998
  grounds for the discharge of the Order. When a Petition is presented which does not contain these expressions of disrespect, and when the charges are framed in a proper and temperate manner, then it seems to me it will be time enough for the House to consider it. We are dealing at present with this Petition, and with this Petition alone. After spending so much time as we have devoted to the consideration of this question, it would be subject of regret if we were to postpone decision upon it; and if I may give advice to the hon. Baronet, I hope he will be induced to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I would only remind the noble Lord of the fact that we are not moving on this Petition without having our attention called to it by the Committee on Petitions, and the reason why my right hon. Friend did not call for it to be read, was that the substance of it was read in the Report of the Committee. But of course it is perfectly competent for any Member to ask that the Petition be read, although my right hon. Friend did not counsel such a course. It is true that the Petition does not contain a prayer that the Speaker be impeached; but its words and its character have exactly that bearing. The Petitioners state, first of all, that they have heard that the Speaker has made use of certain expressions, and that if he did so it was an act of high treason against the Constitution which deserves the most severe reprobation of the people's Representatives in the House of Commons and calls for their immediate action, by impeachment or otherwise, as the House may deem expedient.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had confirmed the opinion held by many Members that the words of the Petition which referred to the Speaker were based on a hypothetical case. He (Mr. Mundella) hoped the House would not reject the Petition merely because of the foolish and absurd hypothesis contained in its last two lines.
  MR. MACDONALDfelt that this was a very grave question. He had the most perfect confidence in the purity of our Judges, and, as a rule, in the decisions of our juries; but he could not fail to see that statements were circulated which were calculated to bring both the Judges and juries of the land into contempt. Those who were giving

  999
  currency to those statements had an opportunity now, on the floor of the House, of vindicating their conduct. Statements which could not be defended in that House were unworthy of the consideration of the British public outside. Now was the time, and that was the place when those charges which had been sown broadcast should be defended if they could be, and as the hon. Member for Stoke was now within that House, he called upon him to rise and support his statements. He hoped, however, the House would not press the Motion to a division, as that House was the place for the meanest in the land to come for redress.
  DR. KENEALY: The hon. Member for Stoke did not intend to present himself at this period of the debate. He was waiting to hear some of the statesmen of this House take something like a statesmanlike view of the question at issue. He did not intend to enter upon the question of miserable legal technicalities; but he wanted to be guided in his observations to the House by those high authorities to whom this country had long been accustomed to look, and who were not only the guardians of the Constitutional Law of this country, but who were also supposed to be the guardians of the Constitutional liberties of the people. I must say that it is with the greatest possible regret I find that none of the Gentlemen on the front benches beneath me have condescended to favour the House with their opinions on this great question, because a great question it is, and a great question, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the people of this country are determined to make it. Sir, I know very well the utter disdain of the language which has been addressed to a large number of the people because they are of the humbler classes. ["No, no!"] I should like to know why, then, except that they were of the humbler classes? I have heard no reasons given by those Representatives of the people who have presumed to talk of the millions of our countrymen as acting under a delusion. I know the character of my countrymen well, and I have never been able to see the great universal common sense of the English people converted into delusions, as we are told to-night it has been. Surely it was quite enough that they
  1000
  should have been grossly insulted as fools and fanatics, without these men—who could have no interest in the case whatever, except that of sturdy Englishmen anxious to see justice done, and who assembled in hundreds of thousands in Hyde Park to protest against what they considered the injustice of the great trial—being again branded as an ignorant, deluded, and infatuated multitude. We have heard a great deal of the bad language used on the Tichborne side; but it appears to me that the language used on the other side, both in this House and elsewhere, is quite as bad. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will give me leave to say so, seems to be leading the House, if not into a ditch, at least into a dilemma. He wants this particular Petition to be rejected because the hon. Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) is not prepared to support a Motion founded upon it; but that might occur with regard to many similar Petitions, and in what position would the House then be placed under such circumstances? One hundred Gentlemen might present such Petitions in the course of the Session. As to the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had shown they were nothing but cobwebs and delusions. I speak under correction, not having had the advantage of looking into the four precedents which the right hon. Gentleman has cited; but I believe there is not a single instance to be found where a prayer for the removal of a Judge on grounds set forth in a Petition has ever been rejected by the House. I think it a very great pity that it seemed expedient to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss a Petition of which the House was actually in ignorance. ["No!"] Some Gentlemen profess to have read portions or the whole of the Petition; but the great majority of the House, as it appears to me, were ignorant of the language and the complaints of this Petition. Why has it not been read at the Table? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to shield any persons mentioned in it? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are statements in this Petition said to have been made by right hon. and hon. Members of this House. I do not know whether they are present; but, if so, and if the First

  1001
  Lord of the Treasury had that Petition read, they would have had an opportunity of stating on their honour as Gentlemen, in the presence of Parliament, whether they were true or not. It seems to me that the Petition, not having been read, an injustice has been done to the Judges in whose interest he is acting. If I, for my own part, had the honour of being one of those Judges—[Laughter]—perhaps I should rather say if I had the misfortune—I would have challenged, in defence of my own honour, the reading of this Petition, and an examination of the allegations which it contains. It was thought one of the greatest things, said Cæsar, and I agree with him, that Cæsar's wife should not be suspected of dishonour; and I say a British Judge should not allow himself to remain under charges such as alleged against those Judges. I am glad to observe the altered tone of this debate as regards the right of persons petitioning Parliament. It is notorious that in the last Session of Parliament statements were made in this House challenging the right of Petition because the petitioners complained of injustice and unfairness in a trial, and I say those statements deserved impeachment because they were in violation of the law of England and the Constitutional right of every Englishman. There are two statutes which guarantee the right to the removal of Judges for misbehaviour on an Address from the Houses of Parliament. But how is the misbehaviour of Judges to be brought to the knowledge of this House except by Petition? I want to know before whom a complaint of corruption or dishonesty on the part of a Judge can be brought if not before the Grand Inquest of the Nation? Such a position as that maintained by the right hon. Gentleman would not bear examination for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman hardly ventured to grapple with any of the difficulties of the question, which is entering very deeply into the English heart and soul, and if by the result of a division it shall appear that, acting on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, this House is prepared to refuse to entertain a Petition complaining of the conduct of Judges, it will raise a tempest in this country which it will not easily allay. I will not criticize the language of the noble Marquess who followed suit to a great
  1002
  many other hon. Gentlemen. The noble Marquess seems to have arrived in his own mind at some peculiar knowledge that the allegations of this Petition are false and scandalous. Why are they not proved to be false and scandalous? I hear no reply to that. I hear no cheer—no assenting voice. Is it that both sides of the House have made up their minds that the Judges acted fairly in that trial, and that the Claimant is Orton beyond all possibility of doubt? ["Hear, hear!"] Gentlemen, I do not envy you your judgment. ["Order, order!"] I am committing no disorder. ["Order!" and "Chair!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is one of the Rules of this House that every hon. Member should address himself to the Chair.
  DR. KENEALY: Sir, I beg pardon if I addressed the House by the name of gentlemen. I understand that is the breach of Order I have committed, and will take care not to do it again. I was remarking that I did not envy hon. Members the judgment they have arrived at in that most wonderful and mysterious case. They probably imagine that they have better grounds of forming an opinion, and pronouncing that opinion here, than I have, and declaring every allegation in this Petition to be false because they do not happen to coincide with it. Sir, as far as I have had an opportunity of forming an opinion on that complicated case, full of doubts and mysteries, I have formed a very different conclusion from that which prevails in the minds of hon. Members. I was referring just now to the noble Marquess. He read the two Resolutions passed in the House in the year 1669; but, not being a very sound Constitutional lawyer, he omitted to notice that the second of these Resolutions had nothing to do with pretending to impose restrictions on the language of petitions: it simply guarded the House against the claim set up by the House of Lords to criticize the conduct of petitioners who presented Petitions here, and it had nothing whatever to do with the question of limiting the language of Petitions. I do not profess to be a very profound student in Constitutional Law or in the Usages of this House; but I have always understood it to be in accordance with Constitutional Law and the Usages of this House that Parlia-

  1003
  ment requires all Petitions presented to it to be couched in language respectful to itself; and that is the only limit imposed. I may be wrong; and, if so, I shall be glad to be corrected by any high Constitutional authority in the House, but I believe what I have said to be both law and usage. I have really heard no language cited by the right hon. Gentleman, or by the noble Marquess—and that is another reason why the course he has adopted of not having the Petition read is extremely inconvenient—I have heard no language cited from the Petition which comes properly under the designation of slander. If a man is complaining of corrupt, bad, dishonest conduct, he must use words to convey the idea of corruptness, badness, and dishonesty. With some mealy-mouthed individuals, no doubt, language of that kind is slander; but that is not the true interpretation, because slander implies falsehood. Slander can never be supposed to be involved in truth; and if the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Marquess say there are any falsehoods in these Petitions, they ought to call on the House to investigate those falsehoods and trace them to their source; but they have made no such proposition. I do not know that I have anything further to say. If any such Petition as that should be forwarded to me—I never yet had one—I shall be perfectly prepared to present it to this House, to have it read at that Table, and to demand an inquiry into the conduct of the persons it impugns. The House would reject it, of course—that I can easily see from the temper prevailing on both sides; but let the House settle that with the country outside. I shall have performed my duty when I have done what I have said, and shall have liberated my conscience. If the House grants an inquiry, it will have an opportunity of learning for itself whether the accusations against the three Judges are true or false. In justice to those Judges, they ought to have an opportunity of showing whether the accusations against them are true or false; but if this House says—" We will have no inquiry, because we have made up our minds beforehand," I can only say, with the greatest possible deference to this House, that such a course is not calculated to elevate it very highly in the opinion of the English people.
  MR. BRIGHT: On this occasion we are discussing a rather complicated question. Some hon. Members are discussing one-half of it, and others the other half. Some naturally address themselves to the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I do not complain of that, for I think it arose out of the form and wording of the Petition. One question is about the freedom—I will not say permitted but existing—with regard to petitioning this House, and the other is to the language of the Petition with regard to the Speaker. Now, it is obvious from the discussion, beginning with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and from what has fallen from every hon. Member who spoke, that everybody in this House is in favour of the unlimited right of Petition, of such right of Petition as the people of England have ever demanded. As far as I can judge, the speeches of he hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop-wood) tend to the same thing. Whatever may be the result of this debate, there is no man in England, in the United Kingdom, or in the world who can charge this House with wishing to limit the right of Petition. But if we think it necessary to support the right of Petition, this House is acting just as much in the interest of petitioners and of the nation itself, when it insists on maintaining its own rights and the rights of the eminent Gentleman who fills the Chair. There can be no manner of doubt why the House, if it feels itself at liberty to discharge the Order, should do so. If it be discharged, what harm is it to the petitioners? They are not barred from approaching the House again in favour of any propositions which they have to submit, or any charges which they have to make, or any demands that the House should make any inquiry which they think for the public service. Therefore, if this Petition for the time be discharged the same petitioners may come to the House again leaving out that portion of the Petition which the House unanimously condemns, although by its vote it may not unanimously condemn it. I will undertake to say there is no hon. Member of this House, not even the hon. Member for Stoke himself—[Dr. KENEALY: Hear, hear!]—who would, in the presence of this House, or

  1005
  in the presence of any body of his countrymen, declare that it was for the interest of the people of England that any petitioner, by making gross and groundless insinuations, should bring a charge against the President and Speaker of the House of Commons. Then the House is agreed, I think, upon two things—that it will support the right of Petition; that it will support its own rights; and that it will support the rights of the Gentleman who presides over its deliberations; and I think all this can be done consistently with following the course which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has proposed. Now, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, spoke to me about this matter some days ago, I took the trouble to read the Petition over very carefully, and I gave my opinion then, as I have given it from that moment to this without change, that as far as the complaints of the Petition with respect to the late trial and the Judges were concerned, I thought there were no serious grounds which would justify me in voting for its rejection. But I said that the statements with regard to the Speaker of this House were of so important, so serious, and so gross a character, that if it were proposed by the head of the Government to reject the Petition on that ground I should find it extremely difficult to resist. Therefore, I am quite ready to vote for discharging the Order, limiting myself to the ground of the base and baseless insinuations with regard to the Speaker. On that ground I can vote with a clear conscience for discharging the Order. I should like to say a word on the case which the right hon. Gentleman brought before us of a Petition presented five years ago, complaining of the conduct of an Irish Judge. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the date when the Order was discharged, and he said it was about seven weeks after it was presented. Now, if this Petition had no reference to the Speaker of the House I should not be able, because the Petition attacked the Judges, to agree to discharge the Order within 1.0 days of the time when the Petition was presented; because 10 days is scarcely sufficient time to ascertain whether any person holding the views of the Petitioners would bring
  1006
  the subject before the House. It seems to me that we are not only guardians of the character of the Bench, but the guardians of that large interest which the people have in possessing and believing that they possess an incorrupt administration of the law. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Stoke has just spoken, and I listened as attentively as I could to all he said—perhaps he may have been confused in one or two of his last sentences—but he does not appear to me to have taken the position which the House had a right to expect on this occasion. I do not object to anything he said, or to anything that he has said since he came into this House. All I say is, he has not been here often enough, and has not proceeded with the proposition which he undertook to submit to the House on the second night after he entered it. At that very early period he gave Notice that he would bring the case of a recent remarkable trial in which he was engaged as counsel, before the House, and that he would move a Resolution. I believe there is a Notice of that kind on the Paper now—Dr. Kenealy—The Queen v. Castro—
  "To call attention to the Government Prosecution of the Queen v. Castro, and the conduct of the Trial at Bar and the incidents connected therewith, and also to certain incidents of the said trial which have occurred subsequently thereto; and to move a Resolution."
  Now, judging from the publication with which the hon. Member for Stoke is connected, and judging from what we hear everywhere, and from speeches made by him and by his friends, the House is forced to the conclusion that one great object of that Resolution would be to impugn the conduct of the Judges. This Petition impugns the conduct of the Judges. The hon. Member, I think I may assume, is the Member of the House who, above all others, is called upon, if anybody is called upon, and should be willing, if anybody is willing, to move a Resolution in support of the prayer of the Petition. I came down here on the night when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) asked some questions in regard to Judges and juries—I came down to the House specially early that I might see if the hon. Member for Stoke was in his place; and I intended on that occasion to ask him distinctly when he proposed to fix a day for the Motion of which he

