Sitting of 6 December 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Abingdon, Lord Norreys; for Oldham, William Johnson Fox, esq.; for Durham, Lord Adolphus Frederick Charles William Vane.
NEW WRIT.—For Merthyr Tydvil, v. Sir Josiah John Guest, bt., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° General Board of Health; Land Tax Commissioners Names.
3° West India Colonies, &c, Loans Act Amendment.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works. Six years ago a Committee of that House unanimously recommended that Westminster Bridge should be pulled down, and that a new bridge should be built upon the site. He desired to inquire—first, what was the present state of the bridge? Secondly, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill this Session for the purpose of enabling a new bridge to be constructed? Thirdly, whether the new bridge will be built upon the same site, or further up the river? And fourthly, whether it was the intention of the Government to open to competition, limited or otherwise, the design of the new bridge?
LOUD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he had applied to Mr. Walker, the engineer of the bridge, who said that proper persons were appointed to watch it daily. It was almost entirely supported by timber, and he was not aware that there was any more immediate cause of alarm than there was in March last. With respect to the other questions, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure for the purpose of erecting a new bridge upon the site of the present, and Government had not as yet decided whether the design should be opened to competition, or that one should be selected from those already sent in. It was the intention to enlarge the space of the roadway of the bridge by means of lateral additions to the present bridge, which would he open to the public while the rest of the new bridge was being constructed.

ELECTION PETITIONS—WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
MR. THORNELYsaid, that on Thursday last the hon. Member for Montrose
978
(Mr. Hume) presented a petition from Mr. Grantley Berkeley, a candidate at the late election for West Gloucestershire. That petition had been read before the Committee on Public Petitions, and they were unanimously of opinion that it was an election petition. He therefore moved that the Order of the 2nd of December, that the petition do lie on the table, be discharged, for the purpose of the petition being withdrawn.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know, before the Order was discharged, whether a person complaining of an election was to he obliged to prosecute a petition before a Committee of that House? He could not understand how the character of that House was to be maintained if any person who was able to prove that offences of the most heinous nature against the law had been committed at an election, had not some mode of giving such proof without being ruined by an opposed election petition. He had inquired how far the person in question was able to prove the allegations in this petition, and was informed that that person was perfectly prepared to prove them, but that he would not enter the lists to demand justice, opposed as he would be by two individuals of great property. The petitioner stated that the bribery, treating, violence, and intimidation at the election in question were monstrous, and that every rule and order respecting elections were there outraged.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHbegged to inquire whether this petition was not something of the same nature with that which had been presented respecting the election for Cork, and which, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. J. Butt), was ordered to be printed with the Votes?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that since the petition referred to by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) had been printed, he had read it, and had no doubt that it was in the nature of an election petition, and, having been presented after the time for receiving election petitions, that petition ought not to have been received.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, he could state, upon good authority, that the most unqualified contradiction could be given to the assertions contained in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Montrose.
Order discharged.
Petition withdrawn.

RAILWAYS IN INDIA.
SIR HERBERT MADDOCKsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control whether it was intended to encourage, by a guarantee such as had been afforded to other railway undertakings in India, or by any other means, the early commencement of a line of railroad between Allahabad and Delhi, and whether the Government would lay on the table of the House a statement of all railways now in progress in India, showing the length of each line, the amount of capital required for its completion, and the rate of interest guaranteed by the Government of the capital embarked in it?
MR. HERRIESbegged leave to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government were extremely desirous of promoting the extension of the railway system in India. This subject had engaged the attention of the Board of Directors, and they had it under their consideration what was the best mode of extending the original experimental railroads already established.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLE.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and what measures have been adopted to bring from Egypt the obelisk, known by the name of Cleopatra's Needle, which was presented by the late Mehemet Ali to, and accepted by, George the Fourth for the British nation? He had heard that it had been presented to the proprietors of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the conditions to which Her Majesty's Government had agreed with the proprietors of the Crystal Palace were to this effect: That the obelisk should be transported to England at their expense, and in case the Crystal Palace did not become so popular as it was expected, that then the Government should have a right, upon payment of the expenses, to take possession of it.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as a public monument had been taken away from the public, it would be advisable to have some public document containing the terms and the manner of its cession.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad no objection to place the document upon the table of the House. The terms, of it were, that the country should have the obelisk whenever they paid the expenses of bringing it over.

INCOME TAX—CLERICAL EXEMPTION.
MR. RICHsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the statement which he made to the House the other night, the right hon. Gentleman said that 30,000 l. would be the loss which the country would suffer from the reduction in the taxation of the clergy from 7d. to B¼d. in the pound. Now, as 30,000 l. on that datum represented an income of 4,000,000 l. per annum, the inference was that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to include in his exemption the whole body of the clergy, rich as well as poor—bishops, deans, pluralists—non-resident incumbents, &c. Was such the intention of the right hon. Gentleman?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had quite misconceived the effect of the new Schedule proposed, and he was quite willing to believe that this misconception arose from his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) imperfect explanation of it. What he had said, at all events intended to say, was, that it being impossible to assess clergymen under any other schedule than Schedule A, by reason of the tenure of the property on which they paid the duty, and it being at the same time very hard indeed upon a clergyman to make him pay upon 100 l. the full amount assessed upon the class of property in respect of which he ostensibly derived his income, whereas a Dissenting minister, with also 100 l. per annum, would be only assessed as for 100 l. salary, he proposed that some special clause should be introduced for placing the clergyman in a not less favourable position in this respect than the Dissenting minister.

THE FRENCH EMPIRE.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have to state to the House that Her Majesty has received a notification that there is a change in the form of Government in France; that the Empire has been re-established in France, and that the Emperor has been proclaimed under the title of Napoleon III. Her Majesty's Ministers, acting upon that policy so long pursued by this country—namely, of recognising every de facto Government—have advised Her Majesty promptly and cheerfully to recognise the new form of Government in France. At the same time it has been conveyed to Her Majesty—first in a friendly and semi-

981
official manner, and ultimately in a formal and official manner—that in accepting the title of Napoleon the Third, the Emperor of the French does not in any way wish to assert his hereditary claim to the Empire. And he declares that his only claim to be considered Emperor is, that he has been elected to that high dignity by the people of France. He has also declared, in a manner perfectly voluntary upon his part, that he entirely accepts all the Governments and all the acts of the Governments which have occurred since the year 1814. I thought it due to the House of Commons that they should at once be placed in possession of these facts, and that they should not owe their knowledge of them to another source.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to place the despatch upon the table of the House?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think there will be no objection to comply with the desire of the noble Lord; I have not, however, considered the question, and I trust that the noble Lord I will not press me for a more definite answer.

COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION—THE INCOME TAX.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House to a subject which appears to be of the utmost importance—of constitutional importance, I may fairly say—in connexion with the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman, I understood, announced that on Friday next he should propose to the House to augment the House tax, the inference being that the arrangement was to take place from the 5th of April next. I conclude, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of making a change in the House tax during the residue of the current year. The right hon. Gentleman likewise stated that the subject of the Income tax might stand over until after the recess. I think the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the question of the Tea duties was to accompany, on Friday, the question of the House tax. I apprehend I am correct in stating that, with regard to any reduction of the Tea duties, or any other such matter, no preliminary Committee is considered necessary, but that it is the intention of the
982
right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Bill for the purpose, without any previous proceedings. If so, I take it for granted that there will be no preliminary Resolution on the Tea duties on Friday next, and that the business of that day, as at present understood, will have reference solely to the increase of the House tax. Now, the opinion which I venture respectfully to state to the House is, that such is by no means a regular, an advantageous, or, I would almost venture to say, a constitutional order of proceeding. And, without pressing the right hon. Gentleman for any declaration of opinion at the present moment, I am desirous to state to the House, and to him especially, the grounds on which I venture to found that statement. They are partly of a general and partly of a special nature. We are going to make provision for the financial year that commences on the 5th of April, 1853. Now, when we are considering the provision for that year, the first thing which necessarily strikes the mind of every man is, that on the 5th of April the Income tax, from which we derive more than one-tenth of our gross revenue, will have ceased, legally, to exist; and I put it strongly to the House and to the Government, that the first duty of this House in reference to the provision for that year must necessarily be to consider what course we are to pursue with regard to the Income tax. Are we to have the Income tax after that 5th of April, or are we not? It is on that, and not on the increase of the House tax, that the provision for that year depends; and my mature conviction is, that we shall find it impossible to give a satisfactory judgment on the House tax until we know what is going to be done with the Income tax. Suppose the judgment of the House to be that the Income tax shall lapse, or be greatly reduced; such a thing—and we don't know that such a thing may not take place—such a thing, it is clear, would have, of necessity, a most material bearing on the judgment we must form, and on the votes we must give when the House tax is under consideration. The necessity of resorting to the House tax at all, of increasing the area of the House tax, or increasing the rate of the House tax, are all questions posterior in order to the grand question of the Income tax, its continuance on its present basis, or the question of its extension. That is the general ground on which, even were there no other question as to the Income tax than that of its con-

983
tinuance, I should say that the duty of the House, in the discharge of its great functions, the providing the Ways and Means for the public service, is to proceed to consider the question of the continuance of the Income tax, before it deals with any minor question whatever—whether regarding augmentation of the revenue, as in the ease of the House tax, or diminution of the revenue, as in the case of the Tea duty. But, in the present instance, I would remind the House that there are special considerations which give tenfold force to the principles which I am endeavouring to state. We are not now to he invited to consider the question of the renewal of the Income tax; no mere continuance Bill will be brought before us as in 1845 and in 1848, and again in 1851 and in 1852; it is a reconstruction of the Income tax on which the House is to be invited to decide, and is that reconstruction of the Income tax a mere matter of mechanical arrangement and detail? On the contrary, it is right that those who feel as I do with reference to that proposed reconstruction, should now, at the earliest possible moment, intimate to the right hon. Gentleman that they entertain objections to that reconstruction of a character wholly insuperable, and that, if the question is reopened, it must be discussed, and the judgment of the House taken in the most formal and solemn manner. Now, if there are those in this House who differ fundamentally with each other as to the principle on which this tax is to be continued—one party holding one opinion and the other the very opposite—it is obvious that it will be absurd to argue that the continuance of the Income tax, in any form, is placed beyond the possibility of a doubt. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make three great changes:—First, to include Ireland, and on that change I will not dwell at the present moment, because I take it for granted that the proposal which has been made, cannot—I will not say it was never intended to—stand as it is at present. The second change is as to the removal of exemptions, it being proposed that real property down to 50 l. shall be made to pay the tax, and other property down to 100 l., instead of down to 150 l., as heretofore. Now, Sir, this is a question of the greatest importance, and in my mind of the greatest delicacy. But the right hon. Gentleman has followed a precedent in a former Income tax for a proceeding of this kind; and it is therefore not
984
on account of that proceeding, dangerous and inexpedient as I confess I think it to be, that I have received the impressions which I at present entertain with regard to his proposition as a whole. It is, I frankly own, in reference to that proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which may perhaps at first sight and in the first instance be a popular proposal either in or out of this House—the proposal to vary the rate of in come tax, raising 7d. on schedule A and C, and reducing his rate to three-fourths of that amount on schedules B, D, and E. It is with reference to that proposal that I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a question of principle, a question of radical and fundamental difference, is opened among those who entertain opinions opposite to himself, of a nature so formidable that it is impossible for them not to offer to any proposition of the kind, from the first to the last, the most strenuous opposition. Now, Sir, I shall not at present enter into the details of my objections, because I only wish at this time to impress upon the House the dangerous and precarious position in which we shall be placed, if, while the Income tax remains an uncertain proposal, we were finally to deal with the House tax on Friday next. My ground of objection to his Income tax proposal, however, is that which was well stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) on Friday night. It is, that it involves a breach of the public faith to the national creditor. I hope this House will not depart from the doctrine which was laid down by Mr. Pitt upon this subject in 1798. On the 3rd of December of that year, Mr. Pitt, negativing the objection which might he urged that he had no right to levy the Income tax on the holder of the public funds, used these words; and I have no scruple in quoting them, because they have been, as it were, a charter, and the rule and standard of Parliamentary practice and doctrine on the subject. Mr. Pitt said—
"I shall have no hesitation in submitting to the Committee, that when a general assessment upon income is to take place, no distinction ought to; be made as to the sources from which that income may arise…Whenever an idea has been started of imposing upon the stockholders separately and distinctly any sort of tax, I have reprobated the attempt, as utterly inconsistent with the good faith of public engagement. But the matter is materially reversed when a tax is to be levied on the income of every description of persons in the realm; when it is no longer in the power of the stockholder to say, 'I could avoid this tax by

985
removing my property from the funds to landed security or to trade.' I should say to the stock-holder as one of the public, 'If you expect from the State the protection which is common to us all, you ought also to make the sacrifice which we are called upon to make. It is not peculiar to you; it does not belong to the quality of your in-come; but it is made general, and required from all.'"—[Hansard, Parl. Hist, xxxiv. 14, 15.]
Those last words will make obvious to the right hon. Gentleman the nature of the objection which I take. The arrangement which Mr. Pitt proposed was a personal tax, under which he levied from each individual for the service of the year an equal proportion, exempting only the necessitous, of the profits which they might make, whether from their labour or their capital, within the year. It was a personal tax on individuals in respect of their income, but it took no cognisance of the quality of their income, and that was one fundamental and essential characteristic by which, in the judgment of Mr. Pitt, his plan was ex-empted from the charge or suspicion of a violation of public faith. But the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on the contrary, goes directly to the quality of the income—it looks to the source from which the income is derived—to the nature and permanence of that income—and it proceeds upon a principle fundamentally and diametrically opposed to that of Mr. Pitt. And now, how does this bear upon the words of the Act of Parliament? The words of the Act of 1801 are as follows:—
"And be it further enacted, that such contributors, duly paying in the whole sum so subscribed at or before the respective times in this Act limited in that behalf, and their respective executors, administrators, successors, and assignees, shall have, receive, and enjoy the said annuities by this Act granted in respect of the sum so subscribed, out of the moneys granted and appropriated in this Session of Parliament for payment thereof, and shall have good and sure interests and estates therein, according to the several provisions in this Act contained, and that the said annuities shall be free from all taxes, charges, and impositions whatsoever."
Now, there is but one answer to those words, and it is, that they prove too much. It may possibly be said, that you already tax the funds. The reply of Mr. Pitt would be: "We do not tax the funds; we lay no tax upon that property which alters or varies its relation to any other description of property in the country." But do we stand upon the opinion of Mr. Pitt alone? It is not upon the opinion of Mr. Pitt, great and weighty as that might be
986
in a matter of finance, that we alone rest.; We have also the adoption of the opinion of Mr. Pitt by all the statesmen of two generations, by every political party in the State, and by almost every Parliament that has sat since 1798. The question was solemnly discussed then. It was solemnly discussed again in 1803, in 1806, in 1831, on the proposal to lay a duty on the transference of stock, in 1842, and again in 1848. The judgment of Parliament has been perfectly uniform on every one of these occasions; and what were the circumstances under which that opinion was so adopted? Mr. Pitt, when he introduced the measure, had in opposition to him an energetic and able party ready enough to find fault with him, and to reconstruct his measures and alter their basis; but that very party, when they acquired office, and become responsible for the government of the country, like him, took the same course, and steadily refused to look at the source or the quality of the income, thus preserving to the tax the character of a purely personal tax. But, besides, statesmen, and political parties, and Parliaments, there is another yet higher authority by which Mr. Pitt's doctrine upon this subject was received; and that is the authority of the lenders of that money themselves. Those words that were inserted in the Loan Act were words on the faith of which the money has been lent. Do not tell me, then, that Mr. Pitt's measure has already broken your faith with the public creditor, and that you may go on to something further. It has done no such thing. The Loan Act from which I have quoted was for raising 28,000,000 l.; and the men who lent that sum did so subject to the Income tax. They knew perfectly well the meaning of those words. They knew that they were not intended to preclude them being subject, in common with every other person in the land, to a tax for the general service of the State; but that they were intended to prevent their being subject to taxes which looked to the quality of the income, and the source from which it was derived. On the faith of those words, and that Parliamentary and legislative construction of them, half of your national debt has been borrowed; and now after the lapse of fifty-five years, and of two generations of statesmen, including some of the greatest Finance Ministers in the history of the world, it is proposed fundamentally to alter the basis of this Act of Parliament. A great

987
deal more may be said upon this subject, but I will not trouble the House with it now. What I have said has been, in frankness to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, to point out how much difficulty and uncertainty must necessarily overhang the whole subject of the Income tax, if we are not content to take the principle which was adopted nearly sixty years ago, and has since then been maintained without variation, but insist upon making it a measure wholly new in its fundamental principle—small, I grant, in its present dimensions, but most capable of extension and multiplication; for the day may come when those who now, perhaps, think little of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a small and trumpery question of whether they shall pay 5¼d. or 7d. in the pound, may find these sums doubled, or trebled, or quadrupled, under the pressure of the public necessities, and when it may be too late to assert a principle which is now, for the first time, as-Bailed and threatened with violation. If the right hon. Gentleman has adopted finally and deliberately the plan he has proposed in regard to Schedule D, and for which a great deal might be said on both sides but for the special contract under which we lie to the public creditor, I wish to show him that it involves the whole question of the Income tax in much difficulty and embarrassment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be inclined to consider the question between the present time and Friday next. I should not have ventured to interfere with the judgment of the Government as to the order of submitting their propositions; but, feeling this matter strongly, and being certain that it will gradually assume a more alarming form, I could not feel justified in refraining from making these observations and suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman of what appears to me to be the wisest and most constitutional course for him to act on in regard to the order in which he should submit his finance propositions to the House.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the order of proceedings with regard to our future finance, it would not be better first to determine whether the Income tax was to be permanent or temporary. In 1842 it was imposed as a temporary measure for three years, and was demanded by Sir Robert Peel in order to give him a margin in carrying
988
out his plan of financial reform, and at the end of three years it was continued because that plan was not finished. He (Mr. Hume) could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that we were to be bound by the opinion of eminent men of former times; for the progress of later times might probably enable us to improve on those opinions. At all events, an inquiry had taken place into the Income tax, and the evidence taken bore out the opinion which he (Mr. Hume) entertained, that a Property tax should be paid by every individual according to his means. He thought the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided wisely and justly with reference to the principle of. his Income tax. He (Mr. Hume) thought that the Income tax, as it was now constituted, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford wished to continue, was not consistent with equity or justice. He was anxious to press on the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he feared that there would be a difficulty in coming to a decision on Friday with regard to the House tax and the Income tax. Where so large a question as a tenth of the revenue, or 5,500,000 l., depended on that tax, the course of the right hon. Gentleman should be to ascertain what the House would do with regard to the Income tax first of all; he ought to confine himself entirely to that, leaving all details for the future.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I collected from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that he rose to make some objections to the course proposed by the Government. One was a technical objection as to the mode in which we propose to bring our measures before the House, and the others were objections to the policy of one of the principal measures we propose. With regard to the first objection—namely, to the course recommended by the Government, that we should go into a Committee, and in Committee should propose Resolutions, all I can say, with great deference to the opinion of so distinguished a Member of the House, is, that I am still of opinion that the course which I have proposed is the correct one. If I am in error, I shall be, I am sure, set right by that authority to which we must all bow; but I assume, from all I have read and inquired, that the proper course for me is to ask the House

989
to go into Committee, and in Committee to propose Resolutions.
MR. GLADSTONE: What Committee? As to the Tea duties?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As regards the Tea duties and the House duty both, it will be necessary that the House should go into Committee. If I am in error, I can be corrected, but at present I apprehend that I am not in error. With regard to the second point, to which the right hon. Gentleman rather personally adverted—namely, as to what he called the extension of the Income tax to funded property in Ireland, I believe I am not in error if I say that the Income tax is at present extended to funded property in Ireland, and that, if there be any funded property in Ireland which does not pay it, it is by special exemption. Under schedule A the tax, as regards land, is limited to England, and therefore does not apply to Ireland; but as regards schedule C, it is extended to all funded property, whether in Ireland or wherever it may be. Therefore the whole of the argument with which we have been favoured by the right hon. Gentleman, appears to be a fallacious one, and I shall be perfectly prepared to enter into the consideration of the question at the proper time. The third point is that on which the right hon. Gentleman questions the policy of the Government with regard to the reconstruction of the Schedules of the Property and Income tax. It is not, in my opinion, expedient to have a general discussion upon the principle of this measure on the present occasion. It will not be expected, therefore, I should prolong a discussion on an important and weighty topic, which Her Majesty's Government will be shortly prepared to bring under the consideration of the House. Of course the Government have well weighed the important topic to which the right hon, Gentleman has alluded, and our conviction is that there is no breach whatever of the agreement with the public creditor; our conviction is that the course which we have laid down as to the reconstruction of the Schedules is in principle just. We believe that no Income tax would be just that was not constructed on those principles; and, with the greatest deference to all the high authories to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I be-live it to be rather the duty of the Ministry to act in accordance with what they think to be just and proper, than in deference to the opinion of other Ministers. I shall be
990
quite prepared on the proper occasion to assert and to vindicate the justice of the course which we recommend, and it will be for the House to determine upon it. With regard to the general conduct of those Resolutions, I shall place them on the table probably to-night; at all events, on Wednesday morning there will be placed in the hands of hon. Gentlemen the policy I recommended in the financial statement I made the other night, in the form of a series of Resolutions. I do not suppose that at this time of year it would be possible for us to come to a decision on all these Resolutions; but so far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned the Resolutions must be taken as a whole, to stand or fall by the decision of this House. And if it is the distinct wish of the House, we can have the issue next Friday night. I thought in taking this course I did that which was not, perhaps, the most favourable to Government, but the most agreeable to our opponents. I have no other wish than to obtain the general verdict of the House upon the whole of the financial scheme brought forward; and, in asking the House for a decision upon the question of the House duty and the Tea duties, I thought it was taking that course which would prove the most practical on the part of the Government. At present I cannot say that we have any reason to regret that course, nor are we at all disposed to change the line which we have marked out.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest any course whatever to the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night. Many of his propositions, of course the greater part of them, were new to me, and I only said it was of importance that the House should know what course the Government intended to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he should propose on Friday to take, as I understood, the Resolutions in respect to the House duty and the Tea duties. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: First.] Yes, first on Friday night; and I certainly stated that I had no objection to that course being taken. I think, however, that there is great force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) said, as to the necessity of taking both the Income tax and the House tax, before we are asked to concur in any Resolution with respect to the relief of taxes. On both these questions there may be great differences of

991
opinion, and the proposition to renew the Income tax in a different form to that hitherto adopted may give rise to new propositions from independent Members of the House which may materially alter the character and diminish the receipts from that tax. I am certainly not going into that question which the right hon. Gentleman started with reference to any breach of faith in the proposal to alter the proportions to be paid on schedule D; but I must, say that I cannot conceive any graver question that can be brought before this House, and I shall certainly be prepared to take my part in that question whenever it comes forward, with a due sense of the very great danger there is of making any alteration in the principle of the Income tax as it has been established by successive Parliaments. Again, if you admit that there are certain kinds of income which ought to be separately charged, other cases may perhaps be made out which the House might think had equally strong claims to be considered. Another thing struck me very forcibly with respect to the proposed Income tax, which is, that it appears to be very much in contradiction of the principle which the right hon. Gentlemen himself laid down in the last Session of Parliament, and again on Friday night, that if you are to have a system of direct taxation, it ought not to be grounded upon a system of exemptions, that is a principle which appears very plausible and just, but which, I think, is inapplicable when you endeavour to reduce it into a law. But what is evident is this, that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is founded, not on one, but on various exemptions, whereas in the present tax, although you may complain of an exemption, it is at all events the one broad and general exemption of all incomes of not more than 150 l. a year. The right hon. Gentleman proposes the exemption of persons receiving less than 50 l. a year from the funds, and the exemption of persons engaged in trade whose incomes are below 100 l. a year, and that with respect to the tenant-farmers there shall be an exemption of their incomes under 150 l. a year. I know the right hon. Gentleman avoided this last statement by saying, the present proportion of rent to income is not just, that instead of one-half it should be only taken at one-third. Thus it is obvious that while persons in trade, mercantile men, clerks, and other persons in that condition of life hitherto exempt, having 110 l. or 120 l. a year, are brought under the charge, no
992
farmers in the country shall be subject to it whose rent does not exceed 300 l. a year. Now, this may be a just exemption, although the right hon. Gentleman does not state any reason whatever for making the difference. This is, however, an exemption, and it appears to me that this new tax, instead of being free from exemptions, stands upon, a greater number of exemptions than the existing tax. This and other matters may, however, be more conveniently discussed when the Income tax is brought under our consideration. I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether he will bring on the House tax before the Income tax, or the Income tax before the House tax; but I do say, after what I heard on Friday night, I conceive that the safety of the financial system of this country is in great peril. I think that both these taxes—the Income tax, which will expire in April next, and the House tax, which as it stands does not supply the means for the reductions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—should be considered by Committees of this House before we agree to any reduction or abrogation of duties whatever.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gladstone) had so fully and ably expressed his feelings on this subject, that he would not have thought it necessary to say a word, but for the fear that some misunderstanding might exist with regard to the clause of the Income-tax Act which subjected funded property in Ireland received by persons in Great Britain to this tax. That was not an exclusive burden. If any gentleman in Ireland deriving his property from land, resided in this country and received his rents here, he paid the full amount of the tax. If any Irish gentleman having funded property resided in England, he paid 7d. in the pound upon the property he so received; but there was this distinction, that if the income derived from Ireland was received in Ireland, it was exempted from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make a distinction, and upon that question, when it came on for discussion, he (Mr. Goulburn) would have something to say hereafter; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to vindicate what he (Mr. Goulburn) regarded as a violation of the contract entered into with the public creditor. He would not attempt on this occasion to follow the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), into his defence

993
of the measure proposed by the Government. With regard, to the form in which the question would be brought before the House for discussion, he presumed the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose on Friday to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and would give precedence to one of the taxes—either the Income tax or the House tax. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I shall propose to go into Committee of the whole House.] He (Mr. Goulburn) doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman would not find it necessary to go into Committee of Ways and Means, if he proposed to impose upon the public for the service of the year a tax double the amount of that to which the country was at present subject, and to extend the tax to a class of persons who had previously been altogether exempt from it. In the case of the Tea Duties, as that was a matter of trade, the right hon. Gentleman would have to go into Committee of the whole House; but with respect to the House tax, he thought it most important that the House should adhere to the principle which required that a tax for the service of the year should be moved in a Committee of Ways and Means.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that it was possible the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been led into an error as to the mode of proceeding by the course which he (Sir C. Wood) took the year before last, in reference to commuting the tax upon houses levied according to the number of windows into a tax levied according to the value of houses. Between that day and Friday, however, the right hon. Gentleman would have time to ascertain what was the most correct mode of proceeding. What he (Sir C. Wood) had proposed was to reduce a tax, which could be done without a Committee of Ways and Means; but the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to double a tax, and, giving an opinion without reference to authorities, he (Sir C. Wood) agreed with the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) that it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go into Committee of Ways and Means in order to propose the increased tax. He (Sir C. Wood) had abstained on a former occasion from giving any opinion as to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would pursue the same course tonight, because both then and now his only object had been to speak as to the course
994
of proceeding to be adopted by the House. He thought, however, he could not too strongly enforce the arguments of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), that, considering the capacity of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman was about to make, and the discussions to which it was obvious those proposals would give rise, it was essential for the safety of the public credit that the right hon. Gentleman should be sure of the renewal of the taxes which he proposed to continue before he ventured to put the revenue in jeopardy by the repeal of taxation. It was equally obvious—for he thought it was only fair towards the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the proper course would be for the House to comply with the invitation that right hon. Gentleman had given them, to consider on Friday next, not simply one of his propositions, but to treat those propositions, to a certain extent at least, as a whole, so that the entire Budget might be brought under discussion, although it might be impossible, according to the forms of the House, to come to a decision upon more than one point. He thought the most convenient course would be to go into Committee of Ways and Means, when a Resolution might be proposed for the maintenance of the Income tax, or the increase of the House tax, and upon that Resolution they might discuss the whole of the propositions. That seemed to him the fairest course they could adopt towards the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he would then have the fullest opportunity of answering any objections that might be made to his propositions.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was far from wishing to prolong the discussion, but he was desirous of stating that Her Majesty's Government had no intention whatever of putting the financial condition of the country in any degree of jeopardy by not obtaining from the House, in the first instance, a deliberate judgment upon the more important points of his right hon. Friend's propositions. The House would not be called upon on Friday to determine whether they would agree to the whole of the Resolutions which would be placed upon the table, for time could scarcely admit of their being discussed in one evening; but such Resolutions would be brought before the House as would raise the whole question of the financial policy of the Government, and he did not see how that question could be better raised than by the Resolu-

