Lords Sitting of 20 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses); Customs (No. 2); Stamp Duties (No. 2); Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856), Amendment; Defence of the Realm.
3a Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences (Ireland) Poor Relief, &c. (Ireland); Gunpowder, &c.; Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment.
Royal Assent— Consolidated Fund(£l 0,000,000); Census (Scotland); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance; European Forces (India); Poor Law Board Continuance; East India Stock Transfer, &c.; Prisons (Scotland); Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1845)Amendment; Maynooth College.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved to Resolve—
  "That, inasmuch as the Postponement of this Bill will withhold a Power of effecting a considerable annual Saving which may be made under its Provisions, and will thus practically continue for a Time an unnecessary Liability on the Public, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  The noble Duke said, that the questions involved in this Bill, having been already discussed in their Lordships' House at considerable length, he would not now attempt to debate the whole subject over again. He would, however, venture to suggest that although this was not strictly a Bill of Aid or Supply, and therefore did not come under the exception laid down in the general Resolution of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, it was nevertheless a Bill which affected the public liabilities. If these funds were lost, the
  public would be bound to make them good; and under the existing law there was an annual loss to the public, and consequently an annual increase of liability, which the House of Commons thought might to a great extent be obviated by enlarging the field of investment open to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt. The Bill, therefore, although not technically, was yet practically one of Aid and Supply, and as such would be entitled to immediate consideration as a measure of urgency.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not agree that this was in any sense whatever a Money Bill. The funds to which the measure related were not public funds; they belonged to the savings banks, and were only held in trust by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt. Their Lordships were as much within their legitimate province in providing for the proper care of the deposits of the people in savings banks as was the other House of Parliament.
  LORD MONTEAGLEdid not wish to revert to a question that had been already discussed, except to enter his protest against the untenable construction which endeavoured to assign to this measure the character of a Money Bill. That construction, he ventured to say, carried the definition and the characteristic of Money Bills into a class of measures to which, up to the present time, it had never been extended, even by the strongest advocates of House of Commons privileges. Noble Lords on the Treasury Bench would be aware that this was the second Bill which the Government had introduced on this subject. The original Bill which they brought in was, indeed, to all intents and purposes a Money Bill, because it was founded upon Resolutions agreed to by a Committee of the whole House of Commons, and it created a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. That Bill, however, was never reported from the Committee to which it had been referred. The first clause of the Bill was abandoned, and the measure of the Government virtually abandoned. But the present Bill, which consisted of two clauses, was a measure of quite a different kind, and there was no ground for describing it as a Money Bill except an allegation—of which no proof had been given—that it might be the means of effecting some small contingent saving to the public, under very improbable circumstances. In treating this, therefore, as

  1553
  a Money Bill, noble Lords appeared to be confounding the two distinct measures to which he had referred. He had taken every pains to enable him, if possible, to concur in the Motion of the noble Duke. If he could believe that there was anything in the case to bring it within the category to which the privileges of the House of Commons applied, he should be the last person to raise any question on the subject; but as he did not think so, he should certainly say "Not-Content" to the suspension of the Order.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had always been favourable to the Sessional Resolution, and would earnestly advise their Lordships to put a liberal construction on it; for if they drew the line too rigidly it would be found before long to trench on the privileges of the other House of Parliament and upon the prerogative of the Crown. He would not enlarge; but he did earnestly entreat them to attend to the caution which he submitted to their Lordships most respectfully.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid he wished to make an explanation on the matter of privilege. It appeared that the reports of what he stated the other night had raised the impression that the Speaker had given an opinion criticising the forms of their Lordships' House; and he wished it to be clearly understood that the fact was the Speaker had given an opinion with regard to the privilege question before the Bill had left the House of Commons. There could be no ground whatever therefore, for imputing to him any discourtesy to their Lordships' House. Of course that did not in the slightest degree diminish the force of his argument. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) was not quite accurate in his statement of facts. This was not a different Bill from that originally introduced. It was the same Bill with a number of clauses omitted. He thought the suggestion of the noble Lord as to the dangers that would be incurred by depositors if this measure should pass, was dangerous to the principles on which the savings banks were founded. The depositors in savings banks had no interest whatever in the question raised by this Bill. There was an agreement between the savings banks and the public that the sums deposited should be invested by the National Debt Commissioners, and that a fixed rate of interest should be paid to the trustees of the banks. There was not the slightest doubt as to the right of the trustees, not only to the
  1554
  interest, but to the repayment of the whole capital whenever, unfortunately, circumstances should require. As to the investment, the savings banks had no other interest than the general taxpayer in economizing the expense to the public. As to the question of the Bill being a Money Bill it proposed to diminish the liability of the public to taxation; whether the saving was £10,000, £20,000, £40,000 or £50,000 a year, it did not signify in point of principle. It so far diminished the liability to taxation.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdistinctly understood that in assenting to this Resolution, on the statement of the Government that they considered the Bill one of great importance and urgency, their Lordships were by no means committed to an acknowledgment that they had acted improperly in rejecting the Bill on a former night.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, their Lordships were only bound by the Resolution to which they agreed.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he accepted the assurance that the Measure was one of great importance, and on that ground would vote for the Resolution.
  Resolution agreed to.
  "DISSENTIENT:
  "Because, unless the Orders for regulating of the Discharge of the Business of this House are adhered to with Steadfastness and Impartiality, they become Traps for the Unwary, and aggravate the Mischiefs and Public Inconvenience against the Occurrence of which such Orders were intended to provide a fitting Safeguard.
  "Because the Sessional Order which fixes a Day after which it is provided that no Bill shall be read a Second Time in this House, except Bills of Aid or Supply, or Bills on which the House shall have determined that the Circumstances making such Legislation expedient are either of such recent Occurrence or such real Urgency as to render the immediatn Consideration of the same necessary, was adopted after full Consideration in 1854, and has been continued for the last Seven consecutive Years, without Opposition or serious Complaint, but, on the contrary, greatly to the Benefit of the Public Service."
  "Because a Departure from that Order, unless in Cases arising clearly within its specified Exceptions, will render the Proceedings of this House vague and uncertain, will at the Close of the Session subject them to the discretionary Power of the Government of the Day, and will deprive them of Orders of that Impartiality, Weight, and Authority which are required to maintain the Honour and dignity of the House, and to secure the Public against hasty or ill-considered Legislation.
  "Because the Bill regulating the Investments for Savings Banks and Friendly Societies has been before Parliament during a Period of nearly Seven Months, and has not been dealt with by its Framers or by Parliament as a Bill of real Ur-

