Lords Sitting of 20 March 1857

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Scarsdale, after the Death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Mr. Speaker's Retirement; Exchequer Bills (21,049,700); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

SALE OF POISONS—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHwished to be informed whether in was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill next Session for regulating the sale of poisons? The necessity for such a measure had been proved by a case which unfortunately came recently within his own knowledge. The child of one of his relations was poisoned last summer by medicine that was sent from a chemist's shop at Weymouth. The medicine was sold by a boy who was too young to be an apprentice, and the only other person in the shop at the time of the sale was a boy of fourteen years of age. The chemist had left his shop in charge of those two boys. Unfortunately the mother herself administered the dreadful dose to her own child. A long investigation took place before a coroner's jury, and a verdict of manslaughter was returned against the two boys. Bills were sent before the grand jury against them, but these bills were ignored. He did not mean to throw any blame on the grand jury, or on the law officers of the Crown, but he referred to this particular case as illustrating the careless manner in which drugs were frequently dispensed by persons wholly ignorant of their nature. He thought there could be no doubt that the safety of the public positively required that some legislative measures should be passed on the subject. Since the bills were thrown out the chemist in question had inserted an advertisement in the newspapers, to the effect that his establishment was excellently managed and would continue to give every satisfaction to the public. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) was sure that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would admit that an end ought to be put to the administration of medicine by incompetent and irresponsible persons.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the subject had been under the consideration of the Government, but it was almost as difficult a one as could be required to be

2447
dealt with. It must be admitted that many grievous accidents had occurred through the ignorance of persons employed in dispensing; but, on the other hand, he was afraid that an enumeration of poisonous articles sold in chemists' shops, with the view of preventing their being improperly bought or administered, would rather arrest the attention of such persons as desired to administer deadly poisons than tend to the decrease of unfortunate cases such as that at Weymouth. Difficult, however, as the subject was, the Government were engaged in considering it, and if it were possible they would introduce a Bill with regard to it; but he could not give any pledge. It had been suggested that chemists should be compelled to take out licences for the sale of drugs; but that would be a poor remedy, for, whatever directions might be given as to their sale, chemists would occasionally leave their shops in the management of persons incapable of attending properly to its business. It was impossible for the Legislature to provide against all cases of carelessness in the sale of drugs.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsuggested the desirableness of adopting in this country the practice which prevailed in Russia as to the sale of poisons, and which was this—a chemist or private individual who had poison in his possession was obliged to keep it enveloped in a paper of a certain colour, and was heavily fined if he neglected to do so.

PRIVATE BILLS.

  CERTIFIED PROOFS OF STANDING ORDERS.
  On the Motion of LORD REDESDALE it was resolved—
  "That the Proofs already taken before the Examiners for Standing Orders, and certified by them in respect of any Bill which shall be introduced into Parliament in the ensuing Session, shall be received by the Standing Order Committee in that Session in relation to all such Bills."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  THIRD READING. THE APPROACHING DISSOLU- TION. OBSERVATIONS.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, as the Motion for the third reading of this Bill announces the approaching termination
  2448
  of the Session, I trust I may be allowed to offer a few words to your Lordships on the peculiar circumstances which have led to its premature conclusion. I believe the circumstances are these. The Governor of Hong Kong, having taken ample reparation for an alleged offence, and the circumstances being such as would have enabled him to come at once to a pacific settlement with the Chinese authorities, thought fit to make at a time the most unpropitious a new demand, which it was obviously impossible, under the circumstances, that the Chinese authorities would accede to. Hence arose the war. That war has been approved of by Her Majesty's Government; and the question having been submitted to the House of Commons, that assembly, by a small majority, thought fit to express their opinion that there were not sufficient grounds for the measures adopted in China and approved by Her Majesty's Government. Upon that the course adopted by the Government was to advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament; and the Members of the House of Commons are to be sent to their constituents for judgment. At first a charge was made of 'conspiracy' and 'concert,' and 'coalition,' and of all those various offences which a dissatisfied Government usually raise against a successful Opposition. However, that charge has been denied, and is now altogether withdrawn. From the first it was unreasonable, and no one who considered the matter for a few moments could by possibility have given credence to it. Now, I apprehend that two questions practically are to be submitted to the people—first, whether they prefer Lord Palmerston to any other Minister? and, secondly, whether they approve of this war? Now, I think it not at all impossible that the answer given to the first question may be in the affirmative—that the people do, on the whole, prefer Lord Palmerston to any other Minister; but I feel the most perfect confidence that the answer given to the second question will be, that they cannot approve the circumstances under which the war commenced, and that they desire that it should be terminated as speedily as possible. So that in fact the position of the Government after the dissolution will be, practically, precisely the same as now. But there is a very important question involved in the commencement of these proceedings—the question to what extent it is politic to give support to distant authorities in

  2449
  measures undertaken by those authorities which endanger the pacific relations between the country and a foreign State. If Sir John Bowring is to be supported, he being the Governor of Hong Kong, because he has undertaken measures which led to war with the Chinese authorities in his neighbourhood, I know not why, upon the same principle, the Governor of Gibraltar might not be supported in measures which would lead to a conflict between us and the Spanish Government, or why the same support may not be afforded to a Governor of a West Indian colony for having taken measures which would embroil us with the United States. The doctrine would involve this country in the most serious difficulties. To the principle, that our authorities in distant countries ought to have a fair and liberal construction placed on their acts, no one can object; but that it should be incumbent on the Government in a most questionable cause to extend their support to their authorities abroad who have involved this country in war, appears to me one of the most dangerous innovations. Now, that the representatives of the people are to be sent to their constituents, who are the persons to suffer from the recent vote? The noble Earl the President of the Council has told us, that he is far from desiring that the forty-eight 'old Whigs,' who voted against the Government, should be among those who are to suffer. Now, it appears to me that that is contrary to the usual feeling in these matters. Those gentlemen who have given their support and confidence to the Government, and at a moment of peril withdraw their support and confidence, commit, it is generally considered, according to the doctrines of parties as they existed in former times, almost an act of treason. I remember, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, if any Whig gentleman presumed to differ from his party, to make an independent speech, or to give an independent vote on any occasion, he was fired at from all parts of the House. What he suffered in the House was perceptible, but what he underwent afterwards at Brooks's was only to be imagined. The punishment was sure to deter from a repetition of the offence. But now, when the offence is committed by forty-eight persons, distinguished members of the Whig party, not only are they not to be punished, but while others are to be punished they are to be rewarded by the retention of their seats. The noble Earl the President of
  2450
  the Council hates the treason but likes the traitors; I also join with the noble Earl in desiring that no mischief should happen to those forty-eight persons. They have given one honest vote, and I hope that they may live to give many more with better result. I confess that I have an old feeling in favour of the old Whigs. Some of the old predilections are remaining about me, and I confess I do not see that any injury would be done to the country by the continuance of that great party in strength. I cannot say the same thing with respect to those who are, as the noble and learned Lord sitting at the table once expressed it, "Whigs, and something more." That is quite a different thing. With respect to the gentleman termed "Radical," I entertain very much the opinion which I recollect having heard expressed in this House with his usual classical felicity by the late Marquess of Wellesley, radix in Tartara tendit. Whether all of that class go to that termination I will not say, but, undoubtedly of late years, there have been certain circumstances with reference to pecuniary transactions which lead to the conclusion that that expression, if not generally correct, is not absolutely inaccurate. But if those Gentlemen who, being friends of the Government, voted against the Government, are not to suffer, why should the Conservatives suffer? They never gave their confidence to the Government; and why, then, were they to be expected on this serious question—on which so many honest Whigs voted against the Government—to give confidence to the Government; and why are they to be punished for not giving a confidence which they had always withheld? There is another party, small in numbers, but great in intellect, ability, and knowledge of public affairs, called the Peelites. I never belonged to that party, though I have the greatest respect for my old colleagues; and they were certainly in a position in which no man could question the propriety of their giving an independent vote, for they had never given their confidence of late to the Government; and therefore really I do not see how those three different parties, against whom this charge of coalition has been made, can justly suffer in consequence of the dissolution.
  And now allow me to state very shortly the circumstances with which some of your Lordships at least may not be acquainted, in order to show what are practically the

