Sitting of 23 April 1855

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—FOT Cavan, Robert Burrowes, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Loan; Stamp Duties (Drafts on Bankers); Income Tax; Spirit (Scotland and Ireland).

CLOTHING OF THE GUARDS—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN STUARTsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether the last detachment of Guards, 1,000 strong, left London on the 12th April with the clothes of 1854, the new clothing due on the 1st April, 1855, not having been issued; whether the allowance made to the men for wearing their own clothes will be borne by the contractors or by the Government, from the 1st April to the date of issuing the new clothing of 1855; and whether any steps have been taken to provide the Guards with clothing suitable to the Crimean summer, the issue of white trousers having been lately discontinued?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he thought the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been put from the want of information as to the regulations that were observed by the Guards with respect to the wearing of their clothing. In the case of regiments of the line, when an issue of clothing was made, the clothing of the preceding year was discontinued, but, in the case of the Guards, it was usual for them to have two suits of clothing in use, the suit last issued being reserved for Sundays, parades, and reviews, while clothing issued to them for the preceding year was worn on all ordinary occasions. The detachment referred to consequently had in wear, at the time of their departure, the clothing issued for 1854, and it would be against the regulations if they were to take into use, on leaving London, the new clothing of the present
1624
year issued on the 1st of April last. No allowance, therefore, would be due to them; and, with regard to the last portion of the question, although it was true that white trousers had been discontinued, light clothing of another fashion would be substituted, and would be sent from this country as soon as it was ready. In the meantime, he might say that a supply of light clothing for the army generally in the Crimea had been provided at Constantinople. He would take that opportunity of answering a question which had been put to him the other night by a noble Lord opposite. He had been asked whether a detachment of the 50th Regiment had not been landed from the Alma, while the baggage of the detachment was taken on to the Crimea. He had then stated that he had received no report on the subject, but he thought it was extremely unlikely that such a circumstance should have taken place. Since that time he had been put in possession of a report from the commanding officer of that detachment, and he found that the whole of the regimental baggage and camp equipage was duly landed, One officer, however, had left behind him a portmanteau, and another officer had left behind him a camp bed, and for that the Government were not responsible. With those exceptions the statement was entirely without foundation.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, that perhaps the House would allow him to explain that the new clothing of the Guards was not sent out, but the clothing they had taken out had only been worn one quarter of a year, and was as good if not better than that now in wear by the army in the Crimea. The new clothing would be sent out in the course of the summer, and would be taken into wear when most wanting, namely, during the next winter.

NATIONAL GALLERY—QUESTION.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir Charles Eastlake has been appointed director of the National Gallery, and Mr. Wornum secretary; and whether Sir Charles Eastlake has been appointed for five years, or for life?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No appointments have as yet taken place with respect to any of the offices to which the noble Lord has referred. The whole arrangement is still under consideration.

SUPPLY OF GUANO—VENEZUELA— QUESTION.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government was aware of the fact of the Venezuelan Government, or persons in the name of that Government, having taken possession of the Island of Ayes, which was surveyed by the British Government in 1849; and if so, whether it is intended to take any measures for the recovery of the island, and for the preservation to this country of the supply of guano which abounds there?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that in the year 1849 some officers in the British service examined the island in question, and had reason to think that there was a supply of guano upon it, but it was doubtful. In December last, Her Majesty's Government was informed that some Americans had ascertained that there was guano on the island, and that some arrangement had been entered into between these American adventurers and the Government of Venezuela, granting and securing to that American undertaking the exclusive right to take guano for a certain number of years. A question arose as to whether this island could be claimed by Great Britain, as having been an unoccupied island, and whether England, by right of first occupation, could claim sovereignty over it. On consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, it appeared from the statement of facts that Great Britain could not properly assert any claim of sovereignty over that island; but as soon as that was ascertained, instructions were sent to the British consul at Caraccas to require from the Government of Venezuela that British subjects should have the same privileges and facilities for obtaining guano from that island as should be afforded to the subjects of any other country.

CIVIL HOSPITAL AT SMYRNA— QUESTION.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he begged to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department, but before doing so it was necessary that he should say a few words in explanation. When the civil hospital was established at Smyrna, great doubts were expressed as to the salubrity of the climate. At that time, however, there was a great pressure for room, and a barrack was offered to the Government by the Turkish Government for hospital
1626
purposes. Arrangements were made that that barrack should be immediately taken possession of, but that hospitals constructed of wood should he sent out, so as to; enable the whole of the establishment, before the hot weather set in, to be removed to some other more salubrious locality. He understood that at that hospital, owing to the prevalence of fever, and to the necesity of giving one thousand cubic feet to each patient, it was necessary to reduce the number of patients from 800— the number the hospital was supposed to be capable of containing—to 480. That being the case, it appeared that they had an expensive staff of civil surgeons, with a much smaller number of patients under their care than was intended. He, therefore, begged to ask whether or not wooden hospitals had been sent out, or, if not, whether they were about to be sent out; and if not, whether the intention had been changed with regard to removing the hospital from Smyrna to some other locality supposed to be more salubrious when the hot weather set in.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he had seen a letter from Dr. Meyer, the head of the civil hospital at Smyrna, written on the 14th of this month, in which he stated that he had reduced the number of patients accommodated in the hospital buildings to 480 or 490. He added that the medical staff under him was capable of treating double that number of sick, and he therefore submitted that the Government should increase the number of sick to 1,000 or 1,200, and that that should be done, not by disusing the hospital building, but by erecting wooden huts in an open space adjoining the building. He (Mr. Peel) could not find that any huts had been sent out from this country for erection at Smyrna; some were on their way to be erected near Constantinople, but, with the application from Dr. Meyer before them, he thought a number of huts should be sent out, so as to enable him to increase the number of patients to the amount specified, namely, 1,000 or 1,200. So far as Dr. Meyer's report went, the hospital appeared to have been progressing very favourably, and in a private letter, received that day, he stated that the average statistical results were quite as good as in any other hospital in the East.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he desired to know whether accounts had been received that fever had already broken out in the lower wards of the hospital at Smyrna, and that

1627
all the patients had been removed from those wards?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he must beg to sate in reply, that Dr. Meyer had removed all the patients from the ground floor of the hospital, and moved them to the first or second floor. Perhaps the question would be best answered by reading an extract from the letter of Dr. Meyer, dated the 7th of April. In that letter he made the following statement:—
"The general state of those in hospital is improving daily. The number of fever cases is diminishing, also the number of deaths, there having been only two last week. The orderlies have hitherto been sleeping in the sick wards, and many have in consequence been attacked with fever; they are now being moved into rooms appropriated to the attendants on the ground floor, so that I confidently expect that this evil will be diminished. I have no misgivings with regard to the climate; if not over-crowded, the sick would do well here."

ASSISTANT-SURGEONS FOR THE BALTIC FLEET—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he had seen in The Times of that morning a statement with respect to the appointment of surgeons and assistant-surgeons to the fleet now in the Baltic which appeared to be contrary to that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Admiral Berkeley) had made the other night, and to impugn the veracity of the hon. and gallant Admiral's statement. He (Sir G. Tyler) wished, therefore, to give an opportunity to the hon. and gallant Admiral of making a reply, and setting himself right with the House and the country.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, the House would perhaps allow him to explain what it was he had stated in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Boldero) who first brought the subject forward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, having remarked that last year there were a great number of vacancies in the medical department of the fleets sent to the Baltic and Black Sea, he (Admiral Berkeley) had thought it his duty to contradict that statement. He accordingly stated that there was a proper allowance of medical men in both of those fleets, and that he had never heard any complaint upon the subject before. An anonymous letter in The Times endeavoured to fix him with having stated that there were no vacancies at present. That, however, was a mere anonymous assertion, and whenever such an assertion was made in the proper place in that House he would
1628
endeavour to reply to it. Throughout his private and public life he had endeavoured to treat all anonymous correspondence with the contempt due to cowardice, and he should always continue to act in the same manner.

THE NEGOTIATIONS AT VIENNA.— QUESTION.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, the importance of the question which I am about to put to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government will be a sufficient apology for my putting it without having given previous notice. I wish to know whether the House can be informed or is to understand that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London has left Vienna, and if the conferences and negotiations are considered by the Government to be at an end? If that be so, I wish also to ask whether the noble Lord can inform the House on what day he will make a specific statement, or afford to the House documentary information, whereby we may be enabled to ascertain precisely what is the difference between the terms offered by the allies, and any terms that may have been offered as counter propositions by the Russian Government, in order that the House and the country may precisely understand, if the war is to be prolonged, what is to be the object of the war in future? As I have not been enabled to find persons agreeing as to why the war began at all, I am the more anxious that we should know exactly how we stand, apart from the obscurity of diplomatic language, and I therefore beg to inquire of the noble Lord if he can give the House, at an early period, the specific information for which I ask?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman is of too great and deep importance for me to shrink from some explanation even at the present moment, though, as to what may be the time at which Her Majesty's Government may think fit to give more detailed information, or to lay any papers upon the table, I am not now in a position to state. It is well known to the House that the English and French Governments in concert with the Government of Austria, had determined that the proper development of the third point, which regarded the treaties of 1840 and 1841, with respect to the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, should be, among other things, that the preponderance of Russia in the

1629
Black Sea should henceforth be made to cease. That was the principle laid down by England and France, and agreed to by Austria, and it was in the abstract accepted by the Russian Plenipotentiary. On Thursday last, at the conference held on that day, at which were present the English, French, Austrian, Turkish, and Russian Plenipotentiaries; the Plenipotentiaries of England, France, Austria, and Turkey proposed to the representative of Russia, as a mode of making the preponderance of Russia cease in the Black Sea—which, in principle, had been admitted and accepted by Russia—either that the amount of the Russian naval force in the Black Sea should henceforth be limited by treaty, or that the Black Sea should be declared entirely neutral ground and all ships of war of all countries be excluded from it, so that henceforth it should be a sea for commerce only. The Russian Plenipotentiary required forty-eight hours to take that proposal into consideration. Those forty-eight hours elapsed on Saturday, and on Saturday another conference was held, at which the Russian Plenipotentiary absolutely refused to accept either of the alternatives proposed, those alternatives being pressed by the four other Plenipotentiaries unanimously. Thereupon the conference adjourned sine die, and my noble Friend the Member for the City of London, and the French Minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, were, I believe, to take their departure from Vienna in the course of the present day.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the noble Lord had not answered the question of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), with respect to any counter propositions which might have been made by Russia.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have to state that Russia made no counter proposition.

WAYS AND MEANS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbrought up the Report of the Resolutions agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means.
On the First Resolution being put,
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he hoped as he had been unable to attend on the evening when the Budget was brought forward, that the House would excuse him for now offering some observations on the course taken by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to
1630
the raising of a loan. It was not his intention to offer any opposition to the confirmation of the contract into which the right hon. Gentleman had entered. Abstractedly considered, the loan appeared to have been contracted on terms fair to the contractors, and not unfair to the country; but as he thought the House must be prepared to anticipate that in future years they might be called upon for a repetition of the process of raising money by loan, he was anxious to point out the objections to which the present arrangement was liable in order to prevent the inconvenience which would result from the continued adoption of the same system. If he could believe, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Parliament, on the arrival of peace, would be prepared to apply a surplus of 1,000,000 l. annually to the redemption of the debt now to be incurred, and to apply the same principle to every future loan, then he should have no objection to make to the measure, but as he did not believe this, he could hardly persuade himself that when his right hon. Friend came to consider what experience had pointed out as the reasonable objections to the course proposed, he would still be disposed to persevere in it. He must say that he doubted the justice of the Resolution, against which applied with still greater force the objection usually brought against loans, that they threw the whole burden upon posterity, whilst the parties borrowing derived nothing but the advantage. But if they threw the entire burden, not merely of the increase of the debt caused by the loan, but of the redemption at the rate of 7 per cent upon posterity, they enhanced the objection heretofore raised to the system of loans. But let them consider whether it was in the least degree probable that on the arrival of peace Parliament would be prepared to fulfil the engagement into which they were called upon to enter, to raise above what was required to defray the annual expenditure, an additional revenue of 1,000,000 l. annually for sixteen years for the purpose of repaying the capital borrowed. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether it was probable, from the experience of past years, that such a plan would succeed. When he first sat in Parliament many hon. Members, thoroughly acquainted with financial matters, advocated the establishment of a sinking fund, and the House adopted a solemn Resolution by which they declared

1631
that 5,000,000 l. a year should without fail be set apart for the redemption of the debt. Now, did Parliament adhere to that Resolution? Quite the contrary. Two years afterwards their confidence failed them, and the House declared that 3,000,000 l. a year should be set apart for that purpose; but they observed that Resolution with just as much punctuality as they had done the first. In the end, the only mode adopted of reducing the funded debt was by comparing quarterly the amount of revenue with that of expenditure, and applying any surplus to its redemption. As the custom had been to apply this to the payment of deficiency bills, the surplus which was intended for the reduction of debt had been generally used to eke out the revenue of a deficient quarter. How, in the face of this, could the Chancellor of the Exchequer hope that on the restoration of peace Parliament would raise an additional revenue for the purpose of paying off debt at the rate of one million for every sixteen used for carrying on this war? He therefore hoped his right hon. Friend would abandon the Resolution by which he proposed to lay on this increased burden for the repayment of the debt for that Resolution as it stood could not deceive any persons who were conversant with the financial system of the country. As the loan was in Three per Cent Consols, he was bound to take it as an irredeemable annuity to the amount of somewhere about 500,000 l. a year, and it was as an irredeemable annuity that he objected to it. They were about to impose on the country for ever the charge of 500,000 l.; and if succeeding leans were contracted on the same principle, a burden would be imposed on the country from which there was no hope of relief. It was perfectly true that, technically speaking, the Three per Cent Consols were redeemable; but twelve months' notice was required before any alteration could take place; and he would ask any man conversant with financial affairs where he could find a Chancellor of the Exchequer bold enough, in the circumstances in which the country might find itself placed, to give twelve months' notice that at the end of that period he would be prepared to deal with that large amount which the Three per Cents offered to the operator. He contended, therefore, that the funds must be regarded as practically irredeemable annuities. It was the first duly of the Minister entrusted with the management of the finances to apply
1632
himself, as far as possible, to the reduction of the burden which the national debt imposed on the country. He could only do this in one of two modes—by applying a special revenue for the reduction of the capital of the debt, or by availing himself of those reductions of interest which might take place from time to time in the general market, and thus relieve the public of part of the charge of the debt. Exactly in proportion to the difficulty of the operation was the duty incumbent on us to take care that we did not throw away a favourable opportunity of reducing the interest of the debt, and it was in that respect, he thought, his right hon. Friend had erred. He knew he might be told that Mr. Pitt, who was acknowledged by all to be a great master of finance, raised his loan by offers of Three per Cent Consolidated Annuities, but the circumstances under which Mr. Pitt acted were totally different from those which existed at the present time. Mr. Pitt had no other fund open to him of sufficient amount to enable him to borrow on it with advantage. The whole amount of Consols at the commencement of the last war did not exceed 100,000,000. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had far larger funds open to him in other Stock, and he believed his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have acted a much wiser and safer part if he had made an offer of this new loan in the Three per Cent Annuities, which represented a capital of 250,000,000, and were capable of redemption in the year 1874, rather than in the Three per Cent Consols, which, as he had already shown, were in fact irredeemable. The consideration was one of vital importance to the future interest of the country. He maintained that we ought to purchase the power of redemption in twenty years by some sacrifice of immediate interest, rather than entail on ourselves and on posterity the burden of a perpetual charge. The theory of the plan of raising money by annuities, was that at the expiration of a certain period the whole sum they had borrowed would be discharged, and to secure that advantage the borrower consented to pay a considerable additional interest above the market rate. If, therefore, for the sake of the extinction of the debt at a distant period, they were willing to raise the terms to be given to the loan contractor, he maintained that it would be good policy to raise the terms to a limited amount, in order to the

