Sitting of 1 May 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Testamentary Jurisdiction; Militia.
2° Witnesses.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee, Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
Clause 1 (Appointment of Commissioners).
MR. HORSMANsaid, he hoped the Government would agree to the suggestion he was about to make, and postpone for the present the appointment of the Commissioners. It was obvious that the duties that were to be imposed by the Bill upon the Commissioners were very arduous, and they were also giving to them very large powers. He had no objection to give such powers to a Commission in which he had perfect confidence, not only as to their capacity for the duties they had undertaken, but also as to their having time to discharge them. If any person looked to the end of the Bill he would see the duties the Commissioners had to discharge. These Commissioners had to examine into the wills of founders and the Statutes of all the colleges. They had to go into a history of all those colleges, and to go into and examine their actual state at this moment,
1106
and their present and prospective revenues. They had to look through the new Statutes that were proposed by the colleges themselves in connection with all those circumstances that were presumed to refer to the intentions of the founders, and were to look into the schemes for the new professorships. Those were things that required a great deal of time and attendance, and not a little personal residence at Oxford; and the question the House had to consider was this, whether they did not feel that they should have an active practical working Commission, composed of men who were not only capable of undertaking those duties, but who, having once undertaken them, would be able to give all the time and attention necessary for their due discharge? It was proposed to place upon the Commission the names of persons of high character and standing, both in the law and in the Church; but their experience, unfortunately, of late years of such Commissions had been this, that when they appointed a Commission containing principally the names of high dignitaries in Church and State, the result invariably was, that they could not or did not attend to the business of the Commission, and it fell into the hands of the secretary. Three of the Commissioners formed a Board; all the Commissioners were never there together; the secretary was always there, and thus he practically became a Commissioner. While he was prepared to give the powers that were given by the Bill, large and extensive as they were, to a Commission, he was not prepared to place those powers in the hands of any secretary. A great deal of the business must consist of negotiations between different colleges, the appointment of new professors, the diverting of the college funds from one college to another; and if those things were left to a secretary only they would create a great deal of irritation and bad blood. The Commission should be composed of men who were really able to devote their time and attention to the business, and not leave it to the secretary. The first name on the Commission was that of the Earl of Ellesmere, whose character and attainments, as well as the interest taken by him in the University, everybody knew, and if the Government had a promise that he would be a working member, no person was more capable of adorning that Commission than Lord Ellesmere. But the question was, whether he could practically become a working man on what was likely to be a laborious Commis-

1107
sion? The second name was also one of high rank, that of one of the highest dignitaries of the Church, the Bishop of Ripon; and he asked, what was the object of employing that right rev. Prelate in the secular labours of this Commission, which should be to a great extent performed at Oxford, and of taking him away from his duties as a bishop of the Established Church? Had he not sufficiently onerous and responsible duties in his own diocese? The proper sphere of a bishop was to be engaged in the good government of his own diocese, and he (Mr. Horsman) did not see what he had to do in altering or modifying the Statutes of the University of Oxford. It appeared from a charge of the Bishop of Ripon that when he had been ten years bishop of that diocese, 25,000 l. had been subscribed for churches alone, independent of schools. What a history that was of active and useful exertion on his part! Why remove him from that sphere of usefulness, and take him away from his clergy and spiritual duties? In the first place, it was quite evident that if they made a bishop of the Church, who had laborious and multifarious duties to perform, a Commissioner, and took him away to Oxford to perform duties of another character, he must neglect one set of duties or the other. He (Mr. Horsman) would say what he had before asserted in that House, that it ought to be their duty to separate the Bishops as much as possible from secular duties, and raise their character by confining them as much as possible to their spiritual duties. He could hardly, without incurring an imputation of exaggeration, state the number of letters he had received from poor clergymen, stating the disadvantages they laboured under from not having present their bishops in their dioceses. There was not a diocese in England from which the absence of the bishop was not a matter of constant disadvantage and frequent complaint. Would they cause it to be supposed that bishops were not sufficiently taken up with their own spiritual duties, and that they must place upon them those secular duties? The third name on the proposed Commission was the name of a high dignitary in the law, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and he would ask, were not his duties as a Judge sufficiently responsible and onerous to take up his time and attention? They were generally thought sufficient for the strength of a young man, and they had been always thought quite enough to take up the time of one so venerable as
1108
the individual now proposed as a Commissioner. If it were necessary to have a man conversant with the law on the Commission, were there not able lawyers perfectly eligible who would be able to give up their whole time to the duties of the Commission? There was another Commissioner against whom an objection was to be urged of a different character. He had not the advantage of the acquaintance of Sir John Awdry, though he knew that he was spoken of highly; but he, unfortunately, had strong opinions, and of a nature which disqualified him, in his opinion, for being a Commissioner. One of the provisions of the Bill was to found new professorships by diverting a certain portion of the college funds for University purposes, and what was the opinion expressed by Sir John Awdry on that subject? He said, in a pamphlet he had published, that he would be distinctly opposed to any large increase of patronage to the Crown, and that to take college funds in order to endow professorships in the gift of the Crown was sheer robbery and confiscation. Those were very intelligible opinions, which he entertained very conscientiously, and set forth most ably; but was he to be called upon to carry into effect the provisions of a Bill which he said beforehand would effect sheer robbery and confiscation? The Government had a large class of men to select from, and he thought the choice of Sir John Awdry was not a wise nor judicious one. He did not wish to do anything so ungracious as to propose the substitution of any other names for those inserted in the Bill. What he proposed was, that the consideration of the names should be postponed until the Committee had gone through the other clauses of the Bill; Government would thus have time to consider whether they could not appoint other gentlemen whose nomination would be equally agreeable to them, and would be more generally acceptable to the public at large.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'the Right honourable Francis Earl of Ellesmere, the Right Reverend Father in God Charles Thomas Lord Bishop of Ripon, the Honourable Sir John Taylor Coleridge, one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Very Reverend the Dean of Wells, and Sir John Wither Awdry, late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bombay.'"
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it appeared to the Government that the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud was one which it

1109
would be very inexpedient to follow. This was a Bill which gave large powers, the exercise of which was in many cases discretionary with the Commissioners. Powers, for example, were given to the Commissioners to vary to a certain extent the execution of the wills of the founders of colleges, and of the trusts attached thereto; and he did not think that the House would like to give these extensive powers to any Commission unless they had first made up their minds as to the members of whom it should be composed, and to whom such powers should be entrusted. He believed that although the hon. Member (Mr. Horsman) had fair ground for saying that it would not be wise to appoint men whose time was fully occupied, yet that, on the other hand, if the Government had proposed to appoint persons whose lives had not been before the public, of whose reputation and character the House had little knowledge—although the Government might have full confidence in them—objections would have been fairly raised, and it would have been said that these were appointments to be made not by the Crown, but by Parliament, and that, therefore, it was necessary to name persons in whom Parliament had full confidence. Now, he believed that the persons whom it was proposed to place on the Commission were such that the University of Oxford and the public generally could safely confide in their duly executing the large powers entrusted to them. The hon. Gentleman, however, had said that the time of most of these persons was fully occupied. But if that were so, still, although they might leave to secretaries and others the preparation of materials connected with the ordinary business of the Commission, he was sure that when there was any question of principle, or that was of great interest to the University, before them, every one of the Commissioners would find time to attend to it, and would feel bound in conscience to look into it, and decide it according to the best of his judgment. He did not believe that the time either of a bishop of the Church of England or of a Judge was so fully occupied that he could give no consideration to a measure of this kind. He believed that the Bishop of Norwich had competently discharged his duty as one of the members of the late Commission of Inquiry into the University of Oxford, which had a task at least as difficult as that which would be committed
1110
to the body whom they were about to nominate. He (Lord John Russell) was, at all events, sure that that right rev. Prelate had given a great deal of time to the labours of the Commission, and had been present at nearly every one of its meetings. Nor did he believe that it was impossible for him to do this without, at the same time, neglecting his diocese. With regard to the Earl of Ellesmere, he was a person whose acquaintance with literature and whose general cultivation of mind were such, that he thought they might fairly place confidence in his capability of discharging the duties of a Commissioner. Although the noble Earl's health was not what could be wished, yet he believed that he would be able to fulfil his duties; and he was sure that, unless his Lordship felt that he could do so, he would not have accepted the office of Commissioner. With regard, again, to Mr. Justice Coleridge, he did not believe that his duties as a Judge would be incompatible with his duties as a Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman stated an objection which might be worth a good deal with respect to Sir John Awdry; but then he omitted to notice the answer which the other names on the Committee furnished to his argument. Although Sir John Awdry might in his pamphlet have stated opinions adverse to one of the purposes for which the Commission was appointed, still there were other parts of his pamphlet which might not be considered unfavourable to the general objects of the Bill. And even if he were, it must be recollected, on the other hand, that the Dean of Wells was a member of a Commission which had proposed much more extensive measures of change than were embraced in this Bill, and that if the opinions that a person held on this subject were to incapacitate him from being a member of the Commission, this very reverend dignitary would be liable to objection as well as Sir John Awdry. It was desirable to appoint persons in whom the public at large would feel confidence, and whose names would, on the other hand, give to the University of Oxford some security that those institutions which its members regarded as so hallowed and so venerable should not be recklessly or precipitately interfered with. He believed that there were many persons who thought that Parliament should not interfere at all with the University, but who had been reconciled to the present Bill by the names of the Commissioners, being satisfied that

1111
from them none but temperate and well-considered reforms might be expected. He hoped, therefore, that the House would at once proceed to the appointment of the Commissioners, and that they would agree to the names of the eminent persons mentioned in the clause.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he must remind the noble Lord that, with respect to the two names of Sir John Awdry and the Dean of Wells, there was a great deal of difference between appointing a person to carry out the provisions of a Bill of which he approved, although he might think it did not go so far as he wished, and appointing a person who was wholly adverse to the measure. If it was true, as stated by the noble Lord, that the Bishop of Norwich had attended almost every sitting of the Commissioners for inquiry into the University of Oxford, he thought it was most discreditable to him, because he must in that case have very much neglected the duties which he owed to his diocese. He thought, therefore, that this was a very bad precedent to place before the Bishop of Ripon. He believed that the secular duties which this Bill would impose upon him were quite incompatible with the spiritual duties of a bishop. And unless that House wished to declare that the Episcopate was a form, that they attached no importance to its spiritual duties, and that they did not object to our prelates leaving their dioceses and travelling 200 miles to discharge duties which had no connection with them, they were committing a great mistake in giving, by this Bill, a handle to those who said that the Church was a more form, and that its members attached no importance to the functions of those who should be the central point of the spiritual life of their dioceses.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he considered it a very extraordinary statement on the part of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that persons originally opposed to the Bill had been reconciled to it by seeing the names of the Commissioners who were to carry out its provisions. He dissented altogether from the main argument on which the noble Lord rested his resistance to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud. They were going to intrust large powers to the Commissioners; it was, therefore, important to know who were to be the Commissioners. He thought it would be better to go through the Bill, and ascertain what were to be the functions of the Commissioners before they de-
1112
termined who should be the persons to perform those functions. He entertained the most unaffected respect for the persons appointed by the clause; but the question was, whether they could give their time and attention to the duties of the Commission. He was quite sure that, in the present state of the Established Church, any bishop who was anxious to discharge his duty would have his time amply occupied in his diocese, and he thought he might say that, with regard to the Bishop of Ripon and to Mr. Justice Coleridge, it would be scarcely possible for them to discharge their duty faithfully as Commissioners. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to the noble Lord whether the House would not be in a better position, when the Committee had gone through its several clauses and had ascertained what were the duties to be discharged, to decide who were the most competent to discharge those duties, than they were at the present moment.
MR. SOTHERONsaid, he considered that the whole merit of the present measure consisted in the character of the persons who should be appointed to carry out its provisions. He for one, should extremely object to the Bill if he had not the fullest confidence in the individuals who were nominated as Commissioners to enforce its enactments. With regard to one of the Commissioners, Sir John Awdry, he had the honour of being personally acquainted with him, and he was sure that Sir John Awdry would not accept the appointment of a Commissioner unless he were of opinion that the provisions of the Bill were such as ought to be fully carried out, and also unless he were determined to discharge his duty as a Commissioner in the enforcement of those provisions. He (Mr. Sotheron) had originally entertained considerable objections to the Bill, but he had been reconciled to it by seeing who were the persons nominated to carry it out, believing them, as he did, to be most honourable, excellent, worthy, and competent persons, and fit to be intrusted with the enforcement of such a measure.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that there was not a single man of science on the Commission. He thought that they ought not to agree to its appointment until this omission was supplied.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, that two of the five persons who were proposed to be appointed to be Commissioners were of strong Conservative opinions, and those two were

1113
likely to exercise great influence over the Commission. The Earl of Ellesmere, although known as having a sincere attachment to the University of Oxford, had never kept up any connection with it. The same might be said with regard to the Bishop of Ripon. It was twenty-six years since he was a student at Christ Church, and since that time he had never been at the University. Of the Dean of Wells he wished to speak with the greatest possible respect, but, without any discourtesy, he thought he might say that, from an amiability of disposition, he was the least likely, from his peculiar turn of mind, to stand up against an adverse majority. Then there were the two remaining Commissioners—Mr. Justice Coleridge and Sir John Awdry. Those two gentlemen were closely identified with what was called the Tractarian party in the University. They were persons of the highest respect, and their influence must necessarily be very great, but he certainly would never give a vote to strengthen that party in the University of Oxford.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, it was his opinion that the great merit of the Commission was that the appointment of its members was not one-sided, but that it comprised men of all parties; and that for that very reason it would give satisfaction to all sober-minded men throughout the country. With respect to the objections that had been raised to the appointment of the Bishop of Ripon, he must remind the house that that Prelate was for many years senior tutor of Christ Church, and although, as a general rule, he believed it was the case that a bishop was fully occupied with the care of his diocese, still he thought it would be a most unadvisable thing to declare that all the bishops should be excluded from a Commission of so much importance as this, and which had to deal with questions so closely connected with the interests of the Church. The presence of a Judge in the Commission was also of great importance, because it would assure the country that the powers of the Board would not be perverted to any purpose of a purely party or exclusive character. He believed that the names of the persons nominated in the clause were a sufficient guarantee that they would exercise the powers intrusted to them in the manner that would best promote the interests of the University.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he hoped that the noble Lord would consent to post-
1114
pone the clause, in order that ultimately some arrangement might be made which could be assented to without the necessity of having a division on the subject. It was always a somewhat invidious task to divide upon the question of names. No doubt could be entertained as to the fitness of the Earl of Ellesmere to be at the head of the Commission, to which his position, genius, and literary attainments would add grace. As regarded the Bishop and the Judge, however, without meaning the slightest disrespect towards either of the eminent persons in question, and altogether disregarding the reference which had been made to their religious opinions, he must declare his conviction that neither of those functionaries was well placed on such a Commission. It would be impossible for them to attend the Commission without neglecting their other duties, and, from the nature of their ordinary occupations, they would frequently be unable to attend the meetings of the Board. Under these circumstances, it was probable that the whole power of the Commission, as had already been observed, would fall into the hands of the secretary. Having had experience of the working of many Commissions, he could declare that he never knew one which did not eventually fall into the hands of the secretary. At present the House did not know who the secretary was to be; but that was, in his opinion, the most important point of the whole arrangement. If the appointment of the secretary should be left to the Commissioners, the mainspring of the machine would be withdrawn from the control of Parliament. Objection was taken to one of the proposed Commissioners, Sir John Awdry, on the ground that he had written a pamphlet adverse to the Bill, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) met the objection by saying, that if that gentleman's views fell short of the provisions of the Bill, the views of another member of the Commission, the Dean of Wells, were in advance of the measure, and that, therefore, the Commission being a coalition one, they would have an opportunity of quarrelling with each other. It appeared to him that the appointment of the Commission should be postponed until after the clauses were agreed to, and then the Government would have an opportunity of naming persons to whom no objection could be taken. If forced to divide, he must vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he fully concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron), with respect to the importance of knowing the names of the Commissioners who were to be appointed to carry out the Bill. He thought that with respect to three of the gentlemen named, no effective objection to their appointment had been raised; but with respect to the Bishop of Ripon—although personally he was one of the fittest persons in the country to be appointed—yet he (Mr. Wigram) felt so strongly the importance of confining a bishop to the discharge of the spiritual duties of his diocese, that he could not help hoping that the Government would reconsider the propriety of appointing him on a Commission the duties of which must necessarily be arduous. As to Mr. Justice Coleridge, although the duties of a Judge were no doubt arduous, still when they saw that the Master of the Rolls was able to attend on various Commissions—he was at this time a member of the Indian Commission—besides discharging his duties in Court, he thought it could not be said that a Judge of one of the Superior Courts was unable to discharge the duties of a Commissioner under this Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he understood the discussion before the Committee to be of a twofold character: in the first place, the Committee were discussing the objections taken to the names of the Commissioners; and secondly, the more general question of whether the names of the Commissioners should be settled at the close or at the commencement of the discussion of the Bill in Committee. Of course, by agreeing to the names of the Commissioners at this stage, no hon. Member would be precluded from moving alterations in those names at a future stage, if he saw cause to do so, after seeing the shape which the Bill assumed in Committee. He thought, however, that the observations of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) were perfectly conclusive in favour of the course which the Government had adopted. They had found it necessary, in order to meet the exigencies of the University of Oxford, to intrust discretionary powers of almost unexampled extent to the Commissioners; as they had only the option between taking this course or adopting sweeping propositions in the rudest and most sweeping form, which must necessarily have led to the destruction of much that it
1116
was desirable to retain in connection with the University. But being obliged to give these discretionary powers to the Commissioners, it was the duty of the Government towards the University—towards those meritorious men whose whole lives' labours and the every thought of whose hearts was bound up with her—to state to Parliament the names of the persons to whom they proposed that it should delegate its authority, before they called upon it to give any opinion upon the powers which they proposed to confer upon the Commissioners. The duty of the Government was so plain on the subject that it did not admit of a doubt, and he could not help thinking that the Committee would coincide in that view of their duty. Objections had been taken by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett) to two gentlemen proposed for this Commission, on account of what he presumed to be their religious opinions. He thought those objections had been very properly disposed of by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. V. Smith), that these were hardly matters which it was desirable for the Committee to entertain; at the same time, he thought that the Government would have been in fault if the proposition of the hon. Member had been true. The objection had been taken more particularly to Sir John Awdry, on the ground that he was supposed to have expressed dissent from some of the provisions of the Bill in a pamphlet published by him. His right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) had appositely enough remarked, that whatever the opinions of Sir John Awdry might be, they would be neutralised by those of another gentleman, who went as much beyond the Bill as he fell short of it. He wished the hon. Member for Stroud had read through the evidence of Sir John Awdry, and the opinions expressed by him regarding University reform. Having himself read it with care, his opinion was, that the general tenor of that evidence, and the sentiments it expressed, were entirely conceived in the spirit of the Bill. Sir John Awdry said, the colleges ought no longer to maintain the monopoly of teaching, and that it was doubtful whether the restrictions on fellowships ought not to be relaxed. Having read what Sir John Awdry said on the subject of professors, and the application of the college resources to their support, he did not admit that it was at variance with the spirit of the Bill; what he desired was, that Parliament should deal with the colleges by plans adapted to each case, those

1117
plans being framed and carried into effect by the authority of persons acting judicially. The hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) said he wished to have a scientific man on the Commission; if they would search the roll of names eminent at the Universities for a gentleman of the highest classical and scientific attainments, he did not think it possible that any one would be found whose claims could be considered superior to those of the Dean of Wells. The rev. Gentleman was Dean Ireland's scholar in 1827, double first class in 1828, mathematical scholar in 1832, F.R.S. and Savilian professor of astronomy in 1839, and professor of moral philosophy in 1842. Again, it was objected that it would be impossible for persons filling high situations to give proper attention to the important and onerous duties imposed by the Bill. He entreated hon. Gentlemen to reflect that the framing of a Commission to carry into effect such a Bill as this was no slight matter. If they wished to apply any measure of reform to any institution in this country, they must not trust to brute force—if he might use the expression—or mere acts of power, but they must look to carrying with them the confidence of those for whom they were to legislate. That was true generally, and he was confident it was more especially true in respect to the Universities of this country. They must also name men who had the confidence of Parliament. It might have been perfectly possible for the Government, by searching among their own friends or by private inquiry, to discover men more fit, perhaps, to discharge the duties of the Commission, and at the same time to fulfil the other calls on their time and attention to which they were liable. But if they wanted men of great experience and of a certain age, of known and tried abilities, and of great wisdom and prudence, he wanted to know where such men were to be found, and with evidence of there being such men patent to the world, if they were to be precluded from making choice of men of high standing? It was but just to the Bishop of Ripon to mention that when he was requested, on the part of the Government, to allow his name to be placed on the Commission, the first thing he did was to write and say that his diocese had the strongest claims upon his atttention, and that before he could take any step to intimate assent to his appointment, he must have such a description of the nature of the duties to be required of him as
1118
would satisfy him that he could conscientiously discharge them. The Bishop of Ripon was informed that they required much experience, but not the art of mastering a great mass of details. It would not surprise him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to find that it would be necessary to appoint two secretaries, by whom the details of business would be transacted; while the Commissioners would be able to direct their attention to the general working of the University system, and to see that the rules they might frame for that object were carried into effect. It was necessary to have for the members of the Commission men of active abilities, and who would give their full time to the transaction of the business to come before them. They must have a large amount of legal knowledge, as well as of general information—such legal knowledge as would enable them to frame the rules on which their proceedings should be conducted, and such weight and standing as would enable them to give effect to those rules. The Bishop of Ripon was not a person new to the subject; he was educated at Oxford University, and spent a great portion of his life in authority there, carrying on the system of tuition at Christ Church. His knowledge of practice, therefore, would be almost as perfect as when he left the University twenty-three years ago; and with that intimate acquaintance, derived, not from books merely, but from the practice of his life, his undertaking the duties of this Commission would not necessitate his abstraction from other cares. He, therefore, trusted the Committee would approve the proposal as to the principle on which the Commission was to be framed.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must protest against the doctrine broached by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) that the Committee, in deciding upon this measure, was to be governed not by the nature of its provisions, but by the character of the persons appointed to carry those provisions into effect. If the House should act upon that principle, it would lead to dangerous consequences. For his part, he thought the Committee should particularly avoid the course it was recommended to pursue. Now, he did not think there was any principle more dangerous for them to entertain, or any course that could lead to results which they would all of them more deprecate. In affairs of the world not so interesting as those of their great Universities, in those joint-stock

1119
companies which they heard so much of in that metropolis, what was the cause of the depreciation and ruin which so generally prevailed, but that they had great names brought forward in order to attract the attention and command the confidence of the public, and persons were thus led to embark in transactions which they afterwards found had very little in common with the éclat and repute of those names on the faith of which they had ventured? We ought to give our opinions upon the measure without being bewildered by the names which had been brought forward as the trustees for its fulfilment. We had no security whatever that these individuals would ever be the permanent administrators of the Bill. He would not stop to inquire whether or not the Sovereign would have the power under this Bill of revoking the appointments when they had once been made; that appeared to be doubtful, but the course of nature might deprive us of the guarantee of the reputation and character of the individuals who were to administer the measure. He would not enter into any criticism with regard to the eminent persons whose names had been brought forward, but he most decidedly objected to the principle which had been laid down by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, and which seemed to have been adopted by the Government, that our opinion of the measure was to be influenced, not by its own merits, but by the character and station of those who were to administer it. He should support the Amendment upon this ground alone, even if he did not object to the Commission; but, with the opinion at which he had arrived, he should feel it his duty to support any Amendment which had a tendency to resist the appointment of the Commission altogether. The principal ground, however, on which he now supported the Amendment was, that he could not in any way agree in the dangerous principle which had been brought forward this evening under the sanction of such high authority, that we were not to decide upon this measure upon its merits, but mainly upon the character of those to whom its administration was to be intrusted. This appeared to him to be a principle of such a dangerous character that he hardly believed it would be sanctioned, upon reflection, by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued the case as if—if we agreed with the proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman)
1120
—we should have no opportunity of sanctioning the appointment of the individuals who were to be intrusted with the administration of the Bill. What we were contending for was, that you should first of all definitively settle what you intended to do, and that you should afterwards consider who were the most competent persons to fill the offices you had decided to create. This was the most logical course, and the Bishop of Ripon certainly seemed to be of the same opinion, because he had said that he could not undertake the office which he was desired to occupy, unless a clear and definite idea were given him of what were the duties which he would have to fulfil. They were about to appoint the Bishop of Ripon to fill this office, but they had not yet settled what duties he would have to perform. There was an immense variety of Amendments upon the paper, and suppose one of them to the effect that the University should be thrown open to Dissenters should be carried. It might be successful, especially if it should be supported, as he supposed it would be, by the noble Lord the chief Minister of the Crown in that House. Then he would ask, would the Bishop of Ripon be equally ready to undertake the administration of the Bill? It was not at all clear, from the character which had been given of the Bishop of Ripon, that he might not turn round and say, "You were premature in proposing my name to the House of Commons; I told you that I would not undertake the office unless I had a clear description of the duties I had to perform, and I am not prepared to carry into effect the provisions which have been passed by the House of Commons." The most logical course, therefore, would be first to define the duties which were to be performed, and then to fix on the trustees to whom the administration of those duties was to be confided. There was another point to be considered. The Minister who had just addressed the Committee had argued the whole case on the assumption that the Crown and Her Majesty's advisers would, of course, make a most violent and imprudent appointment; that if the House assented to the measure without fixing the names of the Commissioners, the Sovereign, as a matter of course, would appoint the most improper persons to fill these offices. He took an exactly contrary assumption. He assumed that if we were not called upon to fix the names, but only to agree that certain duties should be dele-

1121
gated to five Commissioners, the appointments by Her Majesty would be wise, discreet, and proper ones. But, supposing that the Ministers were so indiscreet as to recommend improper persons to fulfil the duties of this Bill, surely it would be in the power of Parliament to address the Crown and to express their opinion on the subject. There were constitutional remedies at our command, and surely it was much better to trust to those remedies in case any grievance should occur, or any inconvenience or injury to the public service should happen, than to adopt so dangerous a principle, or to follow so perilous a course, as absolutely to lay down that that House should consent to a measure of which they did not approve because its management was to be intrusted to persons of whom all approved; and, because the Government might intrust the management of the Bill to persons not worthy of the confidence of the country, that they should forego a constitutional remedy which was always in their power, and assume that Her Majesty would be advised to take an unwise and unconstitutional course, and that Her Majesty's Ministers would fail to fulfil the trust confided to them and take a course that must meet with the disapprobation of Parliament.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to be informed whether the secretary to the Commission was to be appointed by the Government or by the Commission, and whether, if he was to be appointed by the Government, the individual had yet been fixed upon?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the individual who was to be secretary to the Commission had not yet been fixed upon, but he should have no objection to introduce his name into the Bill at a later period.
MR. HORSMAN, in reply, said he would explain why he had taken the course of moving this Amendment. His first impression had been to move the postponement of the clause, but he had been instructed by the Chairman that this could only be done by the authors of the Bill, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom he had applied, had declined to accede to his request. His next impression had been to propose some names in opposition to those which had been inserted in the Bill, but he was sure the Committee would feel that there were objections to that course, as no gentlemen holding high positions would have wished to be placed
1122
in opposition to the Bishop of Ripon and Mr. Justice Coleridge, and he had therefore taken the only course which remained by moving the present Amendment. The Government had now heard the opinion of the Committee, and he thought he was justified in what he had done by the general opinion which had been expressed.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 141: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Alcock, T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Annesley, Earl of

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Atherton, W.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Baillie, H. J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Foley, J. H. H.

Ball, E.

Forster, J.

Baring, H. B.

Fortescue, C. S.

Bothell, Sir R.

Freestun, Col.

Biggs, W.

French, F.

Bland, L. H.

Geach, C.

Blandford, Marq. of.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Bowyer, G.

Glyn, G. C.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Goodman, Sir G.

Bramston, T. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Brand, hon. H.

Gregson, S.

Brockman, E. D.

Grenfell, C. W.

Brotherton, J.

Grey, R. W.

Brown, W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Grosvenor, Earl

Buckley, Gen.

Hale, R. B.

Butler, C. S.

Hankey, T.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Castlerosse, Visct.

Harcourt, Col.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Heard, J. I.

Cecil, Lord R.

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Chambers, M.

Heathcote, G. H.

Cheetham, J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Christy, S.

Heneage, G. F.

Clay, Sir W.

Herbert, H. A.

Clinton, Lord R.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Cobbett, J. M.

Hervey, Lord A.

Collier, R. P.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Hutchins, E. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Ingham, R.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Jackson, W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jermyn, Earl

Davies, D. A. S.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Denison, E.

Keogh, W.

Denison, J. E.

Laing, S.

Divett, E.

Langston, J. H.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Lemon, Sir C.

Drummond, H.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Duncan, G.

Loveden, P.

Duncombe, T.

Lowe, R.

East, Sir J. B.

Mackie, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Egerton, E. C.

MacGregor, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

M'Gregor, J.

Elmley, Visct.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Emlyn, Visct.

Mangles, R. D.

Esmonde, J.

Massey, W. N.

Euston, Earl of

Masterman, J.

Ewart, W.

Milligan, R.

Feilden, M. J.

Mills, T.

1123

Milner, W. M. E.