  1555
  gency, neither is it founded on any Circumstance of recent Occurrence.
  "Because it is not a Bill of Aid or Supply, nor can it be classed as a Money Bill, without the Establishment of a new and dangerous Precedent calculated to impose dangerous Trammels on the free Legislation of this House.
  "Because this Bill has not been brought up to this House till the 3rd Day of August, when the Period for reading Bills a Second Time in the House had elapsed.
  "Because a Resolution having been moved on the 13th August to suspend the Sessional Order prohibiting the 2d Reading of all Bills after the 29th July, and to permit the 2d Reading of the Savings Banks Investment Bill, such Resolution was negatived after Debate, and the Order for reading the Bill a second Time was discharged.
  "Because no further Proceeding was taken in relation to this Bill till the 16th instant, when a Notice was given of an intention to move on the following Day to reverse the former Decision of the House, by suspending the Sessional Order, which it had been determined should not be suspended; and declaring the Urgency of a Bill which the House had prieviously declined to affirm.
  "Because such a proceeding tends to destroy all Confidence in the Maintenance of a Sessional Order adopted after full Deliberation, without a dissentient Voice, and reasserted in Seven successive Sessions with the same Unanimity of Opinion.
  "Because no Precedent or Authority has been adduced to justify so extraordinary 3 Deviation from the accustomed Practice of the House, the Maintenance of which is essential to its Dignity, and a Departure from which can hardly tail to lessen the Weight and Authority which ought to accompany all its Decisions."
  "MONTEAOLE OF BRAKDON."
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved, "That the Bill he now read 2a."
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he was a trustee of a savings hank, of which the trustees had expressed a strong objection to this Bill, as it was introduced into the House of Commons; but as several clauses had been omitted, and no petition "been presented, he did not see any objection to certain clauses as the Bill now stood; but if any petition were sent against the Bill, he should feel at liberty to oppose the second reading.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the House had not received on the part of the Government any distinct, or still less any satisfactory explanation of the true object of this Bill, or of the manner in which it was calculated to work. He should be sorry, indeed, if any observations he had made on a previous occasion could be construed as affecting in the slightest degree the credit or safety of the deposits in the savings banks. The Bill could not, in that respect, affect the rights of the depositors. Parliament was unquestionably
  1556
  entirely pledged to the repayment of the whole amount of deposits. The noble Earl had exaggerated the deficiency, which was only £2,000,000, not £3,000,000; but whichever it really was, it came to the same thing—that the assets were not equal to meet the engagements; but there was no ground that would justify the depositor in feeling any doubt as to the ultimate security of his savings, for that or any greater deficiency must be made up by Parliament. This deficiency had arisen in various ways. When there was a run for money on the part of depositors, it was generally, if not uniformly, in times of pressure, which had a tendency to lower the funds, and the Commissioners, to recruit their balances, had to sell out at a loss; hut when money was plentiful, in consequence of increasing deposits, the Commissioners were compelled to invest, the funds being high, and they bought at high rates. The public have therefore no choice but to buy dear and sell cheap, suffering a double loss. These, however, were not the only causes of the deficiency—there was another, arising from the present state of the law, and which called for a prompt and conclusive remedy. This was not the first time that the attention of Parliament had been called to the evil he complained of. The first Act establishing savings banks was passed in 1718; and now the enormous sum of £40,000,000 deposited by savings banks and friendly societies constituted a glorious monument of the industry, sobriety, and good sense of the English people. But the system on which the deposits of savings banks were invested was liable to strong objection. The objection to which he had now more particularly to refer was, that it left in the hands of the Government an amount of discretion in dealing with savings-bank deposits with which, it appeared to him, and it appeared also to be the opinion of a Committee of the House of Commons, they ought not to be intrusted. Those moneys he regarded as being held in trust for the depositors, and he contended that those to whose management they were committed, ought to submit to such restraint as would deprive them of any power whatever of using those funds for any purposes except those of the savings banks themselves, save in particular instances in which, under the sanction of Parliament, these deposits might be made use of usefully in some financial operations. He would not, however, have them converted to such uses