1633
reduction of interest on the debt when the market rate fell. When he spoke of the reduction of interest, he might be told that he was indulging in a premature speculation; but with his knowledge of the industry and energy of the people of this country, with the great facilities of enterprise possessed by the inhabitants in time of peace, and the great accumulation of capital that was continually taking place, he could not conceal his conviction that if they should be blessed with a long return of peace, the interest of money would be at a far lower rate than it stood at the present moment. He trusted, therefore, that they would take care not to divest themselves of the possibility of effecting a reduction of interest, of which they had already experienced the benefit. In making these observations he did not forget the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position, and he had been induced to make them chiefly for the purpose of pointing out what he considered would be the most advantageous course to follow in any future loan that might be contracted.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he had heard with very great astonishment the objection which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, to one part of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there was one Member in that House on whom he thought he could have relied more than on another for the maintenance of the principle of repaying what we had borrowed, that Member would have been the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. To his surprise, however, he found that the right hon. Gentleman opposed the clause for applying 1,000,000 l. of the surplus revenue, after the peace, towards the extinction of this debt. He opposed the clause which said that, when we borrowed in a time of exigency, we should pay when we had the power to do so, which said we should borrow for the purposes of war, but that when peace came we should show our good faith by being careful to pay. He confessed he saw no good reason, because we had not hitherto adopted the system of repaying what we had borrowed, that the House should now refuse to pass a Resolution expressive of its honest intentions. It was no argument to him that, because they had before abolished surplus revenue applicable to their past debt, they should not now, in making another loan, assert the principle that in
1634
time of peace they should pay the debt incurred in war. It was nothing to him that because this House of Commons was honest, there might be another House of Commons that would not be equally so. The ground on which he supported this clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be induced to give up, was that he thought it important to lay down as a principle the rule that, while in times of emergency, of exigency, of war, and of trial, debt must necessarily be incurred, it became the first duty of Parliament and of the Government, when the means recurred of filling our coffers, to diminish that debt by the application of our surplus revenue. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) asked the House to see how delusive past Resolutions had been on this subject. No doubt good intentions often were delusive. but he never knew it inculcated as a moral precept in consequence, that there never should be good intentions. The duty of the House was to say we should refrain from borrowing as long as we could, to lay no burden and impose no obligation on posterity if it were possible to avoid it; but that, when we must necessarily borrow, to do so with the honest intention of reducing the debt as soon as practicable. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there would be no possibility of carrying out this Resolution, that there would be such a pressure on the Government that any surplus which might exist would be extinguished; but, though precedent might be against him, he would still cling to the hope that we should find a Government strong enough and honest enough to resist the pressure that might be made for excessive reduction. It had always appeared to him that there was little wisdom in what had been termed an "ignorant impatience of taxation." It was necessary, if we wished to maintain public credit that we should maintain a surplus revenue; and it was equally necessary that, if we wished to be honest, to apply the surplus revenue obtainable in a time of peace and abundance to the extinction of debt incurred in periods of emergency. He would not enter upon the question whether we could have borrowed better in the Three per Cents Annuities, which are redeemable in 1874, but would only say, that the Minister of the day would in all probability have enough to do with the 250,000,000 l. which would then stare him in the face, without encumbering him with greater difficulties.

1635
He believed the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be just and honest, and, considering the time and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made, not only creditable in its terms, but likewise advantageous for the Government. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad gone on the principle that during thirty years the nation should pay 14 s. 6d. for every 100 l. of money borrowed. He must express his hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would persist in the clause for applying 1,000,000 l. annually to the repayment of the loan, inasmuch as it would record the Resolution of the House to apply this amount out of the surplus revenue to that purpose after the restoration of peace. He did not know how far the constituencies were likely to be favourable to that addition to the taxation; but he hoped the scheme of his right hon. Friend might be carried out. He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) the other night say that the right hon. Gentleman might with the greatest ease have obtained his money in terminable annuities. It was very well in theory or in the closet to say that it might have been so obtained easily. But in all contracts there were two sides, and you might no doubt find a seller with opinions that this would be the more just course, and the more advantageous for the country, but, on the other hand, you must find your buyer, and if you wanted the money you must offer a commodity that would be dealt in. He must confess his doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been able to obtain it on those terms, except by making some great concessions and sacrifices, which would have been at once repudiated by the House and the country. The hon. Member for Wick also referred to the large sum of money borrowed for the French railways in annuities, for a term of ninety-nine years, but he forgot to say that it was not a question of fixed rental but of fluctuating profit in that case, and that the parties lending entered into a commercial speculation. It would be impossible that Government affairs of finance could be conducted in that way, and to parallel two ways of raising money for different objects, and with different terms and inducements, seemed to him a notion utterly preposterous. The hon. Member for Wick likewise recommended them to try the plan of subscription, as had been done in France; but
1636
in that country there was a large class of proprietors of small means, who, having before their eyes the dread of such revolutions and public calamities as they had witnessed in their own country, were anxious either to hoard their money or to lay it out only in what they thought a secure investment upon very favourable terms. The French, too, as a community, were a more saving people than the English. The people in the interior of France had, and still have, a great deal of money divided amongst the great mass of the people, either hoarded, or, at any rate, employed at a very low rate of interest. But the same thing did not exist in England. The owners of small sums of money were here not only more intelligent but also more enterprising; they generally invested their savings in something that would give them a good rate of interest. The French Three per Cent Loan was negotiated at 62; could the Chancellor of the Exchequer have offered the same inducement here? He could have, at the most, offered 3½ per cent, and did the House think that persons holding small sums would have diverted them from existing investments and subscribed them to a loan at 3½ per cent? He did not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have raised his loan either by terminable annuities or an open subscription; but by inserting the clause they were then discussing, he had done what he could do in order to comply with what he felt to be the true policy of this country—that we should continue a surplus income in time of prosperity in order that we might apply it to the diminution of our debt.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he concurred in two important points to which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) had just adverted. He was firmly convinced that it would not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contract for so large a sum of money as he required upon the terms of terminable annuities except at prices wholly extravagant and disproportionate. He thought, likewise, that he had done service to the cause of truth and to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that which he hoped would tend to dissipate the delusive opinion which prevailed—namely, that it would be competent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt the mode of proceeding with respect to the loan which had been so wisely taken in France—an opinion which he thought could never be en-

1637
tertained by those who had made a careful estimate of the great difference which existed in the circumstances of the two countries. But he (Mr. Gladstone) considered that it was not just to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) for the hon. Member for Huntingdon to comment as he had done upon the observations that had fallen from him. He was, however, glad to find that the hon. Member opposite and his right hon. Friend both concurred in holding the opinion, that it was the duty of Parliament in times of peace to maintain a surplus revenue for the reduction of the national debt. He knew the opinion of his right hon. Friend, not only from his words, but from his deeds when he held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, for while he held that office it was a main object with him to create a large surplus revenue applicable to the reduction of debt from year to year. That, however, was not the point of difference between the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) and Ids right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn). He did not believe that there was a man in that House more disposed to exercise his influence for the creation of a surplus revenue than his right hon. Friend. The question, however, was this, not whether they were to have a surplus revenue in time of peace, but whether this clause would really assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the attainment of his object. The right hon. Gentleman said that this proposition was but the assertion of a principle. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) ventured to say on Friday night, what he would now repeat, that he respected the motive and object with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his proposal. He was convinced that the object of the right hon. Gentleman was most honourable to himself, and that his desire was a large application of the revenue from year to year to the principle of reducing the debt. But would the right hon. Gentleman attain that object by means of a clause of this description? That was the question for discussion upon that occasion. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that this was but the assertion of a principle? He apprehended, when Parliament wanted to assert a principle, in the sense of a solemn expression of their conviction, the proper place for doing so was not in a clause but in the preamble of a Bill. That was the usage of the Legislature upon all occasions. But what was the use of Parliament enacting a clause
1638
for a purpose to which it was not in its power to give effect? This clause purported to be a contract or pledge. Now, there were two things requisite in respect to a contract or pledge. First, it should be given to somebody; secondly, it should be given by somebody who had a right to give it. But a future Parliament might very reasonably question the right of that Parliament to pledge it. But the clause not only asserted the principle that a certain surplus was to be applied by a future Parliament, but it actually specified the particular amount of money to be applied and the form of investment. Now, a future Parliament might naturally say that they were better judges of this matter than the Parliament that had enacted such a clause. Upon what principle was the Parliament of 1855 to say that 1,000,000 l. a year must be applied in a particular way by the Parliament of 1860 or 1870? They were there to find supplies and money to meet the national exigencies for our own times, and not for the time of our children. That was not their business. They would not ensure the attainment of their object by dictating in this way to a future Parliament as to the manner in which they were to exercise their discretion. He would point out another great disadvantage which attended this mode of proceeding. They provided that this 1,000,000 l. sterling should be applied to the redemption of the debt at a future time, and also to the redemption of Consols. How could they tell now, whether in the year 1860 or 1870 it would be wise to apply this money as was proposed in the redemption of the stock? It might be preferable to redeem Exchequer bills or Exchequer bonds or other stocks. But here was an Act of Parliament of 1855—utterly ignorant of the circumstances under which the money was to be applied in successive years—actually dictating to a future Parliament the policy they ought to pursue, and appointing a mode of investment under circumstances of which they could have no knowledge whatever. The question was this—were they likely to promote the maintenance of the principle of a surplus revenue by an Act of this kind? However much he respected the motives of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he confessed he inclined to the opinion that the Parliament would do much better to rest satisfied with the performance of its own duty, and not undertake to lay down a particular policy to a future Par-

1639
liament. He must not be told that enactments of this nature were harmless. Enactments of this kind had a tendency to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and to create an undue facility for unnecessary loans. These were extremely grave questions. For his part be thought the more straightforward and better course would be to be as explicit as possible in all their proceedings involving the disposal of the money of the people. They ought not to attempt to express what was called a principle, but what was really a mere paper promise of repayment, which they had no right to bind others to fulfil. Before sitting down he wished to draw attention to an inadvertence that occurred in the proceedings of the Committee on Friday night. Upon consulting the Votes on the following morning he found that the Resolution relating to the loan, the Customs, and the Excise duties, had, in conformity to previous practice, been voted by the Committee. It appeared, also, that the Resolution affirming the principle of the new income tax was also voted at the same time. He apprehended that the principle of discussing all proposals relating to taxation in Committee of that House, upon their introduction, was one of the most precious and important privileges of the House. The House, with good sense, sometimes waived the principle of discussion in cases where propositions relating to taxation were absolutely necessary and urgent. There was, however, no reason of this kind at all applicable to the Resolution proposing an increase in the income tax. There was no proceeding to be taken which depended in the slightest degree upon the passing of that Resolution on Friday night. The same observation applied equally well to the proposed stamp duty upon bankers' cheques. The usage was to give time to the House, after hearing the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider such proposals before they were called upon to proceed to any Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), when he made his financial statement in December, 1852, not only did not press the House for any Vote, but it was actually in the first stage, in the preliminary Committee, that his proposals were resisted and rejected by a majority. The present departure from the usual practice had, no doubt, happened inadvertently, but the point was of such grave importance that he had felt it his duty to enter his protest against it. He, however,
1640
must express a hope that this evident error would not hereafter be drawn into a precedent.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have thrown the loan open to public competition, and he considered that the right hon. gentleman might have raised 20,000,000 l. on terminable annuities at less than 4 per cent., which, with 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer Bills, would have given him all the funds that he required, without having recourse to the imposition of increased duties on tea and coffee. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the House had no right to pledge a future Parliament to the repayment of 1,000,000 l. per annum of the debt now incurred.
MR. LAINGsaid, he rose to correct the misapprehension into which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) had fallen in respect to the argument which he had used on Friday night. He did not on that occasion contend that this loan should have been raised by terminable annuities only. The great object which he had then urged against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme was founded on the creation of so large an amount of debt in the ordinary 3 per cent. Consolidated Stock, and he had simply represented that it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have raised an equally large amount either by a system of terminable annuities, or by the creation of stock at the market rate of interest which the Government credit would have commanded at the time, viz., at 3½ per cent. Another very serious objection which he felt to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition was, that as the Three per cents were, to a great degree, the barometer which regulated the state of our national credit, owing to there being always a large amount of trust and other moneys of the same description ready to be invested in them, the result of adding so largely to this description of stock would be to make the other securities range at a lower rate than they otherwise would do. Had not the price of Consols been unnecessarily depressed by the sale of savings' bank stock, and had the loan been proposed in some other description of stock, Consols would, he had every reason to believe, have stood some 3 per cent. higher than they did at the present time. But a fall of one per cent. in the price of

1641
Consols was equivalent to a diminution of about 10,000,000 l. in the value of the whole national securities, and a scheme which, for the sake of getting only 16,000,000 l., caused even a temporary diminution in the aggregate value of the national property to the amount of some 25,000,000 l., could not be a very good one. Except in case of great urgency any addition to the Three per Cents ought to be avoided. In his opinion, it would have been practicable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have resorted to the plan of terminable annuities, and it was for the purpose of showing that they were quite as marketable as any other description of security that he had on Friday quoted the case of the French railways, where there was somewhere about 100,000,000 l. of property invested entirely in terminating stock. It was a mere question of price, and, though no doubt a considerable present sacrifice would be inevitable, yet now that we were in all probability at the commencement of a new series of loans, it was well worth trying whether they could not be advantageously effected in terminable stock. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily have ascertained from the great moneyed corporations at what price they would effect such a loan; and, if the sacrifice had appeared too great, he would then have had the other alternative open to him of effecting it in Three-and-a-half per Cents, by which means, though no actual reduction of debt was secured, yet there would have been a prospect of effecting at some future period a reduction in the interest. The hon. Member for Huntingdon had evidently misunderstood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). The right hon. Gentleman did not object to the principle of attempting to reduce the debt, but to a mode of doing so which he considered would be entirely illusory. If the Government were in earnest, let them embody this principle in the very terms and essence of the loan, and then the performance of the obligation so imposed could not be shrunk from without their committing an act equivalent to national bankruptcy. They certainly ought not to burden posterity with a perpetual charge of this description; but he (Mr. Laing) could not be a party to the creation of a mere fictitious guarantee for the repayment of this loan, which, when it came to be tested, would not hold water.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, that the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Laing) had quoted as a parallel to this loan the raising of a large sum of money on the French railways, upon which 100,000,000 l. were borrowed in what the hon. Member called terminable annuities. Now, the fact was, that the profits on the French railways were so large that they enabled a considerable sum to be regularly laid by for what was termed an amortissement of the capital, by which means the parties who subscribed the 100,000,000 l. received back again, on the expiration of the lease, the whole amount of the capital they had previously invested. It would be well for the unfortunate holders of railway property in England if they could receive back their original capital. With regard to the contract which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered into for this loan, it was only fair to say that, in the difficulty in which lie had been placed in having to borrow 16,000,000 l. concurrently with the imposition of additional taxes, the right hon. gentleman had conducted the operation in a highly satisfactory manner, and that its execution reflected upon him the greatest credit.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he had heard with much astonishment the objection stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) to that House, pledging itself to the redemption, at a future time, of the loan now to be raised. Why, that was precisely the same course which that right hon. Gentleman himself pursued last year when he raised a certain sum upon Exchequer Bonds, and asked the House to agree to a certain amount of taxation to afford him the means at a subsequent period of redeeming those bonds. Thus the House was involved in a pledge to maintain a certain amount of taxation to enable it to fulfil the engagement into which it had entered; and it was no more than what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer asked them to do in regard to the repayment of this loan. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) in thinking that although no doubt a future house of Commons might reverse the decision to which they came on the present occasion, yet that it was not inconsistent with their duty to give the best pledge in their power for the honesty of their intention, when peace should happily be restored, to maintain such an amount of taxation as would admit