995
tions to which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred, and which dealt with the extension of the House tax, and the remission of the Tea duties. No doubt, the questions arising upon the Income and Property Tax must be determined before the House could come to any conclusion as to any considerable remission of taxation; for if 5,000,000 l. a year was taken away from the ordinary revenue of the country, no remission of taxation could take place, nor would they, indeed, be able to go on without some additional taxation to supply the deficiency. He freely admitted that the question whether they were to retain the Income tax, either as it now stood, or with the variation suggested by the Government, was one that must be discussed before any great remission of taxation was decided upon. He thought, however, that the fair issue and the main issue between them as to the financial policy of the country could not be better determined than by asking the House to sanction an addition to the taxation of the country to the amount of about 1,000,000 l. before they proposed the remission of any portion of those duties which they thought might be repealed with advantage to the people.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it appeared to him to be unnecessary, with regard to the remission of the duty on tea, to go at once into the question of doubling the House tax; and he would put it to the Government whether it was fair towards those whom he had the honour to represent, who were peculiarly interested in that tax, to press it forward so hastily without allowing householders time to ascertain how they would be affected by such a proposition. Before proposing any remission of duty, he thought the question of the Income tax ought to be fully considered.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that there appeared to be a mistake on the part of some hon. Gentlemen, who seemed to suppose that the proposition for increasing the House tax would materially raise the Ways and Means of the next year, while the remission of the Tea duties would only diminish the revenue by some 400,000 l. The fact was, that the proposed increase of the House tax would not yield more than about 500,000 l. additional to the revenue, while the reduction of the Tea duties would probably lead to a loss exceeding the increase on the House duty. He thought the proposal now made by the Government was one which fully met the views of hon.
996
Gentlemen opposite, for they had fairly stated that the whole subject of the Budget must be more or less considered on Friday. It was utterly impossible that all the details to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had adverted respecting the Income tax could be discussed before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess; but he (Lord J. Manners) thought the House should have a fair and satisfactory opportunity of discussing the main principles upon which the Budget was founded, and that there was no proposition which would test more fairly and completely the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite than that which it was intended to bring forward on Friday.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the objection taken by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) did not appear to have been understood by the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat. The noble Lord said the additional tax would not produce above 500,000 l. for the next year. If so, and there was any danger of the Income tax being lost, it was the more necessary to secure that on which depended a tenth part of the income of the country before passing a Resolution raising about 500,000 l., but which had coupled with it a Resolution for a reduction of duties which amounted to about the same sum. The danger was this: that after passing the Resolutions, if the Income tax should fail, there would be a deficiency of 5,500,000 l. It was very objectionable to proceed to cut down taxes as if they had a large surplus, without knowing whether the Income tax would be carried or not. The objection was raised by his right hon. Friend, not so much to the particular Schedules as to show that if the principle of the Income tax was to be debated, there might be so much difference of opinion as to endanger the carrying out of the system.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, it was impossible not to feel that the principle of direct taxation was threatened with new dangers, and surrounded with new difficulties. There was a great disinclination on the part of many hon. Gentlemen to proceed with the reduction of duties on any article until the main question of the renewal or non-renewal of the Property and Income Tax had been settled by the House. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he thought his proposal would afford the most convenient means of discussing that subject; but, so strongly did he (Mr. Denison) feel the obligation

997
of maintaining the national credit, that though he might he disposed to think favourably of a reduction of the Tea duties, or of the duties on other articles, he would decline to pledge himself to that reduction hy vote so long as the renewal of the Property and Income tax was doubtful or unsettled.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the difficulty which he experienced was this. A Resolution was to be proposed with regard to the House tax, and decided one way or the other. Now, if on future discussions any great alterations should take place in the Income tax, in what position would the House be placed? He concluded, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary to deal with the Income tax first, and to know what would be the result of that discussion. If that tax should be extended to Ireland, it must be extended to every class of property there as it was in this country. In that case there would be some increase in the amount of receipts, and the House would then be able to approach the second question. He confessed that he had no predilection for a double House tax. He did not mean to say that he should not vote for it if he considered it absolutely necessary; but it appeared to him that that question should be considered at the end of the financial proceedings, and not at the beginning.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that the House, before meddling with any other question of taxation, ought first to consider the Income tax; otherwise the whole credit of the country would he thrown into a state of suspense and dissatisfaction. He took a similar view both as regarded the order of discussing the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolutions, and as to the extension of the Income tax to Ireland, for he saw no good reason why it should not be levied upon every description of property in that country as well as upon funded property.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Mr. HUMEsaid, he understood the object of going into Committee of Supply, to be to propose Votes amounting to 435,000 l.—namely, 113,000 l. for the Navy, 92,000 l. for the Ordnance, 150,000 l. for the National Gallery, and 80,000 l. for the expense of the funeral of the Duke of Wellington. The first two Votes related to the defences of
998
the country, and the House had been told that the Government desired to place those defences in a proper and secure state; hut it had not been intimated in what way that was to he done, except that the House was informed the force was to be increased. No one was more anxious than he (Mr. Hume) to see the defences of the country in the most efficient state; but he thought, before the House proceeded to vote an additional number of men, the Government should give some intimation of what they meant to do with the men, and why they were not disposed to resort to that administrative reform of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke the other night. There had been a Committee sitting for three years on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Expenditure; but the abuses, waste, and extravagant expenditure which the Committee pointed out still continued. Ships were still built one month, and altered the next; and such a system was maintained that you would not find half the malversation or mistakes in any of the establishments of the great steampacket companies, that you would in any one of our dockyards. A very large proportion of the money voted for the Navy and Army was unnecessary expenditure. The outlay now to be voted was to be provided for by the additional House tax. That was a part of the Government plan, by which, as a whole, they said they would stand or fall; Members could not agree to this Vote without making up their minds to that proposal. The Government ought to lay before the House something satisfactory as to what their purpose was. Some time ago it was thought that 2,000,000 l, must be laid out to put Canada in a proper state of defence, and the money was voted, and forts built: but they were not manned. In 1844, there was an alarm here about invasion, and forts were ordered; let any man say whether they were not useless now, and whether nearly 2,000,000 l. were not uselessly spent on these defences. The Committee considered 100 admirals enough, but we had 150, and superannuated admirals were being created every day. There was always a mania for an increase of expenditure; every Administration seized any occasion for it; but even when the occasion was over, the expenditure still continued. He did not believe the Navy was more efficient now than when the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was at the head of the Admiralty; and it would be remembered

999
that a sum of 1,000,000 l. was struck off the Estimates at that period. Were we bound to keep up vessels of war on distant stations when we were told we were in imminent danger from a neighbouring country? He (Mr. Hume) had no belief but that the Emperor Napoleon III. would find that the strength of his Government was peace, and that the stability of France would lie in promoting free trade, and he hoped the Emperor would adopt that course. As to the vote for the National Gallery, the House had no papers as yet before it. A certain clique had got up a plan to carry the pictures out of the town to a spot where they would be of little use to the public generally; but there was a great difference of opinion on the project, and the House had a right to more information and time for consideration. With regard to the Duke of Wellington's funeral, everything that would show honour and respect for that individual, he (Mr. Hume) would be perfectly ready to concur in; but the House ought to know whether the money was properly expended, and they ought to have had an estimate of the expense.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there was no vote before the House for building a National Gallery; the only vote before the House was the purchase of land under rather peculiar circumstances, part of which land might certainly be devoted subsequently to the erection of a National Gallery, but really that had nothing to do with the question now before the House. When it came on, he should lay before the House the reasons which induced the Government to ask the House to vote a sum equal to that which was to be contributed by the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition for purposes of great national interest and importance. There was no specific Vote for a National Gallery, and the only object of this Vote was the purchase of land which otherwise could never probably be obtained by the public. With regard to the funeral of the great personage whom we had lost, he would beg to remind the House that they were told in a taunting manner that probably 250,000 l. would be expended. The sum was very far short of that; and it was of importance to vote the necessary supply at once; it would save the public treasury no inconsiderable amount if the accounts were closed at once. Of course, a detailed account would be laid on the table, showing how every shilling was expended. He hoped the hon. Member
1000
would not oppose the going into Committee of Supply on the general grounds he stated at first. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that he should be prepared, on a fitting occasion, to offer to the House some views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of administrative reform, and that they were prepared to bring the whole income of the country under the control of Parliament; but he particularly said that it would be impossible to bring forward any measure of that kind—to embark in subjects of such importance—till after the financial measures had passed. The measure to be proceeded with now was totally irrespective of administrative reform; and if it should be the opinion of the House, as he was confident it was of the nation, that the country should be placed in a complete state of defence, he hoped the House would lose no time in passing the Votes requisite for that purpose, and that they would allow his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty now to make his statement.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Wilson Patten in the Chair.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
(1.) 6,500 Additional Men.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that in discharging the duty which devolved upon him on the present occasion, he hoped the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume)—inasmuch as his observations had been answered by his (Mr. Stafford's) right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—would not expect him to encumber the question before the Committee by any reference to those questions to which he had alluded. No time could be more inopportune for such discussions than that at which a Supplemental Estimate was brought forward. In bringing forward this Supplemental Estimate, he wished to state that he had no intention of casting any imputations on the late Board of Admiralty, or on the right hon. Gentlemen who preceded the present Government in office. The present Government had taken the Estimates prepared by their predecessors. They had taken them in no party spirit, but in the belief that unless circumstances changed they would be amply sufficient for the public servise. It was usual in asking the House of Commons to grant a sum of money, to lay before it the fullest information with regard to it. At, present he felt that if he entered into details he

1001
might make a statement which would more properly belong to the introduction of the general Estimates at the commencement of the financial year. He must, therefore, decline making any such statement at present. If he commenced his remarks with the expression of an earnest desire for the maintenance of peace, the most perfect peace, throughout the world, he was sure that every one on either side of the House would agree with him in that expression. The present Estimate was so completely independent of any particular Power—of any particular nation—that he would not refer to any one country more than another. The two Supplementary Estimates which he had now to submit to the Committee were, first, 113,000 l., for 5,000 additional seamen and 1,500 marines; and, secondly, 100,000 l for the necessary expenses of steam machinery for naval purposes. When they looked back over a number of years and regarded the enormous sum which had been voted for steam machinery, it was impossible not to feel that they had not been able, owing to unavoidable circumstances, to observe a stricter economy in the expenditure of it. If the hon. Member for Montrose believed that all the money which had been voted for steam machinery had been expended for that purpose, he was mistaken; but even allowing for reductions on that head, still he was ready to admit that the sums spent were of enormous amount. But let them remember the circumstances under which those grants were made from year to year. They had in the first place to create a paddle-wheel steam fleet, and they had at present to create a screw steam fleet; and that necessity had arisen not only in our national establishments, but also in every private shipbuilding establishment throughout the country. It would be found that the experiments connected with the new machinery, and the necessity of abandoning machinery after it had been one-half, or three-fourths, or even still more nearly completed, had entailed not only on our national marine, but also on the great private firms which constituted our mercantile marine, an enormous expenditure, which it was impossible to avoid, because it was only by such an expenditure that the authorities of the Admiralty were enabled to arrive at their present conclusions, if conclusions they could be called. He believed it would not be the wish of the Committee, as he was sure it would not be the desire of the country,
1002
that after they had established a paddle steam fleet, and found that the paddle was becoming universally superseded by the screw, they should leave our naval defences so far behindhand as to continue the paddle-wheel and go to no further expense in building screw vessels. They should re-member, as he had before stated, that the expense which had been incurred was not to be attributed, as he believed, to wasteful extravagance in any great degree, and that still less was it to be attributed to the love of change on the part of the Board of Admiralty, as some hon. Gentlemen had argued in that House. He said it was to be attributed to the frequent new inventions which had been forced upon their consideration, and which had imposed upon them the necessity of entering upon new works at a considerable cost, if they did not wish to see the naval power of this country reduced to a condition in which it ought not to he placed. It had been his good fortune to have gone last summer to the Mediterranean, where the present Board of Admiralty had wisely, as he thought, sent a screw squadron for evolution under Admiral Dundas. The fact of their having committed the command of that squadron to so distinguished an officer, had, he believed, given universal satisfaction to the Navy and to the public generally. After having seen the evolutions of that squadron, as compared with those of sailing vessels, it was impossible not to arrive at the conclusion at which Admiral Dundas had arrived, thoroughly and unreservedly, that the screw auxiliary was in some cases absolutely necessary. Unless some unforeseen new mechanical power should be discovered—and what new discovery might be made they could not undertake to predict—but unless such a discovery were made, screws would no doubt become the future great motive power in our Navy as well as in our mercantile marine. Screws were accompanied with this very great advantage, that the machinery could be kept under water; that they did not offer paddles, which might become, as it were, a target for the fire of the enemy; and that they did not, like the paddle-boxes, take up so considerable a space on deck that it was impossible to place the guns in the most efficient manner. He said that they should, therefore, henceforward resolve upon recognising the combined power of the screw and the sail in our naval and mercantile marine. In order that the Committee might have some notion of the

1003
comparative expense of these screw steamships and of the sailing vessels, he would read to them a paper which had been drawn up on the subject. The comparison was between a 90-gun screw steamer and a 90-gun sailing vessel. He would state to them, in the first instance, the cost of a 90-gun sailing ship, and of a screw ship furnished with an engine of 500-horse power. He found that the first cost of a sailing ship, furnished with 90 guns, was about 108,300 l., while the first cost of a 90-gun screw ship, of 500-horse power, was 151,800 l. Then again, the annual expense of a sailing ship would be about 44,335 l., while the annual expense of a screw ship, with the cost of coal to nearly the amount of 1,500 l.—an estimate which he thought a low one, would be 51,678 l., showing an increase of 40 per cent on the first cost of the screw ships, and an increase of about 20 per cent on the annual expense of the screw ship as compared with the sailing vessel. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had stated that they should introduce retrenchments into their dockyard establishments. Now, he trusted that when the Navy Estimates now in the course of preparation were brought forward, it would be found that the present Government had not been remiss in that particular. They had felt that the attention of the public had been strongly directed to these establishments, and not without reason, on account of the large sums that were annually voted for their maintenance, and they could not therefore remain insensible to the necessity that existed for making a reduction in their expenditure; but, as he said before, this was not the proper time to discuss those matters. All, however, that he wished to effect at present was not to leave the Committee unaware of the future—the expensive future—to which they should look forward, unless they wished to see the British Navy behind all the Other navies of the world in those aids which science had applied to the development of man's dominion over the ocean. He should next pass to consider that without which the screw and the paddle-wheel would be wholly useless—he meant the number of new men whom they proposed to raise. He proposed a Vote for 5,000 additional seamen, and 1,500 additional marines, for the service of Her Majesty's Navy during the period of four calendar months. But in order to diminish the expense as much as possible, they had
1004
assumed that there should only be 2,500 for the first two months. Hon. Gentlemen would see, therefore, that the Estimate had been formed on a basis of employing only half the number of men for the first two months. There was a distinction between Supplemental Estimates and Annual Estimates; for while in the Annual Estimates the muster of men was already secure, the Supplemental Estimates would drive the Admiralty into the market all of a sudden for the number of seamen, and it would he idle to suppose that they could get 5,000 seamen all at once. At the same time he was happy to say that the rumour which had gone abroad with regard to the difficulty of getting men to join the Royal Navy was highly exaggerated, and that the Board of Admiralty found far more facility in obtaining those men than public rumour would lead people to believe. But let them not disguise from themselves that, at the present moment, the British sailor was, perhaps, the most precious article in the market. The Royal Navy had for competitors, not only our large mercantile marines—it had not only to encounter the present stimulus of the gold regions, but it found that there was not a single nation in the world which did not gladly accept on board her docks the British sailor; and he therefore said, it was most important that they should do everything in their power to promote his comfort, and to render the service of Her Majesty a tempting service to him. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in the course of his financial statement on Friday evening, that he regretted very much that at the time when the British seaman was most efficient he should be turned adrift, and that the recruiting for the Royal Navy should afterwards begin as it were de novo. His right hon. Friend had further stated, that that matter would be submitted to the consideration of a Committee composed of persons most competent to investigate it. He (Mr. Stafford) felt persuaded that that Committee would arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. He wished, however, to inform the Committee that any of the proposed 5,000 men who might join Her Majesty's ships would be subjected to no conditions and to no restrictions except those which were already in force in the Royal Navy. There was nothing, as had been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell), more distasteful to a sailor joining one ship, than that he should be transferred to another.

1005
The new sailors would be perfectly free to select their own ships for the period usual among their class, and there would be no restraint upon any of those men except those already imposed upon their brothers in the service. In order to ensure the comfort and well-being of the seaman, they should consult his condition, his feelings, his fancies, and oven his prejudices. If it should go abroad that there was to he the slightest change in the arrangements affecting the new force, he (Mr. Stafford) believed that they would not be able to raise 100 men in six months to join the service. The question of raising those men would naturally lead the Committee to inquire what proposition Her Majesty's Government had to make for our homo defence, as far as it could in their opinion be stated with safety at the present moment. If he should then state the outline merely of the plan they had adopted, he trusted that the Committee would believe that he did not enter into more particulars merely because he felt that it would be undesirable in the present case to go further into detail. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that his wish was to place the Channel defences in such a position as to set that question at rest. They believed that, although it would be impossible absolutely to confine any one ship to any particular port, for it would be necessary that the fleet should exercise itself occasionally in the Channel; but they also believed that the vessels should in general be stationed at particular points, and the following was the arrangement which they were prepared to adopt on that subject. They thought there ought to be stationed at the nore three frigates and five steamers; at Plymouth four sail of the line and five large steamers; and, lastly, at Portsmouth five sail of the line, two frigates, and six large steamers; for they had in that latter case to consider the exposed nature of the coast, and not forgetting Osborne and the hopes and loyal sympathies which often centered there, he thought this would not be looked upon as too large a force for the defence of our own shores. That was the plan which they proposed to carry into effect if Parliament should grant them the necessary funds for the purpose. They thought that they ought to have 10,000 seamen besides the marines for our home defences. He might take that opportunity of observing that they had, at the present moment, only six or seven men, more or
1006
less, than the number voted by Parliament; so that they had so far kept themselves strictly within the limits laid down for them by the Committee. They felt, how-over, that the time had arrived when, with the most pacific intentions, it was absolutely necessary that we should put our Channel defences in a new position, and man the Channel with a larger force. He should repeat—with a prayer and an earnest hope of peace; and the conduct of England, since (he establishment of peace, was, he believed, a sufficient guarantee to Europe that the expression of that wish on the part of the British Government was no idle word. They wished for no addition to our territory—they wished not to interfere with the internal policy of any other country; but they wished that the poorest of their subjects in the most distant quarters of the world should feel that the British flag was a succour and a source of safety him. They believed it was most desirable that England should keep faith with other nations, and should rigidly adhere to existing treaties. They felt, however, at the same time that we ought to transmit, unimpaired, to our descendants, our great colonial empire, and that we ought to have a fleet to protect in distant seas those merchant vessels whose owners were perpetually soliciting the Admiralty for the presence and the countenance of one of Her Majesty's vessels, for the purpose of securing respect for themselves and security for their commercial operations. But, above all, Her Majesty's Government sought the aid of that House—and would not, he was sure, seek in vain—in their endeavours to keep our native islands inviolate, and to render a contest short and decisive if a hostile force should ever attempt to set foot upon our shore. He trusted that if he should then decline to enter into any detailed information with respect to that Vote, no Gentleman would attribute such a course to a desire to treat him individually with discourtesy, hut would feel that it was owing to the determination at which the Government had arrived, after the most serious consideration, that it would he better under existing circumstances not to enter into any particulars with respect to that case. He asked the present Vote from the House of Commons, not as a Vote of Confidence in any particular Ministry, but as a Vote of Confidence in that Executive which, whatever party might be at the head of the Government, must necessarily be charged with

1007
the defence of the country—must necessarily be in possession of secret and important intelligence, and must necessarily be the fitting and only judge how far that intelligence ought to he communicated to the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had always declared his objections to the building of more ships than we could employ; and now it was discovered, after laying out millions of money upon war steamers with paddle-wheels, that they would not answer the purpose, and therefore a new fleet of screw steamers was necessary. That ought to show us the folly of which we had been guilty for so many years of keeping up such enormous establishments. We had been throwing away 2,000,000 l. yearly upon our dockyards, and he really thought that it might be a question whether we ought not to build our ships by contract. He himself should be disposed to object to any additional Votes for the Navy until all the recommendations of the Committee upstairs had been adopted—until our ships had been brought home from foreign stations, where they were only doing mischief, and until all useless officers had been placed on a retired list. We continued to keep up the number of 150 admirals, although we did not employ twenty of them. He did not know whether it would be of much use, but he protested against the Vote altogether.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the question before the Committee related to the raising of 5,000 additional seamen and 1,500 marines. That question had no connexion with those to which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had referred, such as the expenditure in the dockyards and the age of admirals. He (Lord J. Russell) conceived that those topics might be fitly discussed when the Naval Estimates came under consideration, and then it would be for the. members of the late and of the present Government to state their views upon these subjects. But the present proposal was to raise 5,000 additional sailors, and 1,500 more marines, and he must say that such a proposal had his warm assent. He believed that it was right and necessary to provide a sufficient defence for this island, which was the citadel of a vast Empire, and he was very glad that Her Majesty's Government, having been persuaded that such a force was necessary, had not shrunk from proposing it. He believed that so far from its being an unpopular Vote, the nation
1008
would gladly learn that it had been carried, and he, for one, gave it his cordial assent.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that Her Majesty's Government were justified in proposing this increase to the Navy. He deeply regretted that, during the discussions last Session on the defences of the country, the Navy was placed almost entirely out of view. The Navy, in his opinion, ought at all times to be regarded as the very bulwark of our defences. But he agreed to this proposed increase of 6,500 men to the two branches of the Navy, not because he thought it necessary, but in deference to the opinion of the people of this country, whose alarms on the subject of our national defences, ought, he thought, to be calmed by such a step as this. But when the public out of doors were informed of the present state of our national defences, he hoped they would be satisfied that we were in a state of security against any attack, come from what quarter it might. We had, as defences of the country, cavalry, infantry, and artillery of the line, with its auxiliaries—which forces included 187,000 men. To that were to be added, for sailors and marines afloat, 39,500 men—making a total of 226,500 men. We had, besides, in the Colonies 46,500 men, and in India 30,500, which gave us a force at home and abroad of 303,500 men. Our defences were, therefore, on a footing of unquestionable security. We had now 138,000 men engaged in the national defence more than we had in 1835. Such an increase was incredible. He was willing to admit that the Admiralty was the most efficient branch of the public service, and the present Board displayed more energy and had done more real good than any of its late predecessors. He trusted that the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty would do nothing to forfeit the good opinion thus expressed of the manner in which he had discharged his duties. He wished to call the attention of that hon. Gentleman to the system of corporal punishment at present pursued in the Navy. That system was the great obstacle to the proper manning of our fleet. It gave a power to one man to inflict punishment, without the control of any other party—a power which, he thought, ought never to be vested in the hands of any man. He (Mr. Williams) trusted also that savings banks would be established in the Navy, as had been the case (with the most beneficial results) in the Army. If they were

1009
established in the Navy, the sailor might be made, to a great extent, a provident person.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he believed there were very few persons, either in or out of the House, who were not disposed to concur with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty as to the necessity of increasing the efficiency of the Navy; but the hon. Gentleman had not stated that the money voted for that purpose last Session was not sufficient. He had not told the House what had be come of the 30,000 l. which had been voted as a reserve fund. The hon. Gentleman stated that the intention of the Government was simply to raise 5,000 additional seamen, half of whom were to be brought into service within the next two months, and that they would not be liable to be moved from ship to ship, according to the present practice. But there were other points on which he had not given any explanation. The sailors were at present very much dissatisfied with the late regulations with regard to their provisions, especially in having the quantity of their grog limited, which was a very delicate question as far as regarded seamen. Until that grievance was redressed, they would find great dissatisfaction prevail. Men who had lately been paid off were found not to return to their ships. They also felt exceedingly annoyed at the system of being sent about from ship to ship. It greatly interfered with the comfort of their families, and caused them much expense in wear and tear. Again, with regard to promotion, now that they were raising these additional men, it would, in his opinion, be well to make them understand that when they became petty officers they would be considered deserving of pensions. Those petty officers were the men on whom they could always rely, and he thought their case had not been sufficiently considered. Much dissatisfaction had also been created by the order of the Admiralty in respect to the prices which were charged to the seamen for their provisions, especially their sugar and tea. He hoped, now that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to reduce the duty on the latter article, and as the duty on sugar had already been reduced, a proportionate redaction would be made in the charge for those articles to the sailors. This was a peculiar time, at which it was very important that our sailors should be made to
1010
understand that their condition would be improved. With regard to punishment in the Navy, to which his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) had alluded, he would just observe, that no captain in the Navy could order any punishment to be inflicted within twenty-four hours after the commission of the offence; there was, therefore, ample time afforded for due consideration as to the degree of punishment to be inflicted. Monthly or quarterly returns were also required to be made from all ships as to the number of punishments which had taken place. It was, therefore, not very safe for any captain to return home and demand his promotion unless his list of punishments was such as the Admiralty might not consider either intolerable or harsh. For his part, he had always voted against corporal punishment, and in favour of substituting imprisonment or some other kind of correction. But he believed that every caution was now taken that nothing of a cruel or tyrannical character should take place on board Her Majesty's ships. He believed no officer or commander of a ship would stand well at the Admiralty if it were found that he had unduly punished his men.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that 30,000 l. had certainly been voted on a late occasion; but at the same time an understanding was given that it should be maintained for the purposes of a Naval Reserve. It had not, therefore, been used at all, nor was it the intention of the present Board of Admiralty to avail themselves of it. If he had understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir G. Peehell) rightly, he thought that sailors ought to be tempted into the service by promises of pensions when they became petty officers; but surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not make any difference between these and the other men in the service. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that certain alterations might with effect be made in manning the Navy; but it would be a misconception to conclude from the words of the right hon. Gentleman that the men hereafter would be liable to more restrictions than they had been liable to before. The same system which had hitherto existed, would, so far as their liberties were concerned, still remain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had not exaggerated in his statement as regarded corporal punishment. The present Board thought that officer the most meritorious who could