  1557
  on the authority of any individual Minister, nor, indeed, upon any authority short of that of Parliament itself. The course, he might add, which had been taken by his lamented Friend the late Lord Spencer in dealing with the savings banks deposits seemed to him to be that which it was right to take. That noble Lord perceived that those funds afforded him an opportunity of effecting a reduction of the interest on the higher stocks, and, having obtained the sanction of Parliament, he had applied a portion of the savings bank deposits to that purpose with great advantage, He (Lord Monteagle) had at various times, and especially on the 22nd July, 1856, called their Lordships' attention to the subject of savings banks deposits, and since then the subject of savings banks had been referred to a Committee of the other House, who recommended that no investments should he made except for the purposes of the savings banks themselves, and that no funding of Exchequer Bills should be effected without the authority of Parliament. It was said, if financial operations were to be effected, to whom could they be more properly intrusted than to the Finance Minister? He (Lord Monteagle) held a different doctrine. For his part he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have as little as possible to do with dealings in the public funds. The Finance Minister did not compete on terms of equality with the other interests engaged in the money market, and therefore ought not to be permitted to enter it. Still less was it justifiable that he should do so secretly, and without full responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had power to issue a verbal order to an executive officer, holding his office during pleasure, directing him to invest or to withdraw funds from any class of public securities, thus altering the value of the securities on which he operated. This power he held to be utterly indefensible. Without denying the legality of the practice, yet when carried to the extent and degree to which it had been carried of late, even if legal, its policy or expediency was questionable. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into the market to buy or sell, he went there necessarily with the knowledge of what financial measures he was going to propose, by which the value of the public securities in which he was dealing would necessarily he influenced. This alone gave him an advantage over everybody else. He had not the slightest doubt that the object with which the pro-
  1558
  ceeding was undertaken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the promotion of the public interests; but when transactions were entered on with a view of diminishing the loss sustained by the present system of savings banks by selling out or buying in, by funding or paying off the unfunded debt, and thus speculating on the Stock Exchange, these transactions ceased to be justifiable. It was perfectly legitimate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when impelled by the necessities of the State, to borrow money on Terminable Annuities, but it was neither just nor necessary to throw Exchequer Bills into the market or to withdraw them for the purpose of propping up the Government system of finance, and with a view of diminishing the loss sustained by the difference between the interest received and paid in savings banks deposits. The amount of money with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt was no less than £40,000,000, and his power was not confined to operations arising from the necessity of buying or selling to meet the demand of depositors, but he might operate simply with the object of making a profit like any broker in Change Alley. Such a course could neither be defended nor tolerated. It was utterly inexcusable that the enormous sum of £40,000,000 should he placed at the uncontrolled discretion of a single man. The noble Lord on a former evening had instanced different means of investment in which he anticipated that a larger amount of interest might be obtained than from the ordinary Government Securities—such as the Turkish, the Canada, the Jamaica, and the West India loans, all of which were, it was true, guaranteed by Parliament, and in which, therefore, the noble Duke held that it was competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invest the savings banks moneys but the noble Lord forgot that by the very act of going in quest of higher interest, a demand would be created for the particular stock sought to be purchased, which, by raising its price, would deprive the Government of that increased advantage for which the transaction was undertaken. He (Lord Monteagle) thought it most unwise to make such investments The higher rate of interest was a proof of the risk or inconveniency to which such securities were liable. With regard to the Court of Chancery, he believed that the Accountant General only invested in the Three per Cents, either Reduced or Con-

  1559
  sols; and that was the safest and best security for trustees, because it was liable to the least fluctuation. He also thought that a really responsible authority should be appointed to administer the savings-banks' funds, and that the farce of nominating for such purpose the Speaker of the House of Commons and other functionaries, who knew nothing about the matter, should be got rid of. He wished to make an appeal, which he trusted would be complied with, on behalf of the poorer classes in the country. There was a fraudulent creation of nominal savings banks spreading far and wide. This proceeding was reduced to a system, and the concerns so created were called by various titles, such as "National Savings Banks," "Registered Savings Banks;" but none of them were savings banks under the Act of Parliament, and not a single farthing which the persons connected with them were able to extort from the poorer classes was ever invested or dealt with as savings-banks' money ought to be. He therefore suggested that the Government should introduce into the Bill some provision such as had been recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons, to the effect that no banking concern should be permitted to assume the title of savings bank unless in cases where the rules were properly certified. To this he could not anticipate any objection.
  EARL GRANVILLEprotested against the imputation with which the noble Lord began his speech, that the Government had never clearly described the Bill. He had himself twice perfectly, accurately, and, he believed, clearly described the Bill, and so had the noble Duke who now moved the second reading. Neither he nor the noble Duke deserved any credit for that, because it would be almost impossible to give anything but a clear description of the Bill, it was so exceedingly simple. The whole thing lay in a nutshell. The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—who were, as the noble Lord correctly enough stated, all comprised in the Chancellor of the Exchequer—having now the power by law and practice of investing and reinvesting the money deposited in their hands by the savings banks, and on which the Government were pledged to pay a certain interest, in the Three per Cents, the Bill provided that they should be allowed to extend their operations to other securities guaranteed by Parliament. That was the whole Bill, and he defied the
  1560
  noble Lord to give any more accurate description of it. The noble Lord had certainly not attempted to do so in his rather long speech. He did not think the noble Lord had been very clear in his objections, not to the present Bill, but to the whole system of dealing with the money of the savings banks. The noble Lord began by stating that his objections were embodied in a speech which he made twelve years ago—a speech which their Lordships could not be expected to have in their minds—and also in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat two years ago. That Committee recommended that the power of reinvesting savings-banks' funds should be taken away, but, at the same time, they suggested that the power of original investment should be made larger than was proposed by the present Bill. Another of their recommendations was that the duties now performed by the National Debt Commissioners should be discharged by other persons; but that recommendation had not been adopted by Parliament, and he believed never would he. The noble Lord had referred to the case of Lord Althorp making use of the money of the savings banks for the purpose of effecting a reduction of the Four per Cents, and said that that was done with the consent of Parliament. He (Earl Granville), bow-ever, believed that the operation was effected before the consent of Parliament was asked. Subsequently, indeed, Lord Althorp applied to Parliament, not for its assent to what he had done, but for authority to pay off the dissentient stockholders. But other operations had been effected under the power now possessed by the National Debt Commissioners, which were very extraordinary indeed. When the noble Lord himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer he did what had never been done before. Exercising a power indirectly derived from the Savings Banks Act, he used the money deposited by the savings banks to pay off deficiency bills, and thus added very largely to the National Debt, without any sanction whatever from Parliament. The noble Lord, no doubt, had excellent reasons for doing so. His example was followed upon one occasion by his successor, Sir Francis Baring, who stated, however, that he was only yielding to the pressure of circumstances, and that upon principle he disapproved such a transaction. The noble Lord, no doubt, might have urged the same plea. Since that time nothing of the kind had been attempted,