  2451
  effects of this war which has been so recklessly undertaken by Sir John Bowring. I did not know the other day all that had taken place, but I mentioned to your Lordships the fact that the interruption of our trade with China would produce the greatest possible distress. I have since seen something which goes beyond all that I had anticipated. I find that between the 7th of January and the 5th of February the rate of discount of the Bank of Bengal was raised from 6 to 14 per cent. I, unfortunately, am acquainted with the difficulties of carrying on commerce in India. I know that if a gentleman in India makes £80,000 or £100,000 he either transfers his property to this country or he leaves it in India upon loan. The consequence is that a great portion of the trade of that country is carried on with borrowed money. Now, if in this country, where commerce is sound, the rate of discount were raised from 6 to 14 per cent., we know what wide-spread ruin would ensue; but in a country where commerce is not in a sound state, and where trade is carried on with borrowed money, such a rise in the rate of discount necessarily involves a state of utter general ruin, and consequently must be followed by the failure of many houses and the embarrassment of the Government. The Government have advertised since the commencement of the unfortunate war with China for a loan of £3,000,000 at 5 per cent. They had vainly endeavoured previously to raise a loan at 4½ per cent. They were able to raise very little at 5 per cent., and the general opinion is that they will only raise it at 7 per cent, unless they give some indulgence to persons having 4 per Cent. Stock. See what an unfortunate position the holders of East India Four per Cent. Stock are in. They had 5 per cent., but two or three years ago they were induced to accept 4 per cent. They had then no idea that the Government would raise a fresh loan at 5 per cent. Their stock is now at 19 per cent. discount; and I ask your Lordships what must be the position of a gentleman who, with stock at 19 per cent. discount, can only borrow money upon it at 14 per cent. The price of opium has fallen greatly—so much so that it is perfectly certain that at the next sales of Government opium which may take place there will be a loss of 25 per cent. Now, a loss of 25 per cent., if it does not go beyond that, is equivalent to £750,000 a year. That involves so
  2452
  great a loss, and will be followed by so many difficulties in that country, that it will be, in my opinion, a matter for the immediate consideration of the Government whether they will not interfere with some pecuniary assistance. My opinion is that it will be desirable at once to obtain the authority of Parliament to advance £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in Exchequer-bills by the home Government to that country. Why the Government of that country should not obtain an indulgence which has been granted to Sardinia and to half the States of Europe I know not, but the result would be that to the extent of that sum remittances would not take place from this country, and if anything could restore tranquillity to the money-market of that country, it would be some such measure. Your Lordships have also to consider the effect of that war upon this country. As I understood two or three weeks ago, there has already been a diminution in our imports of more than 10,000,000lbs. of tea. We may, if the war continues, expect a diminution of from 35,000,000lbs. to 40,000,000lbs. of tea, and a loss of one third of the revenue now derived from tea. I will not attempt to calculate the extent of the injury by the general interruption of the trade of the world, but the direct loss to this country of the revenue now derived from tea will amount to a very considerable sum. Taking both England and India, in various ways the injury inflicted upon our commerce and revenue will produce a loss this year which cannot be estimated at less than £4,000,000. An hon. Gentleman somewhere else said, very reasonably, as I think, that the House of Commons would find an advantage in parting with Lord Palmerston for £2,000,000. We are now asked to pay £4,000,000 for Sir John Bowring, and never was a public character bought so extravagantly dear. Now, as the question has been put whether Lord Palmerston is better than any other Minister, and as we are told that he is, because he carried on a glorious war and obtained a satisfactory peace, I beg to be allowed to say one word on that subject. I cannot consider that war glorious in which Kars was abandoned, and which had two failures to correct its greatest achievements. There are some matters conected with the war which we have much pleasure in remembering, and others which we shall desire to forget. There have been many things to imitate, and much of which we shall desire to obliterate