  1007
  had given Notice. I say the hon. Gentleman has no right to come down to the House and give a Notice of this character, to remove it to some other day, then to some other day, and after that to let it remain on the Paper without any day being fixed, and then to leave London to visit towns and other parts of the country, and there to make his statement of the question—I will not say to inflame the minds of the people of this country, I will not say to make charges which are false—I will say rather to make statements which he believes it his duty to make. It is not right to make such statements, I will not say to defame, but to charge eminent Judges, and to create in the mind of the people a belief that men upon their trial before the Judges and a jury of this country cannot hope for fair, open, and complete justice. I say he has no right to do that, and leave a Notice of that kind on the Paper week after week and month after month; and I think the House ought to insist that a question of this nature, upon which so much hangs—a question as to the judgment of the House upon the character of eminent Judges—that this question ought not to be left undecided. The House ought to take some steps by which it shall either be adjudged or got rid of for ever. I think the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) made a manly declaration. He made an appeal to the hon. Member for Stoke which he cannot disregard. That hon. Gentleman knows that I am not one of those who, in private or public, defame him, or object to his sitting in this House, or show by what I shall say contempt for the constituency which has sent him here. I respect the great constituency which has sent him here. That constituency acted, perhaps, in great ignorance, but, I believe, thoroughly upon generous and honourable principles. But the hon. Member for Stoke, being the Representative of that constituency in this House, ought to feel that he is the one above all other—and this is the place above all others—in which he should bring to the adjudication of the House the serious charges he is constantly making against the Judges. He will have a fair hearing. I can sit from 5 till 12, if necessary, to hear the whole case. I have read some hundreds of columns of it during the time when he was so much
  1008
  before the country in connection with it; and if I have read so many hundreds of columns of print I can listen, and listen with attention, and probably with interest to the speech which he will make. But I protest against this question being left over. If the hon. Member had given Notice that he was about to bring a Vote of Censure against a Member of the Government, the First Minister would say—" This cannot be allowed to remain week after week. It must be decided. The Government enjoys the confidence of the House, or it does not." But it seems to me even more important if you have three of the most eminent Judges of the land, and heap upon them charges of the most grave character. I say that the man who makes those charges, and who hesitates to come forward and, to the best of his power, to substantiate them, at any rate will have no right to say anything against the Judges, for however evil may be their character, I suspect his will not bear examination. I conclude by saying—and I say it with no unfriendliness to the hon. Member for Stoke—I think I have a fair right to appeal to him to answer my question, and to state to the House whether it is his intention immediately, or on the first convenient day—and I hope the House will be ready to make any way for him—to bring this matter before the House, so that it may be fairly discussed, for I am, at least, as anxious as he is that justice should be done, and that the great mass of the people of this country, whether they take his view or the view of the majority of this House, should have another opportunity of correcting their opinion, and of coming, it may be, to a just decision upon a question which has excited so many of them. Upon the ground that we are to vote for the discharge of this Order, because of the attack that it has made upon the Privileges of the House, and the insinuations against the character and the conduct of the President and Speaker of the House, and upon that ground only, I shall give my vote with the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. KENEALY: I think, Sir, you will allow me to say—[" Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make an explanation I have no doubt that this House will hear him;

  1009
  but he is not entitled to make a second speech on the question before the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask a question. I rise to Order—["Order!"]
  DR. KENEALY: I wish to make an explanation. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated to the House, that on the second night I entered it I gave Notice of my intention to bring forward the question of the "Queen v. Castro," and move a Resolution. At that time I had every reason to believe that I should be supported by floods of Petitions to this House; but I very soon learned that, although Petitions had been sent to hon. Members, they were informed on the authority of high functionaries here that it would be illegal and irregular to present them. ["Name, name!"] I therefore, in the full exercise of my right of discretion, postponed that Motion until I should be supported by numbers of Petitions. I beg leave to inform the right hon. Gentleman that until I see myself properly supported by Petitions sent into this House I shall not bring forward the Motion. If hon. Members want to have the matter brought before the House, let them not refuse to present the Petitions from their constituents of which I have spoken.
  MR. DISRAELI: Some hon. Gentlemen and the Member for Stoke have argued this question to-night as if there were some Government measure before the House, and as if the Government had shown a want of policy or discretion in calling on the House to decide the question; but I should hope the vast majority of Gentlemen in the House are perfectly aware that in calling on the House to come to a decision on this Motion I am only acting in conformity with the regulations of the House. It is in consequence of a Report prepared and submitted to the House by one of the most influential permanent Committees of the House—the Committee on Public Petitions—that I have been obliged to call upon the House to consider that Report and to state to the House what I believe the right course and the right view for them to adopt. I should not have ventured to take that course on my own responsibility. I took occasion to request the assistance and advice of my Colleagues on a point of this nature,
  1010
  and we arrived, after due consideration and investigation, at a conclusion which I may state in few words. It was our opinion that had the Petition been confined to impugning the conduct of the Judges, though we might regret that a Petition should be expressed in such language, still, considering that it was signed by a considerable number of persons, who, we doubt not, sincerely believed they had formed a correct opinion, it was not for the public interest that such a Petition should be rejected; and I, therefore, should not have hesitated, had this Petition been one which simply impugned the conduct of the Judges, feeling how important it is that the right of Petition should always be respected in this House, and that on no subject more important than the administration of justice can Petitions be presented, to recommend, and we should have recommended, the House, however much we might have regretted the language in which the Petition was couched, to have accepted the Petition; but, on examining that Petition, we found other matter than that which is alluded to in the Report of the Committee on Petitions; and we believed that matter to be not only most offensive to the House, but matter which, if it passed unnoticed, would be of an injurious character, for it violated, in our opinion, the most precious Privilege of the House in making an attack upon the character of one whom we respect above all others. It also invaded that liberty of speech which is the privilege of individual Members, and the most valuable privilege of the House, and which we have guarded by our Ordersand by our traditionary and constant respect from being challenged and assailed by those out of this House, so that the privilege of freedom of discussion may be protected. Upon that ground, and that ground alone, I recommend the House to agree that the Order for this Petition to lie on the Table should be discharged. I must say, notwithstanding the jesting philosophy of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who, in idiomatic phrase, informed the House of the position in which I had placed myself to-night, that I think the consequence of this discussion has been to justify the course I have pursued, and there is a universal concurrence that the advice I have given to the House is the correct one. I hope, therefore, the hon.

  1011
  Baronet will make some compensation for his too hasty criticism on my course by withdrawing the awkward Motion that he has made, and not prevent us still further from listening to a discussion more interesting, I believe, to the English people than even the Trial at Bar. A division may then take place; but I hope, on reflection, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) may be inclined not to break the unanimity which we all so much desire. We need again have no discussion on this issue respecting the precedents with regard to the conduct of former Judges to which we have referred. I did not bring them forward to confirm the opinion which I had myself formed of the advice which I intended to give to the House. It was my duty to give the House as much information as I could upon the points connected with the Report of the Committee on Petitions. I do not lay any stress upon them; but I believe they perfectly apply to the portion of the Petition which was under the review of the Committee. I think the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) will also agree that it is expedient, after expression has been given to so general a feeling in the House, which did not surprise me, that it is not to the honour or interest of the House of Commons to offer obstacles to the right of Petition because Petitions do impugn the conduct of Judges; and, however much we may disapprove of the language in which Petitions are expressed, the matter is of too grave a character for us to allow our conduct in any way to excuse the fostering of that suspicion by which the public mind may be possessed if we refuse investigation or inquiry into any subject, save upon such a ground as that on which I am now asking the decision of the House. The violation of our Privilege in the language used is aggravated when we remember to whom it is applied; and, discarding, as I am sure every candid man will, the trivial defence offered by the fanciful hypothesis upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) chose to rest his argument, I hope the House will agree with me in the Motion I have made. If you sanction for a moment on such a ground the circulation of any calumnies which may be invented of any individual, and then say afterwards that they were
  1012
  only hypothetical, that nothing was meant against him if he really was not a robber and a murderer, but being a robber and murderer he is to be denounced to public indignation and punishment, I think we will soon find that all the Orders that we have constructed, and all the Privileges we have hitherto maintained to sustain our freedom of discussion, and to guard our free Parliamentary life, will soon be found to be endangered. I therefore appeal with confidence to the House—and I hope an unanimous House—to support me in the Motion that I have made.
  MR. WHALLEY: I must request, Sir, that this Petition be read. The right hon. Gentleman, although he thought fit to close this debate by speaking, did not state correctly that part of the Petition which he considered to be the most important, and upon which it was almost entirely that he made his appeal. As I have a Notice on the Paper for to-morrow night I should not have presumed to address the House on this occasion, but for the remarkable omission to which I have referred. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) stated distinctly that we have been misled by the right hon. Gentleman in saying that you, Sir, were insulted, and that your conduct had been impeached. Why, this House to impeach you! This House to impeach itself! As it came from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the thing sounded ridiculous and absurd. I say again that the hon. Member for Sheffield did charge the right hon. Gentleman with having stated deliberately that the Petition contained as its most obnoxious portion that which it does not contain. There is another point. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman did not allow me to address the House before he replied. He himself, if any man in this House, is responsible to this House and the country for what is obnoxious in that Petition. ["Divide!"] I will explain if the House will patiently listen. Why these very charges against the Judges were brought forward by me before the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, and I had a Petition in my hand from my constituents, signed by more than half of the electors, charging these Judges with distinct partiality and substantial corruption, but the right hon. Gentleman said,

  1013
  " We will not inquire into that, we will not go further," although he it was who appointed the Committee. Then, Sir, how could these Petitioners from Prittlewell, in Essex, and all over the country, amounting to hundreds of thousands, suppose they were offending against the Privileges of this House in appealing to the House to investigate charges against Judges which have been brought in terms quite as strong in other Petitions. During last Session I was rebuffed and snubbed and treated with obloquy in language which, as the hon. Member for Stoke has asserted, was equal to any that has been used in the Petitions in favour of this unfortunate convict. I brought a distinct charge against the Judges, and they knew it well. And what was the result? ["Divide!"] Let the House consider that they are not justified in shouting down the question, and saying that it was a delusion because they have prejudged the question. They, in spite of my protest, and the protest of others, found the money for the prosecution of this man, and you exonerate the Attorney General from responsibility in doing that which no Attorney General ever did before. When I ventured to bring this question before the House I was interrupted and shouted down continually until I was almost exhausted. And what was the result? The whips on both sides of the House laid their heads together, and counted out the House. I distinctly challenged those proceedings not only in the country, but in this House, in the name of my constituents. But the House took no notice of the matter, though I presented many Petitions upon the subject. Now comes this Petition, one of a vast number signed, I am told, by hundreds of thousands throughout the country, but which we are not allowed to present simply because it complains of the conduct of the Judges. Surely this must give strength and additional grounds for such complaints as were extended to the conduct of the Speaker in rejecting these Petitions unless by some means or other inquiry is conceded. That is all pthe etitioners want, and all that I now urge upon the Government. I ask, on behalf of the petitioners, that the Petition shall not be rejected. I say they were fully justified in supposing that their charges would not be suppressed, especially when they declared
  1014
  that they were prepared to support those charges either at the Bar of the House or any other tribunal that might be appointed. Under any circumstances, before the Petition is rejected I think we ought to take time for further consideration, and in order that that may be given I hope the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) will press his Amendment of the Previous Question, for which I shall vote. Meantime, before a vote is taken, I think the least that can be asked is that the House should know what the Petition is which they are called upon to reject, and I therefore move that it be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Petition be read?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it would be better that the Petition should be read. Earlier in the evening I gave reasons why I thought it would not be desirable to read the Petition, and we have also had before us the Report of the Public Petitions Committee, calling our attention to the language of the Petition. I believe, however, that it is in the power of any hon. Gentleman to have it read, and as an hon. Member has moved that it be now read, I shall support the Motion.
  Petition read.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, amid cries of "Divide!" said, he had only a few words to say, which the House would, he hoped, deem to be not altogether out of place. The Select Committee on Public Petitions had thought it their duty to bring to the notice of the House an objectionable Petition, which commented in an unbecoming manner on the Speaker, and on the proceedings of that House. Now, it was well-known that there was at the present moment a regularly organized machinery, directed by a Member of that House, whose object and business it was to get up and promote the signing of these objectionable Petitions. An important part of this machinery consisted of a newspaper, edited by the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, and so long as that paper was allowed free licence to tell week after week the most abominable and palpable lies in its leading articles, he did not see how hon. Members could lay much blame upon the poor people who, by thousands and