  1561
  and it was clearly against the spirit of the Act that any such course should be taken. In the eulogium which the noble Lord passed upon the provident habits of the nation, which had resulted in the accumulation of £40,000,000, he cordially concurred. The noble Lord, however, proceeded to point out what should be done with the view of prohibiting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future from dealing with that enormous amount of money. If Parliament should think it necessary to restrict the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, its action in that respect would not be at all hindered by the present Bill. Their Lordships ought to recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a great stock-jobber, acting for his own individual advantage, but the financial agent of the country at large. In that capacity, as long as he kept within proper bounds, he was not only entitled, but it was his duty, to obtain for the public any fair advantage which his position and knowledge might place within his reach. Was he to be prevented, for example, from using any portion of the money of the savings hanks for the purpose of paying Exchequer Bills? If so, the interest payable upon those Bills for a period of twelve months would be so much money thrown away, to the disadvantage and loss of the public. The operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were closely watched. If he acted wrongly, or even indiscreetly, he would be immediately criticised and the censure of Parliament would fall upon him. As long as the country employed a financial agent to look after its interests, he ought to be allowed to use his own discretion in such matters for the common good, and not obliged to throw every possible advantage into the hands of private capitalists. The noble Lord had attempted to illustrate his case by the practice of the Court of Chancery. But it was not correct that the Court of Chancery could not invest in any security but the Three per Cents. That used to be the case; but the noble Lord was probably not aware that the Court of Chancery had now by law exactly the same power which the present Bill proposed to give to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The noble Lord had argued farther that, if the money of the savings banks were invested in small and unmarketable stocks, when a pressure came there would be greater difficulty and loss in selling them than would be ex-
  1562
  perienced in the case of the Three per Cents. It was to be observed, however, that under the present Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not enabled to invest more than £7,500,000 out of the whole £40,000,000in the smaller kinds of stocks, and that, consequently, should he be obliged by a sudden pressure to sell he would be able to get over the difficulty by disposing of a portion of his Consols, leaving the other investments untouched. The clause which the noble Lord had suggested might be useful, and should receive the careful consideration of the Government. He believed the objection to it in the other House was that it would be inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. However, it might be of some use, and, provided no strong objections were entertained to it, he would introduce it upon the third reading. The noble Earl concluded by protesting against the Government being supposed to have said that the subject of this Bill was one of great magnitude, and that it was on that ground that they pressed it.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, his objection to the Bill was that it dealt with a subject which should be treated in a much larger way. It appeared from the statement of the noble Earl that although one or two operations in these funds which had been conducted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were advantageous more of them had been injurious ones. In his opinion, the most important and advantageous clause of the Bill was that which required that a statement of all such transactions should be made to Parliament. He doubted whether the clause which had been suggested by the noble Baron (Lord Monteagle) could properly be introduced into this measure; but if it could he should not oppose it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, having been appealed to by the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) as to the practice of the Court of Chancery, he was in a position to give him most authentic information, for he held in his hand an Act that must have been passed without the knowledge of the noble Lord, or he would have strongly opposed it, and said that the Lord Chancellor was about to dabble in the Funds. The Act authorized the Lord Chancellor and three of the Judges of the Court to invest the money that came into the Court either in the Three per Cents or in such other stocks, funds, and securities as they might see fit; and the Lord Chancellor had also power to order the conversion of money, now invested in Three