Sadleir, John

Moffatt, G.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.

Scholefield, W.

Monck, Visct.

Scully, F.

Moncrieff, J.

Seymer, H. K.

Monsell, W.

Shafto, R. D.

Morris, D.

Shelburne, Earl of

Mowbray, J. R.

Shirley, E. P.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Smith, W. M.

Mundy, W.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Stafford, Marq. of

Norreys, Lord

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Traill, G.

O'Connell, D.

Vane, Lord A.

Osborne, R.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Palmer, R.

Vivian, H. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Watkins, Col. L.

Patten, J. W.

Whitbread, S.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Wickham, H. W.

Philipps, J. H.

Wigram, L. T.

Phillimore, R. J.

Willcox, B. M.

Pinney, W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pritchard, J.

Woodd, B. T.

Rice, E. R.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Rich, H.

Wyvill, M.

Richardson, J. J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rolt, P.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Sadleir, Jas.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, J.

Fox, W. J.

Arubuthnott, hon. Gen.

Frewen, C. H.

Arkwright, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Baird, J.

Galway, Visct.

Baldock, E. H.

Gardner, R.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Barnes, T.

George, J.

Barrington, Visct.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Beach, Sir M. H. H.

Greene, J.

Bell, J.

Gwyn, H.

Bennet, P.

Hadfield, G.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Halford, Sir H.

Blair, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Blake, M. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Boldero, Col.

Hastie, A.

Booker, T. W.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Herbert, Sir T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Heywood, J.

Butt, G. M.

Hildyard, R. C.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Hindley, C.

Challis, Mr. Ald.

Hotham, Lord

Chambers, T.

Hudson, G.

Chandos, Marq. of

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Jones, Capt.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Keating, H. S.

Coles, H. B.

Kelly, Sir F.

Compton, H. C.

Kendall, N.

Crook, J.

Kershaw, J.

Crossley, F.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Currie, R.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Knightley, R.

Dod, J. W.

Knox, Col.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Laffan, R. M.

Dunlop, A. M.

Langton, H. G.

Dunne, Col.

Laslett, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Layard, A. H.

Farrer, J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Ferguson, J.

Liddell, H. G.

Floyer, J.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Forster, Sir G.

Lindsay, W. S.

1124

Lisburne, Earl of

Sibthorp, Col.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Smijth, Sir W.

Macartney, G.

Smith, J. A.

Maddock, Sir H.

Smith, J. B.

Marshall, W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Meux, Sir H.

Somerset, Capt.

Miall, E.

Stafford, A.

Michell, W.

Stanhope, J. B.

Moody, C. A.

Stanley, Lord

Mullings, J. R.

Starkie, Le G. N.

Naas, Lord

Stuart, H.

Neeld, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Newdegate, C. N.

Thornely, T.

North, Col.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ossulston, Lord

Vance, J.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Parker, R. T.

Vyse, Col.

Pellatt, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Walcott, Adm.

Peto, S. M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Phillimore, J. G.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Phinn, T.

Whitmore, H.

Pilkington, J.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Williams, W.

Price, W. P.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Wise, A.

Repton, G. W. J.

Wyndham, Gen.

Ricardo, O.

Wyndham, H.

Robertson, P. F.

TELLERS.

Scobell, Capt.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Sheridan, R. B.

Horsman, E.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.
Clause 3 (If any vacancy occurs in the number of such Commissioners by means of death, resignation, or otherwise, Her Majesty may fill up such vacancy).
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that by this clause they would give the enormous powers conferred by the Bill to some unknown person appointed by whoever might be the Ministers between this year and 1858. He only consented to the Commission with the view of giving it the power of consenting to Acts being done, but not that of compelling them to be done, as he wished this to be made an emancipatory measure in the strongest sense of the word. He particularly called the attention of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to this clause.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that as they were then engaged in considering the last of the clauses which related to the appointment of the Commissioners, he wished to know how the votes of those Commissioners were to be given. Whether it was necessary that their decision should in all cases be unanimous, how many would constitute a quorum, and in what manner their power was to be exercised?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, there was no necessity of inserting any special clause with regard to the manner

1125
in which the Commissioners were to come to a decision in the event of their being of different opinions, as it had already been prescribed by the law. The Bill contained the provisions requisite to enable a majority of the Commissioners to decide any questions that might arise.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know what was meant by the words "or otherwise" in the clause? Was it intended to reserve the right of the Crown to remove these Commissioners?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in reply, said, that the Crown would not ex mero motu have power to remove any of the Commissioners. What it might do upon an Address from that House was another question.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that there should be a clear understanding upon the point. He would therefore move that the words "or otherwise" be omitted.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he should support the Amendment, believing that as the clause stood it gave the Crown power to remove or appoint Commissioners at will.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the clause was intended to provide for the supplying of accidental or contingent vacancies. It only specified death or resignation; but there were other modes—such as lunacy, for example—by which a contingent vacancy might occur, and it was to meet these cases that the words had been introduced. The clause did not give the Crown the power of removal, but of supplying contingent vacancies, by whatever mode they might arise.
MR. MALINSsaid, he would suggest, as a way of meeting both the objection of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) and the views of the Government, that the words "or otherwise" should be omitted, and the clause stand thus:—"If any vacancy occurs in the number of such Commissioners by means of death, resignation, or incapacity to act, Her Majesty may fill up such vacancy."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would consent to that alteration of the clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Commissioners empowered to require the production of documents, &c.).
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEproposed to strike out all the words after the words, "respectively and," in order to insert the words, "It shall be the duty of such officer to produce and furnish the
1126
same, any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising in or by reason of any of the Statutes thereof respectively notwithstanding," instead thereof. "Pleadable at the bar" was rather a cumbrous and unmeaning phrase, and he believed that the clause as worded gave a great deal of offence where none was intended. Though he did not so understand it, he knew that many persons looked upon it as if Parliament were arrogating to itself the power to dispense with the obligations of an oath.
Amendment proposed,—
In line 26, to leave out from the words "respectively and" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "it shall be the duty of such officer to produce and furnish the same, any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising in or by reason of any of the Statutes thereof respectively notwithstanding," instead thereof.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the clause was intended to provide that persons who had taken an oath under the college Statutes should not be excused from producing their papers by virtue of that oath. If the hon. Baronet would insert the word "oath" as well as "any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising," he should have no objection to accept the Amendment.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask what the bearing of the clause would be upon an officer who had taken an oath to regard the muniments of his college, and to give up no documents whatever? Surely Parliament could not relieve that man from the moral obligation of his oath, and he had no doubt that such persons would refuse to produce their documents.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought that this was a point of very great importance, and it was one to which he had devoted considerable attention, because oaths of a very stringent character were imposed in his own college, and the members of that college had done him the honour to ask his mature opinion of the obligations under which they were placed by those oaths. The opinion which he had given he now begged to repeat to the Committee. He thought that every such oath as was contemplated in the clause stopped in point of obligation under the authority of the law. It never could compel or oblige, and it never had been intended to compel or oblige any member of a subordinate institution of the State, constituted by law, to set himself up in rebellion against the law by virtue of having

1127
taken that oath. Without any doctrinal casuistry whatever, it was clear that every such oath was taken salvo jure superioris; and if that were the understanding, there would be no necessity to insert the word "oath" in the Act; but the legal obligation, as well as the moral, would be altogether the same if they adopted the language of the hon. Baronet near him (Sir W. Heathcote) instead of that which had been suggested by the framers of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he infinitely preferred the Government scheme to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (the Member for the University), because it was the most honest. They said that a man, having taken an oath, was to break it; but the hon. Baronet only spoke of "impediments." Why, what was meant by a college impediment but an oath? If they meant that men were to break their oaths, let them say so. That was at least a plain and intelligible proposition, with which most men would know how to deal. It did not appear to him that an Act of Parliament could relieve men of their oaths, because there were higher obligations than oaths; but he thought that they were doing violence to the consciences of people very unnecessarily. Why not have provided that if the oaths which people had taken prevented them giving information, the Commissioners might lay violent hands upon their books, and thus treat them as the Quakers were treated in the matter of church rates? He looked upon this as the most serious clause in the Bill; and, whatever the fate of the hon. Baronet's Amendment might be, he should divide the Committee against the clause.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that if it were intended that these persons, in spite of any oath which they might have taken, were to produce the papers in their custody, the word "oath" ought to be inserted in preference to "impediment." He could not agree with him, however, as to the sacredness of the oath which had been taken. The right hon. Gentleman's argument would go the length of saying that any person, upon any subject, might direct an oath to be taken—not absolutely forbidden—and that then Parliament, and all persons acting under the law, would be precluded from ever obtaining any information from them. He could imagine even a person taking an oath by which he had bound himself to send supplies to the
1128
Emperor of Russia, and then saying that he could not refuse to send those supplies because he had taken an oath to do so. So long as these oaths did not interfere with the public policy of the realm, they might be regarded; but when the public welfare was concerned, it was impossible to say that Parliament would refrain from obtaining all the information which it desired because an oath had been taken not to furnish it. It appeared to him that persons who had taken these oaths in consequence of private Statutes were bound, when the public good required the production of their documents, to produce them—any private undertaking to the contrary notwithstanding. If they did not admit that doctrine, they admitted that all private persons throughout the realm might impose private obligations which might be directly contrary to the public welfare.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause abrogated the oaths imposed by law as it then stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said these were not oaths taken by law, but as a voluntary obligation; but, if so, what was the character of the obligation? He (Mr. Walpole) thought the distinction between the abrogation of such an oath and the imposing of another was broad and plain. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to this Amendment. The words now in the clause were not in the original Bill, but had been introduced since the Bill was committed pro formâ. He had stated that his opinion was in favour of a permissive and enabling clause, and not a compulsory one. He thought a compulsory measure was not a measure which ought to be imposed upon the Universities and colleges; and he felt convinced that compelling the Universities and colleges to do something which they did not wish to do, was a proceeding in itself not just and proper towards them. If the words sought to be included by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) in this clause were to have the effect which he said they ought to have, there was, he thought, an end to all argument. He (Mr. Walpole) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Henley), that Parliament never could relieve persons from the obligations by which they had bound themselves, and when, in point of fact, those obligations had been taken by and rested upon the minds of conscientious men.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill had been framed in

1129
the manner now before the Committee with a desire upon the one hand to attain the objects which were absolutely essential for the purposes of the Bill, and on the other, to avoid saying anything which should injure people's consciences and people's doings. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heath-cote) said the words which were in the clause appeared to have reference to a suit; but those words had been selected because they kept far away from the domain of conscience. The first question was this:—Was it necessary for Parliament to take the power which the clause gave them? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it was necessary to take the power, for at present the public and Parliament were in entire ignorance of many of the most essential facts connected with the Universities. At present neither the public nor Parliament knew anything respecting the revenues of the Universities, except a little knowledge gained from a private source. The late Commissioners had no authority to obtain such information against the will of the University authorities, and many of the authorities had refused, on the ground that they had taken oaths which prevented them, and which they considered bound them. Now, there could be no doubt that Parliament had a right to procure knowledge respecting the revenues of the Universities. With regard to private corporations, it had been admitted that there was a supreme power in the Legislature of the State for that purpose, and the same right surely existed as regarded the Universities. The words, as they stood in the clause, expressed that right in the simplest form, and it was clear that an oath was no legal justification to any parties to withhold information when requested to obey the summons of the State. The oaths which had been taken were purely voluntary, and he said with the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) that such oaths were necessarily and essentially limited by the authority of the State. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) that they ought not to invade the domain of conscience at all; and the words proposed, as they appeared to him, kept that in view. If the Committee adopted the words proposed they would be evading the question, and provide a matter for discussion and argument, as to whether parties were bound to give information or not. It was absolutely
1130
necessary to constitute a legal obligation, and that had been done in the terms of the clause. The obligation under which parties were bound was not an obligation of a kind which could for a moment be put in competition with the supreme authority of the State.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, in case his hon. Friend (Sir W. Heathcote) pressed the clause to a division, he should feel it his duty to support him, but he agreed that the modification proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) should be adopted, and that the clause should end at the word "respectively," and thereby leave out the words now under discussion. He certainly thought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to difficulties.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that the clause should end at the word "respectively." He was also of opinion that the obligation imposed was subject to certain conditions, one being that it should not violate the higher duty of Parliament. The insertion of the words proposed would lead to equivocal determination, and no object would be gained by adopting them.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he also thought that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire should be adopted. But he rose for the purpose of clearing himself from a strange misapprehension of his views and feelings into which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), who he certainly thought would be the last man in that House to be guilty of an intentional misrepresentation, had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman imagined that he had said that the clauses of this Bill would repeal or dispense with the University oaths. Now, that was just the thing which he thought such a Bill could not possibly do. By introducing a compulsory clause, such as that under consideration, the Government did not dispense with the oaths, but created a new obligation having a higher sanction, and, as nothing could rise higher than its source—for he did not agree with the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the University oaths were not enforced by the law of the land—it was idle to say that the duty of obedience to the supreme authority of the State could be limited by the oaths taken in the University and colleges of Oxford. No person could be permitted to say that he was exempted from the general autho-

1131
rity of the Government of the land, and had made a law for himself. The supreme authority of the State was incapable of being controlled in that way. It was impossible not to see the momentous consequences which depended upon the assertion of that principle. Great alarm would be created in the University if the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) should be accepted to any extent there. If it should be thought that, by consenting to the requirements of the clause under discussion, the officers of the University would be guilty of a violation of their oaths, it was manifest that great and serious alarm would be created by the passing of this Bill. The House, therefore, should not legislate in any such way as the Bill contemplated, unless they were satisfied that on sound moral principles obedience to the law might be given. Now, he had no doubt that the heads and fellows of the Universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge held their emoluments with perfectly clear consciences, although they did not now celebrate masses or do any other thing which the law of the land had prohibited since the Universities and colleges were founded, notwithstanding that they had taken the very same oaths which were taken at the time when masses were legal and enforced by law. He held, therefore, that it was ridiculous and absurd to say that the officers of the University of Oxford would be guilty of a violation of their oaths if they obeyed the supreme authority of the State.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he thought that, by leaving out the latter part of the clause, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), many persons would feel themselves justified in withholding information in consequence of some oath taken. He apprehended that there was very little difference of opinion between hon. Members who had spoken upon the subject of the oaths taken under the University Statutes. Though those oaths had not the same authority as oaths ordered to be taken by Act of Parliament, yet they were legal, as some authority was supposed to reside in the Universities to punish by penalty if not performed. If they were going to pass a superior law, which was to override the inferior law by which the oaths were imposed, they should endeavour to make that superior law as clear and distinct as possible, and as he thought the clause as it stood unexceptionable in that respect, he should support it in preference to the Amend-
1132
ment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heath-cote).
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was in vain for the Committee to attempt to dispense with the obligations which were imposed upon the officers of the University. They might indeed incapacitate these gentlemen from discharging their duties, and he would suggest that the Commissioners should be empowered, by force of law, to procure what information they wanted. In that way the officers of the University would be freed from all responsibility in connection with the execution of the law.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would propose that the word "oath" should be inserted before the word "impediment" in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had said that there was no precedent for the course which the Committee was now asked to adopt. That was a mistake; the Long Parliament afforded what appeared to him to be a very good precedent. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he thought they might safely take a leaf from the book of the Long Parliament, which was one of the ablest Parliaments that ever sat in that House. The Long Parliament, in 1649, appointed a special Committee on the subject of the Universities, and the result of their deliberations was, that an order was sent down to Oxford and Cambridge, calling upon the fellows to reform their own Statutes. We had the happiness to live in quiet times, and although it was not now necessary to interfere with private property, it was the duty of the Legislature to insist upon knowing what the revenues of the Universities were.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as to the precedent cited by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, he believed Hallam, the great constitutional authority of the Whig party, had drawn a strong line between that period in which the Long Parliament had done good service to the country, and the period in which it had usurped its powers, and used them for most unconstitutional purposes; and if he recollected rightly, the precedent cited by the hon. Member was included in the latter period. He recollected that when the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) proposed, on the Oaths Bill, that they should simply pass a resolution on the subject of oaths, instead of following the old constitutional practice, he pointed out that there was only one precedent for such a course, and that was the

1133
precedent of the Long Parliament. He certainly did not expect to hear the example of the Long Parliament quoted on the present occasion, and he was sure such a precedent would not be accepted by the Committee. He would refer hon. Members to the Statute of Elizabeth, which contained one of the noblest preambles Parliament had ever sanctioned, and remind them that it was under that Statute the Universities had flourished down to the present time.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to an opinion which had hitherto been neglected, but which ought to have great weight—the opinion, namely, of the tutors of Oxford. In their paper of recommendations they requested the House to pass a compulsory measure for the very purpose of getting rid of the difficulty which might otherwise exist in regard to the oaths. Their opinion was, that the college oaths were only binding until the higher authority of the law was interposed, and if it should be the pleasure of Parliament to pass such a clause as that under discussion, they were perfectly ready to concur in it. Nobody had ventured to deny the sound constitutional doctrine that the State was the imposer of all oaths, and that minor corporations, such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, only derived their authority to impose oaths from the State. It was perfectly monstrous to say that the State could alter its own oaths, but could not touch the oaths of a private corporation.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he had no objection whatever to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), which would meet his views quite as well as the words he had proposed. He thought, however, that considerable misapprehension existed in the minds of some hon. Members as to the nature of the clause before the Committee. The clause, as originally prepared, enabled the Commissioners to require certain things, but it did not say that any person who had taken the oath was or was not to be relieved from the operation of it. It left that to the conscience of any one who had taken the oaths. He thought that other words would better express the object aimed at, and he had accordingly proposed his Amendment, but at the same time he was ready to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the latter words of the clause altogether, and let the law, as it stood,
1134
deal with parties in each of the cases that might arise.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the only doubt he had was, that if the words were left out, they would not be able to get the information which was absolutely necessary. Undoubtedly, it was not in the power of Parliament to dispense with the obligation of the oaths; but the supreme authority of the State ought to override that obligation, though at the same time parties should be left to put their own construction upon the oaths which they had taken. He thought it was necessary, however, that the officers of the University should be compelled to produce such documents as might be required.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) to the difference between an oath taken with the knowledge that it had been unlawful to celebrate mass for 300 years, and oaths taken in matters in which many might consider the obligation as binding upon their consciences. There was surely a broad distinction between the two cases. He thought the desired effect would be achieved if the latter part of the clause were left out.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he hoped the Government would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, but in order to show that it was the intention of the Committee to make the clause compulsory, he thought the following words should be added:—"and every such officer, on being so required, shall be bound, and is hereby required, to produce all such documents and accounts, and to give all such information."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), that a large portion of the residents of Oxford themselves implored that House to declare them bound, in order that, under the authority of the law, they might safely do that which as private individuals they were unquestionably not inclined to do. It appeared to hint that words corresponding to those suggested by the last speaker would be quite unexceptional, and would meet the views of the Government.
MR. MALINSsaid, he hoped the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire would be agreed to.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would have no hesitation in adopting that suggestion, if he had any security for the effectual enforcement of the clause. The object of the Government was, not to absolve the officers of the University from the moral obligation of their oaths, but by the strong arm of the law to create an authority superior to that under which the oaths were taken, compelling parties to obey the law, although they should still hold themselves personally bound by their oaths. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the law should be clear and explicit. But there was another, though a minor, reason for allowing the clause to stand as it was. It was sometimes contended in courts of justice that an officer could not be called upon to perform any duty which was inconsistent with the conditions of his office, and the concluding words of the clause were thought to be necessary in order to prevent any officer of the University from refusing upon that plea to obey the demands of the Commissioners. He thought the Committee would see the propriety and good sense of introducing those words, although in point of law they might not be absolutely required.
MR. EWARTsaid, it was the duty of the Government not to shrink from declaring in close and explicit terms what the law was. He should therefore support the clause as it stood.
Question put, "That the words 'no oath which may have been taken' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 69: Majority 48.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cheetham, J.

Atherton, W.

Clay, Sir W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Ball, J.

Collier, R. P.

Beamish, F. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Bell, J.

Crossley, F.

Bethell, Sir R.

Drummond, H.

Biggs, W.

Duncan, G.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Dunlop, A. M.

Bland, L. H.

Esmonde, J.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Ewart, W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Feilden, M. J.

Brand, hon. H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ferguson, J.

Brotherton, J.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Brown, H.

Forster, J.

Brown, W.

Fortescue, C. S.

Bruce, H. A.

Fox, R. M.

Buckley, Gen.

Fox, W. J.

Butler, C. S.

Gardner, R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Geach, C.

Chambers, M.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Chambers, T.

Goderich, Visct.

1136

Goodman, Sir G.

Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.

Greene, J.

Monsell, W.

Hall, Sir B.

Muntz, G. F.

Hastie, A.

Murrough, J. P.

Headlam, T. E.

O'Connell, D.

Hervey, Lord A.

Palmerston, Visct.

Heywood, J.

Patten, J. W.

Heyworth, L.

Peel, F.

Horsman, E.

Phillimore, R. J.

Hutchins, E. J.

Phinn, T.

Ingham, R.

Pigott, F.

Keating, H. S.

Pinney, W.

Keogh, W.

Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Laing, S.

Rice, E. R.

Langston, J. H.

Richardson, J. J.

Langton, H. G.

Sadleir, Jas.

Laslett, W.

Sadleir, John

Lawley, hon. F. C.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Layard, A. H.

Scobell, Capt.

Lee, W.

Seymour, W. D.

Lemon, Sir C.

Shafto, R. D.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Smith, J. B.

Lindsay, W. S.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Lowe, R.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Mackie, J.

Thornely, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

MacGregor, J.

Walter, J.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Warner, E.

Mangles, R. D.

Whitbread, S.

Marshall, W.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Massey, W. N.

Williams, W.

Miall, E.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Milligan, R.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mills, T.

TELLERS.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Moffatt, G.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Langton, W. G.

Ball, E.

Liddell, H. G.

Bennet, P.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Blake, M. J.

Macartney, G.

Booker, T. W.

Malins, R.

Buck, L. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Buller, Sir. J. Y.

Michell, W.

Cecil, Lord R.

Mowbray, J. R.

Chandos, Marq. of

Newdegate, C. N.

Cocks, T. S.

North, Col.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Packe, C. W.

Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

Pakington,rt.hon.SirJ.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Parker, R. T.

Dod, J. W.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Philipps, J. H.

Dunne, Col.

Phillimore, J. G.

Elmley, Visct.

Pritchard, J.

Evelyn, W. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Farrer, J.

Rolt, P.

Forster, Sir G.

Seymer, H. K.

Galway, Visct.

Shirley, E. P.

Gladstone, Capt.

Spooner, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stafford, A.

Greaves, E.

Tollemache, J.

Gwyn, H.

Vance, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Vane, Lord A.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Vansittart, G. H.

Herbert, Sir T.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Hotham, Lord

Walcott, Adm.

Hudson, G.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Whitmore, H.

Lacon, Sir E.

Wigram, L. T.

Laffan, R. M.

Willoughby, Sir H.

1137

Wise, A.

TELLERS.

Wyndham, H.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wyndham, W.

Palmer, R.

MR. ATHERTONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General what was the effect of the clause as it stood.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he considered that the words were sufficient to create a legal obligation, which might be enforced in the ordinary way.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Upon the first day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, all powers, privileges, and functions now possessed or exercised by the Hebdomadal Board of the said University shall be transferred to a Council composed in the manner hereinafter mentioned, which shall be called Hebdomadal Council).
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he wished to offer a suggestion to the Government, as this clause was the first of a series of clauses affecting the constitution of the University. It was not his intention to propose any Amendment on the present clause, but as it referred to a council to be elected, as mentioned in a future clause (Clause 6), he thought that the opportunity was a fitting one for offering a suggestion to the Government. The reason why he would take that opportunity of stating his objections to Clause 6 was, to ascertain how far their assenting to Clause 5 would pledge them to adopt the constitution of the council proposed in the succeeding clauses. The Committee would bear in mind that the Hebdomadal Board—the present governing body of the University—consisted of the vice chancellor, two proctors, and twenty-three heads of houses, or twenty-six in all. To this governing body two objections were made: the first, that it was not elective; the second, that it was an exclusive body. It was not an elective body, in so far as it was composed of the heads of houses alone, and it was generally agreed that some alteration of a more popular character was required to be introduced into it. But there was this singularity in the present Bill—that what it proposed to do had not been recommended by the Commissioners, nor had it been proposed by the University itself, nor, as far as he was informed, was it acceptable to or approved by the great body of the members of the University; consequently, if the clauses passed as they were framed, we should now be forcing on them, at the wish of the
1138
Minister for the time being, a constitution which the Commissioners had not recommended, and which the University did not approve of. All were agreed that some alteration should take place; all were agreed that other elements and influences ought to be brought to bear on the governing body of the University; these were the professorial and tutorial elements, in addition to the elements out of which the governing body was exclusively composed, derived from the heads of houses. It was thought right that there should still be some heads of houses to represent the interests of the colleges, that there should be professors to represent those more immediately engaged in general studies and scientific pursuits, and that there should be tutors also in addition to these, as they were best cognisant of the actual state of education and instruction. The alterations, however, introduced by the present Bill were, or would be, of a different character. The Bill provided that there should be one and the same electoral body for these three elements; that the Congregation should be established, or rather revived, for the purpose of electing six heads of houses, six professors, and six members of Convocation, to constitute the governing body of the University. In addition to these, it was proposed that the Chancellor of the University should have the power of appointing one head and one professor to the council. Now, he thought that if the clause passed in its present shape, and the governing body of the University was elected under it, the result would be that the heads of houses chosen in this manner would not be those whom the heads would wish to elect for themselves, nor the professors those whom the professors would prefer, for, since both of these, as well as the six members of Convocation, would be selected for this purpose from the third element, a preponderating power would be given to that element in the future constitution of the governing body. He would therefore venture to suggest that a difference should be observed; that the heads of houses should elect seven heads to sit on the council; that the professors should elect seven of their own body; and that the Congregation should elect seven members of Convocation. These, with the vice chancellor and two proctors, would make twenty-six members of the council. If they did not give the heads and the professors the power of choosing their own representatives, they would run

1139
the danger of having lists of names handed about the University, which would soon become distinct party lists, like an election of boards of guardians; and instead of having three elements in the governing body, all would ultimately, perhaps immediately, be absorbed in one, since all would come from the same constituency. There was another point to which he would wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that was the power given to the Chancellor of the University of appointing one head and one professor to the council. He knew that the present Chancellor strongly objected to any such power being given to himself, for reasons he (Mr. Walpole) must state. The nomination by the Chancellor of one head and one professor must necessarily take place either before or after the election of the others. What will then happen? If the election is before, the Chancellor would be put in the invidious position of having to prefer one man to the others; if after, then the greater difficulty would immediately arise, namely, that the head and professor named by himself would be considered inferior to those who were chosen by the University at large. For these reasons, he thought that such a power ought not to be left to the Chancellor of the University, as it might, and probably would, lead to jealousy and distrust. He would not now go into any other objections to the governing body, nor into questions whether they ought to leave the University to select such a body as she would think best fitted to manage her affairs; and this for two reasons—first, because the members of the University, who were supposed to have particular care of her interest, were clearly of opinion that the Hebdomadal Board ought to be taken away; and, secondly, because he found from the petition of the University itself that she did not so much object to this portion of the Bill as she did to that portion which interfered with the colleges. When they came to Clause 6, he would propose so to alter the mode of election as to allow the heads of houses to select their own representatives, the professors their own, and the Congregation or Convocation the remaining members of the governing body of the University. He believed that his mode would give more satisfaction than that proposed by Government, and he trusted it would be adopted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest to his right
1140
hon. Friend that it would be advisable to reserve any discussion on the question which he had raised until the 6th clause came under consideration, because to make any alteration such as that proposed by his right hon. Friend would involve matters of detail and alterations of words, and the subject could then be dealt with more conveniently. He had no objection to strike out the words "hereinafter mentioned."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the machinery of one or two clauses. He thought things would get into confusion from the mode in which everything was to be done in one day. By Clause 5 on the first day of Michaelmas Term all these powers were to come into play, and by Clause 11 the first election was to be made on that day; if anything occurred to prevent it, the whole University would be thrown into confusion. There were two new bodies, which were to be invested with certain powers, and it would, he thought, be prudent not to bring those bodies into operation on the same day, but to give a fair margin.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had consulted the persons best acquainted with the working of the University as to the precise day to be named, but the matter might be left open till the Report was brought up. The 18th clause creates the Congregation by which the council was to be elected. The clause says that from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term it shall consist of such and such persons; and if the right hon. Gentleman consulted any Statute which passed that House, he would find that these words included the day named.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wanted to know what powers and privileges of the Hebdomadal Board were to be transferred to the new council, because the Board, as at present constituted, discharged both administrative and legislative functions. If the new council were only to have legislative powers, a great deal of the objection to the measure would be removed. The Hebdomadal Board was well fitted for the exercise of executive powers. Was it intended that the Board should retain them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was not easy to answer the question in a satisfactory manner, as no one could give a precise account of what the functions of the Hebdomadal