  1015
  thousands, read those articles, and somewhat naturally believed them to be true, because they were left uncontradicted. He had in his hand an article of this description, which he would back against almost anything written. It was from The Englishman newspaper—
  "The Ministry, Parliament, and the Press are living in the most serene Fools' Paradise, and apparently are no more aware of what is going on in the actual world than if they were the Seven Sleepers. Hardly a day passes that some dirty dog of a Member, who would be a fitter tenant of a pig-sty than of a seat in the House of Commons, does not get up, and in a drunken, after-dinner speech, without any provocation, assail Dr. Kenealy in the most loathsome language of scurrilous abuse. Some have the fatuity to write of him to their constituents in terms of reproach and insult, and in this they manifest their low and mongrel nature, which inclines them to bark though they dare not bite; for we need hardly say not one of these 'curs of low degree' would dare to face Dr. Kenealy from the House of Commons' benches. But at their drunken dinner tables, surrounded by persons who are as drunk, or ignorant, or foolish as themselves, or in their counting-houses, where they concoct the frauds by which ships are lost and sailors are drowned and insurance offices pillaged, and creditors are defrauded, they are as valiant as ancient Pistol; and when the hour comes, as threatened by their papers, when Dr. Kenealy is to be hissed and hunted down, we have no doubt that they will play their parts in that ignoble species of attack with the most absolute perfection. Amen! So be it. If the Speaker allows the House of Commons to be disgraced and degraded, as it will be before the world should this take place, it will be no affair of ours."
  He would not have brought that extract before the House if it had not been that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) called upon the Member for Stoke to bring on his Motion without delay. The Member for Stoke replied that he should wait until the House had a number of such Petitions as the present before it. Now, he wished to point out to the House that the Member for Stoke was going about trading upon the ignorance of those poor people, and telling them palpable lies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham said that the Member for Stoke was returned by the generous and honourable convictions—
  MR. SPEAKER: If I caught the observation of the hon. and gallant Member correctly, he said of the hon. Member for Stoke that he went about the country telling palpable lies. I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that such remarks are not Parliamentary.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he was afraid he had confounded what he had intended to say with the article in the paper for which the Member for Stoke was responsible as editor. He intended to have said that that paper put forth those falsehoods, and he withdrew the words imputing the language to the Member for Stoke directly. He was at a loss to suggest any mode by which the editor or the printer of this paper could be called to account for his unprincipled conduct; but if any Member would suggest a way he should be happy to co-operate with him in bringing the law to bear upon the offender. He thought forbearance for insults might be carried too far, both by private individuals and by private bodies, and that a public contradiction of such lies as those he had read rested as a duty on some Member of the House.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that when he came up to the House he had not made up his mind as to the way in which he should vote, though he thought it most probable he should vote for the reception of the Petition. But without in the slightest degree wishing to infringe the freedom of petitioning or denying the undoubted right of the people to petition, he intended, having heard the debate, to vote for the proposition of the Government. He thought that if a division could be avoided, a certain amount of painful feeling in the country might also be avoided; and on that ground he would appeal to the hon. Member for Carlisle to withdraw his Motion. Something had been said in palliation of that part of the Petition which referred to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair of the House. It had been said that the charge was only made by implication. The fact that the charge was only made by implication made it only the more cowardly. He believed that the hon. Member for Stoke would soon find that, although he might have a certain following now and receive cheers at public meetings, there was nothing that the English people liked so much as a man to have the courage of his opinions. Sooner or later he would find that those who crowded round him now would be the first to denounce his conduct if, feeling half what he had said he felt about three of the Judges of the land and other distinguished people, he lost a single

  1017
  day—nay, a single hour—in bringing forward those charges in the best of all tribunals, where they could be supported or refuted—the House of Commons.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that if he withdrew his Amendment he would not thereby save the House the trouble of dividing, as his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was determined to divide the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House, and not for me, to judge and determine whether the Petition now under the consideration of the House should lie upon the Table, and thus become one of the permanent records of the House. The House has always maintained the undoubted Constitutional right of the people to complain of grievances, and to pray for their redress; but that right may be abused, and the question for the consideration of the House now is whether the petitioners in the present case have or have not abused the right of petitioning which they undoubtedly possess. With respect to the Petition, so far as it relates to myself, with the permission of the House, I decline to take any notice of it, because I am wholly indifferent to such attacks so long as I enjoy the confidence and approval of this House.
  Previous Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 391; Noes 11: Majority 380.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Order that the Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood [presented 6th April] do lie upon the Table, read, and discharged.

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Ronayne, J. P.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Kenealy, Dr.

  TELLERS.

  Macdonald, A.

  Lawaon, Sir W.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Taylor, P. A.

  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I propose to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent if he will name a day when he intends to proceed with his Motion?
  MR. WADDY: I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday I will ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent whether he is prepared to give the names of those
  1018
  Members of Parliament to whom Petitions have been sent, and which Petitions have not been presented?

WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid, Mr. Raikes, that the exciting overture which has just concluded is not a very encouraging one for the tame speech and uninteresting details to which I shall have to invite the attention of the Committee. But I have at least this consolation—that the state of our finances in the present year is, happily, not such as to cause any great anxiety, or to occasion much alarm, in the mind of the House; and although I hope that I may be favoured with the attention of hon. Members for the few remarks which I shall have to make upon the condition and prospects of the Revenue, and the arrangements which I shall invite the Committee to co-operate in, still, there will be nothing which is likely to cause any very considerable excitement.
Sir, the income of the year 1874–5, which has just terminated, was estimated by me, when I brought forward the Budget last year, at £74,425,000, and it has proved in the result to be £74,921,873, showing a surplus—an increase of Revenue beyond the estimate—of £496,873. The Expenditure Estimate in the Budget was £73,958,000. The Estimate as it stood in the Appropriation Act passed at the close of the Session, was £74,083,527, and the expenditure in the result was £74,328,040, exceeding, as a result, the Budget Estimate by £370,040, and the Appropriation Act Estimate by £244,513. The surplus, which in the Budget Estimate I took at £467,000, and at the time of the Appropriation Act at £342,000, has proved to be £593,833, being more than the Budget Estimate by £126,000, and more than the Appropriation Estimate by £251,000.
Now, Sir, I think that this is a statement which, upon the whole, may fairly be described as a satisfactory result of the year. I am aware that in some quarters criticisms have been passed, and dissatisfaction has been expressed; but I hope I am not wrong in attributing

1019
that to the proverbial love of grumbling which prevails among Englishmen, and to some natural feeling in a few quarters, perhaps, of disappointment—agreeable disappointment, of course, I mean—of many of the predictions which were freely indulged in in the course of the year. I have been told that my Estimates last year were exceedingly over sanguine—that the position into which I led the House and the country in the matter of finance was a perilous one, and that if it had not been for the happy accident, or, as I should rather say, the happy Providence of an exceedingly good harvest, we might have found ourselves landed in a most terrible and disastrous deficiency. I think it will be seen that these complaints have been somewhat exaggerated. I cannot say that there were no mistakes in the Estimates of last year, no mistakes in details. I admit there were some mistakes; and I suppose there never was a Budget in which some mistakes were not made—some errors on one side or the other. But I think those who candidly consider the general results of the Budget will admit that the errors on the present occasion were not of a very serious or dangerous character; and I must frankly say that, as to the idea of there having been any danger of a serious deficiency, such an idea was something in the nature of a delusion. It is said that we should be in a more comfortable position at the present time if we had taken a less sanguine Estimate last year. If by that it is meant that we should be in a more pleasant and comfortable position if we had kept the Income Tax at 3d. instead of 2d., and extracted something like £2,000,000 more than was required from the pockets of the people in order to show a great surplus now of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000, and so have the pleasure of taking off taxation, I must say that is a view I do not concur in. I am better pleased to think that the money has been left in the pockets of the people, than that I should have to come forward on this occasion and parade before the House a very large and handsome surplus. I would rather stand in a reverse position to that of a gentleman we read of, who was believed to be distinguished at Athens, but who, being a miser, was despised. He found himself unpopular with the
1020
people, and when he ventured abroad he was hissed; but he used to console himself when he went home by looking at the huge sums of money in his cash-box. I, on the other hand, console myself—whatever may be the hisses of a few instructors of public opinion—with the reflection that the money is not in my cash-box, but in the pockets of the people.
Sir, I am told that the Estimates, though they have in the gross been fairly justified, were in detail very erroneous. I should like just to say a word on that subject. The Customs Estimate has very considerably exceeded my expectation; and the Excise Estimate has by a less considerable amount fallen short of my Estimate. But I think I did on one occasion last year say that which I know has been frequently and justly said by other Chancellors of the Exchequer, that in estimating your Revenue you ought to take, in practice, Customs and Excise together. Because your Estimate is founded very much upon a calculation of the power and ability of the people to consume taxable articles, and those articles are to be found not under the head of Excise alone, but under the head of Customs also; and I certainly myself expected that if there should be any deficiency on one of these heads, it would probably be made up by a surplus on the other. And so it has proved, and very naturally proved. In the first place, let me ask where has the deficiency been? There has been a deficiency, and a considerable one, in the result of the Estimate for Spirits in the Excise Revenue. But, on the other hand, there is a remarkable excess in Customs, also under the head of Spirits; and if we carefully look into the peculiar circumstances of the case, you will find that that is owing to a rather remarkable cause. There was a very good potato harvest in this country last year; there was also a good potato harvest in Germany. When there is a deficient potato harvest in this country, large quantities of potatoes are imported from abroad, but there happening to be a large potato harvest here, that quantity of potatoes was not needed in the form of vegetables. The consequence was that a very large quantity of potato spirit was made in Germany and sent into this country; that potato spirit is used for various purposes—very much of it, I believe,

1021
for methylation; whatever purposes it was used for, it took the place of a large quantity of British spirit; and my friends at the Board of Inland Revenue are a little jealous at finding that their Estimate has fallen short by something like the same amount as that by which the Customs Revenue has exceeded the Customs Estimates; and they say you ought to give us, and not the Customs, credit for this excess of Revenue from rum and from the German spirits. I do not go into this question. I do not think it is worth going into. But there is another consideration, and one which, I think, is so curious that I should like to call the attention of the Committee to it. It is not only the competition of one class of spirits with another, but it is the competition of those articles which pay duty under Customs with those articles which pay duty under Excise to which I wish to call attention. The Revenue from spirits has somewhat disappointed calculations, but the Revenue from tea has very largely exceeded expectations; and it occurred to me that it would be interesting to have a comparison made in order to see whether we had misjudged the consuming power of the people—to have a comparison made of the amount which the public must have been expending in the purchase of tea, which produced a large Revenue this year, with what they must have expended to produce a corresponding amount of Revenue from spirits. I find these remarkable results. The duty on tea produced last year £320,000 more than the year before. That represents an additional consumption of 12,800,000lb. of tea, at 1s. 11 d., the average market price in bond in 1874, including the duty, which would cost £1,226,750. If the consumers, instead of spending that £1,226,750 on tea, had spent it on British spirits at 13 s. 3d. a gallon, which was the average price for the same period, it would have represented 1,851,700 gallons, and produced an increased Revenue of £925,000. Thus, instead of a Revenue of £320,000 from tea, we should have got, at the same cost to ourselves, £925,000 from the people on spirits. That is remarkably satisfactory. It is satisfactory, in the first place, as showing that tea is to some extent, perhaps, taking the place of spirits; and, secondly, as showing—as I hope we may infer—
1022
that the relief given last year by the reduction of taxation was relief that was especially valuable to that class of the community who are consumers of tea rather than of spirits. I can hardly venture to think that this curious result can be taken as evidence that the great masses of the people who are spirit drinkers have to any great extent given up spirits in favour of tea. But it may be taken as evidence that the class of people who, with their families, are habitually consumers of tea to a much greater extent than of spirits—that is, probably, the lower class which pays income tax, the house duty, and the charges upon persons possessing incomes from £100 to £300 or £400 a-year—were so much relieved by the remissions of last year that they have increased their expenditure in a direction which has led to the result we have witnessed. When I consider how much relief was given by the abolition of the sugar duty, the reduction of the income tax, and in the form of subventions to the rates last year, I cannot help hoping that some cause like that may have been at work, and may have produced the remarkable result to which I have referred.
I am anxious not to detain the Committee by going into figures, although I have them in my hand, which might be interesting as showing what the present condition of the people is. ["Go on!"] If I were not afraid of being wearisome I could read them. ["Go on!"] Well, if the Committee are patient I will quote some of the figures. In the first place, I would observe, in regard to the consumption per head of the population, that, taking the article of tea, in 1872 the consumption per head was 4 lb.; in 1873, it was 4 lb. 1 oz; in 1874, it was 4lb. 4oz. Of malt the consumption per head in 1872 was 1·93 bushel; in 1873, it had risen to 1·97 bushel; and in 1874, it dropped again to 1·93 bushel. But although the consumption of malt has fallen off this year, the consumption of sugar used for brewing has considerably increased, sugar having, to a considerable extent, come into competition with malt. That may be due partly to the cheapness of sugar, and partly to the high price of barley; for, although last year there was a very abundant wheat harvest, yet the barley harvest, though good in