1643
of the gradual reduction of the national debt to the point at which it stood before the contraction of this loan.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he doubted the wisdom of the House now entering into a pledge to be fulfilled hereafter, when the circumstances of the country might be altered in a manner which it was Utterly impossible for anybody now to foresee. With regard to the creation of a 3½ per cent. stock, as suggested by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), that course, in the present state of monetary affairs, would not, he considered, have been expedient.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he had heard with some surprise the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. T. Hankey), for if two things were perfectly distinct they were these: one for the House of Commons to do a thing at a particular time, and the other for them to enter into vague paper promises which they themselves had no power to perform. Besides, the case referred to by the hon. Member was otherwise different from the present loan. When the Exchequer Bonds were issued, the condition for repayment within a certain period was a stipulation entered into with the lenders—it was part of the contract, and was not therefore likely to be broken. The taxes, therefore, imposed to meet it were sure to be maintained. But what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) contended was, that this clause would not constitute any obligation on the public; that it would merely act as an opiate, inducing them to believe that this was a mere temporary loan, and that provision had been made for its repayment in time of peace, although at the same time we knew that, except in the formal words of an Act of Parliament, no such provision had been made, because it was not in our power to make any. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Laing) said that the borrowing of money on terminable annuities was a question of price. No doubt it was. And it Was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue the requisite Calculations on Matters of price, and to take care that the loan was negotiated on as favourable terms for the public as possible. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done so on the present occasion, and that the present loan was negotiated in a manner highly advantageous to the public. As to the
1644
expediency of borrowing upon loans terminable on shorter notice than a twelvemonth—in doing so they obtained a substantial return for any additional price they paid to the lender, because it was well known that the condition of giving twelve months' notice presented a serious practical obstacle to the operation of reducing the interest on the debt. It was no sufficient answer to this to say that those loans, the interest of which could be lowered on a shorter notice, were already large in amount; for it was obvious that the greater the proportion of debt over which they could spread a reduced rate of interest, the better would it be for the public.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have, Sir, listened with the utmost respect to the remarks made by my right hon. Friends the Members for the two Universities on the proposal contained in the resolution before the House with respect to the annual repayment of the loan after the expiration of the war. The opinions which they have expressed will command great weight, not only from their financial experience, but from their ability in all matters relating to this branch of the subject. Sir, I fully admit that the Resolution in question is not a matter of contract between the Government and the lenders of the 16,000,000 l., and that it is perfectly open to this House to consider this question without placing any limit on the discussion, and to deal with the clause, when the Bill is before them, as they may think fit. But this proposition has been deliberately proposed to the House by the Government, as they believe it to be a proper and defensible proposition, and when the proper time conies they will feel it their duty to adhere to, and to take the sense of the House upon it. I cannot but think that there has been some misapprehension on the part of my two right hon. Friends as to the precise effect of the proposition in question. On Friday night, when I had the honour of explaining its nature, what I distinctly stated was, that this House could not make an irrevocable law; that an Act passed by this Parliament might be repealed by a Parliament fifteen years hence; and that we could not do anything which would effectually tie up the hands of our successors. Precisely the same objection that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) Makes to this proposition might be made to every Act which passes this House which affects future generations. There

1645
is nothing peculiar in the proposition which we make. It cannot control the future discretion of Parliament; but the effect which it would have if it received the authority of law is this—it creates a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, and it becomes the duty of the existing Government to make provision for that sum out of the Ways and Means of the year. It will, therefore, be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so long as this Act remains unrepealed, to estimate for 1,000,000 l. in his annual Budget for the purpose of repaying the loan now contracted. I am perfectly aware that it may so happen that the nation may be engaged in war, or that there may be some pressing necessity which may render it inexpedient that the surplus revenue of a particular year should be applied to the reduction of this debt; if so, it will be in the power of Parliament to untie the hands of the Government, and to repeal, either permanently or temporarily, the enactment which makes it necessary that the Government should provide this 1,000,000 l., and to make any provision which they may deem suited to the exigencies of the time; but until Parliament does so interfere, and does so untie the hands of the Government, it will have to make this provision for the extinction of the debt. This is all that it is possible for us to do, for we can in no way place a limit on the future discretion of Parliament. We are unwilling to create a permanent burden on posterity, and circumstances prevent us from borrowing so large a sum as the loan required in terminable annuities. It has been stated by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), who is entitled to speak with great authority on this subject — and I am satisfied that his statement will be confirmed by all persons who will carefully consider the question—that a loan of 16,000,000 l. cannot be effected on terminable annuities without giving terms so extravagant that the Government would be justly condemned if it agreed to accept them. I question whether, without giving terms absolutely extravagant, so large a loan could be effected at all in terminable annuities of thirty years, for there is a great objection on the part of the public to receive hack every year a portion of their capital in driblets, subjecting them to the necessity of expending their capital as income, or of reinvesting it in a troublesome manner in small sums, very often under embarrassing circumstances. These would
1646
be difficulties so great that it is very questionable whether so large a loan could be effected at all in terminable annuities. As it was not, therefore, in the power of the Government to effect the loan in terminable annuities, they have gone as far as they believed they possibly could—they have raised a portion in perpetual stock, and they propose at the same time to make it obligatory on the existing Government to apply for 1,000,000 l. annually to extinguish the debt so created. I am willing to admit that this is not a paramount authority, and that Parliament has the power to rescind it; but it is impossible for us, without making the repayment of the debt matter of specific contract between the Government and the lenders, to impose more stringent obligations. With regard to terminable annuities, there is this advantage —the repayment of the principal and interest is made a matter of specific contract between the Government and the lenders; but with regard to perpetual annuities this is not and cannot be the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge made some remarks as to the expediency of contracting for this loan in 3 per cent Reduced Annuities rather than in Consols, on the ground that the one was redeemable by a year's notice, which, with regard to the other stock, was not the case. He spoke of Consols as being irredeemable; but I cannot help thinking that he confounded two ideas which are wholly different—namely, the reduction of interest on stock and the extinction of that stock; for, if the House should at any time be induced, as I hope it will be, to make a real sinking fund, and not an imaginary and illusory one, founded on the principle of borrowing and the principle of compound interest, I see no reason why Consols or any perpetual annuity should not be redeemed by the Government going into the market and buying up their own annuities, thus extinguishing both debt and interest. I confess I am not very sanguine as to the possibility of reducing—within the lifetime of the present generation—the interest on Three per Cent Stock, but I see no reason why we may not extinguish any amount of stock by annually applying to the purchase of it surplus taxation. My right hon. Friend seemed to speak of perpetual annuities as though they were inextinguishable, and he seemed to contrast terminable annuities as something, the Government can extinguish with perpetual annuities, as something which the

1647
Government cannot extinguish; but no error, I must be permitted to say, can be more striking with regard to a mere financial question. Perpetual annuities are convenient both to those who lend and to those who borrow. They are convenient for the Government, because it cannot be called upon at any definite time to pay the principal—they are convenient for the lenders, because they cannot be required at any definite time to receive back their principal; but if the Government is in possession of revenue applicable to the extinction of such debt, it can go into the market and buy up perpetual annuities, and as effectually extinguish them as any other stock. The provisions that have been made at different times for the establishment of a sinking fund have gone on the assumption that they would place the Government in a position to extinguish the debt; but the sinking funds of 1823 and 1827 rendered it necessary that a surplus of 5,000,000 l. in one case and 3,000,000 l. in the other should be applied in redemption of the debt. I regret that these Acts have been repealed, but I trust that when the war ceases there may be a disposition in Parliament to return to that wholesome system. But let not the House suppose that the existence of perpetual annuities presents any difficulty which impedes the extinction of the debt, or that if they would consent to raise an annual surplus they could not redeem those annuities on the most advantageous terms. Something has been said upon the subject of opening a subscription loan. I entirely concur with the very instructive remarks made upon that subject by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), who illustrated it by a comparison of the different circumstances of England and France. It is also to be remembered that if we opened a subscription loan in this country we should create a demand upon the savings banks, which we could only meet by a sale of the stock belonging to the Government, and in that manner we should cause a drain upon our own funds. Another circumstance which hon. Members ought not to omit to mention is, that if a loan were raised by subscription, it would be necessary for the Government to fix the price at which they would receive subscriptions. The subscription would necessarily be kept open for a considerable time, and therefore, in order to insure the obtaining of the loan, it would be necessary to fix that amount within certain limits, and the Government would ne-
1648
cessarily lose the advantage of competition in the money-market. Even when it happens that only one tender is sent in, as was the case with the present loan, the persons who make that tender act under the influence of competition, and with the knowledge that if the terms they offer are not reasonable others are ready to come forward and offer more moderate terms. I heard with satisfaction the testimony rendered by so great an authority as the hon. Member for Huntingdon with respect to the terms upon which the loan has been contracted. I have every reason to believe from all I have heard since the acceptance of the tender that, while those terms were fair and advantageous to the contractors, they were also beneficial to the public, and that the very onerous responsibility which lies on the Executive Government in contracting a loan without its being possible for them to obtain the previous sanction of Parliament has been met in a manner which will receive the approbation of the House. Some remarks have been made as to its being desirable that the Government, before receiving tenders for a loan, should inform the House of the conditions upon which it is to be offered to the public. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that if the matter had depended merely on the wish of the Government to divest themselves of a somewhat painful responsibility, they would unquestionably have resorted to that course. On examination, however, of the precedents of previous loans and of the possibility of adopting such a course, they found they had no alternative but to adhere strictly to the practice of former times, and to take upon themselves the responsibility of making a provisional contract before they asked for its confirmation by the House. I must express my regret at having inadvertently done anything contrary to the practice of the House with reference to the income-tax resolution, which has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), I can only say it was entirely owing to my inexperience in such matters. No objection was made when the Resolution was put from the Chair, and nothing was said upon the subject of the income tax. If any objection had been communicated to me I should unquestionably have postponed the Resolution. I am not aware that there is any other point which at present requires explanation. I will only add that a great distinction exists between those conditions

1649
of the loan which are matter of contract between the Government and the lenders, to which the Government are in honour bound to adhere, and the provision for the annual repayment of 1,000,000 l. That is a provision which is perfectly open to consideration and discussion by the House at any time.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the loan was on the whole a fair transaction, but he considered that the margin of 5,250,000 l., which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took, was, in his opinion, carrying the doctrine of a margin too far. He had always thought the margin was taken in the shape of a Vote of Credit. His (Sir H. Willoughby's) remarks applied as well to the extent of the loan as to the levy of the new taxation. He also thought that the obligation of providing 1,000,000 l. a year for the extinction of the loan was not, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, a nugatory obligation. There was, however, a point which he (Sir H. Willoughby) wished to be explained. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for 1,000,000 l. of Ways and Means as due to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in consequence of sales of savings bank stock. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, while contracting a loan in 3 per cent stock, was selling the same stock constantly—that being the stock in which the great bulk of the savings banks funds was invested. This operation had excited a great deal of observation; and its power of deranging the monetary transactions of the country was enormous. He (Sir H. Willoughby) was, as he had said, satisfied with the loan in all respects but one, and that was that it was contracted in Three per Cent Consols on one day, and on the next the right hon. Gentleman had imposed an additional income tax on these annuities.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, with regard to the savings-bank money, the Act authorised the Government to direct the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to sell stock belonging to the savings banks, and to exchange them for any other Government securities. Exchequer bills, although they were temporary and renewable securities, were just as binding upon the Government as securities which had a longer duration; and when the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National
1650
Debt sold stock and took Exchequer bills in exchange from the Government, they did not diminish the strength of their securities, but merely varied the form; and it was a mistake to suppose that they thereby endangered the deposits of the savings banks. He had already stated that the loan of 16,000,000 l. was as near as possible half the extraordinary expenditure of the year. With regard to terminable annuities, the lenders of money necessarily exposed themselves to the fluctuations that might take place in the amount of income tax. He hoped that ere long a diminution in that tax might take place, in which event these parties would share in the benefit of such reduction. These fluctuations, of course, entered into the calculations of these persons in the offers they had made.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to know whether the Estimate of 86,000,000 l. included the cost of collecting the revenue?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes; I apprehend it does. It includes the whole of the money voted in Supply.
Resolution agreed to; as were also Resolutions 2, 3, 4, and 5.
On Resolution 6, providing that a sum of 1,000,000 l. per annum be applied after the conclusion of peace with Russia towards the redemption of 16,000,000 l. Consols,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to submit two points to the consideration of his right hon. Friend. The object of his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was to secure the application of a certain amount of money in time of peace towards the reduction of the national debt. But that object, he conceived, might be attained without adopting the objectionable and awkward course of binding the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to lay out money in redeeming a particular description of security which it might be most unwise at that particular time to purchase. He would suggest that the clause should give the Chancellor of the Exchequer power to issue his 1,000,000 l. a year, and to force the Commissioners to lay out that money in the reduction of some public security until the amount of Government debt had been redeemed equal to the amount which Parliament was about to create—namely, 16,000,000 l. That, he thought, would be a practical improvement, and it avoided what might prove to be an inconvenient

1651
provision, because it would enable the Government to buy up not only Three per Cent Consols, but any other public security, according to their discretion. The other suggestion was a very friendly one to come from a man who was not favourable to the substance of the clause. He doubted whether the clause was wide enough. The Chancellor of the Exchequer created 16,000,000 l. Consols, and the object of the clause was to require the payment of as much money at the rate of 1,000,000 l. per annum as would redeem 16,000,000 l. of Consols. But Consols might be redeemed from other sources, and in five years after the conclusion of peace there might be 10,000,000 l. of surplus in that form, so to be applied by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. If so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not get 16,000,000 l. paid under this clause, for the authority of this clause would cease as soon as 16,000,000 l. worth of Consols were redeemed, whether it were redeemed by money under this clause, or by the general application of the law relative to an appropriation of a portion of the surplus revenue towards the reduction of the national debt. He doubted, therefore, whether the clause was strong enough for the object proposed.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he thought that the adoption of the first suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would entirely frustrate the object of the Resolution. There was a great variety of Government securities, and the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to buy up the Exchequer bonds of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) when they fell due, or to buy up Exchequer bills if it were convenient to the Government of the day to take 1,000,000 l. of them off the market, or the deficiency bills of the savings banks might be taken off the market. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that, beyond any other claim upon the Exchequer, 1,000,000 l. a year should be applied to the redemption of the Consols created by this Resolution. He could not, therefore, understand that there could be any other object in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman than to frustrate that arrangement.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought he was hardly open to the remark, that his
1652
object was to frustrate the intention of the Resolution, and he must ask the hon. Gentleman to explain his meaning.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had only intended to say that the effect, and not the object, of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be that which he had described.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the alteration which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had suggested was not to exclude Exchequer bills or Exchequer bonds or any other description of security, not Three per Cent Consols, from being redeemed under this clause. Perhaps, the House would allow him to consider the suggestion, and, if it should be found desirable to make the change pointed out, it could be done when the Bill was before the House. He certainly did not see any objection to applying the 1,000,000 l. a year to the redemption of any portion of the funded debt. With regard to the other point referred to by his right hon. Friend, it was difficult, at the moment, to see what would be the precise effect of the suggestion he had made. It was, of course, desirable to avoid giving the words of the Resolution a wider extension than they would be strictly intended to bear; he would, therefore, consider the point adverted to by his right hon. Friend, and state his opinion respecting it on a future occasion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that notwithstanding the reply of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), it was his belief that the 86,000,000 l. did not include the cost of collection of the revenue. That was an important question to be considered. The object of the former Commission was to bring the whole of the expenditure, including the cost of collection, under the notice and supervision of Parliament; and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved the highest credit for the good he had done in that direction. There was no necessity for the suppression of the large amount of the cost of the collection, and if it were added to the revenue accounts it would be found that the sum wanted would not be 86,000,000 l., but nearly 90,000,000 l. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that this subject should be attended to.
MR. WILSONsaid, that all the accounts relating to the expenditure for the