1011
manage his crew with the least recourse to such extremities, and by recognising them as fellow men. Still, as to corporal punishments, he believed that if you put it to the Navy, they would themselves say it Could not be altogether avoided. The 5,000 men now asked for were to have their choice of their ship, and when they had chosen it Were not to be removed from it.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLbegged to congratulate the Committee and the country that at last they were about to take the right means for our national defence. He had always held that they had reason to Complain, when they were discussing the question of defences last year, that the militia force Was put in advance of recruiting the Navy, and using those natural means for the safety of the country which Providence had given us. What the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) then said about nothing being able to resist the enemy approaching our Coast and landing on our shores, had fallen to the ground, since it was proposed to have a full command of the Channel by the formation of a fleet ready at any moment to encounter the enemy. He thought, also, that there would be plenty of means of saving the money expended on this extra force, if they only instituted a rigid examination into the way in which naval money was now spent, for at present, in almost every item, the expenditure was susceptible of very great improvement. To those who knew the way in which the public money was spent in the dockyards, there was a fruitful source of economy to be found in that. The Admiralty began some time back by having a paddle fleet; how he was glad to find they had become converts to a screw fleet. He certainly thought they were right, but warned them hot to run on before the science of the day. They would not live two years before they saw further improvements, and therefore when they talked of assembling fleets at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the Nore, they should not run into hasty expense. The great point Was this—to take care that England had the command of those waters which made her invulnerable. No nation had the right to say to England, "Why do you increase your Navy?" It Was our natural defence. They had their armies as theirs. We had the ocean as our field of defence, and not from any jealousy, but simply for the purposes of defence. We must avail ourselves of the
1012
ocean, and increase our Navy as might be required. The great mistake hitherto had been—he was glad the present Admiralty had avoided it, and gave them every credit for so doing—that they had sent nearly all our vessels abroad, and that those even allowed to stay at home were refitting or not half manned, so that at home there was scarcely a vessel fit to go out and meet an enemy. He found now that they were not only going to have 5,000 additional men for the Channel fleet, but, as he under-stood, 10,000 altogether. The hon. Secretary to the Admiralty had said that it was intended to retain the 5,000 there already, and that 5,000 extra Were henceforth to be employed, not as a demonstration of war, but as an acting security. At present he would make no observations on the mode of manning the Navy—he had given a notice on that question; but he might say that he hoped those officers who were examining into the subject of the naval improvement in respect to manning the fleet would do so in a generous spirit, and would recollect that England must depend at all times, and under all circumstances, on having the command of the sea. They must recollect that unless they made the service popular, it would be utterly impossible to get a sufficient number of good and efficient seamen, and that, if a war suddenly broke out, they would act at a disadvantage, or be obliged immediately to apply to improvement. He was glad the Motion before the Committee seemed to be cordially accepted on all sides, for the Navy was our true legitimate and certain defence, and no other could be equal to it.
MR. CORRYsaid, he should not have addressed the Committee upon the present occasion had it not been for an observation which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the Committee. The hon. and gallant Member had expressed a hope that the Admiralty would not go too fast in constructing screw vessels, but would wait and see what improvements might be introduced in that motive power. Now, it would no doubt be desirable that experiments should be carefully made before any considerable expense was incurred in the construction of our ships, if time were afforded for such experiments; but it should be remembered that the most important point of all was that provision should be made for the safety of the country. The Board of Admiralty felt that they could not postpone the construction of screw steamers while other nations

1013
were building vessels of that class. He would read an extract from a preliminary note to the French Navy Estimates for the present year, which would show the importance attached in Franco to that point. It was there stated that—
"The alteration of ships of the line into steam vessels had become a political and naval necessity of the first order. It was impossible to postpone those changes any longer without reducing France from the rank she ought to hold among the nations of the world. The greater portion of the naval estimates for the year 1853 was to be applied to that useful work."
If this country were to suspend her works in that direction, France would in the course of a year have fifteen or sixteen screw steam ships, while we should have but three or four. With regard to the supplemental vote of 5,000 men, then under the consideration of the Committee, he could not help expressing his gratification at finding the Government come forward with such a proposal. He had shown last year that France, with an enormous military force, had more vessels on her home station than England had on her home station. He trusted that the proposed 5,000 men would be kept in the Channel, and would be added to the force hitherto stationed there, and not frittered away on foreign stations.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know how it happened that of 160 sail of the line which we possessed, only twelve or thirteen were kept at home for the defence of our shores. He was desirous as any man could be that we should have a powerful fleet, but he protested against its being broken up into fragments, and scattered throughout every sea, instead of being maintained in great measure for the defence of our own shores.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGbegged to express his approval of the proposed increase. No one knew more than himself how difficult it was to state the grounds for any increase. It was for the Government to state, on their responsibility, what they thought necessary for the service of the country, and he was not one of those who would oppose what they so thought necessary. It was the habit of many hon. Gentlemen in that House to keep up a sort of rattling fire upon every Board of Admiralty; but when the proper time arrived, if hon. Gentlemen pleased to attack the course he and his Colleagues had pursued when in office upon the Naval Estimates, he should be ready to say what he thought
1014
might be said upon the subject; but he hoped the Committee would not always believe the statements that were made by hon. and gallant Officers. It was astonishing what inaccurate statements and charges were made, and he really thought hon. and gallant Officers ought to inquire a little before they made them.
MR. HUMEsaid, the Committee had just seen a specimen of the manner in which Gentlemen who had been in office attempted to put down any one who dared to complain of the acts of any branch of the Executive Government. It was idle to talk of the responsibility of a Minister in matters of Naval or Military expenditure, for everybody know that such responsibility was only theoretic and imaginary. Responsibility no doubt did attach morally to a Minister in such matters; but where was the Minister who was ready to answer for that responsibility? There were, at the present moment, no fewer than 39,000 seamen and marines in the service of Great Britain, and now it was sought to augment that prodigious number by the addition of 6,500 more; but before any such augmentation was agreed to, the Committee ought to be informed of the present position and actual employment of this enormous force at present in pay. Where were they, and what were they doing? For his own part, he was disposed to regard with disfavour and suspicion this proposition for an increase of our naval force, for he could not forget that Mr. Pitt, whose authority was considered paramount on the Ministerial side of the House (as long as it coincided with their own policy) had always maintained that 16,000 marines and seamen were all that were required for the maritime defence of the country. No doubt the times were changed, for Ministers had been going on from one act of extavagance to another of late years; but still there was reason in all things, or there ought to be, and he was sure the present naval force was quite sufficient for all purposes of national defence.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLwas sorry for the dispute between the two Boards of Admiralty, but thought for his own part that for the last seventeen years there had been a good deal to complain of.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, it would be very difficult to speak in that House on naval subjects, if each representative of the different Boards of Admiralty were always to get up and make an attack on the speakers. The very measure before the

1015
Committee was a reflection on former ones, because it proposed to do what they had neglected doing.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 100,000 l, Steam Machinery.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, there was certainly a very prevailing opinion that the amount already voted for steam ships would be perfectly sufficient if the Admiralty knew their own mind. Unfortunately they did not. A ship just ready for launching was pulled about in the most extraordinary manner. There was the St. Vincent, which had lately been docked at Portsmouth, all dismantled, and the whole expense upon her thrown away. There was also the case of the Windsor Castle, and it was beyond calculation what the cost of all these alterations would come to. He had asked the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion for the number of vessels which had had, or were going to have, the operation for the screw performed upon them; but the hon. Gentleman had replied that that was information which it was very impolitic to give. But he said still that there was nothing in it in any way to prejudice the interests of the community, that it was impossible to maintain any secrecy of that kind, and that, after all, the hon. Gentleman must give him the information he required. In the same way, when he wished to know the expense of converting the Ajax and the Blenheim into screw steamers, the hon. Gentleman refused that information; but that also he would be obliged shortly to give. He thought, moreover, that the system of saluting admirals who changed their flags was carried on to a truly ridiculous extent. There was nothing but firing along the entire coast, to the great astonishment of the people, who naturally enough thought that the militia were on the point of being called out, and that the French were coming. Then if a picnic took place at the Isle of Wight, off went a steamer with an evident sacrifice of useful fuel. He thought if the House of Commons would order returns of the number of times steamers were ordered to light up their fires on such occasions, it would check the wasteful expenditure to which he had alluded. Then there was the practice of pulling ships to pieces. When a ship put into port, she was paid off just as her men had become instructed in the art of gunnery, and the ship was pulled to pieces whether she wante1016d repairs or not. He thought all these mat-
1016
ters caused a wasteful expenditure, of which the people justly complained, and he must say he was most reluctant to agree to this vote, being of opinion that they had both ships and men enough.
MR. STAFFORDbegged to explain, that the number of men at present employed, with the additional 5,000 demanded, would man the fleet and leave a reserve,
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he must complain that a large unnecessary expenditure had been annually incurred for want of due attention and economy in the naval yards. It mattered not who was at the head of Admiralty affairs, no efficient reform could be introduced without a complete reconstruction of the system. He thought an account should be laid before Parliament showing the cost of every ship in the Navy, not only for her first construction, but for all repairs and alterations she might undergo. He believed the Windsor Castle and others which were being adapted for the screw, would be found totally inefficient as ships of war. They would not be able to carry their complement of men, or a sufficient supply of coals and ammunition. In the dockyards the men did not perform more than a third of a day's labour for a day's pay, and until that system was reformed, we could not expect either economy or efficiency. In consenting to the Vote, he reserved to himself the right to call attention to any vessel now being altered from a sailing to a steam ship, should the failures he anticipated occur.
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, that two-thirds of the sum sought for under the present Vote would doubtless pass into the pockets of the hon. Member's (Mr. M'Gregor's) constituents, from whom the requisite steam machinery would be obtained.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERThoped there would be no division on the Vote. The unanimous acquiescence of the Committee in it, taken in conjunction with the establishment of the militia, would prove to the world that the people of England, however anxious for economy, were willing to make any sacrifice that the Government might think necessary for perfectly securing the state of our national defences.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 73,971 l Charge of Wages.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that he would take occasion to observe, that much good would probably result to the service if the

1017
Admiralty, instead of building all their own vessels, were occasionally to employ private builders. Some of the Admiralty built ships were undoubtedly splendid vessels, but they had not yet reached perfection. It was a remarkable circumstance that this country had no vessels during the war at all so good as those which were taken from the French.
Vote agreed to; as were also
(4.) 1,200 l., Medicines.
(5.) 37,929 l., Charge of Victuals.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
(6.) 70,825 l. Additional Men, Artillery.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that in explaining the additional means of defence it was proposed to carry out in his department, he would remind the Committee that of those means, none were more important than the artillery force. To that force it was now proposed to make but a very modest addition. In the first place, it was intended to add 2,000 to the number of the men, and to make an addition of 1,000 horses—not 30,000, as had been stated by an hon. and gallant Member opposite. They were all aware that a portion of the artillery force was called the Horse Artillery. At present it was usual to take the horses of the men of this arm of the force, for the purpose of drawing the guns and carriages; and the consequence of this was, that the men had not that constant drill which was necessary to keep them in the most perfect efficiency. It was to remedy this defect that the additional 1,000 horses were required. The charge for this extra force would be 70,825 l. for the three months to the end of the present financial year, including pay, bounties, clothing, and what was called levy money. There would be another item of 5,133 l. for forage for the horses, and another of 2,700 l. for ammunition, and there was a third of 14,000 l. for new iron Ordnance—that was, for guns of a larger calibre than those now generally in use—about one-fourth of which would be applied to the Navy. The total vote was 92,658 l.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that it was of no use having more artillerymen and more horses unless a better practice-ground was provided for them. He had been that day at the practice-ground at Woolwich, and found it to be of small dimensions and at right angles to the Thames, and on inquiry he was told that the men were often compelled to suspend their practice, and stand
1018
still for an hour or two together, in order to allow the vessels in the river to pass up and down without being fired into. He understood that to purchase a practice-ground of sufficient extent, running parallel to the river, and which might be used at times, would cost only 60,000 l.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was compelled to admit that the present practice-ground at Woolwich was almost useless; but negotiations which had been opened before he came into office were now going on for the purchase of a practice-ground at Shoeburyness, which he had reason to hope would have the effect of removing the difficulty. It was not an easy matter to get a practice-ground for artillery, seeing that the shot was sometimes thrown a distance of five miles; but he hoped by the success of the negotiations he alluded to, soon to be in a position to submit a proposition for the purchase of a site in every way adapted for the purpose.
MR. HUMEthought it told little for the attention paid to the artillery that they had not sufficient practice-ground. He objected to the proposed increase, which would add about 400,000 l. to the Estimates on the year, seeing that the vote was only for three months. He would be glad to know, also, why it would be necessary to pay so large a sum as 10 l. bounty-money per man, and why it became necessary to cast larger guns when there were so many already in store?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that, including the dockyard battalions, we had now 20,000 more men trained to arms than we had fifteen years ago, and yet it was proposed to increase the artillery,
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the sum of 10 l. was not intended to be wholly applied to bounty. Two several sums amounting to 3l. and 1l. 19 s., would be applied to the expenses of the removal of the recruit to head quarters, but the bounty would be only 5l. 15 s. 6d.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHbegged to say, in reference to some observations of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) as to the number of men now required for the artillery, that there was a great inequality between the number of guns and artillerymen in such garrisons as Portsmouth and Gibraltar. As regarded the horses required, it required long practice to make them so steady under fire as to stand to the guns. As regarded the strength of the force of artillery, it should be remembered that recent battles had

1019
been, and future patties would be, chiefly decided by that arm, and that our strength in that respect must be made proportionate to such requirements.
MR. HUMEsaid, if there was such a disproportion between the number of artillerymen and the number of guns, what had become of the artillerymen of the dockyard battalions?
SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, that the dockyard battalions were available only in naval depots, and that artillerymen were wanted in other garrisons as well as in the Martello Towers.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at anything being said of those monuments of folly.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that there were now 10,000 artillery in this country; and as we had got the militia to take care of us in 1852, and the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty had stated that by his proposed plan the coasts would be safe in 1853, he thought this addition to the artillery might have been left to 1854.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the whole number of artillerymen was 12,408, of whom there were but 5,000 at home.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that by a return which he held in his hand, it appeared that the number of men voted to the Ordnance last year was 15,000, and it was now proposed to add 2,000 more, making 17,000.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he had spoken only of artillery, while the number spoken of by the hon. Gentleman included the Sappers and Miners.
Vote agreed to: as were also
(7.) 5,133 l., Forage for 1,000 Horses.
(8.) 2,700 l., Charge of additional Labour in making up Ammunition.
(9.) 14,000 l., Purchase heavy iron Ordnance and for Projectiles.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he objected to the Vote, as there were already so many guns in store.
MR. HUMEsaid, if this vote was for new ordnance or experiments in new guns, he would not oppose it, but he should like to know.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, that foreign Powers, especially France, had of late armed their ships with 10-inch guns, which exploded shells containing 4lbs. of powder, while in this country hitherto we had only used 8-inch guns, which threw shells containing only 2 lbs. of powder. Captain Chads had stated that a 10-inch gun with such shells would at once destroy
1020
a ship, while 8-inch guns would not, In this country we had been introducing 56-pounders in the land service, which had a range of 3,500 yards, instead of the old 32-pounders which had only a range of 2,500 yards. It was very desirable that we should have guns of the largest bore.
MR. HUMEsaid, if the vote was intended for experiments of that kind, he not only had no objection to it, but thought it was only the duty of the Ordnance to attend to such matters. He remembered that the late Sir Hussey Vivian had sent all over Europe to find whether there were any weapons in use superior to our own: and in doing so that gallant officer acted most properly.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITIES.
(10.) 150,000 l, Purchase of Land for Institutions connected with Science and Art.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Patten, with regard to the next Vote, I wish to correct an impression which has been erroneously adopted by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) respecting its object. It is a Vote for a considerable sum of money, not less than 150,000 l., and it would certainly appear at the first blush to be merely for building a National Gallery, which is not the case. I will explain briefly to the Committee the circumstances which induce the Government to propose this Vote. There is no doubt that the time has come when we must study more the industrial education of the people of this country, and when we must bring the influences of science and art to bear upon prodution more than they have prevailed up to the present period. A great revolution has for some time past been taking place in those circumstances which have given superiority to our manufactures. Hitherto this country has exercised a very great supremacy by its command over the raw material; but daily the raw material has become more equalised in price from the improved system of locomotion, and it will be impossible to sustain the supremacy of our manufactures by merely a superior command over the raw material. The time has come when the intellectual element becomes one of the most important elements of competition. This was felt very much during the period of the Great Exhibition, and I believe I may say it was

1021
the result which was arrived at by those who upon that occasion exercised the office of jurors, and examined with impartiality the productions of all countries in competition with our own—they arrived at the result, which it was unnecessary then ostentatiously to announce, that if we wished to maintain our superiority in the arts of production, we must consider that the intellectual element in production must be more studied and cultivated than heretofore. They found that in many countries there was a superiority in design; that from scientific agencies there was a power of competition with us, which countervailed that superior command of the raw material which had hitherto supported our industry; and that, in short, the time had arrived when we must seriously consider of increasing the means by which we were to maintain our superiority. Now, Sir, in all the countries of Europe this great want has long been recognised. There is not a town of any eminence on the Continent in which there is not a school where the influences of science and art are brought to bear upon human production, and there is not a capital in Europe in which there is not an Industrial University. There has been no deficiency either of the means or of feeling on this subject in this country for many years past; and it is a curious fact, though we have not succeeded in bringing to bear the influences of art and science upon the manufacturing skill of this country, that there are in this metropolis alone not less than 100 institutions devoted to the cultivation of art and science. There is an annual sum raised on their behalf by voluntary contributions amounting to 160,000 l., and the nation contributes nearly 100,000 l. more in support of such considerable institutions as the British Museum, the National Gallery, and others—making together about 250,000 l. expended annually for the very purposes which, unfortunately, have never been attained; and the question has naturally arisen, why, while there was such evidence of an anxious wish on the part of the people of this country to cultivate the arts and sciences, shown by their willingness to expend so large a sum of money, and while the State contributed in the same spirit, has any systematic attempt to bring the influence of science and art upon manufacturing industry never to any extent been brought to a satisfactory issue? The result of our evidence at the Great Exhibition, of our observation of what
1022
has taken place in other countries, and of the convictions which arose, not only in those of philosophic mind, but also of men with practical views, was, that the time had come when it was necessary that a great effort should be made by which an industrial education should be secured in this country, and the influences of science and art upon productions be more systematically brought to bear. The subject at that time attracted the attention of the Royal Commissioners of the Great Exhibition, at the head of whom it is unnecessary for me to observe is the illustrious Prince, of whom I may say that while he is probably more qualified than any man in this country to elevate, to refine, and to form the tastes of the people; so there is no one who has addressed more indefatigable hours, or more unceasing thoughts, to this high purpose. Well, Sir, the Royal Commissioners found themselves in the possession of a considerable surplus after the termination of that remarkable Exhibition, which will always form one of the most interesting chapters in the history of man. That available surplus was not less than 150,000 l. Besides that, they had, as contributions from exhibitors and from foreign States, the foundation of an extraordinary museum of industry, which probably in value itself amounts to not less than 9,000 l. The Royal Commissioners, therefore, who were more conscious than any body of men in this country of our great deficiency, and of the absolute necessity which now exists for making such efforts, took into consideration whether, with those funds in their possession, an opportunity had not arrived when they might possibly give some great impulse to the national feeling, and perhaps lay the foundation of that complete industrial education which is essentially necessary for the interests of this country. Well, now, Sir, they had to consider what was the reason that in this country, where we should have supposed that there existed every cause which should have developed education of such a description, hitherto we had been so unsuccessful in any general and satisfactory measure; and they found, after a full consideration of the question, that it was to be attributed mainly to two causes—the want of system, and the want of space. I think it may truly he said, that to the latter cause the first may be attributed. We have a number of institutions scattered over this great metropolis, in none of which can the object of them

1023
be sufficiently or satisfactorily developed, owing to the scanty space at their command. At the same time, while they cannot satisfactorily fulfil the objects for which they have been instituted, the same want of space, the same necessity of being scattered in different places, by preventing juxtaposition, prevents any united effort by which their concentrated energies can be brought to bear upon the great ends in view. If you examine some of the principal institutions, both those founded by individuals and those supported by the nation, you find always one complaint. If you go to the Royal Society, for example, you find that there has been for many years a constant appeal for more accommodation, and additional means of developing the objects which they were instituted to fulfil If you go to the Royal Academy, it is a fact that during the four summer months—the time most favourable to the student, the very months most suited to painting and drawing—the schools are obliged to be closed, because they must then prepare for our annual exhibition of national art. I need not remind you of the State of the British Museum at this moment. I had the honour to-day of attending my noble Friend the First Minister of the Crown, and receiving a deputation on the subject, which laid before us facts which are probably notorious to many Gentlemen in this House, although, perhaps, they are not so much interested in them as I, who have recently listened to the narrative. The fact is, that at this moment there is not accommodation in the British Museum, which is a mass of collections on all subjects, for any one single branch of literature, of science, or of art. The library in the British Museum is now increasing at the rate of 16,000 volumes a year, and in less than thirty years a collection which now nearly amounts to 500,000 volumes will be doubled. The accommodation is exceedingly deficient, but, if we once cease in the increase of our national library, links will be wanting in the chain which can never be supplied. We have collections of art and of science at this moment stowed in cellars. It was necessary to establish the Schools of Design that were founded in this country in different places and under different roofs. If you look to our National Gallery, our collection of pictures is not nearly as rich as it might have been, because there is no proper receptacle for the contributions that would be voluntarily made. At this mo-
1024
ment the pictures of our national galleries are absolutely stowed in different buildings; and, instead of their being under the same roof, and forming a complete school of art—a collection which, presenting the styles of different ages and of different schools, might form the taste of the present age—you must walk from one street to another before you can he aware of the treasures which we actually possess. Well, Sir, the Royal Commissioners, feeling that the time had come when some effort should be made to concentrate all our scattered energies for the great object of the industrial advancement of the nation, were conscious that before they could establish that national arrangement in which we have been all along so deficient, it was absolutely necessary that they should overcome one great difficulty—that they should obtain sufficient space for their object—and they have with this view purchased, in a spot which I myself think eminently adapted for their object, a considerable portion of land. They have made considerable purchases very near that spot where the Crystal Palace originally rose, and in a place where it is not impossible that they may be able even materially to increase the amount of land. They have expended for this purpose money which remained as the surplus of the contributions to the Exhibition, and they applied to Her Majesty's Government to ascertain whether we would recommend to Parliament that the State should contribute an equal sum to that which they themselves expended for this object. The Committee will recollect that this was the last and the only opportunity of obtaining that, a want of which had hitherto rendered all our attempts to bring art and science to bear upon public education unavailing—I mean adequate space. If we lose the opportunity of purchasing this land, no other similar opportunity will again occur. In this rapidly increasing city there is no other spot where so large a space of land could be obtained. Well, if the House of Commons will consent to the proposition which the Government is about to make, and will agree to contribute an equal sum to that contributed by the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition—the joint contributions making 300,000 l.—we shall then be in possession, of a space of land which will allow us at last to bring to bear that united influence of science and art, in all their forms and combinations, which we believe will afford to the people of this country a com-

1025
plete industrial education, which will raise oar productions in the scale of invention, and which will, more perhaps than other causes, tend to promote the improvement of the humbler classes. Unquestionably, if the Committee assent to this proposition, it will he expedient that we should use part of this spot for the erection of a National Gallery on a great and complete scale; but that is not by any means the only object which the Commissioners have set before them, if Parliament will assist them. They wish that there should be what I may style a great commercial museum, in which may be found specimens of all the raw produce of the world. They wish that that should be followed by a repertory in which every machine that the ingenuity of man has devised, or can devise—the machinery which is to act upon that raw produce—may be studied by the people, and that they may find in that study a stimulus to their invention. Next, when this machinery has acted upon the raw produce, we wish to show the results in some museum, in which every possible manufacture of man may be witnessed. The National Gallery, and the galleries of art and sculpture in every form, will afford a fourth division, where in the study of the appropriate and the beautiful, the sources of ornament and decoration may he furnished. If the Committee will assent to this proposition, we hope we may do even more than that which I have so slightly and so feebly sketched. Besides these four great divisions of raw material, of the machinery which man invents, of the manufacture which he creates, and of the art which inspires him, we hope we shall overcome a difficulty which has always been experienced in this country, and of which all our learned societies complain—I allude to the inability of those societies to confer together, and their want of juxtaposition. When we find a society like the Royal Society, so long a light of science in this country from the days of Newton, complaining that it has no means of fairly developing the uses of which it is susceptible—when we find that complaint not confined to the Royal Society, but proceeding from all the learned and scientific societies in the Kingdom—we feel that the opportunity may now be afforded to those societies of assembling together in the same spot, and we may look forward to the time when you will find the learning, the science, and the art of the country collected together in one place, and illumi-
1026
nating with their accumulated radiance not only the metropolis hut every part of the United Kingdom. We are not attempting to do this by any compulsory means. All we recommend is, that space shall be afforded and secured, because upon space system entirely depends. When space is afforded, we shall allow the natural feeling of the country and the bent of these societies fairly to develop themselves. By no forced means whatever, but by what we contemplate as a natural process and as a consequence of irresistible circumstances, we shall find in one spot all that can form, all that can enlighten, and all that can elevate the intellect of man, and from this focus we shall give to this country a stimulus which, acting upon the intelligence of the people, shall elevate their ideas, enlighten their minds, and give to their inventions a much higher and purer aim than they have yet achieved. I do not know that I need say more. Perhaps, indeed, I have said too much. I shall only be glad if I have not said it in vain. But I wish to make the Committee clearly understand what is the Vote to which I ask them to agree. It is not merely a gross sum of money which we are asking the Committee to vote for some particular object, but we ask you to unite with those who are prepared to act with you, and to display equal liberality. I have no doubt many hon. Gentlemen have read those Reports which, by command of Her Majesty, have been laid upon the table of this House. To me I confess there is something touching in the shillings of the million being the foundation in this country of a great movement which I cannot myself doubt will raise the character of the country and the education of the people. I think it is a legitimate appeal which I am making to the Committee, and I trust they will agree to the vote I am now about to place in the hands of Mr. Wilson Patten.
The CHAIRMANthen read the Resolution, which was handed to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was to the following effect:—
"That a sum not exceeding 150,000 l. shall be granted towards defraying in 1852–3 the purchase of land at Kensington Gore for a new National Gallery and institutions connected with science, in aid of the sum already contributed thereto by the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he believed that the people of this country had been imagining that they wore superior to those of all other countries in manufacturing art;

1027
but as they had lately had the advantage of collecting the productions of art and the manufactures of other nations, he doubted not they had seen that, unless they took care, they would soon be left behind in the race. He fully admitted, therefore, that it was most important that something should be done for promoting the industrial education of the people, and he thought so far they ought to be grateful to the Commissioners for their generous gift, and also for the plan they had sketched out; but that plan would require a great deal of consideration before it could be entirely adopted. One of the main proposals, as he understood, was, that all the scientific institutions, which now spent about 160,000 l. a year for the maintenance of their different societies, should be brought together on this one spot. Now, the Report of the Commissioners, though it referred to the matter, did not show that these societies were in favour of this plan. He believed, indeed, that the societies themselves strongly objected to being removed to Kensington. They met together for discussion on various scientific subjects, and it would be very inconvenient to them if they were to be carried such a distance from town. If the House undertook this plan on the supposition that it would be supported by the money of the scientific societies, he thought they would find themselves greatly mistaken. As to the commercial museums and repertories of manufactures and art, he thought they would have to be built with public money, for it would be necessary not only to buy the ground, but afterwards to build the museums. The Committee was therefore asked to enter upon a very large undertaking, and he was anxious that they should not be misled upon this subject, but that they should be fully aware of the expense of the scheme. Now, with regard to the ground, no plans or maps had been laid upon the table to show whether it was intersected by any other property, because, if that were the case, and if there were any rights of way, it might be necessary to expend large sums in addition to the purchase-money, in buying those rights. He had asked the other day that a plan might be laid before the House, in order that they might possess information on this subject. Then, if the House of Commons granted the money that was required, in whom was the property to be vested? In the case of all purchases made by Parliament, one of two courses had been followed: either the ground had been pur-
1028
chased as a place of public recreation in the name of the Crown, and managed by a responsible Minister; or, if bought for purposes of public improvement, it had been purchased by Commissioners who, when they had carried out the improvements, sold the ground that was not wanted, and then laid the accounts before Parliament. The House was now asked, however, to pay 150,000 l. for certain property, and he wished to know in whom it was to be vested, and who were to superintend the erection of buildings? Were the Royal Commissioners to have the sole management, or was it to be confided to a responsible Minister of the Crown? He had no objection to the general scheme if it could be properly earned out, but he thought some information ought to be afforded to the Committee upon the points he had mentioned.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that as one of the Royal Commissioners, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words upon, this subject, though the information he could give would be very imperfect. The further carrying out of this plan must depend very much upon the Government, upon whose aid the Commissioners had relied in order to bring it to the perfection which he hoped it might attain. The Commissioners had been anxious, when they found the large suras in their hands, that some institution should be established which might commemorate the Great Exhibition of 1851. It was thought it would be unwise to allow the benefits of that Exhibition to be merely transitory, and that some attempt should be made to perpetuate the advantages which were derived from it. Nothing appeared more likely to effect that object than an institution for extending the advantages of science and art in the industry of the country. He thought no one could have inspected the Great Exhibition without being convinced of the truth of an observation in one of the Reports of the Commissioners, that in future there would be great and severe competition in the industry of the world, which would assume a more intellectual character. Now that House had been exceedingly willing to vote very large sums for scientific institutions, and more especially for the British Museum. He thought any one who had considered the large sums—he believed, on an average, about 40,000 l. a year—which had been voted for the British Museum, must be satisfied that many years could not elapse without some decision being come to