1023
quality, was not abundant in quantity; and the price of barley has, I think, been higher in proportion to that of wheat than it has been known to be for many years. That circumstance has, doubtless, had some effect. Again, the consumption per head of tobacco has a little increased. In 1872, it was 1 lb. 6 oz; in 1873, it was 1 lb. 7 oz; and last year it was also 1 lb. 7 oz. Taking spirits, the increased consumption of which is not, perhaps, an advantage, except financially, the increase has continued, though not at so great a rate as before. In 1872, the consumption per head was 1·14 gallon; in 1873, it was l·23 gallon; and last year l·26 gallon. Then I take the Savings Banks. The excess of deposits over withdrawals for the year has been £1,398,000. That is not quite so high an excess as there was in the year before, when it amounted to £1,566,000; still less was it equal to the year 1872, which was £2,470,000. Although there has been a decrease in the rate of the excess, the excess has continued, and the people have apparently been able to deposit their savings in the savings banks. With regard to the number of paupers, I am happy to be able to give a good account. The total number both of indoor and outdoor paupers in England and Scotland last year was 937,000, against 999,000 in the year before. I have not got the return for Ireland upon the whole of these points. I do not know that there are any other figures with which I need trouble the Committee; but, looking at these points, I think that, on the whole, we may say that the condition of the people is fairly satisfactory, and that, although there may be nothing that should be depicted in very glowing colours, yet there is nothing that need cause us any present uneasiness.
As to another head of Revenue, on which there has been a falling off—namely, Stamps—I must freely confess that there was an error in the Estimate. We were, perhaps, too sanguine as to the revival of trade which we hoped for last year; and when I say that on almost every head of Stamps there has been a disappointment in the rather sanguine Estimate of last year—which principally shows itself in Bills of Exchange, on which there has been a loss of £75,000—I admit frankly that the anticipations of last year's Budget were higher than
1024
circumstances have justified. At the same time, although Stamps have fallen nominally £10,000 below the receipts of the previous year, yet that is a small sum in comparison with the size of the Revenue; and when we remember that last year was a peculiar one, because there were two Easters in it, and therefore there was a great number of holidays, when no business was done, I think we may regard the Stamp Revenue as showing something like an equilibrium.
The next item is the Post Office. The Budget Estimate was £5,300,000. The receipts were £5,670,000, or £370,000 over the Estimate. The Committee will bear in mind that all these accounts are accounts not so much of receipts as of Exchequer payments; that they do not represent the exact amount received by any Department of Revenue, but the amount which that Department is able to pay into the Exchequer. That is a distinction with which right hon. Gentlemen and a few others who have studied these subjects are conversant, but I very much doubt whether the general public are always alive to this fact; and that explains some of the wild and altogether unsound conclusions which were occasionally drawn in the course of last year from the statements showing the Exchequer receipts from week to week, because persons would look on them as if they represented the receipt of the Revenue, which was not the case. Many circumstances would make a difference between the two. Undoubtedly, surprise has been expressed that there has been irregularity in the progress of the Revenue from the Post Office. But that is not due to any irregularity in the net receipts, but from the mode in which the Exchequer payments were made. A year or two ago a good many remarks were made as to irregularities in the way in which the Post Office revenues were dealt with, and several rectifications had to be effected in order to bring the Exchequer payments into proper relation with the receipts week by week. I am happy to say those rectifications have now been satisfactorily made, and we may rely upon the payments from the Exchequer to the Post Office, fairly representing the net receipts of that Department. I have here a statement for a good many years past of the Exchequer payments

1025
and the net receipts of the Post Office. I will not trouble the Committee with the figures; but they may take it on my authority that the net receipts represent, on the whole, a very fair and steady rate of progress, much more than is indicated by the Exchequer payments, which have been fluctuating from the cause I have stated. The Committee may also take this on my authority—that the receipt which has been carried to our credit in the present Budget, £5,670,000, represents payments into the Exchequer duly proportioned to the bonâ fide net receipts of the Post Office for the year. The net receipts of 1872 were £5,212,000; in 1873, £5,481,000; and in 1874–5, they are estimated at £5,750,000.
As regards the Telegraph Revenue, I am sorry to say there has been a falling off; and it is of a character which I can only present as illustrating the difficulties of that undertaking. Undoubtedly, the Telegraph Service has not as yet been brought into a remunerative condition. We are not, as yet, really paying our way, or paying anything towards the interest even, of the debt which was incurred for the purchase. And we can only hope that, by exertions that are being made to improve the service and bring it into a more economical state, we may by-and-by set that matter right. The difficulties under which we have to administer a service of that kind—a service which interests everybody, and which leads to demands being made in all directions—are very great indeed. I know well that hon. Members are continually pressed by their constituents to make complaints that proper telegraphic communication is not afforded to this part of the country, or another part, and hon. Gentlemen are very reluctant to accept the answer that the Government cannot afford to deal with the matter. There is a feeling that the Government ought to be able to deal with it, and Government cannot give the answer that private companies could and I am sure did give. This is a point worthy of consideration, not so much in regard to the Telegraph Service itself, in which we are now fairly embarked, and of which we must make the best we can, as in reference to suggestions of acquisitions of other forms of property, and the conduct of other kinds of business, in which I hope the House will
1026
never be led to embark without very carefully weighing the results of this remarkable experiment.
I do not know that there is any other head of Revenue with respect to which I need say anything, except that which is called by the mysterious word "Miscellaneous." The Committee have observed, no doubt, that the Revenue from "Miscellaneous" has fallen below the Estimate. But I think it right, in perfect frankness, to say that this is not an accident. It was owing to my having given instructions that there should be no haste in calling in certain receipts which might have been paid in before the 31st of March, but which it did not appear necessary to call in, and which it would be better to leave for this year. They amount to something like£300,000. The reason for that step, as I think it is only candid to mention, was this:—Last year we made considerable reductions in taxation. Those reductions were intended to affect the finances, not only of last year, but of this, and among those reductions were considerable subventions to local rates. At the time I brought forward the Budget last year, I over-estimated the proportion of those subventions which would have to be paid within the last financial year. When I found that a great proportion of them would not come in course of payment last year, it appeared to me that we should have for that year a larger surplus than would be necessary, and that the finances of this year might be somewhat embarrassed. I thought, therefore, that it was fair, regarding the two years as one, to give instructions that certain payments which might have come into the Exchequer before the 31st of March should be made afterwards. If those receipts had been called in at the usual time we should have had a surplus of nearly £1,000,000. As it is, the finances of the present year benefit by that arrangement.
Having gone over the Revenue of last year, I do not know that there is anything in the Expenditure which calls for special remark except the point to which I have just referred—namely, the difference between the amount paid for the subventions to different local taxes which were promised last year and were not paid. The total amount on account of local expenditure last year was £512,000, and the amount which stands over for

1027
this year will be an addition of £642,000, making a total for the two years of £1,154,000. One of the items was the subvention or contribution made by decision of this House in aid of the rates on places where the Government has property. I think it right to inform the Committee that the process of ascertaining the amount to be paid for those subventions has been carried on under the immediate direction of the Treasury through one of its officers, Mr. Vincent Griffiths, who has discharged his duty with the greatest care and ability. Very satisfactory settlements have been arrived at with the greater part of the places concerned; with Chatham, where we have a dockyard, arsenal, and barracks; Rochester, Woolwich, Plumstead, Portsmouth, Portsea, Plymouth, Greenwich, Deptford, Sheerness, and, in short, a large number of places which I need not enumerate. The arrangements have been made in a manner which has satisfied the Treasury and has also obtained the assent of the local authorities. I think we may arrive at a very fair and reasonable basis for the settlement of this difficult question by the course adopted. The general feeling of the persons interested in the receipt of those contributions has been consulted, and, at the same time, the Treasury have kept a vigilant eye on the bargain made with a view to the interest of the public. I may mention that the expenditure on the Ashantee Expedition has been closed, and it has been found that the total is only £933,544. It is right that the fact should be put upon record, for it is very much to the credit of the Government which conducted the Expedition.
With respect to the expenditure of the coming year, there will be an increase. I will give the items in the usual manner. The Estimate for the interest of the Debt is £27,215,000. That is £70,000 more than last year, owing partly to the effect of the arrangement made with regard to the Terminable Annuities. The Consolidated Fund Charges will be £1,590,000. And here I ought to apologize to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for not having this year done what he asked us to do—namely, to lay a statement of the Consolidated Fund Charges on the Table, but before I conclude he will see why I have not done so. The
1028
Estimate for the Army is £14,678,000, and for the Army Purchase Commission, £638,000. The Estimate for the Navy is £10,785,000. For the Civil Service it is £12,656,000. I can hardly mention the Civil Service without expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for the very great pains he has taken in keeping down, as far as possible, the Estimates for the various branches of the Services. The Estimate for the Post Office is £3,036,000; collection of Revenue—Customs and Inland Revenue, £2,694,000; and collection for the Telegraph Service, £1,098,000. The Packet Service Estimate is £878,000, and the total estimated expenditure of the year, £75,268,000. The increase in the Post Office is due to the very considerable advance in the salaries, amounting, since the Estimates of the last Budget were presented, to £117,000 a-year. The Packet Service has a decrease of £121,000, which is mainly due to a reduction of subsidies.
I now come to the estimated Revenue of the year. I may say in approaching the Estimates of Revenue, that I propose to build them upon as safe and cautious a principle as I can. I do not think it right altogether to disregard the undoubted fact of the normal growth of Revenue. It is quite certain that for many years past there has been—good years and bad years taken together—a very considerable and, upon the whole, a very steady growth of Revenue. But it should also be borne in mind that although the result of a series of years may be drawn to an average, the results undoubtedly fluctuate from year to year, and therefore it is always necessary for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the immediate arrangements for a Parliamentary year, to look to the particular circumstances of the moment at which he stands. He may feel confident that any causes which may prejudicially affect the progress of the Revenue will be only of a temporary character, but still he is bound to look to both the present and the future; and although at the present time there is, as I have said, a very fair and reasonable ground for being satisfied with the general condition of the people, still there are causes for prudence and caution. We have not yet seen that revival in trade which we are looking for; and

1029
some of the figures I read to the Committee earlier in my Statement, I think show that we must not look on this year as one likely to be very remarkable for a great advance of the Revenue. At all events, it would not be wise to treat it so. At the same time, I must remind the Committee that this will be in some respects a favourable year. It is Leap Year, which gives us a day more, and makes a considerable addition to the Revenue; and, in the second place, it is a year in which there is no Easter or Good Friday, and therefore it is a model year for the financier.
I have gone very carefully, with the heads of Departments, through the Estimates I am about to submit to the Committee, and I submit them with confidence that they are reasonable Estimates, and such as the Committee may fairly accept, as being neither deliberately too cautious, nor, on the other hand, over-sanguine. I take the Revenue of the Customs, which last year produced £19,289,000, at £19,500,000. I take the Excise at £27,800,000. That is an addition to the Revenue of last year, which was £27,395,000; but it is an addition which has been very carefully calculated, and by which I think we may fairly undertake to stand. Stamps I take at £10,600,000. Last year they produced £10,540,000; but with an extra day this year and the absence of holidays, I think I may take them at £10,600,000 as an equilibrium. The Land Tax and House Duty, which last year produced £2,440,000, I take substantially at the same figure—£2,450,000. The next item is the Income Tax, which produced last year £4,306,000. It has been growing very steadily, and there has been a remarkable increase in the produce of the penny per pound. It is customary to compare the present yield of the penny with what it was when Sir Robert Peel first imposed the tax; but that is not altogether fair, for the tax has since been extended to Ireland, and there have been other changes. Still the growth of the yield has been very remarkable. In the early years of the Income Tax, from 1842 to 1852, when the rate of the tax stood at 7d. in the pound, there were fluctuations from year to year, and the progress of the yield was very small. The yield per penny, which was £800,000 in the first year, had only risen to
1030
£847,000 in the last. In the next period, from 1853 to 1862, when Great Britain and Ireland were included and certain other changes in the assessment were made, the rate rose to £1,030,000 in the first year, and £1,249,000 in the last. In the years since 1863–4, when there have been constant fluctuations in the rate of the tax, as indeed was the case in the preceding period also, there was a steady rise in the value per penny, rising from £1,249,000 in 1862–3 to upwards of £1,900,000 in the year last passed. The explanation of the Income Tax receipt is shortly this:—It was estimated last year upon a scale in which I took the penny as yielding £1,840,000. The tax produced £4,306,000. Undoubtedly the arrears were under-estimated. But the produce of the penny, instead of £1,840,000, was more than £1,900,000; and we take it this year at £1,950,000. The estimate of the assessment at 2d. I take at £3,900,000. I have a statement showing the amount of arrears actually now due and in hand, and I can give to the House the amount outstanding. It was about £800,000 at the beginning of this year, which will be brought in. The sum received from the 1st of April is £319,000. The Post Office I take at £5,750,000, being a moderate increase over the receipts of last year, which were £5,670,000, and fully justified, I think, by the experience we have had. The Telegraph Service I take at £1,200,000; last year it produced £1,120,000. Crown Lands I take at£385,000, the same as last year. The Miscellaneous Estimates I take at £4,100,000, and this will produce a total Revenue of £75,685,000, as against an estimated Expenditure of £75,268,000. We have, therefore, a prospect, on these figures, of a surplus of £417,000. I am bound, however, to say that although the surplus may be estimated at that amount, there will still be some Supplementary Estimates, especially for Irish Education, the precise amount of which I cannot now state, and this must be taken into consideration in deciding on the arragements for the year. Well, Sir, that may appear a very small and unsatisfactory surplus; but I must remind the Committee that the remissions of taxation made last year were made not for one year but for two, and that a considerable proportion of them are due this year. The total amount of remissions of Imperial taxation last year may