  2453
  the remembrance. I do not consider that a glorious war which has not advanced the character of the British army, although it has advanced the character of the British soldier. I do not think that a satisfactory peace in which, in consequence of the abandonment of Kars and the fall of all that upper portion of the country, the cession of that portion of Bessarabia, which would have most effectually improved the frontier of Turkey, was abandoned, and in which, having obtained the promise of the left bank of the Danube and the Pruth, the occupation of which according to the line agreed upon would have practically thrown back the Russians to the Dniester, that line of the Upper Pruth was again left in the possession of Russia. I cannot consider that a satisfactory peace in which we lost the Upper Pruth, which, in a military point of view, was alone valuable. The object of that war was the independence of Turkey, but Turkey has in Asia interests quite as important as she has in Europe, and in Turkey in Asia nothing was done, and no advantage was obtained. She lost Kars, which has most naturally affected her character and prestige in Asia; and my firm belief is that the abandonment of Kars and the consequent discouragement of the population of that country have most materially contributed to the war with Persia. The two questions are most intimately affected, and I think that if, as we should have done, we had maintained Kars, and if, as we should have done, we had given an advantage to Turkey on the side of Asia, we should not only have supported her, but protected our own interests in Asia. My Lords, among the various qualities which are required in a Minister of this country none is more valuable than the quality of economy, and notwithstanding this has ceased to bear so high a position as it once did in the affections of the people of this country, yet I should imagine there must be some persons at the ensuing election who will make some inquiries of Lord Palmerston's Government on the subject of economy. I will not trouble your Lordships with any details, nor will I advert to any charges except those of the Miscellaneous Estimates. But your Lordships will allow me to say that, for my part, it has always appeared to me that the first duty of the Government of this country is to place it in a state of perfect security against invasion from foreign
  2454
  nations. To a Government which will devote itself to bring to perfection the naval and military establishments I will at all times give my most cordial support, nor could I ever become the friend of any Government whatever which neglected that which appears to me to be its first duty. But consistently with the performance of that duty there is another—to carry the most strict and most searching economy into the details of the establishments, to give the greatest possible efficiency at the smallest possible charge, and more especially to be economical in those parts of the expenditure which have no connection with naval and military purposes. Let us see how that is effected. I have looked through the Estimates, which in a recent return have been placed in a form to give a comprehensive view of the expenditure from 1838 to 1856, and I find these results:—Without going back to 1838, which would really alarm people too much by showing the extent to which we have become extravagant, I compare the expenditure under the Miscellaneous Estimates of the three years ending 1856 with the three years ending 1853. The very first item is public buildings and palaces. For the three years ending 1856 the average is £161,799. For the three years ending 1853 it is £115,514. But I find in this year a large increase. The Estimate for 1857 is £196,669. The increase in the average of the three years ending 1856 over the three years ending 1853 is £46,285. The further increase in this year is £34,870. The total increase since 1853 is £81,155. I then go to an item of the same description—Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. It was first voted in 1851, the expense having been previously paid out of the land revenues. The first Vote in 1851 was £41,829. The Vote proposed for 1857 is £114,601. In these two items alone, which have nothing whatever to do with naval and military establishments, the increase since 1853 in the one case, since 1851 in the other, is more than £140,000. There then comes a charge which I think must be capable of explanation, for it is perfectly monstrous. The expense of printing and stationery in the three years ending 1853 was £216,498. In the three years ending 1856 it was £416,900. The Vote for 1857 is £450,875. So that the increase on the average of three years ending 1853 is £234,377. There then comes a charge which a great many persons consider

  2455
  never can be too great, especially the noble Earl the President of the Council, who is at the head of the Education Committee. But I really must call the attention of the House, and I wish to call the attention of the public, to the alarming annual increase in this charge for education, which I shall show by reading the amount of the Vote in successive years:—In 1851, £284,000; in 1852, £324,000; in 1853, £442,000; in 1854, £456,000; in 1855, £612,000; in 1856, £679,000; in 1857, £754,000. So that the increase in that charge since 1851 is £470,000, and it is a charge which threatens to increase. Observe, as regards the morals of the people, how utterly useless it appears to be. While we lay out this enormous expense in making the people good, observe how great, at the same time, is the expense of looking after those who are bad. Convicts cost in 1848, £477,531 (I go to that year, because it is the first of the present form of Vote). In 1856 they cost £906,344, being an increase of £428,000. I cannot give the Vote for this year, because it is not passed, and there is no Estimate. Taking the three years ending in 1856, and comparing them with the three years ending 1853, there is an increase under that head alone of £152,000. Let us just go back to the year 1838. Education cost £80,000, convicts cost £313,213; making together 393,213. In the year 1857, education cost £754,000, in the year 1856 convicts cost £906,374; being together £1,660,374. There, is, consequently, an increase in education and convicts over the first year in the account of £1,267,161. There is a class of votes which is called "special and temporary objects; and really under that head I think what appears is more remarkable than under any other. The account begins in 1838, and between that year and 1856 there are 126 different heads of charge, not less than 60 of which are new within the last three years—not less than 60 since Lore Palmerston assumed the Government. The average of that class of Votes for the three years ending 1840 was £213,300, for the three years ending 1853, £276,220, and for the three years ending 1856, £681,966. The increase in the last three years is £404,746, and, as compared with the three years ending 1810, the increase is £468,666. Putting all the Votes together, and comparing 1857 with the average of the three years ending 1853, observe the increase. Public buildings and
  2456
  palaces, 81,155; Royal parks and gardens, £59,548; printing and stationery, £204,377; education, £404,766; science and art, £55,869; convicts, £152,104; special and temporary objects, £404,746; altogether £1,392,545 have been added to the public charges in three years, under the heads to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention. I say that no Government—no State—can go on with this extravagance. It is perfectly impossible. I know that complaints during the progress of the war were made of the extravagance with which it was carried on, and we were promised information and inquiry when the war was ended. No information has been given upon the subject, and the House of Commons, which ought to have inquired, has not done so.
  Having gone through those points, I must ask your Lordships, and I should willingly ask any Gentleman who appeared upon the hustings what Lord Palmerston's principles are? What I find is this:—During the time Lord Palmerston has been a Member of Parliament, before he became Prime Minister, there were thirteen Governments, and he was a Member of ten of them. He has been a Member of ten out of thirteen, and of two of the most extreme it is possible to conceive. He was a Member of the Government of the late Lord Grey, and he was a Member of the Government of Mr. Perceval, and I never heard that he came to the smallest difference with either of his chiefs. Therefore, I do not know what the principles of Lord Palmerston are. I think nothing is more probable than that he is a most agreeable and fascinating colleague. No one can doubt that he is an excellant man of business, and his extraordinary experience in public offices must be of the greatest value to the public service. It is evident, since he has served in so many and such diverse administrations, that he has no ferocious rigidity of opinion on any point, and that he has nothing unaccommodating in his nature so as to make difficulty in the conduct of the Government. I once had the honour of being with him for a short time in the Government of the Duke of Wellington; he left the Duke of Wellington's Government not on account of any difficulty, but because others left. He assigned no other reason. There was no other reason assigned. Other reasons may have been found afterwards, but at the time he left there was no other reason. But, although there can hardly be a better recommendation for a