  1563
  per Cents, into any other stocks that he might think would afford a more liberal interest. There was another clause which provided that trustees might with safety and security invest their funds in any stock in which the Lord Chancellor invested.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, it appeared from the last returns that no funds had been invested out of the Three per Cents.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; because not a month has passed since the Act received the Royal Assent.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that, with the permission of their Lordships, and in order to economise their time, he would postpone the remarks which he had to make in support of it, until he had heard the opinions of other noble Lords upon the subject. He moved that the Bill should he read a second time.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, this is a very important measure, not only because it contributes materially to the security of the country, but also because it shows the spirit in which Her Majesty's Government regard the present state of things in Europe. I, of course, receive the Bill with satisfaction; because, on all favourable occasions—and I am afraid your Lordships may think that I have sometimes made occasions for myself that were not quite favourable—I have during the last thirteen years endeavoured to draw the attention of this House and of the country to the almost defenceless state of the realm, earnestly desiring that we should not remain unarmed in the midst of an armed world. Under these circumstances, I must regret that the Report on which Her Majesty's Government are now proceeding, having been in their hands since the first week in February, it is only on the 20th of August that we are called upon to give an opinion upon this most important and urgent subject. We have lost four or five months of the long days, during which time the greatest amount of
  1564
  work is done, and are thrown back practically for nearly a year, by the delay which has taken place. This is a Bill to provide for improving the fortifications of the Dockyards. At all times the Dockyards of the country have been defended by works of some kind; and it would have been a sufficient justification for asking Parliament to pass this measure, if its object had been solely to make the defence of these Dockyards keep pace with the improvement in gunnery, and the application of steam to navigation. The great alteration which has been made in the extent of the means of defence required, has been effected by the introduction of steam; because that, no doubt, gives extraordinary advantages to the Power which takes the initiative, by enabling it to concentrate all its strength and all its forces upon a given point, so as to make certain of effecting its purpose. We possess no naval or military force which would prevent an enemy, determined upon running the risk, from effecting a landing in this country at almost any point whatever; and therefore we ought, as I have said in this House before, to take care that at every point of our coast, at which an enemy could keep his fleet and could establish a sort of téte du pont, and land with his troops and materiél, horses and guns, we should have some sort of a fort which could not easily be taken, and which should prevent him from using the advantages which the coast presents. That is a principle which is universally applicable, but upon which we have not yet acted. But, my Lords, it is not only on account of the alterations which have taken place in the matter of navigation and in the improvement of gunnery, that it is desirable this measure should be proceeded with. I go far beyond those reasons. I vote for this measure most willingly, because I entertain that thorough distrust of the French Government, which Lord John Russell frankly told the French Government months ago all the world would entertain, if that Government persevered in its scheme for annexing Savoy and Nice. I agree entirely with all the reasoning of Lord John Russell on that subject. I cannot forget either the events of the last year, explained as they have been by what has since come to our knowledge. We know now that, before the French expedition to Italy was undertaken, a secret compact was entered into between the Emperor of the French and Piedmont,

  1565
  by which the Emperor was to receive Savoy and Nice, on his annexing to Piedmont the whole of Lombardy and Venetia; there being at that time no quarrel whatever between Austria, Piedmont, and France, and the aggression of Austria having been subsequently provoked by Piedmont, relying on the aid of France. The result, however, of the campaign was, that the whole of the conditions were not performed, Venetia not being annexed to Piedmont, and France therefore could not claim the reward she was to obtain. It must always be remembered that the Emperor of the French distinctly declared that he only entered Italy because Austria had committed an act of aggression; it must, also, be remembered that the greatest of all Emperors, the Emperor Titus—the man who received the greatest honour ever accorded to any human being, that of being called "Delicice humani generis"—could not have used terms more generous, more disinterested, or more noble in explanation of the cause which he went to support, than did the Emperor of the French in commencing that campaign. I cannot forget these things. I hope the country will not; because when a man has once so committed himself by his conduct as to give just reason to suppose that he does not act from pure motives, he] has forfeited all claim to future confidence, and those who believe him afterwards—say what he may—deserve any misfortune that may befall them. But certain States of Central Italy determined to annex themselves to Piedmont. The Emperor of the French said, "That is certainly not the condition on which I was to receive Savoy and Nice; but it is a change of a similar nature. Piedmont is largely increased in strength by it, and it is therefore necessary that France should derive some equivalent, some compensation for it." My Lords, there have been poets who have imagined a golden age, in which the lion and the lamb should lie down together in perfect tranquillity and mutual confidence. But no poet at any time ever allowed his imagination to carry him the length to which the imagination of the Emperor of the French seems to have carried him. No poet ever dreamt of a state of things in which the lion would not lie down with the lamb without taking previous security for the lamb's good behaviour; yet that is what the Emperor of the French has done in defiance of the opinion of Europe. When France first sent her army to Italy last year, the answer which the English
  1566
  people gave to her was the establishment of the Rifle Volunteers; and in the course of some six months 70,000 men joined those corps. At the beginning-of this year, when France demanded the cession of Savoy and Nice, our Volunteer movement acquired fresh vigour, and while we, my Lords, were sitting here doing little or nothing, the people added another 70,000 men to those Rifle Corps. That was the second answer of the English people to the French Emperor; and I am perfectly satisfied that if the Emperor should proceed further in the same spirit, a similar and yet more decided answer will be made by the population of this country. My Lords, we see the effect of all this upon Europe. We see, most fortunately for Europe, the commencement of a good understanding between the Powers of Germany, so long separated from each other, and we see indications of that distrust towards France on the part of all the countries of Europe, which the more makes me readily vote in favour of this Bill, in the cautious, suspicious acquiescence which, with many safeguards, has been given to the forward offer of France to intervene in the affairs of Syria. These are among the reasons which induce me to look with satisfaction on this measure. But let us consider briefly what is the measure itself. There can be no doubt that the Emperor of the French thoroughly understands the principles of war, although as yet he has not had a large acquaintance with its practical operations; and depend upon it, he will never venture to send an army to this country without, in the first instance, securing a tete du pont that may cover his communications with the sea. Now, of all the tetes du pont which he could possibly possess the Isle of Wight would be the best. It commands Spithead and Portsmouth. I am sorry the works at Sandown Bay are not to be considerably stronger, because Sandown Bay is really the key to the Isle of Wight, and, therefore, to Spithead. I shall not go further into the various plans proposed by the scientific authorities for the defence of our Dockyards. I dare say they are based on correct principles, and will he ably carried out. But I observe that there is one point—and that by far the most essential—namely, the defence of Woolwich, in which Her Majesty's Government have abstained from following the recommendations of the Commissioners. Now, of all questions connected with the defence of