1031
be stated at £3,830,000, and there will be some £490,000 due to this year. A great part of that is due to the balance of the remission of the penny of Income Tax, and a certain portion to the balance of the remission of the Sugar Duties. I forgot to mention that last year we received as the balance of Sugar Duty £68,000; we also received as part of the Horse Tax, in operation in the early part of the year, about £25,000. Something like £90,000 is due to these two heads, and about £400,000 of Income Tax makes a remission for the two years of £4,321,000. With regard to local taxes, the subventions, which are, in fact, remissions of taxation in the form of rates, amounted last year to £512,000, and this year they will be £642,000, making together £1,154,000. The total relief of taxation, Imperial and local, in the two years will thus amount to £5,476,000, of which £1,133,000 will become due in the present year. We must not, therefore, consider that we begin with a surplus of only £417,000; we may rather look at it as though we were beginning the year with a surplus of £1,500,000, and were proposing to give £1,100,000 in remission of taxation. It was pledged beforehand; it comes, nevertheless, out of the finances of the present year. We thus arrive at a surplus of £417,000, subject to some deductions in the way of Supplementary Estimates. Every pains will be taken to keep them low, and I have no reason to suppose they will be of great consequence. Even if the surplus could be taken at the full amount of £417,000, the House and the country would be satisfied it was not a case in which we ought to think of any reductions or remissions of taxation. I must mention two small re-adjustments which we propose to make. The most important is what I practically promised last week in the discussion upon Brewers' Licences. I have carefully re-considered the scale of those licences, and I am satisfied that the scale as it at present stands is not fair to the small brewer, and that it weighs heavily upon him in comparison with large brewers. I therefore propose that the present scale shall be superseded by a scale of a uniform character, in which the charge shall be at the rate of 12 s. 6d. for every 50 barrels brewed. The effect will be that nobody will be a loser, and the small brewers will be gainers. The result to the Revenue will
1032
be a loss of £60,000. With regard to any other remission, and especially with regard to the suggestion which was made, and which I said I would consider, without pledging myself on the subject—namely, the postponement of the payment of any portion of the duty—I find myself unable financially to attempt such a thing: and, after ail, it is clear it would be a mere gift to the brewers, and that those who would profit by it most would be the large, and not the small brewers. I therefore consider it, will not be in my power to make any offer of the kind. I content myself with remedying what appears to me to be a decided injustice in the scale. This is the only re-adjustment which will cost anything to the Exchequer. There is another small re-adjustment which I propose to make, and which, so far as I can judge, will produce no financial effect—it relates to one of the Stamp Duties. As the Committee will remember, last year attention was called to the heavy Stamp Duty which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other officers were called upon to pay in respect of their appointments; and it was then stated that the Government were looking into this question of the Stamp Duties. They are in a very unsatisfactory position. The present state of the law is that a duty of £5 per cent. with smaller ratios upon small incomes, is charged upon the first year's value of every appointment made in writing; while appointments which are not made in writing pay nothing. That applies not only to the public service, but also to all private employments; and, although I do not suppose the Stamp Duty is always rigorously paid, it is certain that, under the regulations, all such persons as secretaries of railway companies, clerks in banks, and persons accepting any kind of private appointments made in writing would have to pay a duty of £5 per cent upon the first year's income. In the public service that operates in a most extraordinary and unequal manner. There are certain appointments which must be made in writing, and which are so taxed. There are certain others of equal or higher value not made in writing, and which escape being taxed. I am speaking not only of political appointments, but of appointments in the permanent Civil Service, The Controller of the

1033
National Debt Office has been challenged by the Auditor General, and has been told he is liable to stamp duty on his appointment. The permanent Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, who receives a higher salary, is not appointed by writing, and he pays nothing. This uncertainty is very inconvenient, and I propose we should solve the difficulty by largely reducing the amount of the tax, which is really unreasonable, by making it uniform, and, so far as relates to the Civil Service, making it a rule that all appointments shall be made in writing. The proposal, therefore, is that the charge, instead of £5, be 5s. per £100 of the first year's salary. That will be a very moderate tax on first appointments, which those who are appointed will generally be willing to pay. This arrangement will have an incidental effect upon Civil Service appointments in this wise. We now appoint young men upon probation, and the understanding of that probationary employment is that if the person is found after 6 or 12 months to be unfit for the employment he is to he told that he cannot have the office and that he must look out elsewhere. This is a very invidious duty for the head of an office to perform, and it is very often not performed. Now, if the rule is made that every man upon his appointment should receive a writing, and pay a small stamp duty on it, it would be easy to see that a person would not pay upon an appointment on probation. This is an incidental advantage; but the object of the proposal is to get rid of the inconvenience to which I have referred. [An hon. MEMBER: Will it apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?] It will; but it is not to be retrospective. We have thus reduced the moderate surplus of £417,000 to £357,000. As I said, looking to our general position, further remissions are impossible. Although there are no remissions, I may be asked whether there are any re-adjustments. I really do not think it would be agreeable to the Committee, to Parliament, or to the country that in the present state of our finances and of our taxation, we should attempt to revise the system under which we find ourselves—that being, as I may say in general terms, pretty well off, we should attempt to make revisions, in the hope of finding ourselves in a better position, but with the chance of finding our-
1034
selves in a worse position in the end. I do not mean to say that the present financial arrangements of the country and our fiscal system are absolutely without blot; I do not mean to say that our system is ideally the best that could be proposed. I am not prepared to say that in the years before us there may not arise cases for modifications and improvements in our system; but I do think we may fairly hold up our heads and say that there is no great cry or urgent necessity for any great reform or re-adjustment in our system of taxation. Looking back for a considerable period of time, we have seen how one tax after another which pressed upon national industry has been removed, and how in one way or another great relief has been given to the public. I do not say that there are not taxes that are disagreeable to those who pay them; but I doubt whether there are any that can be fairly said to be injurious to the public interests of the country. There is, no doubt, a good deal of feeling which exists in reference to one tax. It is one that the Committee have heard a good deal of for many years, and it is, perhaps, one upon which my Estimate of our financial condition might by some be challenged—I refer to the Income Tax. Last year we claimed that, considering how recently we had acceded to office, and considering the position of the finances, we might reserve our opinions with regard to this tax. I do not think that it would be candid to attempt to make a case with regard to that tax in exactly the same spirit now. Of course, we have been obliged to consider it, and whether it would be desirable to do that which it is quite possible to do—to make arrangements and re-adjustments by which we may dispense with it, or materially modify it. The Income Tax has its merits and demerits. It has merits as a war tax, for it raises enormously the power of the country, with reference to any strain upon our military resources. We all know, also, that it has merits as an engine for effecting great reforms in our system of taxation, and that what has been done with its assistance during the last 30 years has been work of a very important character. This could not have been carried out if it had not been for the assistance derived from the Income Tax.

1035
On the other hand, I admit the objections which are raised against it and against the inequality in its incidence. It is, no doubt, a tax unequal in its incidence, and with all respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), who has hopes of getting rid of these inequalities and of making it fair for everyone, I must say I am afraid that those inequalities are inherent in the nature of the tax, and that it is impossible to do more than shift the inequality from one quarter to another. There are also other objections to it which are undoubtedly patent, as, for example, the disagreeable manner in which it presses upon certain classes of people, and especially upon those who have to undergo what they call an inquisitorial examination of their affairs. But I am afraid that if you are to keep the tax at all, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to divest it of this inquisitorial character. Something might be done to mitigate it, and, undoubtedly, whatever can be done, it is our wish to do. Anything we can do to mitigate these objections, and to make the pressure less felt, it will be our duty to do; but I cannot hold out any glowing hope of our being able to remove all such objections. These objections against the tax, however, press a great deal more against the tax when it is high than when it is low. Certainly, if we look at the tax with reference to its inequality, there is no doubt that this objection fades almost into insignificance when you keep the tax at a low rate; because though it might be exceedingly unfair if you raised the whole or the greater part of your Revenue by it, the unfairness on particular persons is very much less when you are only raising an insignificant proportion of your Revenue by it. I may also say that there is another objection which has been felt against the Income Tax, and that is the uncertainty which has attended for many years the use to which it was put and the rate at which it was likely to levied from year to year. When a man was unable to say whether the Income Tax of the coming year would be 8d. or 10 d. or 1s. in the pound—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever the state of the finances of the year, might come down and say he had great reforms to propose and great experiments to make, and when he might propose, at a mo-
1036
ment's notice, to double the Income Tax—then, undoubtedly, the tax was much harder and more oppressive than it could be if it were kept low, uniform, and, as far as possible, steady. Now, if we have not made our fiscal system perfect, we have gone so far in that direction that with a prospect before us of a fair annual growth of the Revenue and a reasonable hope and trust in the prosperity of the country, we may say that this use of the Income Tax may be considered to be at an end. We may, in asking you to renew the Income Tax at 2d. in the pound, do so with the hope and belief that it may be regarded as a tax useful in point of amount, but as held in abeyance—ready only for some great emergency, and not to be called upon for trivial occasions.
That being the state of the finances generally, there is one subject to which I should like to invite the attention of the Committee. The total amount of the National Debt on the 31st of March, 1874, was £779,283,245. On the 31st of March, 1875, it was £775,553,577, showing a diminution of £3,729,668 in the course of a year. But not only has there been this alteration in the total figures of the Debt; there has also been another alteration to which I wish to call attention—that is, as to the form in which the Debt now exists. On the 31st of March, 1874, the Debt was thus composed:—The Funded Debt was £723,514,005; the Terminable Annuities valued in Three per Cent Stock were £51,289,640; and the Unfunded Debt was £4,479,600. On the 31st of March, 1875, that Debt was diminished from £723,514,000 to £714,000,000, or nearly £715,000,000; while the Terminable Annuities valued in Three per Cent Stock had risen from £51,289,640 to £55,358,722. The Unfunded Debt had also risen to £5,239,300. It is obvious that that change involves a reduction of the Funded Debt, and the increase as represented by Terminable Annuities is due mainly, if not entirely—is due in great part at least—to the new Annuities which we set up last year, and by which we cancelled £7,000,000 Stock on account of the Post Office Savings Banks, and created Annuities of between £400,000 and £500,000. The operations on the Debt during the year were as follows:—We have in the course of the year

1037
increased the Funded Debt by the creation of Terminable Annuities by an amount equivalent in Stock to £7,000,000. We Lave increased it by Terminable Annuities on account of Fortifications and Local Barracks, equivalent in Stock to £750,000, and in Exchequer Bonds, issued for local loans, by £1,000,000. I can hardly pass by the subject of Terminable Annuities for Fortifications without saying that the expenditure on that head is practically closed. I am not sure that it is quite closed; but it is very much to the credit of General Sir William Jervois, whose original estimate was rather more than £7,000,000, to state that the amount required has been within that estimate. So much for the increase of the Debt. On the other hand, the Debt was diminished—1, by Stock cancelled by means of Sinking Fund, £831,000; 2, by Stock cancelled in exchange for Savings Banks, amounting to £7,000,000; 3, by Stock cancelled on account of Life, &c, Annuities, £767,000; 4, by equivalent in Stock of capital paid off by Terminable Annuities, about £3,640,000; and 5, by Exchequer Bills paid off, £240,600. The condition of the National Debt is a subject to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has very frequently addressed the attention of the House of Commons, and it is one upon which I myself made some remarks last year. I am no enthusiast on the subject. I do not take either the extreme view of those who think that everything ought to be sacrificed to the diminution of the Debt, nor of those who represent it as merely a question of buying Consols at 92. I think we ought to make continuous and steady efforts for the reduction of the National Debt, and that our efforts ought not to be violent and spasmodic. They ought to have reference to the general condition of the country and of its taxation. If you are in a state of circumstances in which taxation bears very heavily indeed upon the interests of the country, no doubt it would be a great deal better to devote your energies to reducing taxation instead of devoting them to reducing Debt. But where, on the other hand, our taxation is in a tolerably fair condition, we certainly ought to be doing something in the other direction. I am bound to say that I do not think that this House or that Parliament has any great reason to be proud
1038
of the amount we have expended in the past year in the payment and reduction of Debt. We are doing a good deal, but we are far from doing all that we might do. I take the Estimate for the Debt. We are paying this year £27,200,000 for the Debt; but let us remember that up to the year 1860, our ancestors from the time of the Peace, and ourselves in our earlier days, never paid less than £28,000,000, and often very much more, per annum as a charge for the Debt.
Now, let me turn to a comparison between what we were doing in 1859 and at the present time. In 1859 we were paying £28,673,381 interest on the Debt, while in the year 1874 we paid only £27,094,480, being less by £1,578,000 than we were paying in 1859. But what has happened since 1859? I do not much like the system on which calculations are made as to the net amount of taxes imposed and repealed. There is a good deal of fallacy in that mode of stating the question. But it may be well to remember the remissions in taxation made since that time. The duties have been entirely remitted on the following articles:—Paper, sugar, corn, butter, cheese, eggs, leather, tallow, silk manufactures, rice, wood and timber, and various other articles of less importance. Besides these, the duties have been reduced on various articles. The duty on tea has been reduced from 1s. 5d. to 6d.; on wine from 5s. 5d. to 2s., and a considerable reduction has been made on the duties on coffee, currants, raisins, and so forth. We must remember that this was when we were paying 5d. in the pound on the Income Tax, while we are now only paying 2d. If you look at the comparison of the wealth of the country as tested by the yield of the Income Tax, I find that a penny Income Tax in 1859 gave only £1,150,000; whereas in 1874 it gave £1,900,000, or an increase of 65 per cent. There has thus been a decrease of 5 per cent in what we are paying for the reduction of the Debt, and an increase of 65 per cent in the wealth of the country, as measured by the produce of the Income Tax. Well, now, I admit we are doing and have done a good deal in the way of paying off Debt; but I will ask the Committee to recollect what are the different forms in which we have been dealing with the Debt. In the early years after the war