  2457
  colleague than to have this facility, this accommodating feeling, in respect to the various measures which come under the consideration of the Cabinet and Parliament, it seems to me the public have something else to look to. What the public have to look to is a fixedness of opinion on political questions, and, above all, a determination to stand by principles. I know not what may be Lord Palmerston's opinions on any public subject—for instance, on the subject of Reform. I know indeed the course he took recently on that subject by the vote which, unfortunately for his Government, he has lately given. But being opposed to further reform, believing that the more numerous the constituency the more inferior the representative, and being satisfied that the public should look to the House of Commons for the direction of opinion, and not elsewhere, I am against any further alteration in the representation; and having no security that Lord Palmerston will adhere to that principle I would infinitely rather see the Government in the hands of an uncompromising, sound Old Whig like Lord Grey, who said he would not be the shadow of a Minister, than in the hands of a gentleman who goes in one direction one day and another another day, and on whose support it is perfectly impossible to calculate. Not to detain you further, my Lords, I must say I view this war with China with the greatest apprehension. I do not enter into it with the same feelings with which we have entered into other wars. There seems to me to be injustice connected with it. When we engaged in the late war we were more than once desired to acknowledge our sins, to beg pardon for our offences, and to ask the blessings of Heaven on our endeavours to maintain the interests of the country in "a just and necessary war." And it was a necessary war. We could not help it. However much we disliked it, we were obliged to enter upon it. We were justified then in hoping we might obtain the blessing of Providence. But how can we ask Providence for its blessings in this war? We may, according to the best experience we have, do all we possibly can to alleviate the sufferings of our troops. We may, by improved councils, do much more than seems at present intended to place our army in sufficient strength to achieve success. But can we expect that success will attend our endeavours from the conviction that we are working for a good
  2458
  purpose and that our cause is a just one? It seems to me that all along money has been the only object kept in view, and what the present object of the Government may be no one knows. We hear of fighting for "British interests" and "British honour," but what I want to know is, what is the specific object of our army going to Canton? We are endeavouring to force Dr. Bowring into Canton, which I think is an impracticable thing, and in endeavouring to force Dr. Bowring into Canton we are forcing tea out of every cottage in England. If we only import two-thirds of the quantity of tea we were accustomed to import, I fear that all the poorer classes may have to go without tea. Not only do I not feel at all satisfied as to the objects of the Government, but I want to know if they have not some further object in view; I want to know if they are not going to take advantage of this position of hostility to endeavour to revise the treaty as it is called, to force further conditions on the Emperor of China, and, in short, to obtain the means of making more money—for that seems the motive of the whole proceeding—the object seems to be to make money, no matter how contrary to justice, to reason, or to humanity. But, my Lords, we are not only going to ask that which we have no right to ask, but we are going to ask to have a friend to join us in the enterprise—one who has no interest in the matter, and we two great Powers together, without any reasonable ground of quarrel with the Emperor of China, are to direct our united forces against his empire, for the purpose of extorting from him some advantages to our trade, which will put more money into the hands of our merchants, but not a farthing into the hands of the people. I confess, my Lords, that these considerations fill me with alarm, and we ought to have a distinct answer from the Government in reference to them. For myself I feel satisfied that whatever may be the opinion of the public at the next election—about that I care little—I feel perfectly confident that it is humanly impossible that the ultimate judgment of the public should not maintain the independent and honest vote of the majority of the House of Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the duty devolves on me to make some observations in reply to the attack which the noble Earl has just thought right to make on Her Majesty's Government. With respect to the alleged coalition, I do not

  2459
  think it necessary for me to go over that ground again; but as the noble Earl has stated that, in his judgment, the charge of a coalition was made under such circumstances that no one ought to have given credence to it, I think I am entitled to say that, on a consideration of the circumstances, there was very good ground for believing that something more than a coincidence had occasioned the recent vote hostile to the Government which was given in the House of Commons. As soon, however, as a noble Earl, not now in his place, stated in his address to your Lordships on Monday night, not only on his own part, but for all those with whom he acted, that on the occasion in question not one of them had formed any combination or understanding with any one who did not agree with him in political principle, I at once distinctly avowed that I gave credence to that statement. But I repeat that I will not go over that ground again. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) alluded in the course of his speech to the finances of India, and gave a very discouraging description of their present state, which he attributed entirely to the existing position of Chinese affairs. I confess I have not that acquaintance with Indian matters which the noble Earl necessarily has; and I do not contend for one moment, when you are in a state of hostility with any part of a country with which you have a considerable trade, that that will not affect your financial relations with it; but when the noble Earl talks with so much alarm about the state of the finances of India, I must say those finances must be in a very unsound state indeed if they cannot afford the inconvenience which a certain temporary cessation of our relations with Canton may involve. A great deal that the noble Earl has said may be perfectly true. It is impossible for me to reply offhand to many of the statements he has made to the House. The case of the fund-holders to which the noble Earl referred may be one of hardship; but the Government must deal with the exigencies of the public service as they arise, and if those exigencies require an advance of money, that advance of money can only be obtained by having recourse to an increase in the rate of interest in order to bring forward lenders on the occasion. The noble Earl also talks of our commerce being interrupted at Canton. In one sense that is so, and in another sense it is not. Immense quantities of tea are on their way to the
  2460
  different ports, and therefore I do not see that there will be that stoppage in our trade with China which the noble Earl seems to apprehend. But with reference to the trade in opium there is no doubt that the existing hostilities do inflict injury upon it. But what does that come to? The noble Earl complained the other night that the Government had not done what it ought to put down the importation of opium into China, and he now complains of the acts of Sir John Bowring, because indirectly they have the very effect with regard to the trade in opium which the noble Earl so much desires. The noble Earl next adverted to a subject with respect to which I entirely concur with him, and that is the necessity of economy on the part of the Government at this time. He has gone over several of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which I have no doubt are capable of a satisfactory explanation; but it will not be imagined, because I am not now giving an answer to all the details into which the noble Earl has entered, and entered without having previously given due notice that it was his intention to do so, that a perfectly satisfactory reply cannot be given to them. It would have been much more satisfactory if points which are easily susceptible of explanation and justification had been brought forward separately, and with due notice, at some other time when we have been sitting here than almost the last day of an expiring Parliament; because in that case I myself, or some of my colleagues, would have been prepared by inquiry previously made, to give an answer to questions of that nature. With regard to the money expended upon the Parks to which the noble Earl has alluded, I must remind him that those are public Parks, and are not Parks merely devoted to the enjoyment of the Sovereign. Then as to the question of printing, I quite agree with the noble Earl that that is an immense evil. It is an evil which is not confined to the money spent in printing, but has reference also to the enormous accumulation of returns for which demand is made from time to time in this and the other House of Parliament. It is an evil, too, for which Parliament is most to blame—certainly not Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl has likewise referred to the expense of maintaining convicts. I dare say that is a subject susceptible of explanation if the details of it were investigated; but, however that may be, it is quite clear that the cessation of transportation