1141
Board were. The Statute of Charles I. appeared to him to confer none but legislative powers, but usage had in all such cases conferred on such bodies certain powers which would now, perhaps, be adjudged to belong legally to them, though not within the words of the Statute. He did not believe that their administrative functions were of any great importance. The vice chancellor, their president, was the person on whom the administration of the University principally rested. But whatever the powers were, it was proposed that they should be transferred. The Board was possessed of another power, neither legislative nor administrative, but rather judicial. It happened that from time to time the Hebdomadal Board were called on to put a construction on any Statute of the University on which a doubt had arisen, and the decision was accepted as an authority; that power also would go over. It was quite an error to suppose that the Hebdomadal Board administered the University; that rested with the vice chancellor and proctors. He had never heard it suggested that it would be desirable to have a second body to discharge those functions. He would call the attention of the hon. Baronet to this fact—that if there were any functions which would be better discharged by the heads of houses, arrangements could be made under the 9th clause, which empowered the Hebdomadal Council to constitute Committees, to which they might add members of Convocation not belonging to their body.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought it would be wise to introduce some words of qualification, limiting the council to legislative functions, and specifying (if it should be desirable) any exceptional case for the discharge of functions of another character.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the many Acts of Parliament controlling the relations between the City authorities and the University, and he hoped that care would be taken so that no confusion should arise.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must point out that the powers of the Hebdomadal Board were by this clause to be transferred to the council from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term; and by a subsequent clause the council was to be elected on that day by the Congregation.
1142
But the Congregation was not to be elected until that day, so that there might be an interval during which the University would be without any governing authority.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a difficulty any way, and he scarcely knew how to obviate it; for it would not do to allow the old and new governing bodies to coexist; but as the interval would be reduced to one day, he did not think great public inconvenience would ensue from that circumstance.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University did not seem to know very well what the functions of the Hebdomadal Board were, but the Report of the Commissioners would have given the right hon. Gentleman some light on the subject, had he consulted it. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw plainly enough that the abolition of this Board had been determined upon; that the learned and estimable men who composed it had been run down purposely, and every matter, however trivial, exaggerated against them. He could only compare this treatment of the Hebdomadal Board to that of the victims of the auto da fé, in the days of Popish tyranny, who were vilified and dressed as devils, in order to reconcile and prepare the public for their sacrifice. Any one who knew how gross were the calumnies to which the Board had been subjected by a portion of the public press, could not fail to feel the justice of this comparison. The heads of houses were elected as the men best fitted to govern their respective colleges. They would not easily find a body of men so well suited to their office, each having been separately elected on account of his peculiar qualifications for government and discipline, as well as learning and piety. He was satisfied they could never find a body of men to maintain the discipline of the University better qualified than the Hebdomadal Board; and though he knew it was vain to hope to change the determination of the Committee, after the opinion which had been expressed, he must be forgiven the expression of his conviction that the proposed change was likely to inflict permanent injury on the University.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Composition of Hebdomadal Council).
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would propose

1143
to omit the word "six" before "heads of colleges," for the purpose of inserting "seven," and after the words "colleges and halls," to omit the words "elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the University," for the purpose of inserting the following words, "be selected from among themselves by such heads of colleges or halls." If successful in this Amendment he should propose a similar one with regard to the professors.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "Elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the said University, and one other Head appointed by the Chancellor of the University," in order to insert the words "to be selected from among themselves by such Heads of Colleges or Halls," instead thereof.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the previous remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had raised two questions quite distinct from one another. One had reference to the principle called at Oxford sectional election, the other applied to the election of certain members of the Hebdomadal Council by the Chancellor of the University. With regard to the latter question that was a matter open to discussion. It had its advantages, and it was also open to fair objection. The Committee kept in view the advantages. By the present measure they were going to assign to the resident body of the University, through the medium of a representative organisation, a very much greater power to be exercised by them, as apart from the external influence on the education of the country, than they had heretofore possessed. And it must be borne in mind that the Government found it to be very difficult to qualify that power in an unexceptionable manner. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment went to this, whether the constituency to elect should be a council or a convocation, and he was bound to say that the Government resisted any proposal to make Convocation the electing power instead of the congregational. With respect to those who had spent ten or twelve terms at the University, and who never had before or after any share in its concerns, though they contributed to swell the political constituency, and on other occasions gave their voice as members of Convocation, he considered it would be a great mistake if they were to recognise this very promiscuous body as entitled and qualified by their knowledge to appoint by election the persons who were to carry on the affairs
1144
of the University and to prepare the Statutes. That was not, therefore, an open question; Government was not prepared to make Convocation the electing body. But still it was most desirable that they should maintain the same relation between Oxford and the external world, in connection with the governing body, which already subsisted in other respects, and which was found to be highly useful. The position of the Chancellor suggested itself as an obvious means of accomplishing this object. The Chancellor was universally a man of great eminence—a layman, almost invariably—as there had been no instance of a clergyman having been appointed for centuries—a man deriving all his influence from the outward world, and therefore well qualified to represent the outward world in his dealings with the University. There was another consideration which ought not to be left out of view. At present the whole governing power of the University was vested in the heads of colleges and of halls, and of these four were appointed by the Chancellor, who had also the power of appointing the vice chancellor, and who had thus considerable influence in the governing body, and of course this considerable influence would be diminished by transferring the power of these parties from the Hebdomadal Board to the Hebdomadal Council. Now it was wished to maintain the office of Chancellor in its full dignity, because that power was felt to be highly beneficial to University interests. He was inclined to think, as he was at present advised, that it was not expedient to place the nomination of members of the Hebdomadal Board in the hands of the Chancellor. He proposed to strike this out altogether, and also to leave the number of the council twenty-two. However, that was a matter which he would reserve for future consideration. The main question was as to what was called sectional election. They were supposed to have agreed to a Hebdomadal Council of three classes—the heads of colleges, the professorial class, and the members of Convocation. The question to solve was, should the representatives be all elected out of the same body, or by the members of the class to which they severally belonged? The first of these plans was embodied in the Bill, the second was that advocated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). It appeared to Government that each plan had its own separate merits. There were two considerations which weigh-

1145
ed strongly with the Government in favour of sectional election. The first was, that while they were about to transfer power from a class which had long enjoyed it, it was undoubtedly their wish that the transfer should be effected with as little abatement to the dignity or injury to the feelings of that class as was possible; and as the heads of houses had been accustomed to transact the affairs of the University very much among themselves, undoubtedly it would be more agreeable to them that the election of their representatives should take place among themselves than among the general body of the Congregation. There was another and still more important consideration in favour of that course. They had felt it from the first to be indispensable to any plan for the reform of the University of Oxford that the professorial body should be augmented, not only in strength and endowments, but that a positive and definite place should be given to them in the University, and that there should be placed in their hands such a share of power as, relative to their influence, they might reasonably claim. Now, it was felt that they might strengthen that professorial power if they were to adopt the principle of the professorial body electing professors to the Hebdomadal Council. Those reasons in the first instance inclined the Government in favour of the plan of sectional election. But a large number of, he was proud to say, the ablest men in Oxford, who were strongly of opinion that the professorial influence, their numbers, their duties, their emoluments, and their powers, should all be increased, had yet joined in entreating the Government that the plan of sectional election should not be adopted; and they had sent up a deputation to his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), stating, "Give us the power of a Congregation, give us the power of a free utterance of our opinions, give us the power of stating what seems to us to be for the good of the University, and we are willing that the election of the professors themselves should remain in the hands of a well-selected Congregation." The Government thought this was a generous and trustworthy offer, and at the same time they could not be insensible to the objection of having three constituencies in a body which would not number above 200 or 300 members altogether. There would be a constituency of twenty-three or twenty-four members only among the heads of houses—a constituency of from thirty to
1146
thirty-five professors. Why, however eminent such men might be, and however excellent their intentions, it really seemed as if the word clique was invented to express what they must inevitably degenerate into. If the Hebdomadal Council was to be composed of men chosen from three separate constituencies, it must follow that they would come together, set against one another, to maintain the separate interests of their class, and to judge the bearings of every question that emerged in the spirit of jealous partisanship, the first duties of each being to consider what made for the interests of their respective constituencies. Now, it must never be forgotten that they were legislating for a place the greatest and most important function of which was the education of the flower of the youth of England, and it was essential to any plan they might devise that they should leave the authority of the University at least as strong as they found it. Now, he feared that would not be done if they adopted the plan of sectional election. His hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) knew something of the working of sectional election at the other side of the globe. He had seen the working of a legislative body, one portion of which was the choice of power, the other portion was the choice of a popular constituency; and he knew the dissonating and distracting tendencies of such a system upon the body within, and its weakening and paralysing effect upon the body without. Now, the principle of this Bill was that of confidence. If they had no confidence in the men composing the constituency to be created, then this Bill was an absurdity from one end to the other. It was impossible that the Bill should work, except on the principle of confidence. The proposition from Oxford was, that they should work it on the principle of confidence—that a good and efficient constituency should be created, and then that they should give that constituency the power of electing all the members of the Hebdomadal Council. That plan his right hon. Friend opposite said was unacceptable to the University. He should be sorry to put his knowledge of the University in comparison with that of his right hon. Friend, but he must say that during all the years of his acquaintance with Oxford he had made it his study to know the feelings of the resident members, and he thought he knew, from direct communication and correspondence with them, the sentiments of a

1147
large majority of them, and he could state that, in their opinion, it would be a great evil if the Government were, by the plan of sectional election, to perpetuate, at least for a long period of time, the separate and divisional interests of the different classes of the University. If they adopted the other plan, elections would be made without reference to the narrow interests of classes. Representatives would be chosen with reference to the general interest, and harmonious working would be the result. The great sacrifice voluntarily tendered by the professorial interest and accepted in the same spirit by Government he hoped would be as frankly adopted by the Committee.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's superior acquaintance with the University, but he, too, had some knowledge of their opinions, and from all he had been able to collect he was led to a different conclusion front that of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the opinion of the heads of the University on the question of sectional election. He had communication with several parties on the subject, and the information he obtained led him strongly to the conclusion that the sectional mode of election was preferred by the University; and he also ventured to think the right hon. Gentleman had drawn an exaggerated picture of the bad effects of that mode of election if it was adopted. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that by that system professors would consider only the interest of professors, and so on throughout. But he saw no reason why heads of houses and professors, if they became members of the same body, should take a more narrow view of their duties because each had been elected by his own class, than they would do if elected under what the right hon. Gentleman called the congregational mode. It was impossible to hear the discussion on this clause without feeling that it raised some of the most important questions which were at issue. He would not advert to the question of the nominations by the Chancellor. There was no sufficient reason assigned for the proposed change from the Hebdomadal Board to the Hebdomadal council. The Report of the Commission recommended no such thing; it left the Board as it was at present constituted, or nearly so. However, it was not his intention to raise any objection to the change, as there appeared a general feeling of the
1148
Committee and of the University in favour of the three classes forming the constituent body as contemplated by the Bill. But he must confess that he had a preference for the mode of sectional election. He should support the Motion that heads of houses be chosen by heads of houses, and professors by professors; and he would even go further than the right hon. Gentleman, for at the proper period it was his intention to move an Amendment to leave out the word "Congregation" and substitute the word "Convocation." The second line of the present clause raised another important question, whether or not they could accede to the recommendation of Government for the appointment of Congregation. He was ready and willing to consider any argument the right hon. Gentleman might have to advance in favour of the proposition. He hoped at the proper moment the right hon. Gentleman would give a clear and full explanation for the introduction of this entire novelty in the constitution of the University. The right hon. Gentleman might tell them that Congregation was not a novelty, for its revival had been indicated in the Report of the Commission. He would admit that the Commission adverted to a body called the Congregation, which once had large powers; and, in a conservative spirit, implied that if the body was re-enacted with increased powers, it would not be a novelty, but a revival. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that Congregation, as it was to be enacted in this Bill, was a very different body from that which had been recommended by the Commissioners in their Report. The Congregation provided for in the Bill would be at least twice as numerous a body as that contemplated by the Commissioners. No power was given to this new body to make amendments, and it would only have the power of saying aye or no to any measure which the Hebdomadal Council might lay before it. He should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. HORSMANsaid that, as the Amendments of which he had given notice were embraced in those already moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), he should prefer taking them in the way they now came before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the three bodies would be at strife with each other; but that was the fault of the Bill, for the Bill recognised three interests, which were sent

1149
in to counterbalance each other. According to the Bill the Hebdomadal Council was to be composed of three interests—seven professors, seven heads of houses, and seven members of Convocation. He did not know why their numbers had been made the same, unless it was that they had been recognised as three separate and distinct interests, which required to be balanced one against the other. If that was the principle involved in the Bill, it was a mockery to say to these men that they should be represented, but that they should not choose their own representatives, and that they must be chosen by that very interest which would overpower them. The tutorial interests predominating in Congregations would overwhelm all others. If it was really understood to give each of these interests a power of balancing and checking each other, they ought to be allowed to select the best men to protect their interests. The question, therefore, arose, if the interest of the heads of houses was to be protected against the hostile interest of tutors, whether the best representatives were likely to be elected by the tutors or by the heads of houses? In the same manner as regarded the professors, they must consider whether the best professors were likely to be selected by the professors. The Bill made inevitable that conflict of interests which the right hon. Gentleman opposite deprecated. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated that the opinion of Government had undergone a change on the subject of sectional election. Might he ask whether a majority of the deputation from Oxford which had waited on Government on the subject did not consist of tutors?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must beg to be allowed to correct a mistake into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen, on the authority of an anonymous statement as to the number of tutors in the University. He did not think there were 100. He remembered the time when they were only about eighty. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that heads of houses, tutors, and professors were three separate and distinct bodies; but that was not the case. Many tutors were heads of houses, and many heads of houses were professors.
MR. NEWDEGATE, in supporting this Amendment, said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was on the plea of the necessity of electing these three classes, who it was
1150
proposed should constitute the Hebdomadal Council, that they were asked to create an entirely new body, for which had been chosen the old name of Congregation, and which would, in fact, be the governing body of the University; for if the plan of the Government were carried out, the Hebdomadal Council would be a mere emanation of this new body—Congregation. Let the House consider how measures for the consideration of Convocation, the present governing body of the University, were to be initiated, and they would understand the enormous power which it was proposed to place in the hands of this new body—Congregation. At present all measures for the government of the University, all questions for the consideration of Convocation, must emanate from the Hebdomadal Board, which consisted of the heads of houses, the vice chancellor, and proctors—in all twenty-six persons—who were likewise charged with the administration of the discipline, and the enforcement of the Statutes of the University. This body was independent in its constitution, had proved most valuable for the maintenance of the discipline of the University, and at the same time amenable to the public opinion of the University in the initiation of subjects for the consideration of Convocation on all great questions. At present the whole legislation of the University originated in the Hebdomadal Board, but it was now proposed to create a new nominated body of some two hundred members, to whom virtually would be delegated the power of initiating measures; for the proposed Hebdomadal Council would be a mere committee or delegacy of this new Congregation, to which body all measures and questions must be submitted by their Committee, the Hebdomadal Council, for approval or rejection, before they could be submitted to Convocation. Thus would the direct communication between the initiative body and Convocation, the legitimate legislature of the University, be intercepted. This new body would be totally independent of Convocation, and large and powerful enough to be inspired by a spirit of intense rivalry against Convocation. To explain this proposed organisation to the House he would compare the constitution thus proposed for the University with the political constitution of this country. He would compare the proposed Hebdomadal Council with the Cabinet, the proposed Congregation with the House of Lords, the Convocation with the

1151
House of Commons. Now, the constitution of the State would be analogous in action to that proposed for the University, if the Cabinet were to become a Committee of the House of Lords, from which all measures must emanate for the consideration of the House of Lords, without whose assent no measure nor question could originate in or reach the House of Commons. He well knew that the House of Commons, as the popular and representative body of the State, would never submit to be thus fettered and incapacitated from independent action. He would pray the House of Commons not to enforce fetters, such as they would never bear themselves, upon Convocation, the noblest municipality, the most intellectual, the most justly honoured, popular, and representative body of the United Kingdom, peculiarly adapted, as it was, by educational attachment of its members, the masters of arts, for the government of the University. How would this measure affect the relation of the University to the Church of England? The Convocations of Oxford and Cambridge afforded the only independent, the only means, of expression left to the Church of England; but now they were about to constitute a new body, large enough to be the rival of Convocation of Oxford, in which body it was proposed to vest the whole powers of initiating measures for the government of the University, as well as the power of deciding upon what questions of general importance Convocation should be permitted to express its opinion by petition. It was proposed to constitute a nominated body of residents in the University, to whom would be given a direct power of controlling and preventing the action of Convocation in the government of the University. By this means the great body of the Church of England would be deprived of the means of regulating the education of those who were to be its future clergy, which it hitherto possessed. Convocation was a most enlightened constituent body, the best adapted for the government of Oxford University of any that could be created. It constituted a direct connection between the Church of England and the University, and yet they were about to interpose a third body between Convocation and the University. The excuse was, that this proposed body was necessary to elect the Hebdomadal Council; but it had been clearly shown that no such necessity existed. It had been shown that the Heb-
1152
domadal Council might be more advantageously constituted by the election of three several classes—the professors by the professors, the heads of houses by the heads of houses, and the remaining third, the masters of arts, who were to be admitted to the Hebdomadal Council, by Convocation. If this last privilege were not conceded to Convocation, Parliament would cut off—as he believed it was the intention of the Government to do—the communication between Convocation and the initiative and administrative body of the University, by interposing between them the proposed new body—Congregation. It happened that while he was at Oxford the Tractarian movement had commenced, and, he might be permitted to say, that no danger mole serious had ever threatened the Church of England. It had been the means of transferring to the Church of Rome some of her ablest members—men who had since become her most bitter assailants. Now, had that danger, he would ask, arisen from within or without Oxford, among the non-resident or among the resident members of the University? It had had its origin within, and it was from within that it was proposed to constitute that power which was to interrupt the relation between Convocation and the University. What was the history of that great danger, the rise of Tractarianism? It had been opposed by that Hebdomadal Board which it was at present sought to abolish. It would have been crushed by Convocation, which the measure before them proposed to supersede, had it not been for the interposition of the veto of the proctor, which was about to be retained. Now, looking back at the last great danger which had threatened the Church of England, he should ask the House to pause before it consented to deprive the government of the University of its free and popular character, derived directly from Convocation, the fair and honest representative of the Church of England. Such were the constitutional objections to the scheme under discussion. Nothing could be more unlike the old Congregation, which had long since lapsed into being mere form, than the novelty which it was proposed to raise up and endow with its name. That was a novelty which had been created by the Government, and for which they had no sanction from the University whatsoever. On the contrary, the opinion of the University, so far as it could find expression, was in direct

1153
opposition to the proposition of the Government. The petition of Convocation to Her Majesty prayed for powers which Her Majesty might have given consistently with the constitution of the University and her right as visitor, had not the right hon. Member of Parliament for the University and the Government advised Her Majesty to refuse. That petition stated that Convocation desired to preserve the Hebdomadal Board, but to constitute another Board, elected from Convocation, to participate in the initiative power which the Hebdomadal Board possessed. The petition prayed for nothing like the constitution of this new Congregation, but for an organisation totally dissimilar; in fact, for power to appoint a delegacy of Convocation to perform the functions which the Government were seeking to vest in other hands. It had happened upon two most important occasions that Convocation had given expression to opinions in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not participated. Convocation had petitioned against the Jew Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had upon that occasion stated that he regretted that he differed from the body which he represented; but that really they must leave matters of legislation in the hands of persons whose province it was to deal with such matters. Convocation had also been opposed to the Papal Aggression, and in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Against that measure the right hon. Gentleman had recorded his vote. Now, he should put it to the House to say whether, when it was taken into account that in those two marked instances the right hon. Gentleman had differed from the opinion of his constituents, there might not be some natural bias in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman towards choking the expression of sentiments which were not always found to be in accordance with his own. He should, in conclusion, once more remind the House that in the clause under their consideration the free action and independence of the University was to a great extent involved.
MR. LOWEsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had just resumed his seat, at any great length, into the regrets he had expressed at the miscarriage of the constitution which had been proposed by the University, or rather by the heads of houses and Convocation, because he apprehended that any one who had taken the
1154
trouble to make himself acquainted with that constitution would be aware that it would have reduced matters to a perfect deadlock, that it would have rendered it impossible for the University to go either backwards or forwards, and would have sealed up every possibility of reform or alteration. The plan was, in fact, because the heads of houses had not been found to possess in the fullest extent the confidence of the members of the University, to appoint another board to act with them, and it was proposed that, as the two boards would not be able to agree, they should be told to sit down harmoniously together and fix upon some plan, and that nothing should be proposed until this had taken place. It was very much as if Her Majesty's present Government, having been so unfortunate as to lose the confidence of the House of Commons, the House, instead of turning them out and replacing them by those who possessed that confidence, should have appointed another Cabinet from the other side of the House, and directed them to sit together, and agree in the initiation of measures for the government of the country. And, in case this combined Cabinet should not agree in the initiation of measures, they should confer together until they could do so, the House of Commons in the meantime sitting with its arms folded, unable to stir on any subject whatever until the Cabinet had agreed upon the subject under its consideration. This was the constitution for the University which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) regretted. He could not agree with him in so doing; neither did he believe the Committee would agree with him in thinking that there had been a great deal lost to the popular cause, or the cause of freedom, or the British Constitution and liberty, and all that sort of thing, in Oxford, because a body was to be interposed between the heads of houses and Convocation. Having resided for many years at Oxford, he could say that it was felt most bitterly by many of the residents that they were placed under an oligarchy, under a body of men who, however respectable, learned, and pious they might be, could not from their position and the nature of their avocations, represent the feelings and the spirit of the University, and there was nothing more desired in his time, and he believed now also, by those who constituted the support, the mainstay of the University, than that there should be some means of representing the opinions of residents and that the

1155
University should have something else to rely on as an exponent of her wishes and feelings than, on the one hand, a body of men, advanced in life, whose only connection with her arose from their being at the head of different societies, and, on the other hand, a body of gentlemen gathered from the four winds of heaven, who assembled to the number, sometimes, of 400 or 500, to vote on questions which they often did not understand, and had never heard of until they came to Oxford. The power that Convocation exercised was now, or used to be, wielded by very few hands; and, although that assembly numbered many votes, the truth was, that a few tutors of great colleges, by combining together, could create a body against which all the resident members, who were really interested in the question to be decided, who would be sufferers or gainers in proportion as Convocation decided rightly or wrongly, would be powerless. He had seen Convocation made an instrument of, in a manner painful to reflect upon. For example, in the year 1836 he had seen 800 persons brought up to condemn a work of Dr. Hampden's, which not one-tenth part of them had ever read; he had seen that same Convocation afterwards turn on those of whom it was the obedient instrument in 1836 like Acæon's dogs, and come up with the same want of reflection and the same heat and violence to condemn their doctrines. He did not think it was either desirable or necessary that such a body should be left uncontrolled to exercise the same influence over the resident members which it had hitherto exercised. But he had risen principally to allude to the question of sectional elections, and he thought the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had altogether overstated his case with regard to this point. The hon. Member had represented that the whole object and aim of the present Bill was, by putting three classes of persons into the initiative body, to bring matters as far as possible to a deadlock by constituting three factions, totally inimical to each other, each looking entirely to its own interest, holding the other in check, and two of them conspiring to crush the third. If such were the object of the Bill, he could not imagine a less worthy object of the hon. Gentleman's support than an attempt, such as this would be, to create an eternal triad, two of the members of which should always be in opposition to a third. But neither the hon. Member nor any hon. Gentleman who
1156
had spoken to-night impugned the wisdom of the proceeding which assigned as the constitution of this Hebdomadal Council three separate and distinct parts—professors, members of Convocation, and heads of colleges. The propriety of this arrangement seemed to be admitted, and the only question was, whether the members of the council were to be elected by homogeneous constituencies or not? The best way to decide this question was to consider what were the principal reasons for making the proposition which had been brought forward. He did not know on what grounds it had been determined upon, but he could easily imagine on what grounds it ought to have been determined upon. The first reason that he could imagine for requiring any certain amount of heads of colleges in this body was, that we might carry out gradually, that we might ease, the great revolution we intended to accomplish, as it was not felt to be expedient in a place like Oxford, where violent changes were very much to be deprecated, to take away at once the governing power from a body of men who had possessed it since the reign of Charles I., and, therefore, it was not an unwise provision that at least one-third of the governing body should consist of these who had hitherto possessed the whole executive and initiative power. But, on the other hand, this precaution was to be taken. The great evils under which Oxford had suffered were, that those who represented the University much more nearly represented the collegiate element; that those who possessed the initiative and executive at Oxford were appointed to their offices, not from their position in the University, but from their positions as heads of colleges, and that there was, therefore, a tendency, which was developed into action at the end of the last century, to absorb the University into the colleges—the greater element into the less. It therefore seemed needful, in order to guard against this tendency, that some element should be introduced to represent the University, and to be a guarantee against the repetition of the evil, and that element was very properly found in the professorial element. He thought it was quite a mistake to view the different elements in this body as having been introduced in the hope and with the idea that they would check and control each other. The intention of the Government was now fully explained. It was, as a necessity for great changes existed, to give a guarantee for the repre-

1157
sentation of certain elements which it was desirable should be represented. But, having done this, why was it necessary to do that which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pekington) proposed to do—to ride a good principle to death, because the three separate bodies were to elect their own representatives? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich thought that there would not be any difference whether the council were elected by the members of Convocation at large or by their own bodies. But the difference would be manifest and evident, for, if heads of colleges were elected by heads of colleges, and professors were elected by professors, instead of returning those who were best qualified to promote the interests of the University, they would elect those who were best calculated to subserve the interests of the class which had chosen them. That was not desirable. Granting that it would be advisable to choose out of those three classes an equal number of members of the board, still it could not be desirable to create and to foster class feelings; but it must be infinitely preferable to delegate the choice to a body quite distinct from, and independent of, the three, the object of whom would be to select the best men that they could find. All these gentlemen lived in the same small town. They met day by day, and if Parliament gave to each fraction such an independent system as was proposed by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Midhurst, the result would be to divide the University into three distinct classes. If, on the other hand, they gave them one homogeneous constituency, they would get whatever good there might be in the sort of conservative precaution which was supposed to exist in that threefold system, while the amount of passion which would be excited would be as small as was possible in an election contest. The truth was, that the constituency ought to work together as one homogeneous system. There was no strong amount of division between these parties, and, when it was said that the tutors were opposed to the heads of colleges, it should be remembered that when the heads of colleges ceased to be the governing body of the University the distinction between tutors and heads would cease. Whatever opposition now existed between them arose from the fact that one was the governing class, and that the other had no power
1158
whatever. When that should be removed, therefore, all opposition and distinction would be destroyed. For these among other reasons he hoped that the Committee would not take the illiberal step of subdividing the small constituency which Oxford could bring to bear in the election of this body into three smaller constituencies, which, instead of working harmoniously for the public good, would become, in fact, three hostile factions, whose proceedings would only tend to perpetuate jealousies, bickerings, and mistrust.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he willingly admitted the ability with which the bon. Gentleman who had just sat down had handled the question, but he thought that the illustration which he had given might have been found in the Government of which he was himself a Member, without supposing a union of the Cabinets on the two sides of the House. He wished to state the reasons which would induce him to vote in favour of what had been called "sectional elections." They all knew that everything in the University was carried by religious sects or parties, and no person could very much doubt what would be the case if the Congregation were to be constituted as proposed by the Bill. The whole of that body would—to borrow a phrase from the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)—be elected by a clique. The younger portion, who constituted the movement party, would outnumber all the others, and they would have the election of the whole body. No man knew better than the right hon. Gentleman what the movements of that party had been in the University within the last twenty years, and he had no hesitation in saying that if during that period the power of the University had been in the resident body, everything would have been carried in the most ultra-Tractarian way. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had alluded to what had occurred in 1836, with reference to Dr. Hampden, but that was only another proof of how these things were conducted, and the hon. Member must know that if the resident members had been let alone, a much stronger resolution would have been carried against Dr. Hampden than actually had been proposed. It was stated that the University was now in the hands of an oligarchy of twenty-four; but he had no hesitation in saying that if they gave this proposed power to the tutors it would be in the hands of an oligarchy of about 100.