1039
there was a system of Sinking Fund which was established on false principles, and which, although it showed very considerable energy and patriotism on the part of those who bore it, yet, being conducted and supported by loans, it was impossible for us economically to approve. Since 1829 we have acted upon the Debt partly by the present system of Sinking Fund and the application of casual surpluses, and partly by the system of Terminable Annuities and the creation of new Terminable Annuities, which has reduced the Debt at the rate of £800,000 a-year. Now, what has been the effect of the Sinking Fund? It has redeemed about £40,000,000 of Stock, but in the course of years we have added to our Debt for the Irish Famine Loan £8,000,000; for the Crimean War about £35,000,000; for the Slave Compensation £20,000,000; and for the purchase of the Telegraphs £10,000,000; making a total of £73,000,000. against which the Sinking Fund has only provided us with a reduction of £40,000,000. If, therefore, we only had the Sinking Fund and the casual surpluses to trust to we should not have been very successful in our operation upon the Debt. But we have in the same period paid off by the action of Terminable Annuities about £120,000,000, showing the superiority of a regular system of proceeding. Now, I have heard it said that we ought to maintain the principle of the Sinking Fund of 1821, and that anything we may do which differs from the Sinking Fund of 1829 is false in principle. We are continually told, and it is quite true—indeed, an axiom in finance—that the only way of relief is by the surplus of Revenue over Expenditure. Nobody since the Finance Committee of 1828, at all events, or for several years before, has doubted the absolute truth of that axiom that we can only redeem Debt by the surplus of Revenue over Expenditure. But it does not follow that you can do that only by those casual surpluses. Well, Terminable Annuities are, no doubt, very useful and very advantageous; but there are drawbacks to that system. In the first place, we know quite well that if you went into the open market and attempted to redeem any considerable amount of Debt by creating Terminable Annuities, you would not find them taken up, or, at all events, not
1040
upon terms which would satisfactorily carry through the operation. You are therefore obliged to have recourse to money which is under your own control—money which comes from the Savings Banks, and to invest that in Terminable Annuities, and so cancel your Stock. Well, primâ facie, one would say that you are making use of money which is national money, entrusted to you for the purpose of making a proper use of it and of paying the depositors interest for it—at first sight one would say you are not as a Government making the best possible use of those deposits, for you invest them largely in what would be in the open market an unprofitable security. There is, of course, no doubt Terminable Annuities are a less disadvantageous investment for those Savings Bank monies than if they were offered in the open market. But I have another objection and a more serious one to the operation of Terminable Annuities, and it is, that they produce a kind of spasmodic action. You are paying a large sum in the shape of Annuities which in 10 years hence will suddenly fall in, and you will be relieved of the payment of about £5,000,000 a-year, which will come into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, who must consider what he will do with it. Well, now, Sir, we have had experience on this subject. I refer, first of all, to the Long Annuities which fell in in 1860, and which amounted to £2,000,000 a-year. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) brought forward a new Budget, with an entirely new plan of finance, involving very large remissions of taxation, against which I do not wish to say a word. They were large remissions—boons to the taxpayer which my right hon. Friend was able to give to a great extent by the reduction of the interest charged upon the Debt from above £28,000,000 to a little more than £26,000,000, and it has taken us all this time to get the charge up again to £27,000,000. Well, the same thing, but on a larger scale, will happen in 1885, and not only will there be a great temptation to make use of the windfall, as I may call it, in the same way; but you will find, if you attempt to set up a large amount of fresh Annuities, a great difficulty in obtaining stock enough to cancel at once by means of the creation

1041
of such Annuities. Therefore, I wish the Committee to consider whether it is not possible to devise some plan which might put us upon a way of securing a more regular, more constant, and more stable action upon the National Debt. Sir, the proposal I have to make is this—I propose that we should set before us an object to be accomplished. It cannot be done this year; but it may be done by two steps that we should arrive at a point of making the charge for our Debt the same amount which it was before 1860—that is to say, bringing it up to £28,000,000 a-year—I say what I propose is that, instead of applying our surplus simply to redeem the Debt, and giving ourselves the advantage of the saving of interest on the Debt so redeemed, we should keep the charge at the fixed amount of £28,000,000 a-year permanently, by Act of Parliament; that we should pay £28,000,000 a-year to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and that they should apply the balance above what was required for payment of the Debt in the year to the redemption of stock. The rate at which I should propose to proceed would be this—I should propose to fix the amount that we should charge for the present year at £27,400,000: I think our finances will bear that. For the next year, 1876–7, I propose to fix it at £27,700,000, and for the year 1877–8 at £28,000,000. I have no doubt, under ordinary circumstances and with the ordinary growth of Revenue, we shall be very easily able, without any distress to the country, to bring up the charge for Debt to that amount. Well, I shall be asked what would be the operation of that plan, and I may say that though I use these figures with some little hesitation, yet they are figures which I think the Committee will accept with the understanding that they must not be taken as being absolutely certain, for the reason that if you were to continue to operate largely upon your Debt for a considerable number of years, you would probably affect the rate of interest and the operations in the Funds; and these calculations are made upon the assumption that the price of Funds shall continue stationary throughout the operation. Well, assuming that, you would, taking the price of Funds at the average of the last 30 years, have reduced by the end of the year 1885 £6,800,000 of Stock, and in 30 years
1042
you would have reduced£162,000,000 of Stock. But, assuming besides that, as I think we fairly may, the surplus Revenue would keep at the average of £500,000, assuming also that Stock cancelled by Life Annuities and Land Tax redemption continue at their present rate, about £770,000 a-year, the following amounts of Stock will be cancelled:—By 1885 you will have cancelled £21,000,000, and in 30 years from this time you will have cancelled no less than£213,000,000. Well, Sir, these are large figures, which appeal a good deal to the imagination, and which, I fear, although they might in former times have had an effect favourable to my proposal, may, at the present time, have a somewhat contrary bearing. I am quite aware, when I make a proposal which involves something which looks like the principle of the old Sinking Fund, although under very different circumstances, that I shall waken up old prejudices which have prevailed for many years against that principle. But, Sir, I wish most distinctly to remind the Committee that the proposal which I make is one wholly and entirely free from the evils which attach to the Sinking Fund of Dr. Price. I will take the liberty of reading a very short extract from one of Dr. Price's works, which will show the absurdity of the calculations on which his scheme was founded. He said—
"Let a State be supposed to run in debt £2,000,000 annually, for which it pays per cent interest, in 70 years a debt of £140,000,000 would be incurred, but an appropriation of £400,000 per annum, employed in manner of a Sinking Fund, at compound interest, would, at the end of this term, leave the nation beforehand £6,000,000. "
So that, while the nation was supposed to be borrowing £2,000,000 a-year, it would, in fact, at the end of 70 years, have £6,000,000 in place of this liability by the operation of this marvellous Sinking Fund. But when that was submitted to a proper arithmetical test, it broke down at once. I will now quote from a very different authority. One of the last and heaviest blows which was struck at the old Sinking Fund was struck by Lord Grenville, in a pamphlet written in 1826 or 1827. Disagreeing as he did with the views of Dr. Price, he made this important admission, that—
"Possessing an effective and permanent surplus, a State may maintain a Sinking Fund even

1043
at compound interest without resorting to still further taxation. The fixed allowance and the successively redeemed Annuities which compose the Fund will severally continue to he defrayed from the same revenues as before, and by the progressive addition of those Annuities to the fund itself, it may ultimately be carried to any extent not exceeding their amount."
That is a description of a Sinking Fund such as I propose to establish. Lord Grenville did not advocate its establishment at the time he was speaking, because he considered that the pressure of taxation was then so great that he desired to devote the first energies of the Government and of Parliament to the reduction of taxation, with the view of setting free our various industries. Our position at the present moment is very different. We hope that we have attained such a position where we may consider that we have an effective and permanent surplus, which we may fairly ask the House to devote in the manner I have proposed to the reduction of our Debt. I may, of course, be met by a different kind of objection. I may be told—" Do this, if you please; but you will never be able to bind future Parliaments, and the very first time that a Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to raise an additional Revenue without increasing taxation he will put an end to your Sinking Fund, and will shatter all your dreams of reducing the National Debt by some hundreds of millions." That may be perfectly true; and I say that, under circumstances different from the present, it would be a very reasonable thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do. If the circumstances of the country should materially alter, it would only be right that we should take steps to take off that which we now propose to put on, in view of the present and the probable immediate future of the, country. One thing is quite clear—that if we do not put it on, it will certainly come to nothing, and that we shall be in the position of the gentleman who would never wind up his watch because if he did not wind it up it would never stop. Notwithstanding all the objections to the scheme, however, I still think that the experiment is worth making; because few Chancellors of the Exchequer would like to come down to this House and propose the repeal of an Act of Parliament establishing a Sinking Fund of this character, on the plea that they did
1044
not like to increase the taxation of the country, unless they had very good reasons for making such a proposition. But we do not argue a priori only; we have experience to guide us. What I am asking you to do is not to do a new thing, but to continue that of which we have experience. We have the Terminable Annuities, and if there are Gentlemen who say that these Terminable Annuities are excellent things, and that it would be a pity to disturb them, my reply is that we do not wish to disturb them. Within the limit of our £28,000,000 a-year we shall be able to create as many Terminable Annuities as we please, by means of turning so much Stock into them. On the whole, therefore, I submit that there are really no practical objections to our undertaking these good and benecial operations in the present state of our finances. I must, however, further explain that there are two classes of Debt which I wish to keep outside of this fixed sum of £28,000,000. The first of those two classes of Debt comprises our temporary loans. For instance, in the event of the House being disposed to go further in the course that they followed in the case of the building of our fortifications and of our local barracks, and to borrow the sum required for such works for a short period upon Annuities, I propose that such a transaction shall be outside the £28,000,000 in question, so that the operation may be marked, and the House and the country may know what we were doing; for if you did not adopt that course I admit there would be danger, and that you might be disposed to throw the services at large upon this fund, in order to get the money and avoid increasing the taxation. Thus, assuming that the amount of interest payable upon the Debt and upon the Sinking Fund is £28,000,000 a-year, and that the interest payable upon the temporary loan is £50,000, we should put the charge for interest for the year at £28,050,000. Another class of loans which I propose to keep outside of this arrangement are those which we contract for the purpose of lending again to the various local authorities. To some extent such loans involve a mere book-keeping account, because while, on the one hand, we have to pay interest upon them out of the National Exchequer, on the other we receive interest on them, which goes

1045
into the Exchequer again under the head of Miscellaneous Revenue, according to the arrangement of last year. I should, therefore, propose that under the heading of Debt we should bring separately to account the interest upon these local loans. Thus, for the present year, our charge for Debt will stand thus—for Debt, £27,400,000, and for local loans £70,000. I must say a word or two respecting these local loans. For the last two years we have advanced somewhere about £3,000,000 for these purposes, £2,000,000 of which we have paid out of the balances, and £1,000,000 we have raised by means of Exchequer Bonds. Now, we pay 3½ per cent interest upon these Exchequer Bonds, and as we only receive the same interest for the money we so lend, on the whole we are, at all events, not gainers by the transactions. Large and increasing demands under this head are being constantly made upon us, and we shall have in the future to meet the demands for local loans for the purposes of the school boards and under the Artizans Dwellings Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We must, therefore, be prepared to meet demands of this character to the extent of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year for the next two or three years. I need scarcely say that this is a very unsatisfactory arrangement for the Exchequer, because we only get 3½ per cent. and have to pay 3½ per cent. These, however, are not the only contracts which press hardly upon the Exchequer. In the course of the present Session, and at other times, a remark has been made as to the growing Savings Banks deficiency, and that is, no doubt, a matter which ought to receive consideration. The state of the case with regard to the Savings Banks is this. In November of last year, when the accounts were made up, the amount due to the Trustees of the old Savings Banks was £41,826,000, as against £38,463,000 in hand. You will find, therefore, that there was a deficiency of £3,363,000. I have not got the Returns for the Post Office Savings Banks, because they are not yet made up; but, generally speaking, they do not show any deficiency; on the contrary, they show a considerable surplus. The deficiency on the old Savings Banks account arose from our paying those banks a higher rate of interest than we were
1046
earning, and that deficiency has accumulated until it has reached its present proportions. At present we do not pay the Savings Banks a larger rate of interest than we are earning, and if we could once get rid of the deficiency we should be able to pay our way. But, as it is, the interest on the old deficiency goes on accumulating, and the result is that that deficiency increases year by year. It might be got rid of either by issuing Stock equal to its amount, or by placing it upon the Consolidated Fund; or we might reduce the rate of interest to depositors in the Savings Banks. I should, however, be very sorry to reduce the amount of interest paid to the depositors in such banks. Two other courses, however, may be taken which would materially aid us in getting rid of the deficiency in question. One would be to amalgamate the accounts of the old Savings Banks with those of the Post Office Savings Banks, and the other, to give greater facilities for investment. Such facilities for better investments may, I think, easily be found, in connection with local loans. Returning from this digression to the subject of the local loans, I wish to say that, without reference to the question of the interests of the Exchequer in the matter, the system under which the local authorities are borrowing money requires to be very carefully looked into. The total amount of local indebtedness in England at the present time is about £80,000,000; in fact, taking the School Board loans into consideration, it amounts to somewhere about £84,000,000, and it is rapidly increasing, with very little check or control. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and some check ought to be placed upon the further extension of the system. No doubt, Parliament has given authority to these local bodies to borrow money up to a certain extent, and has laid down regulations under which before they are permitted to borrow, they must obtain the sanction of the Treasury, or of the Home Office, or of the Local Government Board, by whom the amount of the loans and the period of repayment are fixed. But, in point of fact, these regulations are most unsatisfactory; and, although a great deal of trouble is given to the local bodies when they wish to borrow, yet when they have once succeeded in borrowing the money nobody looks after