  1567
  this country, that one is the most vital. Her Majesty's Government appear to have considered that, in the event of an invasion, a battle would have to he fought for the capital; that that battle must be fought in advance of London; and that if it were lost terms of capitulation must be entered into for that city. Now that is to me of all considerations the one most alarming. I am satisfied that if Her Majesty's Government had in their minds the necessity of defending London street by street, and house by house, they never would have consented to leave Woolwich in such a defenceless condition. I greatly fear that the defenceless condition of Woolwich will very materially affect the fortune of that battle which is expected to be fought in advance of London. The general in command of your troops might think that, under all the circumstances, the occasion would not be favourable for attacking the enemy, and his disposition might be to retire, provided he could do so, to a better position, where he might make or receive the attack with more advantage. But no position can possibly be worse than one immediately in advance of London, with Woolwich undefended. The extent of the position is enormous—at least 15 miles; and the attempt of the enemy would not be made upon London but upon Woolwich, because Woolwich being once destroyed or occupied, the arms would, as it were, be struck out of your hands with which you might have had the power of defending London. Woolwich is essential to the defence of London. You may regret that it is where it is; but, being there, you ought to turn it to every account that you can. It is absolutely necessary that it should be placed within an entrenched camp and made safe, and then those who were defending London would have the advantage of those materials of war which are only to be found at Woolwich. It is said, "Of what use is it to think of defending London; it is impossible, its extent being so large. Do these persons forget that in point of fact a great city is a great fortress in itself; that when defended by barricades, with bold men behind them, with plenty of arms, ammunition, and guns, no prudent general would be very willing to attack it? Are we unable to do what the poor inhabitants of Palermo lately did? Cannot we emulate the conduct of that and of so many other cities which have in the same manner defended themselves with success? But if a general would hesitate before a
  1568
  great city, which I say is a fortress, what would be his hesitation if on his right flank at a distance of six or seven miles was a great intrenched camp, protecting a great arsenal—a sort of Sebastopol, communicating by covered railways on both banks of the river with the city to be defended, open in all directions to the country behind, so that it would be capable of receiving all the reinforcements which might be sent and accumulated on his right flank, and in two hours placed in the rear of the attacking force. If London were in this position, with Woolwich thus fortified, depend upon it no enemy would attempt to take it. My Lords, Woolwich should be made the citadel of London. We may, as I have said, regret that it is there; but since it is there it is our duty to make it the citadel of London, and preserve it to our own use, and not throw into the hands of an enemy its immense materiel of war. These are the views I have formed on examining this subject. They seem to me so important as bearing on the defence, even on the safety of the country, that I do not think it right to withhold them from your Lordships. Among the papers submitted to Parliament is one in which Lord Overstone states, in terms by no means too strong, the dangers that would result from the occupation of London. I entirely agree with Lord Overstone's remarks. But Lord Over-stone was desired to give his opinion on the supposition that private property would be respected. What opinion would he have given if the more rational supposition had been taken—namely, that private property would not be respected? Whatever might be the disposition of the leader of the French army, it is idle to suppose that any control could be exercised over French soldiers in possession of London. Depend upon it, if London should ever be in the possession of an enemy, the sack of London will stand by the fide of the sack of Rome by the troops of the Constable of Bourbon, and equal to it in all its circumstances of horror and atrocity. It is to prevent such a state of things that I would entreat the Government to take all the means in their power to make it impossible for any enemy to effect their purpose. If we are to fall in defending ourselves against invasion, let us fall with our arms in our hands, and with honour; at least let the people of London do what can be done in resisting the advances of a hostile army. Now, one word as to the number of our regular troops. There can be no doubt this country derives an enor-