1653
present year had been made up according to the old system, which excluded the cost of collection on one side of the account, as well as the gross amount of revenue on the other. For the future, the accounts would show both these items.
Resolution agreed to.
On Resolution 7, relating to the increase of duty on Spirits being read,
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had to complain of the phraseology adopted in the Resolution, and which in fact involved a species of great injustice to a large body of persons connected with the spirit trade in Ireland. The words of the Resolution were that—
"Every gallon of spirits of the strength of hydrometer proof, which on or after the 20th day of April, 1855, shall be distilled in Scotland and Ireland respectively, or be in the stock, custody, or possession of any distiller, rectifier, or compounder of, or dealer in, spirits in Scotland or Ireland"
should be subject to an additional duty. Now, the question he had to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, did he mean that after the passing of this Resolution the new duty should have a retrospective effect upon the stocks in the possession of the dealers who had already paid the existing duty? Because, if that was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, a more unjust thing he could not conceive. He did not find fault that the stocks which the coffee dealers and the tea dealers had in hand were to be surcharged.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the explanation he had to give was, that this Resolution had been drawn up on the same plan as the Resolution for a similar object relating to the increase of the spirit duty was prepared by his right hon. Friend and predecessor last year, and which was then adopted by the House. It was on that occasion declared that the stock in hand should be subject to the increased duty on the same principle that the stock in hand had the benefit in the case of a reduction of duty.
MR. FAGANsaid, he must, though with great respect, beg to deny the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the present Resolution was prepared in similar words to those used in the Resolution of last year. The Resolution of last year did not contain the words "rectifier or compounder of, or dealer in spirits." He was aware that the additional tax was made to apply to the stock in the hands of the distiller, but it was not just to the stock in the hands of the
1654
dealer. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) would support him, he would move that the words "rectifier, or compounder of, or dealer in spirits" be expunged from the Resolution.
THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there existed no doubt as to what was the practice in these cases with respect to the stocks of the distillers, and that the only question that arose was with respect to the stocks in the hands of the rectifiers and of the dealers in spirits. He was not prepared to say whether the practice either way had been uniform. He would take the subject into consideration, and, if the hon. Gentleman would bring the question again before the House, he would be prepared to express his final opinion upon it.
MR. FAGANsaid, he was quite satisfied with the assurance the right hon. Gentleman had just given.
Resolution agreed to; as were also Resolutions 8 to 15 inclusive.
On Resolution 8 relative to the duty on sugar,
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, that recently very considerable additions had been made to the duties on sugar in the British possessions, and at the same time very considerable remissions were made to slavegrown sugar. The present addition to the sugar duties was regarded in the Colonies generally as an injustice. The Mauritius, the Colony with which he was best acquainted, was dependent for its prosperity, and, indeed for its very existence, upon having a full supply of free labour from India. It was at first extremely difficult to persuade single men to come from India with the view of realising a competence with which to return to their own country. The agents of the Government in India acting upon, or misinterpreting, instructions received from home, made and enforced a regulation that every Indian leaving India should be accompanied by a woman, which was equivalent to stopping the supply of labour and destroying the production of sugar at Mauritius. Representations were made on the subject to Her Majesty's Government, who proceeded to consider the question, but they were taking so long a time to arrive at a determination that while the matter was being Settled the Colony was being ruined. The Government wished, as every one did, to create an approximation between the two sexes, ut he had no idea that they wished to

1655
put a stop to the prosperity of the Colony. He hoped, therefore, that the next overland mail would communicate to the Government agents in India that they had misinterpreted the instructions sent them.
MR. J. BALLsaid, it was true that the immigration into the Mauritius, as well as into other Colonies, of a large number of men, increasing enormously the male population, had engaged the attention of successive Colonial Ministers, and it was therefore deemed highly essential that effectual steps should be taken to procure an approximate proportion between the two sexes in those Colonies. In the month of June last, therefore, a letter on the subject had been addressed to the Governors of the more important Colonies, in which, however, there was not one word indicative of an intention to put an end abruptly to the introduction of coolies. No instructions were given by the Colonial Office to the emigration agents in India, but the Emigration Commissioners in this country, to whom the views of the Duke of Newcastle were made known, informed those gentlemen that it was essential that a considerable proportion of women should emigrate along with the men. From the tenor of these instructions he could not think that any officer had taken upon himself arbitrarily to put a stop to the emigration from India to the Mauritius, because there was nothing whatever in those instructions which distinguished the case of the Mauritius from other Colonies. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that it was the intention of the Government to forward precise instructions by the mail about to leave, and if any misconception had existed it would be removed. At the same time, the noble Lord now Secretary for the Colonies concurred entirely with those who had preceded him in thinking that immediate and effective steps should be taken to increase the female population of the sugar colonies.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that, as a West India Proprietor who had suffered long in silence, he trusted that he might be allowed to protest in a few words against the injustice with which the West India Colonies had been treated. They had been told that in 1854 they would know the worst, and they had made their arrangements in the hope that no further prejudicial measures would be taken against them. In the very first year afterwards extra duties were imposed upon their produce—duties which, in his opinion, would
1656
make the whole difference between cultivating their estates with profit or abandoning them with loss. He had had the misfortune to succeed to a West India estate of from 2,000 l. to 3,000 l. a year; but for the last few years of his possession it had caused him to be 1,500 l. a year out of pocket. He had become a free trader greatly to his own loss, and he wished to know why hon. Gentlemen opposite had forgotten on the present occasion those free trade principles which for the last ten years they had been inculcating in the Legislature. In a time of peace they had suffered severely from free trade, and he had to protest against inflicting on them in time of war a gross injustice, and a policy which would certainly ruin them.
MR. E. BALLsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was one of the strenuous advocates of free trade, and was so enamoured of that beautiful theory that he was willing to sacrifice his interest of from 2,000 l. to 3,000 l. a year, for which he now paid 1,500 l. He (Mr. E. Ball). had opposed the alteration of those duties, not only on account of the loss which would be entailed on West Indian property by the alteration, but also and chiefly on account of the great impetus which would be given to the slave trade and slavery in Brazil. He wished to know whether the Government intended the increase of duty to apply to all sugars, or only to those of Cuba and Brazil. If only to Cuba and Brazil, the proposal would be an excellent one.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he did not rise to criticise the budget, but only to express his deep regret that there should be a necessity for proposing a duty on sugar, which he believed would have a pernicious effect on the happiness and comfort of the lower classes, He did not mean to deny the existence of the necessity, for he had the greatest confidence in the talents of the right bon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he must express his regret at a necessity which, in a moral point of view, would have most unfavourable results.
MR. WILSONsaid, with respect to the complaints of the hon. and gallant member for St. Ives (Captain Laffan) who appeared as the advocate of Mauritius, he had complained rather of the absence of labour than of the condition of the island. With respect to the sugar colonies in general, perhaps there was no British interest which exhibited a more marked example of rapid

1657
progress than the island of Mauritius. The very complaint of the want of labour was the best evidence of the prosperity which that island enjoyed. It would be satisfactory to the House to know that in 1844, when Mauritius was in the full enjoyment of a protection amounting almost to an exclusion of foreign sugar, its produce was 27,000 tons per annum. In 1848 it bad risen to 44,000 tons, and in 1854, after protective duties had been reduced, the exportation had risen from that amount to 82,000 tons. There was, therefore, a large increase under the influence of free trade and of a competition which increased year by year. With such a large increase he therefore did not wonder that they complained of the want of labour in that island. The Colonial Office would encourage emigration from India in every way consistent with other interests to supply that demand for labour. Now what he had said, with reference to the prosperity, the Mauritius might with truth be said of the whole of the sugar colonies, though perhaps not to the same extent. Taking the British colonies as a whole, he found that in 1844, when these colonies enjoyed protection, they exported 204,000 tons of sugar to this country. Last year this amount was increased to 290,000 tons. The effect of free trade had been greatly to reduce the price of sugar, and as to the proposed increase, it would only increase the price of sugar to the consumer ls. per cwt. as compared with the price last year. It was not the intention of the Government that the increased duty should apply solely to the sugars of Cuba and Brazil, but to sugars of all descriptions.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he had the misfortune, like the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart), to be a West Indian proprietor, and, notwithstanding all the efforts he had made to improve his property, he had found it gradually becoming less valuable since the alterations in the policy of the Government had been carried into effect. It was quite evident that the increase in the duties now proposed would chiefly fall upon the producer, and he could not believe that it would amount to less than ls. per cwt., or 1l. per ton. Upon 160,000 tons of sugar there would consequently be a loss of 160,000 l. a year, and could it be said that the producers were in a position to sustain so serious a loss? He was strongly opposed to supplying the deficiency in our revenue by additional taxes on articles so
1658
much used by the poor as tea, coffee, and sugar. It would be better to cut down the Estimates 2,000,000 l. than to raise that amount by means so objectionable. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wilson) was wrong if he thought that slave-grown sugar had not interfered with free-labour sugar. This country had imported from the West Indian colonies last year 1,600,000 cwt. of sugar, and from Cuba, Porto Rico, Brazil, and other slave-labour countries, 1,700,000 cwt. He believed the proposed increase of the duty would not only tax without any necessity the comforts of the poor, but would also stimulate the production of slave-grown sugar, and inflict a serious injury upon our colonial producers.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he must complain of the policy of indirect taxation, because if the demand for manufactures was restricted abroad, the means of paying the taxes in this country would be diminished. He agreed that the addition of one per cent. to the income tax, which would produce the amount, would be preferable to this proposition, and he trusted that the House would not sanction the absurdity of resorting to a principle which had over and over again been condemned.
Resolution agreed to, as were also the remaining Resolutions.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. COWANsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move certain clauses and amendments, with the view of repealing the restrictions and limitations with respect to the number of sheets of paper, and the dimensions of the letter-press, whether of newspapers or periodical publications, imposed by the Acts now in force; and, also, for providing for the conveyance through the Post Office not only of newspapers, but of all printed matter, at the rate of one halfpenny for each transmission for every two ounces or portion of two ounces carried, or at such rates as would duly remunerate the Post Office for the service performed. It would perhaps be convenient to the House, therefore, if he took that opportunity of explaining the nature of the amendments he proposed to submit to the Committee. He had been fur many years connected, in the way of business, with the newspaper press, and had supplied many newspaper proprietors with paper and with stamped sheets. He had considered it his duty to vote for the

1659
second reading of this Bill, but he had not done so without reluctance, because he was very unwilling to sacrifice a revenue of 200,000 l. a year in times like the present, when it was most important to husband the resources of the country. He thought, however, that when the Government did not, or at all events could not enforce the existing law, a change was imperative, and he supported the second reading of the Bill in the belief that, eventually, the revenue would not suffer to any extent, if at all, from the alteration which was proposed. He had looked through the various Acts of Parliament which for many years, up to 1825, had regulated newspaper stamps, and he thought they bore evidence of the disposition of the Legislature from the time of Queen Anne, to hamper and restrict newspaper proprietors. Previously to 1825 no newspaper could be legally published of larger dimensions than twenty-two inches by thirty-two inches—a size much smaller than that of the evening London journals at the present time. At that time the weight of a newspaper did not exceed 1½oz., and the stamp duty was 4d. on each paper less 20 per cent. The stamp duty was afterwards reduced to ld., without any restriction as to the size of newspapers; but by an Act of Parliament subsequently passed a limitation was imposed upon their size. It appeared to him that, in 1836, the Government of that time had no idea what would be the result of the introduction of steam printing machines and railways in bringing on the present fix which they were in. There was no reason why the law of 1836 should have been accompanied with such an endless quantity of restrictions as to stamps, weight, and size. The effect of that law was to throw on the Post Office an enormous quantity of work, which it could not have sustained without the railways, He thought this was a fitting opportunity to consider whether the postage law should not be so altered as to make the carriage remunerative at lower rates, and the object of his proposition was to enable newspapers to pass through the post at the rate of one halfpenny for every two ounces. He considered that, unless such a system were adopted, the country newspaper proprietors would be subjected to very great hardship, for many of them would have to reduce the price of their journals to 2d. He had seen "specimen" newspapers, which were published day by day at the price of 1d.,and. being to all intents and purposes
1660
newspapers, so long as the present law remained in force they were unquestionably illegal. He held in his hand a newspaper which was issued every day at the price of a penny, and he considered that it was most unjust to existing newspapers that such publications should be allowed. The hon. Member handed the paper to which he referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who observed that it was a "specimen" number. He was aware it was a "specimen" number; but these "specimen" numbers were published day after day. He understood that there was an indisposition on the part of the Government to reduce the duty below ld., but although 1d. might not be a high charge for a newspaper which weighed four ounces, and the cost of which was 5d., it would amount in the case of such specimens as those to which he had directed the attention of the House to a charge of 100 per cent. He thought the country owed much to the newspaper press for its contribution to the information and enjoyment of the people during the last twenty or thirty years. The press had become a great educational institute, and he was most anxious that the humble classes of society should have the means of procuring newspapers at a moderate price. He did not see the necessity of making a distinction between newspapers and other periodical publications, but thought they ought all to be classed under the same category, and he could assure the House that in making these suggestions he was animated not by a spirit of opposition to the Government, but by a desire to make the Bill generally acceptable. He did not wish to press his proposition unduly, but he trusted that the Government would give it every favourable consideration.
MR. BARROWsaid, he regretted extremely to find that the Government did not accede to the substitution of a halfpenny stamp in return for the privilege of passing newspapers through the Post Office. In his opinion, this was a most serious question, affecting, as it did, the educated classes of the country, to whom the reading of the current news had become a necessity. The hardship inflicted by the Bill in its present state would fall more particularly upon constituencies such as he represented, and would scarcely be felt in large towns, to which unstamped papers would be brought by railways. But it would operate most unfairly to the proprietors of newspapers published in country districts which must depend mainly