1029
as to the great variety of objects which it was endeavoured to attain in that institution. They ought certainly to have a great national library in this country, and a great number of books were collected at the Museum; but he could not think that the space now allotted in that building to the numerous articles of science and natural history was likely long to suffice. Now, if they had other buildings upon a sufficient space of ground, room might be found in them for some of those objects to which he referred, and the Museum might be left more entirely for the purpose of a library. These were the general objects which the Commissioners had in view. He believed that if this ground were now to be purchased, and the House should afterwards decide that they would not sanction any further outlay, the same spirit which led to the subscription of such very large sums for promoting the Great Exhibition, would, he had little reason to doubt, prompt the public to find means which would provide for the erection of the requisite buildings. He thought the mechanical inventions and the specimens of manufactures that would be collected, and the chymical lectures that would be given, would be matters of so much interest to those connected with manufactures in all parts of the Kingdom, that they would think it of the greatest importance, that in the metropolis an establishment should be maintained where so much valuable information might be obtained. He knew that the Museum of Practical Geology, which was erected a few years ago, had been the means of affording most valuable information to many persons. He thought it was to be lamented, that hitherto they had not had some great centre of the kind suggested by the Commissioners, and he could not doubt that, though the plan was at present imperfect, the spirit of the nation and the disposition of that House—if the sum now asked for was voted—would lead to the establishment of such an institution. His noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had said he understood that some of the scientific societies would not be willing to go as far as Kensington to their evening meetings. That was very possible with regard to many of these associations, but the Commissioners left the matter quite optional with the societies themselves. Any one who was acquainted with the Treasury knew that frequent applications were made by many of these scientific societies for the use of public buildings in which to hold their meetings;
1030
and it had been stated, on behalf of some of them, that they found house-rents so very expensive that they would be obliged to dissolve the societies if their applications were refused. It must be evident that, in such cases, the societies would be very glad to have rooms allotted to them in the proposed buildings, where their meetings might take place. He could not but believe that this was the commencement of a great improvement. He was very glad to find that the Government had taken up the question, and he believed that, under the guidance of the illustrious Prince who was at the head of the Commission, they would be able to render very great services to the country, and materially to promote the progress of science and art.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had heard the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer with great satisfaction, and he agreed that it was most desirable that the Government should come forward to aid the energy and public spirit of the people. The House must, however, consider what were to be the results of what they were now asked to do. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had inquired who were to have the management of the scheme, and on whom the responsibility would rest? He (Mr. Hume was perfectly satisfied, that under the superintendence of the illustrious Prince who had been alluded to as presiding over the Commission, matters would go on well enough; hut the House must look at the future, and he asked them to consider what was the constitution of the Commission. The Crown alone possessed any power over it—that House had nothing to do with it—and before they invested public property in the hands of such a Commission they ought to look, not only to the management of the property, but also to the use which might eventually be made of it. He thought they ought also to consider whether, on the site which was recommended such an institution would afford all the advantages which it ought to afford. He had heard that it was intended to remove the National Gallery to Kensington, where, in his opinion, it would not be visited by one out of the ten persons who now went there. He doubted whether the pictures would not suffer more injury from the removal than they possibly could receive from the impurity of the atmosphere to which they were now subjected.
MR. H. DRUMMOND: Sir, I entirely agree in what has been said relative to the public advantage to be derived from

1031
giving every person in this country an opportunity of advancing himself in literature and science. I have no doubt but that the British Museum is an immense advantage to our people, but I have great doubts whether we are not now about to embark in a very crude speculation—a foolish attempt to force the population into a taste for the fine arts which nature has not given them. It sounds very liberal and noble to desire the education and progress of the national mind in those pursuits in which other nations excel; but I believe that, to endeavour to force this taste upon them, is just as absurd nationally as it would be individually, to attempt to make the same man a sculptor, a painter, a musician, a poet, an orator, a statesman, and a warrior. They all knew that was impossible, for there should be a division of labour in everything. It would be as difficult to make our people like the highest order of painting as to make the Italians like beef-steaks and porter. The late Exhibition has given us a very useful lesson. You never did exceed in the highest department even of manufactures. At no time have we done so. The other day I saw some specimens of working in iron, but even in this at no period were there in England such eminent workers in iron as abroad. I could give instances of the truth of what I am saying from the productions of many countries in Europe. Gentlemen who have travelled abroad know the beautiful ornaments of cathedrals called altar screens. In the northern countries these are made of stone, whilst in Spain, and in the Low Countries, they are always made of iron, and the makers of them are as well known as the eminent painters. In Spain the people will tell you who was the maker of such and such altar screens, just as in Venice they will tell you who was the painter of such and such a picture. They had never attained such a pitch of workmanship in iron in this country, Our cloth manufacture is at this moment inferior to that of other countries, and we are not able to keep up a supply even of patterns of ordinary articles of dress, but are obliged to go to France for them. Are you aware that not one of our great painters ever knew how to draw? Sir Joshua Reynolds never did. Sir Thomas Lawrence, it is notorious, did not know how to draw. I believe it would be exceedingly difficult to find any man in this country who could execute what is a common every-day work with French and Italians—namely, an out-
1032
line drawing of a great painting; yet you are now going to try to force a taste on our people. If you want to learn the success of our artists, you have only to walk into our lobbies and look at our frescoes—I you can there regale yourselves with specimens of English art. You are going to pay a very large sum of money for land; has the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what he is going to do with the land when he gets it? If you are going to build upon it, let me ask where you will be able to find an architect? The new Houses of Parliament were to have been built for 700,000 l; we have expended 2,500,000 l. upon them, and this room, which is, or ought to be, the room par excellence—that room where the business of the nation is transacted—is not sufficient to hold us. First, it was impossible for us to hear one another; then we were alternately baked by heat and frozen by cold; we had either too much light or too little, and yet with all this experience of our architectural skill, we are about to embark in a wild scheme. I admit that in painting landscape scenery we excel all Europe, but in the fine arts generally we realise the old lines—
"That which with them is always gout,
With us is only gout."
MR. EWARTsaid, he should support the proposal, which was the purchase of a piece of land, and if the Committee did not afterwards wish to use it, he had no doubt the land would fetch the price which they were now about to give for it. He was, however, at issue with the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) upon the question as to the taste of the English people for the fine arts. He contended that it was almost disgraceful to humanity that any nation, even blacks, should be devoid of taste for those great works, or with proper education unable to arrive at some degree of perfection in them. The plan of the Royal Commissioners was undoubtedly creditable in its conception, and would be energetically and successfully carried out.
MR. CRAVEN BERKELEYexpressed a hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would use his powerful influence to prevent the spoliation of the splendid works of art now going on in the National Gallery.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he could not consent to give his vote until he knew to whom the land would be conveyed who would have the control of the land, and for

1033
what purposes the land would be employed when they had purchased it. They were told the new National Gallery was to be erected on it, but he submitted there would be some question of the expediency of removing the National Gallery so far from the metropolis.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the proposition before the Committee was not to build any new National Gallery, or to raise any other edifice whatever. The proposition before the Committee was whether they should contribute an equal sum with that already voted by the Royal Commissioners for the purchase of some land, which was the only plot of land which, he believed, ever could be purchased in the immediate vicinity of this metropolis. Hereafter, if it should be submitted to that House that it was a convenient site, among other things, for the National Gallery, which must be removed somewhere or other, for at present there was not a single place where works of art could be deposited in safety, it would be for the House fairly to consider that question, and it would be entirely under their control. All he wished the Committee now to do was to agree to vote this sum of 150,000 l., which he desired to see under the control of a Minister of the Crown, according to the language used in the Commissioners' Report. He had never proposed that the Committee should vote a sum of money to be applied out of the control of a Minister of the Crown responsible to that House. They had hoard some observations of hon. Members on the locality. It was the locality to which not only the population of this metropolis but the whole population of the United Kingdom resorted not two years ago, and he could not but believe that if the inducement were equal, the locality would be found convenient. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) seemed to imagine this was an attempt to force a feeling for fine pictures among the general community; when the fact was, the reference to the National pictures was a very subordinate portion of the Commissioners' Report. The scheme they recommended was neither more nor less than to give an industrial education to the people, and to bring the influence of science, especially, and of art, upon their manufacturing production. No attempt would be made to infuse a dilettante spirit into the working classes, but an opportunity would be given them of fitting themselves for competing with their
1034
rivals throughout the world. It was impossible to conceive a plan more practical, more important, or more urgent as regarded the interests of the country. This land was, in fact, virtually purchased, because the Commissioners had entered upon a contract for its purchase with the confident expectation that Parliament and the country would assist them. When the purchase was fully completed, all further plans must receive the consideration of that House, and he was sure that House would not consent to raising any building's, or any expenditure, without a very rigid scrutiny into all the arrangements, and taking care that the whole talent of the country should be brought into public competition. He hoped the Committee would agree to this Vote. By doing so they would not agree to any expenditure beyond the purchase of valuable property, which hereafter might be dealt with with as Parliament should think fit.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had not replied to the objection of his (Mr. V. Smith's) noble Friend (Lord Seymour. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should give an answer to the question that had been put by the noble Lord the Member for Totnes (Lord Seymour), whether it was proposed to raise buildings at the public expense upon the ground that had been purchased, and whether the ground was to be under the control of the Commissioners or of a Minister of the Crown.
MR. EWARTsaid, he thought the exact state of the case did not seem to be quite understood by some hon. Members. From the results of the Great Exhibition there remained 175,000 l.; with the fund the Commissioners bought seventy acres of land, and they offered it to the nation on condition that seventy acres more were added to it.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, they had not yet heard what was the quantity of ground to be purchased, or what portion was to be made over to the public.
MR. CLAYsaid, he wished to know if a conditional contract had been entered into for all the land, because it was reported that the owner of a small portion of the land, four acres only, asked 70,000 l. for it. and said nothing should induce him to take a farthing less.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that offer had been treated with the contempt it deserved. There was no conditional agreement whatever. Se-

1035
venty acres had been purchased by the surplus of the Exhibition, and the Commissioners offered to give the whole of their purchase to the public, provided the nation would assist them in the object they had in view. There could be no difficulty in making arrangements satisfactory to the House for its control and mangement, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the whole of the land purchased would be given to the public.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance that the land should be under the control of a Minister of the Crown, but hoped the Vote would be postponed until the plan of the property was before the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be very convenient if the Committee would now dispose of the Vote. The country would understand they were paying 150,000 l. and receiving property worth 300,000 l.
MR. MONTAGUE CHAMBERSsaid, he was at a loss to know whether they were contributing to the purchase of seventy or one hundred and forty acres. He intended to vote against the proposition, because he knew not what was to be done with the money. He was exceedingly desirous that the Committee should know the purpose to which the land would be devoted, whether it was proposed to erect a building on it, or whether it was proposed to use the land for nothing. He apprehended this was only the commencement of claims for larger sums for the erection of buildings upon this piece of land. He would not concur in any vote where information was not given of the appropriation of the money.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he believed the Committee would unanimously agree to the Vote, if a plan of the ground were laid upon the table. He hoped a plan would be laid on the table before the money was paid out of the Exchequer.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he could not sit still when he heard it stated that the Committee was almost unanimous upon the Vote about to be given. He had a strong opinion, which induced him to enter his protest against this Vote. But this was not on account of the various arguments that had been used that night. He did not agree in the low estimate that had been formed of the character of Englishmen by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor that the perfection of mechanical skill was due to the Govermental schools. He had a great faith
1036
in the individual energy of the country, and if they established central schools, they would lessen the individual exertion which had been the mainstay of the mechanical industry of the country. He had no objection to grants of money for buildings for the exhibition of our excellent works of art; but if it were intended to introduce central schools by which degrees were to be established, so that individuals out of the pale of these schools might be marked (he alluded to the centralising system in France, where the Ecole Polytechnique had been established, out of which there was no opportunity for any individual, however great his merit), he felt bound to raise his voice the moment the question was introduced. It might be said, that this was only the first Vote; but this first Vote might introduce other Votes which would produce the consequences he dreaded. He would not be a party even to the first step in this direction.
MR. COWANhoped the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would postpone the Vote, as the Committee evidently was not in a position to consent to it.
MR. HUMEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make some answer to the statement that had been made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke). If anything like the system that prevailed in France were to be the result of this Vote, he thought there was great danger in agreeing to it without further information.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke) had made a startling assertion, for which there was not the slightest foundation, to raise an argument against this Vote. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had heard, for the first time, the statement respecting this scheme, and he could say with perfect confidence that it was an assertion for which there was not the slightest imaginable foundation.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
(11.) 80,000 l. for defraying the charge of the Funeral of the late Duke of Wellington.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that before this money was voted there ought to be an account rendered, if not a Committee to inquire respecting alleged mismanage-

1037
ment in regard to some of the items, if report was true.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that it had been already explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was desirable to close the accounts as early as possible. He could assure the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that immediately after the Funeral took place, means were taken to collect the various accounts, and he held in his hand an abstract of those accounts so far as be had been able to obtain them. The principal items were as follows: The accounts in the Department of Public Works, including all that was done in the Cathedral, amounted to 25,000 l.; the Lord Chamberlain's and Earl Marshal's were not fully rendered yet, but were estimated at 33,000 l.; the expenses connected with the removal of the troops were 8,500 l.; and there were expenses connected with their lodging, which might make the amount something more. The accounts received at present exceeded 70,000 l, but he believed the whole expenses would not be 80,000 l. All care should be taken to exercise the most rigid and stern economy in the settlement of the accounts, and as soon as they had been got in and examined a statement should be laid before the House.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that he thought this a very unsatisfactory mode of proceeding. A gentleman in private life would not act thus; and hon. Members must expect to be told by their constituents that they were not doing their duty. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt it was a very invidious thing to make any objection, however slight, to this Vote, and in some degree he rejoiced at that, because it showed the universal desire to do honour to the memory of the illustrious hero whom we had lost; and, for himself, he was second to none in veneration of a man whom he looked upon as the greatest man this country had ever produced. It would, however, have been more respectful to the people, more decent, and more constitutional, to put off asking for the money till the Government had their estimate ready. With respect to the sum, he was not prepared to say that it was excessive; but 80,000 l. appeared a large sum; he would not say it was not justifiable, and he should be disposed to act liberally on such an occasion. When it was stated that the funeral of Nelson cost 14,000 l., he could not avoid calling attention to the wide difference between the sums. He did not
1038
know whether in the expenses of the Lord Chamberlain were included the charges on account of those foreign officers who had attended; and information was also wanted as to whether the 80,000 l. included all the charges which might be made. It was with great pain that he reverted to a circumstance connected with the funeral, which he thought it his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to take that opportunity of mentioning. He believed that the arrangements at the funeral were such as to command general approbation, and that to all it was a source of honourable delight to see a great man's life, which bad carried with it the admiration of the country and of the world, closed by a magnificent and spontaneous effusion of popular feeling which did credit to all concerned. The arrangements of the day were most excellent; but there was an arrangement which was of another character; and it was a deplorable fact, that an accident occurred a few days before, when the people of the metropolis and of the whole country were paying their testimony of respect to the late Duke of Wellington by going to see him lie in state at Chelsea Hospital. [Cries of "Oh!"] He heard expressions of surprise. Was it a matter for surprise that one should allude to an occurrence which cost the lives of at least three of his fellow creatures? It was but just to say that those lives might have been preserved had greater precautions been taken and better arrangements made by those who had the responsibility on that occasion? He did not wish to say more than that he regretted the success of everything connected with the solemnity should have been marred by that most deplorable event to which he had alluded.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was responsible for a certain share of the Vote to which the noble Lord objected; and as he was one of those who gave his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the, Exchequer to understand that it was impossible to place before the House of Commons any reliable estimate before the funeral took place, he thought it right to say a few words in answer to the noble Lord's observations. He could assure the noble Lord and the Committee that from the moment when he heard that the funeral was to take place, he was most anxious that estimates should be prepared; but he found on inquiry that, owing to the limited time given for making such great preparations, the novel nature of the service re-

1039
quired, and the changes which were taking place from day to day, it was impossible to arrive at any estimate on which reliance could be placed; and he thought it far better to give no estimate at all than one which might afterwards lead to disappointment. As far as his department was concerned, the heads of all the expenditure had, he believed, been collected, and hon. Members would have an opportunity of testing the accuracy of the accounts. Every person in his department had toiled most assiduously and honestly, not only, he believed, with the view of carrying out the arrangements effectively, but also with a desire that everything should be done as economically as was consistent with the solemnity of the occasion.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to remind the Committee of a very good rule which had been hitherto observed, that when a Minister undertook expenditure, he always laid an estimate on the table, and assumed the responsibility; but when an estimate could not be supplied, no money was paid till an account was produced. Why not wait in the present instance till all the accounts were collected?
MR. S. CARTERrose to address the Committee, but was received with loud cries of "Oh, oh!" from the Ministerial benches.
MR. HUMEsaid, he commended the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. S. Carter) as having, on a former occasion, done his duty. He (Mr. Hume) considered that the Committee were acting in the most disorderly manner. If the Government would not keep their followers in better order, and the Chairman could not obtain that order which was necessary to let the hon. Gentleman speak, business could not be proceeded with. He (Mr. Hume) should, therefore, propose that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. HUDSONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Montrose should have been the party who moved that progress be reported. It was his wish that this Vote should have been passed unanimously and without observation, expressing the conviction that, whatever the sum bestowed on the solemnity, it would not be grudged after the satisfaction which had been afforded to every Englishman who beheld the scene. The hon. Member for Montrose would have acted more in accordance with the universal feeling of the country had he agreed to pass the Vote, and con-
1040
curred in the opinion that Parliament and the country had not paid too much for witnessing an exhibition of feeling of which any Englishman might be proud.
MR. S. CARTERagain rose to address the House. He said he was entitled to a hearing, and he was determined to exercise his privilege. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!"] They could not put him down by uproar—he was of a different kind of metal. The question before them was, whether they should vote away 80,000 l. of the public money? The sum was greatly too much. And he complained of it as a breach of public faith. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House did not intend to give their sanction to the expenditure of an unlimited sum; but only that a sum should be expended bearing some relation to precedents of cases before the House. Now, he was making a serious charge, and he had a right to state his grounds for doing so. Really it was only by the grace and favour of Government that they were not voting more. The Government had had all they had asked for granted them almost without a word, and he was really much obliged to them for not asking 10,000 men and 160,000 l. This Vote was five times that required for the funeral of the great Lord Nelson. He called that unjust, and a fraud upon the confidence of Members on that side of the House. What was the good of precedents if they were to multiply them by five? It had been said that this was a Vote that could never occur again. That was as good as saying that they would never have a great man in future. Well, perhaps, that was true, and the people would be too wise to spend their money on the splendour of war. If, however, they should be unfortunate enough to have a great man again, or another great funeral, they would have Government multiplying this precedent by five, and asking for 400,000 l.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had one remark to make relative to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had heard little or nothing of what fell from him, but he did hear the word "metal" escape from him. Now, from the specimen they had had of the hon. Gentleman, he thought they were likely to find a great deal of "dross" in him. Sure he was that, whatever circulation might take place of the hon. Gentleman's metal, it would never be circulated through the United Kingdom. Prom all that he (Col.

1041
Sibthorp) had witnessed, heard, and read, he did not believe there was a poor man or a poor woman in the country who would not willingly give their mite to testify their veneration for the memory of one of the greatest men who ever lived.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to repeat the question he had previously put as to whether the estimate of 80,000 l. included the expenses of the foreign officers of distinction?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he believed that the sum in question would more than cover every possible expense of the funeral.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

TENANT COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Second Time upon Monday next."
MR. KEOGHsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland what was the course he intended to pursue with respect to the several Bills he had introduced? He hoped an opportunity would be given for discussing them. With respect to two of the Bills, he considered them to be of the most objectionable nature. He begged to say, that one Bill for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the most credit to himself, was one which not fifty Members of that House could think of sanctioning—no, not a single line of it. [Leughter.] This might appear to be a strong observation, but he challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to disprove it. In fact, the provisions of the Bill were rank nonsense. Instead of postponing the Bills, he called upon the right hop. and learned Gentleman to bring them forward. He knew that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to postpone them, and that he had been negotiating to postpone them, but they were anxious to test the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and therefore they asked for an early opportunity to discuss them.
MR. NAPIERsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman really entertained the objection he now stated to the Bills before the House, he ought to have given notice of his intention to move that they should be read that day six months. He understood that to three of the Bills there could
1042
be no possible objection; and with regard to the fourth Bill, it having already passed the House three successive Sessions, he could not have imagined that it would have been opposed now. When he introduced the Bills he said he would leave them over till after the recess, and would be glad to receive from any quarter any honest amendments. As far as he was concerned, he was prepared to discuss them tomorrow.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the expression "any honest amendments." It was a mode of expression which ought not to be addressed towards any hon. Member of that House.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, that he thought it was the interest of the landlords to give the tenants such an interest in the land as would induce them to invest their capital in it. [ Cries of "Question!"]
HON. MEMBERsubmitted that there was no question before the House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the question before the House was, that the Bill be postponed till Monday.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he did not mean to offer any captious objection to the Bill; but when he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland describe the grievances that arise from the right of distress for rent, he was not prepared for the conclusion he had come to. He (Viscount Monck) was prepared to hear him say that having given great facilities to the landlord to recover his rent and possession of his land, he would abolish that incident to the feudal tenures, the right of distress for rent. He was very anxious that an early day should be fixed for the discussion of those Bills; and as Thursday was unoccupied by any other business, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not object to fixing that day.
MR. JOHN SADLEIRsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have no difficulty in perceiving that it was the intention of the Members for Ireland to give an honest opposition to these Bills. He (Mr. Sadleir) did not approve of their being sent to Ireland without previous discussion in the House of Commons; for that was alone the means of enabling the people of that country to understand them. He hoped, therefore, that Thursday next would be fixed for the Bills being brought forward.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he was in-

1043
clined to approve generally of the Bills, with the exception of the proposition to continue the law of distress, which, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought should be abolished altogether. But he must say that he could not award equal praise to the measure regarding compensations for improvements. He represented a county in which Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill was made the point of contest, and he had opposed that Bill; but on the other hand, he was prepared to say that the landlords of the county were prepared for greater concessions than were proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the measure should be discussed at the earliest possible period, because the question connected with land was one of intense interest in Ireland; and if there was one class in Ireland more than another whose inter-eat it was to have a speedy arrangement of the question, that class was the landlord class. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not remit the Bills to a Select Committee, for if he did they would be lost.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought there was no chance, if the Bills were fixed for Thursday, that they could be got through on that day, and then the discussion on the Budget was appointed for Friday, which he did not think was likely to be terminated on that day. On Thursday, too, there was a subject of considerable importance, the Motion of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), was appointed for discussion, which had an intimate relation to the financial statement of Friday last. With respect to the Bills themselves, he was confident that the more they were known, the more they would be appreciated. He did not think if they were brought forward on Thursday they could be fully discussed; therefore he would recommend his right hon. and learned Friend not to move any further with the Bills until after the recess.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not heard why to-morrow should not be taken for the discussion. It was important that measures relating to Ireland should be approached by the House in a temperate and friendly spirit. Under all the circumstance*, he thought these Bills should not be postponed till after the recess.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he was quite prepared to meet the discussion of these Bills in a calm and temperate spirit, and
1044
he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give them an opportunity of doing so.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to make some observations on the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), who had pronounced these Bills to be all nonsense.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he had pronounced thus unfavourably of only one of the measures, and with reference to which Bill he adhered to every word that he had said.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was not at all surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman adhering to a criticism of which he thought he ought to be proud. It was the privilege of genius to exhibit itself in declamation, and leave the work of patient legislation to inferior minds. The hon. and learned Member had spoken most severely of the measure, and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Sadleir) said that the House of Commons is the place for the discussion of this question; but if he (Mr. Whiteside) was to believe the hon. Member, a public discussion and decision had taken place elsewhere. Hon. Members were prepared to come to a discussion after deciding the question in another place. They undertook to speak the sentiments of the people of Ireland; but he (Mr. Whiteside) was sure that it was of a portion only, for those hon. Members who sat around himself and his friends were the representatives of a large portion of the Irish people, and were in no way inferior to those opposite. In submitting this Bill to the consideration of the House, he felt conscious that it possessed many defects; but however defective it might be, either in matter or style, or however defective it might be for the amendment of those evils which existed, he felt sure that the justice and wisdom of the House would discuss it in calmness, and improve all the defects it contained.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he left to Her Majesty's Ministers the boast of discussing these Bills in calmness, but he thought the proof, so far as they had gone, was not shown. He hoped, however, that measures of so much importance would have all the calmness and moderation which the subject deserved. He desired to press most earnestly upon the mind of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland the great importance of these Bills. The subject was one upon which honest men might differ in opinion; but he thought a fair and temperate discussion would bring

1045
them to be of one mind. The people of Ireland were waiting for the decision of that House. The Commission appointed seven years ago reported that the measures were of the utmost importance to tenants' improvements. They had waited all that time for something to be done, and a deep-rooted dissatisfaction existed in many parts of the country. The decision of the House, he hoped, would be speedily taken and prove satisfactory to the inhabitants of the sister island.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not secure the Bills coming on to-morrow, that not being a Government day; all they could do was to put them on the paper for that day, and take the change of being able to bring them on.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 2° To-morrow.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the Stamp Duties upon Newspapers, he would not detain the House at any length. By the 6 &7 Will. 4, chap. 76, which was the Act imposing a duty on newspapers, a definition was given of what should he considered a newspaper within the meaning of the Act, and it was as follows:—
"Any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences printed in any part of the United Kingdom to be dispersed and made public; also any paper printed in any part of the United Kingdom weekly or oftener, or at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days, containing only or principally advertisements; and also any paper containing any public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations thereon, printed in any part of the United Kingdom for sale, and published periodically, or in parts, or numbers, at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers, where any of the said papers, parts, or numbers respectively shall not exceed two sheets of the dimensions hereinafter specified (exclusive of any cover or blank leaf, or any other leaf upon which any advertisement or other notice shall be printed), or shall be published for sale for a less sum than 6d, exclusive of the duty by this Act imposed thereon."
Now, a paper called the Household Narrative of Current Events had been published by Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, and it was the opinion of the Stamp Office that that paper, although published at intervals of more than twenty-six days, was liable to stamp duty, and, accordingly, an information was filed against the publishers to recover the penalties incurred, the
1046
object being to decide whether the publication was liable to stamp duty or not. An argument took place in the Exchequer, and the result was, that three of the four Judges were of opinion that the paper was not liable to duty, but the fourth, Mr. Baron Parke, was of opinion that it was liable. The difference of the opinion of the Judges turned entirely on the question whether the definitions he (the Attorney General had read, were separate and distinct definitions, or whether the third definition was a qualification of the former. The three Judges thought it was a qualification of the former; but Mr. Baron Parke considered it a separate definition. The argument took place before the present Government came into office, and when he (the Attorney General) became Attorney General he found the law officers of the former Government were of opinion that the decision of the Exchequer was not satisfactory, and that it was necessary to take the opinion of a higher Court of appeal. He certainly should have agreed in the course taken by his predecessors, and, finding their opinion so expressed, an appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber was determined on. The House would recollect that great anxiety was manifested as to those proceedings in the Exchequer, and the course that would be adopted by the Government; and questions had been put to him with very great courtesy by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and he had explained to them as well as he could the state of the question. However, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it was right to adhere to the opinion expressed by the majority of the Court of Exchequer, and was extremely desirous, for the sake of literature, and to prevent the litigation likely to occur, that a measure should be introduced that should support that opinion. It was under these circumstances that he asked leave now to introduce a Bill to repeal that portion of the schedule to which he had called attention, and upon which the doubt rested, and give a substantive definition of a newspaper, which would exclude from the operation of the stamp duty the publication in question and other publications of a like nature, containing news, but not published at intervals of less than twenty-six days. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not think it necessary to avail themselves of the opportunity of the introduction of this Bill for entering into any discussion of that very