  2461
  has added enormously to the expenditure of the country under that head. He also complains that sixty new heads of expenditure for "special and temporary objects" have been added within the last three years, or, as the noble Earl says, during the Government of Lord Palmerston. Now, in the first place, the period of three years has not been the duration of Lord Palmerston's Government, seeing that Lord Aberdeen's Government was in office in the first of those three years. One thing has entirely escaped the observation of the noble Earl, which is, that one of the last acts of Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to transfer a great number of items of this sort from the Consolidated Fund to the annual votes. This, therefore, is a mere transfer of charges, the only practical effect being to bring more directly under the control of Parliament the expenditure that takes place. The noble Earl then went to another subject,—namely, the very largely increased expenditure in connection with education. Now, on this point I have some difficulty in arguing with the noble Earl. I think he must have seen the attention always paid by the occupants of this bench to the suggestions, patriotic and public-spirited as they are, which he is frequently in the habit of making—to a Government, moreover, from which he differs—on questions with which he is thoroughly acquainted, such as military operations in the East, and other matters of that sort. But with respect to education I stand on a different footing to the noble Earl. I could argue, for instance, with a man who maintained that there should be greater moderation in diet, and I could admit to him the extravagance of indulging in turtle and champagne; but if I met with a person who held that pure air was the only thing necessary for the support of life, and that meat and drink were quite a mistake, I should decline to argue with him as to the economy or extravagance of any dietary whatever. In the same way the noble Earl and I start from a wholly different point with regard to education. I remember perfectly well that in the Indian debates the noble Earl threatened us almost with the loss of an empire if we attempted the education of our subjects there. On a subsequent occasion perhaps some of your Lordships can call to mind that he referred with a sigh to the money wasted on the education of the people, which might, he said, have been usefully
  2462
  employed in the construction of gunboats; and I am perfectly sure the noble Earl, at the bottom of his heart, thinks that the sum of money spent upon education is thrown away. On this subject I may, in passing, express my surprise that Mr. Gladstone the other night in a thin House, and without any notice whatever, should make a charge of extravagance with regard to these Votes against the department of which I am at the head. I should meet Mr. Gladstone, however (though with very unequal weapons), upon perfectly equal ground. I should say to him, 'We agree on the advantages of educating the people; we sat together for three years in the same Committee of Council on Education, during which period you were Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in all that time we did not in the least differ as to extravagance of the estimates of that Committee, except upon one very contemptible point,' which I remedied immediately after he left the Government. I might remind him, too, that the capitation grant was approved by him as a member of the Committee, and corrected and amended by him as Chancellor of the Exchequer; so, with him, I say, let us go carefully, one by one, through the items and see whether we can agree as to the economy or extravagance of the expenditure. Now, I declare most positely that, following the noble Marquess below me (the Marquess of Lansdowne) in this department, my great object has been to make that system efficient, but yet as economical as possible. I believe it was once stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most economical Member in the House of Commons, for he was constantly saying "No!" and trying to reduce expenditure. But in the Committee of Council we are placed in almost the same position. Hardly a day passes in which persons of influence and important bodies do not come and beg us to remove one or other of several stringent conditions, very plausibly urging that our requirements should be less; and I am sure that if we yielded to these requests we might easily increase our expenditure by 25 or 50 per cent. My Lords, when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who sits opposite, and who I regret is not in his place, put forward the other day education as one of the cries upon which the Conservative party would appeal to the country, I could not help remarking that he ought to give some intimation as to whether

  2463
  he adopts the views of Mr. Henley or Sir John Pakington upon this subject, or whether he endorses the opinions as to the advantages of popular ignorance peculiar to the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellen-borough). Economy is certainly a very popular cry, and it is one which I am glad to hear raised, because I think a pressure of that sort is useful as regards any Government whatever. But I should be ashamed of my colleagues if I did not think they would exert themselves to the utmost to economize the public expenditure; and they are perfectly willing to discuss and to entertain that question of economy at the proper time, provided due regard be paid to the efficiency of the naval and military services. The cry of economy, however, may be a very vague one, and may be very much misapplied. The noble Earl has given his experience of the House of Commons. When I was there I remember a man as much the opposite of the noble Earl as possible—I mean Mr. Joseph Hume. He was anything but an orator, and was characterized by the very reverse of that clearness of expression which is only possessed by persons, like the noble Earl, of finished education; but he effected great good by repressing the extravagant expenditure of successive Governments. What, however, was Mr. Hume's conduct? Did his love of economy lead him to oppose grants for the advancement of science and education? No! I do not believe there was in the country a person whose support could be more surely reckoned upon in Parliament with regard to charges (which, after all, constitute only one-half per cent, of your total expenditure) applied to raise the intellectual and social condition of the country. I have only one more remark to make, and that is with reference to the noble Earl's attack upon the principles of Lord Palmerston. Now, I stated the other night why I thought Lord Palmerston entitled to the confidence of the country. I am not going over the ground again, and for this simple reason—that I believe the country will not form their opinion upon statements made either by the noble Earl who has just spoken or by the noble Earl who addressed the House last Monday, nor will they form their opinion from any defence which so insignificant a person as I could offer. I believe the public will decline to receive the opinions both of political adversaries and of political partisans, and that they will judge, and, in
  2464
  fact, have judged, for themselves. I feel that it is unnecessary for me to offer a single word in reply to the observations—certainly of rather a personal character—made by the noble Earl on this point.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwas unwilling to weaken the force of the very able and eloquent speech made by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), but he could not help repeating, very much in his words, that it was extremely likely that the public might decide, when appealed to from the hustings, that Lord Palmerston was a most popular and desirable Minister. But he was equally convinced with his noble friend that the time was not far distant when the people of England, so practical, so famous for their common sense, so prone to investigate the truth of every matter which interested them, would feel convinced that the war with China was one most disastrous to their interests, and that their present idol had especially neglected the duty of enforcing economy in the national expenditure during the time he had been Prime Minister of this country. Moreover upon several most vital questions the Government of the noble Lord seemed quite at sea. The noble Earl who had just sat down could not throw off responsibility even as regarded the years which preceded Lord Palmerston's premiership, and must be held accountable for the expenditure on education previous to that time. Now, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not here to discuss one system of education with another, but he should have been glad to see that the attention of the Government was directed to the great increase of expenditure upon this item, instead of leaving the Opposition to point out the increase. Then, too, different systems of education had been proposed by Lord J. Russell, by Sir John Pakington, and by Mr. Henley; but to his recollection not a single plan on this subject, beyond the one already in operation, had been brought forward by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) He wished to ask his noble Friend whether he had any definite idea of the extent to which the expenditure would go on under the present system, and what would be the aggregate sum asked for from Parliament a few years hence? A man might desire to educate the people and yet might wish for some more definite system than that now in operation—one in which the country would be able to see some probable