  1569
  mous advantage from what is called "the Rifle Volunteer movement." I trust that movement will proceed. I trust that it will acquire still greater numbers, and that it will attain still greater efficiency. It is impossible to speak too highly of those persons who have carried forward that movement, or to over-estimate its importance. It is by far the greatest movement in this country, the most vital event I recollect since the battle of Waterloo. It gives us at once increased strength at home and consideration abroad. But it is contrary to reason to expect that these men, brave as they are, good marksmen as they may be, can act in open plain against a well-disciplined enemy. Acting under cover, behind hedges, and in woods, and as light troops in defence of villages and houses, they will be of immense assistance to a general; but, after all, it must be on the regular army, on its numbers and strength, that the ultimate fate of this country will depend if that terrible misfortune, an invasion, should ever occur. I cannot hut express my deep regret that our regular army is not much larger. I will not go through the details, though I have looked into them most carefully, as to what force could be brought into the field. Acting on the true principle of Napoleon I., of concentrating our force for a great battle—not on the old system of endeavouring to cover and defend everything, which I dread most in ease of invasion—if we use against the Third Napoleon the principles we may learn in the writings of the First, then I have no fear at all, provided we put into the hands of a general the force he may fairly require. But, my Lords, we have not that force. I do think that force necessary; a large portion of its expense might he met by reductions if the Government frankly took up the subject; but the expense ought to be incurred if it could not be met by reductions. Such a force, I repeat, is necessary to give entire security to this country. I ask for no more than security. No man in the world can entertain less than I do any idea of using a military force for the purpose of offensive operations. I desire nothing but entire security for the country. I desire to avoid the dreadful horrors which invasion would bring on every part of the country, not only on account of the destruction of credit and the ruin of private fortunes it would carry along with it, but because I am quite sure that if an enemy were but three weeks in this country, no matter how the retirement of
  1570
  I that army might be effected, it would be impossible for us practically to re-establish the constitution under which we live. I feel perfectly satisfied that the whole people, indignant with the Government—or dissatisfied with the form of Government—to which they, as probably, might attribute their misfortunes—would insist on vast alterations, whether in the direction of revolution and republicanism, or, what is equally probable, in the direction of the Crown, giving greater authority to the Executive, I do not know; but in whatever direction that change may be made, it would be equally fatal to civil liberty, and to the institutions which have made us what we are.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl, I shall not, with regard to the general principles involved in this measure, attempt to add any feeble words of mine to the very powerful arguments he has urged; but there are one or two points in the speech of the noble Earl on which I would offer a few remarks. First of all, the noble Earl seemed to complain of the omission of Woolwich from the scheme of fortifications presented by the Government to the House on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. That subject has been most carefully and minutely considered by the Government and the constituted military authorities of the country. It should be borne in mind that the recommendations of the Commission in regard to the defence of Woolwich, were far from fulfilling the large and extensive scheme so ably sketched out by the noble Earl for the defence of London. The Commissioners simply proposed the erection of a redoubt on Shooter's Hill—which, though it might afford some protection, would be far from constituting a complete defence to that arsenal, which lies in a position naturally completely defenceless, being commanded from every side. To he fully defended it would require very different measures from those included in the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Government had the great authority of Sir John Burgoyne and Sir Howard Douglas for the course taken in not at present adopting the recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to the erection of that particular fort. It would not have afforded such defence to Woolwich as would have justified the expenditure required; and standing alone it would be of comparatively little value for the defence of London. Sir John Burgoyne has

  1571
  expressed a deckled opinion that for the defence of London we must look to operations at a distance from the Metropolis, and to the effect of operations in the field, which must take place long before an enemy could reach London. It would be presumptuous in me, not being a professional man, to offer an opinion on the great scheme proposed by the noble Earl, involving so grave a proposition as that of defending this great city from street to street, and from house to house. I should misrepresent the views of the Government if I did not say that this subject has occupied, and must occupy, their most serious attention I but the scope of this Bill does not include a scheme for the defence of London. We must look, in the first place, to our naval resources as our best line of defence; to the means which may be brought to bear to prevent the landing of an invading force, and then to the subsequent operations in the field. The noble Earl has alluded to the smallness of the regular force we should be able to bring into the field. I entirely agree with the noble Earl in thinking that we must look very much to regular troops for operations in the field. But we have made a great stride in the means of national defence by the creation of our Volunteer corps. I do not desire to exaggerate the importance of that movement; but I may be allowed to say that I entertain a strong hope that it may be found to be of great utility in the maintenance of peace by the manifestation which it affords of the spirit which animates the people of this country, and of their determination to defend their native shores. I believe, too, that when the hour of peril arrives—if, indeed, it does come—the Volunteer force will be found to be of the greatest possible advantage in occupying our various garrisons, in operating against the flank of the enemy, and even in the case of some battalions—I speak upon good authority—in taking part in operations in the field. Whether we should maintain in this country a much larger regular army than we have hitherto kept up, is, of course, a question for Parliament to decide. But upon that point I may observe that the regular force which we possess at the present moment is greater than that which we have had at almost any previous period of our history; that it has undergone no diminution during the last few months, and that it stands numerically at a higher point than it did in the spring of 1859. It is a force, I may add, which, in the
  1572
  opinion of the Government, is sufficient to meet the exigencies of the time; but, whether they be right in entertaining that opinion or not, it is satisfactory to know that the tendency of this Bill is to utilize that force to a greater extent than independent of its operation would be possible. I cannot, under these circumstances, my Lords, doubt for a moment that you will give a second reading to a measure which is purely of a defensive character, which is aimed against no country, which has reference to no Government, which the great changes that have recently taken place in military science have rendered necessary, and which is to be regarded not so much as a warlike proposition as one calculated to secure and maintain the peace of Europe by ensuring to this country the respect ot other nations.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that when he spoke of the importance of making Woolwich a great entrenched camp, he had omitted to mention that the principle on which his recommendation was founded did not originate with him—he spoke on the authority of the Emperor Napoleon, not, of course, in respect of Woolwich itself, but in respect of Naples. He should recommend his noble Friend (Earl De Grey) to read two or three of the letters in which the Emperor Napoleon gave his brother, King Joseph, advice as to the manner in which he should defend Naples. The manner in which the Emperor advised his brother to defend Naples was that in which he (the Earl of Ellen-borough) advised the Government to defend Woolwich.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  "DISSENTIENT.