1047
wide question, "taxes on knowledge," as they termed it, which could only have the effect of impeding a measure the object of which was to put a stop to litigation; but that they would consent as rapidly as possible to allow the Bill to pass into a law.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he had no wish to enter into the general question, but he wished to advert to a point of form. The hon. and learned Attory General said that he was going to introduce a Bill to declare what a newspaper was in such a way as to exclude from the operation of the present Newspaper Stamp Act certain monthly publications. He (Mr. Gibson) thought, however, that the definition which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given would extend the operation of the Stamp Act to publications which were not now liable to duty; and if that were so, he presumed that the House should resolve itself into a Committee upon the Newspaper Stamp Laws before the Bill was introduced. He thought that the proposed Bill would extend the operation of the Stamp Act, because, from the hon. and learned Attorney General's remarks, it appeared that no papers were for the future to be considered newspapers which were published at a longer interval than once in twenty-six days, but that all papers published at less intervals than twenty-six days were to be considered newspapers. At present all papers of more than two sheets, and at a higher price than 6d., might be published more frequently than once in twenty-six days, without being liable to Stamp Duty. These, however, would be brought under the operation of the Stamp Act by the new definition given by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and therefore he thought that the introduction of the Bill should be preceded by a Committee of the whole House. Great injustice had been done to small newspaper proprietors throughout the country whose monthly papers had been suppressed by letters from the Inland Revenue Office. When, however, they proceeded against Mr. Dickens, a gentleman of great influence and popularity, they were frightened out of their proceedings, and brought in a Bill to declare that these publications never had been newspapers. What compensation did they intend to offer to those persons whose papers had been suppressed on the ground that they were newspapers? He was convinced that when the new Bill came to be discussed it would appear that
1048
the new definition of a newspaper was just as unsound as the old one; and; if under it they prosecuted persons for publishing unstamped papers, they would again be obliged to introduce a new declaratory Bill. In a future stage of the Bill he should feel it his duty to point out how completely inadequate this Bill would be to define what was a newspaper. In conclusion, he begged to ask the opinion of Mr. Speaker upon the point of form to which he had alluded?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no doubt, if the effect of the Bill was to impose an additional Stamp Duty, it should be introduced by a Committee of the whole House; it was, however, impossible for him to say whether this would be its effect until it was introduced, and he had an opportunity of examining it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONwould suggest whether it would not be better for the hon. and learned Attorney General to keep himself on the safe side, and to move the Bill in a Committee of the whole House?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in his opinion, the Bill would not bring within the definition of newspapers publications not now liable to the Stamp Duties. He would, therefore, take his chance, and beg leave to introduce the Bill then.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION—RAILWAY AND CANAL BILLS.
MR. HENLEY, in rising to move the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject of Railway Amalgamation, as applied to Railway and Canal Bills about to be brought under the consideration of Parliament, said he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks, and at that late hour he would promise that they should be but few. The House was aware that at the present moment public notice had been given of a considerable number of Railway Bills that were to be brought before them in the course of the Session—he believed to the number of 150 or 160—and amongst that number there were some twenty of what were called Amalgamation Bills; and of that twenty, some of them were of a nature so large, that the House had, perhaps, never had to deal with Bills of such magnitude. It was

1049
hardly necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the vast magnitude and importance of this subject, because it must be fully apparent to every one who considered the matter, that if all these amalgamations, or any of them, went on, they would be laying the foundation for a state of things which, at no very distant period, might bring the House to consider whether or not the whole locomotion of the Kingdom should be allowed to pass into the hands of one management. For instance, some of the Bills related to groups of the same country, and if these groups were allowed to be united, what was there to prevent these groups afterwards joining again, and so proceeding on from step to step until you came to have all the railways converted into one great concern? Now, in considering this matter, the first practical question they had to turn their attention to was, what was to become of these Bills when they should be sent by the ordinary process of the House into those various Select Committees whose duty it would be to examine into their merits? He thought all parties would agree with him that it would be hardly safe to refer each Bill to five Gentlemen, without, in the first place, if it was possible, establishing some general views which they should be required to take of the whole subject. It should first be ascertained whether it was possible that any general rules or practical regulations could he laid down, either in the shape of Standing Orders or otherwise, by which the attention of these several Committees might be drawn to the particular portion of each Bill, and upon which they should be required, or not, according as it might be determined, to expresss an opinion or to call the attention of the House to each particular point as it might arise in detail. Of course, if the House agreed to appoint such a Committee as he recommended, the first matter for them to consider and determine upon was the preliminary question of whether these large amalgamations should be sanctioned or not. Of course, it would naturally occur to hon. Members what power the railways had of effecting these amalgamations by arrangements concluded without reference to that House, and it would be a question for them to consider whether such an arrangement, over which they had no control, might not press much more severely upon the public than if they were made under the sanction and upon the conditions laid down by Par-
1050
liament. Suppose it should be considered prudent not to negative amalgamation, but to place them under sound regulations, the course of inquiry would naturally branch into three or four distinct heads. The first consideration would have relation to the parties who sought the amalgamation, and what conditions should be imposed upon them to protect their several interests, because many of those companies who proposed to amalgamate stood upon a by no means simple foundation, and before the amalgamation was allowed to take place they ought to be required to consolidate their laws, so that when all the parties came to be married, they should have a better chance of knowing what their respective interests would be, and how they would be affected by amalgamation. Another class of parties whose interests would have to be considered were the lessors of some of our great trunk lines of railway—a by no means insignificant or unimportant body. There were reversionary interests in these lessors which may or may not be injured by amalgamation. But Parliament should take care that their interests were properly looked after. A third class at present under the Standing Orders of the House had no locus standi before the Select Committees; he alluded to those parties who had an indirect interest in the questions of amalgamation, such as canals and competing lines running parallel with the railways proposed to be amalgamated and created into a monopoly. Care ought to be taken that those parties were properly represented in the inquiry, and had their interests fairly dealt with. Passing then from them, we come to those parties who were said to be more immediately concerned in this matter. He came to the larger and more important question of how the public interest was to be guarded against any injuries that were likely to result from these amalgamations. Now of course in this branch of the matter the first point that struck one was what measures should be taken, or what were the proper regulations to be laid down to secure ample and legitimate accommodation for the public from those railways that proposed to amalgamate. It should be provided distinctly that none of such railways, or any portion of them, should be shut up against the public, or kept only for private use. What information it would be necessary for each Committee to be furnished with, on this branch of the subject, and what returns

1051
the House should require such Company to produce, would be one of the most important points upon which this preliminary Committee would have to report. The next question was with regard to tolls and fares. He should state that at the present moment, speaking generally, every railway in the kingdom was running within the maximum fares and tolls allowed by law, and that being so, of course where the parties came to ask for great privileges, it would be the duty of the Legislature to consider what additional terms ought to be secured for the benefit of the public. That question should be carefully looked into by the general Committee, and something should be done to ascertain what provision should be made against the tolls and fares being unfairly raised. And then the Committee would have to decide what course should be taken with reference to the general financial position of each party to the Bill. Another point was as to the general power of regulating railways, and this must also come under the Committee's consideration, who, however, could not judge of it without looking closely, not only into the powers already existing by law, but also into the way in which they had been exercised. As regarded the desirability of any Government control, there was, he thought, no question that any such must be limited to this extent—that you should not in any way relieve the railway bodies of the responsibility of their acts; that you should not carry it to such a point as to run any risk of an interference which, under any pretence whatever, could be thought to relieve the railway bodies of their responsibilities in carrying on their affairs. At present no public body possessed sufficient authority to protect the public against any possible inconvenience that might arise from the creation in these concerns of a greater system of monopoly—he did not use the term invidiously—or through a closer system of management becoming the law of the land. He was bound to admit that, on the whole, railway management had shown no disposition to exceed their powers, or unjustly to use them against the public; on the contrary, they carried them on in a manner which had secured the general advantage and benefit of the public; but still, without interfering with the responsibility which attached to each, he repeated that something was necessary to be done, to enable the Government to exercise a further control over the amalgamated rail-
1052
ways, in the event of the public interest rendering it necessary. He had now stated the general views of the Government with regard to the appointment of this Committee; but there was another point which he had been requested to refer to. He had been asked to add the words, "And to consider the principles which ought to guide the House in Railway Bills and Amalgamations generally," to the Resolution; and certainly, so far as he himself was concerned, he could see no objection to the introduction of such words. Before he sat down, he must take the liberty of referring to one subject in connexion with railways upon which the public mind appeared to have been very much misinformed. It referred to the subject of accidents that occurred upon railways. There had been a general misapprehension abroad of late as to the number of accidents which had taken place this year. It was supposed that they had greatly increased; but certainly that was not the case. The different railway companies, according to law, were required to make a return to the Board of Trade of all accidents where any serious injury occurred to any person. No doubt the Returns did not comprise every accident that happened, because the term "serious injury" was a somewhat indefinite phrase, and there might be injuries which one man might call serious, while another would not. It was very possible, too, that railway parties viewed a serious injury through a different medium to other people; but he had no reason whatever to think that the railway authorities had looked at the cases this year in any different light than that which had guided them in former years, and therefore as far as a comparison went, the returns this year were probably sufficiently accurate. He found then that the number of accidents during the last three years arising from causes beyond the control of the parties injured, such as the engine running off the line, were in 1850, 117; in 1851, 122; and in 1852, up to the 30th of November, 104; so that railway accidents had certainly not increased, but had rather diminished. There was at the same time a very great increase in that particular species of traffic, out of which there was strong reason to think some of these accidents arose, namely, excursion trains. In 1850 there were 334 excursion trains run, while in 1852, dating only up to the 30th September, the number rose to 671. He had thought it right to make this latter

1053
statement to the House, because, as he had before observed, considerable misapprehension and very erroneous impressions existed in the public mind on the subject. Without a further statement at that late hour, he should conclude by moving for a Select Committee, for the purposes he had endeavoured to explain to the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the principle of Amalgamation as applied to Railway, or Railway and Canal Bills, about to be brought under the consideration of Parliament, and to consider the principles which ought to guide the House in Railway Legislation."
MR. LOCKEbegged to express his gratification at the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the decrease of railway accidents, which he was sure the public would learn with great satisfaction. He was also gratified at his statement, that the Committee was not to enter on the question of interference with the management of railway boards, for he was convinced that if the Government in any way lessened the responsibilities of the directors, there would not be a likelihood of a still greater decrease of accidents. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, the Committee was to inquire into the powers of railway companies, and also to inquire how far the powers allowed had been fulfilled. He would put this case:—A company came to Parliament, and asked for powers to complete a railway; these powers it allowed to expire, and after the lapse of a considerable time left the landowners and the country totally without the line they had expected. Such companies there were in Parliament this year, asking for other powers, whilst they had not executed those already granted them. That was a case requiring consideration. But he could instance a still stronger one. A railway company obtain- ed from that House power to execute a railway of given length; after three or four years their funds became deficient; they determined to stop all further proceedings; they appointed a committee; that committee recommended them to go half way, and no further; the shareholders agreed. What, he asked, would be the disposition of Parliament with reference to such a company—a company which, having obtained powers on the supposition that it was to go the whole distance, fancied subsequently that it had a right to make merely a portion of the line? He wanted to know whether a case of that kind would
1054
come under the operation of the proposed Committee? If so, he should be satisfied; if not, he must himself press it upon the attention of the House.
MR. HUDSONsaid, he hoped that Parliament would not force upon companies the execution of schemes which must involve considerable loss. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would confine his Committee to the principles which he had laid down. They were extensive enough; indeed, he thought, far too extensive. Do not let them go into the question of abandoned railways, and call upon companies to complete worthless schemes. He was rather surprised to find the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Locke) proposing what he did.
MR. LAINGsaid, he was himself much interested in railways, and he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for this measure, as well as for the terms in which he had spoken of that much-calumniated and rather unpopular class, the railway interest generally. These questions were of that importance that made it desirable they should be investigated and settled as soon as possible, on some sound and intelligible footing. No persons were more anxious than railway directors for this, and he did hope that an effort would now he made to remedy the evils of railway legislation, and settle it on a sounder and better basis for the future. In 1844 a Select Committee was appointed, and the subject was investigated by them with great care. The principles embodied in their report had never been impugned; but those principles were swept away in the vortex of speculation which afterwards took place, and the consequence was, that we had now in round numbers 7,000 miles of railway, which had cost us 36,000 l per mile, equal to a sum of 250,000,000 l. sterling. Look at the cost of railways in other countries—in France, for example—where, the price of iron and materials being higher, you might expect the cost of a railway to be greater even than in England; but it was, in fact, many thousands of pounds a mile less. He believed there was no more certain proposition than that the cost of anything, whether railway travelling, corn, or cotton, would in the long run be regulated by the prime cost of the article. If they, therefore, multiplied lines of railway where one would suffice, they incurred

1055
Be much the more expense, and in the long run the public would have to pay so much the more for the accommodation afforded. A great source of the complaints now so rife amongst the public arose from the state into which the property of the companies had been brought by legislation and other circumstances; for after so many years increasing traffic, it would be found, on looking at the share list, that the great of bulk of it was at a discount, or paying very inadequate returns for the capital invested. With regard to the accidents on railways, their number had been much overrated. Looking at the number and speed of the trains and the number of passengers they conveyed, the wonder was not that so many but that so few accidents should have taken place, and that the number should be small when compared either with what took place under the former system of travelling, or on the foreign railroads. The true interests of the public and the companies Were, he believed, identical; and if amalgamations were to be carried into effect, it must not be on the ground of advantage resulting to the railway interest, but to the public. The extravagant cost of the railways of this country sufficiently showed the vice of the system under which they had been constructed. We had, as he had previously stated, 7,000 miles of railway, which had cost at an average 36,000 l. a mile, or 250,000,000 l. in the whole; whereas the French lines had been constructed at an average of 25,000 l. a mile, and from 15,000 l. to 20,000 l. for the branch lines. If we had the thing to do over again, every one acknowledged that it would be perfectly practicable to construct the railways in this country, at the same cost per mile as in France; and, even allowing 25,000 l per mile, the actual cost being 36,000 l it followed that there had been a useless outlay to the amount of something like 70,000,000 l. of capital all wasted as completely as if it had been thrown into the sea. He doubted not that if our railways had to be made over again, the saving of cost might amount to fully this sum.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) proposed to appoint this Committee. It was quite obvious that the subject of railway amalgamation among the great companies deserved every attention. Even if it had not now been proposed to amalgamate those concerns, yet
1056
the state into which railway companies without legislative powers of regulation had come, would by this time have deserved the attention of Parliament, and the amatgamation which it was now proposed to effect gave a favourable opportunity of re-opening the whole question. He agreed entirely with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, so far as it went; but he could not help hoping that the matter would be carried a little further, and some solution attempted to the great difficulties which had heretofore attended the question of railway legislation. One great effort to solve those difficulties had been made by the Government of Sir Robert Peel in 1844 and 1845, which failed in the face of difficulties that had undoubtedly prevented its being followed up hitherto. At the same time he thought the experience of seven or eight years had produced great regret in the public that it had not been followed up. They had seen enormous evils resulting from the incapacity—he was sorry to use this term, and on no other subject would he consent to use it—or the cowardice of Parliament in dealing with the subject. Parliament had never grappled with its difficulties, and the consequences had been the loss of 70,000,000 l. of capital, as stated by his hon. Friend who spoke last, the execution of the works in a less perfect style, and a great increase of public dissatisfaction. Not only this, but railway speculation in times of commercial prosperity assumed so extravagant and feverish a character that all parties ran mad with it, and it become one of the great causes of commercial derangement. He was one of those who thought no good was to be effected by the intermeddling of Government departments. The only method to which he looked with hope, as likely to yield advantageous results, and lead to a better system, was the establishment of a community of interests between the railway companies and the public. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would lay down a plan, not merely in reference to details, but embracing the whole question of railways; and he trusted some measure would be established—something like system—to guide Parliament on all future occasions.
MR. COWANsaid, he was convinced that many amalgamations, if properly carried out, would prove of great public advantage. He would suggest that some better means should be taken for procuring

1057
the aid of the railways, in providing for the mail service of the country; and he wished to Know How Bills about to be applied for in the present Session would be affected by the proposed Committee?
GENERAL ANSONsaid, he was glad that the purview of the Committee was to be so extended as to include every description of case which implied amalgamation, such as leases and arrangements; for he was now satisfied that the inquiry would be as extensive as he could wish it. He was convinced that the system under which we were at present proceeding, was extremely injurious to all those who had invested capital in these concerns.
MR. MANGLEStrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not rest satisfied with the Report of the Committee, but that he would adopt some final legislation on the subject,
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he considered that competition afforded no real security as regarded the conduct of railway companies, and that, if these measures of amalgamation were sanctioned, competition would become a mere dead letter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would propose this Committee as soon as possible, and that it would meet before the recess, so as to arrange their course of proceeding, and to give such intimations as they could to guide the different railway companies
MR. HENLEYsaid, it would be for the Committee carefully to consider the question thrown out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), which he regarded as a most important one. As soon as the question of railway amalgamation should be disposed of, he should endeavour to lay down some definite rules of railway management which should prove satisfactory. He would only observe, with reference to some observations that had been made, that though under the system of this country hitherto railways had cost more money, and we had perhaps had more made than was necessary, we had yet attained to a higher speed than was generally accessible on the Continent. With reference to the Committee, he should wish it to consist as little as possible of Members connected with the railway interest,
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. PUBLIC BILL.—2a Bank Notes.

BUSINESS OF THE DAY.
EARL GRANVILLE, who had a Motion on the notice-paper relating to the recording of Votes in Committee, said he felt he ought to make some explanation and apology to the House for not immediately postponing that Motion until another day, seeing that there was a Motion upon the paper immediately following his, having reference to the commercial legislation of the country. If he had expected that there was to be either a general acquiescence or a general debate upon the subject of what he might now describe as the glorious termination of an experiment which had been going on for six years in regard to our commercial legislation, he should immediately have taken the course of postponing his Motion to another day. That did not appear, however, to be the case. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had decided on taking a different course; he had declined either to agree in the words of the Resolution which was moved by his Colleagues in the other House, or to the form of words adopted

921
by those same Colleagues, and a great majority of their supporters, in that House; and he had proposed words, as it appeared to him (Earl Granville), totally unmeaning as a declaration from a House which, by its repeated votes upon the corn laws, the sugar duties, and the repeal of the navigation laws, had given its fullest sanction to the existing legislation on those subjects. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), who had been one of the earliest and most consistent supporters of free trade—having, perhaps, a desire to have unanimity in that House, and also to show a spirit of conciliation to the furthest possible extent; and influenced, perhaps, by a feeling that those words, although they had little meaning in themselves, obtained some value from a former declaration of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) bound the House firmly and unreservedly to the commercial system which had been established—had consented to adopt those words, and had also concurred in deprecating any great discussion on that question. The House appeared also to come to a sort of understanding, although a hurried one, that there should not, at all events, be any division on the subject; and there was also a general impression that no very great discussion would take place. This being the position of the question, and as it assumed an aspect of such little importance, he was unwilling to withdraw from the orders a question, the consideration and settlement of which would prove of great utility in adding to the value and credit of their Lordships' Committees. But the slightest intimation from either side of the House would induce him to deviate from that determination, and postpone it to a future day.
The EARL of RADNORsaid, he understood his noble Friend (Earl Granville) to say that he would either withdraw his Motion, or postpone it till a future occasion, if he was given to understand that some debate would arise on the Resolution in the paper respecting the commercial legislation of the county. His noble Friend had also alluded to an understanding which he supposed to have taken place in their Lordships' House on a former occasion with regard to that Resolution. He (the Earl of Radnor) begged to say he was no party to that understanding, and he did not feel himself bound by it. It was now some years since he had been in that House, and a few days ago he should have said there was no chance of his putting his foot
922
inside its walls again; but when he saw the terms of the Resolution that was proposed to be moved by his noble Friend, so entirely subversive did they appear to him (the Earl of Radnor), of the principles which had been sanctioned by their Lordships' House, and exactly contrary to the understanding given out by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of free trade or unrestricted competition, that he had come up to town to take his seat in their Lordships' House that day, for the purpose of moving an Amendment. Since he had come into the House, he had been given to understand that another noble Lord had given notice of his intention to move an Amendment, in order that the matter should be discussed. He could assure his noble Friend (Earl Granville) that whatever power he possessed should be exercised in securing an ample discussion of the Resolution.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he did not think he should be justified in pressing on his Motion; and he should, therefore, postpone it until to-morrow.

COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION—FREE TRADE.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDErose for the purpose of moving the following Resolution:—
"That this House, thankfully acknowledging the general prosperity, and deeply sensible of the evils attending frequent changes in the financial policy of the country, adheres to the commercial system recently established, and would view with regret any renewed attempt to disturb its operation or impede its further progress."
It certainly would be unpardonable in him to trespass at any great length on their Lordships' attention, after the general understanding which had been come to among noble Lords on a previous occasion, that there should not be a division on the question. But at the same time, as objections had been taken to the course which he had felt it his duty in rather difficult circumstances to adopt, he hoped their Lordships would allow him for a short time to endeavour to meet these objections. In the first place, it had been objected that it was perfectly unnecessary that any Motion whatever should be made on the subject in that House; and in the next place, he now understood that the original Motion which he had intended to propose to their Lordships was about to be moved as an Amendment by his noble

923
Friend behind him (Lord Beaumount)—namely, that their Lordships should adopt the same Resolution which had been come to by the other House of Parliament. Now it happened that the original Resolution, of which he (the Marquess of Clanriearde) gave notice, was conceived in those very terms; hut that Resolution being objected to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) then framed another, which he certainly thought would have met his concurrence; hut the noble Earl objected to that also. He then, for the sake of obtaining what he thought would be a unanimous vote on this subject in that House, consented to take the words which the noble Earl had himself prepared, which were certainly not the words which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) should have liked to have moved if he had merely consulted his own feelings, but which he had adopted for the reason he had given on a former day. He now found himself in that unfortunate position which he believed was not uncommon to men who, when they endeavoured to gain unanimity by concession, ended in finding themselves more or less opposed by all parties; a lesson which, in future, should not be lost upon him. Now he was of opinion that that House should move in this subject on two distinct grounds: first, that it was due, under the circumstances in which they were placed, that the question should be directly brought before them; and next, it was desirable, for the sake of the question itself, that that House should pronounce an opinion decidedly affirmative of the commercial system which he thought had been so happily established. And, although those two grounds were distinct in themselves, he thought that the reasons by which they might be supported were more or less identical. Let their Lordships consider the position in which they now found themselves. Early in this year the present Ministry acceded to office. He had no doubt that their Lordships were now, as hitherto, prepared to grant to them that general support, without which the Ministers of the Crown could not continue to perform the duties they owed to their Sovereign and to the nation at large. But upon one question apprehension was not unnaturally felt. He said, "not unnaturally felt," because he was quite convinced the noble Earl would not tell their Lordships, as had been said in another assembly to the amazement and
924
the amusement, he thought, of all who had heard or read it, that the Protectionist party in this country had not wished since 1846, or in the least endeavoured, to have a return to a system of protective duties on foreign corn. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) therefore said that it was not unnatural that there should be the greatest apprehension felt, when that party, with the noble Lord opposite at their head, acceded to office early in this year, upon that subject which the country had wished should receive a Parliamentary settlement. It would be also in their recollection that noble Lords on his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) side of the House, and several other noble Lords, had pressed the noble Earl opposite very strongly for a decided declaration of the policy the Government meant to adopt on that subject. The noble Earl, however, deferred to make any declaration on the question—he refused, in fact, to do so—until an appeal had been made to the sense of the country; but he distinctly intimated that after the general election Parliament should be called to assemble in order that the question should be finally settled. It was in conformity With that promise that their Lordships were then assembled. Now he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) said, if Parliament were called together in order that the sense of Parliament might be taken on any particular question, it was not constitutional for a Minister of the Crown, and it would not be wise for that House of Parliament, to submit that that sense should be supposed to be taken by a vote taken only in the House of Commons, without bringing the same question for settlement before their Lordships' House. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had said he considered that this question was sufficiently noticed in the Speech from the Throne, and in their Lordships' Address in reply to that Speech. There could be no doubt that the terms of the paragraph in the Queen's Speech implied that, under the system recently established—under what had been called there and elsewhere "recent legislation"—the prosperity of the country had been increased, and its condition improved; but it should be remembered that it also distinctly implied that serious injury Had been inflicted on certain important interests, and inferred that the industry of the country could not be carried on under a system of unrestricted competition without some extraordinary legislation on the subject. Now, whilst the Address in reply to

925
the Speech from the Throne was being considered by their Lordships, their time aw} attention were so much engrossed with a sense of the many and important duties which they had to discharge, and which had since been honourably executed, that they were then unwilling unnecessarily to go into the discussion of this great question. He therefore thought it was wise and well that no Amendment was moved either in that or the other House of Parliament on the Address to the Throne; and that when the subject came under consideration in the House of Commons no attempt was made either to negative the Resolution, or to get rid of it by moving "the previous question." Now, he said, it would have been wise and right for the Government themselves to have come forward and proposed a Resolution on the subject; and he was still bound to say, what he had said on other occasions, that he thought under all the circumstances the Resolutions which it would have been best for their Lordships' House to come to were those adopted by the other House of Parliament. He felt all the force, authority, and weight which a concurrent vote of all parties in the other House of Parliament commanded; and if their Lordships' House would unanimously agree to any vote which would confirm the established commercial policy, he believed their unanimity would in every respect have an equal weight, force, and authority. He could not therefore say, that he regretted having acceded to the proposition of the noble Earl at the head of the Government. But there was another reason why he thought that their Lordships' House should have moved in that question, and why a vote of that House would have carried with it even greater weight than the vote in the other House of Parliament, namely, that they had in that House the First Minister of the Crown. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) knew that, constitutionally speaking, all the Ministers were responsible for the advice which they might give to the Crown; but no man could deny that the First Minister of the Crown was the immediate medium of communication between the Cabinet and the Sovereign, and that, in the estimation of the country, he was always considered—wielding, as he did, such immense patronage, and deciding, as he must ultimately, all the deliberations of the Cabinet—as the most responsible person in the Government. Nor could it be denied that the noble Earl opposite (the
926
Earl of Derby) had been the head and chief and the mainstay, as well as the ornament of the great party who had been identified with the principle of protection; and therefore it was, that he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought that in that House this question should have been fairly and fully brought under their Lordships consideration. Again, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was charged with the conduct of all diplomatic negotiations between this and foreign Governments, and it was absolutely necessary that there should be no misapprehension with respect to this question in the diplomatic communications which might pass between the Government of this country and those of Foreign States—for he well knew the importance of an agent abroad not being exposed to hints that his instructions were not entirely in accordance with the personal feelings of the Minister. He knew also how much weight was there attached to the feelings of people in office in this country; for, when he had the honour to represent Her Majesty at the Court of St. Petersburgh, he was, when conversing on commercial questions, over and over again met on the subject of the corn laws with the assertion that he knew very well in his heart this country would never agree to the repeal or to any great modification of the corn laws. It was in vain that he asserted his own opinion on that subject, for he then undoubtedly believed that the corn laws would not last long as they then were, and that many years would not elapse before a change took place. He knew, therefore, that it was of great importance that diplomatic and consular agents should be known to be acting according to the opinions of the Minister at home. Now, the Resolution which had been agreed to by the other House of Parliament was passed by an overwhelming majority, and one which was not more remarkable for its numbers than for the elements of which it was composed; and he could not for the life of him understand why the noble Earl and his Friends chose to draw a distinction between the vote of their Lordships' House and the vote of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and their Friends and Colleagues in the other House of Parliament. He did not wish to attribute motives; but one of two things must have been the cause of that. Either the noble Earl and his Colleagues opposite were not sincerely agreed in opinion with their Colleagues in the other