1661
for their circulation in the rural districts upon the facilities afforded by the Post Office, and he therefore hoped the Government would take into their serious consideration the propriety of reducing the tax on that class of the community to a halfpenny, because, if they did not, he was certain they would destroy much of the good anticipated by the supporters of the measure—namely, that all classes, and particularly the lower classes, of the community should participate in the intellectual advantage and amusement of reading the newspapers. It must be remembered that persons living in country districts derived their whole supply of newspapers through the post, and from those local newspaper proprietors whose capital could ill afford an extreme pressure upon it. As far as the question of revenue was concerned, he believed they would rather gain than lose by reducing the postal charge to a halfpenny, for, if they did not do so, private enterprise would soon compete with the Post Office in rural districts, and the revenue from this source might be entirely lost.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2,
MR. COLLIERsaid, that the Amendment of which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had given notice having been withdrawn, he would venture to suggest some alterations in this clause, which he thought would embody the propositions of his hon. Friend. He would therefore propose that, instead of a stamp of a penny, which was imposed by this clause as the charge for postal conveyance, a halfpenny stamp should be substituted, and that such stamp should be imposed for each transmission by post, which he thought would be the fair and equitable manner of settling this question. He did not put this proposition entirely upon financial grounds, but upon the higher considerations of the duty they owed to the country to promote the cause of education, and it was therefore of the greatest possible importance that the best class of newspapers should be allowed the greatest possible facilities for circulation. Any tax restricting the transmission of knowledge was essentially a tax upon knowledge itself, and therefore it was with some confidence that he expected the support of those who had so long agitated for the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, in favour of his proposition fur the reduction of the tax upon
1662
the conveyance of this most important species of knowledge to a halfpenny. There was another reason for pressing this Amendment. At present the London papers were upon the same footing as those in the provinces, a duty of a penny was imposed upon the transmission of all the London papers, being at the rate of 25 per cent upon those published at fourpence, 33 per cent on threepenny papers, and so on, which would operate materially as a protective duty on the lower class of provincial papers as against those published in London; but, if the Bill passed as it now stood, a low class of provincial papers would spring up, which, to some extent, would be nothing less than piratical publications from the London press. They all knew the enormous expense with which some of the London papers were conducted—they had an opportunity of reading the early and important news received by their means from the seat of war, they knew the high literary character of their articles, and they remembered the eulogium passed upon one of those papers by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton), who had declared that if he desired to leave to remote posterity some memorial of existing British civilisation he would appeal to a file of The Times newspaper. It seemed to him (Mr. Collier) that the imposition of a penny would be a protective duty, and that while it would materially diminish the circulation of London newspapers it would unduly increase provincial ones of a low class. He would not go into detail respecting the question of revenue, but merely refer the House to an able paper drawn up by a deputation which lately waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which gave very satisfactory reasons for supposing that, in all probability, the reduction of the postal charge to a halfpenny would improve it. In that document an opinion was attributed to Mr. Rowland Hill, to the effect that, with a redaction of the stamp duty and the continuance of a high rate of postage, not half the present number of newspapers would be circulated through the post. That was an additional reason fur reducing it to a halfpenny, for he must say that he viewed with apprehension a decree of the circulation of the London papers throughout the country to the extent of half their present number. Such a question was beyond financial considerations; but, if Mr. Rowland Hill's opinion were correct, there was every reason to suppose that if a halfpenny stamp were

1663
substituted an increase in the revenue would result. The Post Office, he felt confident, would not be able to compete with the railways if they retained the penny stamp, for he was informed that at present seven impressions of The Times were carried by railway for one penny, and that a large number of the Leeds Mercury, containing seventy or eighty pages, were conveyed a distance of thirty two miles through the district for the like sum. There could be no doubt, therefore, that as a mere question of competition the railways could beat the Post Office. His Motion would be to vary the clause by inserting a provision to the effect that every periodical publication specified, stamped with a halfpenny stamp, or having such stamp affixed to it, should be allowed to pass once through the Post Office, and that every such additional stamp should entitle it to retransmission, subject to the provisions of the Act. That would leave the question of the weight and size of the publication so allowed to be transmitted open for further consideration.
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to explain that it was not competent for him to propose his Amendment before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. It was his wish, if possible, to have elicited some expression of opinion from the Government favourable to his views, but he had not yet succeeded in doing so. He knew that there were great difficulties in carrying out a measure like this, in connection with the Post Office, and he should be unwilling to take any course by which the Post Office would be forced to adopt a measure which would cause inconvenience. He still hoped to hear some assurance from the Government that they entertained a favourable opinion of his proposal. In the meantime he would support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the question immediately before the Committee was whether, in sending a newspaper through the Post Office, the stamp should be a penny or a halfpenny? and there was a further question, whether the postage charged, whatever it might be, should send a newspaper through the post once only or several times? Now as to the latter question, affecting the retransmission of newspapers, he apprehended there was some little collision between what ought to be done in deference to existing interests, and what should be done on the principles of abstract right. He never
1664
could see on what ground of abstract right it was that a letter of half an ounce with a penny stamp went through the Post Office only once while a newspaper with a stamp of the same value might go an indefinite number of times. If Parliament were dealing with this question de novo he should have no hesitation in saying that this right of retransmission was one that could not be maintained; but they had to deal with interests that had grown up under the law, and looking at the matter in this light, even the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway (Mr. Gladstone), whose measure was more stringent than the present, proposed to retain the right of retransmission for a considerable period. If it was proposed to do away with that right at once and without previous notice, he thought it would be a departure from the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceedings and be productive of injury to interests created under the law, and a greater evil than the Legislature would be morally justified in inflicting. The proposal now was, that the price of transmission should be not a tax, but a postage stamp, and the question now before the Committee was whether that stamp should be a penny or a halfpenny. That question had not been raised till that evening in the House, but they were all more or less familiar with it by means of information which had been very industriously circulated. He believed it would be admitted that there was no wish to make revenue out of this carriage of newspapers; but, on the other hand, the newspaper interest had no right to ask that their productions should be carried at less than cost price. It should be as near as possible an equal bargain between the parties, by which neither the revenue on the one hand, nor the newspapers on the other, should gain. If the House of Commons once laid down that principle, the question would become one wholly of detail, and rather a question for the Post Office department than for the House to settle. He believed it was the opinion of the Post Office that a halfpenny would not be sufficient to cover the expenses of transmission. Whether that was so or not, there were some in the House better able to say than he was; but he begged to say a word or two as to the risk of the Post Office being undersold by private means. That risk did not weigh very much with him. The House must calculate on an enormous increase in the number of newspapers, which

1665
would throw an additional burden upon the Post Office. It was already found that in some places the increase of weight in the carriage of newspapers had been such as to cause considerable inconvenience to the local post. He did not know that there could be any object in attempting to prevent newspapers being carried by private parties. There was something to be looked at on both sides; but it was, in his opinion, a question which very much depended on what the Post Office Department might think would be a remunerative price. He believed a halfpenny would be below that price, and therefore he would support the proposition in the Bill for a penny. If the Committee were to carry out the intention of the hon. and learned Member—if 50z. or 60z. of printed matter were to be carried for a halfpenny—it would be difficult to maintain the discrepancy which would then exist between those two articles to which he had a short time since alluded—namely manuscript letters and printed matter. The difference was one for which he could see no fair ground or justification. He thought the House ought to avoid making unnecessary alterations; and, unless they were to have a different opinion from the Postmaster-General, he thought the penny stamp proposed in the Bill should be adhered to. For the present only, he would be prepared to continue the privilege of retransmission, but he could not conceal from himself that sooner or later it would have to be done away with.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must beg to recall the attention of the Committee to the origin of the Bill now before them. The Bill originated in difficulty which arose in enforcing the compulsory stamp. It was found that the law was ambiguous, and some inconvenience had arisen in the practical-administration of it. A Resolution was passed by the House last year condemnatory of the stamp, but not adverting to the pecuniary amount of the stamp, and in the present Session a Bill was introduced by the right hon. gentleman his predecessor, dealing with the question. The object of that Bill was to remove the compulsory stamp; and the Bill now under the consideration of the Committee was founded on identically the same principle. It was limited to the removal of the practical difficulty that had arisen in the enforcement of the stamp on all newspapers, and the wish of the Government was to
1666
make no further alteration than was absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of that limited object. They did not ask to lower the rate of the duty, but keep it exactly as it was, at the rate of a penny for a sheet of a certain size. The great objection taken to the measure on the second reading was, that it would endanger a large amount of revenue at a time when the expenditure of the country exceeded its income. It was then shown that the sacrifice of revenue, though considerable, would be met in the financial scheme of the year; and, accordingly, in the statement which he submitted on Friday an Estimate was made allowing for the deficiency of revenue in consequence of the change which it was proposed should take place. Since the second reading of the Bill—when they were told that so much depended on the maintenance of the stamp —a further question had been raised, namely, the reduction of the penny stamp to a halfpenny, and it was argued that this would be attended with no diminution, but rather with an increase of the revenue. Now, it certainly was possible that the sanguine calculations of the promoters of that plan might be realized; but, at the same time, they were founded on most uncertain data, and, therefore, the Government were not prepared to run the risk that would attend such a reduction of the duty, but felt themselves bound to adhere to the original proposition which they had made. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) in proposing his amendment, had involved himself in a difficulty which arose out of the change be advocated. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed both to retain the impressed stamp and to introduce a postage stamp. If the impressed stamp were retained it would be difficult to prevent the re-transmission of newspapers with the impressed stamp through the post, without imposing upon the Post Office the trouble of examining every newspaper and obliterating the stamp. If they were creating a system for the first time, unquestionably the most convenient plan would be not to have the impressed stamp at all, but to make the transmission of newspapers through the post depend on a postage stamp, the weight of each newspaper being at the same time limited. If the hon. and learned Member introduced a postage stamp, it became necessary to impose a limit of weight; and then immediately arose the difficult question of how to re-

1667
concile the weight for newspapers with the present limit of superficial inches. The limit retained in the Bill was wholly independent of limited weight, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced a limit of weight to bear some proportion to the superficial limit, it would be the means of producing great confusion and difficulty at the Post Office. On these grounds, combined with the uncertainty of the halfpenny stamp producing the amount of revenue anticipated, he must oppose the proposed amendment.
MR. MONCKT ON MILNESsaid, he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since he admitted the principle of diminishing the revenue for an educational purpose, would consent to diminish it a little more, if necessary, for the purpose of obtaining the educational advantages likely to result from the proposed amendment. Great weight was due to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) that the retransmission through the post of the London newspapers, conducted, as they were, with such great ability and containing matter of such great educational importance, should be in every way encouraged. He believed that the law of the United States at the present moment established a differential postage on the transmission of newspapers within certain limits, and the result was that the transmission over the United States of newspapers, conducted with very great ability and at great expense, was prevented, and encouragement to an infinite extent was given to smaller and less carefully conducted newspapers. It was a singular fact that the great agitation on this matter came from the proprietors of provincial newspapers, who thought that they would be benefited by the proposed amendment, and there could be no doubt that the great London newspapers would also be benefited by it. He believed that the advantage of the transmission of such a newspaper as The Times at the smallest possible expense could not be overrated. They all had in London the opportunity of having on their breakfast table such papers, conducted with an intellectual power which might compete with that necessary for the highest productions of literature, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer by any means in his power, even at a small additional sacrifice to the revenue, promoted their larger circulation, he would be serving both the literature and the education of the coun-
1668
try. He believed that the practical difficulties of the proposition had been overrated, and he conceived that retransmission by post would not take place except in cases where the newspaper contained something of sufficient interest to create a great demand for it. Therefore, even if there were a temporary loss to the revenue, in that respect the advantage to the country would be very great.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) that the question of retransmission must be dealt with within certain limits and upon grounds which were already established. The privilege of retransmission had reference to the fixed habits of the community, and to part with it suddenly would be an inconvenience; but the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was so much enamoured with retransmission that he strongly insisted upon its merits. He proposed to give the London newspaper, in some shape or other, an extraordinary right, which smacked very much of their old friend Protection; but he, for one, thought the superior article ought to stand upon its own merits. But if the hon. Gentleman was so much in favour of retransmission, he ought upon that very ground not to vote for the Amendment, but to support the Bill as it stood, because the Amendment virtually proposed to abolish the privilege of retransmission, while the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to retain it. With respect to the question of price, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn that it ought to rest entirely with the Executive to determine it; but, said the hon. Member who last addressed them, "You have for educational purposes consented to a diminution of the tax, and it is no very great matter if you consent to a further diminution." But that was not the question before the Committee. True, it was agreed on all hands that no profit should be expected from this source of revenue, but the question was not whether the State should be saddled with a perpetual service for the benefit of that portion of the community who printed and who read newspapers. If they did what the Amendment proposed, it would be practically subsidising the transmission of newspapers at the expense of the State, which was bad in principle; but in his opinion it was totally unnecessary. He knew no reason in the world why literature at large might not claim such a pri-

1669
vilege just as well as newspapers; but the real question to be determined was, what was the lowest charge at which the State could undertake the transmission of newspapers without incurring loss. Of course, between large towns newspapers could be transmitted in parcels by railway cheaper than by post, but it was not fair to treat this as a question of competition between the Post Office and private companies. Private companies were at liberty to make such arrangements as best suited their own convenience; they could reject or transmit just as they pleased; but it was quite different with the Post Office, because it had no alternative but to carry for everybody at a fixed scale of charge. The consequence would be then, if the Amendment were adopted, that the railways would carry newspapers in bulk, while the Post Office would have to perform the worst and most unprofitable part of the transmission service. Now, could the Post Office undertake for a halfpenny to perform the most difficult and the most unprofitable portion of the transport, such as carrying newspapers to the greatest distance or into remote and unfrequented quarters? That was a question very much for the Government themselves to determine, but his conviction was that the service could not be performed for a halfpenny. It was easy to say that the loss would be small between a halfpenny and the cost of transport, which might be three farthings; but the loss became no small matter when they came to multiply the farthing by 90,000,000, or by the still larger figures which an increased number of newspapers must necessarily occasion. An average charge must therefore be fixed in reference to that circumstance, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing all the facts, stated that he could not undertake to perform the service for the remuneration which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) desired to establish. He had himself considered the question as well as he could, and his conviction was that this rate of a halfpenny would entail on the Post Office a very heavy cost for the benefit of the publishers and readers of newspapers. He had been told that, with the charge made for the early trains from London to Liverpool and Manchester, it did not pay to send down the advertising sheet of The Times, and that, while the sheet containing the news was forwarded by the six o'clock train, the advertising sheet was actually retained in London to go by the Post Office train at
1670
ten o'clock; so great was the necessity for economising the expense of transport in order to make this early delivery pay. Neither was it found, he believed, that the extra charge made by those who undertook to deliver those newspapers in the towns was ever less than 1d. It was difficult, however, to get at any precise data with regard to these matters, and for that reason they were not justified now in going below the ld. charge. They ought carefully to examine the ground as they went, and not enter blindly on a course in which, if unsuccessful, they could not retrace their steps. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would leave it to the Government to look into the subject, to see if they could carry newspapers and other printed matter at a less charge than 1d., and not consent now to burden the State with a heavy charge for a purpose which it was generally felt was not perfectly legitimate or fair towards all classes of the community.
MR. BARROWsaid, he did not think it was likely that the Post Office would lose by the transmission of newspapers at a halfpenny, for he was informed that in America a newspaper could travel 3,000 miles for one cent, and certainly they were not the people in America to allow the Post Office to be worked at a loss. The difficulty anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the retransmission would be easily obviated by requiring that the direction should be written across the stamp, or that it should be obliterated in the same way as letter stamps now were; and that when the newspaper was transmitted a second time, a second stamp should be affixed, to be obliterated in like manner, and that, in the absence of such second stamp, a retransmitted newspaper should be charged 1d. Neither did he share in the anticipations which had been expressed as to the labour and expense to which the Post Office would be put in delivering newspapers in thinly populated districts; for, of course, they would not be obliged to deliver newspapers except in the districts where they were now obliged to deliver letters.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he apprehended that the proposition to which the Committee was now asked by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth to accede to was, that the State should undertake to carry periodical publications of any size or any weight for a halfpenny.
MR. BARROW: The right hon. Gen-