  2465
  limit to the expenditure incurred under it. It was impossible, even in that House, where their Lordships had no practical power with regard to the national expenditure, not to look with astonishment at the increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates, amounting, as they did, to £2,000,000 during the Government of Earl Grey, and now to £6,000,000. The noble Earl, when he laid the Income tax Bill upon their Lordships' table had observed a solemn silence, nor had he in his reply to the speech of his noble Friend on Monday last spent five minutes upon the question of the Estimates, when he answered, or attempted to answer, the two or three questions raised by his noble Friend; and that very evening, indeed, he had appeared to waive the subject as one which could not well be entertained in their Lordships' House. He wished, however, to call their Lordships' attention to an item of expenditure to which, as yet, no reference had been made—namely, the extraordinary expenses of collection. The revenue in round numbers was £65,000,000, and the expenses of collecting it amounted to no less than £4,300,000, or rather more than 6 per cent. Their Lordships' knew perfectly well what was the cost of collecting their private revenues, much of which was derived from sources of a very miscellaneous character, and which occasioned great difficulty in its collection; for instance, take the case of the collection of tithes. He knew a case in which several thousand pounds were collected, the greater part of which was paid in sums varying from 5s. or 6s. to £1 or £2, and the gentleman who collected those tithes charged only 2½ per cent, for his services—a percentage rather above what their Lordships generally paid for the collection of their incomes. If, then, 2½ per cent was the cost of the collection of private revenues, it was, he thought, a fair question to ask the President of the Council how it was that £65,000,000 could not be collected at a lower rate than 6 per cent. Reference had been made to the personal qualifications of Lord Palmerston as a Minister. Into that question he did not wish to enter, for the country would shortly decide whether he was to be Minister or not, but there was one point to which he wished for a moment to advert. The noble Earl, in answering on Monday evening the observations made by his noble Friend as to the qualifications of Lord Palmerston, had based his reply upon the
  2466
  fact that his noble Friend had himself invited Lord Palmerston to take office under him. Now, from the great official experience and the ability of Lord Palmerston, he might be an acquisition to any Cabinet, but it was a very different thing to invite a man to serve under one's-self and to support him as Prime Minister. The same qualities which might make a man fit for the highest subordinate office did not necessarily render him fit to be a Prime Minister. No doubt the noble Earl the President of the Council was well satisfied with his present colleagues, but, he begged to ask him, would he be equally satisfied to have any one of them sitting above him as Prime Minister? He should think not; and therefore it was no reply to his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) to say that he himself had invited Lord Palmerston to be a colleague. As regarded the question of expenditure, he trusted that the Government would well consider it. He saw in all quarters signs and symptoms of alarm at the general increase of expenditure, and the noble Earl might rely upon it that the expenditure of the country required the closest supervision and examination. Five or six years ago the subject was not of so much importance, but now £40,000,000 had been added to the debt of the country and we had only finished one great war to embark in another, which might be extremely costly. He begged to impress upon the Government that it was only by the most careful attention to the minutiæ referred to by his noble Friend that they would be able to defend those military estimates which they would, he feared, for some years be obliged to lay before Parliament.
  LORD MONTEAGLE: I shall not enter into that branch of the noble Earl's (the Earl of Ellenborough's) argument which relates to the merits or demerits of our Chinese policy. I rise for the purpose of applying myself to the consideration of the present state of our finances, and more particularly to the question of our public expenditure—a subject rendered familiar to me by the experience of very many years. It was with the view of directing the attention of your Lordships to this branch of the public business that some weeks back I moved for the account of the Supply Votes passed during each of the last twenty years (Sessional Papers, No. 51, 1857), an account which the noble Earl has been so good as to command, and on which he has observed so

  2467
  forcibly. My Lords, in all the observations which the noble Earl has made on the subject of the rapid and alarming progress of the public expenditure I unhesitatingly concur. It is true, as remarked by the President of the Council, that the noble Earl did not pause to make allowance for the transfer mode of charges formerly borne on the Consolidated Fund, but now voted in Supply, and which cannot, therefore, be considered as an increase of our general expenditure. Nor was it necessary that he should do so for the purpose of his argument, because it would still appear, even after making all these deductions, that our increased expenditure was such as to warrant the conclusions at which he had arrived. I will not examine in detail the Estimates for which provision is partially made by the Bill now before your Lordships. It would not be just or fair to consider these sums voted for four months as the final Resolutions of the Government, and still less as adopted and sanctioned by Parliament. They have not as yet gone through the scrutiny of a Parliamentary examination. The next House of Commons is left perfectly free to act hereafter as if these votes had never been agreed to. Under the circumstances of the approaching dissolution, I think the House of Commons acted discreetly in voting the four months' Estimates without the form of a deliberation which could not but have been imperfect and therefore profitless. The real and effective consideration of the Votes of the year must be reserved for the new Parliament, and I think I am warranted in an expectation that it is not by the Estimates now before us that the Government may be found prepared finally and conclusively to abide. I am fully confirmed in these anticipations by the frank and wise admissions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who laid down, in the most uncompromising and candid manner, the soundest principles of a large but wise economy. He had almost invoked the help of Parliament to assist him in giving effect to his own wishes and determinations. It was the duty of Parliament to answer this appeal, and to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fullest authority and support to enable him to resist the multiplied claims so earnestly pressed upon him. The accounts now on the table show that the average of the Miscellaneous votes for the years 1838, 1839, 1840, did not much exceed £2,650,000, whilst the charge
  2468
  for 1856 has risen to £6,724,000, exhibiting a progress of expenditure which, even after making all deductions required to render the comparison just, cannot but be considered as reckless and extravagant. It was the habit of some observers to attribute the enormous and rapid increase of our public expenditure to lavish habits arising out of a great war. No doubt the suddenness with which hostilities were commenced, our want of due preparation and of experience, combined with other causes, perhaps rendered the late war more costly than any other of the same duration in which England had been previously engaged. These causes may have contributed to lead to an unrestricted and lavish expenditure in the civil as well as the military departments. But what I believe has been the main cause of our extravagance is the fact that we have been spending borrowed money. No greater stimulus can be given to unrestrained and imprudent expenditure, whether in the ease of individuals or of states, than the possession of large sums of borrowed money. We must retrace our steps, and revert to the wise economy which Parliament had enforced for the first twenty or twenty-five years after the close of the last French war. That economy had been most unjustly attacked and misrepresented. It was most erroneously considered to have produced the insufficiency of our military preparations at the commencement of the war with Russia, I have more than once controverted this proposition, with the support of my noble Friend (Earl Grey) who sits below me. It was an enforcement of that economy during the greater part of the peace which enabled us so to extend our industry, manufacturing, commercial, and agricultural, as to enable us to bear with comparative ease the enormous burthen of the Russian war. It was thus that we were enabled to raise £40,000,000 of war taxes without any severe pressure on our industry, and to borrow £40,000,000 of war debt without disturbance to our credit. This was effected with less of pressure than had ever been felt under analogous circumstances. We owed this great result to the wise economy of former years—Magnum vectigal parsimonia. So it will ever be found. At the approaching elections, we shall gain supporters and adherents among many heretofore loud in condemning economy, but who find themselves compelled on the hustings to come forward as its advocates.