927
House, or else they felt themselves weak in that House, and unable to carry the vote and the measure which they desired. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was free to say that he did not wish to throw the slightest doubt upon the sincerity of the intentions of the Government on this subject; and that was another reason why he was content to adopt the words of the Resolution upon their Lordships' paper. The words of the Resolution suggested by the noble Earl, and which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had now to propose, were brief; but brief as they were, they were still stronger than the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne; for this at least is stated directly, and in plain language—that that House adhered to the commercial system recently established. Now, that was an important statement for the House and the country to obtain from the noble Earl. He knew also the Resolution was not extracted from the Government in the slightest degree as a compromise; for he believed in his heart that the noble Earl and his Friends were now prepared to act in conformity with the principles of free trade, and not upon the principles of that which had been well termed elsewhere the "exploded," if not "obsolete," system of protection. Even if he had entertained any doubt on that subject, it would have been dispelled by the remarkable statement contained in th6 Budget brought forward on Friday evening in the other House of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which he thought was free from all taint or vice of what might be called protection; and he was content to take it as the best possible test of the sincerity of the Government of the noble Earl opposite. It was impossible for any man who had been party to that Budget to come down and talk to the other House of Parliament in the strain of such a notice of Motion, for example, as stood on the books of that House in the last Session in the name of Sir John Pakington. But if their Lordships were going to frame a Resolution which should be really worthy of their Lordships' House and this subject—if he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was going to look simply to the subject abstractedly, and not to consider the position in which they now were, or in which the other side of the House might be with reference to the other House of Parliament—it was not to the Resolution which was adopted by the other House—it was not to the Resolution—which he thought infinitely
928
preferable to that adopted—proposed by Mr. Villiers, that he would look; he should go no further than the Journals of their Lordships' House, where he found the immortal protest written by Lord Grenville, in 1815, on the subject of the corn law, and which was in entire conformity with his own sentiments. Their Lordships would forgive him if he read that memorable document. It was in these terms:—
"Dissentient—1. Because we are adverse in principle to all new restraints on commerce. We think it certain that public prosperity is best promoted by leaving uncontrolled the free current of national industry; and we wish rather, by well-considered steps, to bring back our commercial legislation to the straight and simple line of wisdom, than to increase the deviation by subjecting additional and extensive branches of the public interest to fresh systems of artificial and injurious restriction. 2. Because we think that the great practical rule of leaving all commerce unfettered applies more peculiarly, and on still stronger grounds of justice as well as of policy, to the corn trade than to any other. Irresistible, indeed, must be that necessity which could, in our judgment, authorise the legislature to tamper with the sustenance of the people, and to impede the free purchase and sale of that article on which depends the existence of so large a portion of the community. 3. Because we think that the expectations of ultimate benefit from this measure are founded on a delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves that this law will ever contribute to produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So long as it operates at all, its effects must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut off any of the sources of supply, can only tend to lessen its abundance; to close against ourselves the cheapest market for any commodity, must enhance the price at which we purchase it; and to confine the consumer of corn to the produce of his own country, is to refuse to ourselves the benefit of that provision which Providence itself has made for equalising to man the variations of season and of climate 4. But, whatever may be the future consequences of this law at some distant and uncertain period, we see, with pain, that these hopes must be purchased at the expense of a great and present evil. To compel the consumer to purchase corn nearer at home than it might be imported from abroad, is the immediate practical effect of this law. In this way alone can it operate. Its present protection, its promised extension of agriculture must result (if at all) from the profits which it creates by keeping up the price of corn to an artificial level. These future benefits are the consequences expected, but as we confidently believe erroneously expected, from giving a bounty to the grower of corn, by a tax levied on its consumer. 5. Because we think that the adoption of any permanent law for such a purpose, required the fullest and most laborious investigation. Nor would it have been sufficient for our satisfaction, could we have been convinced of the general policy of so hazardous an experiment. A still further inquiry would have been necessary to persuade us that the present moment was fit for its adoption. In such an inquiry we

929
must have had the means of satisfying ourselves what its immediate operation will be as connected with the various and pressing circumstances of public difficulty and distress with which the country is now surrounded; with the state of our circulation and currency; of our agriculture and manufactures; of our internal and external commerce; and, above all, with the condition and reward of the industrious and labouring classes of oar community. On all these particulars, as they respect this question, we think that Parliament is almost wholly uninformed; on all we see reason for the utmost anxiety and alarm from the operation of this law. Lastly. Because, if we could approve of the principle and purpose of this law, we think that no sufficient foundation has been laid for its details. The evidence before us, unsatisfactory and imperfect as it is, seems to us rather to disprove than to support the propriety of the high price adopted as the standard of importation, and the fallacious mode by which that price is to be ascertained. And on all these grounds we are anxious to record our dissent from a measure so precipitate in its course, and, as we fear, so injurious in its consequences."—[1 Mansard, xxx. 263.]
These were sound doctrines—they were sound doctrines in 1815, and they were sound then, and they would be sound to all future years, supported as they were by increased knowledge and practical experience of the subject. What effect on such reasoning as this can those transitory circumstances have, to which the noble Earl referred on the first night of the Session? He said it was to emigration and the influx of gold that the general prosperity of the country was attributable. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would say, those matters producing great effects in themselves, had nothing to do with the sound principles on which their commercial system had been established, and to which the present prosperity of the country was mainly to be attributed. He could not say, and no man could be impious enough to say, that free trade alone would secure them against unpropitious seasons and adverse times; but experience proved that in seasons of adversity, to free trade they must resort for relief and sustenance; and in the days of prosperity free trade was the best foundation they could have to prolong and establish that prosperity. Was it in times of an overflow of gold, or of extraordinary prosperity, that the law was first altered? No: it was forced upon their convictions by one of those visitations of Providence that occasionally occurred, when it was found the corn law would not stand for a moment. No man objected in times of distress to what were called the Order930s in Council, or to the sweeping away of those corn laws. And if it be
930
true, as was well said by the noble Earl on the first night of the Session, that there had been a gradual recurrence to prosperity in the condition of the people during the last three years, had they not the fullest practical proof, if practical proof be wanting, that the only system on which the country could rely, either in prosperity or adversity, was the system of free trade? He had no doubt that that system would never be altered; and it was a comfort to him that the first vote he gave when he had the honour of a seat in that House, and every vote he had given since, had been in support of the principles of free trade. The question was then differently situated from what it was at present, but he had the honour of seconding the Motion proposed by Lord Spencer in 1841, when the proposition was not for the immediate and total abolition of the duty on corn, but for the adoption of a moderate fixed duty. It was then objected, that if they adopted the proposition it would lead to the repeal of the corn law: He never doubted it, but he could not doubt also that it would have been much better if they had acceded to that proposal, and the total repeal of the duty on corn had been made more gradual than in 1846. He hoped the feeling of the House would be unanimous that this Resolution at least should he adopted. He was anxious they should at least have a unanimous vote of the House, agreeing in the great principle that the commercial system now established should be adhered to; for even such a vote as that would put an end to the controversy, and establish free trade (whatever may take place in other countries) as the system of this country for ever.
Moved to resolve—
"That this House, thankfully acknowledging the general prosperity, and deeply sensible of the evils attending frequent changes in the financial policy of the country, adheres to the commercial system recently established; and would view with regret any renewed attempt to disturb its operation or impede its further progress."
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I should have been unwilling to disturb that unanimity which at one time was likely to prevail on this occasion; but, at all events, I should have felt myself constrained to make a few observations on this subject. My Lords, it may or may not be proper or expedient for this House to come to some resolution or vote affirming the policy of free trade and that system of commercial legislation which has been re-

931
cently established. For my own part, I could be well pleased to have left the matter precisely as it now stands; and I would not myself have advised or proposed any vote of this description; and for these reasons: I think, in the first place, that this House has already pronounced a very decided opinion upon this subject. Since the year 1846 the whole course of our legislation has been in accordance with the spirit of the enactments then passed. We have done nothing to indicate the slightest intention towards any reaction. Even the noble Earl opposite and his Friends, when they sat on this side of the House, notwithstanding their vehement speeches and the addresses they so frequently made to the House on the subject, as far as I recollect, abstained from making any Motion that had that tendency. Certain it is that the House never adopted any Motion that could give any indication of a tendency to reaction towards the old system. That being the case, we are the same body as we were at that time—we are not, like the House of Commons, a changing body, in whose case an appeal to the people was required to know what the opinions of that House on the subject might be. Our opinion may, therefore, be clearly taken now, according to all experience and precedent, to be precisely as it was pronounced in the year 1846; therefore, I should, for these reasons, see no necessity to call upon the House to come to any fresh decision upon the subject. Another reason why I think any vote on this subject unnecessary is, that it is not, in my opinion, a vote to which your Lordships can come with any practical result, or which can be of the slightest importance on this subject. I believe the question of the corn laws is settled finally and irrevocably, and that whatever your vote be it will not affect it. If it be in affirmation, you will only affirm that which has been already firmly established; if, unfortunately, it should be adverse to that system, while I should regret it for the sake of your Lordships' character, it would only exhibit the impotence of this House when opposed to the voice of reason and the strong desire and feeling of the country. I say that this question is settled. When I look to what has recently taken place—when I look to the result of the last elections—when I look at the unequivocal demonstration of public opinion—when I look to the late vote of the House of Commons, and hear the declarations of Her Majesty's Ministers themselves, I take
932
it for granted that the question is not only settled, but that the time is come when I may, as one of the oldest and most intimate of the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel in this House, feel myself fully justified in congratulating the friends of that great Minister—in congratulating the House and the country—on the final and complete success of that system for which he suffered so much, and for which he made great sacrifices. I trust I may believe that the contest of the last six years is now finally closed, and that the name of Sir Robert Peel, which was pursued with so much persevering and relentless hostility, may now be received with blessings, and remembered as that of the benefactor of his country. I cannot, perhaps, expect that noble Lords opposite will join with me in using this language; nevertheless, it is the language that has received the sanction of the country, and the feeling which it expresses is deeply impressed on the hearts of the people. I have said that I do not see the necessity of calling upon this House for any resolution or any vote on this subject; but I must confess that I never did expect to see such a Resolution submitted to us as that which is now proposed by the noble Marquess. When the noble Marquess announced his intention of moving a Resolution on the subject, I took it for granted that he was about to move the adoption of the Resolution which passed the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority. The noble Marquess stated that that was his intention, and even to-night he has declared that he prefers the Commons' Resolution to the one he himself moved. It is difficult for me to comprehend why that Resolution should be objected to by the noble Lords opposite. My noble Friend at the head of the Government certainly, on the first occasion when the noble Marquess introduced the subject in this House, stated that the Resolutions agreed to by the Commons did not proceed from the Government, but were the result of a compromise in some other quarter. But what difference does this make? It is a compromise I admit, but if you accept the compromise, surely you are as much bound to assent as cordially, if you act in good faith, to the compromise, as if the original proposition had been adopted. I, therefore, cannot understand the motive for the objection to it, or what difference there is between its originating on the part of the Government, and the Government accepting it—

933
particularly when they consider the success of that Resolution as a species of triumph. But when the noble Earl objected to the Resolution of the Commons when proposed by the noble Marquess, on the ground that it had not originated with the Government, the noble Marquess set himself right on that point, because he afterwards proposed a Resolution that was placed on the Votes of the House of Commons by a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government. That Resolution is, I confess, not at all to my taste, and I would not willingly have approved of it if it had been brought forward by the noble Marquess; but at least it did acknowledge some benefits to have arisen from this system which we support; and the advantages that are accruing to the country from the system of free trade and unrestricted competition were to a certain extent admitted. But my noble Friend at the head of the Government did not give that Resolution either his approbation, and he laid upon the table, or suggested to the noble Marquess, the Resolution which we are now considering. I am bound to take for granted, and to believe, that the noble Marquess, in moving this Resolution, thinks, and is convinced, that he is acting favourably to the interests of that cause which he has long supported. I must say, however, that if I did not feel that this question was removed altogether beyond your power and control, and that the country entertain a very different opinion, I should feel some degree of apprehension. I think that this Resolution would be a greater step to reaction than any we have seen since the year 1846. What is this Resolution? This Resolution asserts that "the House, thankfully acknowledging the general prosperity, and deeply sensible of the evils attending frequent changes in the financial policy of the country, adheres to the commercial system recently established, and would view with regret any renewed attempt to disturb its operation, or impede its further progress." Let your Lordships just observe the terms of this Resolution: first, you acknowledge the general prosperity; but you do not attribute this prosperity to any cause—you attribute it to Providence. Well, I am the last man to deny that all the good we possess is due to the bounty of an overruling Providence; but in this case I must say that Providence has blessed human agency, and we have a right to attribute the general prosperity in a great measure
934
to that system which has been recently established in this country. Then you go on to state that you adhere to this system, and you would regret to see it impeded. Why? Because the change would be inconvenient—because you deeply feel the inconvenience of variations and changes in our commercial policy. But surely a change is as inconvenient from a bad system to a good one, as from a good one to a bad one—
The EARL of DERBY: The word is "evils," not "inconvenience." If the noble Earl wishes to make comments upon the Resolution, let him at all events take care that he is commenting upon that which it contains.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: I assure the noble Earl that I will not make any comment but what I conscientiously feel to be applicable to the Resolution. My variation from the literal terms of the Resolution was quite unintentional—I did not now read the exact words of the Resolution, thinking the substance would be sufficient. The Resolution is precisely in substance what I have stated, the words being, "deeply sensibly of the evils," instead of the "inconvenience," as I stated. You acknowledge the "evils" of frequent change; so it may be inferred that the "evil" exists as much when the change is from bad to good, as when it is from good to bad. I say further, that, looking to this Resolution, the logical and fair inference is, that you would change if you could do so without exposing yourselves to evils. Supposing it is only the evils attending change you would prevent, then I say the inference is that you would change were it not for the evils that would attend it. That is not a sufficient ground for adhering to the system which you profess to adopt. No, my Lords, if you adhere to that system, it is because it is wise, and just, and beneficial: and that is what I should like you to vote. I therefore think the Resolution placed on the Commons' Votes with the acceptance of the Government infinitely preferable to that moved by the noble Marquess; and it was framed studiously to meet the convenience of the party which acts with noble Lords opposite, and to avoid giving offence to them. Although, I say, I should like to vote that the system of free trade is wise, just, and beneficial, I do not call on your Lordships to join in that vote, nor do I expect you to do so; but, at the same time, I must protest against being any party to the support

935
of a Resolution which is immeasurably below the amount of my own convictions on the subject. I do not wish to enter at large into the question; but I could not help expressing the strong feeling I entertain of the total inadequacy of the Resolution to its professed object.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that he had no doubt that the object of the noble Earl opposite was identical with that of his noble Friend near him. He believed it was his sincere and earnest wish that the long-vexed question of free trade or protection should be finally settled, and that Parliament should give a pledge, as far as it was able, that in future their commercial and financial system should be based upon the principle of unrestricted competition. That he believed to be the sincere wish of the noble Earl, and to be likewise the object which his noble Friend had in view in proposing this Resolution. He believed that the desire of all parties was, that in the present Parliament they should not lose the ground which had been gained in past years; and that, although the question of free trade had been re-opened by the Government on its first accession to power, they would now counteract any evil effects which might have thence arisen, and place themselves in the same position as after the passing of the great Act of 1846. He believed that both the one and the other of the noble Lords thought that if this question, which had been re-opened, was to be again settled, and finally settled, as the system of policy to be adopted, their Lordships' House should not be passed over, but should be in some way consulted, or at least considered. He believed that both the noble Lords saw the necessity of passing some Resolution in that House; and if that was their opinion, he agreed with them on that point. He thought that except such a Resolution was passed, embodying the opinions their Lordships wished to express on the subject, no pledge would have been given by Parliament to the country. It was not by one branch of the Legislature that it should be passed, but by both; and he considered that a Resolution passed by their Lordships' House must produce a considerable effect in the country. That House peculiarly represented the landed interest, and such a pledge from them would afford the firmest (assurance with regard to their intention is. The commercial and mercantile interests given pledge after pledge and vote after vote on the question, and what
936
was wanting was a pledge from the landed interest, which had hitherto been conscientiously opposed to the measure, that in future the policy established in 1846 would not be disturbed. So far he agreed with what he believed to be the intentions of both the noble Lords; but then came the question how it was to be done, and it appeared to him that there was only one course to take, and that was the straightforward and simple course of adopting the Resolution passed in the other House with the assent of the Government, voted for in the other House by some leading Members of what once was called the Protectionist party, and carried by an overwhelming majority. By doing so, they would concur in and endorse the opinion of the other House, and thus give a double security to the country. He owned he could not see any difficulty in the adoption of it; and if there was any difficulty, the last quarter from which he should expect an objection to come was Her Majesty's Government. There might be a difficulty to get some ultra parties to agree to it who wished to adhere to what were now called "obsolete" opinions. They could not expect unanimity, but of this he had felt sure, that at least they would have all the Members of the Government with them; also, that they would have noble Lords at his side of the House with them, and that they might even hope for the support of those who did not think the Resolution went far enough. He agreed perfectly with the description given by the noble Earl opposite of what the Resolution ought to be. The noble Earl said it ought to be framed so as not to take such a retrospective view as would reflect upon the conduct of those who firmly, conscientiously, and ably, had opposed the measures of 1846. Certainly he agreed that the Resolution should be such as in no way to insult or reflect upon the conduct of those who bad acted the part of Opposition in that year. But did the Resolution passed by the other House do that? Was it possible that that Resolution could have done it, when they looked to the names of the men who voted for it? Would the Government themselves support a Resolution that reflected upon the conduct of every Member of the Government? Would such leading men connected with the agricultural interest as Mr. Cayley, and others who supported it, vote for that Resolution if it were a reflection on the conduct of the landed interest in past times,? He

937
must consider that the Resolution pass in the other House reflected in no way those who formed the Opposition in past years. The noble Earl opposite also wished that the Resolution should be framed so as not to imply that free trade was the sole cause of the prosperity of the country; but the Resolution passed by the other House did not imply anything of the sort; it merely stated that the admission of corn had cheapened food, and materially tended to the welfare of the country. He agreed that it should not be said to be exclusively the cause of the prosperity of the country, because it could not he denied that the importation of gold had a considerable influence. He thought it must be apparent that, considering the nature of the law regulating the Bank Charter, the importation of gold had an influence; but the main reason for the prosperity of the country no doubt had been the cheapening of food. He presumed the noble Earl was prepared to affirm that assertion, for it was to be found in the Resolution drawn up by the Cabinet themselves, and proposed as an Amendment in the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, the Resolution passed by the other House appeared to him (Lord Beaumont) to have nothing objectionable in it. The noble Earl, however, actually declined to agree to the Resolution which had been passed by such an overwhelming majority in the other House, and which had obtained the support of his own Colleagues in that House. What other conclusion could be drawn from such an objection than that the noble Earl believed, in the other House a Resolution had been adopted which materially reflected on the conduct of those who had been opposed to the free-trade policy. This was a dilemma from which the noble Earl could not escape; he must either believe the Resolution to be such that its adoption by Government was a condemnation of themselves, or that it was altogether unobjectionable. The conduct of the noble Earl was inexplicable, it was contradictory, it condemned here what it approved of elsewhere, and he Lord Beaumont thought the whole position of things so extraordinary, that he felt justified in coming forward at the eleventh hour and proposing an Amendment. On the noble Earl's objecting to the same Resolution that had been passed by the Commons, the noble Marquess showed his complacency by withdrawing it. He next proposed to move the Amendment suggested
938
in the other House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and agreed to at a Cabinet Council. Even that was objected to by the noble Earl. The complacent Marquess again gave way: he withdrew the second as he had done the first Resolution. The noble Earl then suggested a Resolution himself. What did the noble Marquess do then? He complacently agreed to accept it. He (Lord Beaumont) thought that the good nature of the noble Marquess would have been exhausted by this. But the noble Earl went a little further. He said, "Now that yon have abandoned your original Resolution, have withdrawn your second Resolution, and have accepted my words, do me a little favour and propose them yourself." That scene passed rapidly before the House on Thursday night. In a few minutes not only did the noble Marquess abandon his original and his second intentions, and accept the words of the noble Earl, but he also undertook to propose the Resolution of Government—and this he did in two minutes after he had had heard its terms. He (Lord Beaumont) was himself so surprised and astonished at what passed, that he did not know where he was; whether his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had turned Protectionist, or what was the state of things. The whole appeared to him such a scene of confusion, that though he disapproved of the arrangement that was come to, and was rather ashamed of the occurrence of so undignified a scene in the House of Lords, he was so taken by surprise that he could not get up to give notice of any Motion. He had since then reflected upon the subject; and he could not conceive that any advantage, but on the contrary that great disadvantage, would be derived from adopting the Resolution now before their Lordships. He was convinced of the necessity of something being done in that House, and he was at the same time convinced, that the only proper, effective, and simple plan was to adopt the Resolution which had been agreed to by the other House, and to place it on their Lordships' Votes. Had it not been for what fell from the noble Earl opposite as to the propriety of that House doing anything at all, ha might have been contented to have rested the Amendment which he should propose, upon the grounds he had already stated. But the propriety of that House coming to any resolution having been doubted, it was absolutely necessary that he should state the reasons

939
which struck him in favour of such a course. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) was some months ago called to power; not in consequence of any immediate act of his own—not in consequence of any successful Motion, or in short, of any proceeding in which he had taken part. The noble Earl thus entrusted with the Government was perfectly free to adopt what course he liked with regard to the question of protection and free trade. It was true he long ably led an Opposition, the chief bond amongst whom was the principle of protection; but called as he was thus suddenly to power—not in consequence of any Motion he had made in favour of protection, not having pledged himself to a positive Motion, but having merely expressed his opinions in Opposition—he was perfectly free when he acceded to office to adopt what course he pleased on these questions. And had he forthwith announced that having taken into consideration the circumstances of the country, and what had happened since 1846, he thought it would be just, wise, and beneficial to continue the course of policy which was then adopted, he (Lord Beaumont) thought that he would have been fully justified in so doing, nor would the noble Earl ever have heard from him one word of condemnation. The noble Earl, however, did not say that he was prepared either to adopt or to abandon protection; he reversed what was the constitutional view of the province of Government—for instead of doing as all other Governments had done, and laying down a certain policy and leaving the country to decide upon it, he declined, on the part of the Government, to propound any positive policy on the subject, and went to the country in order that it might tell him what he was to do. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) maintained that this was not a constitutional proceeding, and that it was an unfortunate and dangerous precedent. He did not blame any noble Lords for changing their opinions on this subject, or for seeing the necessity under the circumstances—whatever might have been their predilections—of abiding by the policy which had been adopted; but for a Government not to lay down a line of policy at all for six or eight months, and then to take it from the country, was, he must maintain, an unconstitutional and dangerous proceeding. But still, when the noble Earl took this course he gave certain pledges. He said that he would leave the
940
question open to the country, and would carry out their decision. This, he (Lord Beaumont) must say, the noble Earl had done. He did leave the question open—to such an extent, indeed, that he allowed some Members of the Government to speak in favour of protection, and others in favour of free trade. The country had now spoken out, and by a majority had declared in favour of the continuance of the policy which had been recently adopted; and the noble Earl had fulfilled the pledge he gave to call Parliament together in the autumn to consider and determine the future commercial policy of the country. Nor could he condemn the terms in which the Queen's Speech on the opening of Parliament was couched. The noble Earl rightly thought that it was not proper to put into the mouth of the Sovereign any very strong or positive expressions of opinion upon the course of policy to be adopted. What was the next thing to be done in order to show the intention of the Government and the Parliament to abide by the decision of the country? The Government said, "Wait until we come to the Budget, and you will see that our Budget will be in conformity with free trade." Other parties, however, were not satisfied with the case as it stood—they were not satisfied with the declarations of the Government, though the noble Earl had certainly made a very clear statement during the debate on the Address—about which he (Lord Beaumont) never had any doubt as to his opinion. It was, however, still thought by some Members of the House of Commons that it was necessary that such a Resolution should be passed as should show the country, and also foreign Powers, what we were about to do, and should leave no doubt on the subject. As the Government did nothing, a Resolution was brought forward by these parties, worded in such a manner as to give good ground for the objection, that it reflected too much upon the past conduct of some parties. The Government then proposed a Resolution of their own; subsequently another Resolution was proposed, which the Government accepted. Talk of a compromise on this—it was nothing of the sort—the Government liked the second Resolution so much that they withdrew their own Resolution and adopted it. The case was infinitely stronger than if they had chosen between that Resolution and the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Then it might be said that they adopted it as a compromise; but what they actually did

941
was to adopt it in the place of the Resolution framed by themselves. Indeed, if he was not mistaken, the Government themselves moved this third Resolution. The Government had, he thought, up to this point, fulfilled all their pledges, and had done as much as they could to bind this Parliament. What remained, however, was to get that pledge of the House of Commons endorsed by that House of Parliament, so that the opinion of the whole Legislature (including that of the House of Lords, as the Representatives of the landed interest) might be fully expressed. But here, at the last moment, the noble Earl paused; and by refusing to accept the Resolution already adopted by his Colleagues in the Government, he was undoing what had already been done; he was re-opening the case and throwing doubts on the sincerity of many parties, and casting a slur on those who voted for this Resolution in the other-House of Parliament; and he was running the risk of enabling foreign Powers to say that we were not sincere—that the great landed interest as represented by the House of Lords had refused to pledge itself to free trade, and that even the Government saw the case so strongly that it had introduced a Resolution which had been described as a reactionary Resolution by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Aberdeen), who, of all persons, should be accustomed to the diplomatic way of viewing these things. On these grounds he was prepared to move the Resolution as passed in the House of Commons, as an Amendment on the Motion of the noble Marquess; and he did intreat the House and the noble Earl at the head of the Government to adopt that Resolution, and thus to place the House of Lords in one of the most noble and exalted positions which could be occupied by any public body, namely, that while many of them still thought that their interests would be benefited by the contrary system, they yet come forward to sacrifice those imagined interests, and, disregarding their former predilections and an obstinate adherence to their own opinions, to declare that the great measure of 1846, having been the means of doing great good to the masses of the people, having mainly contributed to their welfare, having fed the hungry and relieved the destitute, they, the House of Lords, as representing the landed interest, were prepared to come forward, and in the most clear, straightforward, and loyal manner to endorse and support the Resolution adopted in the other House, and
942
thus to show that the Legislature and the Government were of one mind upon this subject, and were agreed in support of the free-trade policy involved in that measure. The Lord concluded by moving an Amendment—
"To leave out from 'That' to the End of the Motion for the Purpose of inserting—
"'It is the Opinion of this House that the improved Condition of the Country, and especially of the Industrious Classes, is mainly the Result of recent Legislation, which has established the Principle of unrestricted Competition, has abolished Taxes imposed for the Purposes of Protection, and has thereby diminished the Cost and increased the Abundance of the principal Articles of the Food of the People:
"'That it is the Opinion of this House that this Policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will, without inflicting Injury on any important Interest, best enable the Industry of the Country to bear its Burthens, and will thereby most surely promote the Welfare and Contentment of the People:
"'That this House will be ready to take into Consideration any Measures consistent with these Principles, which, in pursuance of Her Majesty's gracious Speech and Recommendation, may be laid before it.'"
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I certainly was desirous of waiting somewhat longer before I addressed the House, in order that I might know what view your Lordships generally take of the position in which we are at present placed, and of the Motion and the Amendment now before you. But as no noble Lord appears to be inclined to rise after the Question has been put, I feel it my duty not to allow this question to pass in absolute silence on my part, although I shall enter but very shortly upon the general topics which are considered to be involved in the Resolution and the Amendment. I am desirous, in the first place, of calling your Lordships' attention to the position in which the subject is now placed by that which took place in this House in the course of last week. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that on Tuesday last the noble Marquess who has brought forward this Motion gave notice of his intention to move a Resolution upon the subject of the free-trade policy of the country, without at the time giving notice of the precise terms in which he intended to bring the question forward. In the course of a short conversation which took place on that occasion, I stated to the noble Marquess the grounds on which I hoped that this House would be spared the necessity of any conflict of opinion upon this subject. I stated that, in my opinion, it was most desirable that the