1671
tleman must remember that they were limited in their superfices.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that was not the proposition. As he understood the Amendment, the Post Office was to be required to carry all newspapers or periodical publications without limitation of size or weight. [Mr. COLLIER said, that would be a matter for future consideration.] A periodical publication was to be carried for a halfpenny, whatever its weight, but a pamphlet would have to be weighed like a letter, and to contribute probably 3d., 4d., or 6d. for every transmission. Suppose, for instance, that he were slandered by a periodical publication, was it right that that publication, whatever its size or weight, should be transmitted through the country for a halfpenny, while the printed answer which he might make to that slander, because it was only an occasional publication, would be charged 3d. or 4d. every time it was transmitted through the post? Therefore, before he could consent to allow these periodical publications to be transmitted for a halfpenny, he must have a clear understanding whether occasional publications of the same weight would be transmitted at the same rate of postage. Justice in competition was quite as important as any other consideration. At the present time pamphlets were being published to defend the characters of Lord Raglan and Sir John Burgoyne against the attacks of the periodical press; but, while the periodical press could circulate and retransmit their attacks without any additional charge for postage, except the original newspaper stamp of ld., the answers to them, on the contrary, had to pay postage according to letter weight at each transmission. If that were to be the practice, it was not likely that Lord Raglan, as the noble Lord the Member for London had predicted of him, "would rise superior to the slanders of a ribald press;" on the contrary, what he would require would be to be put on a fair footing with it. He should oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, because he saw that it was merely meant to confer a privilege on a certain class of publications, and that it would not have been asked for had it been quite clear to the applicants that it was to be extended to all publications. It was an attempt to establish for the future a postal privilege in place of the advantages which it was erroneously supposed newspapers had enjoyed under the operation of a compulsory stamp.
1672
Knowing that this postal charge could be at any time reduced by a Treasury Order if the Government should think fit so to do, or if the newspaper proprietors could persuade them that it could be done with advantage, he should certainly oppose the introduction of this Amendment into the Bill.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he hoped the Committees would not consent to try any experiments with the Post Office until they had before them a complete and clear balance-sheet of the profit and loss of the Post Office service. It was stated that the gain in this department was, for the last year, 16,538 l.; but this did not include the expense of the packet service. In the absence of a clear statement of the expense of the packet service, there would be a general delusion with regard to the clear income derivable from the Post Office. In the statement of the actual income of 1854–55 the Post Office revenue appears as 1,276,000 l. This sum does not include the expense of the packet service, which, according to a Parliamentary paper just delivered, amounts to 812,826 l. This does not prove a deficiency, but a very considerable difference between real and imaginary revenue. Persons who have examined the matter carefully are of opinion that if the expense of the packet service had been clearly brought into the account in several years past the Post Office accounts would have presented an actual deficiency.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 3.
Clause 4,
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that by Clause 2 of the Bill they subjected periodicals to the same regulations as newspapers, and by Clause 3 those periodicals would be entitled to transmission by post. Clause 4 provided that newspapers should be registered. There was, however, some doubt whether Clauses 4, 5, and 6, were obligatory or not upon all newspapers. If they were not, this inconsistency would exist—that whereas periodical publications would be assimilated to newspapers, and stamped newspapers must register and give security under 6 & 7 Will. IV.; on the other hand, newspapers that were not stamped would not be required to be registered, unless the publishers thought fit. Now, what he wanted to know was this—why should stamped newspapers be subjected to compulsory registration and unstamped newspapers be exempted from this condition?

1673
That point, be it observed, bad nothing whatever to do with the vexed question as to the definition of a newspaper. The respectable journals which paid the stamp duty were to be subject to the wise and wholesome law that compelled them to declare who were their proprietors, in order that any person whom they libelled might know who was the responsible individual against whom he should proceed to obtain redress, and why, therefore, should those publishers who did not pay this tax, and who might overwhelm the country with penny and halfpenny publications slandering everybody, be wholly released from this salutary restraint, and be, in fact, afforded facilities for the circulation of wholesale libels? It was clear that the wording of the clause required alteration, as there should be but one law applying to all newspapers alike, whether stamped or unstamped, for the purpose of adequately protecting the community.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was perfectly competent for the Committee to make the alteration which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) proposed; but, if that were done, the object in view must be enforced by penalties, and this measure had been drawn so as to avoid all imposition of penalties. The 7th clause gave the Board of Inland Revenue power to issue stamps, and if any newspaper or periodical desired to enjoy the privilege of transmission by post for 1d. it must apply to them in order to be stamped. On this privilege being granted to them, the publishers must comply with the clauses respecting registration and securities. In fact, therefore, the operation of these clauses would be contingent on the receipt of stamps, because the delivery of stamps would be made conditional on compliance with these regulations. The reason why the Bill had been drawn in this manner was, that it was thought every periodical publication or newspaper enjoying any circulation of the least consideration or extent would, for its own interest and the convenience of its customers, apply for the stamping of a portion of its impression, thus voluntarily bringing itself within the scope and operation of these clauses. It was, however, conceivable that a certain number of obscure and unimportant newspapers and periodicals of extremely limited circulation might contrive to exist for a time without stamping any portion of their impression for the sake
1674
of the postal facilities which accompanied that process; but that was a very improbable contingency, and there could he little doubt that the Bill as it stood would practically, and without the enforcement of penalties, insure compliance by all newspapers worthy of mention with that system of registration and securities which protected, not the Government or public authorities only, but private individuals, against libellous and slanderous attacks upon character. If, however, it should be thought desirable to insist by means of penalties upon registration, and the giving of securities on the part of all periodical publications without exception, it would be competent for the House to give that extension to the measure; but Her Majesty's Government did not propose to make these provisions compulsory.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had prepared a proviso to be added to the clause, if the Committee thought fit, requiring all newspapers, though unstamped, to register and give security under a penalty of 20 l.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, that this Bill would release from the operation of the existing law of registration such publications as did not choose to avail themselves of the postal regulation. It would also sweep away another valuable protection provided by the existing law, which required securities to be given by responsible persons, so that persons who might have to bring actions for slander against newspaper proprietors might not find that they had been proceeding against mere "men of straw." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the respectable papers would apply to be stamped, and thus become subject to these wholesome conditions; but he should remember that there was no necessary connection between a mere postal regulation and the registration of publications; and the existing law treated the two things, which rested upon entirely different grounds, as perfectly distinct. The fear of mischief from libellous publications was not so slight as the right hon. Gentleman would have them believe because it might suit the interest of persons to circulate them in large towns, where they would not care for postal privileges. On what principle, then, could they maintain the existing law against the respectable newspapers, which would least require the check it imposed, while the less respectable class of publications, which would most need the restraint of such a law, would be

1675
wholly exempted from its operation, and left to enjoy unrestricted license?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member would observe that the Act to which he referred was limited only to newspapers, and did not apply to all periodicals. Now, the Bill under consideration applied to all periodical publications published within thirty-one days; the hon. and learned Member by his proposal would, however, extend the regulations of this Act to periodical publications not comprised within the original Act. There were a great many publications at a halfpenny and a penny supported by religious societies, which had a large circulation amongst the lower classes; these papers were not transmitted by post, but in monthly parcels, and he did not apprehend that if this Bill passed these publications would seek to avail themselves of the postal privilege, and it would be very hard to bring them under the regulation of a law which was not originally intended to apply to them. By limiting the registration of publications to the cases of those persons who voluntarily sought to avail themselves of the postal privilege the House would apply the Act to all newspapers of importance, and, by the spontaneous operation of the Act, would exempt from it these periodical publications to which it was not intended to apply.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, that at present all newspapers must be registered, and give security to answer for libels; but the effect of the present Bill would be to enable parties to publish newspapers without availing themselves of the postal regulations, and then they would not be under the necessity of registering and finding security.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that some hon. Members thought that, because they voted for compulsory registration, they therefore voted for security being given in case of libel, but he did not think so, and was of opinion that the securities required were nugatory as a protection, and simply vexatious to those who had to give them. He wished to draw the distinction between unnecessary security and that which was alone contemplated by the Bill, namely, registration, which simply meant that every person issuing a periodical publication should make a declaration, stating the name of the proprietor. There was nothing in this which could be called an annoyance or a hardship, and he was in favour of the compulsory registration, if
1676
necessary, of all periodical publications, but protested against carrying with it that which had nothing to do with it, namely, the question of securities.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would beg to move, as an Amendment, that the following words should be inserted in the clause—
"And be it enacted that, after the publishing of this Act, the proprietors of every newspaper or periodical publication shall make and deliver," &c.
The insertion of these words was rendered necessary by the terms of the clause as it at present stood, as by it the registration of all periodicals was not required.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Member by what machinery he proposed to carry into effect his proposition that every person who published a periodical should register it? They would be obliged, if his Amendment became law, to have officers to go round the country to compel publishers to register. He did not think it would bp possible to enforce a general registration without having new machinery, which would be of a vexatious and troublesome character. He believed that registration under the existing Act was entirely neglected, and that if even stamped newspapers were required to comply with all the provisions of the clause requiring registration, the Board of Inland Revenue would have little else to do. He was in favour of tracing authorship, and of bringing home to every responsible person the publication of a calumny, but there was at present a law in force which effected this, as it required that to every paper should be affixed the place of abode and name of the printer, who was obliged, under the Act, to keep a record of his employers, and this he was compelled to produce under order of a justice of the peace. They therefore, he considered, had a sufficient remedy for the evil apprehended, and this attempt to enforce registration was consequently unnecessary.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that no difficulty as to machinery to enforce registration would arise, as under the Act of the 6 & 7 Wm. IV., quoted in the Bill before the Committee, this was fully provided for. He objected to the argument used by the right hon. Member who had just addressed them, that because certain persons broke the law which was not enforced. therefore the law should be abolished. The right hon. Member had expressed a strong desire to trace the authorship of libels; but

1677
how could this be done unless registration; was enforced? If, as the right hon. Member had stated, cheap papers were to spring up on all sides, conducted by men of surprising ability, who would crush the present papers—the old monopolists—he thought, at least, that they ought to be afforded a chance of knowing those who crushed them.
MR. WARNERsaid, he thought it was admitted that there was something wrong in the present system of registration; but this, in his opinion, would be rendered much worse by the present clause. Some such amendment as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) was called for; but he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member as to the propriety of enforcing registration by the cumbrous machinery referred to.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was in the unfortunate predicament of disliking both the Proposal of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Amemnent of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen. They had opposite characteristics and opposite merits. He admitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal was, in his opinion, more consistent with the uniformity of principle which that House ought to observe in its proceedings than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he objected to it because the principle upon which it was founded was a wrong one. The hon. and learned Gentleman required that all periodical publications should be registered, and that certain declarations should be made in regard to them. But what security would be gained by that registration which was not gained by the present law requiring the printer's name to be upon the publication? He had listened in vain for an indication of any such security or practical advantage. It might be true that in cases of libel the publication of the printer's name did not point out the real libeller, but it would be quite as true with respect to any name which might be registered. It appeared to him that the only effect of the Amendment would be to impose unnecessary trouble and vexation upon many persons, and he should therefore say "No" to it. He must also say "No" to the right hon. Gentleman's clause, because it was irrational, and one part of it was not consistent with the other. The present law requiring the registration of all
1678
publications which contained discussions upon public affairs was intelligible, and was intended to guard against a particular danger, but his right hon. Friend abandoned that law, and said that his Bill would be effectual in obtaining registration and securities from all respectable periodicals, while non-respectable periodicals would escape. He should have thought that non-respectable periodicals alone were those upon which it was necessary to impose restrictions, and his right hon. Friend, therefore, in one sense included too little, and in another sense too much. The present law took no cognisance of periodicals, but an abusive practice had grown up whereby proprietors of periodicals, not being newspapers, declared them to be newspapers, in order to obtain postal privileges. That absurd anomaly—in some cases it might be called a falsehood—his right hon. Friend was going to adopt and to erect into a principle, by requiring that the proprietors of all periodicals which desired postal privileges, whether newspapers or not, whether they discussed public affairs or not, should register and give securities. He thought the House of Commons ought not to make regulations of that kind, in which it was impossible to trace a reason or a principle. His right hon. Friend's clause would include a vast number of periodicals to which the law of registration and security was never intended to apply; it would include those which it was not important to include, and not those which ought to be included. He was consequently unwilling to be the means of importing so irrational a proposition into the statute book, and should therefore vote against it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would not attempt to answer the right hon. Gentleman's objections to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he thought that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) was both rational and consistent. Let them see what was the principle involved in that Amendment, and what were the difficulties in the way of its application to practice. The press enjoyed a very great liberty and exercised a very great power; he did not grudge it that liberty and that power, but they had a right to exact from it the responsibility which ought to be the condition upon which all power should be exercised. Now, what was the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend? His hon and learned Friend proposed that the

1679
system of registration which at present partially existed, and which the Government proposed to maintain, should be general instead of partial in its application. That system of registration was connected with no vexatious conditions whatever. All it sought was that the persons who exercised the great power which must be vested in those who conducted the public press in this country should be responsible for the manner in which they exercised it, that society should know who were responsible for the opinions which the press expressed upon public questions, for the criticisms which it offered upon the conduct of public men, and that the power which influenced opinions should be brought to the bar of that opinion which it attempted to regulate. He supposed no gentleman could think such a proposition irrational, or not calculated to be beneficial to the country. But the right hon. Gentleman said that society, by the present law, had that means of redress to which it was entitled, as no publication could be produced unless the printer's name was affixed to it. Every one, however, knew very well that a publication might appear and exercise a great influence affecting the character of an individual, affecting even the course of events at a critical moment, which bore the name, as printer, of an individual who did not even exist. The required effect might be produced in a few hours, or in one hour, by a pamphlet or placard to which an imaginary name was attached, while those who were injured by it had no security or redress. The new law would require the registration of the name of the proprietor of a journal, not names of the authors of articles which appeared in it, nor that of a mere man of straw, but the name of a person whose station was such that redress might be obtained from him by those whom the journal might have injured. He therefore thought that the two right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Gibson) had not made any sufficient objections to his hon. and learned Friend's proposal, which was founded upon a broad principle of justice and fairness, requiring that the public should have a simple mode of obtaining redress when they had received an injury. If the principle upon which the proposal was founded were right, was the application of it to practice difficult? He was not called upon in vindicating a principle immediately to find means by which it could be put into practice; but he did not think, judging from our past expe-
1680
rience, that the difficulties in the way of doing so were so great as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) had shown that by the present law the humblest proprietor or publisher could without any great trouble or vexation be made responsible to society. The proprietor and publisher had nothing to do but to make the local authority acquainted with his purpose, so that if he offended, society might have the redress to which it was entitled. He hoped the Committee would feel that his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment tended to secure the enjoyment of the liberty of the press.
MR. DRUMMOND: Sir, it is said that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen will catch some newspapers that do not want to be caught, and others it is not wanted to catch. Sir, I know a newspaper which wanted to be caught. The right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has spoken of the "liberty of the press." That has been long spoken of. It has been said that it must be "free as the air we breathe; take it away, we die." But, Sir, what is "the liberty of the press?" It is the liberty of a certain number of persons to slander anonymously whomever they please, against whom you have no redress. It is freedom to the anonymous libeller, and slavery to all the rest. The only way to meet this is to prohibit any person from publishing anything anonymously, periodically, or otherwise. Sir, no honest man is ashamed of the sentiments he expresses. You talk in this country, more than in any other, of your "love of fair play," "meeting a man face to face, and a good standup fight," &c. Why, where is the fair play of these anonymous libellers? You have—you know it well—a fear of moral assassination. You long to punish the evil-doers, and you are afraid to do so. You know that the only way to do it effectually is to force them to give their names as they do in France. Two years ago it was very much the fashion of Gentlemen on this side to speak of France as a great model. Well, let us imitate France, at all events, in this respect. They have found out a way in France to prevent persons from publishing without putting their names to what they publish. And the law advisers of the Crown could, with a very little exercise of ingenuity, I apprehend, devise a way of securing the same object in this country. As it is,