1159
Instead of an open constituency of 3,600, those 100 gentlemen, who would constitute the majority of class No. 9, would carry everything before them. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to let down the heads of houses easily, and he had stated that the professorial element were willing to relinquish any position which they had enjoyed, but those professorial gentlemen never had had the position which was occupied by the heads of houses, and they would, in fact, be elevated while the others would be brought down. He felt so strongly upon this point that, if nobody else had raised it, he certainly should have done so. He did not subscribe to the propriety of committing the whole power of the University to the resident members. He believed that a man was often much better fitted to judge of what was good for the University after he had lived ten or twelve years in the world than if he had stayed at the University, and occupied himself for eight or ten hours a day in teaching. There would always be a movement party amongst the class of young men to whom this Bill proposed to give the principal power. It was natural to their time of life, at which there was always a desire to change something; and he felt convinced that if they gave them the power of initiation, no questions to which they were opposed would ever reach Convocation. They knew the extent to which Tractarianism had been carried in that University, and they were now told that a reaction had set in, and that the German principle was rife there. He thought that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had gone a little too far in what he had said upon that subject the other night; but no man could say what might not occur there, for the clerical element would always be the prevailing element in Oxford, and it was not for the benefit of the University to place its government in the hands of persons liable to be swayed by any religious tenet which happened at the moment to be in favour. In the plan as proposed by the Amendment, the professorial would be more particularly the lay element, and the heads of houses would, as a section, contain men of different ages, who would not be likely to be too much imbued with the clerical element, which was sure to have its attractions for younger men. Now, the sectional system would have this great advantage, that the members of the council would then be elected by classes taking different
1160
views; they would be elected partly by men of mature age and reflection; and they would not in that case, therefore, be composed of persons of the one predominating religious party, which there was always sure to be amongst the young men of the University, who would form so powerful an element in the Congregation which it was proposed to constitute by this Bill. It was well known that when persons of the clerical profession differed upon any points, their very zeal caused them not to regard those who dissented from them with so much forbearance as was desirable. High Churchmen would not look at Low Churchmen, nor the latter at the former; and he felt convinced that if they threw the whole power of the University into the hands of one constituency, when one of these parties would predominate, all questions would he decided on purely party grounds. For these reasons he should support the Amendment before the Committee, which he understood to be in favour of sectional elections.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the arguments in favour of sectional election, with a view of combating them, he did not think the arguments he adduced against them were so powerful as to do away with the force of the original arguments, and he (Mr. E. Denison) thought if the care which had been taken in a late proposition to provide for the representation of minorities had been applied to the professorial system, which was a minority in the University of Oxford, that proposition would have claimed great consideration at their hands; his right hon. Friend had said that all improvements should be in favour of the professorial system. He agreed with that sentiment, and hoped that the House would give free scope and fair play to the professorial system, and not put the professors, as they would do if the present clause were passed, entirely into the hands of the tutors. The real question for their consideration was the dominancy of the tutors, which he looked upon with great alarm, and, as the matter stood, be should vote for the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the great point to be obtained in the constitution of a governing body was to secure its having the confidence of the University, and for that purpose it was hardly necessary to go into the question which had been raised with reference to the compara-

1161
tive merits of the Convocation and the Congregation. Generally, he thought the residents, if fairly polled, would represent the impression of the whole body of Oxford University, and, although there might be cases in which that might be reversed, as was the case in almost every kind of legislation, yet, in the general question of election, it would seldom make any difference whether it was by the Congregation or Convocation; but, as between Congregation and Convocation on one side and sectional constituencies on the other, it appeared clearly that to give effect to the University of Oxford, they should allow either Congregation or Convocation to elect, and not break it up into sectional elections. What they wanted was to have twenty-four men representing the mind of the University, and for collateral reasons they desired that those twenty-four men should possess certain definite qualifications; that some should be familiar with the views of the heads of houses, that others should be familiar with the views that animate professors, and that others should be conversant with the sentiments diffused over the University at large. They did not wish to bring these nice into conflict with each other and make them the representatives of different classes, but rather to bring the knowledge that belonged to men of different habits into one harmonious assembly; and they would do that best and perhaps do it only, if they elected them by a common constituency. There was another thing to be observed, and that was, they had laid it down in the Bill that the number seven should not be accurately fixed, for, if the heads of houses or the professors had the confidence and were acceptable to the Convocation, there might be eight or nine representing heads of houses or professors, and a smaller number of those who might be more peculiarly termed members for the Congregation, which he looked upon as a very great advantage, but if they elected them by separate bodies, they would then have the numbers defined and exact, and it seemed more likely that they would come into conflict. The only reason for hesitation was, as it had been stated, because some of the heads of houses at Oxford would prefer the other plan, and he thought a great deal of deference was due to their wishes. He thought it was far better for the just influence which the heads of houses exerted that the clause should be left as it was than that it should be altered, for he believed that what had
1162
been said frequently on his side of the House, and objected to very unreasonably, he considered, on the other, was perfectly true—namely, that, generally speaking, heads of houses, at ordinary times, conversant with the affairs of the University, would be found to be best for its government. Such a principle was recognised by Congregation itself, and it would be greatly to the advantage of their just influence that there should be liberty of choice, so as to enable them to elect more than seven heads of houses to conduct the business of the University. In like manner with the professors, they should be eminent men, with more leisure than tutors, for it was a burden that tutors had frequently complained of, that in all the agitation about Oxford University they had been obliged to give so much time to the discussion of its arrangements, and they would be likely to acquiesce in the number of professorial representatives being more than seven if they were allowed free scope; but if they insisted upon the representatives being returned by each section separately, there would be always seven men on each side, which would give rise to all the objections to which he had alluded. Considering, therefore, that what they wanted was men having the full confidence of the University, he should certainly support the clause as it stood.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he did not feel the force of the objection urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against sectional elections as applied to heads of houses, for there appeared to him to be strong reasons why they should be so elected. They stood in a position of considerable independence, and it was very undesirable that they should be exposed to the necessity of soliciting in any way the support of either party; therefore, in his opinion, it was more proper that they should choose among themselves a certain number of delegates to represent them than that they should be returned as representatives of the whole body. Another consideration was, that elections among small numbers would be conducted in a much quieter manner than among large bodies, and in support of such a proposition, considerable weight was due to the recommendation of the Tutors' Association, which had embodied its views in a most able paper. That association recommended that the council should consist of three different sections; that the representatives of time heads should be elected by the heads, those of the professors by

1163
the professors, and the third division by the tutors and other residents. That was one of the reasons which weighed very much in his mind in favour of allowing the heads of houses to return their own delegates as members of the council. With regard to the election of the other representatives he gave no opinion at present.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, if each of the sections were allowed to elect their own representatives, he was afraid the clerical feeling would predominate too much, and it was necessary to obtain a representation, not only of the members of the University at Oxford, but of the general feeling throughout the country. He would instance the case of the refusal of the degree of D.C.L. to Mr. Everett by the Convocation, on the ground of his being a Unitarian, as illustrating the danger of allowing such a body to possess uncontrolled power.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 162: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Foley, J. H. H.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Forster, C.

Bass, M. T.

Forster, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Fortescue, C. S.

Biddulph, R. M.

Freestun, Col.

Biggs, W.

Geach, C.

Bland, L. H.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Bowyer, G.

Gladstone, Capt.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Goderich, Visct.

Bramston, T. W.

Goodman, Sir G.

Brand, hon. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Brockman, E. D.

Greene, T.

Brotherton, J.

Gregson, S.

Bruce, H. A.

Grenfell, C. W.

Buckley, Gen.

Grey, R. W.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Hale, R. B.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Hall, Sir B.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Hankey, T.

Christy, S.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Harcourt, Col.

Cocks, T. S.

Hastie, A.

Collier, R. P.

Headlam, T. E.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Heard, J. I.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Divett, E.

Heneage, G. F.

Duff, G. S.

Hervey, Lord A.

Duff, J.

Heyworth, L.

Duncan, G.

Hindley, C.

East, Sir J. B.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Hutchins, E. J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Ingham, R.

Esmonde, J.

Jackson, W.

Ewart, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Fergus, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Keating, H. S.

Filmer, Sir E.

Keogh, W.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Kirk, W.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Langston, J. H.

1164

Lee, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Russell, F. C. H.

Loveden, P.

Russell, F. W.

Lowe, R.

Sadleir, Jas.

MacGregor, J.

Sawle, C. B. G.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Scully, F.

Maddock, Sir H.

Seymer, H. K.

Mangles, R. D.

Shafto, R. D.

Marshall, W.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Matheson, Sir J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Mills, T.

Smith, W. M.

Milnes, R. M.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Stafford, Marq. of

Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Monck, Visct.

Stuart, Lord D.

Moncreiff, J.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Monsell, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Morris, D.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Norreys, Lord

Thornely, T.

Palmer, R.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Vivian, J. H.

Patten, J. W.

Vivian, H. H.

Peel, F.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Philipps, J. H.

Walter, J.

Phillimore, R. J.

Watkins, Col. L.

Phinn, T.

Whitbread, S.

Pigott, F.

Wickham, H. W.

Pilkington, J.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Willcox, B. M.

Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Portal, M.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Wyvill, M.

Pritchard, J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ricardo, O.

TELLERS.

Rice, E. R.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Alexander, J.

Cobden, R.

Bagge, W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bailey, C.

Coles, H. B.

Baird, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Baldock, E. H.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Ball, E.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Ball, J.

Crook, J.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Crossley, F.

Barnes, T.

Davies, D. A. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Denison, J. E.

Beach, Sir M. H. H.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Bell, J.

Dod, J. W.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Dunlop, A. M.

Blair, Col.

Dunne, Col.

Blake, M. J.

Egerton, E. C.

Blandford, Marq. of

Evelyn, W. J.

Boldero, Col.

Farnham, E. B.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Farrer, J.

Booker, T. W.

Ferguson, J.

Brady, J.

Floyer, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Forster, Sir G.

Buck, L. W.

Frewen, C. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Galway, Visct.

Butt, G. M.

Gardner, R.

Butt, I.

Gaskell, J. M.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

George, J.

Cecil, Lord R.

Gilpin, Col.

Chandos, Marq. of

Goddard, A. L.

Child, S.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Greaves, E.

Christopher, rt.hn.R.A.

Greenall, G.

Clay, Sir W.

Greene, J.

1165

Grogan, E.

Packe, C. W.

Gwyn, H.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Hadfield, G.

Palk, L.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Palmer, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Parker, R. T.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Herbert, Sir T.

Pellatt, A.

Heywood, J.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Hildyard, R. C.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Horsman, E.

Phillimore, J. G.

Hotham, Lord

Price, W. P.

Hudson, G.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Hume, W. F.

Repton, G. W. J.

Jones, Capt.

Robertson, P. F.

Kendall, N.

Sandars, G.

Kershaw, J.

Scobell, Capt.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Seymour, W. D.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Shirley, E. P.

Knightley, R.

Spooner, R.

Knox, Col.

Stafford, A.

Lacon, Sir E.

Stanhope, J. B.

Langton, H. G.

Starkie, Le G. N.

Langton, W. G.

Taylor, Col.

Laslett, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Liddell, H. G.

Tollemache, J.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Tudway, R. C.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Tyler, Sir G.

Lindsay, W. S.

Vance, J.

Lisburne, Earl of

Vane, Lord A.

Lovaine, Lord

Vansittart, G. H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Lowther, Capt.

Walcott, Adm.

Macartney, G.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Massey, W. N.

Warner, E.

Maunsell, T. P.

West, F. R.

Meux, Sir H.

Whiteside, J.

Miall, E.

Whitmore, H.

Miles, W.

Wigram, L. T.

Michell, W.

Williams, W.

Mowbray, J. R.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Mullings, J. R.

Wise, A.

Murrough, J. P.

Wyndham, W.

Naas, Lord

Wynn, Major H. W. W.

Neeld, J.

Wynne, W. W. E.

North, Col.

Oakes, J. H. P.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, P.

Newdegate, C. N.

Otway, A. J.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was not aware whether the Government intended to oppose the other Amendment of which he had given notice—namely, whether one head of a college or hall should be appointed by the Chancellor of the University. The objection he felt, was, that this would put the Chancellor of the University in an invidious position, in having to select one head of a house as preferable to another. He therefore proposed to omit the words, "one other head appointed by the Chancellor of the University."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government would not object to leave out the words, after the decision which the Committee had just come to.
Words struck out.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would now move to leave out the following words, en-
1166
acting that the professors should be "elected by the Congregation hereinafter described, and one other such professor appointed by the Chancellor, and one other such professor separately elected by the Congregation," and to insert the words, "to be selected from among themselves by such professors, one of whom," &c. This Amendment asserted the same principle as that which the Committee had just agreed to—namely, that the professors as well as the heads of houses should be elected from among themselves. He was not aware of any material distinction between the two cases.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERquite agreed that this alteration was included in the decision to which the Committee had just come. There would, therefore, be no difficulty on the part of the Government in acceding to it. They now came to the following words in the 6th clause:—"One of whom shall always be chosen from among the professors of theology." This proposition was on account of the weight and importance that attached to theology, and of the large and increasing amount of theological instruction given by the professors.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that if they were to have this separate professor of theology, it should, he considered, also carry with it the principle that he should be elected by the professors of divinity, for it would be a great anomaly were he to be elected by the other professors. Unless this were admitted, he should greatly doubt the expediency of this proposition.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he objected to the words as to the professors of theology, as it was desirable that the University should be made less an ecclesiastical, and more of a national institution. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the professor should be one of modern languages instead of theology.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was bound to admit that there was great force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer), and he did not think that the election of a professor of divinity by the other professors would stand at all congruously or well. He thought, therefore, the proper course would be to drop the words as to the professors of theology.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he objected to this omission, as it would tend greatly to weaken the professorial influence at the

1167
Hebdomadal Board. As to how the professor of theology was to be elected was a separate question, but he should decidedly divide the Committee on the question that the words relating to the professor of theology should be retained.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not think the six professors of theology would form an improper constituency, and he should, therefore, oppose the omission of these words.
Amendment made:—Amendment proposed, in line 38, to the said Amendment, after the word "Professors," to add the words "of Theology."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government were not now the framers of the clause. He should like to know what was the meaning of the term "selection," as used in the clause?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was simply meant that the heads of houses should select from among themselves those whom they might choose to represent them.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he wished to know if in this arrangement the professorships of ecclesiastical history and Hebrew would come under the head of theology?
MR. DISRAELI, speaking for himself, said, he had certainly felt that the word "theology" was ambiguous and rather doubtful; but, as they found it in the Bill, he thought it had better be retained.
Question put, "That those words be there added.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 148: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Christy, S.

Alexander, J.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Bagge, W.

Cocks, T. S.

Bailey, C.

Coles, H. B.

Baird, J.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Baldock, E. H.

Davies, D. A. S.

Ball, E.

Deeds, W.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Barrington, Visct.

Dod, J. W.

Beach, Sir M. H. H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Dunne, Col.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

East, Sir J. B.

Blair, Col.

Egerton, Sir P.

Boldero, Col.

Egerton, E. C.

Booker, T. W.

Evelyn, W. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Farnham, E. B.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Farrer, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Floyer, J.

Butt, G. M.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Butt, I.

Forster, Sir G.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Frewen, C. H.

Cecil, Lord R.

George, J.

Chandos, Marq. of

Gilpin, Col.

Child, S.

Gladstone, Capt.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Goddard, A. L.

Christopher, rt. hn.R.A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

1168

Graham, Lord M. W.

Palmer, Rob.

Greene, T.

Palmer, R.

Grogan, E.

Parker, R. T.

Gwyn, H.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Philipps, J. H.

Harcourt, Col.

Phillimore, R. J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Portal, M.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Pritchard, J.

Herbert, Sir T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Robertson, P. F.

Hudson, G.

Sandars, G.

Hume, W. F.

Seymer, H. K.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Jones, Capt.

Smijth, Sir W.

Jones, D.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Kendall, N.

Spooner, R.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Stafford, A.

Knox, Col.

Stanhope, J. B.

Lacon, Sir E.

Stanley, Lord

Langton, W. G.

Starkie, Le G. N.

Laslett, W.

Stuart, H.

Liddell, H. G.

Taylor, Col.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Lisburne, Earl of

Tudway, R. C.

Lovaine, Lord

Tyler, Sir G.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Vance, J.

Lowther, Capt.

Vane, Lord A.

Macartney, G.

Vansittart, G. H.

Meux, Sir H.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Miles, W.

Vyse, Col.

Michell, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Mowbray, J. R.

Walcott, Adm.

Mullings, J. R.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Naas, Lord

Whiteside, J.

Neeld, J.

Whitmore, H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Willoughby, Sir H.

North, Col.

Wyndham, W.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Wynn, Major H. W. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Wynne, W. W. E.

Packe, C. W.

TELLERS.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Galway, Visct.

Palk, L.

Wigram, L. T.

List of the NOES.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Crossley, F.

Ball, J.

Divett, E.

Barnes, T.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Bass, M. T.

Duff, G. S.

Beamish, F. B.

Duff, J.

Bell, J.

Duncan, G.

Biddulph, R. M.

Dunlop, A. M.

Biggs, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Blake, M. J.

Esmonde, J.

Bland, L. H.

Ewart, W.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Bowyer, G.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Brand, H. H.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Brockman, E. D.

Forster, C.

Brotherton, J.

Forster, J.

Bruce, H. A.

Fortescue, C. S.

Buckley, Gen.

Freestun, Col.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Gardner, R.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Gaskell, J. M.

Cheetham, J.

Geach, C.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Collier, R. P.

Goderich, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Goodman, Sir G.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Goold, W.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Greene, J.

Crook, J.

Gregson, S.

1169

Grenfell, C. W.

Otway, A. J.

Grey, R. W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Hadfield, G.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Hankey, T.

Peel, F.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Pellatt, A.

Hastie, A.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Heard, J. I.

Phillimore, J. G.

Heneage, G. F.

Phinn, T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Pigott, F.

Hervey, Lord L.

Pilkington, J.

Heywood, J.

Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

Hindley, C.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Horsman, E.

Price, W. P.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Hutchins, E. J.

Ricardo, O.

Ingham, R.

Rice, E. R.

Jackson, W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Jermyn, Earl

Russell, Lord J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Keating, H. S.

Russell, F. W.

Keogh, W.

Sadleir, Jas.

Kershaw, J.

Sawle C. B. G.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Scobell, Capt.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Scully, F.

Kirk, W.

Seymour, W. D.

Langton, H. G.

Stafford, Marq. of

Lee, W.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Lindsay, W. S.

Stuart, Lord D.

Loveden, P.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Lowe, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Luce, T.

Thickness, R. A.

Mangles, R. D.

Thornely, T.

Marshall, W.

Vivian, H. H.

Massey, W. N.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Matheson, Sir J.

Warner, E.

Miall, E.

Whitbread, S.

Mills, T.

Wickham, H. W.

Milner, W. M. E.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Milnes, R. M.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Williams, W.

Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Monck, Visct.

Wise, A.

Moncrieff, J.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Monsell, W.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Morris, D.

Murrough, J. P.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Lord

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Osborne, R.

Berkeley, G.

LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, they had now so framed the clause as that six professors were to be selected from among the professors, and then one other professor was to be elected by the professors. He would not propose to go further that night with the Bill, and therefore moved that the Chairman report progress.
House resumed; Committee report progress to sit again on Thursday.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, it was his intention to postpone the second reading of this Bill, the hon. and learned Attorney General having assured him that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry a measure this Session which would embody in a great degree the improvements he (Mr. Phillimore) thought
1170
necessary to be made in the law, and which he understood would go even still further with them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was extremely sorry his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phillimore) had misunderstood him. He (the Attorney General) had informed his hon. and learned Friend that he was most sedulously occupied in framing a measure which he hoped to present to the House and to be able to carry; but as to pledging himself to carry a measure of that kind was what he had never done, simply because it would have been folly to have done so. It was one of the most difficult subjects that the House could possibly deal with. If they had at the present moment to deal à priori with such a subject, and to frame a new criminal digest, they might hope to do so successfully; but to engraft the notion of a public prosecutor upon our existing system of criminal judicature was one of the most difficult things the House could possibly attempt to do. He could only say he would give his best and most anxious consideration to the subject, and he should be most happy to avail himself of any assistance his hon. and learned Friend might be able to render him. He had put himself in communication with those who were best able to advise him on such a question, and he would do his best to carry the measure he had in contemplation; but he had never presumed to pledge himself to carry it.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he must disclaim any intention to misrepresent what had passed between his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and himself, and admitted he must have misunderstood his hon. and learned Friend.
Bill withdrawn.

WITNESSES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, by this Bill it was intended to give power to the Superior Courts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, to issue subpœnas to persons residing out of their jurisdiction, calling on them to come forward and give evidence. That was a very startling innovation on the existing system. It was certainly very desirable the—whole of the United Kingdom being one—that the Courts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, should have the power of examining persons residing out of their jurisdiction, but within the Realm; but this Bill gave no power to those Courts for following up the subpœnas,

1171
in case it was disregarded, and that was the objectionable part of it. If the promoters of the Bill intended to carry out its object, they must in some way obtain the intervention and assistance of some Court within whose jurisdiction the witness subpœnaed resided, to compel his attendance. He would not, however, object to the Second Reading.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he agreed that it would be necessary to insert a clause giving jurisdiction to a Court in England, and he had not the slightest objection to the insertion of such a clause in committee. Since the year 1805 the Courts in Ireland had had the power of summoning witnesses in criminal cases, as also had the Courts in England and Scotland. The Irish Court certified the fact of disobedience to the Courts in England and Scotland, and proceedings were then taken exactly as if the disobedience had been towards the English or Scotch Courts. When his hon. and learned Friend declared that the Bill would be nugatory in its operation, he forgot the important fact that it would make the service out of the jurisdiction valid, and give power to parties injured by disobedience to bring an action.
THE LORD-ADVOCATEsaid, he must support the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, there were also other anomalies in the Bill.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would suggest that care should be taken to keep the exercise of this new power within proper limits, otherwise many persons might be summoned from England, Scotland, or Ireland, to give evidence who were not in a state of health or mind to comply with the summons, or whose evidence might not be absolutely necessary. He thought some discretion should be given to the Judge granting the summons to consider whether it was necessary to issue it.
Bill read 2°.

MILITIA BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would now move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the militia law, but in one respect only. By the Act of 42 Geo.. III., the Crown had the power of embodying the militia only in cases of actual invasion or danger thereof, or in case of insurrection or rebellion. Considering how large a portion of the regular army had been sent abroad, and the time that must elapse before an equal number of recruits could be raised, it was of great importance that
1172
Government should be able to avail themselves, for a time at least, of establishing a portion of the militia for the purpose of home service. He was happy to say that the country, although at war with Russia, was in no danger of invasion. As the law now stood it was impossible for the Crown to avail itself of the continued service of the militia. The object, therefore, of the Bill was to empower the Crown to embody it, that was, to call out for a continued period, the whole or any part of the militia, whenever the country is in a state of war. He also proposed, in case any regiment should be called out for training, for a period short of the period of fifty-six days, to take power, if occasion should require it, to continue the training up to the period of fifty-six days, without going through the process of giving fresh notices in the manner in which it is necessary to give them at the first assembling.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid, he did not object to the nature of the Amendments suggested by the noble Lord, and he felt assured that every man in the militia would be ready to come forward, and to willingly perform the duties that were imposed upon him. He hoped that the noble Lord would also consider whether some effective arrangements could not be carried out with reference to the wives and children of the men serving in the militia, many of whom were necessarily left by their husbands and fathers in a state of perfect destitution, and could look for no other parish relief than a workhouse order. The consequence of this was, that a militiaman, after serving his country, might find upon his return home that his family had been dispersed and made destitute, and his little furniture seized and sold. He hoped, also, that proper attention would be given to the stores for the services of the militia, and that generally the clauses of the Bill would be carefully considered.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, that the importance of securing a state of efficiency for our militia could scarcely be overrated, inasmuch as it would, no doubt, form a most important nucleus from which to fill up vacancies in our Army. He hoped that the Government would take every means of encouraging the system of volunteering, which he was sorry to see had been discountenanced by one of the colonels of a regiment of militia.
MR. GROGANsaid, that a good deal of excitement existed in Ireland on the subject of calling out the militia, and he trust-

1173
ed the Government would now state their intention on that point.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was now preparing a Bill to consolidate the existing militia laws, and in that Bill certain amendments would be introduced. He had purposely confined the present Bill to the points he had just mentioned, because it was desirable to pass it as soon as possible. With regard to volunteering into the line, different colonels took different views, but in some cases great encouragement had been given by the colonels, in proof of which he might refer to the efforts of Lord Fitzhardinge. With respect to the Irish militia, it was not the intention of the Government during the present year to organise or enrol the Irish militia. It was not desirable to incur any large expense if the public service did not require it. What might be done in another year was a matter for future consideration.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he regretted that it was not the intention of the Government to call out the Irish militia. A large force had been withdrawn from Ireland, and the noble Lord could hardly expect men to enlist in the regular service if such distrust was shown of them by the Government.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, there was a very large constabulary force in Ireland, and considering that the Government had increased their pay to the extent of 45,000 l. a year, he did not think there existed any ground of complaint on the part of that country.
SIR JOHN BULLERinquired if the noble Lord intended to introduce the Bill for the consolidation of the militia law during the present year?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes, as soon as possible.
Leave given; Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Secretary at War.
Bill read 1°.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross.

THE TICKET OF LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSrose to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack and of the Government generally to a subject of considerable importance, and to ask for copies of the instructions in regard to tickets of leave issued under the new system by which we were now attempting to get rid of transportation. The case to which he should refer by way of illustration was the first which had occurred under the ticket of leave system, and was reported on the 28th of April; and it was of this nature:—A prisoner had been sentenced to transportation for seven years, but was ultimately sent to the prison at Dartmoor, where he was confined for seventeen months. His conduct while there must have been good, because he obtained a ticket of leave from Lord Palmerston the Secretary for the Home Department, and was sent to Edinburgh, the place where he had been convicted. After being thus restored to liberty, it appeared that the man was unable to obtain employment, and under the pressure of starvation committed a new felony by stealing some small article—a pair of boots, he believed—and thereupon the warrant ceased (that being a condition which would forfeit the ticket of leave) and the man was then sent back, upon proof of his having committed this new felony, to his former place of imprisonment. The point to which he (Lord St. Leonards) wished to draw the attention of the Government was this:—It was stated by the prisoner, who was sixty years of age, that he had been sent from Dart-

1035
moor to Edinburgh, where he bad been originally convicted. Whether this was in consequence of the provision attached to the ticket of leave did not appear; the Secretary of State, however, had the power, under the Act of Parliament, of annexing to the ticket of leave what conditions he pleased; and he had the power of confining his "leave" to any part of Her Majesty's dominions. The prisoner was taken to Edinburgh. He (Lord St. Leonards) did not complain of this, because it was extremely difficult to know what was the most advantageous course to pursue with regard to a man placed under such circumstances. It was hard to determine whether a liberated prisoner would feel himself in greater difficulties in the place in which he was originally known or in a place where he would be wholly unknown. But the man, being committed, made a statement which was thus reported:—
"The prisoner, who cried bitterly on being removed from the dock, told the officers who had charge of him that he was driven to commit the felony in question by starvation. The authorities of Dartmoor prison sent him back to the scene of his former disgrace, where consequently, he failed to get employment. Wherever he went in Edinburgh he was a marked man, and, even if he obtained a situation, the police made it their business to inform his employer of his previous character, and no confidence was subsequently placed in him."
Now, when the matter was originally before their Lordships, and the Bill of his noble and learned Friend was passed, he (Lord St. Leonards) stated that he did hope that what was alleged to be the practice with regard to other persons who had been discharged would not be extended to persons to whom tickets of leave were granted. It was not a new complaint that after a man had been discharged from prison, after submitting to the punishment inflicted upon him, he had wherever he went been followed by the police, who, if he went into a shop to ask for employment, followed him and discovered to the shopkeeper what was the nature of the offence which he might formerly have committed. Now, it was impossible under such circumstances that any man could ever maintain his position. You had better hang him or drown him, and put him out of his existence; because there was no chance for him. Placed in such a position, the man must resort to his old habits:—there was no opening for him. He (Lord St. Leonards) thought it was not
1036
enough, when a man's conduct in prison had been good, simply to give him a ticket of leave; they ought to inquire what that man's means of subsistence were when he was let out of prison. At any rate, the police should be put under some prudent regulations in regard to their conduct in following these persons, if it were true that they did follow them. He (Lord St. Leonards) was not making a charge either against any public officer or against Her Majesty's Government; but here was one of the first prisoners discharged under a ticket of leave, although it was impossible that anything but want and destitution could attend him, and when, to avoid starvation (according to the man's own statement), he was compelled to resort to his old practices. Now, it was most desirable that this subject should be reconsidered by the Government with reference to the mode of employment and the means of existence for the persons so discharged—whether they ought to be sent into the world to get their living as they best could, or whether they should be dogged by policemen, who followed them and prevented them from obtaining any employment. It would be very desirable if his noble and learned Friend would lay on the table of the House the rules and regulations of the police force (if there were any) in regard to persons placed in the position of this man.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would take care to obtain some information with regard to the case from his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he must say that on the face of the statement made by the prisoner, it could not be accurate. The man declared that he had been sent to Edinburgh; but how this could be he did not know, because the Act did not authorise any such thing. Until he heard it authenticated, he could never believe that a man, having a ticket of leave, should be obliged and compelled to resort to no other place than the scene of his former delinquencies.
LORD ST. LEONARDSstated that, in point of fact, there was such authority in the Act of Parliament as had been alluded to by his noble and learned Friend. The ticket of leave was granted upon such conditions as the Crown might think fit, and the prisoner might thus of course, be compelled to resort to such part of the United Kingdom as the Crown might fix upon.
LORD CAMPBELLthought it impossible that the police instructions, when they

1037
were produced, could be found to direct that a man should be followed, as was alleged to have been the case in this instance. If it were so, it amounted in fact to a revival, in another form, of the old and barbarous law, by which in ancient times a felon had a mark burnt upon his hand and cheek, so that all mankind might be warned of his guilt. That was a most inhuman and barbarous practice, and it, of course, prevented all chance of the criminal reforming and becoming a respectable citizen; and if the course said to have been adopted in this instance were to be followed, the same result would be produced.

MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CALCUTTA.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE presented a petition from the Trade Association and Inhabitants of the town of Calcutta, complaining of the inefficient manner in which their city is lighted, drained, and cleansed under the Local Municipal Act of 1852, and praying for the extension of Municipal Institutions to Calcutta similar to those enjoyed by towns in the United Kingdom, so far as the same may be applicable to that city. The noble Earl said he thought the prayer of the petitioners for a charter of incorporation was moderate, constitutional, and practicable. Calcutta was a city, the population of which amounted to 416,000 souls, and its annual rental 650,000 l. It was the capital of our Indian possessions, and the most important port in our Asiatic dominions. Its annual exports amounted to 11,000,000 l., and its imports to 9,000,000 l., whilst the shipping which entered it reached 426,000 tons. Such a seaport was surely entitled, then, to some conveniences for the loading and unloading of ships; yet, although it had a river frontage of deep water two miles in extent, which was all public property, and without a single private right, strange to say, it did not possess a quay or a wharf. The city was also worse lighted, paved, drained, and cleansed, than any fifth or sixth-rate town in England. It was lighted with oil lamps, which were few and far between, and gas was wholly unknown there. Yet he questioned whether there was any town in England which had greater conveniences for gas than Calcutta, situated as it was about fifty or sixty miles from Burdwan, where there were abundant coal mines, with water communication. In consequence of its bad paving, draining, and cleansing, Calcutta was the most un-
1038
healthy of the great towns in India. Bilious affections, dysentery, remittent fevers, and malaria, were the common diseases of the place, and as old as its oldest inhabitants; but Calcutta was subject to a more fatal epidemic, which he believed was distinctly traceable to British exactions and British neglect. It was well known that many diseases of a preventible nature derived their origion from the squalid misery of the East—the measles, small-pox, and the Turkish plague were all of Oriental origin; but it was reserved for one of the oldest possessions of the British in India to inflict on mankind the scourge which went by the name of Asiatic, but which ought more properly to be called British, cholera, because it was in a part of the widely extended province of Bengal that this fearful epidemic first broke out, and thence commenced its destructive march over all parts of the globe, from China to Peru, and was uhappily now in our own manufacturing districts; and he believed that in its course it had swept off a greater number of souls than the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1817 this preventible disease made its first visit to Calcutta, carrying off thousands of the inhabitants. It raged with the utmost virulence during the three years of his (the Earl of Albemarle's) residence there; he believed it was never absent from it, and it never would cease unless the influence of Parliament, the commands of Her Majesty's Government, and the pressure of public opinion were brought to bear upon the local Government, in order to effect the removal of the present shameful and disgraceful mal-administration. The remedy for this state of things was a well-constituted municipal body. There would be no want of funds for such a body, because 35,000 l. a year was raised from the inhabitants of Calcutta for municipal purposes; nor was there a want of competent persons, because there were 757 Christian inhabitants who had signed this petition. There was also the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, a body of powerful and intelligent merchants; and there was likewise the Trading Association, who were principally concerned with this petition, and who had for twenty years laid before the Government prayers for municipal incorporation, and rights similar to those existing in the mother country. There were no local difficulties in the way of drainage works in Calcutta, because there was an outfall of twelve feet from the city. A highly intel-

1039
ligent officer had made an admirable survey of Calcutta, and showed that at a slight expense a complete, perfect, and self-remunerative system of drainage could be established. The Report had been under the consideration of the Government ever since 1817. It was said to a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that the reason why his predecessors had not drained Phœnix Park was, that they were too busy draining the country. This was the case with the Indian administration; it was too busy draining the country of its resources to find time to remove the causes of disease, misery, and death, from the capital of our eastern empire. Of late years there had been much tinkering at the municipal institutions of Calcutta, the endeavour always being to give the semblance of popular representation, but to exclude its reality. In 1840 an Act was passed with this object; but it was succeeded in 1847 by another, the preamble of which showed its predecessor to have been inoperative. Two years afterwards, disease and mortality continuing, the Trade Association presented to the Governor General a plan of incorporation similar to that now suggested. All they gained was an admission from the Governor General that he was fully alive to the inconveniences; and to show that he was, the noble Marquess set off the following morning for the upper provinces, where he could breathe the pure air from the hills, leaving the inhabitants of Calcutta to inhale the filthy and destructive atmosphere by which they were surrounded. In 1851 another Act was passed, which was found to be inconvenient and ineffectual, and it was therefore repealed. In 1852 another Act was passed, and it was not difficult to understand why this did not succeed. The Administration of the affairs of Calcutta was by it vested in four Commissioners, two elected by the ratepayers and two appointed by the Government, a casting voice being, in all doubtful cases, given in favour of the Government nominees; so that virtually the office of the scavenger of Calcutta was in the hands of the Supreme Government, already burdened with the civil, military, and political administration of seven or eight nations and 150,000,000 of inhabitants. The Government Commissioners received no pay as such, but they were amply remunerated for the discharge of other duties. These duties were of so onerous a character that they had not time to attend to those which devolved upon them as Com-
1040
missioners; and they were at the same time as ignorant of what occurred in the native town, as was a dweller in Belgravia of what occurred in Whitechapel. At the same time there was a constant change of official persons; and on this account every plan of improvement, however well intentioned, fell to the ground. The elective Commissioners were paid a salary of about 300 l. a year; but, owing to the existence of the Government veto, the office was one of such discredit that no one, either Native or European, of any standing, would fill it, and it was held by Natives of inferior character, whose only object was to obtain the pay. This was a perfect mockery of popular representation, and he did hope that on this part of the subject Her Majesty's Ministers would give a favourable answer. He also trusted that the Government would extend the benefits of any improvement to other large towns in India. Madras, with its open port and roadstead, suffered from a combination of evils which produced perpetual pestilence, perpetual famine, and a revenue which never met its expenditure. Bombay, which nearly equalled Calcutta in commercial importance, had no loading or unloading docks. In consequence of this, all traffic between ships and the shore was carried on by native boats; a circumstance which gave rise to an association of thieves to plunder the merchandise while in transit to the shore, which carried on its operations for 30 years, but was at last betrayed by one of its members, and those who composed it were transported. Sir Erskine Perry, the Judge before whom these thieves were tried, stated, in mentioning the case, that though the existence of the association and its operations were well known in the bazaar, no complaint had ever been made to the police. This was the consequence of not allowing the Natives to have a fair share in the management of their own affairs. He asked this question in no hostile spirit towards the Government, to which, as he believed their measures, with the exception of their Indian legislation, had had for their object the well-being of the country, he had given a general support. He begged to move that the petition which he had presented should be laid on the table, and to ask Her Majesty's Ministers what steps they meant to take in reference to the matters referred to in it.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as the noble Earl had given no notice of the particular grievance of which he complained, neither himself (Earl Granville) nor any of

1041
his Colleagues could give him any answer in that respect. Considering the interest which the noble Earl took in the affairs of India, it was natural that he should have been requested to present this petition, and should have thought it courteous and right to have supported it in the argumentative speech which he had addressed to the House; but he (Earl Granville) had so much confidence in the soundness of his judgment that he did not think that he seriously intended to press the prayer of the petition upon their Lordships. He did not know that there was, in the course of the debates upon the India Bill, any stronger feeling expressed by any of their Lordships, than that care should be taken not in any respect to weaken the authority of the Governor General and the Legislative Council. What had fallen from the noble Earl had shown how competent the Governor General and the Council were to deal with this subject; for he had mentioned several Acts which had been passed upon the subject, and had particularly referred to one passed in the year 1852. The objections to that Act, as he (Earl Granville understood the noble Earl—for the Government in England had no knowledge that any appeal had been made to the Governor General in Council, against either the constitution of the board or the working of the system—seemed to be, that it was composed of two members appointed by the Government and two elected by the ratepayers. With regard to the former of these he apprehended that all their Lordships were aware that there were many things which in England could be done entirely by private individuals, with respect to which in India the Government was obliged to interfere. The objection that the other two Commissioners were not respectable Europeans, but Natives who undertook the office for the sake of the pay, was the last objection which he should have expected to have heard from the noble Earl. The population of Calcutta amounted in number to 416,000 persons, of whom about 400,000 were Natives; and he (Earl Granville) thought it an advantage that the elected members of the board should be two Natives rather than two Europeans, however respectable. He had recently been making some inquiries as to the actual state of the town of Calcutta, and he had had put into his hands one of the latest newspapers published in that place, in which there was a very long and able report in regard to the lighting of the
1042
town. That report gave a history of what had been attempted, and the difficulties which had been encountered, and finally gave the satisfactory assurance that one individual, a factor of great experience, had made very good offers to light the town with gas, and that a company had actually been formed with the same object. It would be idle to detain their Lordships by a lengthened discussion of these purely local matters. He could see no reason why the Governor General and the Legislative Council should have a bias in favour of a bad rather than of a good form of municipal government in Calcutta; and he really thought that their Lordships, who, as had been said by a noble friend of his, had been struggling for some years against darkness, and had referred the matter to a Select Committee who had been much puzzled how to light them, and who held their sittings in a town that had not very satisfactorily managed its own drainage, had better not take upon themselves to encroach upon the province of the Governor General of India, and assume to themselves duties which it was clear they would fail satisfactorily to discharge.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in moving that their Lordships go into Committee on the Bill, as it had been agreed, for the convenience of certain noble Lords, that the discussion on the Bill should be taken on the present stage, it would not be respectful if he did not make to their Lordships a statement, which he would condense as much as possible, in order to induce their Lordships—what he thought would not be difficult—to pass this Bill. He had certainly no intention of going into the history of the income tax, with which many of their Lordships were probably better acquainted than himself;—he need not even go back to what occurred during the last Session, except to notice some remarks which led him to believe that some of their Lordships were hardly aware what was the condition of things last year. A noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), the cause of whose absence from the House he much regretted, had stated, the other night, that, in his opinion, great want of forethought had been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in having, at a time when they might have

1043
anticipated war, abandoned so important a portion of the revenue as the soap duties. ["Hear!"] From the cheers of noble Lords opposite, he inferred that they considered this to be the state of the case, and when the Government came into office last year they found an ample revenue, sufficient for all purposes, and that they had wantonly thrown away a tax which yielded a revenue exceeding a million a year, collected by the soap duties, and this at a time when the income tax, which produced about five times that amount, was about to expire. Now, if there was at that time any feeling, in or out of Parliament, which was stronger than another, it was, that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should either abolish the income tax, or should modify it to meet certain inequalities and injustices which were apparent in its operation; and this feeling had certainly been much encouraged by the course which had been previously taken on the part of the late Government, who, with a very laudable desire to meet the popular demand, had announced in Parliament that it was their intention to make certain modifications in the mode of levying the tax with a view of removing these inequalities. This announcement made a great impression upon the public; and though it afterwards appeared that it was merely a promise of a plan which was not matured, nor indeed formed, this discovery did not counteract the effect of the original announcement, which no doubt increased the public expectation that Her Majesty's present Government would deal in the same spirit with the income tax. This tax had, of course, been one of the first objects of consideration with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he believed he might say, applied to it an amount of labour and consideration, so as to master its principles and its practical working, such as hardly ever before had been bestowed by any public man upon an individual subject, while discharging the other duties of his office. He associated with him several other Members of the Cabinet, who were well acquainted with the subject; and after most anxious consideration, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues came to the conclusion, which had previously been come to by every Finance Minister, excepting the Members of the late Government, that it was impossible to modify the income tax in any way that would not increase, instead of diminish, its injustice and in-
1044
equality, and that if you meddled with it at all you would impair it as a measure of taxation for great emergencies. With this expectation on the part of the public on the one hand, and this opinion of the Government on the other, it appeared almost inevitable to honest men that you must either endeavour to give up the tax altogether, or confess that it was utterly impossible to propose the modifications demanded. By a most admirable argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accompanied by a proposition which at once met with the favour of the house and of the country on account of its justice, its comprehensiveness, and its effect in relieving to a great extent—as in that very instance of the soap duties—both the manufactures of the country and the wants of the poorer classes of the people, the country and the House were persuaded to accept of the income tax, and also to impose an additional tax, which might be called a war tax. Both these taxes were now in force, and we had them to use as might be necessary in the emergency which had occurred. The manner in which it was now proposed to deal with the income tax was to double the amount payable in the first half-year, so as to give, in round numbers, a sum of about 3,300,000 l., and that amount, together with the surplus from last year, would go to make up the deficiency estimated for the expenditure which had already been sanctioned by the House of Commons—an expenditure amounting in round numbers to 50,000,000 l. The proposition contained in the Bill, on which he now moved that their Lordships should go into Committee, was a simple one. It merely enacted that during the first half of the current year double that half-year's income tax should be paid. The reasons for making the whole increase payable in the first half-year were twofold. The first was that the whole charge might be received in the current year; and the second was, the possibility of circumstances rendering it necessary for the Government to call for a double tax on the second half-year also. He knew that there were points connected with the past policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which some of their Lordships were anxious to speak; and if any such observations were made, he should be glad to give upon these matters such explanations as he could.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to state that he still retained the opinions he had always held on the subject of the income tax, and which he had expressed in 1816, at the time he was a Member of the House of Commons, when he objected to continue the income tax beyond the duration of the war that had rendered its imposition necessary—opinions which he had again expressed in this House, when the present tax was imposed ten or eleven years ago; and opinions which he had repeated in 1851, when he renewed the resolutions which he had previously laid before the House upon the subject. After all the discussion the question had undergone, and notwithstanding the inquiries his noble Friend (Earl Granville) said had been made, and the conclusion which had been come to, that no modification of the tax could be effected, but that it would be crippled and rendered entirely ineffectual if the modifications suggested were adopted, he (Lord Brougham) had the misfortune to retain his opinion, that the tax upon income derived from capital, the tax upon income derived from labour, and the tax upon income not derived from capital, but continuing only during a man's life, ought to be differently imposed from the tax upon income of another description where the interest was not confined to a man's life. The answer which was given to the Resolutions he submitted to their Lordships on the occasion to which he referred was, that the Government had not one word to say in favour of the income tax; that they had not one word of argument against the proposition he then made; but that it was the hard necessity of their condition that rendered the imposition of the tax inevitable, and that it was only that necessity which could justify its adoption. This was the admission both of his noble Friend Lord Ripon, and of his illustrious Friend the Duke, whose loss all so deeply lamented. He knew he was taking an unpopular course; but he still retained the opinion that, of all the taxes which could be imposed, the tax upon income was the worst, with the exception of taxes upon food, taxes upon knowledge, and taxes upon the administration of justice. But in the present instance its adoption was a hard necessity. We were unfortunately plunged into a war, the expenses of which must be provided; and, retaining the opinion which he had before expressed against this tax, and which opinion no experience he had acquired during its continuance
1046
had in the least degree abated or shaken, he feared he must now say that it had become necessary, not only to continue, but to increase it; and upon that ground alone he should give his assent to the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYdid not rise to oppose the measure before the House for doubling the income tax; but he nevertheless felt it to be his duty, in the absence of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), to address a few observations to their Lordships upon the subject. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) had stated most truly that the proposition was a simple one. And indeed it was so simple that its very simplicity made it one of the principal misfortunes of the country. It was so simple that it became the easiest of all methods of taxation if the public were willing to accept it; certainly, no great talent for legislation, and no great amount of ability, were required for propounding a financial scheme, when the principal instrument for obtaining a revenue was direct taxation in the form of an income tax. It must, therefore, be a considerable temptation to any Chancellor of the Exchequer to make use of this great instrument, which at once relieved him from all difficulties of calculation and enabled him to bring a vast amount of money into the treasury of the State. He had stated that he intended to agree to the proposition of his noble Friend; but he could not sit down without making a few criticisms upon what had taken place in connection with the tax and with the circumstances of the country during the last twelve months. It would be in the recollection of the House that the late Government, after they thought fit to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, failed in obtaining a majority in their favour at the election of 1852. True, they found themselves with a considerable number of supporters in the House of Commons; but the united forces of the different sections of that House which did not agree with them outnumbered their strength, and it became apparent that whenever those forces chose to unite upon any one question the days of the Government were numbered. However different in opinion from one another these sections were, they formed a coalition—he did not say how, when, or where—but a coalition they formed, and they lost no time in applying their united strength to expel the Administration of his noble Friend (the Earl of

1047
Derby). They were not long hesitating in the choice of a subject on which to make the attack with the most chance of success. They might have attacked upon any question, and by uniting their forces have turned them out; but they chose the question of finance as that upon which the trial of strength was to be tried and proved. At once, and without hesitation, they attacked the financial scheme of his eminent and talented Friend the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). He (the Earl of Malmesbury) must say, in reference to the observations of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that it was most incorrect to say that the right hon. Gentleman's plans in respect of the income tax were not matured. Those plans were completely and fully matured, and the great feature of them was to give relief, as far as possible, from the inequalities and injustice to which the income tax was, he believed, necessarily liable. The intention of his right hon. Friend was certainly to relieve some of the parties to whom his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had just alluded, from the unequal pressure with which the tax bore upon them. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) had promised in the commencement of his speech that he would explain why the soap duties were remitted, in the face of all the warnings that were given to the Government at the time; but his noble Friend had concluded his address without the fulfilment of the promise. This was one of the points upon which Her Majesty's Government had most exposed themselves to obloquy, and he remembered that a noble Friend of his not now present (the Earl of Ellenborough) made a most earnest appeal to the Government on the subject, foreseeing, as almost everybody else foresaw, excepting perhaps the Prime Minister, that war was inevitable, and that it would be dangerous and improvident to throw away a tax which brought nearly 1,100,000 l. a year into the Exchequer. Now, it was not, he thought, too much for the country to expect that, having expelled the late Government upon a question of finance, the undoubted talents of the succeeding Government should have been united upon the subject of their finance, in order to show the public that the expulsion of the preceding Government had been to its advantage and gain. He would, however, appeal to the public, and ask them whether the strongest point of the policy of Her Majesty's Government was their finan-
1048
cial policy. Could it be said of them, and was it believed of them, that that was the best part of their policy, and that upon which they might take to themselves the greatest amount of pride? He (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not believe there was a man in the country, even among their own supporters, who would venture to say that that was the strongest point of their policy; and certainly it ought to be the strongest point, because it was that upon which they defeated the late Government, and expelled them from office. It would have been expecting too much from human nature to suppose that the able Gentleman who was now at the head of the financial department of the Government would condescend to follow in the path of his predecessor. So far from doing so, indeed, that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) appeared to have thought it his duty to pursue exactly the contrary course. Thus, upon the question of the income tax, he rejected the proposition of Mr. Disraeli suggesting relief to certain descriptions of persons and property, and which most people admitted would have been an improvement; and he not only held to the old principle, but he extended the tax to another part of Her Majesty's dominions. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman, in order to make the act less unpopular than it would have been, put before the public one of the greatest delusions that had ever been presented to a deceived nation. The right hon. Gentleman made them believe, and he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman believed it himself, that it was more than probable—nay, that it was likely, and that within seven years, the circumstances of the country would be such as to allow that tax to be completely obliterated. After a most impressive and eloquent speech, the right hon. Gentleman wound up his proposition by promising that at that time the income tax should be extinct. Now, the result of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget, he might shortly state, was this: He reduced about 2,700,000 l. of taxation; he increased some taxes—he would not take up the time of their Lordships by enumerating them. The right hon. Gentleman, however, reduced and abolished other taxes, such as the tea duties, the soap duties, &c. But the great point to which the attention of the country was drawn, and of which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be peculiarly proud, and on which he seemed practically to have grounded his Budget, was his having arranged the financial

1049
affairs of this country in such a manner that we were certain that at the end of seven years we should be entirely relieved of the income tax, which was now the subject of discussion in their Lordships' House. Now, at any time, it appeared to bins (the Earl of Malmesbury) almost presumptuous in any man to pretend to calculate what might happen in seven years in a great empire like this, particularly at a great and impending crisis. It would almost require a sign from heaven, or the gift of prophecy, for any Minister to calculate a continuous state of prosperity for a period of seven years, which could alone justify him in making such financial arrangements, depending on the result of such prophetic knowledge. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was entirely unable to discover, now, or at the time those arrangements were proposed, what had inspired the right hon. Gentleman with such sanguine hopes as to the continued peace and prosperity of the country. He never could understand what there was in the circumstances of the country to justify the right hon. Gentleman in putting forward this delusion, that during the next seven years there would be such an increase of prosperity, which could only exist with continued peace—he repeated he was at a loss to know what, besides his own imagination, induced the right hon. Gentleman to act upon so weak and so unsatisfactory a basis. But the events which had occurred since the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Budget—those events had increased his astonishment, the more, too, that they had been foreseen by many persons who did not pretend to be gifted with the spirit of prophecy, and ought to have been equally foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he were aware, as he ought to have been aware, of the correspondence which entered and left our Foreign Office. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) asked their Lordships for a moment to recollect the dates which he was now about to mention. It was on the 18th April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to the other House of Parliament to reduce 2,000,000 l. of taxation; that was the day on which he proposed to abolish the soap duties and other duties; that was the day on which he proposed to make his celebrated conversion of stock, which had since so signally failed. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the duty upon tea by nearly double the amount proposed by his right hon. predecessor, and he wound up
1050
his picture of finance by proposing the death of the income tax in seven years. That was on the 18th of April. He now asked their Lordships' patience for a few moments while he reminded them of the correspondence which lately occupied their attention, and which was received at the Foreign Office on the 6th of March, that was, about five weeks before the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Budget. On the 6th of March the Government received from Sir G. H. Seymour an account of the remarkable conversation which he had had with the Emperor of Russia—a conversation which must be present in the memory of their Lordships. There were some passages in this despatch which showed that this distinguished gentleman, at all events, saw the impending storm, and took the earliest opportunity of warning Her Majesty's Government of it:—
"It is hardly necessary that I should observe to your Lordship that this short conversation, briefly but correctly reported, offers matter for most anxious reflection. It can hardly be otherwise but that the Sovereign who insists with such pertinacity upon the impending fall of a neighbouring State, insist have settled in his own mind that the hour, if not of its dissolution, at all events, for its dissolution, must he at hand."
Now, let their Lordships recollect that this despatch was received five weeks before the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Budget. On the 15th of April, only three days before he submitted his financial statement to the House, the Earl of Clarendon had received from Colonel Rose, our Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople, a despatch inclosing a Report from M. Doria, containing the following important statement:—
"Prince Menchikoff had verbally expressed the Emperor's wish to enter into a secret treaty with Turkey, putting a fleet and 400,000 men at her disposal, if she ever needed aid against any Western Power whatever. That Russia further secretly demanded an addition to the treaty of Kainardji, whereby the Greek Church should be placed entirely under Russian protection, without reference to Turkey, which was to be the equivalent for the proffered aid above mentioned. Prince Menchikoff had stated the greatest secrecy must be maintained relative to this proposition, and that, should Turkey allow it to be made known to England, he and his mission would instantly quit Constantinople."
Vice Consul Cunningham, in a despatch received by the Earl of Clarendon on the same day, reports:—
"That fresh orders have been received in Bessarabia to prepare for the passage of troops, and to get waggons ready for the transport of baggage.

1051
It is said, and such appears to be the case from the amount of preparation ordered, and two corps d' armée, upwards of 120,000 men, will pass, and waggons are ordered to be ready for the 10th of May, O.S. Whenever orders are given to make preparations, the greatest secrecy is enjoined. Hitherto no troops, in addition to the five battalions mentioned in my last, have entered Bessarabia, but it is understood they are marching forward from all directions."
With reference to this intelligence, Colonel Rose added:—
"The tenor of this Report, taken in consideration with that of the Vice Consul Yeames' last Report from Odessa, can leave, I think, no doubt as to the hostile nature of the intentions of the Russian Government."
Now it thus appeared that five weeks before the Budget was announced, Her Majesty's Government were warned of the probability of an impending war with Russia; and three days before the Budget that warning was repeated in the despatch of our Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople. Yet in the face of those warnings the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House of Commons and took off 2,000,000 l. of taxes, and at the same time he endeavoured to make the public believe that the circumstances of the country, both at home and abroad, were such as to justify him in stating, that in seven years it was reasonable to suppose there would no longer be any necessity for the income tax. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) said that a Minister was not justified in acting by the country in such a manner. He considered such a course of policy reflected no honour upon that Government to which that Minister belonged; and, certainly, considering the point upon which the former Government had been ousted, he must say that, even if the absence of an individual Member would have been for the advantage of the nation, it did not appear to have been for its advantage that Mr. Disraeli should have been expelled from his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Gladstone substituted. But what had happened since? War had been declared, notwithstanding the sanguine anticipations of the Prime Minister, who, up to the very last moment, had never ceased to murmur "Peace, peace;" and that war was now raging in all its fury. Of course, the illusions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once vanished, and he now found himself obliged to come to the Houses of Parliament under totally different circumstances and ask for a totally different measure. And when he went down to the House of Commons, unless
1052
he (the Earl of Malmesbury) were misinformed, he stated not long ago that he believed that doubling the income tax would be sufficient, and he gave the impression to the country that the present generation would be fully enabled to bear the weight of the present war. In that respect he (the Earl of Malmesbury) must beg entirely to differ from the right hon. Gentleman; for, if this turned out to be such a war as he feared it would be, he did not think it would be just that the present generation should take upon itself the whole weight and burden. Posterity, in his opinion, was even more interested than ourselves in the issue of the present struggle; and believing, as he did, that the whole empire of Europe would belong and must belong to that Russian prince who was enabled to obtain possession of Constantinople, and hold it, he could not but believe that it was necessary for this country to spend both blood and treasure, even to the last soldier and the last shilling, in its defence. Certainly posterity was deeply interested in such a cause, and posterity would have no right to complain if it bore a portion of the burden entailed by the present struggle. If it was on any idea contrary to such a principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) must say it was adding a second delusion to the former one; but he believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was already convinced that such a state of things was impossible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now come down with a newly invented kind of loan. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not a financier, and it would be presumptuous in him to attempt to speak at any length upon such a subject before many noble Lords who had had great experience in finance; but it did appear to him, as it might to persons of the humblest capacity, that when they looked at the operations which had taken place with respect to the financial affairs of this year, they were capable of being described pretty nearly in this way:—The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have paid off one kind of stock at par at 3 per cent, and had taken up another at 3½; he had paid off at par one month, and had been borrowing at the rate of 15 discount another month. Whether that was his error or his incapacity he left it for their Lordships to judge. As he had said before, he would not oppose the Motion, but confine himself to the few observations he had made.
LORD MONTEAGLE: My Lords, in performing the duties which I am about to undertake, I do not feel it necessary to follow the course of argument of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) who has just sat down. The foreign policy of this country, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the late negotiations, naturally press themselves upon the attention of a noble Lord who has himself filled the office of Foreign Secretary, and to whom that part of the subject is, therefore, peculiarly interesting and familiar. To me, from analogous reasons, it is more natural to call your Lordships' attention to the financial condition of the country—a matter still more essentially connected with the Bill under our consideration. I shall have occasion to bespeak your Lordships' kind indulgence, and I do so the more reluctantly, as being fully conscious how distasteful questions of taxation are to this House, how foreign they are to our ordinary deliberations, and how difficult it is at all times to fix your Lordships' attention to a Bill upon which no adverse vote is proposed. We are now called upon, contrary to our anticipations, to increase the most unpopular of all our taxes—a tax which we flattered ourselves had, last year, been placed by Parliament in a course of gradual reduction and ultimate extinction. In addition to any argument derived from the importance of this Bill in itself, I have also to ask your patient attention on another ground. I believe that the position in which the finances of the empire are now placed, is the most extraordinary and anomalous, I grieve to add the most critical, that we have known for very many years. This startling proposition it will be my task to explain.
In approaching the subject I must beg to guard myself against the supposition of meaning anything individually disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the difficult and responsible office of head of the financial affairs of the country. No one admires more heartily, no one admits more sincerely and unreservedly than I do, the pre-eminent ability, the commanding eloquence, and the excelling and attractive character and endowments of Mr. Gladstone. But, on that very account, I feel myself all the more at liberty to deal frankly with his measures, to consider the principles upon which they are founded, and the consequences to which they lead. If I, from mere personal considerations,
1054
were to hesitate in expressing my opinions unreservedly, I should only prove that I had formed an unjust estimate of the Minister whose policy I questioned, and that I forgot, or set aside, the obligations which, as a Member of the British Parliament, I owe to my country and to myself. It is because I feel a high respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am the more ready to discuss, with the freedom which becomes this Assembly, the financial measures of the present Session. Nay, though it may sound a paradox, whilst gladly recognising the great powers and unbounded Parliamentary influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, those high qualifications, in my judgment, augment the danger to be apprehended from some of his measures; and they ought to put your Lordships, and the Members of the other House of Parliament, upon their guard against his financial propositions. I quite admit that the charmer, if he charms not wisely, charms most effectively, for he persuades where he cannot convince. It is, therefore, some relief to me to think that, from the inconsistencies and contradictions upon which I shall have occasion to animadvert, it is scarcely possible to urge an objection against any one part of the Government policy, without having on my side the authority of the same Government in another part of their policy, and being thus enabled to justify, by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself, my opposition to his measures. For instance, the amount of the unfunded debt is at one period stated as an evil, and the reduction of that amount is described a public benefit. At the next turn we find the unfunded debt, previously reduced, again augmented to its former amount, or proposed to be raised to a still greater amount, under another name. Again, it has been proposed to adopt, as "the keystone of our system," the obligation of raising, within the year, the supplies wanting for the annual public services. The authority of great economical writers has been quoted in support of what I freely admit to be a noble proposition, wherever it is practical. This great aphorism has been recommended, not only on social and political, but upon moral grounds; yet, hardly were the words cold upon the lips which had uttered them, than we have witnessed a departure from the principle thus laid down, and a proposal made to create a debt of 6,000,000 l., and to throw this burden upon our pos-