943
past should be consigned to oblivion, and that; your Lordships should look to that which is really important—the future policy of the Government of this country, and the principles upon which our commercial policy is to be based. And I then stated to the noble Marquess—although I had not written anything down—the substance of an Amendment which I wished to submit to his consideration, for the purpose of seeing whether it would not meet the views of himself and his friends. My Lords, it was then the intention of the noble Marquess, if he brought forward any question, to have given notice on the Tuesday for this day, so that noble Lords in the country might have an opportunity to come up to record their opinions, and that those remaining in London, if any important discussion should seem likely to arise, might not leave town, but might remain here. I then suggested to the noble Marquess that he should take the course of postponing his final decision on the subject until Thursday, and that in that case, if he still persisted in his intention of moving a Resolution to which I felt that considerable objection would be made on this side of the House, he should then extend the period of the notice so as to give the same time for its consideration and of the Amendment, and for the attendance of the House, as he had originally intended. When I came down to the House on Thursday, the noble Marquess met me in the ante-room, and proffered to show me the precise Resolution which he was about to move. I had by that time written down the words of the Resolution which I proposed to ask your Lordships to adopt, and upon which words I ventured to think there would be that which the noble Marquess—sincerely, I have no doubt—professes to desire, and which I think all your Lordships would admit to be desirable—a unanimous concurrence in the view to be taken by this House. I placed these words in the noble Marquess's hands. He did not immediately return them to me. He stated, and stated very properly, that before he could adopt thorn he must consult with his friends. Who those friends were with whom he consulted I know not; but I do know that a very considerable period elapsed, during which we were waiting for the noble Marquess: and when he returned into the House he stated to me that he was perfectly satisfied to adopt my words, although he, would wish to place upon record the words which he himself had suggested;
944
that he was quite willing to accept as a substitute the words I had proposed, in order that there might be no division of opinion among your Lordships upon this subject. In consequence of that the scene took place which the noble Baron who spoke last has somewhat humorously described, but which was by no means that series of concessions on the part of the noble Marquess to demands on my part which he has represented. I suggested certain words, and the noble Marquess stated, that although he preferred his own words, yet to obtain unanimity, to prevent the possibility of a division, and to render unnecessary the attendance of Peers on a future day, he was willing to accept my words; on which I put them across the table to him, and said, "Perhaps, if that be the case, you had better move them yourself, to avoid even the appearance of a hostile Amendment being moved." That was the scene which took place; and, for my own part, so far from thinking that it was a scene discreditable to the House of Lords, I think it a good example of the manner in which political opponents in this House are in the habit—and always, I hope, will be in the habit—of dealing with each other—with frankness and courtesy; and, so far as possible, of endeavouring to conciliate opposed opinions, rather than unnecessarily to embitter differences, and to have recourse to unnecessary divisions. The noble Baron must have been aware that, in consequence of that conversation, no division was expected, and that, but for what might almost be considered technical grounds, the Motion might have been put and carried that very evening. That was on Thursday. But the noble Baron says, that he was taken so entirely by surprise that he lost the power of speech. Now I must say that, when the noble Baron loses the power of speech, I should think that he is in a very bad way indeed, for I have never seen the noble Baron so surprised but that he could be tolerably fluent whenever he wished to express an opinion on any subject—tolerably fluent, whatever we may think of the arguments he uses. But how long did his surprise last? Why, he slept over it. He came down to your Lordships' House on Friday. Had he not then recovered from his surprise? Had he not then made up his mind as to the course which he should pursue? Could he not on Friday night, consistently with the usage and practice of this House—if he intended to depart from that general agreement to which the House

945
had come, and if he were not still in that state of surprise and astonishment which he has described—have given notice of his intention to move an Amendment? But instead of that, having told the friends who usually act in conjunction with me, that it was unnecessary for them to attend the House—that, in consequence of the general agreement, they were perfectly at liberty to go about their ordinary, and personal, and private occupations—I am told for the first time, on coming down to the House this evening, that not from this but from that side of the House an Amendment is about to be moved, and, consequently, that we must prepare for a hostile division. Now I put it to your Lordships on both sides of the House, independently of the merits of the question, whether, after what passed on Thursday night, and in face of the fact that no notice of an Amendment had been given on Friday night, you can, consistently with the ordinary practice of the House, consent to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baron? My Lords, I will not now enter on the question whether any Resolution was necessary on the part of the Government. I did not think that any Resolution was called for on the part of the Government; and so far I agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen). But it being the opinion of the House of Commons, and it being also the opinion of some Members of this House, that it was desirable that a public record should be made of the intentions of Parliament with regard to the future, which should, as far as anything of the sort can do, bind this and the other House of Parliament to adhere to the present system of commercial legislation, I made no objection then, nor do I make any now, to that which I conceive was desired—that the House should place on record, and beyond doubt, the principles on which the Government intends in future to act. The noble Baron (Lord Beaumont), differing from some others, has done me the justice to say that he does not greatly blame the course pursued by the Government up to the present moment; and that, whatever he may think of the course adopted by us of referring a question of this kind to the country in general, that he is ready to admit that up to the present moment we have fully redeemed all the pledges which we have given, and have acted upon the intentions which we have expressed. But, my Lords, the noble Baron goes further; for he says—and I thank him for the admission—that
946
even the terms made use of in the Royal Speech were not such as Parliament had a right to complain of, and that they were only such terms as a due regard to the Royal Person from whom the sentiments proceeded rendered necessary and proper. My Lords, I think the noble Baron also did me the justice to say that, upon the occasion of the debate on the Address, my own declarations, as Minister of the Crown, with regard to the future policy of the country, were plain and unequivocal, and not to be mistaken; and that, even if in the terms used in the Speech from the Throne, in which we spoke of "that unrestricted competition to which Parliament has decided that the country shall be subject," there could be any ambiguity, there could be none in that in which I declared the intentions of the Government for the future, and announced that, whatever our own views might have been, or might now be, that we were prepared to act on that system of policy in commercial matters which had obtained the general assent of the country. But the noble Baron thinks that we should have gone somewhat further, and have given—beyond the explanation of the Minister in this House, or of the Minister in the other—some public assurance of our intentions as to the course to be pursued. But did we give no such assurance of our intentions? Why, in the course of that same speech I announced to your Lordships that, if your Lordships and the other House of Parliament would have the patience to wait for one short fortnight, we would lay before the House of Commons those commercial propositions in detail, and that financial policy, in the shape of the Budget, which would at once test the sincerity of the Government, and give an opportunity for a declaration on the opinion of the country. My Lords, had it not been for the interposition of a Motion of an abstract character, referring to the past much more than to the future, that Budget would have been before the public one week sooner than the period at which it was possible to bring it forward. Now, when the noble Baron comes to look at that Budget, he says—and I think the noble Marquess said the same—"Whatever may be the faults of that Budget—whatever parts we may desire to comment upon, I must say that there is in the Budget, ample evidence of the full intention of the Government to carry out the principles of free trade; it is not to be characterised as a protection Budget; it is a free-trade

947
Budget, and carries out the declarations which you have made." Well, then, up to the moment of the debate on the Address, it is admitted that we had redeemed our pledges. We then asked leave to give a practical proof of our intentions in a fortnight, hut we were prevented from giving that proof by the interposition of an abstract Motion; but when we are permitted to develop that scheme, by the confession of our opponents that scheme is a complete fulfilment, so far as free trade is concerned, of the pledges we had given, and the declarations we had made. I did say, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, that I thought it desirable that previous to Christmas there should be an opportunity given to Parliament, not only to hear but to decide upon the commercial policy of the country. Undoubtedly I was anxious, and am anxious still, that such an opportunity should be given; and the best practical proof that we can give, is, that we have introduced that financial policy, not in the form of resolutions, which may be liable to interpretations one way or the other, but in the way of legislative measures submitted to Parliament, and upon which, before the other House separates, I trust that we shall have the judgment of Parliament; so that, in complete fulfilment of the pledge which we gave upon a former occasion, the current business of the ordinary Session shall not be interfered with by questions, raising doubts as to the future commercial policy of the country. So far for the course which the Government have pursued, so far for the course which, in my judgment, would have rendered any Motion by way of resolution Unnecessary and uncalled for; because I think that the best proof that could be given of the intentions of a Government—if the words of the Ministers were not to be taken—were the legislative and commercial measures which they proposed for the consideration of Parliament. But I waive that question; I accept the Resolution; and now, my Lords, I ask—what is your object? What is the object of those among you who are the most determined free-traders, who have been the most consistent supporters of that policy from the beginning? For I am sure that this immutable principle of free trade has had to struggle against various and serious difficulties; and I say that there is hardly a single individual—I except the noble Earl who has to-night made his first
948
appearance this Session—amongst those I have the honour of seeing on the opposite benches, and who are now the ardent supporters of that system, whose votes have not at one time or another been recorded in opposition to that immutable principle. The noble Marquess himself—I do not wish to taunt him with it—but the noble Marquess himself is not quite correct in saying that he never gave a vote in opposition to free trade; because, though he never did in person, he did by proxy. He did a considerable number of years ago give a vote by proxy against the principle of free-trade, and more especially against the principle of free trade in corn, [The Marquess of CLANRICARDE. When?] In 1839, when Earl Fitzwilliam brought forward a Motion on the subject of free trade, you will find that the proxy of "Lord Somerhill," was given in opposition to that Motion. The noble Baron next him (Lord Beaumont) is a still more recent convert; because so lately as 1846 he both spoke and voted against the repeal of the corn laws, and, if I am not mistaken, was himself subsequently the chairman of a Committee to inquire into the burdens on agriculture, and the means of mitigating the great injury inflicted on the agricultural class, by the repeal of the corn laws;—and still more recently, I had the honour of seeing amongst the names of those who joined in the protest which I thought it to be my duty to enter on the records of this House against the repeal of the corn laws, the name of Lord Beaumont. I do not wish to taunt any noble Lord with having charged his opinions. We are all liable to change our opinions, and God forbid that I should taunt any man on the subject! What I was about to say was, that if the noble Lords opposite are sincere and earnest in their wish to produce the greatest possible effect upon the country, by the affirmation of the free-trade principle by this House, then the course which they ought to take, is to frame the affirmation of that principle in such a manner as shall secure the largest number of Peers to vote in favour of that Resolution, without doing violence to their own feelings; and it was on that ground (as I took the liberty of explaining to your Lordships), that, studiously abstaining from dealing with the past, and from offering any opinion on the part of the House as to the abstract policy or the abstract justice of the measures—with regard to which there might be differences of opinion—I framed

949
a Resolution which, so far as any resolution can pledge the House for the future. pledged it to the adoption and carrying into effect the principles of free trade, Now, a few words as to the noble Earl on the opposite side (the Earl of Aberdeen). My Lords, it is quite natural that with his feelings the noble Earl should be very jealous of anything which should appear to cast doubt upon, and should be anxious, on the contrary, for anything which could pay a compliment to, the memory of his and my departed friend—for I shall venture so to call him, although he differed from me in opinion during the last few years of his life—it is quite natural that noble Lords, who were one in feeling with and approved of the policy of Sir Robert Peel, should support a Resolution commendatory of the policy which that statesman adopted. But this is the very point with respect to which the difficulty must arise. The approbation of that policy would be the very point on which those noble Lords who have not changed their opinions, would feel themselves placed in a position which would prevent them from recording their opinion in favour of the Resolution, and thus obtaining the unanimity which we all desire. The noble Earl spoke rather warmly on this point; but he has misrepresented or misquoted me, in referring to words I used on a recent occasion with regard to the condition of the country. Now, my Lords, in the Resolution I drew up, I did not attribute—for that was precisely what I wished to guard against—I did not attribute the prosperity of the country to any one particular cause; but I recognised the existing prosperity, and the imprudence of risking a disturbance of it. In recognising the prosperity of the country, and at the same time in admitting, not the inconvenience, but the serious evil, of frequent changes of policy, I was quite satisfied that this House should affirm—not that they now for the first time adopted, not that they now accepted—but that they recorded their continued adherence to that system of commercial policy which had been recently introduced. Now, my Lords, I am lost in astonishment when I hear the noble Earl, whose peculiar mission, and whose peculiar opportunities, in conjunction with others who act with him, I thought had been to smooth over the differences between parties, to act as impartial mediators, to give a friendly opposition to the Government if they were compelled to offer any opposition at all, and to do what they could to pre-
950
vent any breach in the great Conservative party of the country—I confess I did hear with astonishment from him comments upon the Resolution which the noble Marquess had accepted at my hands, which I think were not called for by the occasion, or founded upon any fair and rational interpretation of its terms. The noble Earl says this is the most reactionary Motion which could possibly be proposed. A reactionary Motion—that is, a Motion which indicates a desire to recede from a particular system of policy by pledging the House in terms to adhere to it—which indicates a desire to abandon and depart from it in terms expressing the regret with which this House would view any attempt to reopen the question, to interfere with that policy, or even to interrupt its further progress. I must say that though, on the part of a decided opponent, I might expect to have such a construction placed upon such words, I should not have expected to have such a construction placed upon them by one whose professions, both personal and political, except upon one point, are friendly and conciliatory. One word, my Lords, I may say with regard to Sir Robert Peel. I will not now enter into any discussion of the wisdom, expediency, and justice of the measure of 1846. I differed from the policy, and still more widely from the justice, of the introduction of those measures at the time when they were introduced, and by the man by whom they were introduced—and I gave the fullest proof of the sincerity of my opinions by abandoning the colleagues with whom I had no other ground of difference; but from that time to this I defy—I do not use the word offensively—the warmest friends of the late Sir Robert Peel to find in any speech or writing of mine a single expression derogatory to his character, or affecting the integrity or the motives of that statesman. The only serious misunderstanding I ever had with my noble and lamented Friend the late Lord George Bentinck—a misunderstanding which I am happy to say was throughly removed before his untimely death—was, upon a full and frank expression of my opinion, that nothing could be more unfitting or more impolitic than to load with terms of vituperation those from whom we are compelled conscientiously to differ. My Lords, I am not prepared to say now that I would take, if 1846 were to come over again, the same course into which I was then thrown by circumstances. But I am quite prepared

951
to say this: that whatever may have been the justice or the policy of the measures introduced in 1846—which, be it observed, were not introduced upon any abstract principle, or any theory of what was required by justice or immutable doctrine, hut which arose out of the exigency of the time, and were called for by the deficiency of the potato crop in Ireland—for that was the basis of the free-trade legislation of that time, and not soundness of argument or correctness of principle. I repeat, that whatever may have been the justice of those measures originally, I still say, and in the words of the Resolution am willing to affirm, that now, when the decision of the country has been finally expressed, it is time to put an end to a hopeless and useless political struggle, the consequence of which can only be to maintain a prolonged state of uncertainty, to embarrass our legislation, and to impede the prosperity of the country. To the Resolution now before the House those may assent who have been entirely and absolutely opposed to the past policy of 1846. The noble Marquess has commented upon language which has been held in the other House—not a very convenient practice, I must say—by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in declaring that at no time had the Protectionist party sought to reverse the system of 1846. My Lords, I think the noble Marquess must have misunderstood that which fell from my right hon. Friend. What he said was—I think I can answer for it with perfect certainty, and the noble Marquess will do me the justice to recognise it as the principle we have acted upon in this House—that in the House of Commons, or within the walls of Parliament, from 1846 downwards, no attempt has been made to reverse or repeal the policy of 1846; but that from the period of the general election of 1847, which was an election conducted under peculiar circumstances, we have uniformly held out that that question never could be held settled until the country had pronounced on the policy pursued at a general election, and that that general election must be taken as decisive on the issue of the question. I did not say—I forget who the noble Lord was who, I am sure unintentionally, misrepresented me on this point—I did not say that I would bring forward the question of Protection if I obtained a majority in favour of my views. What I did say was, that while I had not altered the views I entertained as to the commercial
952
policy of 1846, unless there were not only a bare majority, but an overwhelming majority, in favour of the reversal of free-trade, and a return to a protective system, so strongly did I feel the inconvenience and evils of continued agitation, that even if I had a bare majority with me, I should think it more advisable to continue the system I found established, than to excite an obstinate and continued struggle between contending parties. The same language was held by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who declared the conclusion to which he had come—that, after the opinion of the country had been taken on the general question, that question must be considered as definitively settled—that from that period we should take a new departure, and, unless the country was decidedly in favour of a return to the protective system, we should endeavour to shape our course frankly and cordially, so as to draw from the system that had been introduced all the results it might admit of, and in the manner most advantageous to the general interests of the country. Such, my Lords, is the issue I put. I entreat you to allow the question to stand upon this, the sound, the rational, the politic footing; that you will not allow the subject to be re-agitated—that you will not insist upon reviving past dissensions and forgotten bitterness—that you will not endeavour to compel men to retract the opinions they had conscientiously formed, and which they still entertain; but that, on the other hand, you will be content with a pledge for the future—with the recognition of your own principle as the rule of action henceforward, as you have been content with the recognition of the principles of slave emancipation, Catholic emancipation, and the Reform Bill, all of which have been accepted and acted upon by those who at the time differed from their proposers as to the policy and justice of those measures. What would have been said if, shortly after the Catholic Relief Bill and the Reform Bill had been admitted as settlements of those questions respectively, their friends had come down and insisted that not only should the Houses of Parliament consent to act on the new policy they had adopted, but should expressly recant the opinions they had entertained in favour of the policy that had formerly prevailed? What would the friends of Sir Robert Peel have said in 1835, if, when he assumed the Government, and when the new Parliament was

953
assembled, he had been called upon to declare that the Reform Bill was a "wise, just, and necessary measure," and if, when he refused to stultify the convictions of his own friends, he had then been accused of proposing a reactionary policy, I am of opinion that such a course, calling upon men to declare that which it may be against their consciences and settled opinions to declare, and thereby to abandon their convictions and recant their declarations—as would inevitably follow from the particular course you wish to see adopted on the present occasion—I say that such a course is neither consistent with the usual generosity of political opponents in this House, nor is it, permit me to say, conducive to the final and decisive establishment upon a fixed basis of that principle of commercial policy which must hereafter be the basis of our commercial legislation For my own part, I need not say that I cordially concur in the Motion made by the noble Marquess opposite. I concur in it without the slightest reservation, and I believe it can be concurred in by the great majority of this House, if not unanimously. At the same time I declare that if it were possible that words could be inserted which should make the prospect for the future more clear and definite, and more utterly take away the possibility of a reactionary policy, to such words I should not for a moment object. But, my Lords, I am convinced that no such words could he introduced. I entreat your Lordships, therefore, not to go back to a useless and causeless discussion about the past; but, above all, I entreat your Lordships, even those who may not view with entire satisfaction the Motion of the noble Marquess as it stands, not so far to depart from the usual practice of this House as to sanction the discussion of an Amendment which can be introduced only as a surprise on those who believed they had a right not to expect that any such step would be taken.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwished only to say a few words on the subject of the Motion made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) at the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite, and as to the position in which this question stood. In the first place, he would state that, setting aside the merits of the Amendment moved by his other noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) beside him, he should certainly feel himself precluded from voting in favour of that Amendment, in consequence
954
of what had taken place in that House the other night. He did understand at that time that a most distinct understanding was come to, in which all the noble Lords then present concurred, that the very reasonable request of the noble Earl opposite should be acceded to—that, if the Motion appeared to be of such a nature as would invade disputed ground, the further consideration of it should be deferred to such a day as would admit of the attendance of noble Lords. Undoubtedly, that arrangement would not be in any degree binding on noble Lords who were not present when it was made; but, for his own part, though he took no share in the conversation between the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, he was then present, and not having offered any objection, be considered himself a party to what then passed; and he was sure his noble Friend the noble Baron would be the last man to wish that any course should be followed which, if adopted, would not only defeat the efforts that had been made to arrive at a good understanding on this vexed question, but prevent the transaction of the public business in a satisfactory manner. It was quite open to his noble Friend upon that day, or any other that was convenient, to come down and give notice that he was not satisfied with the course intended to be pursued, and that he intended to take the sense of the House upon it. If, therefore, his noble Friend insisted on moving the Amendment now, it would be, he trusted, with the intention of not pressing it to a division, or he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) should certainly feel that, upon the ground he had stated alone, he must abstain from voting. This was a matter on which the House was bound, not by its technical forms of proceeding, but by the understandings usually arrived at between its Members in respect of the conduct of business. As to the position in which he found himself with respect to the Motion made by the noble Marquess, he confessed that, without entering into the question whether it was proper or necessary at all for this House to adopt any proceeding on the subject, he was not one of those who ascribed all the importance that many persons in and out of the House did to the particular terms in which the Motion was made. The position in which they found themselves was this: his noble Friend the noble Marquess near him, having been a most consistent and most able supporter of that liberal policy which die-

955
tated the change in the corn laws, naturally and justifiably had a disposition to bind the noble Earl opposite and Her Majesty's Government, with respect to the course that was to be adopted for the future. The noble Earl opposite appeared to have assented to the principle of the Resolution; but he contended, naturally enough on his part, that he should be bound only by words proposed by himself. If the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government asked themselves to forge the fetters they were hereafter to be bound by, all that the House had to take care of was, that the fetters should be made of well -tempered steel—of such stuff as that the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government would not be able easily to escape from—because, in his mind, he confessed that there must be some difference in an agreement between persons who had uniformly supported particular lines of policy, and an agreement between persons who had uniformly supported one line of policy, and others who had long supported an opposite line, but now had suddenly changed their opinions. He therefore said that some suspicion was justified on the part of the noble Marquess—some desire that this House, in concurrence with the other House of Parliament, should express an opinion in terms so strong and so decided, that the House and the Government should not afterwards easily depart from them. He had come down the other day, as he had come down to-night, prepared to agree to any form of words that conveyed a distinct impression upon this subject, even if those words should fall far short, as he certainly thought the words suggested by the noble Earl fell infinitely short, of the expression of opinion required—of that candid and complete admission of the justice of the past policy, in concurrence with the determination to pursue it for the future, which he thought the magnitude of the occasion, and the precedent afforded by the other House of Parliament, demanded. But because he thought the Resolution shortcoming in itself—because he condemned, or at least regretted, the apparent reluctance on the part of noble Lords opposite, the hesitating faltering consent they had given to the doctrines on which they were about to act—yet if it were so repugnant to their feelings to adopt doctrines and subscribe to the articles of that Church which they announced they were about assiduously, frequently, and earnestly to attend, it was not for them (the Opposition) to say that,
956
to the extent to which Ministers and their friends were willing to make that admission, and act upon that system for the future, they would not have every facility allowed them for doing so; although, from the statements they had made, it appeared that they wished to preclude all inquiry as to the wisdom and justice of the policy which they themselves recommended to be maintained. In assenting to a Motion on this subject which fell short of what he thought the occasion demanded, in adhering to the terms which in the opinion of many of his noble Friends near him, and in that of his noble Friend the noble Earl on the bench above him (the Earl of Aberdeen), did not sufficiently bind the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, it would, however, be affectation in him to say that he felt any apprehension as to their future course. He felt no apprehension—but not on account of the confidence he felt in Her Majesty's Ministers—for the noble Earl opposite could not think it disrespectful in him to say that he could not have the same confidence in persons who had recently adopted new opinions as in those who had consistently adhered to them for years, and who from long affection, feeling, and conviction, had confidently persuaded themselves as to the policy they ought to pursue; but although he did not feel confidence, still no apprehension existed in his mind in relation to the future. When he heard it distinctly admitted, as it had been that night and on many former nights, that in guiding the great vessel of the State in its course towards a liberal policy, it was not Her Majesty's Government that had held the rudder, but that that rudder was held by public opinion, he agreed with his noble Friends that they could place confidence in the action and power of that public opinion, and that whatever words their Lordships voted—nay, if their Lordships voted no words at all—whether their Lordships adopted the Motion made in the other House of Parliament, for throwing aside which the noble Earl had not assigned any reasons, or should he induced to abstain from insisting on that Resolution which the noble Earl's Colleagues all supported in another place, and which was adopted by a large majority in the other House—whichever of these things should happen, he believed that the policy first laid down in that House, as the noble Marquess stated, by Lord Grenville—and it was to the lasting honour of the House of Lords

957
that maxims so favourable to the people of this country should have been first suggested and inculcated by one of its Members—the policy enforced under the auspices of a great statesman and supported by a majority of that House, and a great proportion of the ability of the country, carrying out principles previously laid down into practical effect, and insuring to this country prosperity of trade and cheapness of food—two of the greatest desiderata which any nation could obtain—he felt that this policy it was not in the power of the noble Earl, or even of Parliament itself, to alter or disturb. Be the changes in the Ministerial policy what they might, he was convinced that the moment any dispositions were manifested on the part of Government to overturn the measures of 1846, or even any hesitation in acting on their policy, the sense of the country would speak out; and it was not the words voted by their Lordships which would determine the issue, but the sense of the country operating upon Parliament, controlling the course and influencing the judgment of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl opposite had admitted as much when he told them that he had not acted upon his own opinions, but had acted, and meant to act, on the opinions of the country. If the opinion of the country had been strong enough in the present year to influence the noble Earl, with all the advantages which his accession to power gave him, would it not be sufficient to control him, so far as to secure his adhesion to the policy on which he told them he had now entered, willingly as respected present measures, but reluctantly as regarded past opinions. In the Motion as suggested by the noble Earl, there were certainly some words to which he gave his most cordial concurrence; and from what had passed since notice of this Motion was given, he was apprehensive that he gave those words a more cordial concurrence and approbation than the noble Earl did himself; because he saw with great satisfaction introduced into this Resolution a strong declaration, not absolutely called for, but volunteered, as it were, on the part of the noble Earl, as to the inconvenience of financial changes not absolutely required by the public exigencies. After what he had heard passing within the last few days in another place, and after what, it was notorious, had passed there, he did feel, even more strongly than the noble Earl himself, the importance of this House voting an
958
opinion as to the evils of financial changes, and, above all, of the evil of financial changes when the country was in a most happy and prosperous condition. If it were indeed so happy and prosperous, why these portentous financial changes? He was not going to attempt to discuss in that place a Budget which, from the multitude of branches into which it ramified, required on the part of the principal organ of Government in the other House five hours to make it intelligible to the House of Commons, and which he really believed, with all the noble Earl's unequalled clearness of exposition, and with all their Lordships' quickness of apprehension, it would take him at least two hours and a half to make intelligible to their Lordships; but he would say this, that although the extent of the changes in that Budget, and the indicated alterations in the policy it had laid down, might have disappointed noble Lords in that House, or hon. Members in the other House of Parliament, and, above all, those who were believers in Protection—or, to use a word recently adopted, compensation—it was a Budget involving very great financial changes; but when the noble Earl talked of the expediency of coming to a rapid decision on the subject of the great changes proposed, he did trust that both the Government and the House of Commons would take time to deliberate before they hastily adopted changes which transferred burdens from one quarter to another, the effects of which transference it was impossible rapidly and certainly to discern. He hoped for the sake of all parties—for the sake of public credit—that at least the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not hastily abandon one of the great foundations of the finance of this country, without having first assured himself of the means of replacing those foundations which he would have removed. He thought this a grave consideration for the country—a grave consideration for the Legislature. He knew it was very delightful to all financiers and Chancellors of the Exchequer to exhibit their ingenuity, by taking money from the pocket of one class and putting it into the pocket of another, and thereby, as they thought, lessening the burdens of all; but let them recollect that those operations which most strikingly exhibited the skill of the operator were generally those which were most painful to the patient, and that bandages removed from a diseased part might only produce symptoms of malady in those portions of

959
the frame to which they were transferred. He said, therefore, that these changes were most deserving of the attention of every man in the country who had studied the subject, and of the people, who had only been put in possession of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government within the last three days. Before he sat down he must take notice of one doctrine laid down, not for the first time that night, by the noble Earl, but one which he had repeated on former occasions—namely, that the influx of gold from the Australian colonies affected the question before the House. His noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) to a certain degree subscribed to that doctrine, but it was one from which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) must record his entire dissent. He believed that whatever permanent accession of such a nature was made to the country in general, it did not alter in the least the permanent relations between consumer and producer, and that there was no more produced of any article in consequence of a great accession of gold, than there would be produced in consequence of a great accession of paper. If the Bank of England issued paper tomorrow, as it might do if permitted by Parliament, it would not make the slightest difference in the relations between the amount of agricultural produce, or of any other produce, and consumption. He was sure the noble Earl would on reflection admit that fact, for, if his argument was carried out, it would follow that if a diminution of the supply of gold were to take place, Parliament would be compelled to alter the corn laws again. The noble Marquess concluded by repeating that he was ready to vote for the Motion of the noble Marquess, though thinking its terms insufficient, but could not support the Amendment.
The EARL of DERBY, in explanation, said that the noble Marquess had misunderstood him with regard to the effect of the recent discoveries of gold upon the prosperity of the working classes. He (the Earl of Derby) and his friends had entertained great apprehension that, as the price of corn fell—other circumstances remaining, the same—the result would be a diminution in the rate of wages; and that the consequence would be that the position of the working classes would be worse than before. They had not denied, and did not deny now, that the cheapness of provisions, if wages remained the same, would increase the comforts of
960
the labouring classes. But the question was, whether other circumstances had not had a beneficial effect on the rate of wages, and consequently counteracted and neutralised the results they had anticipated from the simple reduction of the price of corn: and he could not help thinking that the large influx of gold, and the emigration that had taken place, combined, must have materially affected the rate of wages, and prevented the fall which might otherwise have occurred; for the result of the large importation of gold had undoubtedly been to render the interest of money cheap and capital abundant, thereby enabling the employers of labour to obtain a larger amount of capital to lay out in the employment of labour, upon easier terms than they would have done if these gold discoveries had not taken place. And simultaneously with that operation, rendering capital abundant and money cheap, there had occurred also a very large emigration from this country and from Ireland, which had very largely diminished the number of persons competing in the labour market, and thereby gave to a reduced number of competitors higher wages than they otherwise would have obtained. Therefore, he said that the discoveries of gold were one cause—he did not say the main cause—and that the emigration which had been carried on to a greater extent than usual, was another—that the influx of gold, and the great extent of emigration, had acted and reacted on each other; and to the cheapness of of capital and to the emigration (with the consequent scarcity of labour) was undoubtedly to be ascribed, to a certain extent, the improved rate of wages. Add to this the fall of prices—and it was owing to these three causes combined, and not to any one in particular, that the working classes were now in a state of prosperity.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that the noble Earl had mentioned the rate of wages as the first thing to be affected; but he believed it would be found that it was the last in the circumstances to be considered in the question.
The EARL of RADNORthought the House was placed in a position of considerable embarrassment by the Motion that had been made, and the Amendment that had followed it. He saw only two modes of overcoming the difficulty. The first was by both parties agreeing to withdraw both the Motion and the Amend-