1047
what they are doing in the matter. But not only is the present system objectionable as regards the local bodies, it is still, more so as regards those who lend their money to such bodies. The lenders of the money have obligations placed upon them which it is scarcely possible they can fulfil; and therefore they are often in peril of losing their money in consequence of some noncompliance with statutory regulations on the part of the borrowers. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has taken a great deal of pains in obtaining for the information of the House a very interesting Return, showing the amounts which have been borrowed by these local bodies and the rate of interest which they pay. Taking the Returns together, we find that out of a sum of £93,000,000 which has been borrowed, and which is represented in those two sets of Rturns, only £18,500,000 have been raised at and under 4 per cent; and more than £12,000,000 at above 5 per cent and running up to 6½ per cent. That is a considerable burden upon those localities. I will just state what the proposal is that we have to make with regard to this matter. It is intended to simplify the system under which these local debts are contracted. We propose to introduce a Bill which will have the effect of providing in future that all debt which may be contracted by local authorities shall be in the form of debentures. We propose that those debentures—for which we have the precedent of the Debenture Act passed a few years ago, though not much use has been made of it, and several local Acts—shall be registered at a Government office and authenticated by a stamp, proving that the borrowing power has not been exceeded and that the statutory provisions have been complied with. This will secure a registration of loans that may be contracted hereafter. We desire to bring about a complete system of registration, also, of past indebtedness; but that cannot be done at once. We hope by-and-by to effect that, and ultimately to put the local debt of the country into a state in which it will be freed from many of the inconveniences and complications by which it is now surrounded. There will thus be a simpler mode of borrowing, and the debentures will be of such a character as will make them more popular than the pre-
1048
sent form of mortgage. You cannot now lend money to a Corporation without having a cumbrous mortgage, which involves considerable legal expenditure, difficulty of transfer from hand to hand, and additional cost on every fresh loan. Then we have an interesting and important element in the Local Budgets, which we hope in future years to bring in. I will say only one word before I conclude on that question of Local Budgets. In the present year, of course, we are not in a position to give anything in the nature of an elaborate Local Budget; but I may state that the rates in England and Wales, exclusive of tolls, dues, and duties, amounted in 1870–71 to £17,817,000; in 1871–2 they advanced to £18,035,000; in 1872–3 they advanced further to £18,572,000. The Rturns for 1873–4 are not yet complete; but we have every reason to suppose there has been a still further advance; and we may assume without much doubt that if no further subvention had been given from Imperial funds, the present amount of rates, exclusive of tolls and dues, would not be less than £19,000,000. But the additional grants in aid, which come to something like £1,000,000, bring down the amount for the present year to £18,000,000. The grants in England are £2,250,000; the amount raised by rates and dues is £22,000,000, making together a total of £24,250,000. That is exclusive of Scotland and Ireland. We think that the whole system requires more care and attention than it has hitherto received. We desire to extend the annual Rturns that are required, so as to make them include loans; we propose to have them sent in before the 25th of March, so as to be in time for the Budget; and we shall also require them to show—what they do not show now—the distribution of the grants in aid. Another point that we aim at is that it is only fair and reasonable, considering the assistance which is now directly given by the Government, and which will be given by the system of registered debentures, that we should insist on introducing an efficient system of audit. We have been accused of doing nothing in the manner of Local Taxation. No doubt we are still a little short of the magnificent promises held out by the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who promised a relief of £1,200,000: but we have given

1049
£1,154,000, and that is something better than talking about doing so. And although we are not proceeding by leaps and bounds, we are still advancing steadily and safely, and are not losing sight of the question. Last year we introduced the principle of an Imperial subvention for purposes fairly requiring it. We also extended the area of rating by abolishing certain classes of exemptions. This year we are taking a step towards improving the system on which local loans are contracted, giving greater security and greater advantages to the investor; and we are endeavouring to bring about a system which shall be the foundation of a Local Budget. Next year, if not this year, I hope we may be able to take a step further, and that the promise given earlier in the evening by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board may be redeemed by the introduction of a Valuation Bill that will improve the system of assessment and remove some of the anomalies that now exist. We cannot do more than we have done; but we are honest in our attempts, and we have endeavoured to deal with the subject in the best way we can. If we have not made strides sufficient to satisfy the impatience sometimes manifested on the other side of the House, I hope our friends will believe that we are doing what in us lies, and that what we have done is only an earnest of what we hope in future to do. I must now thank the Committee for the kindness with which they have listened to my rather wearisome statement. I have endeavoured to make our proposals clear. I can only say that if we have aimed at no ambitious re-construction of our fiscal policy, our object has been to consolidate and add stability to our financial system; and we trust that the proposals we have made after careful deliberation will be received with candour and consideration by Parliament and by the country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Resolution.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, until the first day of August, one thousand
1050
eight hundred and seventy-six, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

s. d.

Tea.

the lb.

0 6

MR. CHILDERS: I am quite sure that the concluding words of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be re-echoed through all parts of the House—that is to say, that his very interesting statement to-night, which was not more long than interesting, will receive the most candid consideration from every part of the House. Of that statement I hardly know which part was the more interesting. My right hon. Fiend gave us very tersely the figures which have appeared in different places, by no means so clearly, as to the progressive advance of the country and the condition of the people, particularly as illustrated by their powers of consumption, so far as those powers can be tested by the Rturns of the Customs Department. And that statement must be very re-assuring to many hon. Members and persons outside of this House, who some time ago had doubts whether, in this respect, the condition of the people was so improving as it evidently is. My right hon. Friend, in the latter part of his speech, gave us very clear information as to local taxation, pointing out in what respects the old and cumbrous arrangements for raising money have imposed serious burdens on the people, and showing, I think, to the House excellent remedies—namely, first, that of granting to local bodies those powers of raising money on debenture which are now employed by all bodies requiring loans; and, secondly, that of requiring that the accounts of these bodies should be submitted first of all to public audit and then to public notice, in a manner which will certainly have the effect of greatly improving the financial condition of those bodies and bringing them under the view of Parliament. In all these respects, I do not think any one can have heard my right hon. Friend without receiving very great instruction, and feeling that if this is not a very magnificent Budget, at least it is one which will be of value to all who take a general interest in financial affairs. Now, after stating very candidly—to use my right hon. Friend's words—what appear to me to be the great merits of his statement, I will venture to speak in detail on one or two of the pro-

1051
positions which he has stated to the Committee. I will point out in which respects I think the proposals of my right hon. Friend should receive that deliberate consideration which proposals of that kind deserve at our hands. And I have risen immediately after my right hon. Friend because I ventured late in the past Session to doubt whether, unless there was a greater improvement in the state of the finances, especially in the state of trade then exhibited in the country, the proposals which my right hon. Friend made last Session could be accepted as perfectly safe. In the criticism I made on the proposals of my right hon. Friend, I specially guarded myself by the remark that if the country enjoyed, what then was doubtful, a good harvest, I thought the Estimates of my right hon. Friend would come up to the mark which he had given to the House. Now, having stated that, let me first call the attention of the House to the results of the finances of the last year, 1874–5, as stated by my right hon. Friend, and as they appear by the accounts which were given to us a few days ago. My right hon. Friend has said, and said correctly, that the Revenue has exceeded the Estimate which he placed before the House by £496,000; that the Expenditure has exceeded the Expenditure which he proposed by a small amount, an amount less than the excess of the Revenue; and he has stated that the result has been a surplus of £594,000. My right hon. Friend said he thought that, at any rate, was a satisfactory result. Now, I do not think that it can be deemed altogether a satisfactory result, and I will give one or two qualifications of the statement of my right hon. Friend. In the first place, he has been satisfied by an increase of receipt over his estimated receipt. It is perfectly true that the increase is £496,000; but when we come to look more narrowly into it, we find that three items of receipts which it has always been the practice to watch, and which indicate, above all, the progress of the prosperity of the country, and are tests of its financial advance—I mean Customs, Excise, and Stamps—for the first time since the year 1868 show £ deficit when compared with the amount; estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The deficit is, indeed, small—only £6,000—still it is a deficit. That,
1052
I think, is not altogether satisfactory. Again, I do not think you can find an instance during a long series of years—except in times of war, or apprehension of war—in which the Treasury has allowed the ordinary expenditure of the country to exceed the Budget Estimates of expenditure, unless in a year when the receipts have very greatly exceeded the Budget Estimates of receipts. Such a year was 1863–4, when the Revenue Estimates were some millions below the result. But what is the case as to the present year. I find that my right hon. Friend estimated the payments for the year charged on Supply Votes—not including payments in relief of local taxation—at £44,223,000. The actual expenditure has been £45,649,000, of which sum he just now told us that £512,000 had been paid in relief of local taxation. This leaves the expenditure of the year out of Supply Votes at £45,137,000. It thus appears that my right hon. Friend has expended during the year on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services £914,000 more than he estimated at this time last year. I can hardly regard this as a satisfactory state of finance in a year in which the Customs, Excise, and Stamps produced not more but less than the original Estimate. Let me carry the matter of surplus a little further with reference to the reduction of the National Debt. My right hon. Friend stated that the surplus of last year was £593,000, but as the amount necessary to be paid on account of Fortifications and Army Localization for the year was £600,000, and as this has to be taken into account before the final balance is struck, instead of their remaining a surplus to be paid to the National Debt Commissioners in reduction of the Debt, there was, in fact, a deficiency of over £6,000. This, again, can scarcely be regarded as a satisfactory state of things. But this is not all. In the miscellaneous receipts of last year there is a very remarkable and unusual item of £300,000, which arises in the following way:—The Treasury, in addition to its other functions, carries on a very large business as managers of an exchange bank, having transactions with all quarters of the globe. The name of that bank is the Treasury Chest, and up to two years ago the working capital assigned to it was £1,300,000. Two years ago it was found unnecessary,

1053
owing to the improved means of communication with foreign countries, and the reduction of our Army in the Colonies, to employ so large a capital; and an Act was passed reducing the amount of the capital of the Treasury Chest to £1,000,000. This sum of £300,000 which, strictly speaking, formed part of the capital of the country, and should, therefore, have contributed to the reduction of the Debt, has been actually treated as if it were ordinary revenue, so that, in fact, adding this amount to the £6,000 already mentioned by me, the actual deficit on the operations of last year was £306,000. My right hon. Friend has stated that there were £300,000 of miscellaneous revenue which might have been paid in just before the end of the last; but the receipt of which he postponed until the beginning of the present, financial year. My right hon. Friend took credit to himself for having done this, on the ground that the reductions of taxation agreed to in the last Session affected not only 1874–5, but also 1875–6. This is true; but I am not quite sure that it is desirable that such a licence as to the time of paying in Revenue should remain in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend admits that he has received a sum of about £300,000 from the Post Office Department beyond the nominal Revenue of the year, this being due, no doubt, to the better arrangements which have been made in the Department in question. These two sums balance each other, so that the real result on the basis established by the Act of George IV. is, as I said before, £300,000 on the wrong side. I now proceed to the Estimate for 1875–6. My right hon. Friend anticipates that, including the £300,000, payment of which was postponed from 1874–5, the receipts for the year will be £75,685,000, and the expenditure £75,268,000, which leave a balance on the credit side of £417,000. In stating the details of estimated expenditure to the House, my right hon. Friend did full justice, which I am very anxious to endorse, to the Secretary of the Treasury, who has exercised his powers with great skill and success in keeping down the expenditure. In some respects he has been fortunate—for instance, during this year some 12 great public buildings, the erection of which had been
1054
carried on at a great expense for four or five previous years, will have been completed, and the commencement of other new buildings has been stopped. What I wish, however, to impress upon my right hon. Friend and the Committee is that, taking everything into consideration, the estimated expenditure of the coming year is £1,330,000 in excess of that which, this time last year, was estimated to be necessary for the year which has just closed. But it will be said, "You have not included the Supplementary Estimates." My answer is they cannot be included now; the only comparison you can make with the Budget Estimate of one year is the Budget Estimate of the preceding year. Now, let us see what the result of my right hon. Friend's proposals will be in actual figures with reference to the surplus of the year. I may say, in passing, that I doubt whether, on the Revenue side, he has not over estimated the Miscellaneous receipts and those of the Post Office. [The CHATTCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The Post Office is under estimated.] Well, I will accept the statement. First of all, the Estimates omit a large item in the Vote for Irish education, which was stated last year at £118,000. We are told on high authority that it will be more this year, but I leave it at that, though I am sure in that respect I am doing my right hon. Friend more than justice. Then there is the loss of £60,000 on brewers' licences; there is to be an additional charge of £185,000 in connection with the National Debt, and this is not to include £70,000 a-year for interest on advances for local purposes. Now, the four sums added together make £433,000, and the surplus estimated is £417,000, so that my right hon. Friend deliberately proposes to Parliament that this year shall end with a deficit of £16,000. In my Parliamentary experience of 16 years I have known the same thing to be done only once, and in such a humdrum year as the present, it seems to me quite unjustifiable. I have no particular remarks to make at present on the modification of the Brewers' licences, or the alteration of the fee on appointments, though these questions might, I think, have been dealt with in a bolder manner; but I confess I do not at all like the tendency of the National Debt plan. Careful as my right hon. Friend was to