  1. Because although the last Clause of the Refreshment and Wine Licences Act, passed on the 14th June last, states that it shall not apply to Ireland, yet this Bill in most of its Provisions is a Counterpart of that Measure.

  "2. Because, although the Act 1 W. 4, c. 64, being 'An Act to permit the general Sale of Beer and Cyder by Retail in England,' does not extend to Ireland, and hitherto in Ireland every Licence

  1573
  for the Sale of Spirits and Beer (which includes Permission to sell Wine) has been granted subject to a discretionary Prohibition by the Magistrates, subject to Appeal, yet this Bill deprives the Magistrates of Ireland of a great Portion of their discretionary Power, and will prevent them from beneficially restricting the Number of Houses to be separately licensed for the Sale of Wine, and from preventing Retail Wine Houses being' as numerous as the Beerhouses in England.

  "3. Because a mere restricted Veto is substituted for the Prohibition contained in the 4th Section of 4th Wm. 4 (which Act is referred to in the 43rd Section of this Bill), which, in addition to the Grounds of Prohibition contained in this Act, should be introduced into any permanent Measure.

  "4. Also, for the First, Second, Fourth (with the Alteration of the Hour 'Five' to 'Seven'), and Fifth Reasons contained in my Protest of the 11th June I860, against the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill.

  "5. Because the 20th Section of 4tli Wm. 4 has not been in any way applied to this Bill, and by it, or a Modification of it, all respectable Inhabitants might assist the Police in suppressing Drunkenness and punishing Drunkards.

  "6. Because Clause 40 of the English Act is entirely omitted from this Bill, and might even have been improved upon herein, by rendering all Persons found drunk in the Street, whether (otherwise than by being drunk) indecent or not, liable to an increased Fine, and to Imprisonment.

  "7. Because in any general Measure the Justices or Divisional Justices or Court to which Appeal is made should grant all Licences, as they are far more fit to do than the Excise, whose chief Duty is to increase the Revenue, or than the Police, who, without any Duties as to Licences, may have sufficient Responsibility in detecting-Drunkenness, and in helping to convict Drunkards and Keepers of ill-conducted Houses, but more so as such Magistrates adjudicate on all Cases of Evils and Crimes produced by Drunkenness.

  "8. Because while Coroners in England, according to Usage, and a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, retain and will retain the Initiative in all Inquests (whether paid by Fees or Salary), the Magistracy of Ireland, most of them unpaid, and without any Interest in granting or withholding Licences, except as to the Preservation of Order, and as to the diminishing the Temptations to and Punishments for Drunkenness, ought to have at least as much Confidence reposed in them as in any other Public Servants.

  "9. Because the Feeling against the proposed and lately enacted Measure is every Day increasing in England.

  "DENMAN."

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT (1856) AMENDMENT BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, to Resolve
  "That, inasmuch as the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1856, will expire at the Close of the present Session of Parliament if not continued by the said Bill, the Circumstances which re-
  1574
  quire Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Order for the Second Reading rend.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMdisapproved the scheme for raising police officers to the rank of stipendiary magistrates, which he thought would prove detrimental to the efficiency of the service, and hoped the Government would reconsider their determination.
  LORD MONTEAGLEbelieved that the selections, if judiciously made, would add to the magistracy of Ireland many efficient and valuable members; but, in order to enable the new stipendiary magistrates to act with firmness and impartiality, and to give weight to their decisions, it was imperative that they should meet the gentlemen with whom they would be called on to associate on a footing of entire social equality. If carefully selected, and, above all, if legally competent, they would be treated not only as equals, but in most instances their experience would cause them to be looked up to as guides. He therefore deprecated most earnestly the elevation to the bench of officers who had risen from the ranks. He by no means wished to curtail the rewards to which deserving members of the force entitled themselves, but their promotions should not be made at the risk of disorganizing the bench.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, his experience led him to dissent from the apprehensions entertained relative to the results of promotions from among the officers of the constabulary. He had known gentlemen who formerly held commissions in that force and afterwards made excellent magistrates, their appointments giving general satisfaction. In the county of Carlow particularly, where from difference of religious and political opinion it was of consequence to appoint a person of great discretion,—he might say, a picked man,—an officer of constabulary had been last year selected by the Lord lieutenant of the county, and had since discharged his duties in an admirable manner.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  EARL GRANVILLE moved to Resolve,
  "That, inasmuch as the Construction of Works

  1575
  of Defence which are found to be necessary for the Protection of the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards and the Ports of Dovor and Portland, and certain other Works for the Defence of the Realm, require that immediate Provision should be made for Purchasing and obtaining Possession of considerable Portions of Land, and for keeping other Lands free from Buildings and other Obstructions, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  The noble Earl added that the measure was a necessary corollary to that which their Lordships had already sanctioned. Its object was to afford a cheap and easy method of obtaining land requisite for the construction of works of defence.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.