  2469
  I hope my agreement on this occasion with the arguments of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Ellenborough) may not expose me to the charge of combination or confederacy, of which we have lately heard so much. These warnings of mine are not now given for the first time. I may be permitted to refer your Lordships to the earnest appeal I ventured to make on the same subject last year [See Hansard, 22nd July, 1856]. I may also protect myself from such an imputation by stating, with the most earnest conviction, that I consider the progress already made by the Government, in reducing their estimates since the peace, to be in the highest degree honourable to them. The reduction of £20,000,000 from the Estimates of one year, and of £17,000,000 in the years following, I must confess exceeded my expectations. It was this reduction which would alone justify the repeal of the war income tax of £9,000,000, and this after the cessation of the war malt tax. The Government are the more entitled to our praise and our thanks for these great reductions of taxes and of expenditure, because they have not been wrung from them by adverse debates and divisions as in 1815, but have been freely and voluntarily made. They entitle the Government to our confidence. But, permit me to say, that in order to give us full security that these good intentions may be realized, consistently with public faith and public credit, we must persevere in our economy and carry it farther. To me it is evident that the amount of the present Estimates cannot be maintained in future years; I am satisfied that the people of England can and ought to insist, through their representatives, on a rigid fulfilment of the solemn and deliberate engagement made by the legislature that the income tax should expire in 1860. From this contract there is no honourable retreat. I do not rest this solely on the legislation of 1853. The circumstances of that year were, I admit, very different from the present. We have since that time borrowed nearly £40,000,000, for the interest and ultimate extinction of which the Legislature has made, and must continue to make, provision. From this burthen of debt, which is in all respects war expenditure, though to be defrayed in time of peace, we have no escape. Though we may have a reasonable confidence in the intentions both of the Government and of the Legislature,
  2470
  we can have no security for the expiration of the income tax if we do not enforce a severe but a wise economy. [Here Lord LYNDHURST, who was seated at the table, observed, "No man alive will see that tax expire."] Lord Monteagle resumed—I scarcely believe the noble and learned Lord's anticipations of evil will be fulfilled. If Parliament does its duty I am persuaded that this engagement may be performed in 1860, and I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord may be among those who will witness that event. We are assured on the highest financial authority that without taking credit for any increase of income, derived from increased industry and wealth in time of peace, we may calculate on a surplus of £2,350,000 and £2,415,000 in the years 1858–9 and 1859–60, and this after providing £3,500,000 in each of those years for the discharge of debt, by paying off bonds, and applying a sinking fund. Such is the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I rely on its accuracy. But to ensure this result it is assumed that the Estimates may be reduced to the amount voted in 1853. It will be for Parliament, with caution but with firmness, to enforce the performance of this condition. We cannot but recollect what occurred in respect to the Estimates in Lord Liverpool's Government, when the property tax and the war malt tax were repealed by Parliament. We know how the Estimates were then reduced. We also remember the events of 1848, when a proposal to augment the income tax was rejected by the House of Commons. If the Government can be induced to place the Estimates on the same footing on which they stood before the war, there appears every reasonable certainty that the income tax may be allowed to expire in 1860. I fully admit that I cannot hold the present Chancellor of the Exchequer answerable individually for that which constitutes the main difficulty of his position. An additional liability of £2,000,000 was thrown upon each of the years 1857–8, 1858–9, and 1859–60, by his predecessors, which Sir George Lewis is now bound to provide for. This is war expenditure, though paid in time of peace, and it is this which goes far towards justifying the maintenance of the income tax for these three years. For this, I repeat it, I do not consider the present Minister of Finance to be responsible. When the

  2471
  proposal for issuing these Exchequer bonds was made in 1853 I endeavoured humbly to prove to your Lordships that the engagement was most unwise, as well as most unusual. I endeavoured to convince your Lordships that it was most rash to cast this heavy additional burthen on three successive years, no provision being made or calculated on by which the means of payment were secured. [See Hansard, 3 May, 20 May, 1853.] But though the present Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be blamed for this engagement, I am unable to release him from the responsibility of having fallen into what seems to me a similar error, in pledging the country to the maintenance of an annual sinking fund of £1,500,000 to discharge the war loan of £16,000,000. My Lords, by this act we cast aside all the experience to be gained from the experience of more than a century, from the days of Sir Robert Walpole to those of Lord Liverpool, and we forget the solemn advice and judgment pronounced by Lord Grenville towards the close of his honoured life, and left in a written shape as a legacy to his successors. Instead of being contented to apply, as we should have been bound to do by law, any surplus of income or expenditure to the payment of debt, we were induced to enter into a contract to apply £1,500,000 annually as a sinking fund. The fallacy and delusion of such engagements have been abundantly proved by our past history. Already suggestions and anticipations had been made inviting us to renew these bonds in place of paying them off, and to postpone the operation of the sinking fund to a more convenient time. However opposed I originally was to the engagement into which we unhappily entered, I cannot but view these suggested modes of extrication as humiliating to a great country. We should not imitate a trader in bad credit, or an insolvent railway company by paying our debts in renewed bills issued at a long date. However unwise it was to enter into these contracts, good faith now requires that our engagements should be strictly performed. In conclusion, I must again advert to the absolute necessity of the most steadfast and unflinching economy. This country has never been remarkable for its readiness to submit to avoidable burdens, and Parliament, acting on its natural principles, is never indisposed to retrench unnecessary expenditure. But every Englishman
  2472
  has now an additional motive for fighting out bravely his economical battle. The contest now involves a more important principle than a mere curtailment of unnecessary expenditure. On our success will depend our certainty of obtaining a relief from the most odious of all taxes, one which in time of peace I consider to be indefensible. Every Vote in Supply which can be reduced is a step towards the extinction of the income tax. Yet I much doubt whether Parliament seems alive to the importance of this great battle. What do we witness at this very time in Westminster Hall—the noblest of all our approaches to the gorgeous palace in which we are assembled? Preparations are in progress for the exhibition of gigantic designs proposed for the rebuilding of our public offices. Have we any notion what amount of expenditure will thus be taken from our taxes? Is it to be one, two, three millions, or what larger sum? It is true that but a moderate sum (I believe £80,000) is proposed to be voted on account for the present. But how small may that sum turn out to be, as compared with the ultimate unascertained cost? I only need remind your Lordships of the immense sum expended on the magnificent edifice in which we are now assembled—sums so greatly exceeding all our early anticipations. I only need to remind you of our past experience, as a warning against entering into what you and your successors may hereafter consider a wild course of extravagant folly. I believe that the proposal to rebuild all our public offices at some enormous and undefined cost may originate in the ambition of some of our public men to rival a neighbouring capital, and a desire which, from the contrasted characteristics of a splendid despotism and the simplicity of a constitutional monarchy, may be found impossible in the end. I earnestly hope that these great schemes may not be rashly undertaken, and that past extravagance of the same description may not, at the present time, seduce or betray us into similar excess. In conclusion, I must express my belief that whatever cry may be raised at the approaching general election, whether in favour of Lord Palmerston, or against our policy in China, when the new Parliament is assembled, we shall find that the people of England are determined, to enforce one principle, that of a large though, I hope, a cautious economy in all respects, consistent with the efficiency of