1055
terity. On these grounds I not only find it difficult, for myself individually, to agree with these contradictory propositions, but I feel assured that it must be equally difficult for my noble Friends on the Treasury bench to do so. Whichever alternative we are induced, on conviction, to embrace, gives to each of us the benefit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's authority, in favour of our conflicting opinions. I cannot, for the life of me, at once make it a cardinal point that the supplies should be raised within the year, and, at the same time, support and approve a measure having a tendency directly contradictory.
It is impossible to deny, that, in combination with many evidences of increasing prosperity, we have to struggle at the present with considerable financial difficulties. We find a surplus of income over our expenditure, yet our credit can hardly be considered to be in a satisfactory state. Our revenue augments, yet we are driven to propose new taxes. We seek to raise a small loan, but the capitalists repeatedly reject our proposals. These contrasts make the present position of the country a most remarkable one, the cause of which we are bound to review, as well as to investigate its probable consequences. It has been, unfortunately, made but too notorious, that a want of cordial feeling has existed during the last year between two great departments—the one within, and the other without, the State. I allude to the interruption of the èntente cordiale between the Treasury and Threadneedle Street. This I sincerely regret. A good understanding between these two great contracting powers is of the highest public importance, provided it be not maintained by any improper attempts at coercion on the one hand, or by any undue subserviency on the other. No papers have yet been moved for or presented, showing the origin, or the decline and fall of this holy alliance; but, if the secret correspondence on the subject is ever produced, I cannot but suspect that the dispatches between the Bank and the Treasury will form an amusing pendant to the Russian diplomatic papers. Indeed, as if to render the likeness more correct—or, I might better say, the identity more striking—the secret memorandum of Count Nesselrode is rivalled by a memorandum equally confidential, of which, for the first time, I have lately heard, and which sets forth the engagements entered into between the Bank and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
1056
The anomaly in our position, which I have already noticed, is, that, whilst we gladly recognise around us causes and evidences of prosperity, which continue and increase, many alarming circumstances of an opposite kind are also found to exist, combined with these favourable indications. The state of our public securities is far from satisfactory; our funds are not high; our Exchequer bills barely maintain their circulation at par, or at a small discount. The balances in the Exchequer are low, and our debt on deficiency bills has proportionally augmented. The returns of the Bank bullion and the reserve of notes are becoming more serious week by week. We are called upon at once to double the income tax and to incur an increased debt; yet, at the same time, we are triumphantly assured that we possess a surplus of income over expenditure, amounting to no less a sum than 3,500,000 l. Let us inquire what is the cause of these strongly contrasted circumstances. Have we been exposed to any great commercial misfortunes checking our trade and paralysing our manufacturing industry? Quite the reverse. So far from there being any reason to doubt, or to regret, the policy of our late legislation, the experiment, it is now admitted, has signally succeeded. The principle of free trade, irrevocably adopted by both Houses of Parliament, has exhibited no one result to make the country hesitate in its adopted faith. On the contrary, all our measures of that character have succeeded beyond the hopes of the most sanguine. We have seen liberty given to commerce, we have seen the exchanges between nation and nation extending daily, our manufacturers are profitably employed, the consumer is largely relieved, no complaint is heard, no petitions are presented from the agricultural interest, who now recognise the fallacy of that doctrine which taught them that the prosperity of the manufacturers and that of the farmers of England could not co-exist.
The state of our revenue is most satisfactory. Comparing the income of the year closing on the 5th of April, it shows an excess of income over the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate in 1853 of no less than 1,350,000 l. The public expenditure for the same period has fallen below that estimate by 1,120,000 l. Thus an improvement has taken place to the amount of 2,470,000 l. Nor is the amount of this advance greater than the rapidity of its

1057
augmentation. The surplus of income which Mr. Gladstone estimated (March 6th) at 2,800,000 l., produced upon the 5th of August, 3,524,000 l. It is true that some portion of this increase has arisen from anticipated payments of the property tax and of the tea duties, which would more naturally have entered into the revenue of the present year. But, making every just deduction, even after the repeal, in 1853, of taxes amounting to 2,000,000 l. (the produce of the taxes concurrently imposed not exceeding 700,000 l.), our revenues exhibits the unexampled prosperity I have described. I freely admit, in justice and in candour, that the Government are also entitled to claim some further allowance on account of their preparations for the apprehended war, and also on account of the deficient harvest, and its possible, though not well authenticated effects, on the amount of bullion at the Bank. To this may also be added the insurrection in China, which has diminished the tea duties. I give credit for these deductions, valeant quantum, but I have shown that it is not to them we can truly trace the extent of our financial derangements, which must be sought for in some other cause. That cause I shall now proceed to investigate.
I trace whatever is unsatisfactory in our present condition to the unfortunate manner in which the public debt has been dealt with during the course of the last year. This course I consider to have been unexampled; contrary alike to all experience, and to all general principles and authority. In explaining my meaning, I shall distinguish the case of the funded, from that of the unfunded debt, and shall deal first with the latter. At the commencement of the year 1853 the interest on Exchequer bills had been recently reduced by Mr. Disraeli to 1¼d. a day, being a very low rate of interest. On the 14th of February Mr. Gladstone gave notice of the still farther reduction of interest to 1d. a day, or 1½ per cent interest, which was carried into effect on the 11th of March. I believe that 1l. 10 s., or 1½ per cent interest, was a lower amount than had ever before been paid upon Exchequer bills. This March exchange of 1853 was, however, carried into effect successfully; 8,477,200 l. in renewed bills were taken by the public. A similar reduction of interest was announced on the Exchequer bills exchangeable in June. The advertisement
1058
appeared on the 16th of May; the exchange took place on the 10th of June. But circumstances had changed even since March; what in spring was rash, was in summer mischievous. The consequence of the reduction of interest was immediate. Of the June bills, 3,134,000 l. were required to be paid in money, and 5,890,000 l. only were exchanged by the public for new bills.
It is here right to advert to the effect of these operations on the premium obtainable on Exchequer bills during these changes, the high premium being relied on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in justification of his proceedings.

1853. Jan. 1st to Jan. 6th

73 s. to 69 s.

1853. Jan. 6th to Jan. 20th

72 s. to 60 s.

1853. Feb. 14th

61 s. to 50 s.

The notice of the reduction of interest was given, be it remembered, on the 14th of February, and the effect on the premium already falling, was as follows:—

Feb. 15th

30 s.

Feb. 16th to 18th

25 s. to 15 s.

Feb. 19th

10 s. to par.

March 2nd

16 s. to 5s.

March 3rd

3s.

On May 16th a further notice for the reduction of interest on the June bills appeared, and the price of Exchequer bills fluctuated from a discount of 3s., 4s., 7s., 11 s., and 17 s. per annum to a premium of 3s. or 5s. But even this miserable price was maintained only through the forcible interposition of the Government itself. Between the 5th and the 25th of May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, acting on behalf of the savings banks, became a large purchaser of these depreciated securities. In nine days the sum of 380,000 l. was expended on behalf of the trustees of the savings banks, and 57,000 l. for the sinking fund. In the quarter ending October, a further sum of 866,000 l. was invested in like manner. It is therefore clear that, had it not been for this artificial support, the Exchequer bills would not have been saleable at all.
But it is necessary to inquire into other concurrent circumstances which afford the means of judging how far these successive reductions of interest were or were not prudent. The value of money in the market is best shown by the rate of discount charged at the Bank of England, which stood as follows in 1853:—

1059

1353. Jan. 1st

2 per cent.

1353. Jan. 7th

2 ½ per cent.

1353. Jan. 20th

3 per cent.

1353. June 2nd

3½ per cent.

1353. Sept. 2nd

4 per cent.

1353. Sept. 15th

4½ per cent.

1353. Sept. 29th

5 per cent.

It is thus shown that the value of money was steadily and invariably progressive for nine months; neither was there anything in the price of Consols which led to any different conclusion. The bullion in the Bank had also been reduced between January and July, 1853, from 19,151,000 l. to 17,889,000 l. in July, and in October to 15,202,000 l. Thus, it will be seen that whilst the value of money was rising, the Treasury persevered in reducing, to an unexampled pitch, the interest payable on Exchequer bills. The result was, as has already been shown, a demand in money for 3,134,000 l. of Exchequer bills brought in. It is not improbable that, if the Treasury had been content to let well alone, these Exchequer bills might have floated at their original interest, and the public balances would not have been drained to the amount of 3,134,000 l. paid off; but a consequence followed still more dangerous. A general discredit was cast upon these securities by the course so injudiciously resorted to, which discredit these securities have never since recovered. It is, indeed, quite true, that the holders of Exchequer bills have no right to expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should maintain the unfunded debt at a high premium, for their exclusive advantage. They, like all other dealers in public securities, are, and must be, liable to the fluctuations of the money market; but, up to the time of the present Administration, the holders had one incidental security, resting upon all experience from the days of William III. and of Halifax, to the present time. It had never been the practice to vary the interest on Exchequer bills inversely to the fluctuating value of money in the market. This seemed to give an undoubted guarantee against so extraordinary a measure as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Holders of these securities could not have been prepared for an unexampled reduction in the interest of Exchequer bills, at a time when the value of money was steadily increasing, as exhibited at the Bank and the Stock Exchange. It is this which has shaken the credit of the unfunded debt, and has compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour, though in-
1060
effectually, to support the Exchequer bill market by a large expenditure of savings bank and sinking fund monies. A somewhat singular justification has, however, been attempted for these proceedings. It has been discovered officially, as it appears, that the amount of outstanding Exchequer bills was in excess, and that to pay off and cancel bills to the extent of above 3,000,000 l. was a great stroke of financial wisdom. This supposed excess in the amount of bills was scarcely reconcilable with the high rate of premium on such bills, so much complained of; but, even assuming the allegation to be true, it is necessary to inquire whether the measure was successful for its declared object? No such thing. 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills were paid off, as I have shown, in June; but with what result? Why, that between the 17th of October and the 31st of December, precisely the same amount of bills—namely, 3,000,000 l.—were reissued for the public service, at an interest increased to three per cent, or to an amount double that which had been originally paid. These new bills were put into circulation, and disposed of in a manner to prove abundantly the critical nature of the transaction. These impolitic proceedings could hardly fail to have inflicted a formidable blow on public credit. I agree that it may be at times desirable to reduce the unfunded debt. I agree, also, that the interest should be reduced when the general value of money has fallen; but it is surely a principle of financial policy to preserve the elasticity of the Exchequer bill market, so as to admit of the use of these securities, to meet any temporary exigency. More has been done in the last year to damage these securities than in the century and a half preceding. We have been compelled to raise the interest to three per cent, and even at that rate these securities are heavy, and the event of the June exchange is left uncertain. Such were the proceedings taken with respect to the unfunded debt—proceedings which I find it impossible to justify, and difficult to comprehend.
Nor were the steps taken in relation to the funded debt less extraordinary and mischievous than those I have described. I now allude to the measures for the conversion of the South Sea debt, and to the consequences which those measures produced. I should willingly escape this part of the subject; but it is indispensable to consider it, in order to pro-

1061
nounce justly upon our present condition, its immediate causes, or probable consequences. My Lords, it is never an agreeable, and it is often an ungenerous, act, to claim credit for the fulfilment of our anticipations of evil. From the days of Calchas to the present, "prophets of ill" have been uniformly unpopular. I have no ambition that way; besides, it is admitted, even by the party bound to feel a paternal interest in the conversion scheme, that it has proved "abortive." Had it been "abortive" only, it should have been passed over by me; but I am prepared to show that it has been not only "abortive," but actively mischievous. It is not the first time that public measures deserve justly to be designated in the words of my late ingenious friend, Mr. Luttrell,—
"For every evil purpose strong, And mischievous for every good one."
The conversion of the South Sea stock, to which I called your Lordships' attention on the 5th of May, 1853, presents one striking peculiarity. It was wholly gratuitous on the part of the Government; it was neither called for, nor expected, by the fundholder, by Parliament, or by the public. It took the whole world by surprise. No complaint was made by the South Sea proprietors. The Treasury had offered to those proprietors three alternatives; "the fancy of the stock market" was excited, and was proposed to be gratified by the tender of an augmented capital at a lower interest, a diminished capital at a higher interest, or by a new species of security, entitled an Exchequer bond, payable forty years after date. But to the attractions of these several proposals the monied interest manifested a most uncomplimentary indifference. In place of commuting 11,133,210 l. 12 s. of South Sea stock, the sum of 3,063,906 l. only was so commuted; and a capital of 8,069,303 l. has been redeemed on the inconvenient terms of being paid off in money. What was still more trying was that the Exchequer bonds for 30,000,000 l., which it was anticipated the public would eagerly take, and increase by a further and wholly unlimited demand, led to no result more brilliant than the creation of bonds for 440,000 l., or less than one-sixtieth of the minimum amount anticipated. I plead guilty to so much of personal selfishness as to rejoice at having been relieved from the official labours which would have devolved on me as Comptroller General, in signing these securities; but the preparations were industriously made, reams of patent paper
1062
were manufactured, and plates engraved by eminent artists. Where we can now find such of these securities as have been issued I know not. I have never observed a quotation of their price in the City articles of the daily journals. I doubt whether they have obtained any currency on the Stock Exchange; but I do hope that, as financial curiosities, a few copies may be preserved among the archives of the British Museum, as likely to become interesting to the curious in future times. I have said that these Government proposals were not invited by the South Sea proprietors; yet had those gentlemen fully anticipated the brilliant future which the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened to them, of his own more motion, they would, in thankfulness, have bent upon their knees before him. Not accepting any one of the three fanciful offers of the Treasury, they became entitled to demand money for their stock at par. The result was, that, in addition to the 3,000,000 l. already paid for Exchequer bills, a further sum of 8,048,000 l. was required by the holders of South Sea stock. Thus, being paid off, at par, their 100 l. in the morning, they were enabled before night to re-invest in three per cents at about ten per cent profit on their capital. I cannot but congratulate these fortunate fund-holders at the gratuitous boon so unexpectedly conferred upon them. I have no doubt that they are most worthy and respectable persons, who will turn the wealth granted to them to the best account. One great corporation, with which I have the honour of being connected, have come, I much rejoice to say, within this privileged class. By the bequest of the late Viscount Fitzwilliam, the University of Cambridge became a considerable holder of South Sea stock. After the announcement of the Government plan, I was asked my opinion by some learned friends connected with the University, respecting the resolution most expedient to be adopted by them. I did not venture to recommend an acceptance of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but rather suggested that the University should bide its time, and stand still, waiting events. The decision adopted by the University did not differ from the suggestion I had made to my learned Friends; and the trustees of the Fitzwilliam Museum, to their satisfaction and to mine, have added nine or ten thousand pounds to the funds of their noble institution. I am confident they will never forget the noble-hearted statesman to whom they owe so much. What-

1063
ever may be their apprehensions of his proposed University measures, I feel confident that, in the commemoration of our benefactor, we shall always toast the Minister who, unasked, has given us 9,000 l. for University purposes.
It now behoves your Lordships to inquire seriously what has been the result upon the resources of the country of this enormous drain upon the reduction of the Exchequer balances. I have shown that our difficulties are not connected either with an increased expenditure or a diminished receipt. I trace them to a far different source. I attribute them, as I have stated already, to the operations of the Government on our public debt, and I fear that the measures now proposed will only tend to aggravate those difficulties still more. This is, however, a matter which should rest on evidence, not on assertion. The demonstration upon which I am about to enter may, I am aware, appear dry and uninteresting. This House is not accustomed to give a very minute attention to financial details; it is, however, our unquestioned right, and it may be our imperative duty to discuss them. I consider this to be the case, on the present occasion. From such of your Lordships as are familiar with the facts I must ask an indulgent toleration, whilst I repeat that of which they are well informed. From others, to whom the subject is novel, I must entreat a patient hearing, whilst I explain the somewhat complicated facts of the case. This will enable both classes to decide whether my arguments are solid or fallacious, and will test how those arguments ought to be dealt with, and regarded, by the House and by the public.
The revenue received during each quarter stands nominally in the custody of Her Majesty's Exchequer. In reality, though placed to my credit, it lies in a much safer place of deposit—namely, in the Bank of England. Till within the present time your Lordships have possibly partaken in that general prejudice which has existed in favour of preserving a large available balance, as a matter not wholly unimportant to the public credit. You may have been led astray by what is now thought to be a vulgar delusion, that for nations, as well as for individuals, it is desirable and advantageous, more particularly in a fluctuating state of affairs, where income is uncertain and expenditure heavy, that an abundant balance should be reserved at our bankers. I remember well that the
1064
late Sir Francis Baring (grandfather of a noble Friend who sits near me, Lord Ashburton) advised a near relative of my own to keep constantly at his command a floating balance of 100,000 l. for contingencies. "You know not when this money may be required, or how it may be made available," observed the sagacious merchant. My kinsman replied, "I quite concur in your advice, and shall certainly keep the 100,000 l., as you suggest, whenever I can get it." The counsel, and the reply, have hitherto appeared to me alike reasonable; but our Chancellor of the Exchequer has unfortunately acted upon a principle in opposition to that recommended by Sir F. Baring. He possessed, till lately, a large available balance; but be seems to have considered it a nuisance, of which it was expedient to rid himself, at the very time when it was most required for the public service. The Exchequer balance in April, 1853, amounted to 7,800,000 l. In April, 1854, it was reduced to 2,700,000 l., showing a diminution of upwards of 5,000,000 l. At no former period was this result more to be regretted than at the present, when the exigencies of a just war have required the exertion of all the powers of the State, financial as well as military. We have seen our brave army marching forward for the defence of the weak against the strong; we have seen our fleets bearing the flag of England to the Black Sea and to the Baltic, in vindication of the cause of truth, in defence of the independence of nations, and in maintenance of the balance of power in Europe. The acclamations of the people have accompanied the advance of their protectors. We have also seen that which was still more sublime and more touching than any movements of fleets and armies. We have seen the congregated multitude in our land on their bended knees before the Dispenser of all good, praying for protection, victory, and an honourable peace, and praying with a more humble confidence because they felt assured that our cause was just and our motives disinterested.
My Lords, far be it for me to suggest that mere pecuniary considerations, or any financial triumph, can be compared with the more elevated and holier thoughts to which I have ventured to allude. In a subordinate degree, however, I cannot help thinking that the possession of the available cash balance of 5,000,000 l., applicable to the duties which we now have in hand, was not wholly to be despised. It would have added to the strength of England,

1065
it would have augmented our military and naval superiority; and, I may even hint, it would not have lessened the efficacy of the diplomatic interposition of my noble Friend the Secretary of State (Lord Clarendon). If we had preserved that 5,000,000 l., how different would have been the tone of the present discussion in Parliament, how striking the contrast on the Continent between the inconvertible paper of Russia, the depreciated currency of Austria, the expensive loans of other European countries, and the strength and independence of England resulting from our prudent forethought and accumulation, and supported, as it would have been, by the cheerful readiness of Parliament to vote new taxes if required.
A somewhat singular discovery had, however, been made. We are in the days of such discoveries. In justification of this voluntary reduction of our national resources, it has been said that it was fortunate we possessed no larger balance at the Bank at the present time; for if Parliament had possessed a control over such a balance, we are assured that the country would have shrunk from the demands made upon it, and would have refused to grant the further Ways and Means required to support the exigencies of the war. I reject altogether this supposition, and reject it not without some indignation. Among our causes for just national pride, the conduct of Parliament, and especially of the House of Commons, is not the least memorable. May it ever be so! The present war is one in favour of which the people are in advance of the House of Commons, and Parliament is in advance of the Government. Never has there been more unanimity displayed among the people, and such an absence of party feeling in both Houses, than in making the requisite provision for carrying on the war. The Government, too, have earnestly discharged their functions. The House of Commons voted, without hesitation or division, a sum of 4,315,000 l., in addition to the ordinary estimates for the year. All that had hitherto been required for our Army, Navy, and Ordnance, has been freely supplied, to vindicate the righteous cause in which we are engaged. By this generous course the House of Commons have given a noble refutation to the unworthy estimate of their public spirit formed by the Emperor of Russia. It seems that the northern Autocrat treats our reformed representation as having given us a bourgeois Parliament, unlikely
1066
in any circumstances to support the expense of a war, and insensible to our national honour. If by a bourgeois Parliament the Emperor means a House which owes its origin and its main responsibility to a constituency formed of the middle classes, it has now been shown that such a Parliament is not inclined to shrink from any sacrifices when the honour, the dignity, and the real interests of their country are at stake. It is true that, having wasted balances which would have provided abundant resources for every present want, till the new taxes should become productive, we have been compelled to resort to the more vulgar method of running in debt. The increased property tax, which was the mode recommended for meeting the war expenditure, could not be relied upon for some months to come. Parliament therefore voted all that was asked of them, 1,750,000 l. in Exchequer bills, as a species of vote of credit. This is not proposed to be added permanently to the general unfunded debt, but to be used as a temporary advance to meet the opening of the war. These bills are chargeable, as I understand, upon the income of the year, and the balance of the public accounts would, after providing for our armaments, have still exhibited a surplus of about half a million. It must not be forgotten that the whole of these calculations were based upon an estimated additional war expenditure, exceeding by 4,300,000 l. the ordinary supplies in time of peace. We did not then make provision for a state of peace to be completed hereafter by supplemental measures into a provision for a state of war. We voted a war expenditure, and after doing so even furnished a surplus. The calculations showed a sum of 1,000,000 l. for the extraordinary expenses of the Army; an additional sum of 832,000 l. for the land forces; for the Navy, 1,253,000 l.; for the Ordnance, 793,000 l.; for the Commissariat, 88,000 l.; and for miscellaneous services, 299,000 l. This, undoubtedly, was a war Budget, if ever a war Budget has been framed. I am far from suggesting that the Government pledged themselves that this estimate might not be exceeded. It would not have been wise on their part to have done so, or reasonable in the House to have required it. If unforeseen circumstances should demand greater disbursements, let the Government come down to Parliament and state their case. Parliament will then, I feel confident, be as ready and willing as it had

1067
already proved itself to be, to contribute the fullest amount necessary to meet the public exigencies. But do not let the Government, in order to justify increased future Estimates, assert that the Budget already voted was a peace Budget, and that additional votes are demanded to provide a war Budget. Let the additional demands made upon the public rest upon their true basis, and the House of Commons will not fail to do its duty. Four millions had already been granted for the Russian war. The vote of 1,750,000 l. in Exchequer bills being calculated to give immediate activity to the ways and means provided by the new taxes, this operation was of the nature of a discount of a security due at a future time. This, be it remembered, would have been altogether needless had it not been for the waste of the Exchequer balance produced by the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme for converting the South Sea securities.
But the mischief has gone further, and it now becomes my duty to call your Lordships' attention to the relation existing between the state of the public balance, the Bank of England, and the trade and commercial credit of the country.
Here it should be kept in mind that, whilst the receipt of revenue is daily and continuous, and the lodgments made to the Comptroller General's account at the Bank take place three times in each week, the heaviest demands upon the public, the interest of the debt, the civil list, the judicial and diplomatic salaries, with many other charges of the same kind, become due on the quarter days in January, April, July, and October. If the Exchequer balances on these quarter days are adequate to meet the whole charge on the Consolidated Fund, no difficulty can arise, nor is any advance required from the Bank of England. The dividends are then paid from the balance, and the growing produce of revenue goes to the current expenditure, and to accumulate a balance for the following quarter. This occurred in 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852, during which years the balances occasionally amounted to 7,000,000 l., 8,000,000 l., and even, on one occasion, to 9,000,000 l. But the case is far otherwise when the public balances have fallen to a low figure. Assuming a case like that of the 5th of April, 1854, the cash balance amounted only to 2,040,255 l. 17 s. 3d., and the charges to be provided for, including debt and sinking fund, required no less than
1068
7,437,676 l. 15 s. 9d. The amount wanting to meet our requirement was struck by the Treasury at 5,397,420 l. 18 s. 6d. Deficiency bills (being Exchequer bills made out in large sums payable to the Bank of England or order, and never put into general circulation) were authorised to be issued. The amount represented by such securities is transferred by the Bank to the credit of the Exchequer account, and the necessary payments follow in course. In the meanwhile tile growing produce of the revenue is from time to time applied in discharge of these deficiency bills, which are taken up and cancelled. It thus follows that, according as the balances in the Exchequer are found to be insufficient to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund, a proportionate amount of deficiency bills is issued as securities to the Bank, from which body a temporary loan is made equal to the amount of the deficiency to be made up. The result is that the Bank has a direct interest in the state of the Exchequer balances; because, though a Government loan on deficiency bills may occasionally bring with it some pecuniary advantage to the Bank, yet at other periods it may be felt as a serious inconvenience. The interest charged on deficiency bills is generally extremely moderate, and below the interest on ordinary Exchequer bills. In the olden times the Bank possessed the power to act at their own discretion, and had generally a disposition to meet the wants of the Government in this respect. But by the Bank Act of 1844 the position of the Bank was altogether changed. That Statute placed the Bank under severe, and (as is considered by some high authorities) most salutary restrictions, prohibiting the issue of circulating paper beyond the amount of the reserve of notes. Now, let it be supposed that the amount of such reserve was 2,000,000 l. only, and that the Government necessities required an issue of 4,000,000 l. on deficiency bills: the resources of the Bank would thus be below the Government requirements by a sum of 2,000,000 l. What could be done to meet such an exigency? In order to be enabled to comply with the demands of the Government, the Bank would necessarily be driven to place a restriction upon commercial discounts. They would limit their amount or their duration, and, by running off their private securities, and by withholding capital from the commerce of the country, they would ob-

1069
tain a power of satisfying the political demands of the Government. This is no imaginary hypothesis, as will appear most clearly by a reference to the proceedings of your Lordships' Committee of 1847, where the whole subject was carefully sifted. It is true that the report of the Committee in that year, so far from meeting the assent of the Government of the day, was opposed by them, acting in combination with many of their political opponents and predecessors. It was, however, carried by a majority of independent Peers, and I trust it will not on that account forfeit its claims to your Lordships' confidence. That Report stated the question which I am now discussing, in the following clear and intelligible manner:—
"On the advances from the Bank the dividends and the public credit may to a considerable extent depend, and any interruption in the performance of these engagements would be attended with the most serious consequences. Their bearing on the Act of 1844 is shown in the evidence of the Governor of the Bank and of other witnesses."
I will not rely upon the evidence of witnesses opposed to the Bill of 1844, however conclusive that evidence may be. I prefer mainly to rest on the authority of others who were the most favourable to that Act. The Governor of the Bank was asked:—
Q. 362. "In October, 1847, there were no deficiency bills. In October, 1846, there were such bills to the extent of 3,466,000 l.; in January, 1843, they amounted to 8,560,000 l. If there had been a demand upon the Bank in October, 1847, for the ordinary amount of deficiency bills, in what condition would the Bank reserve have stood?"
The answer given was:—
"If we thought such bills would have been required, we should have lent money for such a period as to enable us to make an advance upon the deficiency bills out of the money that would be returned to us by the public."
The Report then continued:—
"The effect would thus have been, that, had deficiency bills been required in October, 1847, the amount of accommodation then given to commerce must have been considerably lessened in amount, or limited in duration; the increased pressure and panic which such an operation could not have failed to create may easily be inferred from the preceding parts of this Report."
This question is so important, and is so vitally connected with the operation of the Act of 1844, that it is necessary to pursue it further. The immediate effect of such a demand for Treasury advances is admitted by the Governors of the Bank:—
Q. 365. "The means of meeting these deficiency bills would then have been, that by so
1070
arranging your securities you would have taken out of the hands of the public a sufficient sum to meet the advance to the Government?"—A. "Certainly."
If I were not unwilling to occupy further your Lordships' attention upon this part of the subject, I could refer to much additional evidence. The experience and scientific knowledge of one who is, I rejoice to know, a Member of this House, but who was then examined as Mr. Samuel Jones Lloyd, is entitled to peculiar weight. That of Mr. Norman and Mr. Cotton was to the same effect, and is, I need hardly add, of high authority. The latter gentleman, being himself a leading Bank director, observed:—
"If you had not money in the till to pay the dividends when we advanced upon deficiency bills, we must have reduced our other securities. When I say the amount in the till, I mean a surplus amount."
It can hardly be denied therefore, that, to carry into effect the Act of 1844, it is absolutely necessary for the Treasury to keep at command adequate Exchequer balances. If those balances are to be largely and habitually reduced, it will be found inconsistent with the safe working of that Act. The low balances, produced by the financial policy of the last year, must have been injurious to the Bank and to the public, and, if persevered in, must tend to cripple the commercial interests of England. It is true that Parliament has been assured that no difficulty existed on the part of the Bank in making these advances on deficiency bills; we are assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the contrary, that this operation is profitable and agreeable to the authorities of Threadneedle Street. Mr. Tompson Hankey, the late Governor of the Bank, is, however, of a different opinion. On the 23rd of March he observed that—
"Mr. Gladstone had stated that when the Government borrowed money on deficiency bills it was a source of no inconvenience to the Bank; but, on the contrary, was rather an advantage. With the greatest deference to the judgment and abilities of the right hon. Gentleman, he felt bound to express a totally different opinion. It might be convenient and even advantageous to make such advances when money was plentiful, but that was very different from being under the necessity of lending money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer under circumstances which might oblige him to ask for that accommodation. At the present there were strong indications of a rise in the value of money, and he feared that the right hon. Gentleman had understated his requirements."
Mr. Thomas Baring confirmed all these