961
ment; and the second, which would perhaps be the more agreeable course, was by adjourning the debate. Thinking it advisable that the debate should be adjourned, he now moved, "That the further debate be adjourned to Monday next."
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he had no objection to offer to the suggestion for, adjourning the debate. His only desire in moving the Resolution that he had done was to promote unanimity, but unfortunately he had caused the greatest possible discord. He could not, however, agree to the withdrawal of both the Motion and the Amendment, because it would go forth to the public that the question had been raised in the House and no Motion had been adopted. The Resolution that he had proposed he did not think a good one; but he had hoped, as he had said, that it would at least ensure unanimity; and if he consented to withdraw it, he was not sure whether the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) would approve of his doing so. On the question of adjournment he wished to say, in answer to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite with regard to his conduct in 1839, that it was a clearly understood thing that a vote given by proxy was not the vote of the Peer who gave the proxy, but the vote of the Peer who held the proxy.
The EARL of DERBYexpressed his objection to any Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and said that he would support the noble Marquess against any Amendment.
The said Motion was (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, that the misfortune of this Resolution, as far as it occurred to him, was, that it rendered it difficult for some noble Lords to vote for it because it assigned certain reasons for their being unwilling to change the commercial policy recently established; and by reciting those specific reasons it seemed to exclude every other. It would appear from it as if the majority of that House (should the Resolution be passed) had no other reasons for not disturbing the system of unrestricted competition than their unwillingness to subject the country to the evils attending frequent changes in the financial policy of the country. He would, therefore, suggest that the simplest and best course of arriving at an unanimous conclusion would be by omitting the preamble of the Resolution, and avoiding
962
the allegation of any reasons, and declaring "that this House, thankfully acknowledging the general prosperity, adheres to the commercial system recently established, and would view with regret any renewed attempt to disturb its operation or impede its further progress." That would be a more statesmanlike proposition; and would recognise the wisdom of the advice once given to a Judge," Never give your reasons; give your judgments—your judgments may be right; but your reasons will most probably be wrong." They had already seen how unphilosophical and absurd it was to attempt to assign reasons on which there should be agreement in opinion, in the controversy between the noble Marquess and the noble Earl on the effect of the influx of gold and of emigration on the prosperity of the country. That was a very good subject of debate for a Political Economy Club, or for articles in the newspapers; but that House would never come to any practical conclusion on a question of commercial policy if they were to attempt to settle the relative effect of each different ingredient of the prosperity of the country. Therefore he said that this Resolution, shorn of its preamble, would be a positive declaration, and certainly as binding on the House and the Government as could be desired; while, on the other hand, if the preamble were retained, and the prosperity of the country should be ascribable to other causes; or if changes were in future effected in our financial policy leading to an inference that such changes need not necessarily be an evil, they would perhaps leave it an open question for consideration, whether I they ought to adhere to the policy commonly known by the name of free trade. He doubted exceedingly whether any noble Lord would come forward and assert that the prosperity of the country was to be attributed simply to any one cause, let it be free trade or any other. By simplifying and shortening the Resolution in the manner he suggested, they would save themselves the embarrassment of the re-discussion of this question; and they would avoid bringing ridicule upon their deliberations, because at present it would really be said that in debating about mere words they were contending for no real principle at all.
VISCOUNT STRANGFORD, after listening to so much and understanding so little, only rose to express his deep regret that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) was not a Member

963
of their Lordships' House. There would, then, he some chance of coming to a conclusion.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: My Lords, if it had been the wish of the House to continue this debate, I should have endeavoured to express my concurrence in the views which my noble Friend the noble Earl who spoke second in the discussion to-night stated as to the absolute inutility, as regards this House, of any Resolution such as the one which the noble Marquess has proposed. But under present circumstances, and with these opinions, I rise now for the purpose of impressing upon your Lordships how desirable it is that we should accept the proposition which the noble Earl on the cross bench (the Earl of Harrowby) has suggested, and thus put an end to the discussion, by expunging the words in the Motion which noble Lords on this side of the House so strongly disapprove of, and to which the noble Marquess can attach no importance—stating, as he does, that he disapproves of the whole Resolution, although he undertook to father it. I say, looking at the fact that the preamble can have no particular value in the eyes of the noble Lord on the other side who proposed it, and has certainly been met with disfavour from all those on this side of the House, I cannot but think that we shall be acting fairly, and wisely, and prudently, as regards our own credit and the object which we all profess to have at heart, if we confine ourselves to the practical part of the Resolution, omitting the whole of the preamble, rather than by retaining it to give rise perhaps to future debate and future misunderstanding of what were our real intentions. My Lords, if I understand from the assent of the noble Earl that this meets with his approval—[The Earl of DERBY: I have no objection to it]—and that the noble Marquess is willing to adopt the proposal of my noble Friend on the cross bench, I certainly shall not think it right to trespass on your Lordships' attention for many minutes. But, my Lords, there were some few observations of the noble Earl, with reference to the course of conduct of the late Sir Robert Peel, and with reference to that of his Friends, on which I feel bound to make a few remarks. My Lords, I will not discuss with the noble Earl what he may consider to be the peculiar mission of my noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), or of the former Friends and Col-
964
leagues of Sir Robert Feel in this House. I will not discuss with him whether it is our bounden duty, for some reasons which he did not assign, to act as mediators between noble Lords on this side and noble Lords on that—as pacificators who are to turn the balance in favour of the Government, I presume, on occasions when they are in any difficulty—I know not, my Lords, what notion the noble Earl opposite may have of our duties; but with reference to the question immediately before the House, this I can say, that I conceive there is a legacy devolving on us from that great and illustrious man, namely, the protection of that commercial policy which he founded in this country, and with the success of which we are all identified; and from the execution of the duties imposed upon us by that legacy, I assure the noble Earl we are not likely to be diverted by any observations that he may make. My Lords, the noble Earl said, that he gave credit to my noble Friend the noble Earl for—I do not recollect the exact phrase—but for evincing some degree of jealousy of anything which disparages the reputation of Sir Robert Peel. [The EARL of DERBY made an observation which was inaudible.] He said that he could pardon some degree of zeal on the part of my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen), because he must naturally feel anxious to express an opinion in favour of the policy of the late Sir Robert Peel. My noble Friend expressly said, that it would have been his individual desire to declare that that policy was "wise, just, and beneficial;" and so say I; but I agree with my noble Friend that it would not be wise or desirable to do that which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) deprecated, in his somewhat impassioned peroration, to make any attempt to impose on noble Lords opposite a formal recantation of the principles they believed they had been right in advocating. My noble Friend said—expressly said—that for that reason he did not wish to propose such words; but the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that he has never answered, in the slightest degree, the observations from this side of the House, not with reference to the words "wise, just, and beneficial," which have not been proposed, but he has never answered this objection: that while he, or rather his Colleagues in the other House, accepted certain Resolutions, spoke on them, and voted for them, he now objects to call on noble Lords in this House, and on his own Colleagues in this House, to

965
adopt the very same Resolutions. My Lords, that is the objection that we have raised; and the noble Earl has studiously avoided giving an explanation, leaving us to choose between two alternatives—either that he is willing to cast a decided slur upon his own Colleagues and Friends in the House of Commons, by refusing to call on your Lordships to agree to certain Resolutions which he considers objectionable and repulsive to your feelings, although they have been accepted in the House of Commons; or else we must be driven to the other more painful conclusion, namely, that the noble Earl cannot really be sincere in his declarations with reference to his practical acceptance of free trade. But the noble Earl said, "What would have been the course of noble Lords in this House, or of right hon. Gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, if, on the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office in 1835, a Motion had been made to declare the passing of the Reform Act a 'wise, just, and beneficial measure?'" My Lords, the cases are in no respect parallel. If Sir Robert Peel, from the time of the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832, up to his accession to office in 1835, had constantly brought forward in his place in Parliament Motions for the repeal of the Reform Act—nay, if, instead of Motions of that kind, he had been making speeches in this House Session by Session and month by month—if he had been receiving deputations in his house at Whitehall Gardens, and had been telling his friends that at the proper time the Reform Act would be repealed, and that at that time he would give the word "Up, Guards, and at them!"—if he, on the other hand, had been attending dinners at the Freemasons Tavern, and had said—as had been said in that place only last year—that he would cry, "Halt in the downward course of legislation!"—if that had been his course, then I say that noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen would not only have been wise, but just and right, in imposing such a test on his taking office in 1835. But, my Lords, consider the contrast rather than the parallel. Sir Robert Peel never pursued that course: he did directly the reverse. My Lords, I entered Parliament for the first time in the first reformed Parliament, and one of the first speeches that I ever heard delivered in the House of Commons was delivered by Sir Robert Peel, if I recollect rightly, on the Motion
966
of the first Address to the Crown from the first reformed Parliament, in which he distinctly declared, at the very first opportunity that he ever had after taking his seat in the new Parliament, that he accepted the Reform Act as an irrevocable decision of a great constitutional question. Therefore I say that there is no use in the noble Earl attempting to draw a parallel between his position and that of the late Sir Robert Peel and his friends. So far from their being parallel, they are diametrically opposed; and the noble Earl has no right to take advantage of it, and say now, "You are not entitled to demand a declaration from my Government which the Members of the Whig party in 1835 did not expect from Sir Robert Peel." My Lords, the noble Earl appeared to me to venture upon somewhat delicate and dangerous ground when he turned to the noble Lord the mover of the Amendment, and to others on these benches, and pointed out the various lengths of time that have elapsed since they abandoned the principles of protection, and adopted those of free trade; I and although he ended by saying that God forbid he should taunt anybody with a change of opinion, yet, certainly, by anther allusion to the course taken by Sir Robert Peel and his friends in 1846—he appeared to intimate that there had been some dereliction of duty and some infraction of political principle in the; course which they then pursued. My Lords, the noble Earl said that at the time he objected, and that he still felt the objection, to the manner in which, and the men by whom, the measure of 1846 was carried. My Lords, we do not deny to the noble Earl, any more than to Sir Robert Peel or to any British Government, that time may operate a change of his opinion; but what we now complain of on the part of the noble Earl is, that he has not changed his opinion. If the noble Earl had come forward and declared that his opinion had hanged even at the eleventh—or, I should rather say, at the thirteenth hour—if he had come forward and told us that he had changed his opinion, these Resolutions would be unneces-sary—we should not feel it to be our duty to bind the Government any more than I to bind this House—which House, my Lords, let it be remembered has never swerved in any vote with regard to free trade during the last ten years. [The Earl of DERBY:

967
Ten years?] I repeat, for "ten years;" and if the noble Earl wishes to have proof, I say that from the year 1842 down to the present time, there has been no instance in which this House has attempted to reverse the principle of free trade. The whole of Sir Robert Peel's tariff of 1842 was carried in this House either without a division or by considerable majorities; and the repeal of the corn law, in 1846, was carried through this House, notwithstanding the strongest opposition and the most eloquent speech of the noble Earl opposite—it was carried under the guidance and counsel of that great, sagacious, and illustrious man whose warning voice will never be heard again on similar occasions of difficulty and danger. Again, in the same year the alteration in the sugar duties was carried, not only by a majority, but the noble Earl declined, if I recollect rightly, to divide the House on the question; and two years later the repeal of the navigation laws was carried by a majority in spite of a strong opposition from noble Lords opposite. And from that time up to the present, although, as I just now said, not only annually, but month by month, speeches were made in this House, and violent attacks made on the course that had been pursued—although we were told that ruin was overtaking the country—although we were told that our course had been most disastrous—although we were told, not, as now, that the labourers were flourishing, but that they, above all other classes—and this too within twelve months from the present time—that they, above all other classes, were suffering—I say, although we heard all these things day by day, and week by week, nevertheless, whatever its individual Members may have said or done, this House never swerved from its free-trade course; and it is upon that account that I maintain with my noble Friend the noble Earl that any Resolution as regards this House is unnecessary. I say, if we look merely to the position of this House, we ought to pass no Resolution at all, because it would only be expressing an adherence to those principles from which this House has never deviated; and the only object of passing any Resolution at all is that it may bind that Government whose course, it is now announced by the noble Earl, is intended to be altered, but whose opinions, he has stated, remain still unchanged. My Lords, if this debate were likely to be protracted, I certainly should have wished
968
to address some further observations to your Lordships with reference to other statements which fell from the noble Earl opposite; but if, as I said before, the opinion of the House should be that we should be content with the proposal of the noble Earl on the cross benches, I should be unwilling to prolong any further a useless discussion. And I the more readily sit down without any further reply to the noble Earl, because I feel that to whatever Resolution this House may come, the great cause of free trade, and of an enlightened commercial policy, is perfectly safe. I, my Lords, would not—except for the honour and reputation of this House—I would not care if this were a far more unmeaning and spiritless, a far more wretched and disparaging Resolution than that proposed by the noble Marquess. I say, my Lords, I have not a moment's fear in regard to the progress of free trade; I would not care, so far as that cause is concerned, what Resolution may be passed by your Lordships; because, irrespective of anything that may pass in this House, I believe the principles of free trade are based on the immutable grounds of justice, and with or without Resolutions will be maintained as hitherto by this House, whatever Government, present or future, may occupy those benches.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that with the counsels of the noble Earl on the cross bench (the Earl of Harrow by) it might be said that the genius of Tiverton existed in that House, for the noble Earl had had the good fortune to propose an Amendment which, as far as he could understand, was approved of by every one of their Lordships. Therefore, under the circumstances, he (Lord Beaumont) would agree to withdraw his Amendment if the noble Marquess would consent to withdraw the original Resqlution.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEexpressed his satisfaction at finding that their Lordships were likely to come to an unanimous vote, and would consent to withdraw his Resolution. The noble Marquess was understood to explain that his proxy in 1846 was used against his individual sentiments.
The EARL of DERBYwould accept unreservedly the Amendment which his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Earl of Harrow by) had proposed with such skill, and, he was happy to say, with such eminent success. It was a curious coincidence, that all parties in both Houses of Parlia-

969
ment should have been brought into harmony by a Resolution interposed in this manner.
Then the Amendment was also (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then it was moved in the original Motion to leave out
—"thankfully acknowledging the general Prosperity, and deeply sensible of the Evils attending frequent Changes in the Financial Policy of the Country."
The same was agreed to.
Then the said original Motion, as amended, was agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente, as follows:—
"Resolved—That this House adheres to the Commercial System recently established, and would view with Regret any renewed Attempt to disturb its Operation or impede its farther Progress."

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—THE FRENCH EMPIRE.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDBRLEYsaid, that he wished to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He wished to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government had any objection to lay before Parliament a copy of the protocol signed by England and the four great European Powers, respecting the canton of Neufchatel; and also of the convention between England, Russia, France, Bavaria, and Greece, for the settlement of the succession to the throne of Greece; and to inquire whether the report was correct that there had been some recent change in the political relations of the territory of Montenegro?
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, with respect to the first question put to me by the noble Baron, I have only to give him the same reply which I gave him last Session;—for the negotiations have not been proceeded with since the noble Baron put the same question to me in the course of last Session. The protocol which has been agreed to, which I am not at present prepared to lay upon the table of the House, because the negotiations are not yet commenced—that protocol confers upon Her Majesty's Government the power of choosing its own time to begin further negotiations. The present does not appear to Her Majesty's Government to be the proper time to enter upon further negotiations; and I may add that the other parties who signed that protocol are of the same opinion. With respect to the question of the Greek succession, which has just been signed by the Four Powers, it will be in your Lordships' recollection
970
that when the independence of Greece was confirmed, it was considered an object of great importance that a dynasty should be secured to that people, and that the succession of that dynasty in a regular line should be guaranteed to the Greek people by the three Powers of Russia, France, and England. After the war was concluded, and the Greek independence was secured, the Greeks themselves prayed to have a constitutional form of government, and by one of the articles of that constitution it was declared that no future King of Greece should be of any other than the Greek faith. It is known to your Lordships that the present King, who was at the time of his election but a child, was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, and in consequence of that, that part of the treaty has never been enforced. It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that a guarantee should be given by the three Powers that the future King of Greece should be of the Greek faith, as well as that the dynasty itself should be guaranteed by the three Powers according to the treaty of 1832. It was necessary, in order to accomplish this end, to revise the treaty entered into by the three Powers in 1832. Her Majesty's Government invited Russia and France to join with the Government of Bavaria in revising the treaty with that object; and they agreed to the invitation, and signed a new treaty, having that object in view. I believe I am in order in saying that it is not the custom to lay a treaty upon your Lordships' table until an exchange of ratifications has taken place. There is another question which the noble Baron intimated his desire to ask—whether any change had recently taken place in the political relations of that wild country bordering on Albania, called Montenegro. I believe that, since Her Majesty's Government came into office, no change whatever has taken place with respect to its political relations. The chief of that country hears a double title. He is head of the Greek Church in that country, and he is also the temporal sovereign. But with respect to his ecclesiastical position, he is under the jurisdiction of the Emperor of Russia, who is considered to be the protector of the whole Greek Church. The chief of Montenegro has been, as I believe his ancestors were before him, to St. Petersburgh, to receive from the sanction and recognition of the Emperor his episcopal jurisdiction and titles. With respect to the indepen-

971
dence of that country, whatever the opinions of different persons may be as to the advantages of such a position, the fact is, that Montenegro has been an independent country for something like a period of 250 years, and though various attempts have been made by the Porte to bring it into subjection, these attempts have failed one after another, and the country is in the same position now that it was some 200 years ago.
My Lords, having answered these questions of my noble Friend opposite, it is now my duty to announce to your Lordships an event which we have all long since expected, but which has not diminished in importance from the circumstance that it had been long expected or foreseen,—I allude to a notification which Her Majesty's Government has received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Paris, announcing that the French people have determined to change their political constitution from a republic to an empire, and that they have raised the person of the Prince President of the Republic to the Imperial dignity of the Empire. That communication was made to me on Thursday; and having been communicated by me to the other members of Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's servants thought it right to advise Her Majesty without delay, and cordially, to recognise the new constitution which had been selected by the French people for their Government. My Lords, it has been, as your Lordships know, the usual policy of this country, for the last twenty-two years—ever since the Revolution of 1830 in France—to adhere to the constitutional doctrine, that a people have a right to choose their own Sovereign without the interference of any foreign Power;—and that when a Sovereign has been freely chosen by the people of a country, that Sovereign, by whatever name he may be called, is at once recognised as de facto the ruler of that country, by the Sovereign of this. And, my Lords, I must say, that if there was ever formerly any doubt as to the distinct will of another nation being expressed in respect to their choice of a Sovereign—if ever there was a doubt as to the intention and the wish of the French people at any former time—on this occasion, at least, it is perfectly impossible to doubt what their determinations are. Three times, in the most solemn possible manner—three times have they expressed a wish for the same person in the most public manner of which, perhaps, his-
972
tory can furnish an example. When, at the Revolution of 1848, a Republic succeeded to the monarchy of Louis Philippe, the present Emperor of the French was residing in this country. He went over with none of that canvassing which usually takes place in relation to elections of far minor importance—he went over, I may say, with nothing but his name—a name which, in the great power it exercises, in the magic with which it acts upon the people of France, experience alone has been able to make Europe understand. We can readily comprehend how the fate of Napoleon, so chequered as his was—such a mixture of immense glory with immense misfortune—was exactly the mode calculated to rouse the sympathies and to interest the feelings of human nature; and we cannot wonder that it should make a lasting impression upon the people over whom he so long and so gloriously reigned. But, my Lords, it is scarcely possible for any person in any European state out of France to suppose that the prestige of that name remains so long, so steadily, and so strongly, that thirty-seven years after his abdication, his nephew should have appeared in three different characters before the French people within the space of four years—offering himself without any of the accessories of Courts or Governments to assist him—first, as simple President of the French Republic with a Chamber; secondly, as absolute President of the French Republic, without any constitutional form of government; and thirdly, as Emperor of the same people:—first, elected by six millions—next, elected by seven millions—and lastly, elected by nearly eight millions—a number that would form almost the entire male adult population of France. The present is not the time to speculate upon the reasons for this extraordinary expression of sentiment and conviction on the part of the French people. But I think that if we have long lost sight of the power of that name in France, it has been because we have not sufficiently observed that up to this moment, in the chances and changes which have taken place in the government of that country, only one part of her population has been consulted. It was in Paris alone that those changes have taken place. It was in Paris alone that the fates of Louis Philippe and Charles X. were determined. It was by the voice of the Parisians alone that the Republic was established in the year 1848; and although both forms of government successively met with the

973
silent approbation of the country, yet on no one occasion until the President of the Republic was elected in 1848 were the whole mass of the French people consulted with regard to what form of government they preferred, or what manner of man they sought. In the mass of the French people, one recollection—one only—and one strong partiality prevails; and I think it is not difficult to understand why this should be. In 1815, at the time of the Restoration, the French army—an enormous French army—was disbanded. It was poured back again upon the hearths of the population. The prisoners of war returned from all parts of the world in thousands and tens of thousands; and I believe I am not exaggerating the number when I say that, perhaps, 400,000, or from that to half a million of men, with one fixed idea in their minds, and with one—I may call it—worship fixed in their hearts, then returned to their homes; and for twenty or thirty years afterwards they talked and they thought but of one man; and they thought and they spoke of him as the great idol of their imagination; and though they could hardly have exaggerated his military merits and his military glory, they still added to those all that the warmest enthusiasm could give. Upon the rising generation all this could not be lost; and it appears to me that the seeds which these men have sown in the provinces of France are now to be seen in the fruit of which we have witnessed the ripening on this occasion. Seeing then this immense demonstration of feeling on the part of the French people, it was imposssible for Her Majesty's Government, even if it had not been our usual policy to sanction such demonstrations, not to have advised Her Majesty immediately and cordially to accept and recognise the Empire. There might have been one, and one only, reason that might have tempted us to hesitate before we advised Her Majesty to proceed; but I rejoice to say that the good sense of the present Emperor, foreseeing the difficulty, met it in advance, and removed from Her Majesty's Government those difficulties that might otherwise have intervened. I allude to a somewhat ambiguous expression which was found in the report of the Senatus consultum, which referred to the late President of the Republic, and which was connected with the title it was announced he meant to take—namely, that of Napoleon III. That expression might have induced Her Majesty Government, and
974
would naturally have induced any one, to suppose that the interpretation to be given to it would have been that of common parlance, as it is understood and accepted when it is used to designate sovereigns—the numeral adopted was intended to convey the inference that he was descended by direct and legitimate succession from the former Emperor, and that by right of that descent he now filled the throne of France. My Lords, the advisers of the present Emperor of the French, foreseeing this difficulty, frankly took the initiative in assuring Her Majesty's Government that it related simply to the historical incident that in France, and according to French law, two sovereigns of the name of Napoleon have preceded the present Emperor. Neither of these Sovereigns, as your Lordships know, was recognised by this country. The French know that as well as your Lordships—and they, therefore, adopt the title with no intention of claiming any hereditary right from the first Emperor. This the French Government have distinctly intimated to Her Majesty's Government; and subsequently in a speech by the Emperor himself he has declared—and his Government have also declared it to ours—that he is Sovereign only by the voice of the people, not by hereditary right to the throne—that he distinctly recognises all the Governments that have existed since 1814 in France—and that he recognises the acts of those Governments, and acknowledges the solidarity of those Governments as succeeding others. With this frank and satisfactory explanation, it was only left to Her Majesty's Government, as I said before, cordially and with pleasure to acknowledge the decided will of the French nation, and to send to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris new credentials to the new Court. In the notification which the Emperor has made to Her Majesty's Government, he says that the same policy which influenced the President will influence the Emperor. And with respect to that policy, as it regarded England, it is impossible to speak too highly of the cordial and frank manner in which every question has been entertained by the Government of France—at least since I have had the honour of holding the seals of office. I am sure my noble Friend opposite will say the same thing at the time he filled my place. I have found nothing but fairness and fair play, and in all their transactions nothing but assurances of good will, and wishes to maintain an

975
unbroken friendship with this country. I believe the Emperor himself, and the great mass of his people, deeply feel the necessity, for the interests of both countries, that we should be on a footing of profound peace; and, on the other hand, that they see the great folly and crime which it would be on either side to provoke war. They must know that a war, as far as it would lead to the subjugation of either country by the other, is an absurdity—that neither country, so great, so powerful, and so independent, could in any manner subjugate the other; and that, therefore, war must be as useless as cruel, and AS inglorious as useless.
VISCOUNT CANNING: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Earl in offering any comments upon the notification he has made to us—a matter on which it appears to me none of your Lordships can touch too lightly; and I feel convinced that the sense of the House would condemn any noble Lord who, in following the noble Earl, should express any opinion, or offer any observations of his own, upon this subject. But since the noble Earl has tendered your Lordships a statement of the transactions which have arisen out of recent occurrences in France, in which he, as a Minister of the Crown, has been engaged, and since he has informed your Lordships of the result to which these transactions have led, I take the liberty of asking the noble Earl to complete his statement on a point on which I think your Lordships ought to have a further and more explicit declaration—I mean as to the shape which these explanations took which influenced the Government to give Her Majesty the advice they have done. The question I wish to ask my noble Friend, then, is this, what was the form and shape of those assurances which the noble Earl received; and will the form of them enable the noble Earl either now, or at some future, but not distant, time to lay them before Parliament?
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, the observations of the noble Viscount resolve themselves into two points. He seems to disapprove of something I have stated as being in bad taste. As to the other, I must say I do not understand the noble Viscount's question.
VISCOUNT CANNING: My Lords, all I meant to imply in the first part of my observations was this, that in both Houses of Parliament, when foreign matters are brought
976
under discussion, it is deemed advisable—and, above all, it is deemed advisable on the part of a Minister of the Crown—to abstain from any comment on the conduct of neighbouring Powers in their own affairs, whether it be the conduct of the people or of their rulers. As to the question which I ventured to put, if it is not clear to the noble Earl, I shall endeavour shortly to explain it. The noble Earl is aware that when communications pass between two friendly States, they assume different forms—sometimes they are in the form of a despatch from the Minister or Ambassador of our country residing at the foreign Court making the communication—sometimes in the form of a note from the Minister or Ambassador of that country residing at our Court. Now what I want to know is in which of these forms, or if in neither in what other form, these assurances have been received?
The EARL of MALMESBURY: I agree with the noble Viscount that it is advisable to abstain from all comments on the conduct of foreign States if these comments be disagreeable, or of an unfriendly nature; and certainly I should be the last man to make such comments. It may be that I have not been accustomed to address your Lordships sufficiently often to be able adequately to express my meaning, but I trust I have not said a single word to excite the slightest disagreeable feeling, and therefore I don't understand why the noble Viscount should find fault with me for having made a comment-for comment I have made none. I rose with the most earnest wish to say of France and the French all that France and the French would wish to say of themselves. As to the question put by the noble Viscount, I have to state that the mode in which the communications were made was perfectly official, and therefore perfectly satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. But they could not have been more satisfactory to me than those which were made to me verbally by the French Ambassador in London, and which have since been repeated by the French Emperor in his speech to the Chamber; these would have been quite sufficient security to me even if there had been no official declaration.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEtrusted that the change in the Government would make no change in the relations between France and this country.
House adjourned till To-morrow.