  2473
  the public service. This will secure the fulfilment of the solemn engagement entered into between the Parliament and the country, that in 1860 the property tax should cease and determine.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing my entire concurrence in the opinion of my noble Friend who last spoke, and of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) with respect to the importance of enforcing great economy in the public expenditure and in the alarm with which they look to the ultimate consequences of the extravagance which has prevailed of late years. I cannot, however, concur with the noble Earl opposite in regarding that extravagance as confined to the civil expenditure of the country. In my opinion it pervades also the whole of our naval and military expenditure, and especially the latter. I am the last person in the world to recommend that an inadequate army should be maintained. I am most anxious, on the contrary, that the army should be kept up in a state of the highest efficiency,—though I believe that it is at present in many respects far from being in that state of efficiency which is desirable; but, while I would have our army as perfect as possible, I no less strongly insist upon the doctrine that it ought to be kept up on a small scale in point of numbers, and with reference to defensive objects only. When I compare the Army Estimates laid on the table for this year with those of former years I cannot help remarking, that, while the demands upon our army have been greatly reduced, its strength and cost have been greatly increased. The state of Ireland happily no longer requires that large force which in former years was indispensable for the maintenance of the peace and security of that portion of Her Majesty's dominions; in our Colonies the demands upon our military force have been greatly reduced in the last ten years; you have established throughout the country generally an efficient police force, by which your army is relieved from duties which never ought to have been imposed upon it; and you have at the same time organized a militia, which, if it is worth a very small part only of its cost, ought to enable you to some extent to reduce your regular army; but still, with all these aids for a diminished military expenditure, the peace establishment now proposed is the largest, I believe, which has ever been sanctioned by Parliament, and is more expensive, as
  2474
  compared with former years, than is proportionate to the mere increase of numbers. I cannot help inferring from these Estimates that the policy now adopted is that of keeping up an army upon such a scale as would enable us at a very short notice to carry on a great foreign war. Against that principle I entirely protest. For defensive purposes, and for those only, I am willing to give whatever is necessary. For defensive purposes you do not want a large army. Knowing as I do the spirit of the country, and feeling assured that should any real danger threaten the country, all classes, from the highest to the lowest, would rush forward to defend their native land, I am persuaded that a highly disciplined and efficient army of moderate numbers, thus supported, is quite sufficient for the protection of the country. But if we are to proceed upon the notion that we ought to be ready at a short notice to take the field in continental wars, then I maintain we are acting upon a totally erroneous principle. If you adopt this principle, you will necessarily incur an expenditure which will render absolutely impossible that abolition of the income tax to which my noble Friend who spoke last attaches so much importance. But, more than that—I am persuaded that the maintenance of an army which has any reference whatever to our being hereafter engaged in offensive operations is a mistake in policy. Other nations will be provoked to follow our example, and when nations are armed, a much slighter cause of quarrel is sufficient to bring them to blows than when they are not prepared. In private life, we know that when a sword was part of the recognized dress of a gentleman, duels and brawls, ending in bloodshed, were unfortunately of very frequent occurrence; and one stop towards the great improvement in the manners of the country by which these disgraceful contests have been put an end to was the giving up the system of carrying arms. Thus it is with nations: if all nations are to be habitually prepared for war, a very small cause will be sufficient to lead to war. And, after all, what shall we gain by such a policy? If we increase our force, other nations will increase theirs, and thus we shall still continue to stand in the same relative positions of strength to each other, to say nothing of the additional pressure which we shall put upon the industry and enterprise of our country. The last war affords indubitable proof that what really adds to the power of a coun-

  2475
  try is, by moderating, during peace, the demands upon its strength, and by giving encouragement to its industry and commerce, to increase its wealth and resources. I will make only one further observation. At all times I think it is most important to act upon the principle of maintaining a moderate peace establishment, and the importance of our doing so is unfortunately increased by what has taken place in the present year. I cannot help viewing with great alarm the relaxation of that old constitutional rule which laid down the necessity of the control of Parliament over the Executive Government in that most important of all their duties, the determination of questions of peace and war. In old times all the great Parliamentary leaders of all parties concurred in the opinion that, while making war was a prerogative of the Crown, it was a prerogative of such importance that it was the duty of Parliament to exercise the most stringent control over the Ministers upon whose advice this prerogative was exercised. I cannot forget that in this last year, for the first time, I believe, since our constitution was settled—for the first time since the Revolution of 1688—Parliament has deliberately passed by the fact that Her Majesty's Government by their own authority, have engaged this country in a war, and have made arrangements with the East India Company in respect to the proportion of the expenses of that war which was to be defrayed from the taxation of England. For the first time in our history, I believe, a measure of this kind has been taken without Parliament being summoned, or any sanction being obtained from the representatives of the people for the war which has been commenced or for the expenses which it will occasion. Parliament has passed by and has submitted without notice to this departure from all ancient principle, and it is now on the eve of dissolution without having any accurate information submitted to it as to the circumstances which led to that war, or as to the justification which Her Majesty's Government may have for the steps which they have taken. My regret for the relaxation of our constitutional principle is also very much increased by something else which has occurred very lately. We learn from statements made in this House, and from the ordinary sources of information, that a large expedition, necessarily involving an expenditure to a very large amount indeed, with the probability of a
  2476
  continued and growing expenditure, is now leaving our shores to carry on a war which one House of Parliament has declared to be unjustifiable in its origin, and which, though your Lordships refused to condemn it, I believe all who hear me will bear me out in saying, it is pretty notorious, only escaped condemnation on the political ground that you thought it inexpedient to censure the present advisers of the Crown, and not because you approved what had been done. But this expedition is now leaving our shores to carry on a war without our having any information as the noble Earl opposite has said, of the objects of that war, as to what we propose to obtain, or on what terms we shall be prepared to make peace. Parliament and the country are utterly in the dark on these points, and Parliament has consented to grant money for the carrying on of these hostilities without having any information in reference to them. With the opinions in which I was educated as to the great importance of maintaining the constitutional check of Parliament upon the measures of the advisers of the Crown, especially upon that greatest of all prerogatives, the power of making peace and war, I cannot help viewing what has passed upon these points in the present year with great alarm. I hope that when the new Parliament meets it will be found to be one not only actuated by a stronger spirit of economy than that which is now about to separate, but also to possess a greater regard for those old constitutional maxims which have been handed down to us by our ancestors.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Eleven o'clock.