1071
anticipations on the 12th of April. From his position as a leading merchant, as a bank director, and as a gentleman of high intellectual superiority, the following declaration, made by him in the House of Commons, is entitled to the most respectful attention:—
"He could see no cause for alarm or apprehension, except by mismanagement; and, after all that had passed, he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in future, show more prudence than had been displayed in the last year. It should be remembered, before making deficiency bills the basis of our system, that circumstances might arise which no Government could foresee; in which assistance, if demanded from the Bank, could not be afforded without interfering very largely, under the present banking system, with the condition of the banking community. If the Act of 1844 was to be fairly tried, the Government must not resort to the system of keeping small balances, and obtaining the aid of the Bank by deficiency bills. Great injury would arise to public credit if the system of relying on advances from the Bank were resorted to. He protested against it, as a policy fraught with danger to the financial prosperity of the country."
I earnestly entreat your Lordships to consider calmly the facts which I have laid before you. I have proved that the lowering of the Exchequer balance had, of necessity, the effect of increasing the demands of the Government upon the Bank. I have proved that such increase created the risk of casting a pressure upon the commerce of the country. I have proved that both these consequences were connected with the unfortunate financial operations of the last year. I have laid before you the anticipations of the Committee of 1847. The evidence then given by Mr. Prescott, Mr. Morris, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Norman, and Mr. Cotton, confirms the views of the Committee. Seven years after this inquiry, I have shown you that the same opinions have been reiterated by Mr. Thomas Baring and Mr. Thomson Hankey. Can I be called upon, or is it possible, to increase the force of such a demonstration?
But other parts of the question require observation. The mode in which the public debt, the sinking fund, and the resources of the savings banks have been employed, cannot be excluded from the notice of your Lordships. In the observations which I am now about to make, I disclaim altogether attributing to the Government a violation of the law; I question, however, the use which they have made of the discretionary powers vested in them by a Statute of doubtful policy. The ordinary Exchequer bill is, as your Lord-
1072
ships are aware, a Government security, current for twelve months, and at maturity generally exchanged for new bills, or paid off in money. If left unpaid, it is receivable in taxes at par. There are also two other classes of the same securities, the nature of which, with your Lordships' permission, I shall proceed to explain. There are the deficiency bills, to which I have already adverted, passed to the Bank, under the 57 Geo. III. (48), as a security for advances, and charged on the growing produce of the current quarter. There is also a third class of securities, commonly described as consolidated fund bills, issued under the 16 and 17 Vict. (c. 110), which are chargeable, not on the current quarter, but on the quarter next ensuing. They resemble, in fact, the ordinary deficiency bills, except that they are payable at a longer date. In the absence of any arrangement made with the Bank to take up these securities, and in the event of a difficulty of disposing advantageously of Exchequer bills in the market, the sinking fund and the resources of the savings banks have been largely resorted to in support of the proceedings of the Government. Your Lordships are aware that the sinking fund has of late years produced a very considerable annual sum applicable to the reduction of the national debt; but at various times this fund has been applied, not for the purchase or extinction of stock, but for the purchase of deficiency bills. The sum of deficiency bills so purchased in 1853 amounted to 1,500,000 l., and, in the April and current quarters of the present year, amounted to 1,625,732 l., these purchases being made by the sinking fund. The result of this operation is practically to increase the balance in the Exchequer, and, by diverting the sinking fund from its more immediate objects, and applying it in aid of the general expenditure. This has been done largely. The ordinary supply bills have also been purchased by means of the sinking fund. Similar purchases have likewise been made on account of the trustees of savings banks. These purchases amounted between the 5th May, and the 26th November, 1853, to 1,247,000 l, together with 550,000 l. in February and March. Your Lordships will be pleased to distinguish between two funds held by the trustees of the savings banks. The one consists of the deposits in cash paid in by the contributors, which the trustees are bound to invest either in funded or unfunded securities; the other

1073
is the capital stock already invested and held by them. I quite admit that, in regard to these deposits the trustees are fully justified in exercising their discretion, and in selecting the securities which they prefer, whether funded or unfunded. I admit, likewise, that, in making their selection, they are fully justified in considering the convenience and the interests of the Government. But much more than this has been done. Not only have the deposits been invested, but the capital stock held on account of the savings banks has been sold out and realised in cash; the value received for such stock has then been invested in the purchase of Exchequer bills for the purpose of sustaining a depressed market; and those Exchequer bills have afterwards been converted into new stock, without the previous knowledge, though not without the general authority, of Parliament. The 9 Geo. IV., c. 92, gives a warrant for the proceeding; but such an interference with the market may be carried to an enormous and dangerous extent. The savings bank funded property has in three years increased from 32,000,000 l. to 35,000,000 l. If this great sum were to be applied to similar operations in the stock market, the steady value of the public securities would not be safe, the money market being made liable to artificial fluctuation, produced by the acts of the Government. Whilst I recognise the legality of this course, sanctioned as it is by law as well as by successive high authorities, I very much doubt the expediency of the practice, unless in cases of great emergency. Consolidated fund bills have also been purchased in a similar manner, though not funded. 550,000 l. of these securities are held by the savings banks, and 240,000 l. by the Bank of England. This has gone on for a considerable time; yet even this questionable assistance did not restore the value of Exchequer bills, or prevent the Exchequer balance from being reduced to the small sum I have already stated. This reduction, it must be ever borne in mind, had been produced, not from any falling off of the revenue, nor yet from any great increase of the ordinary expenditure. It was a consequence of the unfortunate interference with the public debt in 1853. To meet this difficulty, by applying the sinking fund, not in the payment of permanent debt, but to remedy the mistake of the Government, and to avert the consequence of their own act, was hardly dealing fairly and justly with the exigency of the case.
1074
I congratulate your Lordships that I now approach the last topic on which I am compelled to trouble you. I have already endeavoured to show the danger arising from the trial of any inconsiderate experiments upon the public funds. I apprehend the repetition of this danger. A new plan is now proposed of raising farther ways and means, to the amount of 6,000,000 l.; and I am compelled to state that I consider the new scheme of borrowing to be full of risk, if it should be carried into effect. Before considering it in detail, I must remind your Lordships that no declaration had been more emphatically and repeatedly made, by high official authority, than that which has affirmed the intention and obligation of raising the supplies within the year. It is so material that I should avoid all inaccuracy on this point, that I must beg leave to refer to the original words used. I find it reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, on the 6th of March:—
"To resort to the money market for a loan would be a course not required by our necessities, and therefore not worthy of our adoption."
On the 22nd of March, the right hon. Gentleman again observed:—
"Much had been said to disparage the raising supplies for the war in the year; but he hoped that nothing which had been said would induce the House to depart from that principle, sound upon moral, as well as economical considerations. The House should adhere to the very utmost of its power, to the valuable principle of raising supplies within the year."
On the 12th of April the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have used language still more conclusive:—
"It is probable that some portion of the remaining amount of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills may be issued from time to time, but I have no reason at present to expect that it will be necessary for me to apply to Parliament for any further grant of Exchequer bills this Session. The keystone of my system is invariably to ask the House to provide an income which will more than meet the expenditure of the year."
I have thus given your Lordships the repeated and consistent declarations made on the 6th of March, the 22nd of March, and on the 12th of April. On the 21st of April, when Parliament was not sitting, I was astounded to read an official notice in the Gazette, informing the world that an additional sum of 6,000,000 l. would be required without delay; and that it was sought to be borrowed in the very manner which the three previous declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had re-

1075
pudiated as contrary to moral principle, and as inexpedient on political and on economical grounds. I have heard it hinted that this demand on the public ought not to be considered as a loan. What, then, is it? It is undeniable that we are invited to raise a sum of money intended to be repaid in three series of 2,000,000 l. cash in the years 1858, 1859, and 1860. In that last year it was anticipated by the Government that the 6,000,000 l. would be paid off; but it was not one whit the less a loan on that account. The object was undeniably to borrow 6,000,000 l. and to tax those who were living in 1858, 1859, and 1860, for the benefit of ourselves. I feel perfectly certain that no injustice would be greater than to attribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he disclaimed, on the 12th of April, any present intention of raising money by means of Exchequer bills, an arrière pensée of raising 6,000,000 l. by Exchequer bonds. The idea is so inconsistent with the known integrity and uprightness of his character that I hold it to be due to him, indeed and due to myself, to reject it with indignation. The public will, however, expect to be informed what has occurred between the 12th and 21st of April to justify so great a deviation from the original resolution announced to Parliament. But to proceed.
I have already shown your Lordships not only the dangers but the mischiefs which resulted in 1853 from dealing capriciously with the public debt of the country. I regret to say that I see still greater danger in the mode in which the present loan is proposed to be raised. What is the proposition of the Treasury? A loan of 6,000,000 l. is to be raised, and raised under a covenant wholly unprecedented, as I believe; namely, on the security of three equal instalments to be repaid by the public in 1858, 1859, and 1860. Now, whilst admitting the great abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and giving my full confidence to the Government for wisdom and uprightness of intention, I am not disposed to recognise them as prophets as well as statesmen. I may be excused for the remark that, even with a nobleman at the head of affairs, who from birth and ancestry may claim the power of second sight, I doubt whether the Cabinet can pretend to inform us in what position the country will be placed in the years 1858, 1859, and 1860. We may find ourselves at that period in a crisis like the present, and struggling with events similar
1076
to those which have now driven us to abandon our most steadfast and most wisely conceived pre-determinations; yet Parliament is invited to cast upon each of these three unfortunate years, empirically selected, in addition to all these ordinary demands for the public service, the heavy obligation of raising a further sum of 2,000,000 l. per annum, and this for the purpose of fulfilling engagements into which we are required by the Government to enter. If your Lordships seek a conclusive test of the expediency of this measure, let me take the liberty of putting to you one question. How should we now stand if those who have preceded us had, ten years ago, placed an additional burden of 2,000,000 l. on each of the years 1854, 1855, and 1856. If, at a moment like the present, when called upon to meet the charges of a war, to double the property tax, and to make those mighty efforts which the circumstances of the times imperatively require, we found ourselves also bound to repay 2,000,000 l. sterling of debt during the present year, knowing, also, that a similar amount was required in the two following years, in what condition should we now be placed? I ask the boldest and the wisest among you to favour me with a reply.
I have carefully abstained from making one single observation on the expediency of the loan as bearing on the interests of the lender. I have confined myself exclusively to the question of its public policy. The proposals of the Government may possibly be accepted, for they may be offered on conditions rendering the new loan an advantageous investment. Whether it can be rendered profitable and acceptable to the lenders, and acceptable and at the same time profitable to the country, is a question on which I will not enter, as I am unwilling to drop one word which may be interpreted as throwing any impediment on the proposals now pending. I should much rather have been spared the necessity of touching on this subject at all for the present; but the Bill before us has been moved on the part of the Government, and it would have been manifestly impossible to discuss this legislative measure without considering, at the same time, those supplementary arrangements by which this measure is to be accompanied. Parliament is asked to vote additional supplies. Parliament is asked to vote ways and means to provide for such additional supplies. For my part, I am ready to vote for both. I

1077
foresee no proposal which the Government can make towards the vigorous conduct of the war which I shall not be ready to support. But, nevertheless, it is our duty to consider, and to discuss frankly, but candidly, whether the mode proposed for the accomplishment of this object is the wisest and the most efficient which could have been devised. The financial proceedings of the last year have occasioned our greatest difficulty: the mode of raising money now suggested will, I fear, increase that difficulty; yet, in pointing out that fact to your Lordships, it is far from my intention to countenance so transparent a fallacy as one of which I have lately heard much. It has been stated, in a manner calculated to raise some disquiet, that the public indebtedness of England is not only greater than that of France, but of all European countries taken together; greater, perhaps, than the whole obligations of the continents of Europe and of America united. Surely such an observation is misplaced, and is calculated to produce unreasonable apprehension. It is obviously fallacious to measure the indebtedness of any country by the positive amount of its debt. It can only be fairly judged of by its relative amount; that is, by the proportion which the debt bears to the property on which it is charged. A small burden may be more oppressive to a poor state, than a heavy debt to a rich and prosperous empire. Enormous as is the national debt of England, when it is compared with our great and rapidly increasing pecuniary resources, we ought not to consider it as any very alarming burden. Unpopular as it is to say so, and paradoxical as it may sound in some ears, I believe that England is taxed more lightly than almost any other European State. It is my conviction that our public burdens weigh less on the energies and comforts of our people, and at the same time afford better security to the public creditor than can be shown in any of the old countries of Europe, or in the new ones beyond the Atlantic. But we ought not to forget that, as I have formerly urged in this house, "stability and repose are the primary elements of all public credit and confidence." Stability and repose also afford the best opportunities for the development of profitable industry, and the employment of private capital; and it is from the accumulations of private capital that public credit derives its best support and its permanent security. We have no cause for apprehension, if we abstain
1078
from rash fiscal devices. I speak with all respect. But if unhappily we are induced in support of the public expenditure to rely upon ingenious contrivances, unsupported by experience, and unsanctioned by authority, then we may fear that what has constituted our ornament and our strength—decus et tutamen—may be placed in jeopardy. May this risk be averted!—nullum numen abest, si sit prudentia. We must not make fortune, or even genius, our guiding divinities. Believe me, the public credit will not bear perpetual intermeddling, founded on notions light or fanciful. Our safest course is to adhere to sound general principles, tested by experience, and regulated by practical common sense. I have no desire to impede the measures of the Government in any way. On the contrary, I sincerely wish to render them any small assistance in my power to offer. This I feel it to be the duty of one as humble as I am, under circumstances so trying, and events so momentous as those which crowd around us. But I have also felt it my duty to place my views frankly before your Lordships, protesting against the adoption of novel and fantastic schemes. Having had some official experience on questions of this description, for a quarter of a century; being freed from the bias of political office during the last fourteen years, unswayed by the influence of party in discussing this measure, though attached to the principles which I have ever professed, and to the friends with whom I have generally acted, and whose regard I am equally anxious to deserve and to retain, having conscientiously formed the opinions I now express, I should have failed in my duty had I hesitated publicly and unreservedly to state them.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not attempt to follow in close detail the financial arguments of the noble Baron who had just sat down; but there were some general observations which had been made in the course of the debate to which, with the permission of the House, he wished very briefly to address himself. It could not have escaped the notice of their Lordships that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) and the noble Baron upon that side of the House (Lord Monteagle) and taken somewhat opposite views of the merits of this question; perhaps he ought rather to say that they had addressed themselves to different branches of the same subject. The noble Earl opposite had addressed himself almost exclu-

1079
sively to the Budget of last year, whereas the noble Lord who had last spoken had referred to financial operations which were altogether separate from the Budget, though too often confounded with it by noble Lords on both sides of the House; for he (the Duke of Argyll) had observed that the presumed failure of those other financial measures had been dwelt on, again and again, in order to throw discredit on that great financial scheme, the Budget, which had been carried out with the most complete success. He had no wish to follow the noble Earl into a discussion of the circumstances which had led to the change of Government in December, 1852, but he must say that that was a subject on which the noble Earl and his Friends had no reason to congratulate themselves. He (the Duke of Argyll) thoroughly agreed with the noble Earl when he said that the policy of a Government coming into office ought to be consistent with the principles which its Members had professed, and the measures they had advocated, when in opposition. But how did that apply to the noble Earl and his Friends? For how many years of imperturbable opposition had they professed a continued adherence to the principles which they must have known must sooner or later be abandoned? And when they came into office, what did they do? They found themselves unable to carry into effect any of the proposals they had made; and he thought that the noble Earl and his Friends ought to be the last to throw out a challenge in this respect, inasmuch as the late Government, of which the noble Earl was so prominent and so distinguished a Member, could not in any way be cited as having followed up the principles which the noble Earl extolled, and of which he had so justly expressed his approval. It was quite true that the late Government had been turned out upon a question of finance; but it was giving a most erroneous view of the matter to represent that the question in issue was one of finance merely; nearly all the great questions which had recently been before Parliament might, in some sense, be described as questions of finance. But it was a fact, patent and acknowledged, that the late Government had not carried out—had not even enunciated—any one single principle of finance. The noble Earl had said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared with a plan. He could only say that the answer which he gave, when a question
1080
was put to him upon the subject, was scarcely consistent with the supposition of his having been so prepared.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, his right hon. Friend had completed his plans, and was understood to make some reference to the proposed modification of the income tax.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLcould only say that those who succeeded the late Government in office had been of opinion that that proposal for a modification of the income and property tax was a most mischievous proposal; and he confessed for himself, that, after a most careful consideration of the question, he entertained a strong opinion that its adoption would greatly have increased the evils of the income tax, and would have had the effect of entirely breaking down that system of finance which Parliament had repeatedly approved; and as to the other portions of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, they were neither new nor original, but had been before the country for years, and the late Government, in embodying them into their financial scheme, had merely taken what they already found made to their hand, and, as it were, caught at as a straw to save themselves. However, he would not dwell upon this point, but would pass on to another suggestion which the noble Earl had made—that the Government ought not to have abandoned so large a portion of the Excise duties in contemplation of war. But the fact was that the Budget of last year was not framed in contemplation of war, and had no reference, and could have no reference whatever, to the complications then existing in Europe. The noble Earl, indeed, had stated on the 16th of April there was a despatch from Colonel Rose which ought to have led the Government to believe that war was then impending. He had referred, however, first of all to the "secret correspondence;" and he must ask, since that reference had been made, why the late Government, in preparing their own financial measures, had not considered them in reference to the memorandum of 1844? At the time when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made his proposition to break down the income tax, the noble Earl opposite was in possession of that memorandum; he was aware of the complications which had arisen in consequence of the dispute between Russia and France in reference to the Holy Places; yet it never appeared to have occurred to him that that memo-

1081
randum—in which every one of the principles brought out in the "secret correspondence" was laid down—threw any new light whatever upon those complications. The noble Earl, being new to office, had his attention expressly directed to the existence of this memorandum; he knew that dangerous complications had arisen; he was in receipt of despatches. [The Earl of MALMESBURY: No, no!] He was able to prove that the noble Earl was in the receipt of despatches, both from our Ambassadors at Constantinople and at St. Petersburg, stating that the Eastern question had assumed a most threatening and momentous aspect; yet with all this knowledge, with the knowledge of the existence of a memorandum identical with the "secret correspondence" in principle, he did not seem to have thought that it cast any light whatever upon the policy of the Government, but considered, and most properly considered, that we might proceed with our financial schemes in this country without reference to the events which were then taking place abroad.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the late Government had been beaten on the Budget on the 16th of December; and if the noble Duke would look at the blue book, he would see that the despatch to which he had referred was not received until after Lord Derby had resigned. All, therefore, that he could do, was to write a private letter to Lord Cowley, which had been alluded to by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, desiring him to pay all attention to the subject.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, whether this particular despatch had been received or no after the Budget was prepared, the Eastern question had, for many months, assumed a very serious aspect, and the noble Earl was fully aware of the principles by which the Emperor of Russia wished to be guided. Passing, however, from the "secret correspondence," which had been rightly characterised as a great "mare's nest," the noble Earl, while be stated that a despatch had been received from Colonel Rose, on the 15th of April, which ought to have alarmed the Government, took care to conceal—he might have forgotten, but public men bringing such charges ought not to forget, but ought to possess themselves fully and accurately of the facts—that on that very day there was received a formal declaration from the Russian Minister, communicated by authority, direct from St. Peters-
1082
burg, containing the most solemn and emphatic assurance that all the rumours with respect to the intentions of Russia, to which the visit of Prince Menchikoff had given rise, were entirely unfounded, and that the Emperor of Russia had no intention to make, and no desire to provoke, a war. He (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that they had no right to regard that declaration as deceptive—that they had no reason whatever to believe at that time that that solemn statement made on behalf of the Emperor of Russia would prove to be so entirely illusory as it had since turned out to be. The words of the declaration were these:—
"You will assure the Ministers of the Queen, in the most positive terms, that the intentions of the Emperor are still the same, and that all the idle rumours to which the arrival of Prince Menchikoff in the Ottoman capital has given rise—the occupation of the Principalities, territorial aggrandisement on our Asiatic frontier, the pretension to secure to ourselves the nomination of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, hostile and threatening language held to the Porte by our Ambassador—are not only exaggerated, but even destitute of any sort of foundation; that, in a word, the mission of Prince Menchikoff never has had, nor has now, any object but that which your Excellency has been instructed to communicate to the British Government."—[No. 138.]
It would be well that the noble Earl should remember that document, as well as the reports of Colonel Rose, and should also remember that Lord Stratford do Radcliffe was then on his way to Constantinople, and that the Government had every reason to hope and every assurance to believe that war was not impending, and, consequently, were perfectly at liberty to frame a Budget without reference to the complications of the Eastern question, which at that time there was the best reason to hope would be settled by negotiation. With respect to the financial operations discussed by the noble Lord who had preceded him (Lord Monteagle), he must say that there had been a great deal of exaggeration as to the degree of importance attached to those operations—great exaggeration had been made use of, and the intention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been greatly misrepresented. It had been said that he had proposed to convert the whole of the national debt—a statement which was wholly at variance with the very humble manner in which his right hon. Friend had pointed out the possible effect of the plan. This was his language:—
"I shall not commence this explanation of the

1083
intentions of the Government by dwelling in any degree upon the importance of the subject. I would rather, if I could, after viewing the amount of public interest which it has excited, endeavour to moderate such expectations as may have been formed in the public mind. I do not recommend the proposition that is now before the Committee as a proposition which can effect any sweeping or fundamental change; but I venture to recommend it to them as a proposition which is just and prudent in itself, and which will probably lay the foundation for more extended improvements in future."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 810.]
He (the Duke of Argyll) could not at all reconcile the two lines of argument of the noble Earl and the noble Baron—for the latter had most ruthlessly overthrown all the noble Earl's arguments derived from the war. The noble Baron had admitted that the finances of the country were at that time, as they were still, in a most satisfactory state; that every expectation held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to income had been exceeded, and that the expenditure had fallen short of his anticipations. Surely this was a state of things in which a Finance Minister might feel himself justified in making an experiment with respect to some portion of the debt. But the noble Baron had gone on to speak of practical difficulties, and of the possible consequences of the plan. He (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that to speak of difficulties which should alarm the country, with a surplus of income over expenditure of 3,500,000 l., was an entire delusion. It might be true that his right hon. Friend was not entitled to make the experiment—that there were indications in the money market which ought to have prevented his making it. He could only say that the money market was watched by eyes as keen as those of any Member of that House, and that his right hon. Friend, having taken the opinions of men as competent to advise him as any men could be, thought that the time was one when the experiment could be made. The very description which the noble Baron himself had given of the state of the revenue showed that, had it not been for the change of circumstances which had taken place, the experiment would have been perfectly justifiable. The harvest had, as every one knew, been greatly deficient, and the warlike position of affairs had wholly arisen since the time when the Budget was proposed. In fact, the circumstances of the country had totally and entirely changed, and in a manner which there was no reason to apprehend. The
1084
noble Baron had talked much of the great injury done by the large advances to the Government by the Bank; but he (the Duke of Argyll) contended that, whatever might be the theoretical effects upon commerce of such advances from the Bank to the Government, they were chiefly to be apprehended in times of difficulty, and that when there was a rising revenue, and large balances of receipts over expenditure, no such danger could be expected. The greatest possible exaggeration had been used in this respect, both with regard to the Budget and the subsequent proposition for the reduction of stock. He believed that at no period of its history had this country entered on a great struggle with such high confidence and such immense resources.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I can by no means concur with the noble Duke in thinking that the speech of the noble Lord near me (Lord Monteagle) was either uncalled for or calculated to increase the difficulties of the situation in which the country is placed. It was far from uncalled for. I admit that it is absolutely necessary that the Government of the day should have very great liberty of action with respect to financial measures. Parliament—especially this House of Parliament—cannot interfere with advantage while measures of finance are in progress, and much must be left to the discretion and judgment of the Government. If the Government acts without due discretion, and without judgment, it will generally be found too late, when the country feels all the consequences, for Parliament to interfere with advantage to correct the evil. But it is of great importance, although we cannot retrace our steps or correct the errors which have been committed, that we should carefully investigate those errors, and see, as far as we can, what mistakes have been committed—because it is this subsequent investigation which is the real effective check on the Government in all their measures—a check which it is most important for Parliament to maintain. In this view, I think the House and the country very deeply indebted to my noble Friend near me for the very able manner in which he has examined the financial measures of the Government. And, my Lords, I must confess my disappointment when the noble Duke, having answered, as it seemed to me, at disproportionate length, some remarks of the noble Earl opposite, with respect to the comparative merits of the

1085
present and the preceding Governments—when he came to the really difficult part of the question, instead of replying to the very able and elaborate examination of the financial measures of the Government made by the noble Baron, he brought his observations to a close without even attempting a reply. I must say that I think, on so serious a subject—a subject of the deepest interest at the present moment—the course which the noble Duke took must have disappointed your Lordships and the country. I think we had a right to expect something more from a Member of the Government, after the severe—not in tone, but in the facts, and in the examination of the facts—after the severe manner in which their measures had been handled in the speech of the noble Lord. I will not, after that speech, enter much into detail, but so strong is my conviction of the necessity of looking into this subject closely, that although there is very little, in the speech of the noble Duke to answer, I must call your Lordships' attention to some of the facts established with reference to the financial arrangements of the Government during the past year. The noble Duke has said that the plan for the conversion of certain descriptions of stock was wholly unconnected with the Budget of last year; but it seems to me that there was a very close connection between them. If I were to go into the subject, I should be rather inclined to say, even with regard to the alterations of taxation contained in that Budget, that I cannot agree in the description given of them by the noble Duke. I am not prepared to give that unmixed praise which is assumed by the noble Duke to be due to the measures of the Government; but I think that that subject was sufficiently discussed at the time, and I have no wish to enter upon it again. With respect, however, to the plan for the conversion of stock, we were not last year in a position to discuss a measure of that nature. Certain advantages were anticipated on the one side, and predictions of disappointment put forward on the other; but there was then only the opinion of one man against the opinion of another, and there was very little possibility at that moment of coming to a certain conclusion. Now, however, we are in a different position. We are able to examine the measures which were then adopted by the light of experience, and, so examining them, we are to judge of their effect. Now, my Lords, it appears to me that whether those measures of Her Majesty's Govern-
1086
ment were rash or not—whether the result is to be attributed to misfortune or imprudence—this much is quite clear, that the experiment they then made has been a very losing one for the public. My noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) has fully shown this, and has made clear the manner in which the loss to the public has been incurred, by the instance he has given of the Fitzwilliam Museum. I myself was recently travelling in a railway carriage, in which I overheard two gentlemen discussing, not at all confidentially, the good fortune of a lady who had been an owner of South Sea Stock, and who, having been paid off by the Government at par, at a time when Consols were at their lowest, had secured the same income as she had had before by investing 85 l. out of every 100 l., putting the remaining 15 l. into her pocket. This, of course, was an advantage which this lady had gained at a corresponding loss to the public. There is another way by which the loss to the public may be shown in a no less striking manner. You are going to borrow six millions of money. The necessity of that loan is entirely occasioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer having paid off these stocks. If you had had in your Exchequer the eight millions which you have issued to the holders of these South Sea Stocks, you would not have been called on to borrow six millions to restore the balance in the Exchequer. It is proposed to raise those six millions by the issue of bonds at 3½ per cent, with certain advantages, which raise the real cost of the loan, so that, according to the most sanguine calculations, the money will not be raised at a lower rate than 3¾ per cent. But at 3¾ per cent the loan will impose an annual charge upon the public of 225,000 l. a year. With those six millions you have cancelled so much 3 per cent stock; you have, therefore, relieved yourself of a charge of 180,000 l. a year. The happy result of this well-considered operation is this:—supposing you borrow no more than six millions, you will have paid off one set of men six millions and borrowed six millions of another set of men, and thrown away 45,000 l. a year for ever, that is to say, you have incurred, for no earthly object, a liability which (even at the lowest rate of interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to pay) would have given 1,200,000 l. more to meet the cost of the war. I have heard it said that it is unfair to judge by results—that we ought not to condemn any Government because they have failed in