1055
distinguish it from the Sinking Fund, in operation before 1829, it is, I think, open to the objections which led them to the abolition of that fund. My right hon. Friend has changed his mind since last year as to the great merits of Terminable Annuities; but I think he has underrated—at any rate, he has not alluded to one great advantage which that system possesses. His remarks were to the effect that if you left the Savings Banks Commissioners in possession of large securities in the shape of Terminable Annuities, a time might come when you might want money, and they would not be very convertible. Now, under the Terminable Annuity system there is paid to the Savings Banks Commissioners every year a much larger sum out of the Revenue than they require, and a constant purchase of Consols and other stock goes on out of the difference between what 3 per cent upon their capital would have been, and what Terminable Annuities bring. That very process keeps passing into your hands every year a large amount of precisely the same securities which would have had to be sold or converged in case of pressure under the former system. I gather from what has fallen from my right hon. Friend that he does not propose to dispense with the system of Terminable Annuities altogether; but he proposes a new scheme by which the interest on the Public Debt is to be fixed at £28,000,000, besides whatever sum may be necessary in the way of interest on special loans, or loans raised for the purpose of advancing money to a public body. Now, whatever the merits of this plan may be—and I do not intend to enter into the discussion of them on the present occasion—it possesses, at all events, this great advantage to my right hon. Friend, that it enables him to propose a scheme, in a year when there is no surplus, for the reduction of the National Debt at, it may be considerable cost, to future Chancellors of the Exchequer. This plan requires, in my opinion, very deep and careful consideration. It is simply a plan to secure to my right hon. Friend credit for a very large reduction of the National Debt by applying for the next 10 years far less than the average sum applied by the late Government; and then 10 years hence and for the following 20 years nearly £10,000,000 a-year; averaging thus £7,000,000 a-year with
1056
next to nothing at first. These are the only observations which I now wish to make. I do not find fault with my right hon. Friend for having made so little change as he has done by his financial proposals. There is nothing, in my opinion, more objectionable than the constant shifting of taxation, and I think the most prudent course to pursue is that which was adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone)—to wait till the time arrives when a great blow can be struck. I will only say, in conclusion, that I am sure my right hon. Friend's statement will be received with all the consideration which it deserves.
MR. PELLcould not say that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very cheering one in regard to the subject which he and other hon. Members had at heart. He should like to know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a system of audit in the case of the accounts of local authorities, he meant that the whole of those accounts were to be submitted to audit, or only those portions of them which happened to be connected with the loans which they received? Nothing, he was sure, would tend so much to the diminution of any waste of money there might be as a proper system of audit. It would also be desirable that they should know whether the financial supervision of local taxation was to be carried on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the President of the Local Government Board? Since 1869 up to 1874–5, there had been a remission of Imperial taxation to the amount of £20,000,000, or, making allowance for the addition to taxation of some £3,000,000 in the time he had selected, a reduction of over £17,000,000. That was certainly a cheering state of things. In the course of eight years there had been an increase of local rates to the extent of £2,500,000, and he did not think this fact had been fully realized. The amount of in debtedness in respect of loans to local authorities was also a matter for very serious consideration. It was now £84,000,000, of which only £24,000,000 was under audit. If, however, audit was carried out to the extent he had been led to understand, his mind would be relieved of a great anxiety. Another cause of increase latterly was the establishment of school boards, which had

1057
swallowed up no less than £3,000,000 since the system came into operation. He was thankful most heartily for the splendid harvest they had had, to which so much of the financial success of the Government might be attributed, but he warned them not to rely too much upon such a precarious contingency. It was not often they had two good harvests in succession.
MR. LAINGsaid, unless in case of war, or some other extraordinary contingency, there should be no reasonable apprehension under a Budget that there would be a deficit. Can anyone say that of this Budget? When the Irish schools were provided for, and other expenses incurred in connection with the National Debt, what became of the right hon. Gentleman's surplus? No allowance was made for Supplementary Estimates, and there were other contingencies for which no provision had been made. What if they were to have a bad state of trade, an alarm as to European politics, or bad harvests? Could they then rely on these Estimates being realized? They could not, and the result would be they would be landed in a deficit. Could anyone say there would be no Supplementary Estimates of considerable magnitude in the course of the present financial year? There was the visit of the Prince of Wales to India. The information they had on that matter was not very explicit. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman that if the illustrious Prince went to India, the House of Commons would be the first to hear of it. But, seriously, if the visit was to be made, its political value would depend on the business being well done, and the bill being paid by the people of England. Considerable Supplementary Estimates must be the result. This was a Budget which did not show a surplus; on the contrary, it might show a deficit. What was the promise and performance with regard to the National Debt? They were promised a scheme by which, in the course of 30 years, they were to get rid of £200,000,000 of National Debt, and the performance was in two years of peace and prosperity they had no surplus at all. Previous to last year the practice had been to keep the Estimates always on the safe side. They were sure of having a surplus. Now they were reduced to the critical condition of depending on a good harvest. This
1058
state of uncertainty inflicted a great deal of mischief on trade, and if last year the right hon. Gentleman had maintained the income tax at 3d., and not reduced it to 2d. in the pound, there would have been no danger of a deficit. If, again, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking off a penny from the income tax, had taken off only a halfpenny, he (Mr. Laing) would have felt greater confidence in the soundness of his finance. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that the plan of the present Budget was open to the suspicion of a seeking for popularity at the expense of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
MR. SCOURFIELDregretted that no attempt was made to reduce our National Debt. As long as we had a National Debt, no matter how large our surplus might be, we should have no embarras de richesses. If we did not reduce the Debt now how could we expect to reduce it in times of difficulty? He would like to see an attempt made to put local taxation which at present fell on one description of property, on the same footing as Imperial taxation. In Liverpool 1d. in the pound on the property and income schedules would produce as much as 6d. on assessable property, and the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that id. in the pound on the poor rate assessment would yield a sum equal to 1d. in the pound on the property and Income Tax schedules. The whole expense of education fell upon local taxation, and there was a growing feeling in the country that local burdens had been most unfairly increased, and were likely to be increased still further.
MR. TILLETTthanked Her Majesty's Government, as representative of a great commercial community (Norwich), for the Financial Statement made that evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He also thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he had given to do all in his power to diminish taxation. He might, however, state that he concurred with the hon. Member (Mr. Scourfield) that there was a feeling of great dissatisfaction arising out of the manner in which local taxation was increasing. With regard to the heavy and disastrous taxation which the industrious classes suffered owing to the absence of reliable

1059
security, he submitted that it was desirable to adopt some measure that would give them confidence, and his impression was that if the right hon. Gentleman were to issue bonds and debentures, the effect would be that they might be saleable and accessible as security for their money, which they were now afraid to deposit. With regard to the local burdens upon one description of property, they now amounted to the enormous sum of £20,000,000.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he had listened with great attention to the important statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he congratulated him and Her Majesty's Government on that statement. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had any complaint to make, it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoiled the future surplus of the Gentleman who might take his place. He never ceased to regret one tax which had been taken off in a former Budget, and that was the 1s. duty on corn. That 1s. duty would enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do a great deal of good; but when taken off it was done as a sop to sentiment. He appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's idea of establishing an efficient system of audit, which, if adopted, could not fail to prove of great importance and give great satisfaction. With regard to the claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were very large, and the expenditure, it should be borne in mind, was very large. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet with a strong hand the demands which were made upon him, and in this respect he was to be congratulated upon not having a large surplus, as the effect of that was that there was no encouragement to every particular interest to put in its claim for exemption. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be Chancellor of the Exchequer till 1885, in order that he might realize all the anticipations he had formed of that happy era.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he thought it would be absolutely necessary that some Supplementary Estimates should be presented. It would be much better that the Prince of Wales should not visit India at all if he went there as a private individual. He felt satisfied there would be considerable expenses attending that
1060
visit, and he believed there would be a strong feeling throughout this country against that expenditure being treated as if it were merely an expenditure to be properly paid out of the revenues of India. He understood the determination of the Government was to throw the expenses as far as Suez on England, and the remainder on the revenues of India.
MR. WHALLEYprotested against Imperial taxation being applied to local purposes by way of loans, because it tended to destroy the principle of local government by which people were enabled to tax themselves. He also objected to the continuance of the Income Tax. All fixed property depended for its value upon muscle, brain, and energy; and therefore it was for the interest of that property that Schedule D should be abolished, and that the revenue derived under that Schedule should be levied upon real property.
MR. MUNDELLAobjected to the country losing £60,000 a-year from the sale of intoxicating drinks, particularly as the vexatious interference with trade, which was so much complained of—namely, private brewing—was to be left untouched, and very small beer would pay the same duty as the strongest and the best. The £60,000 might have been saved by raising the malt tax from 21 s. 8d. to 22 s. 6d., and in that way every glass of beer would have been dealt with in proportion to its strength. The time had probably come when spirits would again bear an increase of duty. With respect to the Income Tax, he believed that if all incomes under £300 had been exempted, it would have been very acceptable to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had adduced the funds deposited in savings banks as a criterion of the condition of the working classes; but that was no safe criterion, because they now found more profitable modes of investment for their savings in the shape of building societies and co-operative industries.
SIR HENRY PEEKobserved, that if the Excise, and Customs Departments were fused the saving would, he believed, be sufficient to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit the smaller duties now levied.
MR. FAWCETTremarked that the Budget had been brought before the House at an unusually late hour that

1061
evening; and he should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a general discussion of the financial policy of the Government could take place, as it was then too late to enter into anything like a discussion on such a subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he quite recognized the importance of the suggestion to set apart some convenient time for the discussion now raised by the Budget proposals. He was not able at that moment to name a day, but would take care in conference with his Colleagues that a convenient time should be fixed for that purpose. He did not think that much had been said upon which he need now trouble the Committee. The principal criticisms which had been made were criticisms for which he was not altogether unprepared. His right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had taken very much the same line with regard to the proposals he had submitted. They certainly pointed out that the Budget could hardly be said to show a surplus Estimate for the year, taking into account the probable Supplementary Estimates. At the present moment, there was a very small surplus left; but, in the first place, he believed that the Estimates had been taken at a very moderate and reasonable figure; and, in the second place, he was not proposing to sacrifice the surplus by the remission of taxation, but by appropriating a larger amount to the payment of Debt. It was not therefore a case in which there was so much imprudence in running rather close to the wind as it would be if he were proposing to give away £200,000 or £300,000 in remission of taxation. His right hon. Friend had called attention to the Post Office, and spoke as if he thought they were making an imprudent Estimate; but he did not seem quite to understand the figures. In 1872–3 the net receipts for the year were £5,212,000, and the Exchequer receipts for the following year were £5,792,000; more than £500,000 over the net receipts of the year before. In 1873–4 the net receipts were £5,481,000, and the Exchequer receipts of the following year were £5,670,000, or nearly £200,000 in excess of the former year, Last year the net receipts, so far as they had at present been made up, were estimated
1062
to produce £5,750,000, so that, according to the law which prevailed, he might take the Exchequer payments next year at a much higher sum; but instead of doing that he had made no advance whatever upon the Post Office receipts. There would be some small sum required for Supplementary Estimates, as, for example, in the Irish Estimates. The Committee must not take the Supplementary Estimates of last year as a guide for the present year. The present Government did not hold themselves responsible for the Supplementary Estimates of last year, since they did not prepare the original Estimates. Immediately after the Budget, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) found he must have a Supplementary Estimate for the Navy. The Government accordingly were called upon to provide £240,000 for the Navy, and another sum of £150,000 for the Telegraph Service. Last year was altogether an exceptional year. This year the present Government were responsible for the Estimates, and he hoped that the Supplementary Estimates would not be on the same scale as those which were necessary last year. He had been told that he was rather strange in the field of prospective finance, and that he was binding future Parliaments. His proposal, on the contrary, was one which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to set aside. It was remarkable that while the right hon. Gentleman disapproved his proposal, he approved the creation of Terminable Annuities. If, however, his proposal bound future Chancellors of the Exchequer, they would be still more bound by the creation of Terminable Annuities. There had been one omission in his Statement which, in justice to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board, he wished to supply. There would be in this year's Estimates a sum voted towards the expenses of the Registration Bill. The Government promised last year to pay a portion of these expenses, and they had determined to pay a fourth.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, until the first day of August, one

1063
thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

s. d.

Tea.

the lb.

0 6

Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That in lieu of the Duties payable on Licences to Brewers of Beer for Sale (other than Brewers of Spruce or Black Beer) there shall be charged, collected, and paid on such Licences to be taken out on and after the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, the following Duties (that is to say):

£

s.

d.

For and upon every Licence to be taken out yearly by any Brewer of Beer for Sale,—

If the quantity of Beer brewed within the year ending the thirtieth day of September next preceding shall not exceed fifty barrels, the Duty of

0

12

6

If the same shall exceed fifty barrels, then for every fifty barrels and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of fifty barrels, the Duty of

0

12

6

And for and upon every Licence to be taken out by any person who shall first become a Brewer of Beer for Sale the Duty of

0

12

6

And there shall also be charged upon and paid by the last mentioned person in respect of his Licence, such further sum as with the said Duty of Twelve Shillings and Sixpence shall amount to the Duty which would be chargeable on a Licence for a quantity of Beer equal to the quantity brewed by him during the existence of his Licence, and such further sum shall be paid within ten days next after the expiration of the Licence."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(2.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year, commencing on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):
For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A) (C) (D) or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Two Pence;
And for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act:—
In England, the Duty of One Penny;
In Scotland and Ireland respectively,
the Duty of Three Farthings;
Subject to the provisions contained in section twelve of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1872," for the exemption of Persons whose whole Income from every source is under One Hundred Pounds a-year, and relief of those whose Income is under Three Hundred Pounds a-year.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.
MR. CHILDERSsuggested that the Resolution should be postponed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not then press it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERannounced that it would not be convenient to take the Friendly Societies Bill next week.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the provisions of "The Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872," with respect to the annual Returns from Mines, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SEEWIN-IBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]

  FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Law with reference to the Falsification of Accounts, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. FRESHFIELD, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, and Mr. LOPES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 121.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.