1681
Sir, it is a mere moral Thugge, and I hope means will be found for suppressing this great moral nuisance.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his belief was that the clause would be found practically to work without material inconvenience, and that all those newspapers whose circulation was considerable, and whose influence therefore was felt over a wide circuit of the country, would be drawn into it. He would admit, however, that the effect of the Bill as it was now drawn, while it removed the objection that a false declaration must be made, as now, by persons publishing circulars and periodicals of that kind, and who now enjoyed the benefit of the stamp by making what was, in fact, a false declaration that they published a newspaper —while that would be removed by the Bill as it now stood, at the same time it would introduce another anomaly, namely, that it would subject that class of publications to registration. He had no objection, after the opinions he had heard expressed, if the Committee should prefer it, to postpone the clause relating to registration and securities, and to attempt to limit them to newspapers. The effect of that would be to make this Bill conform more exactly to the object of the original Acts, to except periodical publications generally, and to retain the word "newspaper" in the Bill which it had been an object to omit, on account of the difficulty of putting a precise legal construction upon it. However, he believed, a legal construction could be put upon the word "newspaper," and if the Committee would go on with the remaining clauses, he would consider this clause, and endeavour to give it that effect.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped in the year 1855, it would not be thought necessary for the safety of our institutions and of private character to put restraints upon the publication of opinion. Both with respect to suretyship and registration the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might save himself trouble by enforcing the law as it now stood. The Act of Parliament was passed by the late Lord Castlereagh, and was called one of the Six Acts. The preamble stated that—
"Whereas many papers containing observations upon Public Acts tending to excite the hatred of the public to the constitution of this realm, and also vilifying our holy religion, have lately been published in great numbers, and at a very small price, and it is expedient that the same should be restrained."
It then went on to enact that every person
1682
printing or publishing any newspaper or any pamphlet (let hon. Members of that House who wrote pamphlets, but who never gave any security, observe that), or other paper containing any public intelligence or occurrence, or any remarks or observations thereon, or upon any matter in Church or State, which should not exceed two sheets, that is 714 square inches, or should be published for sale at a less price than 6d. until lie had entered into a recognisance before a Baron of the Exchequer, and found two sufficient securities in 400 l. in London, and 200 l. in the country, to be answerable for any blasphemous or seditious libel, should be subject to a penalty of 20 l. And by an Act of William IV. this was extended to private libel. It was under this Act of 60th Geo. III., c. 9., that securities were now taken, and not under the Newspaper Act; and therefore he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would not repeal the 60th Geo. III., c. 9. If he would not repeal it, he asked him, above all, as a Minister of the Crown, to do his duty, and to take care that Members of the Government did not violate the law themselves. There never was so flagrant a violation of that law as the letter of the noble Lord the Member for London, (Lord J. Russell) to the Bishop of Durham. That was a pamphlet which commented on matters of Church and State, and which was sold in great numbers at a small price, in respect of which no security had been given, and the publisher of which was liable under the 60th Geo. III. c. 9, to forfeit the sum of 20 l. How large a sum did Lord John Russell owe, in respect of that publication, to the Queen at the present moment? Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer enforced the law against Ids colleagues, it was only a clap-trap to call upon the House of Commons to re-enact a law already in existence. The extraordinary thing was this, that the late Government of which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was a Member, agreed to abolish these securities; and that the noble Lord the present Prime Minister was a Member of that Cabinet, and must therefore have agreed to abolish those securities. In point of fact, the majority of that Cabinet formed also a majority of the existing Cabinet; it was not, therefore, asking too much that they who a few weeks ago were willing to abolish registration and other securities should not now come forward and superfluously re-enact them. He had

1683
hoped that when a measure relating to the press of this country was entertained by the Government they would have had a Bill brought in based upon something like a general principle, and reviewing, as it were, the whole of the law concerning the press, so that the public might know what the law upon the press really was. The Bill which was introduced by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did repeal Acts and parts of Acts which to a very considerable extent had grown obsolete; but by the present measure many of those Acts would remain unrepealed. He had mentioned one of them; he would now refer to another. He found an Act the preamble of which set forth that—
"Whereas a traitorous conspiracy had long been carried on by persons in this country in conjunction with persons abroad for the purpose of exciting the people and Government of France to overthrow the constitution and Government and everything both civil and ecclesiastical existing in Great Britain and Ireland, be it therefore enacted," &c.:
and then followed seine most stringent provisions, for the purpose of putting the whole printing business of the country under the control of the Government; but scarcely in any respect had that Act been enforced, and yet the Government were afraid to repeal it. He must say one word on the absurdity of making the securities contingent upon the publication going through the post. George III., when he enacted securities, was at least rational, whatever might be said of his policy. But the plan now proposed was irrational and ridiculous. The Act of George III. sought for securities in obtaining a control over the printing and the publishing; for those, after all, were the things they had to guard against. It was the printing and the publishing of a libel, and not the mere act of putting it into the post, that should engage the attention of the Legislature. How absurd was it to say that if a man only paid 1d. —by a Queen's head, and not by the use of the ordinary newspaper stamp—he might have his libel, or his blasphemy and sedition, carried through the Post Office without giving any security whatever; for that would be the effect of your law. Could anything be more inconsistent with the dignity of Parliament than to be legislating in such a puerile manner? Let all these securities be abolished. They were not consistent with the principles of a free press. Trust to the common law to put down the libellers; but let not the right of any man to put his opinions on
1684
paper be restricted, whether he be wealthy or poor. What sort of law was that which said that a man worth 400 l. should be at liberty to express his opinion respecting affairs of Church and State, but that a poor man should not be at liberty to give any opinion on public affairs? It appeared to him that so long as there existed a law requiring a property qualification for the expression of opinions, or for the recital of facts on paper, they could not hold out to the world that the people of this country were in the enjoyment of a free press. They talked, indeed, about abolishing a property qualification for Members of Parliament, and for the holders of various offices, but they were afraid to abolish the qualification which entitled a man to express his opinions on paper. He hoped that, while professing a wish to uphold the freedom of the press and to diffuse knowledge among the people, Parliament would not aid in carrying out such an odious class measure as that which said that none but the upper classes of this country should be at liberty to publish a newspaper, a periodical publication, or a pamphlet for the expression of their opinions on public affairs and public men.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while he took time to consider the amendment proposed, would not be guided by the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He confessed that, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said about the year 1855 being somewhat too late a period to enter upon the question of securities in connection with the press, it did not appear at all too late to him. He believed that the press would consult its own liberty and its own dignity if it encouraged any act of legislation which should require the registration of the names of those persons who were really responsible for that which was inserted in the journals. There was nothing more objectionable than that a party should be brought forward to be prosecuted for a libel in the press who was not the party really guilty either of writing or of publishing that libel. He thought it would be very much more for the dignity of the press, as well as for the interest of the public, that those who were really responsible should be those whose names should be required by law to be registered.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he understood that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad said that

1685
he saw no objection to consider the amendment proposed, but, as there were many important matters which required consideration in reference to these clauses, it was desirable they should be postponed in order to afford his right hon. Friend an opportunity to see whether he could frame them in such a way as would secure to them the approbation of the House. He merely rose for the purpose of suggesting that, as the clauses to which the amendment related were to be postponed, the Committee had better pass on to the other clauses of the Bill.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause postponed.
Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive were also postponed.
Clause 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On the question that the Chairman report progress.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know what was expected to be the loss to the revenue in case this Bill should pass? He made out that the stamp duty on newspapers produced at present about 470,000 l. per annum; now deducting from that amount the probable postal expellees, he should like to have an estimate as to the balance likely to remain to the revenue after the passing of this measure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as the stamp in future would not be compulsory, but voluntary, all estimates with reference to the revenue derivable under the new law were necessarily uncertain. He had stated, however, on Friday night, that the opinion of the Government was that the loss to the revenue if the measure should become law, would be about 200,000 l.
MR. DISRAELIsaw that a notice had been given on the part of the Government of certain clauses of a most important character, namely, in reference to newspaper copyright. Now those clauses had not as yet been brought up, neither had any statement been made respecting them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was intended to proceed with them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have the clause with me, and if it be the wish of the Committee I am now prepared to move it. I thought, however, that as some of the clauses have been postponed it might not now be convenient to propose a new clause.
MR. BARROWsaid, he had understood that the present Bill was not to involve
1686
any pains and penalties, but in one of the clauses, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) there were pains and penalties imposed, and he hoped that that clause would either not be proposed at all, or, if proposed, that full time would be given for its consideration. He thought the practice of printing a clause in this manner to be delivered to Members after they came into the house without an opportunity being afforded to the public at large of seeing it, was inconvenient, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not tarnish his fair fame by adopting a practice that was unfair to the public at large.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite true the clause did contain a penalty, but that penalty was not to be recovered by the Attorney General, but by the proprietor of a newspaper, for the piracy of any matter contained in his newspaper, and that was a matter for the Committee hereafter to consider. With reference to the observation of the hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) it was his belief that the practice adopted by him was of constant occurrence in that House, and that there was nothing unusual, unprecedented, or exceptional in it. He had given notice of the clause three or four days ago; hon. Members had had an opportunity to consider it, and it had also received circulation amongst the public.
MR. BARROWsaid, that he did not receive the clause with his Votes, and he did not know any Member who had so received it.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman when he intended to go into Committee again on this Bill? There were some hundreds of persons in a state of agony with regard to the Bill. The proprietors of existing newspapers did not know where they would be next week, and there were other newspapers struggling into life. Great expenses were incurred, and a most important branch of industry would be paralyzed until this Bill should be disposed of.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will fix it for Monday next.
House resumed.

THE ARMY BEFORE SEBASTOPOL COM MITTEE.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that his name appeared on the paper appended to a notice that the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. de Vere) be added to

1687
the Army before Sebastopol Committee. On consultation, however, with the Committee the result was, that they wished him to state to the House, as a conclusion to which they had unanimously come, that in their opinion it would be better if no further additions were made to the Committee. ("Oh, oh!" and laughter.) He really could not see what there was in that announcement to elicit the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could take upon himself to state that the members of the Committee had been extremely sedulous in their attention to business, having only on one occasion failed to make a Committee. As yet there had been no difference of opinion amongst them, and they regarded the discussion which had taken place in that House as tending to injure them in their judicial capacity before the country. They thought that they could best conduct the inquiry without any further addition to their numbers, while, at the same time, they would advantage the public service by putting an end to discussions that interfered with the discharge of their duties. He could only add, that he had mentioned the decision of the Committee to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he had acceded to their views; it was, therefore, not his intention to propose any one to fill the place on the Committee vacated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball.)
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he certainly was not surprised, after the discussion of a former evening, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought proper to withdraw his motion. With all respect, however, for the opinion of the Committee, as just enunciated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must say he regretted exceedingly that it was not in his power to coincide with it. In making that remark be begged to say that he intended to impugn neither collectively nor individually the conduct of the committee. But having on a former occasion contended—and contended with the concurrence of opinion of at least a large minority in that House—that considering the subjects which were being discussed before the Committee, it was indispensable that at least one Member of it should be connected with the naval profession who might cross-examine closely and efficiently a great number of the witnesses necessarily produced before the Committee—many of whom trying to save their own reputation, would be bent
1688
on trying to conceal the truth. Now he would defy even the acuteness of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself to extract the truth from an unwilling witness of that description. He could only express his surprise that the independent advocate of investigation into abuses and mal-administration of affairs at the seat of war should have thought it necessary to refer upon all occasions of doubt for advice to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He, however, repudiated the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman; for he contended that the nomination of the Committee ought to rest entirely with the House of Commons, and ought not to be dependent upon arrangements made behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. All such hole-and-corner work was most unseemly and irregular in reference to a subject like that before the Committee. He was informed that up to the present time a very small portion of the inquiry connected with the transport service had been gone into, and he submitted to the House, whether this did not materially strengthen his argument as to the necessity of having upon this Committee a naval officer of experience in that House—and of experience in his profession. Such an officer he now proposed in the person of Captain Gladstone, and he thought the noble Lord opposite, if he systematically persevered to prevent the appointment of the only description of man who could by possibility sift the truth on one important branch of inquiry, would lead the country to believe that the object of the Government was not to promote but to stifle investigation.
MR. MACARTNEYseconded the motion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Captain Gladstone be added to the Committee."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, as one of the members of the Committee he rose to state the reasons why he thought there was no necessity for any additional member in the room of the hon. Member for Carlow. They had been inquiring consecutively for a great number of days, they had published a blue book in which there were given 13,000 questions, and they had asked some thousands more questions, and there was a very voluminous appendix. Should any new member be appointed to the Committee, in order to put himself in the same position as the other members it would be but reasonable to require him to go carefully through all those questions and evidence, so as to enable him to go on

1689
with the inquiry. In coming to a decision upon the matter, it was most important that no party feelings should be excited. He had not taken part in the discussion in that House with respect to the members to serve on the Committee, nor should he then if he had not been asked to do so. The Committee unanimously agreed that if a new member came in he should make himself acquainted with all the evidence which had already been obtained; and it was evident that even when a member came in after a few hours' absence he had to ask many questions, and the previous examination had to be repeated to him, and thus much time was consumed. Should the House think that all these questions were material, and should they decide to run the risk of having all these questions put again, they must not complain if the inquiry should be thereby protracted. It was the general opinion that the inquiry should be brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time; but should the Committee be forced to go over again the same questions, he could not answer for the period when their decision would be arrived at. He would dislike to divide on a question whether any particular member should be added to the Committee, but the Committee considered that they did not require another member. There were ten members present every day, and no party question had arisen. If the House wished to impair the efficiency of the Committee, nothing could do it more than a party division in the House in respect to it.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) that this inquiry ought to be brought to a close as speedily as possible. However, the great reason adduced for making no further additions to the Committee was that the new member or members could not have been expected to have made themselves masters of all the evidence. Now he begged to remind the House that that was an argument which might have held quite as good on Friday night, when there was the question of the appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. de Vere). It seemed that there had been a kind of agreement in this matter between the Chairman of the Committee and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had hitherto considered the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) as an independent Member, but after the proceedings of that night he must confess that his faith in him was
1690
shaken. He had thought that it was a question of the country against the Government, but now it appeared to be entirely between the Committee and the Government. He deprecated anything like a factious feeling upon this subject. The country wanted a strict and searching inquiry. The Committee had to deal with naval questions, and he should in consequence vote for the appointment of a naval officer.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he would admit that the argument was equally good on Friday night against the accession of a new member, but it was not the Committee that moved for that accession. The argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) therefore went against himself. The Committee never asked for the appointment of another member [Mr. LIDDELL: The Government did.] If the hon. Gentleman thought that he had gone into that Committee with a foregone conclusion of drawing up a bill of indictment against the Government, he had mistaken his man. More factious and dishonourable motives could not be imputed to any man than to say that they had been packed, or that it was intended to pack them, not for the purpose of investigating the truth, but for the purpose of trying a foregone conclusion. Every member who was old enough have cut his wisdom teeth in that House must be perfectly well aware that no Committee was ever formed without consulting the heads of parties. With regard to the necessity of a naval officer being on the Committee, he did not see the necessity for it, as all the Committee had to inquire into was to ascertain if the naval officers obeyed their orders. At the present stage of the proceedings he certainly thought it would be rather a disadvantage to appoint a new member on the Committee. It was clear that if they were to have a Gentleman on the Committee who knew nothing and who had not read these 14,300 questions which had been asked, the report of the Committee must be delayed a considerable time.
MR. PACKsaid, that the House could only judge of the opinion of the Committee on Friday night from the motion which stood in the name of its Chairman, and which proposed the appointment of a new member. He believed that a naval member was wanted on the Committee, and he should therefore support the motion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to say a few words in consequence of the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Ben-