1087
their measures, which may be due to the circumstances of the times. In my opinion, however, that which distinguishes an able financial administrator from a financial administrator of an opposite character is, that an able administrator is sagacious in foreseeing what is the condition of the country, what will be the effect of his measures, and in so framing his measures that the country shall reap advantage by what he does. To tell me that the result was not foreseen is, in other words, to say that the Government was wanting in foresight and judgment. When a measure of this kind is proposed, those who object can only say, "We do not think it wise—we do not think it will answer." It is only by the result that the real sagacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be judged. But in this case I must go a little further. I must say that there were not wanting the most obvious and weighty reasons which ought to have prevented any such measure being attempted at such a time; because, let me remind your Lordships, that the noble Duke himself has said there was very little to gain—it was very hard to reflect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his extravagant expectations, because he never expected to get much. Well, I say, if be never expected to get much, that is a strong reason against incurring very considerable hazard.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I did not say he expected very little. I said he expected very little immediate result; but that if the scheme succeeded, it would lay the foundation of great advantages for the future.
EARL GREY: I am glad to hear the explanation of the noble Duke. I thought he had represented the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as speaking with great modesty as to the results of his proposition. With regard to the immediate advantages, at all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the utmost possible gain at 25,000 l. a year; but then, we are told his great object was to lay the foundation for the conversion of the great mass of 3 per cent stock into 2½ per cent stock. That must be considered really to have been the great object of the measure. Now, I confess, for my own part, there was nothing at this time last year to warrant the opinion that such a reduction could be effected in the rate of interest on which the bulk of the debt had been advanced. I do not
1088
think that at this time last year there was anything to justify the expectation that we were even approaching a time in which any serious impression could me made on the interest borne by the great bulk of the debt. The average price of Consols in the quarter when this scheme was propounded was 99 l. 13 s. and some odd pence—certainly something under par; and even this price of Consols was in excess of that which they might have been expected to bear according to the value of money required for commercial purposes, for it must be remembered that Consols are generally dearer than other securities in proportion to the income they yield, because trustees and other persons will invest in Consols, and not in any more hazardous investment; at the same time the margin is always a small one, and the price of Consols must be regulated by the real value of money for commercial purposes. I say, moreover, this time last year the value of money for commercial and industrial purposes was rather rising than falling. This is what I always anticipated would be the effect of the measure of free trade, and I recollect arguing in the House of Commons that one of the strongest proofs that the Corn Laws were injurious was the very low rate of profit; that the low rate of profit combined with a low rate of wages arose from the field for the employment of capital and industry being unduly restricted by those laws; and I always anticipated that, when we removed those restrictions, the rate of profit would rise. It is obvious, from the great demand last year for various industrial occupations, that that view was a correct one. Then, I say, at all events it was in the highest degree doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman's view of the proposed advantages of his scheme could be correct; it was, at all events, clear that no serious impression could be made on the rate of interest of Consols, and that no object of that kind was to be gained worth any considerable risk. Further than that, surely the most ordinary prudence would dictate that this operation—at any time a doubtful and critical one—opening what may be called a battery against the 3 per cents—that such an operation ought not to be attempted when there was any cloud in the sky, whether of politics or commerce. Nothing but the prospect of a complete absence of disturbing conditions in trade and politics could possibly justify the bring forward a proposition of this kind. There was no hurry. These stocks had existed above a

1089
hundred years, and, to say the least, if you wished to reduce the rate of interest, you were bound to wait for a favourable opportunity. Was the opportunity favourable? The noble Duke told us its failure was partly owing to the deficiency of the harvest. I believe it was. But was any man, having the slightest knowledge, ignorant in April of last year that the harvest must be deficient? First, you cannot reap where you have not sown; and it was notorious the breadth of wheat sown in the autumn of 1852 was very largely below the ordinary amount, in consequence of the very unfavourable weather. I never tools up an agricultural newspaper that did not calculate the amount of wheat sown, some as much as 25 per cent below the average, and in my own county the deficiency was very large indeed. The spring was very late; the snow had lain on the ground to a very late period; the ordinary agricultural occupations were retarded, and what spring wheat was sown was sown in land imperfectly prepared. That there must be a deficiency in the harvest was as notorious in April, 1853, as the fact is now. I do not say you could estimate the extent of the deficiency. I do not say you must have known there would be a deficiency in other countries, and that we should have to pay so high a price as we have paid for the necessary supplies from abroad. But I do say it was only a question of degree, and no man having an ordinary knowledge of agricultural affairs could have been ignorant that the harvest must be under the average. Then, again, with regard to the political aspect—was the sky of politics free from cloud. The noble Duke has himself given the best answer. He has himself shown that the clouds were gathering so early as the time when the preceding Government were in office, and he has declared that they ought to have seen those clouds. I learnt from the conversation across the table to-night that it was the object of the noble Duke to show that a former Government had been as indiscreet as the present Government in proposing a Budget without regard to the state of the Eastern question—
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: What I said was this: That the state of the Eastern question ought not in fact to have influenced the conduct of either Government; but if it told at all, it told on one as much as on the other. I distinctly said that in neither case ought it to have affected financial operations.
EARL GREY: I am very glad to know what the noble Duke intended to say. Undoubtedly he used the words, the state of the Eastern question was very serious, because the words "very serious" caught my ear. However, I am quite contented with the explanation of the noble Duke. Whatever his opinion may be, I think the opinion that has been formed by the great majority of your Lordships on reading these despatches is the same as my own, namely, that the question was very serious; that the political horizon was by no means without clouds—clouds so gathering and so threatening, that it is perfectly inconceivable how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with those despatches before him, could come to an arrangement, the probable effect of which would be this—that he might be called on to pay off 9,500,000 l. of stock, a part of it at the end of six months, and a part of it at the end of twelve months. How he could feel confident that at the end of twelve months from that time it would be convenient to pay off those stocks—and if he did not feel confident it was great rashness to bind himself to do so—is to me perfectly incomprehensible. I must go further, and say it was hardly fair to the parties to whom you made those propositions—they being ignorant of the correspondence that was going on, and you having the papers before you—to ask them to submit to a conversion of their stock to stock of a different description, by which they would have made a considerable sacrifice of income. It appears to me a very questionable proceeding in point of public morality. Fortunately, the holders of that stock, instead of suffering, have been the gainers, because, although they had no official papers before them, although they had no despatches to consult, they were more sagacious than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in foreseeing the future, and although he could not see that it was likely to be disadvantageous to the public to pay off this money at the end of a certain time, they were sagacious enough to see that it was very advantageous to them to receive their money rather than to consent to a conversion of the stock. I say then that the arrangements proposed last year to Parliament and adopted by them were imprudent and injudicious; and, although I do not wish to censure the Government, I see much in the management of our finances during the last few months to justify the censures of my noble Friend (Lord Mont-

1091
eagle). I will not travel over the same ground any more than is necessary to explain the observations I have to make on the points to which he has adverted. I think, in the first place, it was very injudicious, with a prospect of a long and expensive war before him, to allow the balances of the Exchequer to be so low. I entirely concur on this point with my noble Friend, and with the other authorities who had expressed their opinion that after the Act of 1844 it was incumbent on the Government to avoid placing themselves in such a position that they should not be able to maintain sufficient balances in the Exchequer, and I was surprised that the noble Duke, in answering that observation, should have said that the evidence to which his noble Friend had referred was given in 1847, at a period of great distress. No doubt, the evidence was given immediately after the great distress of 1847. But are you sure distress will not recur, and is there anything in the evidence which does not rest on general principles? If I am not mistaken, the person who had the chief part in passing the Act of 1844—Sir Robert Peel—when he recommended that that measure should be passed, expressed an opinion that when the measure should have come into operation it would be the duty of the Government to take care that the balances in the Exchequer were not unduly reduced. But, my Lords, I must say, what alarms me even more than this fact that these balances are allowed to fall so low without measures being taken to replenish them—what alarms me even more than this—is the ground taken elsewhere in defending this course, and the language held upon the subject. We have been told that it is very immaterial—that it is a matter of comparatively slight importance that the balances should be reduced so low, and that such heavy demands should be constantly made on the Bank; but, further than that, a very important statement has been made, to which I beg to call your Lordships' particular attention. In commenting on the amount of deficiency bills, it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those deficiency bills did not represent the real amount of the deficiency at the beginning of the quarter. The argument, if I am not mistaken, was, that the deficiency at the beginning of the quarter had hitherto been improperly taken—that it was taken as if the whole amount due to the public creditor was paid at once, whereas
1092
in point of fact it was spread over several days, so that accruing revenue covered a considerable part of the advances made by the Bank, and in this way the formidable deficiency last quarter of 5,800,000 l. was reduced to 2,800,000 l. And it was added—and this I think the most serious statement that has been made—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it his duty to regulate the issue of deficiency bills with reference to actual demands, and that by this course the amount of deficiency bills in the last quarter was reduced from 5,800,000 l. to 2,800,000 l. Now I cannot help thinking that a very important principle is involved in this statement. Surely, the Bank of England ought to be in a situation on quarter-day, when the dividends became payable, to pay at once every public creditor who should come upon it. In the old Loan Acts there is a clause imposing most imperative obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he shall, by that day, pay to the cashiers of the Bank such a sum as will enable them to discharge the whole of those demands. There is no discretion whatever left to him. He is bound to place the whole sum to the credit of the cashiers of the Bank on the very day it is due. I have not been able to refer to the later Loan Acts, but I am told this stringent provision is omitted; but, though omitted, the practice has been always to adhere to the wholesome rule laid down in the old Loan Acts. From the time that we have had a public debt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time has invariably written to the Bank of England requiring such advances as would place him in the possession of funds which should be sufficient to pay the whole dividends on the day they were due. Am I to understand from the statement reported to have been made in the other House, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, departing from the wise rule followed by all his predecessors, has thought himself justified in following a different rule, calculating that the whole amount due will not be called for at once, and that one part will be covered by accruing revenue, so that he can safely leave the cashiers of the Bank without money necessary to meet the demands that might be made? Mark how dangerous that is! The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I rightly understand what he is reported to have said—I hope I do not—may presume in this way that 3,000,000 l. is the amount which will not be called for at the first moment. But it is not beyond

1093
the bounds of probability to suppose that we may have, in the process of time, a Chancellor of the Exchequer more venturesome, more rash than the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that office. Some future Minister of Finance may calculate a little more boldly, and he may happen to be 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. beyond the mark, and leave the cashiers of the Bank without the means of meeting the whole of the demands made upon them. What is to happen? Are the cashiers to give the public creditors the same answer which a dun receives from gentlemen in difficulties—"Call again to-morrow?" There Will be no other resource, and is it right and fitting in any Chancellor of the Exchequer, no matter how able and ingenious he may be, be he the ablest or wisest man in England—ought it to be in the discretion of any man in England to leave things in this state, that the cashiers, when called on to pay the public creditor what is due to him, should be compelled to ask for time? I think this is a matter of the deepest importance. Unfortunately, I have never been called upon to attend to the technical details of these matters, and may not, therefore, thoroughly understand them. I have had no opportunity of consulting more than one or two friends, and I may err in judgment; but I have paid attention to what has passed in another place, I have referred to the Loan Acts, and to my understanding it is a subject of serious importance. If it once comes to be suspected by the public that there is not enough money in the hands of the proper officers of the Bank to pay the whole sum due, the very notion that such a state of things exists will render it certain that the difficulty will arise, for every one who has money in the funds will immediately ask for his money. And, my Lords, I for one have been brought up to attach the highest importance to maintaining intact that honour and credit which this country derives from the circumstance of our never, in our greatest difficulties or most pressing emergencies on any one occasion having been driven to disappoint even for a moment the just expectations of the public creditor. I must add that this seems to me the more alarming, viewing it as an indication of a general system of policy. We are now at the beginning of a war. We do not know how long that war will last, nor how severe may be the strain on the resources of this country, and it is calculated to excite great alarm among
1094
those who look into these matters, to find at such a time such indications of a dangerous policy as those to which I have alluded. Allow me to remind your Lordships that it is by mistakes of this kind that we may be brought into a situation where we might find it difficult to maintain the standard of value. It must be remembered that there are many persons in this country who are very anxious we should give up cash payments. They form a party by no means inconsiderable either in number or in influence, and they do not conceal their desire that we should return to a system of inconvertible paper issues. I entirely acquit Her Majesty's Government of any sympathy with that party. I am quite convinced they desire to maintain that standard of value which we now have; but while I give them credit for this feeling, I cannot forget that Mr. Pitt and his Colleagues were also very far indeed from wishing to depart from the standard of value. What happened then, and what may happen again? What happened then was this:—By a series of steps, no one of them very important in itself, but collectively producing a very great effect, gradually and imperceptibly was the country brought into a situation where those who had the conduct of affairs saw that cash payments could not be maintained without a degree of pressure and without sacrifices which they were not prepared to encounter. They had recourse, in that emergency, to the fatal course of Bank restriction; and having once done that, they were drawn on little by little to the depreciation of currency by the consequences of which this country is still so great a sufferer. Is any one ignorant how seriously the country has been injured—how vastly the burdens of public and private debt have been increased, by the course then taken—how we are now paying interest on 1l. where 15 s. was borrowed—how numerous landlords raised money for the improvement of their estates, and are now called upon to pay a debt measured in gold, but contracted in paper, and consequently find themselves, by no imprudence of their own, virtually involved to vast amounts. This is matter of history. We know such a state of things was then produced in the manner I have described, and I say, when I observe the rash and venturesome system of policy which seems to be indicated by the course Her Majesty's Government have taken, and especially by this new plan of altering the

1095
accustomed method of calculating the amount of the deficiency bills, I am very much alarmed lest we be brought to a similar state of things to that which existed at the period to which I have alluded. Because, what is the object of making such an alteration in the system of calculation? It is not to effect a saving to the public, because by the arrangement existing between the Government and the Bank, interest is only charged by the Bank, as I am informed, on the actual amount of its advances; the only possible object, therefore, of changing the mode of calculating the amount of the deficiency bills is to make a more plausible appearance to the public in the statement of accounts. That is the single object to be gained. But instead of this being advantageous, it is to my mind exactly the reverse, because a great security is withdrawn against falling into a similarly fatal course to that pursued in the last war, by the attention of the country and of Parliament being roused as early as possible to the first departures from the sound system—the first erroneous steps; and the moment the deficiency bills begin to augment public attention is called to it, yet at the time when this is so important we learn from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is, without being able to show that he will gain a single sixpence, about to introduce a change, with no other earthly object or effect than that of blinding the public to the real amount of the deficiency bills. I feel the more strongly on this subject because I cannot have much confidence in the foresight of Her Majesty's Government. We have had lamentable proof of that deficiency of foresight in the loss which has been sustained by that which the author himself has termed the abortive attempt to convert the 3 per cent stocks. But on another and more striking example of the same want of foresight already adverted to by my noble Friend, I must say a very few words. I refer to the very extraordinary circumstance of our having been told on the 6th March, that the policy of the Government was to raise the money for the war of the year within the year. That statement is renewed upon the 10th of April; yet, on the 21st of April, a loan is publicly announced. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that announcement. I refreshed my recollection by reading over again the speech reported to have been delivered by the
1096
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 6th of March, in explaining the financial position of the Government. I find the war spoken of as a state of things actually existing, and the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman is filled with such allusions as those to which I have adverted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says:—"I do not mean to guarantee that the money I now ask will be sufficient to conduct operations for twelve months." He does not mean to guarantee for the whole expenses; but he tells us 25,000 men are to be sent to the East, and he has calculated the expense of sending and employing them in the East, as well as the expense of the fleets in the Black Sea and the Baltic. And having made all these calculations, the right hon. Gentleman makes a most able and eloquent speech, and supports the view, in which most people concur, that it is very desirable, not only on political, but on moral grounds, in war, as long as possible to continue to defray the expenses of the war of the year within the year. He says he does not say it is always possible to go on doing so, but we ought to do it to the last moment; and at present to ask for a loan would be unworthy of their character as Englishmen. I am not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's exact words, but this was the effect of what he said on the 6th March; and then, my Lords, on the 21st of April public notice is given that a loan of 6,000,000 l. is required. Shall I be told that it is not a loan, but merely an advance until the taxes shall come in? I think that will hardly be said. It is perfectly legitimate to use that argument with respect to an advance on Exchequer bills, which, if the Government are right in their calculations as to the expenses of the war, will be paid off by accruing revenue, and therefore the first issue of 1,700,000 l. Exchequer bills may be fairly taken in that light; and if the Government have been right in their calculations as to the expenses of the war and the produce of the revenue, no doubt these will be paid off; but when you come to a payment so distant as four years, the case is altogether different. There is then no pretence of defraying the expenditure of the year from the revenue of the year within which it is incurred. You are borrowing for futurity, and it does not rest with Her Majesty's Government, not even with the Parliament of this day, to say that in 1859 or 1860 they will be able to meet that debt in the

1097
manner proposed. I confess the mode of raising this loan appears to me a great aggravation of the imprudence which has already been committed. What are you going to do? You are going to raise money with the imperative obligation to repay in full in 1858, 1859, and 1860. Who is to tell us what will be the state of the country four years hence? Supposing such obligations had been contracted four years ago, would it not be very embarrassing to meet them now? Why should the old settled policy of the country be departed from in this matter? Suppose this war goes on, the flame of European war once kindled, changes may take place, and new parties come into the field, as was the case in the last war. Something may arise to induce Austria and Prussia to take part with Russia, instead of against her, and the whole Continent may be involved in a long and arduous struggle. If that should be the case, is there any reason to suppose the funds will not go down as they did in the last war? And then, when the funds are between 60 and 70, you may have to pay off these bonds at par, perhaps at the most inconvenient moment that could be selected. Instead of thinking it a recommendation that this loan must be repaid in four years, I think it infinitely aggravates the ground of complaint that a Minister should undertake to predict what will be the state of things four years hence, when he has shown that he has not been able to foresee what it will be in three weeks. I say this mode of managing the finances of the country at the outset of war, inspires me with the deepest alarm, and should inspire the country with alarm. I have no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. I can assure them I have observed much that I disapprove, and much might have been stated in this House, not without effect, in condemnation of their measures. I have never come forward to express an opinion unfavourable to their measures, except when I thought the public interest imperatively required it; but on this occasion, believing they are entering on an incorrect and imprudent course of financial administration, at a moment when that administration requires the clearest judgment and calmest consideration, I feel bound to state, as strongly as is in my power, the opinion I entertain, in the faint hope that it may open the eyes and meet the support of those more
1098
capable than I am of doing justice to the subject, and have some effect in arresting Her Majesty's Government in a course which, in my opinion, will be most prejudicial to the interests of the country.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthought that the reply of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) to the observations of his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had satisfactorily proved to the House that in the transactions of last year the Government had acted not simply without forethought, but in absolute defiance of the information in their hands and of the facts before them. The noble Duke's argument was, that after having been warned by Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg, the Ambassador at Constantinople, and the Consuls at Odessa and Galatz, Her Majesty's Government preferred to believe the word of the Emperor of Russia in the document which was received on the 15th of April, to the testimony of their own servants. The occupation of the Principalities by the Russian troops took place on the 1st of July, and on the 7th of that month, when, although the fact of the occupation might not have reached the Government, such an event must have been known to be imminent, a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), who was not connected with any particular party in the House, appealed to the Government, on the third reading of the Bill for repealing the soap duties, not to recklessly throw away a tax which was not particularly complained of by those who paid it, did not press with undue severity on the people, and produced a million and a quarter of revenue, at a moment when, if war were not imminent, at least our foreign relations were in serious danger of being disturbed. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) recollected the indignant manner in which the noble Earl at the head of the Government refused to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend, but deliberately persisted in the surrender of a million and a quarter of the national revenue. But what good had followed from that measure? He was informed that since the repeal of the tax the price of soap had scarcely at all diminished. Thus the effect of the repeal of the tax had been, not to relieve the consumer, but to put a million and a quarter per annum into the pockets of the manufacturers of soap. He trusted that the extension of direct taxation had now reached its limits. It was, he believed, a

1099
favourite principle with some of the noble Lords opposite; but he believed that nothing could be more disastrous to the country than the undue extension of that principle. Direct taxation, in a certain degree, was good and useful, because it struck at the miser and hoarder of wealth, and forced men with large property and incomes to pay their fair share of the expenses of the country. But from its very nature, it could not be extended to the poorer classes; and there was no doubt of the proposition that every man in the country, whatever his rank or his means, was bound, in proportion to those means, to pay towards the expenses of the State, and assist in the prosecution of the war. Indirect taxation, on the other hand, struck at everybody, and was, therefore, the fairest tax that could be levied. He trusted, therefore, the Government would see the absolute necessity of resorting to other measures besides the income tax for enabling them to carry on the contest in which the country was now engaged. He made this observation because the country which he represented in that House had been saddled with the income tax through the liberality of noble Lords opposite; and he did hope that, as far as Ireland was concerned, if the income tax were to be doubled, another description of tax would be applied to that country, where the harshness and inequality on the tax pressed with double severity on the people.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that so far from conceiving that it was desirable to have the people kept at all in the dark as to the operations of Government, he regarded it as highly important to have all these and similar questions fully discussed; and, so far from conceiving that the duties of their Lordships' House in respect of matters of finance were purely Ministerial, he thought the credit of the House was very much augmented when persons so eminently qualified to express their opinions on such subjects as the noble Earl and the noble Baron applied their criticisms to what they conscientiously believed to be errors in the conduct of the Government, whether as related to finance or to any other matter. He considered such discussion as augmenting the credit of Parliament, and wholesome for the community. At the same time he must dissent from the conclusions which they had drawn. He had, he thought, some right to complain
1100
of the perfectly unusual course taken by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, in adverting, no less than three times, to the subject of the Exchequer bonds. Those noble Lords, of course, acted upon their own sense of what was right; but it appeared to him, pending the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the market, premature for the Ministers of the Crown to discuss the subject. They were, therefore, placed in this position: that they must either keep silence altogether, or commit an act of indiscretion, by entering into premature explanations, and the noble Earl, therefore, must not misinterpret the silence which, on the present occasion, he should preserve on that head. He would mention, however, in respect to the tenders to be sent in to-morrow, that the Government had no knowledge of the result. Before proceeding further he would observe, that the noble Earl had, no doubt unintentionally, been rather unjust towards his noble Friend the noble Duke. The noble Duke had only spoken generally, not pretending to go into the details such as those with which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had supplied the House. But it must be remembered that, compared with the noble Lord, they were all at a disadvantage, for they had no practical experience in finance, whilst the noble Lord combined, in his own person, the experience he had acquired in the several offices of Secretary of the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Comptroller of the Exchequer; but this superiority in the knowledge of technical details did not at all render it a consequence that the noble Lord's view must necessarily be adopted as unquestionable. Some observations had been made by the noble Earl upon the Budget, and comments had been particularly added upon the abolition of the soap duty, and the Government had been charged with imprudence in not retaining these duties in the face of an impending war. But he thought their Lordships needed only to be reminded of the circumstances under which that appeal was made. The House of Commons had agreed to the retention of two very large taxes, operating in some respects grievously upon many persons, in consideration of a large reduction of other taxes which weighed heavily upon the country at large. There was at that time, as he should contend, no ground to apprehend imminent war; and, at such a moment for

1101
the Government to have retained the soap duties, the abolition of which had been loudly called for by the country, would have been a course entirely unjustifiable. As to the observation, that the repeal of the soap duties, by which the revenue benefited to the extent of 1,500,000 l., had been useless to the country, because the reduction had gone into the pockets of the manufacturers, he thought that would not be regarded as a very conclusive argument against it; for it was quite clear that if the tax had not been repealed the price of soap at the present moment would have been very much higher, in common with the increased price of most other commodities in daily use. The noble Earl who made this observation had also expressed a hope that, with regard to Ireland, the income tax would not be further increased. He could only reply to this, that he was sure Ireland would not shrink from bearing her own share of taxation. The Irish income tax was one of the points upon which the policy of the Budget had been most disputed, and many dismal prophecies had been made as to its effect. All these prophecies had been falsified by the event; and the result had fully exposed the futility of the attacks that had been made on this part of the Budget, and had fully justified the policy of the Government. In relation, also, to the succession tax, it was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not its opponents, had been right as to the amount to be produced by it. The increased duty on spirits in Scotland and Ireland had been satisfactory in its results. The noble Baron (Lord Monteagle) had, in the commencement of his speech, taken infinite credit to himself for candour in his review of the Government policy; but he had eminently departed from that candour when he left entirely out of view those markedly changed circumstances which had operated, in a corresponding degree, to defeat the anticipations upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proceeded. The want of candour was especially notable in the criticisms which the noble Baron had passed upon the operation of reducing the interest on Exchequer bills. It was extremely easy to make an effective ex post facto speech against any measure that had happened to be frustrated by particular events, if you carefully omitted from your criticism any reference to the events which had caused its failure. The first point of which complaint was made was the reduc-
1102
tion of interest upon Exchequer bills. It was said that notice was given in February that the interest would be reduced from 1¼d. to 1d., and that the reduction was made under circumstances which rendered it unjustifiable. But the bills at that moment were at a premium of 60 s.; and for two months afterwards not one person applied to exchange them for money. But later, 3,000,000 l. in bills were exchanged for money; and what had been the result? Why, that in the next quarter not only was the whole 1¼d.saved upon the 3,000,000 l., but the ¼d. upon all the remaining bills. But, said the noble Lord, "You were obliged in the following October both to increase the rate of interest and to reissue the 3,000,000 l." Was the noble Lord sure that, if it had not been for the change of circumstances it would have been necessary to increase the rate of interest? The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had referred to the failure in the conversion of the smaller stocks, and the noble Earl considered that that failure was owing to the want of foresight in those who had brought it forward; but herein the noble Earl exhibited as little candour, and in the same way, as the noble Baron. There was, indeed, a popular phrase that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," but that the noble Earl should apply this proposition to financial operations was scarcely worthy of the noble Earl. The noble Earl himself, he recollected, had been amazingly twitted by noble Lords opposite, for his own want of foresight, when, after having prophesied that the repeal of the Corn Laws would increase rents 10 per cent, he was himself letting farms at an enormous reduction. He (Earl Granville) hoped the noble Earl was now receiving 10 per cent more; and that at the time he was receiving less there were circumstances in operation which he could not have calculated upon when he foretold the probable effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws. It was said, too, that when the Budget was framed the manifest signs of a bad harvest should have induced the Government to take another course. Whatever might have been the signs of the weather, they appeared to have as little effect upon the corn dealers as upon his right hon. Friend, for the corn dealers, who yet were generally considered tolerably good judges of probabilities as to supplies of corn, had not, at that time, at all raised the price of that commodity. It was another argument, that the possession of the "secret despatches," of

1103
which so much mention had been made, should have operated upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and induced him to change his course. Now, it should be recollected that there was hardly a time when they did not experience anxiety as to the state of affairs in some part of the world, which they did not think it necessary to publish to the country. Such transactions went on, although the public was ignorant of them; and it had never yet been made a reproach that they did not allow them to affect their general policy. But as to the "secret correspondence," he took rather a different view of its nature to the noble Earl. The Government had no reason to quarrel with it. Their ground of quarrel with the Emperor of Russia was that he subsequently departed from his own engagements in it. For instance, he made a proposition, based upon the impression that the Turkish empire was falling to pieces, that a prospective arrangement should be entered into for its disposition. The Government denied the allegation, and thought it would hasten the dissolution if such an arrangement were made; and, in reply, the Emperor said he was completely of their opinion, and appeared to withdraw from the views which he had propounded. The vigorous resistance which Turkey had proved able to make, and the feebleness which Russia had since manifested in the Principalities, might afford some ground, indeed, for admitting that those who did not accede to the accuracy of all the Emperor's views and declarations, were not so wholly without foresight. They were asked—Do you mean this as a war Budget or a peace Budget? Why, it had never been represented as a peace Budget; the probability of war had throughout been contemplated, and by the House of Commons—with whom he trusted their Lordships would concur—thus far provided for. Some allusion had been made to the amount of deficiency bills. He was not there to argue that a large amount of deficiency bills was a legitimate way of conducting business. The simple point was, that that which had been anticipated as a measure of success had, from circumstances which had arisen since, become a failure; but, after all, the failure had produced results not so much worse than those which had been exhibited during the Administration of the noble Baron (Lord Monteagle), for while, undoubtedly, the deficiency bills were larger now than
1104
then, while the balances at the Bank were double then what they were now, on the other hand the interest paid to the Bank now was twenty times less than it was then. Nor let it be forgotten that the effect of the increase of deficiency bills had, at all events, been to bring so much money into circulation, an effect very different from that of deficiency bills created to meet the necessities of a falling revenue. As to the conversion of the smaller stocks, when the scheme was proposed in the House of Commons, it was said to offer extravagant terms to the public. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) made an able speech against the measure, and he alluded to the possibility of failure; but the gist of his argument was, the mischievous nature of the measure if it were successful. But it had failed utterly; and what was the state in which it left us? Why, after having paid 8,000,000 l. for that purpose, and 1,000,000 l. for another, the balances had been reduced by 5,000,000 l. He contended that this was a state of things which would not bear unfavourable comparison with the noble Lord's own administration when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Earl Granville) did not think any answer was required from him to the observations that had been made by the noble Lord with regard to the money invested by the trustees of savings banks in Exchequer bills. The noble Lord admitted that such a proceeding was strictly legal, just, and convenient, and that it had been frequently adopted before; but he (Earl Granville) thought the noble Lord had failed to show the peculiar circumstances which made a proceeding that was right at other times wrong now. He thought the eloquent description which had been given by the noble Lord of the soundness of the national finances would be of some value to the country; and, with respect to the denunciation of the present and future policy of the Government, in which a noble Earl had indulged, he (Earl Granville) did not think anything had yet been done, and he was sure nothing would be done, that could lead to the ruinous consequences described by the noble Earl. He must say he feared there was too great a tendency on the opposite side of the House to encourage the people not to make the sacrifices necessary in order to carry on the war. When the doctrine had been so absolutely laid down by a noble Lord that the proper policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to abstain from meddling

1105
with the financial arrangements of the country, he (Earl Granville) could not help observing that it had been the habit of the Government from time to time to meddle in a somewhat similar manner with the greatest possible advantage. Indeed, the mischievous results of war, which produced so frightful a disorganisation of our finances, had been remedied solely by such meddling. He would only add that he thought the criticisms of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) were most useful. It was an advantage to the country that one possessing the great abilities of the noble Earl should have such a tendency to criticism: and should state his opinions so frankly and so distinctly. At the same time he (Earl Granville) must always feel it a matter of regret when the noble Earl thought it his duty to criticise—and when he did not find it possible to support—the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.