1691
tinck) had represented the agreement with respect to the appointment of the Committee, totally forgetful of the ordinary course of proceeding in that House. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee should be appointed by the House and not by the Government; and so it was, for it was the House which appointed the Committee. If the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman were followed, what would be the consequence? The hon. Gentleman wished that when a member desired to appoint a Committee he should without communication with any one, propose a certain list of names. If that were done, there would be a long debate upon every name proposed, and there would be no end to the proceeding. The only method of coming to a conclusion was, that the person who proposed the Committee should consult with the leading Members upon the different sides of the House, and should come to an understanding upon a list of names which should be unobjectionable to any party, and which should yet command the confidence of the House. The course which had been pursued by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) with regard to the Committee was that which was invariably and necessarily pursued in the appointment of every Committee which was ever named in that House for any useful purpose. In reference to the present question, all that he wished to say was that his hon. and learned Friend had stated to him that evening that the Committee had unanimously come to the decision that they preferred not to have any new member added to the Committee. So far as the Government were concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference whether a member were added or not; and, moreover, they had not the slightest objection, if a member were to be added, that that member should be a naval officer. He felt, however, that some deference was due to the opinion of the Committee, which appeared to be unanimous; and he should therefore vote with his hon. and learned Friend if the motion went to a division; but he assured the House that it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite were carried or not. He was quite sure if the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Gladstone) were appointed that he would discharge his duty with satisfaction to the country.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord in the observations
1692
which he had made with respect to the system followed by the House in the mode of appointing Select Committees, and he thought that the Government might very well be acquitted of any sinister purpose in the mode in which they sanctioned the appointment of such Committees; for nothing could be more natural, fair, or convenient, than for a Member on moving a Committee, to place himself in communication with the leaders of different parties in the House, in order to ascertain who would be best qualified to inquire into the particular subject-matter at issue. It was an object of great importance to have upon the Committee the most competent men who could be procured, and persons who possessed the confidence of the country. With regard to himself personally, any influence he had exercised in the appointment of the Committee had been this. He was not consulted in the appointment of the Committee, as he would probably have been, had the Committee been nominated upon that side of the House, but the appointment of the Members of the Committee was left with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had, however, with great courtesy, done him the honour of asking his opinion upon the nomination of a certain number of Gentlemen to represent the general feelings of Gentlemen who sat upon that side of the House, and who had voted with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in favour of the inquiry. In alluding to the matter he wished to remove from the public mind, and from the House generally, any idea that there had been a party feeling with regard to the appointment of the Committee. The only part he had taken upon the subject was this:—The hon. and learned Gentleman asked him to recommend four Members to sit upon the Committee; and, as the names of any Members be might recommend would have to come before the House for their approval, any recommendation which might be considered unjustifiable, or to misrepresent the feelings of the House, could easily have been set aside. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had done him (Mr. Disraeli) the honour of placing his name upon the Committee, but particular reasons with regard to the pressure of public business induced him to believe that he was unable to do proper justice to the sub-

1693
ject, and therefore he recommended that his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) should sit upon the Committee in his place. He felt that in making that recommendation he was taking a course which would give satisfaction to a great majority of hon. Members. And who was the second Member whom he had recommended? Having observed that the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) did not appear among the names proposed either by the Government or by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he thought that the public would not feel satisfied unless the hon. Member for Aylesbury formed part of the Committee, and, as all that was required was an investigation into the subject by those most competent to carry on the inquiry, he said that he should wish to see the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury upon the Committee. Having proposed these names, he felt that there ought to be upon the Committee both a military and a naval man, and he therefore recommended the names of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott). The names of these Gentlemen were, however, omitted in the Motion brought before the House, and no naval officer whatever was nominated. A strong feeling being entertained that a Member of the naval profession should occupy a seat in the Committee, he was consulted upon the subject by hon. Gentlemen who sat upon that side of the House, and the name of a Member of the Royal Navy was mentioned, to whom the only objection he could urge was, that from the general arrangement of the Committee, the Government having lost a Member, it might be considered that they were trying to obtain an unfair advantage if they recommended a Gentleman from that side of the House. He therefore had not supported the proposition, but he subsequently supported the nomination of an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Scobell) from the other side of the House. He only went into these details to show that there was no desire whatever to give this Committee a party character, and that the only wish was to have efficient Members serving on it, whose labours should command the confidence of the House and the country. If it could be supposed that they were deviating from the understanding originally entered into with regard to the
1694
general balance of party interests in the Committee, he certainly should have avoided voting for any Gentleman at all. But when the noble Lord at the head of the Government sanctioned, the other night, the nomination of a Gentleman whose name was unknown to ninety-nine out of every hundred Members, he should, if he had been present, have expressed an opinion that the noble Lord ought to propose for the adoption of the House the name of a Gentleman better known and of more experience. There could, however, be no question that all parties were now entirely free to take that part with regard to the present vacancy which they thought best calculated to promote the public interests. The noble Lord could not urge that he in fairness ought to recommend an hon. Gentleman to fill the vacancy, for the noble Lord plainly told them that he did not value the appointment, and had no desire to nominate a Member of the Committee. But, though the noble Lord did not value the matter, the question was a serious one fur the consideration of the House. Having well weighed the number to be appointed upon the Committee, and the character and talents of the Gentlemen appointed, they ought to hesitate before they gave to the Committee, or to any Minister, the power of diminishing the number of Gentlemen to whom such highly important functions had been delegated. If such a proceeding were allowed, it might be in the power of the Government to reduce the number of the Committee, by giving places to certain of the Members composing it. The noble Lord said, it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether this or that, or no Gentleman at all, were appointed upon the Committee; but he (Mr. Disraeli) considered that the Members of the Committee were fulfilling some of the most important and responsible duties ever delegated to a Committee, and no Minister of the Crown had a right to use the language which had been used by the noble Lord on the present occasion. The noble Lord had spoken of the Committee with contempt. ["No, no!"] Had not the noble Lord said, within the last few minutes, that it was of no consequence who the particular individual was who should occupy the vacant post, or whether any Member at all was added to the Committee? Were not the Members of the Committee performing judicial functions? In the opinion of the people of England, they were fulfilling more im-

1695
portant duties than had been fulfilled for many a long year; and was the House of Commons to be told that it was a matter of no importance to the First Minister of the Crown whether a particular individual was chosen, and that, in point of fact, it was an insignificant matter whether the number should be kept up or not? He might as well say it was a matter of insignificance whether the number of the Judges should be kept up, for the present inquiry, so far from being a matter of indifference, was a subject of the highest importance. The gravest duty they could fulfil was to appoint a competent and worthy Member of that Committee in lieu of that Gentleman who, by the agency of the Minister himself, had left that solemn tribunal, on whose verdict more perhaps depended than either the House or the country had yet taught themselves to believe. It was, therefore, of the highest consequence that they should take care not only that the number should be complete, but that the Members of the Committee should be competent. The remaining question, was, whether there ought not to have been upon this Committee to inquire into the state of the army before Sebastopol, a Member of the House who was also a Member of the naval profession. If such a man had been proposed from the other side of the House, he would have supported him in preference to any Gentleman who sat upon the benches near him, for the very reason which had been thrown into their teeth—that they ought not to admit the imputation of party feeling in the appointment of the Committee. He did not think it fair to impute any such feeling to his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), who had shown by his Motion that he did not seek to infuse party spirit into its composition. They had not succeeded in appointing a zealous supporter of the Minister, and an able and gallant officer, and why? Because the noble Lord at the head of the Government opposed it. The noble Lord had shown his respect for his supporters by refusing to grant the fulfilment of their wishes, and now he said it was a matter of indifference to him who was appointed, or whether any one was appointed at all. It was much to be regretted he did not express that sentiment on Friday night; he would have saved a world of discussion, for the noble Lord might then have listened to the suggestion of his (Mr. Disraeli's) hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), who had now proposed an hon. and gallant
1696
Gentleman, who was not a partisan, but who was a relative of a right hon. Gentleman who was Minister when some of the most important transactions to be inquired into occurred, and who, though not now a Minister, was still responsible to the Parliament. This was not a proposal to be tortured and perverted by the ingenuity of rhetoric into a party movement; on the contrary, it was one that was recommended to the House by the most weighty reasons; it was one most conducive to the public service, and would bring the intelligence and experience of a man of character, ability, and professional knowledge to bear upon the question. He did hope that his hon. Friend who had with so much perseverance, in the face of great difficulties, brought this question again before the House, would triumph to-night, and that they would appoint upon the Committee on the army before Sebastopol, a man able to go into the whole question connected with the transport of our troops and stores to the seat of war.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire might have spared upon this occasion much of his vehement rhetoric. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the answer given by his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), had, after fairly stating the principles upon which a Committee ought to be constituted, endeavoured, by misrepresentation, to lead the House and the public to suppose that his noble Friend had spoken with levity of the Committee and expressed his indifference to its composition. He (Sir G. Grey) could only say that nothing could be further from the truth. His noble Friend, in speaking with reference to the particular vacancy occasioned by the appointment of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, had, in answer to the reproach cast on the Government by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, that he had entered into a compact with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to conceal something that ought to be inquired into, said that he was perfectly indifferent to the Committee in that sense, and that his only wish was that it should be conducted in the manner which would best attain its object. But the right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with sneering at the noble Lord, attacked the Committee itself, and denounced it as unparliamentary, because, in a unanimous

1697
Resolution, it had determined that, in the present advanced stage of the inquiry, which was of a judicial character, it did not think it would add to its efficiency or be consistent with its objects that a new member should be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was a member of that Committee, and agreed, as he (Sir G. Grey) understood, to that Resolution, and now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who told them he was not animated by party feeling, though he could not help thinking the matter originated in party feeling, denounced the conduct of the noble Lord, and intimated that the proceeding of the Committee in agreeing to such a Resolution was not altogether satisfactory. He (Sir G. Grey) repeated that the Government had nothing to conceal in this matter, their object being only that the inquiry should be fully and fairly conducted, and he still thought, in deference to the Committee, who ought to be the best judges of the matter, that it was most undesirable to add a new member at this stage of the inquiry, though personally he had not the slightest objection to the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Captain Gladstone).
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the right hon. Baronet who had last addressed them appeared offended because his (Mr. Whiteside's) right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had spoken his mind plainly on the subject, the importance of which no one could deny. They all knew that the noble Lord at the head of the Government struggled with the greatest ability against the appointment of the Committee itself, afterwards that he took an active part in the choice of the members, rejecting some and suggesting others; and yet the House were to be told that it was quite constitutional for a Minister to create a number of placemen, and reduce the Committee by taking away its members. The same principle might induce him to take away two, three, or four. The noble Lord had prevented the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) from hearing the whole of the evidence and giving a judgment on it, and now he said no other member should be appointed on the Committee, because he would not have heard that evidence. He (Mr. Whiteside) always listened to the noble Lord with admiration, but sometimes with regret. The noble Lord had opposed the appointment of the hon. and gallant officer (Captain Scobell) because he thought it
1698
desirable that there should be an Irish Representative on the Committee, and now he proceeded to remove from it the very member who represented Ireland. The blood of his countrymen had been lavishly shed in the Crimea, and the inquiry into the cause of the calamities that had occurred was one of great importance. The noble Lord said, however, that, as the House of Commons did not choose to appoint an Irishman on the Committee, they ought not to appoint any member—English, Irish, or Scotch. He thought the inconsistency of the noble Lord was most evident. He (Mr. Whiteside) had heard that the affair had been arranged and managed, and that the noble Lord, finding that public opinion was adverse to his conduct on Friday night—that public opinion having previously shattered the Government of which he was a member upon this very question—endeavoured to get out of the difficulty by saying that it was not a matter of the least consequence to him whether a naval man who on Friday was so unfit to be appointed should be placed on the Committee, or whether an Irishman, whom on Friday he thought so fit for the position, should be appointed. He (Mr. Whiteside) hoped the House would maintain the Committee in its integrity and independence, and, for his own part, he did not think they could select a more worthy, a more competent, or a better qualified man to serve upon it than the Gentleman whose name had been proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck).
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that, as some imputations had been thrown upon him, he hoped he might be allowed to trouble the House with a very short explanation. Although he might subject himself to further imputations by the statement he was about to make, he thought it due to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to say, that he hail nothing whatever to do with the recommendation of the Committee. That recommendation was made, if he recollected rightly, by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington); and when the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) came down to the House that evening, he (Mr. Roebuck) communicated to him the opinion of the Committee. The violent harangues of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were, therefore, altogether unfounded, for he had never consulted with the noble Lord on the subject. The right hon. Member for Droitwich had proposed that he (Mr. Roebuck) should be

1699
commissioned on the part of the Committee to state their opinion to the noble Lord, and he did so when he saw the noble Lord in the House. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had said that up to that time he had regarded him (Mr. Roebuck) as an independent Member of the House. The hon. Member insinuated that he (Mr. Roebuck) was in that painful position of having his confidence withdrawn from him. He could assure the hon. Member for South Northumberland that that painful position he would endeavour to bear. He thought this was a matter entirely for the judgment of the House. The Committee had hitherto done what they conceived to be their duty; if he knew anything of the members of the Committee he was satisfied they would continue to do their duty; but if the House thought fit to add to the Committee an hon. Member who was the brother of one of the parties accused, although he might think it a singular decision, be could have no objection to the proceeding.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought the country would have some difficulty in understanding why it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee came down on Friday ready to sanction the prospective appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. de Vere) as a member of the Committee, while he stated to-night that the Committee were averse to the addition of any new member. He thought the country would be unable to understand the indifference of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on this subject to-night, and his great anxiety on Friday night to have Ireland represented on the Committee. If the Government were ready now to assent to the appointment of a naval officer upon the Committee, how was it that they so strenuously resisted such an appointment on Friday? The noble Lord's anxiety to have an Irishman on the Committee seemed to have entirely evaporated, and, with his characteristic jauntiness, he expressed his perfect indifference whether Ireland was represented on the Committee or not. The Committee had yet to inquire into very important matters. They had not only to ascertain what was the condition of our army in January, but what was its condition at the present time; what the new Whig Ministers had effected for its improvement; what had been done by Lord Panmure to increase the number of bayonets, the force of cavalry, or the
1700
efficiency of the transport service. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the War Department ought to be called before the Committee to satisfy them whether the country had really gained anything by the change of Ministry. He considered that such an inquiry should not be prosecuted by men who were placed upon the Committee by the Government, or who expected favours from the Government. He voted on Friday against the appointment of the hon. Member for Limerick, as he had done against that of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball), because he anticipated what would happen. He knew what was the goal to which the hon. Member for Carlow was looking. He knew the hon. Gentleman was just the man whose services would be valuable to the Government, and that they would show their gratitude to him on the first fitting occasion. As an Irish Member, he (Mr. Maguire) must express his regret at the utter indifference which the noble Lord had manifested to-night with respect to the representation of Ireland on the Committee.
MR. BENTINCKin reply, said, that the noble Lord, in alluding to the remarks he (Mr. Bentinck) had made as to the manner in which the Committee had been formed, seemed to forget that be had distinctly stated that, however the custom of the House might apply with advantage under ordinary circumstances, he considered that the circumstances under which this Committee was appointed were so exceptional, that what might be a good rule in other cases might, in this instance, be objectionable. The noble Lord had stated that he was quite indifferent whether the hon. and gallant Member whose name had been proposed was appointed a member of the Committee or not. The greater part of the inquiry respecting the transport service was yet to take place, and, therefore, the necessity for a naval officer on the Committee was as great as at the commencement.
The House was about to divide, when
MR. ROEBUCKrose, and said, he had no wish to divide the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if the Chairman of the Committee had no objection to the Motion, he had none either. Thus far he was ready to show the extent of his indifference.
Question put, and agreed to.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Bedford Charity Estate.
Reported—Convention with Sardinia.
Their Lordships met; and after going through the business on the Paper,
House adjourned till To-morrow.